dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (02/09/86)
The Feb. 10 issue of Newsweek mentions Thomas Paine (chairman of the National Commission on Space). He was going to mail the first draft of the commission's report to the White House on the day of the disaster. According to Newsweek, the report would have recommended that NASA build an unmanned cargo launcher capable of lifting payload into orbit at $200/lb (is this the much discussed Heavy Lift Vehicle?) and work on either a second generation shuttle or a transatmospheric vehicle, with a five year competition between the systems at the beginning of development (the winner comes on line around 2000). The shuttle disaster may modify these plans; the commission may recommend speeding the development of the new launchers (clap clap). Teleoperators: I'm still convinced teleoperators are going to be vital for high orbit and lunar applications, but their superiority is debatable (or dubious) for some low orbit applications (especially those that can be performed inside a space station). I'm also convinced that using men in space doesn't make much sense until launch costs are reduced (except to practice for the day when they are reduced). I think the shuttle arm and experience on earth with unmanned submarines demonstrates that for *some applications* teleoperators are superior, and my gut feeling is that many or most applications in space will be of this type. Just how many is something I have to admit I can't answer now. Space station: If and when that $200/lb launcher gets going space manufacturing is really going to start making sense. Should construction of the space station be delayed until this cheap launcher is available, or should the full station be built with the shuttle? More likely (and sensible) is to build a small prototype station with the shuttle to get our feet wet, then expand it when the cheap launcher comes on line.
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (02/10/86)
Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? Actually, Paul, I've been holding out on you a little; in some sense, it should be easier for robots to work in space than on earth. Since there's no atmospheric resistance or gravity in orbit, the results of any action will be easy to calculate; and since (in general) the putative robot will be working in a vacuum, it shouldn't have the earthbound robot's problem of the cluttered workbench. Of course, there are other (more serious) problems, some of them unique to space. Be of good cheer. In general, teleoperators are going to make much more sense in space than on earth. Fortunately, I suspect that we're going to see a revolution in teleoperators Real Soon Now. DARPA's Strategic Computing Initiative is trying to develop robot tanks. Pretty soon, it's going to dawn on those guys that AI just hasn't got it. And then some other bright laddy is going to point out to the DARPA folks that a teleoperated tank is just as good as a robot tank, and then we'll have a big emphasis on real-time programming, hard communications, and linkages -- which is what I think we ought to be doing instead of wasting time and monay on AI... -- Rick.