dep@k.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) (02/03/86)
<>
The Challenger disaster has raised the manned vs. unmanned debate to
new heights. More people than ever are beginning to wonder whether we really
should be sending men and women into space. Perhaps, they wonder, we should
wait until it is safer. After all, Voyager shows that people don't really need
to send people into space. Right?
WRONG!
Voyager didn't prove anything. All it had to do was sit and watch the
greatest show in the solar system. People have done and will be (hopefully!)
doing far more difficult jobs (repairing satellites, producing new medicines,
etc.).
Now, and for the forseeable future, people are needed in space to repair
satellites and to conduct 'shotgun' research (conducting a wide variety of
experiments where the astronaut is responsible for setting the experiments
up). The technology to have waldos (mechanical arms which are controlled
from the ground) do any but the simplest of these jobs simply isn't there.
Consider:
o The best waldos available today have little, if any, feedback. This
means that jobs which are easy to do by hand are difficult, if not
impossible to do with a waldo.
o The best mechanical 'hands' available today are crude, not having
anywhere near the flexibility of a human hand (even one encased in a
heavy glove).
o Any waldo used in space will have to be controlled by a radio link.
But, NASA no longer has world-wide radio coverage. This means that
either:
The waldo is used for only the 15-30 minutes out of each
orbit it is in radio contact.
The commands to the waldo are relayed through a satellite
in geosynchronous orbit. This may not be practical, since
it means that there will be a 1/2 second delay due to
speed of light lag.
Using robots to do repair work is even farther in the future than using
waldos. With the technology available today, it is considered a major
accomplishment to just have a robot pick the right tool up, much less use
it correctly.
'Shotgun' research is just as, if not more, valuable than repairing
satellites. Consider how expensive it would be to send design a payload that
will take a picture of Halley's comet. It was much less expensive to simply
hand a camera to one of the astronaughts and ask him or her to take the picture.
A lot of important research that has been done on the space shuttle would
have simply been too expensive to do before we began routinely sending
people into orbit.
Cost has always been the bottom line. Having people in orbit has allowed
us to recover two satellites, repair two satellites and perform an incredible
amount of research. Without people in orbit, these missions would either have
been impossible, or far more expensive. In the long run, because of their
ability to perform research cheaply and their to fix things when they go wrong
(Columbia, the satellite you just launched isn't working. Could someone go out
and kick it? :-), manned launches will be cheaper than unmanned ones.
As for waiting until space travel is safer...space travel will never
be perfectly safe (but, neither will driving to work). Obviously we should
try to make it as safe as possible. But when is it safe enough? A reasonable
answer would be: that it is safe enough when there are people willing to do
it. Even following the Challenger disaster, there is no shortage of people
willing to work in space. I say: let's give them the chance.
[I realize I may be preaching to the converted...but I'm planning to send
a similar letter to Ronnie and would like all the feedback I can get]
--David Pugh
dep@k.cs.cmu.edu
BTW: For those who haven't written to the President yet, here's his
address:
President Ronald Reagan
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Now you have no excuse...start writting!jlg@lanl.UUCP (02/04/86)
In article <740@k.cs.cmu.edu> dep@k.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: > As for waiting until space travel is safer...space travel will never >be perfectly safe (but, neither will driving to work). Obviously we should >try to make it as safe as possible. But when is it safe enough? A reasonable >answer would be: that it is safe enough when there are people willing to do >it. Even following the Challenger disaster, there is no shortage of people >willing to work in space. I say: let's give them the chance. It is safe enough when people want to go AND government or private industry want to risk the capital to build the equipment. I agree with you though, it seems safe enough to me right now. The problem is to convince the money people. J. Giles Los Alamos
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/05/86)
In the manned vs. unmanned debate, a lot of argument has passed back
and forth about feasibility, mobility, etc. For me, the primary
reason that robots (at least current technology) could not replace
humans is that they cannot *think*. By this I mean they have no
powers of free association -- of insight -- wherein true steps in
knowledge (forward and backward -- look at history) may be taken.
True, a robot held camera probably doesn't wiggle as much -- but it
also doesn't have the instantaneous capacity for -- "Hey, look over
there!" And I've yet to meet an inventive machine.
There are a lot of things that can be bound and measured -- but
there are as many, if not more, elements that are *unconsciously*
measured by humans in the 'simple' matter of existing.
Machines do what they do, and do it fairly well. They are no replacement
for humans, however. Manned space exploration *MUST* continue. (Just
think how much more we might have discovered if HUMANS had been sent to
Mars -- in terms of impulse, mobility, and serendipity.) Pictures and
data are nice -- but they aren't nearly as helpful as being there. And
I want to *be* there -- I want humankind to *be* there.
We dare not put all our eggs in one basket. Unmanned missions will
continue (I'm not real thrilled about sending humans into the Venusian
and Jupiteran atmospheres -- at least not yet). But so must manned.
Otherwise we'll be a one-legged man -- getting around all right, but
not nearly as well as we could.
That's my fifty-cents worth.
Barb
------
You will do foolish things . . .
. . . so do them with enthusiasm!
-- Colette