henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/10/88)
> > Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun > > Last week's successful Ariane-4 launch put AMSAT Phase 3-C and two other > satellites into [a very precise] orbit... I'd like to see some fighter > jock/astronaut do as well by flying a launch manually... "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." -Huxley Yup, the computer did a fine and very precise job. Now, Phil, cast your mind back a little ways, to the Ariane launch of AO-10 (I think it was). Much the same computer, running much the same software, controlling much the same booster, put AO-10 into a nice precise orbit. After which the same computer, mindlessly following orders, proceeded with a venting procedure that caused the third stage to catch up with and collide with AO-10, damaging it seriously and causing a lot of headaches for you and the rest of the Amsat crew. The greenest student pilot could have prevented that, if he'd been there. You, of all people, should not be lauding the unmanned nature of Ariane as an unmixed blessing. I think we all agree that machines are generally superior for boring jobs that have to be done exactly right, especially when there are tight response-time requirements. Even Von Braun, after all, built computer- controlled launchers. And I think we would all agree that humans are generally superior for adapting orders to situations and coping with the unforeseen. Both the Solar Max repair and the Palapa/Westar retrieval succeeded (despite one or two false steps along the way) even though the original carefully-built equipment simply didn't work. The debate centers on the extent to which unexpected situations and unforeseen problems can be removed by advance planning. NASA, Arianespace, etc. have been insisting for a long time that nothing is left to chance and everything is foreseen. They have consistently been proven wrong. Sometimes the equipment can be convinced to cope, and this is trumpeted as further proof that humans are unnecessary in space. Sometimes the equipment just isn't up to handling a new situation, and this is written off as Just One Of Those Failures One Has To Expect -- even if it wouldn't have been a failure with a human on hand. Do I detect a small inconsistency here? Automatic equipment is the appropriate response to a well-understood, simple, repetitive job like relaying communications, taking pictures, or guiding a launcher. Humans are the appropriate response to complex, variable, unforeseen, one-of-a-kind situations like equipment failures, unexpected changes in environment, and exploration of planetary surfaces. To pick a close-to-home example, the success of satellite repair/retrieval procedures has been inversely proportional to the reliance placed on automatic equipment rather than humans -- compare the equipment-intensive Solar Max repair, a near-disaster, with the human-intensive Leasat repair, which worked so well that it was boring. > Perhaps you should limit the scope of this statement somewhat. If we're being pedantic, note that Von Braun did: he said "spacecraft", not "launcher", so Ariane isn't relevant. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
paulf@Jessica.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) (07/11/88)
In article <1988Jul10.003611.16575@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >-- >Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ^ | \------ A curious comment, since the dairy industry supported the Republican candidate in the last election... -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | One Internet to rule them all, -- Tome Computer Systems Laboratory | One Internet to find them; of Stanford University | One Internet to bring them all, Internet ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | And in the Ether bind them. Hacking
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/12/88)
In article <3071@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, paulf@Jessica.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes: > In article <1988Jul10.003611.16575@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >-- > >Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > >a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry > ^ > | > \------ A curious comment, since the dairy industry supported the > Republican candidate in the last election... This will make moe sense when you consider who is/was for a long time the senior senator from Wisconsin...
karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (07/12/88)
Henry, I'm impressed. You *have* been reading up on us, haven't you!
But since you like to quote anecdotes, let's pick the Solar Max rescue
mission. Remember how George ("Pinky") Nelson grabbed one of the solar
arrays in an attempt to stop the satellite from spinning? Not only did
he not stop the spin, but he precessed it so much that the solar arrays
were shadowed and the spacecraft was nearly lost when the batteries
almost ran down. And I won't even mention the strong likelihood that
the rescue mission cost more than a simple replacement would have.
I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in
order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances.
In many situations, it makes far more sense to keep such people on the
ground instead of sending them along with the payload, especially since
the state of the communications art has gotten so good. Keeping your
human "crew" on the ground has many advantages. The payload is
enormously simpler, because it doesn't have to provide man-rated life
support and a means to return the crew. Your human "crew" can be much
bigger, and you can easily change them after launch. They need not be
prime physical specimens; they can be chosen solely for their technical
skills and perhaps even their understanding of the basic physics of
rotating bodies (unlike Pinky Nelson).
Your arguments represent a convincing case for versatile remote control,
not for manned spaceflight. In the case of Oscar-10, those of us on the
ground had plenty of opportunity to exercise our ability to react to
unforseen circumstances. With the help of a versatile on-board computer
that can be completely reprogrammed from the ground, we were able to
save the mission.
Philrobertl@killer.UUCP (Robert Lord) (07/13/88)
In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in > order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. > In many situations, it makes far more sense to keep such people on the > ground instead of sending them along with the payload, especially since > the state of the communications art has gotten so good. Keeping your The state of communications has not gotten so good as to defy phyics, now has it? The non-manned approach works fine when in earth orbit, but what happens when you get up there to around the moon? By the time the person on the ground has reacted to a problem, six seconds will have passed in transmission time! In a critical situation, this could mean the destruction of the craft. Also, the computers these days are not nearly advanced to do the sort of problem manegement that you describe. Show me an unmanned launch vehical which can do as much as the shuttle can! The most advanced computer in the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck... Just a few thoughts, Robert
karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (07/13/88)
> The state of communications has not gotten so good as to defy phyics, now > has it? The non-manned approach works fine when in earth orbit, but what > happens when you get up there to around the moon? By the time the person > on the ground has reacted to a problem, six seconds will have passed in > transmission time! In a critical situation, this could mean the destruction > of the craft. Good point. But how many applications really require six second response time? Voyager seems to have been highly successful without humans on board, despite round trip times measured in hours. There may well be "deep space" applications which require short human response times and therefore humans in space, but this is a tiny fraction. > Also, the computers these days are not nearly advanced to do the sort of > problem manegement that you describe. Show me an unmanned launch vehical > which can do as much as the shuttle can! Let's try comparing the "versatile" shuttle against those old, outdated, unmanned launchers. 1. Unmanned launchers such as Delta, Ariane and Atlas-Centaur routinely put payloads into geostationary transfer orbit. With the Transtage, Titan can put them directly into their final geostationary orbit. But shuttle sticks you with this silly 296km circular orbit, and you need ANOTHER kick motor (in addition to the one you've already got for circularizing orbit at geostationary altitude) to pick up where the shuttle leaves off. 2. You can get Atlas, Delta and Ariane launches into polar, sun- synchronous orbit. But shuttle is restricted to low inclination orbits because the Vandenburg launch complex has been essentially abandoned. 3. In unmanned launches, the customer calls the shots. But when the shuttle was carrying commercial payloads, there was considerable friction between the payload people and the shuttle people. The reason? Trying to do too many different things on a single flight with an extremely expensive vehicle that NASA is counting on getting back. If the customer of an unmanned launch wants to fly a "risky" payload (i.e., one that could cause the destruction of the launcher or the failure of the mission should the payload fail in certain ways) why shouldn't he? After all, it's his money, and there aren't any astronaut lives at stake. (Of course, this wouldn't include external risks, e.g., people or facilities on the ground.) But not on the shuttle. As I've repeatedly commented before: if you want to get depressed, go read the GAS payload safety manual. And my copy was printed long BEFORE Challenger. > The most advanced computer in > the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck... This is meaningless hyperbole. What does "advanced" mean? The ability to solve differential equations in real time? The ability to withstand thousands of rads of radiation? The ability to monitor hundreds of voltages, currents and pressures 24 hours per day, for years at a time, without making any mistakes? (By the way, *you* may be from Talos IV, but my brain weight is probably about 3 pounds, the average for Homo Sapiens). Most people know that there are some things computers do much better than humans, and there are other things that humans do much better than computers. An intelligently designed system will apply each resource where it is best suited. There is certainly room for discussion and disagreement as to exactly how to do this in any project. But in the realm of space travel, emotional romanticism has gotten the upper hand over rational design as in almost no other area of technology. The result? Expensive turkeys like the Shuttle that have sucked away almost all money from other, far more cost-effective projects and have nearly wrecked our space program in the process. Phil
ee2131ac@geinah.unm.edu (SEDS-UNM) (07/14/88)
Hmmmm. I wonder if that Phil is really a computer... Phil <-> Hal ??? Hmmmm. (just kidding Phil)
dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) (07/14/88)
In article <1222@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > The state of communications has not gotten so good as to defy phyics, now > > has it? The non-manned approach works fine when in earth orbit, but what > > happens when you get up there to around the moon? By the time the person > > on the ground has reacted to a problem, six seconds will have passed in > > transmission time! In a critical situation, this could mean the destruction > > of the craft. > > Good point. But how many applications really require six second response > time? Voyager seems to have been highly successful without humans on > board, despite round trip times measured in hours. There may well be > "deep space" applications which require short human response times and > therefore humans in space, but this is a tiny fraction. Voyager is a wonderful tool, but it's not a very useful tool in general. It has a camera, a spectograph, and some other instruments. It does not have the ability to land on a moon of Jupiter and pick up a sample, or to mine an asteroid. If something comes up for which it does not have the tools to deal with it does not have the ability to fabricate something from the materials at hand. > Most people know that there are some things computers do much better > than humans, and there are other things that humans do much better than > computers. An intelligently designed system will apply each resource > where it is best suited. There is certainly room for discussion and > disagreement as to exactly how to do this in any project. But in the > realm of space travel, emotional romanticism has gotten the upper hand > over rational design as in almost no other area of technology. The > result? Expensive turkeys like the Shuttle that have sucked away almost > all money from other, far more cost-effective projects and have nearly > wrecked our space program in the process. What is our space program? To go out and take snapshots? Hell NO! The reason we have a space program is to get mankind living, working and exploiting the resources in space. "Emotional romanticism" is a basic part of human make-up. Why do we fly to Paris when we could watch it on videotape? Why do we climb mountains when we could send a camera on a balloon? The arguments about the cost-effectiveness of unmanned probes only make sense when the only purpose of the space program is to feed data to a bunch of researchers sitting on their duffs. If we're not going out there, why should we _care_ about what's on Jupiter, the makeup of the Oort cloud or whether there's planets around Barnard's Star? If the only reason we have a space program is to satisfy the curiousity of a bunch of scientists whose work will probably be of little value to the rest of the race if we stay at home here on Earth, they can bloody well pay for the program out of their own pockets! -- David L. Smith {sdcsvax!jack,ihnp4!jack, hp-sdd!crash, pyramid, uport}!sdeggo!dave sdeggo!dave@amos.ling.edu Sinners can repent but stupid is forever.
eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.arpa (Eugene N. Miya) (07/15/88)
We are getting away from shuttle news, so I removed it from newsgroups.
Anyway, I should come to Phil's defense and also make a note for someone
else.
First, Rick Johnson was wondering if everybody read his note about
soliciting future and past accomplishments on space (what would be a
good and worthly goal or were past goals). Rick is on BITNET and
it appears were are forwarding problems.
Now, Phil and others have made some good points. I think a lot of
people know my personal is toward unmanned (un-person'ed) space
research. One thing which distinguishes my views from many on the net
is where I place myself on this continuum of discussion. Most net
correspondents really want to got out there, to experience Zero-G.
I wouldn't mind, but it seems terribly tame. I would go into space
if I felt I were the best person for the job. I wear glasses now (1st
year), and I would rather sacrifice my spot for a sighted person.
A lighter person for a heavier person in order to say take more
instruments, and so forth. There's a lot of competitiveness, but I
would rather We get the best data.
I think that's part of Phil's point. Machines are good for somethings
not others. My reply to Rick in order of significance was 1) make
contact with an ET civilization [justification: such an event would
dwarf any space mission and fully change the nature of our
civilization], 2) unmanned missions have given us more "Science" than
any of the manned missions, and 3 last, but not least, the manned
missions. We are talking an order of magnitude cost here.
Emotional aspects: there are admittedly exciting aspects to this.
We should not let our emotions get the best of us, let's we get into
political races again (and I don't mean electoral).
Regarding who should pay for it, we all should. If I could set up two
societies in the US one which takes responsibility for its scientific
endeavors and the other which doesn't, let the latter not have weather
into, etc. They will survive, it's kind of a riduclous comparison,
we do this now, the institutions are called Universities. Just
remember the long-term benefit comes from the science, and not the
emotion. Remember, this is just an opinion, right? Not policy.
Remember the line in ET:
"Why doesn't he just 'beam up?'"
"This is reality stupid!"
Especially made funny since it's said in a movie.
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (07/15/88)
One should be careful while griping about those pitiful deep space probes:
"They can't do much. Think what a MAN could do there!"
After a LONG trip with no air, no food, little power, die.
Instead of a little camera and radio you would have the fastest ice cube
in the solar system.
Big deal. Let's see if we could manage even a poor little probe now before
cutting the past. Say, something more than 1 Clarke orbit up....
Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)winter@Apple.COM (Patty Winter) (07/16/88)
In article <3330@charon.unm.edu> ee2131ac@geinah.unm.edu.UUCP (SEDS-UNM) writes: > >Hmmmm. I wonder if that Phil is really a computer... Phil <-> Hal ??? I'll vouch for Phil. He is definitely human. Not a computer. Not even an android. (I don't care *what* Tasha said about Data. Besides, that was hundreds of years from now; androids aren't nearly that good yet.) Trust me. :-) :-) Patty ------- Patty Winter N6BIS [44.4.0.44] DOMAIN: winter@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun,dual}!apple!winter
tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) (07/22/88)
In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in > order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. > In many situations, it makes far more sense to keep such people on the > ground instead of sending them along with the payload, especially since > the state of the communications art has gotten so good. But it would'nt be near as much fun! -- Tim Ebersole ...!{allegra,ulysses,ihnp4,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/23/88)
In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Henry, I'm impressed. You *have* been reading up on us, haven't you! No, actually, I was on the net and watching the Amsat news when it first happened... >But since you like to quote anecdotes, let's pick the Solar Max rescue >mission. Remember how George ("Pinky") Nelson grabbed one of the solar >arrays in an attempt to stop the satellite from spinning? ... Phil, I didn't say humans were immune from stupidity. Especially since the instructions for that EVA specifically said "hands off the solar arrays"! Note that a similar, but slightly better thought-out, method worked perfectly for the Leasat repair. >... And I won't even mention the strong likelihood that >the rescue mission cost more than a simple replacement would have. Sure sounds to me like mentioning it... :-) The economics of many of these things are sensitive to what assumptions one makes about launch costs. One would hope that people saying "humans in space aren't worth it" would preface it with "at current launch prices"... but they don't. Do remember that the Solar Max rescue mission wasn't a dedicated shuttle flight; the reason they had practically the entire payload bay empty was the LDEF deployment. >I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in >order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. It isn't necessary, it just helps a lot. Teleoperation has some -- not all, but some -- of the same limitations as automation. Especially since really general-purpose waldos are still in a very primitive state. >[The human crew] need not be >prime physical specimens; they can be chosen solely for their technical >skills and perhaps even their understanding of the basic physics of >rotating bodies (unlike Pinky Nelson). This problem is already mostly licked, since the shuttle's acceleration is deliberately held down to the point where any healthy adult could fly on it. This was a specific design goal, as I recall. Don't confuse silly NASA policies with fundamental hardware constraints. >Your arguments represent a convincing case for versatile remote control, >not for manned spaceflight... I would agree, were it not that I know of no remote-control hardware that I would call "versatile". Remote control is great if the problems you run into are along the lines that the designers anticipated. The Voyager team has done minor miracles with remote control... but considering how badly Voyager 2 is limping, I suspect any of them would sacrifice one or two semi-essential parts of his/her anatomy to get a repair technician out to V2 for six hours. >[AO-10] With the help of a versatile on-board computer >that can be completely reprogrammed from the ground, we were able to >save the mission. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall the operative words were "save the mission", as opposed to "carry out the mission as if nothing had happened". You did have to accept some penalties, did you not? -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu
karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (07/23/88)
> > I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in > > order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. > But it would'nt be near as much fun! *NOW* we're getting somewhere. I'd object far less to the human-in-space camp if they were only up front and honest about their motivations. I enjoy a shuttle launch as much as anyone (I was one of the few people who saw Challenger blow up in real time on TV) but I don't fool myself into believing that flying humans on a Shuttle is the best way to launch a geostationary communications satellite. There *are* a few legitimate applications for humans in orbit, such as life sciences research, or even Christa McAuliffe's planned science class demonstrations. I also appreciate the human adventure and the sheer entertainment value more than you might think. BUT I am careful to distinguish these latter aspects from practical issues like cost-effectiveness. Unfortunately, many people simply don't do this. The result is something resembling a religious cult that spends much of its time reinforcing each others' rationalizations for putting as many humans into space as possible, whether or not it makes rational, economic sense. Phil