dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (01/31/86)
Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, they did. The shuttle was plagued by delays and bad economics, and now its a killer. It's time to take a long hard look at the shuttle and strip away the myth from the reality. Some myths: that the shuttle is a cheap way of delivering cargo to orbit, that manned shuttle missions are somehow bringing us closer to real exploitation of space, that manned missions in the shuttle can accomplish things economically that can't be done by robots. I addressed the first myth several months ago. The NY Times mentioned in today's paper that the cost of shuttle cargo ($2000 to $2500/lb to LEO) makes almost all space manufacturing uneconomical. NASA has received almost no positive response from industry, just some companies exploiting NASA's subsidized rates for research to do work feeding back to ground based processes. The shuttle has also been less reliable and more expensive than unmanned boosters for lifting satellites in orbit. Although the putative cause of many of these satellite failures has been PAM motor or satellite malfunctions, have you noticed how many problems there have been with experiments in the shuttle cargo bay? I suspect the vibrations during shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads. This is one of the theories about what destroyed Challenger -- combustion instabilities in the SRB's could induce vibrations in the shuttle that could lead to structural failure. The second myth: that the shuttle is somehow advancing the real exploitation of space. This a curious inversion of logic. Clearly, when space has been fully exploited there will be lots of people up there, it doesn't follow, though, that any scheme for sending people into space moves us towards that goal. Except for some sound (if extremely expensive) research conducted in Spacelab, the shuttle has done little for the advancement of space exploitation. The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically that can't be done by robots. This is true in the long term (unless AI really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this century, at least) there is little that can be done in space economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better. Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon, exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be left in space for years. So, what should be done with the shuttles? Just grounding them is a bit excessive, but they are currently unsafe and uneconomical. The following might make sense: convert one shuttle to purely manned mode; beef up its structure so that it's too heavy to carry much cargo but can carry people into orbit. The other two shuttles can be adapted to as unmanned reusable cargo vehicles. Strip out the cabin section and replace it by a much smaller forward electronics bay. Extend the cargo bay forward, or just leave that space empty. This converted vehicle would take off and land semiautonomously, and would be used to deploy satellites. It could conceivably carry much more cargo and, if it prangs after 25 flights no one would be killed. Perhaps all three can be adapted for unmanned use, but NASA probably wants to keep one vehicle around for congressional joyrides.
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (01/31/86)
In article <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes: >Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, they did. The shuttle >was plagued by delays and bad economics, and now its a killer. It's >time to take a long hard look at the shuttle and strip away the myth >from the reality. Oh my god, it's a killer! We'd better get rid of cars, motorcycles, planes, ships, knives, guns, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, swimming pools, bathtubs, electricity, and pregnancy too. As for the long hard look, I'm ready when you are. >Some myths: that the shuttle is a cheap way of delivering cargo to >orbit, that manned shuttle missions are somehow bringing us closer to >real exploitation of space, that manned missions in the shuttle can >accomplish things economically that can't be done by robots. > >I addressed the first myth several months ago. The NY Times mentioned >in today's paper that the cost of shuttle cargo ($2000 to $2500/lb to >LEO) makes almost all space manufacturing uneconomical. NASA has >received almost no positive response from industry, just some companies >exploiting NASA's subsidized rates for research to do work feeding back >to ground based processes. This is a common debating tactic; put words in your opponent's mouth (obviously ones which are easy to shoot down). Obviously knowledgeable people in or out of NASA would not claim that the shuttle is a cheap way to deliver small packages to low Earth orbit. But there are a lot of things that it can do quite well that no current or previous space transportation system could even aspire to do. >The shuttle has also been less reliable and more expensive than unmanned >boosters for lifting satellites in orbit. Although the putative cause >of many of these satellite failures has been PAM motor or satellite >malfunctions, have you noticed how many problems there have been with >experiments in the shuttle cargo bay? I suspect the vibrations during >shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads. This is >one of the theories about what destroyed Challenger -- combustion >instabilities in the SRB's could induce vibrations in the shuttle >that could lead to structural failure. Are you suggesting that NASA engineers are too stupid to be able to measure the level of vibration during launch and analyze its effects on the shuttle and the payload, or that there is a cover-up where everyone who knows the truth about shuttle vibration is keeping it secret so that multimillion-dollar payloads and multibillion-dollar spacecraft can be destroyed? >The second myth: that the shuttle is somehow advancing the real >exploitation of space. This a curious inversion of logic. Clearly, >when space has been fully exploited there will be lots of people up >there, it doesn't follow, though, that any scheme for sending people >into space moves us towards that goal. Except for some sound (if >extremely expensive) research conducted in Spacelab, the shuttle has >done little for the advancement of space exploitation. Another debating tactic: fabricate an illogical argument for your opponent and then point out why it is wrong. The fact of the matter is that the only way to learn how to do things in space is to try to do them. The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing so more effectively and economically than the alternatives. I wait to see your proposed alternatives. >The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically >that can't be done by robots. This is true in the long term (unless AI >really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this >century, at least) there is little that can be done in space >economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better. >Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon, >exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all >better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply >because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar >flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable >boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be >left in space for years. Another debating technique: make such a grand claim that it is very difficult to refute. The statement you have made here seems so absurd that I don't see how I could start to refute it. As far as I know nobody has had any success in space operations using "robots and teleoperated manipulators." I will put the ball back in your court; you are making a positive assertion here, that these things can be done. Do you have one shred of evidence to back this up? >So, what should be done with the shuttles? Just grounding them is a bit >excessive, but they are currently unsafe and uneconomical. The >following might make sense: convert one shuttle to purely manned mode; >beef up its structure so that it's too heavy to carry much cargo but >can carry people into orbit. The other two shuttles can be adapted to >as unmanned reusable cargo vehicles. Strip out the cabin section and >replace it by a much smaller forward electronics bay. Extend the >cargo bay forward, or just leave that space empty. This converted >vehicle would take off and land semiautonomously, and would be used to >deploy satellites. It could conceivably carry much more cargo and, >if it prangs after 25 flights no one would be killed. Perhaps all >three can be adapted for unmanned use, but NASA probably wants to keep >one vehicle around for congressional joyrides. This doesn't really make sense, as I'm sure you're aware. If all the vehicle is going to do is deploy satellites in earth orbit it makes far more sense to just launch the satellite and not the whole orbiter. And the loss rate would be a lot higher than 4% without onboard human control, if the operation could be managed at all. Even if it were possible it would mean abandoning: -- All repair operations in earth orbit (e.g. Landsat, Solar Max, and many more). -- All recovery operations in earth orbit (e.g. the Long Duration Exposure Facility). -- All servicing operations in earth orbit. (e.g. inspection and maintenance of Hubble Telescope) -- All human-directed experimentation and observation in earth orbit. (e.g. many biology, manufacturing, physics experiments) -- All experimation and study of humans in earth orbit. (e.g. studies of human response to weightlessness, human efficiency in weightlessness) -- All plans for possible space station construction. Or is all of this magically going to be taken care of by your "robots and teleoperated manipulators"? I also want to reply briefly to all of your flaming about safety. I think that you are being hypocritical in claiming that the safety of the astronauts is your primary concern. Either that or you are misguided. There is certainly no shortage of extremely qualified people willing to risk their lives in space. If the risk is acceptable to them I don't see that it's any of your business. If you were really concerned for the welfare of the astronauts you would allow them to live their lives as they please. One more comment for the record. There was an article from the LA Times which began with something like "While the seven lives lost in the accident are of course the primary concern..." and then went on to talk about the impact on the space program. This is absurd. The next day 21 people died in Mexico in a plane crash and I don't think most network news programs even mentioned it. Three maintenance workers died in a room full of pure nitrogen in the early days of the shuttle program, and it was essentially ignored by the public and the news media. And those were not people who had chosen, with full knowledge of the danger, to take a rather large risk. I'll try not to belabor the point, but I don't see how anyone can consider the seven lives of any great significance when compared to the destruction of a $1.2E9 spacecraft and probably several times that much expense in direct and indirect costs (cost of the investigation, delays in planned missions, possible changes to the other vehicles, etc.). How many lives do you think $5E9 in medical research, or construction of trauma centers, or even public education would save? Certainly more than 7! All I'm saying is that we should keep our priorities straight. One of mine is space exploration. I hope the American public agrees with me (or at least can be persuaded to pay for it; $5E9 would put quite a dent in my checkbook :-)). -- David desJardins (ucbvax!brahms!desj)
al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) (01/31/86)
In article <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes: > > Some myths: that the shuttle is a cheap way of delivering cargo to > orbit, that manned shuttle missions are somehow bringing us closer to > real exploitation of space, that manned missions in the shuttle can > accomplish things economically that can't be done by robots. > > I addressed the first myth several months ago. The NY Times mentioned > in today's paper that the cost of shuttle cargo ($2000 to $2500/lb to > LEO) makes almost all space manufacturing uneconomical. Actual cost to a user is more like $1500/lb. Contrary to making space manufacturing uneconomical, only the shuttle makes space manufacturing POSSIBLE (except for the now defunct Salyut). No industry in the history of the world has been established without people there to set it up. The shuttle can put the people and the equipment up to do all of the the initial, necessary startup work for establishing orbital factories. No other space system in use today, with the possible exception of the Soviet system, can do that. At any price. That goes for any near terms plans that I am aware of as well. > NASA has > received almost no positive response from industry, just some companies > exploiting NASA's subsidized rates for research to do work feeding back > to ground based processes. This is not true. McDonnell Douglas and 3M are both seriously working on orbital processing. A number of smaller companies are getting to work as well. Almost every flight lately has had some kind of materials processing experiments, many of which have gone very well. Japan and Europe are extremely interested in this area. Some reports claim that a substantial fraction of the all of the semi-conductor material used by the Soviets come from Salyut. > The shuttle has also been less reliable and more expensive than unmanned > boosters for lifting satellites in orbit. Shuttle, with all of its problems, has a better record than Ariane (an unmanned European system) for lifting satellites into orbit. Until the current flight, no shuttle launched satellite had been a complete loss, although there were several partial failures. Ariane, in contrast, has deposited quite a number of its payloads into the Atlantic. Shuttle costs to the user are roughly comparable to Ariane. > have you noticed how many problems there have been with > experiments in the shuttle cargo bay? I suspect the vibrations during > shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads. Launching satellites ALWAYS involves a lot of vibration. With the shuttle, however, you have people on board to fix problems that come up and the payload can be returned to Earth for repair and reflight as well. Try that on an expendable booster. > > The second myth: that the shuttle is somehow advancing the real > exploitation of space. Shuttle initiated satellite repair on orbit, satellite retrieval, and has given a lot of people hands on experience with the problems of working in space. Construction techniques have been verified by actual experiment. With the return of the long duration exposure facility we will get a good look at the long term effects of low earth orbit on many materials. Something we can only get if we RETURN things from space, which only the shuttle can do. All of these substantially further real exploitation of space. In addition, shuttle capabilities are critical to space station, and various commercial projects to establish industry in space. > > The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically > that can't be done by robots. This is true in the long term (unless AI > really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this > century, at least) there is little that can be done in space > economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better. I am not aware of any operation teleoperator in low earth orbit that could have repaired solar max, retrieved two communication satellites, performed experiments on live plants and animals, fixed problems with the electro- phoresis experiment, etc., etc., etc. I think you are confusing paper studies with operational hardware. If you want to do work in space in the near future, there is NO teleoperation system to do the work. Furthermore, much of the work that needs to be done cannot be accomplished by ANY existing system even on Earth much less in orbit. E.g., handle animals. The crux of the issue is that the shuttle actually works now, although there are problems. Teleoperation and robots are paper studies that won't see reality for many years. When they do become reality, they will undoubtedly have more problems and cost more than current paper studies suggest. In addition, shuttle out performs existing expendables (primarily Ariane). Again, paper studies out perform shuttle, but paper studies always perform well. Finally, since the US does not have access to Salyut, only shuttle gives us any space industrialization capabilities at all. This will be true for many years. > The other two shuttles can be adapted to > as unmanned reusable cargo vehicles. Here in the Bay area they though human pilots were unnecessary for the extremely simple problem of controlling subway cars. They were wrong, the automatic systems on BART have been the source of never ending problems. People are very good at controlling vehicles, we should use them.
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/01/86)
>In article <8601301636.AA04800@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) >writes: >>The third myth: that manned missions can accomplish things economically >>that can't be done by robots. This is true in the long term (unless AI >>really succeeds), but in the short term (read: for the rest of this >>century, at least) there is little that can be done in space >>economically that robots and teleoperated manipulators can't do better. >>Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon, >>exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all >>better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply >>because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar >>flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable >>boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be >>left in space for years. I keep fairly close tabs on AI and robotics. There is no way with today's technology to build an automaton that could have repaired the Solar MAX satellite. Much less - capture and return disabled satellites. Teleoperation doesn't help this much, the problem is at least partly one of dexterity. Robots are marvelous things (I wouldn't follow developments in the field if they weren't of interest) but they aren't yet anything near a good substitute for a human technician. Not all of the tasks performed by the shuttle missions require human intervention - in fact, I've never thought the shuttle should be used for satellite launching (unless the satellite requires on site assembly or adjustment). As a satellite repair capability though it is likely to remain unsurpassed for decades. Think how much more reliable deep space probes could be if they could receive a post launch check before being sent out of earth orbit. They would be cheaper too, since the human crew can do some of the assembly in space (instead of the present system of building in automatic systems to extend antennae, pop launch shrouds, power up sensitive equipment, etc.). You made another point about robots being better than humans through the end of the century. This is exactly backward. I am willing to believe that robotic technology may become reliable enough in the future not to require much in the way of human backup. But in the short term (read: to the end of the century, at least) there are many things that can't be done by robots or teleoperated manipulators. They can't think, they can't improvise special purpose tools, they can't come up with different ways to grapple a wayward satellite, and they are just as likely to malfunction as the equipment they were sent to repair or maintain. J. Giles Los Alamos
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/01/86)
In article <324@vger.UUCP> al@vger.UUCP writes: >> have you noticed how many problems there have been with >> experiments in the shuttle cargo bay? I suspect the vibrations during >> shuttle launch from the SRB's are damaging the payloads. >Launching satellites ALWAYS involves a lot of vibration. With the shuttle, >however, you have people on board to fix problems that come up and the >payload can be returned to Earth for repair and reflight as well. Try that >on an expendable booster. My father, who designs satellite structures, tells me that frequently the most severe mechanical shocks to the satellite occur during the mounting of the payload to the vehicle. It should also be pointed out that a lot of the failures had to do with payload engines, which is just as much of a problem with expendables. C. Wingate
farren@well.UUCP (02/04/86)
I will respond to just one of Paul Dietz' comments, although I disagree with all of them: > Repair and maintenance of spacecraft in earth orbit, mining the moon, > exploration of the planets, manufacturing in low earth orbit are all > better done by robots and remotely controlled manipulators, simply > because they don't breath or eat, don't die of radiation from solar > flares, and can be launched by supposedly less reliable expendable > boosters, can be controlled from the ground 24 hours a day and can be > left in space for years. It's my understanding from my experience in assisting in the design and fabrication of the ACE electronics package in the Galileo spacecraft that modern microelectronics are MUCH more likely to "die of radiation" than are human beings. -- Mike Farren uucp: {your favorite backbone site}!hplabs!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (02/06/86)
> But there are a lot of > things that it can do quite well that no current or previous space > transportation system could even aspire to do. Name one that justifies the cost of the shuttle system (vague references to philosophical principles not allowed). And no ranting against bean-counters, either. > The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing > the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing > so more effectively and economically than the alternatives. I wait > to see your proposed alternatives. It's not obvious to me that the shuttle is advancing the exploitation of space. It's not making the launching of unmanned satellites any cheaper. It's not a cheap enough launcher to make space manufacturing economical. It has been (and is) soaking up money that could be spent on other more worthwhile endeavors: - Development of cheaper launchers - Unmanned probes to look for easily accessible extraterrestrial resources (Earth co-orbital asteroids, lunar polar ice deposits) - Development of space qualified teleoperator systems > As far as I know nobody > has had any success in space operations using "robots and teleoperated > manipulators." .I will put the ball back in your court; you are making a > positive assertion here, that these things can be done. Do you have one > shred of evidence to back this up? Are not ALL the planetary probes robots? And is not the shuttle arm a teleoperator? It doesn't matter that the person controlling it is in the shuttle cabin or on the ground (except for a small speed-of-light delay). NASA is planning an remote controlled orbital maneuvering vehicle for low orbit retrieval tasks and (I think) a remote controlled orbital transfer vehicle. Teleoperated submarines are being used in the oil industry today, and have been used to manipulate radioactive substances for years. The technology drivers for teleoperated systems (sensor technology, electronics, communications) are developing explosively, while the technology driver for manned space presence (cheap launch systems) is developing slowly. > This doesn't really make sense, as I'm sure you're aware. If all the > vehicle is going to do is deploy satellites in earth orbit it makes far > more sense to just launch the satellite and not the whole orbiter. And > the loss rate would be a lot higher than 4% without onboard human control, > if the operation could be managed at all. The shuttle does have one advantage currently: it can launch much larger payloads in one piece than expendable rockets. I doubt, however, that the loss rate would change significantly with no humans on board, given sufficiently sophisticated remote control. Leaving people out might improve the economics of the shuttle (although I'm told the major weight is in the wings and airframe). > Even if it were possible it would mean abandoning: >-- All repair operations in earth orbit > (e.g. Landsat, Solar Max, and many more). >-- All recovery operations in earth orbit > (e.g. the Long Duration Exposure Facility). >-- All servicing operations in earth orbit. > (e.g. inspection and maintenance of Hubble Telescope) >-- All human-directed experimentation and observation in earth orbit. > (e.g. many biology, manufacturing, physics experiments) >-- All experimation and study of humans in earth orbit. > (e.g. studies of human response to weightlessness, human efficiency > in weightlessness) >-- All plans for possible space station construction. Let me address these one at a time: (1) Satellite repair. This is a sparse market (for STS). If satellites are designed properly there's no reason why one couldn't do it with teleoperators (as will have to be done in geosynchronous orbit anyway, where most satellites are). The economics of satellite repair are dubious when the satellite has to be relaunched (as those two comsats with failed boosters will have to be). (2) Recovery operations in earth orbit. LDEF was deployed and will be recovered with the shuttle arm -- a teleoperator! (3) Servicing in earth orbit. There appears to be no good reason why you couldn't service a properly designed space telescope (say) by remote control. I believe a teleoperator with the proper appendages (screw drivers, grippers, refueling attachments, etc.) could be more efficient than a person in a bulky spacesuit. Servicing in geosynchronous orbit will require teleoperators. (4) Human-directed experimentation. I said spacelab had produced some good science. I heard on the news the other night, however, that preparing a science payload for the shuttle is five times (!) more expensive than for an unmanned launcher. And it's seriously debatable whether it's worth the cost. It certainly won't lead to space based manufacturing on any worthwhile scale until launch costs are reduced dramatically. (5) Experimentation and study of humans in orbit. This should be a means to an end, not an end in itself, and if human presence is deemphasized in the near term there's no reason to do this now. (6) Space station construction. Yes, I believe teleoperators COULD do this, and besides, it makes no sense to build a space station until launch costs are reduced to the point that humans make more sense in space. I too believe in the use of space; I want my grandchildren to be born in space. I just think the shuttle is a waste of effort and is not moving us towards worthwhile long term goals in space.
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (02/07/86)
>Actual cost to a user is more like $1500/lb. Contrary to making space >manufacturing uneconomical, only the shuttle makes space manufacturing >POSSIBLE (except for the now defunct Salyut). NY Times reports $2000 to $2500/lb. Where do your figures come from, and what assumptions are you making (is amortization of the orbiter included, for example, and how large is the payload?). Cost to the *user* is also a little misleading, since it doesn't include the cost NASA incurs to subsidize launching rates. The ability to make things in space is worthless if the product costs more than you can sell it for. > No industry in the history > of the world has been established without people there to set it up. The satellite communications industry works very well even though no person has ever been to geosynchronous orbit. And the history of ground based industries are clearly irrelevant, since life support and transportation are so cheap down here. >The shuttle can put the people and the equipment up >to do all of the the initial, necessary startup work for establishing >orbital factories. No other space system in use today, with the possible >exception of the Soviet system, can do that. At any price. That goes >for any near terms plans that I am aware of as well. You can do microgravity experiments in unmanned satellites (fit them with a heat shield and retrorockets). Indeed, some microgravity work needs a better environment than the shuttle can provide and would have to be done in free flyers. Also, doing research for space manufacturing would be more reasonable if we could expect to have cheaper launcher soon (but we're not going to). > McDonnell Douglas and 3M are both seriously working > on orbital processing. McDonnell Douglas's partner, Ortho Pharmaceuticals, has pulled out of the continuous flow electrophoresis project because it claims it can make the drugs just a cheaply on the ground. My impression of the 3M work was that it was research at this stage, and that NASA has been unable to get 3M to commit to using the space station (please correct me if I'm wrong on this second point). > Almost every flight lately has had some kind of materials > processing experiments, many of which have gone very well. Japan and > Europe are extremely interested in this area. Some reports claim that > a substantial fraction of the all of the semi-conductor material used > by the Soviets come from Salyut. No doubt experiments have gone well (and why not conduct the experiments, when NASA heavily subsidizes them), but that's not the same thing as setting up space manufacturing. Such experiments can be valuable even if you don't intend to do space manufacturing, because they let you identify what effect convection is having on your ground-based process. Rumors about the Soviets are interesting but hardly persuasive. Crystallizing silicon in orbit makes little sense, so you probably have this garbled. > Shuttle, with all of its problems, has a better record than Ariane (an > unmanned European system) for lifting satellites into orbit. Until the > current flight, no shuttle launched satellite had been a complete loss, > although there were several partial failures. Not true. One shuttle launched satellite failed after being injected to its transfer orbit (this wasn't the first TDRS). Ariane has been unreliable, but that happens with any system on its first flights. The later Arianes will have the problems fixed and will (asymptotically) become more reliable. If you criticize Ariane for teething problems you must also, in all fairness, criticize the PAM, IUS and the shuttle itself for reliability problems. > Launching satellites ALWAYS involves a lot of vibration. With the shuttle, > however, you have people on board to fix problems that come up and the > payload can be returned to Earth for repair and reflight as well. Try that > on an expendable booster. But much more vibration when you use monster solid rockets. The record of people on the shuttle fixing external experiments in the cargo bay has not been exceptional. > Shuttle initiated satellite repair on orbit, satellite retrieval, and has > given a lot of people hands on experience with the problems of working in > space. Construction techniques have been verified by actual experiment. > With the return of the long duration exposure facility we will get a good > look at the long term effects of low earth orbit on many materials. Something > we can only get if we RETURN things from space, which only the shuttle can > do. All of these substantially further real exploitation of space. In > addition, shuttle capabilities are critical to space station, and various > commercial projects to establish industry in space. Of course material can be returned to earth without the shuttle: simple ablatively cooled capsules (both manned and unmanned) have been used for years. The utility of people doing EVAs in low orbit is debatable; the expertise does not easily extend to where it would be more useful (geosynchronous orbit). I don't believe space manufacturing is currently economically viable, so I don't buy the space station argument. About teleoperation: because people are adaptable, they can do things (like doing unanticipated repairs on satellites) that would be hard for a machine to accomplish. However, the important question is: is the extra adaptability humans possess worth the considerably higher costs incurred in putting them in space? If teleoperators can accomplish 90% (say) of the things people can do, people should probably stay on the ground for a while. The need for adaptability can be reduced by proper design. For example, a communications satellite can be designed in a modular fashion so that spare parts may be plugged in with little dexterity. This is analagous to redesigning a product so that robots may put it together easily rather than build extremely capable robots that can mimic human assembly techniques. There has been considerable work in teleoperated manipulators on remote controlled submersible vehicles, motivated by their applications in off-shore drilling and in the military. The latest issue of High Technology (Feb. 1986) has an interesting article on the technology. > Here in the Bay area they though human pilots were unnecessary for the > extremely simple problem of controlling subway cars. They were wrong, the > automatic systems on BART have been the source of never ending problems. > People are very good at controlling vehicles, we should use them. The time critical parts of a shuttle flight are already computer controlled (lift-off and landing). The in-orbit part can be handled simply by sending shuttle telemetry to (say) a ground based cabin mockup. You'd need the TDRS satellites in orbit for this to work.
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (02/07/86)
In article <8602061514.AA06010@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes [> = Paul, >> = my original response]: >>But there are a lot of things that it [the shuttle] can do quite well that >>no current or previous space transportation system could even aspire to do. > >Name one that justifies the cost of the shuttle system (vague >references to philosophical principles not allowed). And no ranting >against bean-counters, either. Several are given below, with discussion of your claims that they could be performed in other ways. I believe that they are worth (ten times) the money we are spending. But it would be foolish for me to try to convince you or anyone else of this--obviously you attach less value to these things than I do. I am just thankful that the majority of the American people agree with me, and are even willing to spend more on the shuttle program (according to Gallup polls). >>The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing >>the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing >>so more effectively and economically than the alternatives. I wait >>to see your proposed alternatives. > >It's not obvious to me that the shuttle is advancing the exploitation of >space. It's not making the launching of unmanned satellites any >cheaper. It's not a cheap enough launcher to make space manufacturing >economical. It has been (and is) soaking up money that could be spent on >other more worthwhile endeavors: > > - Development of cheaper launchers > - Unmanned probes to look for easily accessible extraterrestrial > resources (Earth co-orbital asteroids, lunar polar ice deposits) > - Development of space qualified teleoperator systems It is advancing it in the sense that we are learning by doing. One day we will have a cheaper launch system, and its development is going to be completely dependent on the lessons that are being learned from the shuttle program (and continued improvement in technology, of course). Everybody would love to have a way of delivering cargo to earth orbit for $10K/ton, but we don't know any way to do this. If we did don't you think we would build it?? Let me also point out the rather obvious fact that in general one project does not "soak up" money from other projects. NASA is not in a position to scrap the shuttle program, but even if it were there certainly is not the slightest reason to believe that they could somehow take that money and go spend it on whatever they want. This is not the way our government operates. >>As far as I know nobody has had any success in space operations using >>"robots and teleoperated manipulators." I will put the ball back in >>your court; you are making a positive assertion here, that these things >>can be done. Do you have one shred of evidence to back this up? > >Are not ALL the planetary probes robots? And is not the shuttle arm >a teleoperator? It doesn't matter that the person controlling it is in >the shuttle cabin or on the ground (except for a small speed-of-light >delay). NASA is planning an remote controlled orbital maneuvering >vehicle for low orbit retrieval tasks and (I think) a remote controlled >orbital transfer vehicle. Teleoperated submarines are being used in >the oil industry today, and have been used to manipulate radioactive >substances for years. The technology drivers for teleoperated systems >(sensor technology, electronics, communications) are developing >explosively, while the technology driver for manned space presence >(cheap launch systems) is developing slowly. All planetary probes built to date are one-shot, *extremely* expensive, single-purpose devices which only measure and record their environment; they do not even attempt to manipulate it. As for the shuttle arm; as far as I know not a single thing has been accomplished with it without the intervention of humans in spacesuits. I'm not sure what point you mean to make with "NASA is planning...." If any of these things is in more than a very preliminary R&D stage I would be very surprised. And to the extent that they are doing these things it seems that they are doing exactly what they want. Or are you making the illogical claim that the things that they are doing serve as evidence that they could be doing much more if they wanted to? The reason that cheap launch systems are developing slowly is that they are extraordinarily difficult to build. The reason that we stopped building Saturn V's is that they cost $300M or so each (in 1986 dollars). The ESA has spent a lot of money on Ariane with mixed results. What makes you think that it is possible to launch sizable payloads substantially more cheaply than we are doing now? [Paul Dietz's responses to my list of things that could not be done without humans in space follows, with my responses:] >(1) Satellite repair. This is a sparse market (for STS). If >satellites are designed properly there's no reason why one couldn't do >it with teleoperators (as will have to be done in geosynchronous orbit >anyway, where most satellites are). The economics of satellite repair >are dubious when the satellite has to be relaunched (as those two >comsats with failed boosters will have to be). You say "there's no reason why one couldn't do it [repair satellites] with teleoperators." You have no evidence for this, as far as I can tell, and I don't know of any knowledgeable person in the field who agrees with you. The complicated operations performed by astronauts testing and repairing satellites can't even be duplicated by robots on earth, much less in space! It's just not possible, your wild claims to the contrary. BTW, the *vast* majority of all satellites are in low earth orbit. >(2) Recovery operations in earth orbit. LDEF was deployed and will be >recovered with the shuttle arm -- a teleoperator! I am not familiar with the specific procedures for deploying and recovering LDEF. I assume that it is specifically designed with an adaptor for recovery by the shuttle arm, but even so I would expect that the planned recovery operation involves a suited human stabilizing the satellite. Certainly humans will be required to fasten it into the cargo bay for reentry. And even in cases when the procedure is planned to involve no direct human intervention past experience would seem to indicate that there is a substantial probability that humans in suits will in fact be required to assist the operations. >(3) Servicing in earth orbit. There appears to be no good reason why >you couldn't service a properly designed space telescope (say) by remote >control. I believe a teleoperator with the proper appendages (screw >drivers, grippers, refueling attachments, etc.) could be more efficient than >a person in a bulky spacesuit. Servicing in geosynchronous orbit will >require teleoperators. Let me make the obvious point that just because you don't seem to understand why these things are so difficult to do doesn't in fact make them possible. If you were to talk to those who actually do this work perhaps you would get a better idea of what is possible and what is not. In any case, if you wish us to accept your assertion that these things can be done you are going to have to produce at least a few shreds of evidence to this effect. By the time we can get objects of this size into geosynchronous orbit why won't we be able to get people there as well?? >(4) Human-directed experimentation. I said spacelab had produced some >good science. I heard on the news the other night, however, that preparing >a science payload for the shuttle is five times (!) more expensive than >for an unmanned launcher. And it's seriously debatable whether it's worth >the cost. It certainly won't lead to space based manufacturing on any >worthwhile scale until launch costs are reduced dramatically. I can't debate the value of these experiences, nor can I argue with such an august source as (let me guess) the ABC News. But the claim which you make with such certainty I will question; I can easily imagine the possibility of producing new pharmaceuticals in space, or semiconductor crystals, or metal alloys or composites, of such value that their manufacture in space could be worthwhile. Or study of new materials produced in space could lead to discovery of methods to achieve the same results on Earth. I'm not claiming that these things necessarily will happen, but I don't see how you can be so quick to rule them out even as possibilities. >(5) Experimentation and study of humans in orbit. This should be a >means to an end, not an end in itself, and if human presence is >deemphasized in the near term there's no reason to do this now. Why is (say) planetary exploration a worthwhile objective, but study of the human race is not?? >(6) Space station construction. Yes, I believe teleoperators COULD do >this, and besides, it makes no sense to build a space station until >launch costs are reduced to the point that humans make more sense in >space. Again, I'll believe this when you produce some evidence. I'd be willing to bet you couldn't find a single person working on the space station who would agree with you. Don't you want a space station at which to base your teleoperators? :-) >I too believe in the use of space; I want my grandchildren to be born >in space. I just think the shuttle is a waste of effort and is not >moving us towards worthwhile long term goals in space. The key question here is: what are the alternatives? If you could present viable alternatives we could discuss them. But if all you can come up with are fantastic claims about the potential of teleoperators, with no evidence to back them up, I think I am going to have to vote to stay with something that works. Even if we could build the extra- ordinarily complicated systems you describe they would certainly cost *more* than the shuttle, not less... -- David desJardins
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (02/07/86)
Why wouldn't LEO EVA expertise transfer to GEO? And, while I expect that while repair activities must be done in GEO, it's not clear to me that the large majority of space construction activities must be done in GEO, or even should be. Also, while I believe that you are sincere, I have yet to see the teleoperators of the required complexity. And, further, if you redesign the product so that robots and/or teleoperators can build them, you're simply trading the cost of putting people in orbit for the increased cost of teleoperators and machine design. Further, the costs are not only in the increased costs of each product, but also in the products that you decide you can't make because they don't come in snap-together pieces. Finally, remember Skylab? I'm damned gald we didn't have a robot trying to repair *that*; it never would have had any power. -- Rick.
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (02/07/86)
> Why wouldn't LEO EVA expertise transfer to GEO? Because it's hard to keep people in GEO. Teleoperator technology would extend easily, perhaps all the way to the moon. > it's not clear to me that > the large majority of space construction activities must be done in GEO, or > even should be. Maintenance of large structures will take place in GEO. Construction using extraterrestrial materials should be done in high orbit. Very large structures cannot be built in low orbit because of air drag. > Also, while I believe that you are sincere, I have yet to see the > teleoperators of the required complexity. And, further, if you redesign the > product so that robots and/or teleoperators can build them, you're simply > trading the cost of putting people in orbit for the increased cost of > teleoperators and machine design. Further, the costs are not only in > the increased costs of each product, but also in the products that you decide > you can't make because they don't come in snap-together pieces. I don't believe modular design will add more than a fraction to the cost of any product. I'm not suggesting each and every transistor be in a separate box. Launching costs are so high that the redesign cost (or, rather, the cost of making new designs modular) would be insignificant. The current absence of teleoperators of the required complexity is more an indication of lack of demand rather than inherent impossibility. On earth most remotely controlled machines are for observation or bulk manipulation (submersible recovery vehicles, mining machines), not for delicate operations. The rapid advance of electronics, communication technology and robotics tells me that teleoperator technology get cheaper quickly. Rocket technology is evolving slowly, and has much less spinoff potential. > Finally, remember Skylab? I'm damned glad we didn't have a robot > trying to repair *that*; it never would have had any power. Current teleoperators couldn't have repaired Skylab, but the Skylab failure was hardly a typical failure mode. Replacement of defective or burned out electronics, replenishment of expendable fluids and replacement of worn mechanical parts would, I think, account for 90% of maintenance activities in space. There's no sense treating rare cases as typical.
Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (02/08/86)
I'm sorry this is so long, but the things you said struck a chord. Your first two myths have been dealt with earlier, but I feel I must comment on your third myth : that manned missions can accomplish things that robots can't. Your refutation of this says that robots and teleoperators can do anything we want for at least the rest of the century. If you look at the current levels of automation in the space program, you would realise that they are very primitive in terms of what they can actually do. Our probes can manage to get where they want to go and either sit and take pictures (in the case of landers), or fly by and take pictures (in the case of fly-bys). The complexity of actions are very limited : adjust course from directions from earth, move camera, change craft attitude, etc. Even Viking, which was extremely advanced, had a lot of trouble extending a simple arm to get a soil sample. The only reason it worked at all was because somebody on earth sent the right signal, after much trial and error. The major limitation of current probes is that they cannot perform actions that were not designed for. The original designers must take everything into account before the thing gets built. All of these tasks were directed by people on the ground. A very major leap forward in research must take place before any kind of autonomous action can be programmed in to one of these probes. The state of the art in Artificial Intelligence is not even close to providing the capability needed to build the Mars Rover that has been proposed. Give them five years and maybe so. But even then, the range of action will still be severely limited. The shuttle was designed for a human operator, not a cockpit full of computers. It would probably be more expensive to refit the shuttles for automated flight than it would be to build the next generation of shuttle. And besides, the technology doesn't exist. Sure, Viking did fine. But that was in a smaller gravity well, dropping straight down, opening a parachute. Now, I'm not advocating that humans should be sent to probe the planets. That job is currently being adaquately addressed by remote probes, limited though they are. But more complex tasks, such as building the space station or lunar bases, mining asteroids, retrieving and repairing satellites, etc. can only be performed by humans at this time or in the near future (before 2000). If you are satisfied to watch the universe unfold on the television, that's fine. Remote probes are all you need. But if you want to personally watch the universe fold, or to give your children a chance to do so, then the human space program is the way to go. Brett Slocum (Slocum@HI-MULTICS)
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (02/10/86)
> > Why wouldn't LEO EVA expertise transfer to GEO? > > Because it's hard to keep people in GEO. Teleoperator technology would > extend easily, perhaps all the way to the moon. > Not necessarily. The longer the time-lag of the control, the harder it will be for a ground-based operator to control something. Eventually you will get to the point where too few operations can be ground controlled, and you'll need local intelligence. So far, electronic intelligence is not as capable of handling unpredictable situations like repair. > [dot dot dot] > > > Finally, remember Skylab? I'm damned glad we didn't have a robot > > trying to repair *that*; it never would have had any power. > > Current teleoperators couldn't have repaired Skylab, but the Skylab failure > was hardly a typical failure mode. Replacement of defective or burned out > electronics, replenishment of expendable fluids and replacement of worn > mechanical parts would, I think, account for 90% of maintenance > activities in space. There's no sense treating rare cases as typical. > First, designing satellites so that they can easily be serviced by crude manipulators will add somewhat to their cost. Second, while these routine operations may account for 90% of the maintenance activities, the remaining 10% imply loss of the satellite without more flexible repair. The rare cases may not be typical, but if they are costly enough, they'll dominate your budget. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. "...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) (02/11/86)
In article <8602070221.AA08568@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes: > > NY Times reports $2000 to $2500/lb. Where do your figures come from ... Shuttle pricing has been set at about $73 million/launch by the administration. Maximum payload is supposed to be 65,000 pounds but I don't think that's a practical figure for a while yet. Thus, $1500/lb is a rough, conservative figure for what real customers will really have to pay. Cost is MUCH lower for get away specials - I think its $10,000 for 40 lbs. but I don't have the data in front of me. > Cost to the *user* is also > a little misleading, since it doesn't include the cost NASA incurs to > subsidize launching rates. Misleading perhaps, but a very practical figure if you want to do work. To figure out the 'real' cost (whatever that truely means) requires far more data than I'm ever likely to get or want to go through. The size of the check I'd have to write to launch a satellite is the most valuable number. Note that Ariane is also subsidized - as are many terrestrial industries. > > The ability to make things in space is worthless if the product costs > more than you can sell it for. > No, because the next generation launch costs will be less, and we'll have a head start knowing some of what works and what doesn't from shuttle experience. > > You can do microgravity experiments in unmanned satellites (fit them with > a heat shield and retrorockets). Some experiments may be practical, but as far as I can tell only a small percentage of the work that has actually been done has been on unmanned spacecraft - here, USSR, and Europe. Perhaps you know why this is? > > > McDonnell Douglas and 3M are both seriously working > > on orbital processing. > > McDonnell Douglas's partner, Ortho Pharmaceuticals, has pulled out ... 3M took their place. > The later Arianes will have the problems fixed and will (asymptotically) > become more reliable. Ariane lost two or three of their first flights - entirely. A few months ago they dumped a couple more satellites into the Atlantic. I'm very glad Ariane is around - but their reliability has been very poor. The next flight has been significantly delayed while they figured out what went wrong (recent delays have been for other reasons). Ariane was developed about the same time as the shuttle and has had at least as many problems - demonstrating that unmanned launchers have serious problems just as manned launchers do. > If you criticize Ariane for teething problems > you must also, in all fairness, criticize the PAM, IUS and the shuttle > itself for reliability problems. Space flight is extremely difficult. Problems are to be expected. I only mentioned Ariane's problems to illustrate the fact that unmanned launchers have problems as serious as the shuttle (except for loss of life). > The utility of people doing EVAs in low orbit is debatable; You should tell that to Solar Max and Leasat users - EVA saved their satellites. You might try explaining that to those involved with Skylab - which was salvaged by unplanned EVA. Russians involved with Salyut - which was also (temporarily) rescued by EVA would also be interested in that statement. > expertise does not easily extend to where it would be more useful > (geosynchronous orbit). The only problem with geosynchronous EVA's (other than getting there) is the radiation environment. As far as I know no solution has been found, but they're still trying. > I don't believe space manufacturing is currently > economically viable, so I don't buy the space station argument. It probably isn't, but it may could be in five or ten years if we work the problem. Shuttle, with all its flaws, allows us to work the problem in situ, now. > > About teleoperation: because people are adaptable, they can do things > (like doing unanticipated repairs on satellites) that would be hard > for a machine to accomplish. However, the important question is: is > the extra adaptability humans possess worth the considerably higher > costs incurred in putting them in space? If teleoperators can > accomplish 90% (say) of the things people can do, people should probably > stay on the ground for a while. But is it 90%? or is it 10%? You need good data to make the trade properly. People aren't as expensive as some think. All of the basic problems have well know solutions and the weight penalty isn't really all that great. You need more reliability in the launch and life support systems but you require less reliability in the payloads. Much of the cost of the shuttle is due not to the people, but to excessive requirements placed on the vehicle by DOD (the military). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the size of the payload bay, the 65,000lb payload weight requirement, once around landing, and much of the cross-range were requirements that DOD added. These requirements severely strained the state of the art and added enormously to shuttle's cost. Other problems have been caused by DOD; for example, TDRSS would have been launched long ago if a problem hadn't occured in the secure channel - which only DOD requires. Another reason for shuttle's cost over-runs was anemic funding in the early stages. This is happening the space station right now - and its causing some of the same basic problems. > > The need for adaptability can be reduced by proper design. For Of course it can, but proper design doesn't always actually get done. Everyone, including desingers, make mistakes. People on orbit can help bail you out of some of those mistakes.
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (02/12/86)
You know, I've just had a thought. We don't need people on Earth. Why don't we replace all of them with robots? (:-) *** Space, the Last Frontier *** -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (02/14/86)
> It's my understanding from my experience in assisting in the design and >fabrication of the ACE electronics package in the Galileo spacecraft that >modern microelectronics are MUCH more likely to "die of radiation" than are >human beings. Microelectronics do suffer from soft errors from radiation, and some kinds can be disabled permanently by fairly small doses. Radiation hardened semiconductors, however, can withstand upwards of 1 million rads of radiation (LD50 for humans is around 400). In a teleoperator the real smarts will be on the ground anyway.
waynekn@tekig5.UUCP (Wayne Knapp) (02/14/86)
> In article <8602070221.AA08568@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes: > > > > NY Times reports $2000 to $2500/lb. Where do your figures come from ... > > Shuttle pricing has been set at about $73 million/launch by the administration. > Maximum payload is supposed to be 65,000 pounds but I don't think > that's a practical figure for a while yet. Thus, $1500/lb is a rough, > conservative figure for what real customers will really have to pay. Cost > is MUCH lower for get away specials - I think its $10,000 for 40 lbs. > but I don't have the data in front of me. > Sounds like NASA could make some real money by giving people rides on the shuttle. Just charge them about $7000/lb.. I bet there would be plenty of takers. Some people would get a real kick out of the training and the ride, they may even condsider the cost cheap. Heck, I bet there are a lot of millionairs just living around the bay area to keep NASA busy until the year 2000. Of coarse there would have to be some kind of legel protection for NASA in case something went wrong. But for a little risk and only a couple of million bucks, what a ride. Wayne Knapp hmmmm, lets see if I start saving now ...
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (02/17/86)
Several people have criticized my statements on manned vs. unmanned space activities, saying that robots can't replace people. Reading my messages, you'll see I explicitly talked about *teleoperators*, which give you many of the advantages of people (creativity, visual input, reasoning abilities) without actually having to put people in space. You still need people, but a skilled person on the ground costs perhaps $100,000/year; in the space station, $100 million/year. Also, someone lampooned the idea of self-replicating teleoperated machines on the moon. Of course I didn't mean autonomous self replicating machines (we're nowhere near being able to build those) but rather teleoperated machines that build (say) 95% of the components needed for more teleoperators/milling machines/etc. from lunar materials, with complex but lightweight parts (integrated circuits, drill bits, etc.) being imported from earth. Most of the mass in a machine tool is in structural metal, which shouldn't be impossible to build by remote control.
kwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan) (02/18/86)
> > It's my understanding from my experience in assisting in the design and > >fabrication of the ACE electronics package in the Galileo spacecraft that > >modern microelectronics are MUCH more likely to "die of radiation" than are > >human beings. > > Microelectronics do suffer from soft errors from radiation, and some kinds > can be disabled permanently by fairly small doses. Radiation hardened > semiconductors, however, can withstand upwards of 1 million rads of > radiation (LD50 for humans is around 400). In a teleoperator the real > smarts will be on the ground anyway. As far as I can gather, there seems to be several forms of radiation hardening, i.e., the process depends on what you are trying to harden against. Military hardening combats high doses given in short periods. Space hardening generally combats low doses for long periods of time. However, space hardening gets more complex -- depending on what planets you are flying by, and what fields they possess. Thus, there is no such thing as a universal radiation hardening process. Certain processes (bipolar and perhaps CMOS) which were once considered naturally radiation-hard are no longer. TTL was; but with the advent LS TTL, it is no longer. I have not raised the issue of hybrid analog/digital chips with anyone here, but I presume that would be even harder to harden than pure digital. Rick Kwan JPL Spacecraft Data Systems
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/21/86)
> You know, I've just had a thought. We don't need people on Earth. > Why don't we replace all of them with robots? (:-) As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year observed: "When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!" -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (02/26/86)
>> >> > You know, I've just had a thought. We don't need people on Earth. >> > Why don't we replace all of them with robots? (:-) >> >> As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year >> observed: >> >> "When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate >> students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!" >> -- >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry The panelist was none other than Ben Bova, President, National Space Society(formerly NSI). And a good point it was. Mr. Dietz, TAKE NOTICE. The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices. If they were so great, and the time lag easily overcome, they would be widely used. Mr. Dietz persistently underestimates the effort needed to produce working teleoperated devices. Dale
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/28/86)
Dale: > The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices. > If they were so great, and the time lag easily overcome, they > would be widely used. If they could overcome political/sociological resistance to them. Look at Japan's overwhelming use of robotics in industry compared to the U.S. There are more barriers than technology in this maze. Barb "...from depths unseen and dreams undreamt, I sing the gleaming cantos of unvanquished space..." Berke Breathed
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (03/07/86)
> >> > >> As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year > >> observed: > >> "When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate > >> students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!" > >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > The panelist was none other than Ben Bova, President, National > Space Society(formerly NSI). > And a good point it was. Mr. Dietz, TAKE NOTICE. > The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices. Thanks, I couldn't remember whether it was Bova or Silverberg who said it. However, when I heard the comment, I remarked to my companion, "But grad students are FREE!" :-) -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. "...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (03/11/86)
> >> "When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate > >> students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!" > >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > And a good point it was. Mr. Dietz, TAKE NOTICE. > The same point applies equally well for teleoperated devices. But teleoperated devices have been used in the lab for 40 years, in nuclear physics. Using them in the lab in non-life threatening situations would not make sense. This quote, while cute and no doubt laugh provoking, is pretty content free. People are cheap on the ground (grad students are especially cheap). People in space are expensive. You can't expect the economics to be identical.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/15/86)
> But teleoperated devices have been used in the lab for 40 years, in > nuclear physics. And very crude and primitive they are, too. Nothing that would be at all useful in space, for the most part. Why do you think the Surveyors and the Vikings carried only the simplest remote-controlled scoops? > Using them in the lab in non-life threatening > situations would not make sense. Bova was exaggerating a bit, but only a bit. There are many jobs on Earth where teleoperators would be the preferred technology if they were capable and reliable. As for non-life-threatening situations, the life expectancy of chemists is noticeably shorter than that of other laboratory-based professionals. Not a lot, but some. Is this a life-threatening situation? If not, why not? (I still remember our instructor in third-year organic showing us how to clean spectrophotometer cells. Using benzene. >>>GAK<<< If I'd known then what I know now, I'd have walked out of that lab and dropped the course at once.) > ...People are cheap on the ground... Have you tried pricing them in a university environment lately? For positions requiring serious skill, not just warm bodies? > ...People in space are expensive... Have you priced space-mission teleoperator development projects lately? They aren't cheap either. > You can't expect the economics to be identical. No, but I can expect to draw some limited conclusions from the observation that teleoperators see very little use on Earth, and most of the ones that do see use are for situations where human presence is not just expensive and dangerous but utterly impossible. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry