REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) (03/01/86)
?> 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? (:-) HS> Date: 21 Feb 86 20:46:11 GMT HS> From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) HS> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology HS> As one of the panelists (sorry, I've forgotten who) at Boskone this year HS> observed: HS> "When James van Allen starts using robots instead of graduate HS> students in his own lab, then maybe I'll believe him!" I see you're in Canada. I don't know what is happening up there, but here in the US a lot of companies (mostly auto manufacturers and a few other industries) are converting their "coolie" labor to robot arms, and in Japan it seems they're trying to put robots everywhere! (I apologize for my ignorance of robotics in Canada, except for the arm built for STS, and for people originally from Canada who have done fine research at Stanford and CMU.) First, I'd suggest we watch the auto makers in USA and especially watch Japan. When we see the appropriate kind of robotics being used in Japanese industry, we'll know we're a couple years behind in applying it to spcae, because it becomes cost-effective in space before it does on Earth (because on Earth coolie labor is cheap but in space there is often no substitute for robotics). Second, I suggest the governent funding experimental robotics on Earth for tasks that would be useful in space or on the Moon. In particular I suggest funded robotics experiments for mining and crude processing of mined materials. This will not only develop the technology, but prove cost-effectiveness in space or on Moon. The argument is, if with a little government funding it's cost-effective on Earth, then it is already cost-effective purely on its own merits in space or on Moon where human coolie labor is not competing with robotics. Here's an off-the-wall numerical example to illustrate my point: Suppose there's a task that gives you 1 million dollars gross revenue, and you have to spend 100,000 dollars to pay your labor force, and 50,000 dollars for management and other overhead, net profit 850,000 dollars. Alternately you could invest 500,000 dollars to develop robotics, which do the job for only 10,000 dollars of electricity and maintenance. Net profit drops to 490,000 dollars. CLearly robotics isn't cost effective compared to human labor, although in an absolute sense it isn't actually in the red. -- Now go into space with your process. Suppose it costs 200,000 dollars to launch your robotics, and 5 million dollars to launch an equivalent human labor force. Humans are complete cost-ineffective, you end up in the red, whereas robotics profit has dropped to 290,000 dollars, but now that 290,000 profit is the best you can do, so it is truly cost-effective, no other company using humans could wage a price war and knock you out, like they could on Earth if you were using robotics. The problem is, even though robotics is feasible in space, it's a risky venture and you can't afford to get started. -- Enter government. The US loans you 500,000 development cost, to be repaid gradually after you start reaping net profits from the process in space. Now on Earth it is cheaper (with government funding) to go robotics than humans, so you do it, and when you have the process developed the US loans you another 200,000 for the launch, so you go ahead with that too, and within a couple years from launch you start getting profits and start paying back your loan, within a couple more years you've paid it back and shown a net profit to boot. The figures are just handwaves. I have no idea of the true figures for lunar oxygen&titanium mining or any other task. This example is just a way of thinking about the actual figures. If actual figures are comparible (scaled up of course, more investment but more return), then government start-up funding on Earth leading to space would seem good.