szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (12/16/89)
In article <662@cluster.cs.su.oz> ray@cluster.cs.su.oz (Raymond Lister) writes: > >SHOULD we, like the crew of the starship "Enterprise", boldly go where >no man has gone before? Or should we be content to send a robot? ............ >Now that Voyager has completed the initial survey, future missions will >attempt the much more difficult act of rendezvous and and direct >physical contact with the outer planets and their moons. Voyager has nowhere near "completed" the survey. Most of the moons, all of the asteroids, and all of the comets in our solar system remain unmapped. >Its a task >that will require great intelligence. The question is, should that >intelligence be natural or artificial? Thus, we set up the artificial battle of "human vs. robot". The same battle fought and lost by the Luddites in 19th century England, and the same argument that has caused Detroit to fall before the highly automated Japanese auto industry. The Japanese _love_ robots _and_ people. So do I. >Venus is perhaps the robot's only complete victory. Oh no! Klingons! Zap 'em! >Either there is life on Mars, or, as >Mr. Spock might have put it, "It's soil chemistry Jim, but not as we >know it". Viking wasn't smart enough to decide either way. Fascinating! I bet Mr. Spock would be smart enough! ("Common sense, Spock! You have loads of logic but no common sense!") >As anyone who has ever driven an >off road vehicle would testify, it will take a skilled driver to >negotiate the boulders and sand dunes of Mars. Yes, and only birds can fly; if you sail too far west you will fall off the edge of the world; there is maybe a market for a dozen computers in the entire U.S.; ad nauseum. BTW even if a rover is a bit difficult (I'll leave it up to the folks working on the Carnegie-Mellon ALV to answer your arguments about that), there are also balloons, gliders, hoppers, and other kinds of machines that could be used to find and retrieve samples. The Russians and French are building a balloon, for example, that will cost less than one-tenth of one percent the cost of this Men on Mars proposal. And I mean they are _making_ one, not just fantasizing about it. I got to see a large protype on the lawn at JPL a couple summers ago. An unmanned contraption as black as Darth Vader's helmet. Get out your laser sword! >Recently, I watched my nine month old godson explore his lounge room. >He spotted something interesting (try programming "interesting" into >your Macintosh!), safely negotiated his way through a maze of chair >legs, reached out, grasped the object, and ... put it in his mouth. No >student of Artificial Intelligence can watch a baby, and not be >humbled. I'm sure your godson is very charming, but do you want to put him on the surface of Mars without any machines? Neither do I. Quit kissing babies; there's more to this than politics. >The Mars rover is typical of the American taste for technological >overkill. Big overkill. Ignore the fact that its cost is over an order of magnitude less expensive than what you are proposing. Yes, we Americans sure have a taste for putting robots in our factories and outcompeting the Japanese, don't we? Why can't those Americans just go back in the caves where they belong? > >However, neither a rover nor a balloon will settle the old question "Is >there life on Mars?" We won't know for sure, at least in our lifetime, They are quite sufficient to answer this question. Astronauts bringing their own biological materials could confuse the issue forever. > >The question of unmanned versus manned space travel is really a >question of short term versus long term goals. Heaven forbid we should try to get something done today. Fantasies about space adventures 30 years from now, using the technology of the 1930's, are much to be preferred. >Voyager II is one of >the great technical accomplishments of the 20th century, but when >compared with the 21st century potential of manned space flight -- the >search for life on Mars, for minerals among the asteroids -- the data >it returned resembles the work of an amateur photographer on vacation >("See! That's me. Next to Triton."). What do you know about this "potential"? The only evidence you have provided for manned spaceflight comes from a fictional TV show. >computers capable of matching Mr Spock's Vulcan logic, but as is shown >in every episode of "Star Trek", logic has its limitations, and Captain >Kirk's human intuition will prove essential for exploring the final >frontier. > You've convinced me! Star Trek==Space! Fascinating! Logic, McCoy! Damn your green-blooded logic, Spock! Science? Try a TV show instead! I love Star Trek, too, but I'm not asking other folks to shell out tax dollars for it, and I don't learn my science from it. ********* These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ********* -- --------------------------- Nick Szabo szabonj@ibmpa.tcspa.ibm.com uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj