davidra@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Rabson) (07/10/90)
Let me preface this by saying that among working astronomers and physicists, there is essentially no support at all for manned space exploration. The opinion here at Cornell is unanimous (correct me if I am mistaken) with regard to the space station, and I know of only one dissenter -- a planetary atmospheres specialist, Professor Sagan -- with regard to Mars. Even there, Professor Sagan's reasons for supporting a manned Mars mission are more political than scientific. When we began the Apollo program in the early 1960's, it was probably true that our computing and robotics technology was far from the point of being able to go to the Moon and return rocks. That no longer holds. My sources in robotics inform me that the field is poised for major developments, and given what I have seen, it is certainly plausible that a robot probe to Mars could accomplish everything proposed for manned missions. I would furthermore submit that even a third Viking probe, using early 1970's technology, could have greater scientific value than a manned mission with all the accompanying life-support diversions. I do not need to go into the likely cost of a manned mission, nor remind you how many Voyagers, Vikings, and Hubbles we could launch for the same price, or how astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and all the sciences will suffer if the project goes through. NASA has recently solicited proposals from the public for a manned mission to Mars, to be evaluated by RAND corporation. If you feel as I do, I urge you to call 800-677-7796 for a ``proposal kit,'' and to let RAND and NASA know that we would prefer to substitute an unmanned mission.
windley@cheetah.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley/20000000) (07/10/90)
In article <10518@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> davidra@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Rabson) writes:
When we began the Apollo program in the early 1960's, it was probably true
that our computing and robotics technology was far from the point of
being able to go to the Moon and return rocks. That no longer holds.
My sources in robotics inform me that the field is poised for major
developments, and given what I have seen, it is certainly plausible that
a robot probe to Mars could accomplish everything proposed for manned
missions.
While your conclusion is true, your assumptions are largely invalid. You
are assuming that the money not spent on a manned mission could be diverted
to other scientific endevors. Sadly, such is not the case. The reason
that a manned mission is necessary is ROMANCE. Scientists don't much care
for it (at least as far as their science goes), but the people (and
therefore Congress) live for it. Send a probe and you'll get 30 seconds on
the evening news. Send a manned mission and the world will be riveted to
their TV's. The means is greater than the ends.
--
Phil Windley | windley@cheetah.ucdavis.edu
Division of Computer Science | ucbvax!ucdavis!cheetah!windley
University of California, Davis |
Davis, CA 95616 | (916) 752-6452 (or 3168)gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (07/10/90)
Finally a post I can agree with 100%!!! Who needs man in space? The cost is astronomical (pun intended) and the return minimal. Man's greatest advantage over most robots is his highly advanced manipulative skills coupled with a wizbang computer. In a space suit, the manipulative ability is all but lost. There will certainly (I hope) be a time when establishing a permanent manned presence in space is called for, but now is not the time. gerry -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
loucks@intvax.UUCP (Cliff Loucks) (07/10/90)
From article <10518@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, by davidra@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Rabson):
If you feel as I do, I urge
> you to call
>
> 800-677-7796
>
> for a ``proposal kit,'' and to let RAND and NASA know that we would prefer to
> substitute an unmanned mission.
Since I work in robotics I would certainly like to see more sources
of funding. NASA does already fund significant robotics work at
various places; we are currently looking into NASA funding to apply
our model-based vision and force controlled robot systems to the
production of the combustion chamber of the shuttle main engines
(through Rockwell Rocketdyne).
But, I would still support a manned mission to Mars if, for no other
reason, it provided inspiration to all those American children to
pursue science and engineering in school. We've got to quit
loosing ground to the rest of the world in the area of education and
I think part of the problem is that children don't have the
motivation to want to get into science. A glamorous project like
a significant manned space mission could help with that motivation.
It's certainly true that the funding required for a manned mission
would hurt other fields of science; but I feel that at a global
level the inspirational benefits might outweigh the detriment to the
other fields of science.
--
A society is not civilized until it domesticates the icecube.
Cliff Loucks <=> loucks@intvax.UUCP
Sandia National Labs, Albuquerque, New Mexicogl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (07/11/90)
In article <9855@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >Finally a post I can agree with 100%!!! > >Who needs man in space? The cost is astronomical (pun intended) >and the return minimal. Man's greatest advantage over most robots >is his highly advanced manipulative skills coupled with a wizbang >computer. Another advantage is that men have brains. They make great tele-operators as long as they are close enough to the robot. While robotics research is moving forward, it still is quite a few years away from making a robot that can briskly stroll across the Martian landscape, noticing interesting things it should sample. -- "Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to." - Dan Bernstein
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (07/11/90)
In article <9855@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >Finally a post I can agree with 100%!!! >Who needs man in space? The cost is astronomical (pun intended) >and the return minimal. Man's greatest advantage over most robots >is his highly advanced manipulative skills coupled with a wizbang >computer. In a space suit, the manipulative ability is all but lost. >There will certainly (I hope) be a time when establishing a permanent >manned presence in space is called for, but now is not the time. this is foolishness... *WE* need men in space. Mankind cannot stay on this planet and hope to survive forever. We are already starting to feel the population pressures and also the economic pressures from the constant drain on non-renewable resources. Granted, there are many things a robot can do which man is not necessarily needed for. The deep-space probes we have been sending up over the past few years are prime examples, as are the planetary probes. But only man can colonize. One might well have asked if the was a need for a permanent human presence on the high seas in the 15th century (and earlier). That frontier was every bit as alien and hostile as the one we currently are exploring. You say there may someday be a need for a manned presence in space, but not now. I say, if not now, when? /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) (07/11/90)
What we need is to develop robots to do the kind of work we are not good
at in space, these include building and maintaining a space station, a
lunar station and mining planets or asteroids for minerals.
We need to have to robots go out and set up the environment for us to use.
The sooner the better.
Man/Woman should populate space, but not before it is ready to have us.
I believe we will get there much faster if we let the robots do all our
dirty work.
-pk
--
___________________________________________________
Home of Retired Hackers, Not yet baby...
HAL: there's a 98.6% chance the signal antenna will
fail in two hours. Can you please fix it dave.markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) (07/11/90)
In article <6907@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <9855@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >>Who needs man in space? The cost is astronomical (pun intended) >>and the return minimal. I tend to agree with this statement. The cost of putting men in space is far greater than the cost of unmanned probes, and while there are still hundreds of questions that can be answered by unmanned probes, it seems we can make effective use of our resources by concentrating on this practical, unglamourous, and incredibly useful aspect of space exploration. >*WE* need men in space. Mankind cannot stay on this planet and hope to >survive forever. We are already starting to feel the population pressures >and also the economic pressures from the constant drain on non-renewable >resources. The population pressures and economic pressures are not likely to go away when we can begin to exploit space. As a matter of fact, I tend to believe (speculation hat on) that population will always be a problem as long as the speed of light remains a barrier. Growth is inherently geometric in nature, and there just aren't that many nice places to go within your lifetime. The only cure for our lack of non-renewable resources is to conserve them, not to find other places to pillage them from. Your statement about mankind not surviving forever is also melodramatic. If you mean we can't all drive Cadillac's and chop out the Amazon Basin to build a parking lot while dumping crude oil in the ocean and breeding like flies, you are correct. One might hope that we will gain in wisdom enough to prevent such catastrophes. >Granted, there are many things a robot can do which man is not necessarily >needed for. The deep-space probes we have been sending up over the >past few years are prime examples, as are the planetary probes. But only >man can colonize. And it is not yet feasible and cost effective for mankind to colonize space. We are not talking about moving to an environment that is good for colonization. We are talking about moving to an environment that is 100% deadly to mankind. The risks and hence the costs are high, and the payoff is relatively small, at least in the current state of technology. >One might well have asked if the was a need for a permanent human presence on >the high seas in the 15th century (and earlier). That frontier was every >bit as alien and hostile as the one we currently are exploring. The number of adventurers was certainly small compared to the population of the world, and it was many hundreds of years before travel by ship became reliable and relatively safe. It required solving problems of food storage, nutrition, navigation, ship design and propulsion. The problems associated with making a lasting presence is space make each of these look like child's play. >You say there may someday be a need for a manned presence in space, but not >now. I say, if not now, when? Very simply, when it makes economic sense to have men in space. I am unaware of any venture in space that requires manned probes. When we have licked various problems with space travel, and it becomes as feasible as say aircraft travel, with comparable risks, then it will be time for man to colonize space, and use it for commercial benefit. Mark
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (07/11/90)
In article <6907@eos.UUCP>, woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: > *WE* need men in space. Mankind cannot stay on this planet and hope to > survive forever. We are already starting to feel the population pressures > and also the economic pressures from the constant drain on non-renewable > resources. You assume that only Government can put persons in space. But that's not true. So cutting out that part of NASA's budget used solely to 'upgrade' from unmanned to manned exploration would *not* mean the end of manned space trips, just those the taxpayers get pinched for. Jeff -- "Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (07/11/90)
In article <#*S$G+&@ads.com> pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) writes:
--What we need is to develop robots to do the kind of work we are not good
--at in space, these include building and maintaining a space station, a
--lunar station and mining planets or asteroids for minerals.
--
--We need to have to robots go out and set up the environment for us to use.
--The sooner the better.
--
--Man/Woman should populate space, but not before it is ready to have us.
--
--I believe we will get there much faster if we let the robots do all our
--dirty work.
*&^ SUPER FLAME ON **(&*&*((*
Your type is why we have a stinking, lousy educational system now!
Set back and let someone else do the dirty work indeed! If this
attitude had been present in the 15-1600's the american indians would
probably be a lot happier but where would the world be today.
Sit back and let someone else do the dirty work is why Japan is
buying our country out from under us as we speak.
Sit back and let someone else do the dirty work has always been the
cry of the rich and affluent. Look at every once great civilization
just prior to there downfall.
Develop the robotic technology, but use it a tool, not as a replacement
for the human next to it.
*&^ FLAME OFF **(&*&*((*
Have a nice COMFORTABLE day.
Monty Saineear@wpi.wpi.edu (Eric A Rasmussen) (07/12/90)
In article <1170@idunno.Princeton.EDU> markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) writes: >In article <6907@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >>In article <9855@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >>One might well have asked if the was a need for a permanent human presence on >>the high seas in the 15th century (and earlier). That frontier was every >>bit as alien and hostile as the one we currently are exploring. > The number of adventurers was certainly small compared to the > population of the world, and it was many hundreds of years before > travel by ship became reliable and relatively safe. It required > solving problems of food storage, nutrition, navigation, ship > design and propulsion. The problems associated with making a lasting > presence is space make each of these look like child's play. So how exactly are we supposed to solve these kinds of problems if we are sitting on our thumbs? I suppose that had Christopher Columbus asked you for funding you would have turned him down? The only way to make space a safe place for humans is for humans to go there and study the effects of zero-gravity, living in a confined area, etc. for prolonged periods. >>You say there may someday be a need for a manned presence in space, but not >>now. I say, if not now, when? > > Very simply, when it makes economic sense to have men in space. > I am unaware of any venture in space that requires manned probes. > When we have licked various problems with space travel, and it becomes > as feasible as say aircraft travel, with comparable risks, then it > will be time for man to colonize space, and use it for commercial > benefit. When it makes economic sense?!? That's like saying we'll start to reduce CFC output when it costs more to buy a year's supply of heavy duty sunscreen than it does to buy a year's supply of hair spray. Also, you are obviously overlooking the very real possibilities of factories in space. There are many things that you can build in space that you just can't build on earth because of gravity. Whole new technologies will emerge as people/companies realize the benefits and possibilities of zero-g manufacturing. Factories in space are going to require robots AND humans to man them, and the technology to keep them going up there has to be developed sometime. Don't think scientists are the only ones with an interest in space! Learn to realize that the world doesn't center around you. If we in the U.S. don't commit to a strong and serious space program which includes manned space travel, we are just giving up on another market which the Asian and European countries will once again find it easy to dominate. Please try to stop thinking short term. Whole new technologies will emerge, or infant ones will be given a large boost, as resources are funneled into the space program. Where do you think computers came from? Sure there were computers around before the flight to the moon, but it was the goverment who gave them a real push into the future. Who here thinks the old clunkers such as ENIAC were economically worth it? I don't, but the knowledge gained from building them was certainly worth it. Now what were we supposed to be talking about? Oh yeah, this is a robotics board. I realize this message doesn't help, but can we take the political- correctness-of-man-in-space talk somewhere else? +---------< Eric A. Rasmussen - Mr. Neat-O (tm) >---------+ +< Email Address >+ | A real engineer never reads the instructions first. | | ear@wpi.wpi.edu | | (They figure out how it works by playing with it.) | | ear%wpi@wpi.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+ ((( In Stereo Where Available )))
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (07/12/90)
In article <848@sagpd1.UUCP>, monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: > In article <#*S$G+&@ads.com> pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) writes: > --What we need is to develop robots to do the kind of work we are not good > --at in space, these include building and maintaining a space station, a > --lunar station and mining planets or asteroids for minerals. > -- > --We need to have to robots go out and set up the environment for us to use. > --The sooner the better. > -- > --Man/Woman should populate space, but not before it is ready to have us. > -- > --I believe we will get there much faster if we let the robots do all our > --dirty work. > > *&^ SUPER FLAME ON **(&*&*((* > > Your type is why we have a stinking, lousy educational system now! > > Set back and let someone else do the dirty work indeed! If this > attitude had been present in the 15-1600's the american indians would > probably be a lot happier but where would the world be today. > Sit back and let someone else do the dirty work is why Japan is > buying our country out from under us as we speak. > Sit back and let someone else do the dirty work has always been the > cry of the rich and affluent. Look at every once great civilization > just prior to there downfall. Actually, the posting did *not* say "let someone else do the dirty work" -- it said "let machines do the dirty work". This attitude is why we have technology in the first place ... or would you want your colonists to *walk* to other worlds? It's a tad odd to knock someone for wanting to use machines if your own plan is 100% dependent on them. Jeff -- "Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (07/12/90)
I seem to have started things so let me continue: There has been obe comment which needs to be refuted, and that was the comment about the Moon being closer to the Earth than the New World was to Chris. Consider this, though, that we have only sent pairs of men to the moon, not shiploads full. I contend that the distance comparison is NOT valid because of the numbers of individuals involved. To comment about money, etc: Someone said that NASA spends a lot on Robotics. But what is a lot? We have a large NASA contract, but it is less than $2M/year. The total NASA budget for Robotics is probably less than $50M/year (does anyone have the real numbers?) The estimate (and keep in mind that all NASA estimates always fall FAR short of reality) is $30B. This is enough funding to sponser all Robotics related work for most of a century! Now, don't get me wrong. I think that man DOES belong in space. Hopefully, our descendants will be able to walk freely on the surface of Mars (or some other neighbor of ours). However, considering NASA's recent track record and diminishing public support, I feel that the small budget that NASA has is better spent doing robotics. Putting man in space will not be economically feasible until NASA has some competition. Finally, about the comment of a glamour mission to Mars to spark the kids: This is similar to motivating kids to emulate great athletes. Very few individuals make it t the top in sports or as astronauts. Rather, sending advanced robotic technology can urge them on to become a team player for one of these projects, a goal which is much more easily achieved. -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
mccoy@ils.nwu.edu (Jim McCoy) (07/13/90)
In article <C9L44E8@xds8.ferranti.com>, jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: > In article <6907@eos.UUCP>, woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: > > > *WE* need men in space. Mankind cannot stay on this planet and hope to > > survive forever. We are already starting to feel the population pressures > > and also the economic pressures from the constant drain on non-renewable > > resources. > > > You assume that only Government can put persons in space. But that's > not true. So cutting out that part of NASA's budget used solely > to 'upgrade' from unmanned to manned exploration would *not* mean the > end of manned space trips, just those the taxpayers get pinched for. Right now government is the only thing that can afford to. Why not have all these private companies fund research into robotics, considering the fact that they will not be able to do manned missions for a _long_ time. jim ------------------------------< Jim McCoy >------------------------------------ mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | "Those whom the gods would destroy, mccoy@ils.nwu.edu | they first make mad... #include <disclaimer.h> | -Sophocles -----------------------<"To thine own self be true">--------------------------
pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) (07/13/90)
In article <848@sagpd1.UUCP> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: >In article <#*S$G+&@ads.com> pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) writes: >--What we need is to develop robots to do the kind of work we are not good >--at in space, these include building and maintaining a space station, a >--lunar station and mining planets or asteroids for minerals. >-- >--We need to have to robots go out and set up the environment for us to use. >--The sooner the better. >-- >--Man/Woman should populate space, but not before it is ready to have us. >-- >--I believe we will get there much faster if we let the robots do all our >--dirty work. > >*&^ SUPER FLAME ON **(&*&*((* > > Your type is why we have a stinking, lousy educational system now! > > Set back and let someone else do the dirty work indeed! If this > attitude had been present in the 15-1600's the american indians would > probably be a lot happier but where would the world be today. > Sit back and let someone else do the dirty work is why Japan is > buying our country out from under us as we speak. > Sit back and let someone else do the dirty work has always been the > cry of the rich and affluent. Look at every once great civilization > just prior to there downfall. > > Develop the robotic technology, but use it a tool, not as a replacement > for the human next to it. > >*&^ FLAME OFF **(&*&*((* > >Have a nice COMFORTABLE day. > >Monty Saine Look buddy, This is the first time I have ever gotten flamed, alas Super Flamed, for what I consider a good idea. The reason why our country has a lousy educational system has noting to do with what I am saying, yes parents should be more involved in the childerns education, but that is another story altogether. Let me ask you a question, -Do you want to go out in space every day for countless years with a wrench in hand turning nuts to create a space platform. OR Would you rather have a robot do the unpleasentness of doing this menianl labor. -Would you like to work in a moon coal mine 3 miles below the surface digging out minerals to manafacture steel to create some shelter. And since you would be the first explores on the moon, you would have to live in a small space ship for the years it would take you to create something big enough to be productive in. OR Would you rather have some robots do all the DIRTY work and when the shelter has been built, then you can come and inhabit the place. Our job is to build the technology, robots, and let them do the work we don't want. Not do all the work for ourselves and waste 100 years in the process. I think you had better go back and think before you blindly accuse people of murders they did not commit. Sincerly, Pat Kenny P.S. I do take great offense in you remark about education, because to me that is my top most prority. -- ___________________________________________________ Home of Retired Hackers, Not yet baby... HAL: there's a 98.6% chance the signal antenna will fail in two hours. Can you please fix it dave.
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (07/13/90)
In article <$}T$X6&@ads.com=> pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) writes:
=> Let me ask you a question,
=> -Do you want to go out in space every day for countless years with a wrench
=> in hand turning nuts to create a space platform.
yes...
=> OR
=> Would you rather have a robot do the unpleasentness of doing this
=> menianl labor.
menial it may be, but if i'm going to be the one whose life depends
on it i'd rather be there doing it. of course ideally i'd be using
tools somewhat more sophisticated than a wrench...
=> -Would you like to work in a moon coal mine 3 miles below the surface digging
=> out minerals to manafacture steel to create some shelter. And since you
=> would be the first explores on the moon, you would have to live in a small
=> space ship for the years it would take you to create something big enough
=> to be productive in.
=> OR
=> Would you rather have some robots do all the DIRTY work and when the shelter
=> has been built, then you can come and inhabit the place.
=>
why not just seal the tunnel?
=>Our job is to build the technology, robots, and let them do the work we don't
=>want. Not do all the work for ourselves and waste 100 years in the process.
=>
progress of any type is not a waste... it just may not be progress along the
lines you had in mind.
=>I think you had better go back and think before you blindly accuse people
=>of murders they did not commit.
=>
i saw no mention of murders...
=>
=>P.S. I do take great offense in you remark about education, because to me that
=> is my top most prority.
no problem... it one of Prez. Bush's also... :-)
/*** woody ****************************************************************
*** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... ***
*** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd ***
****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/hoford@grasp.cis.upenn.edu (John D Hoford) (07/13/90)
In article <9881@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >Someone said that NASA spends a lot on Robotics. But what is a lot? >We have a large NASA contract, but it is less than $2M/year. The >total NASA budget for Robotics is probably less than $50M/year (does >anyone have the real numbers?) The estimate (and keep in mind that >all NASA estimates always fall FAR short of reality) is $30B. This >is enough funding to sponser all Robotics related work for most of >a century! > But what percent of the "$30B" is going into items related to maned space travel. I would gess a large amount goes into things that are used in maned and unmaned travel. A cost analysis of man v. robot is not this simple. John.
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (07/13/90)
In article <A:L44S1@xds8.ferranti.com> jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: > --I believe we will get there much faster if we let the robots do all our > --dirty work. >Actually, the posting did *not* say "let someone else do the dirty >work" -- it said "let machines do the dirty work". This attitude ^^^^^^^^^^ >is why we have technology in the first place ... or would you want >your colonists to *walk* to other worlds? It's a tad odd to knock >someone for wanting to use machines if your own plan is 100% >dependent on them. My point was to NOT to be 100% dependent on machines. I was and still am upset about the "couch potato" mentality that feels we can sit back and not take risks and still progress. Every achivement in our society has been gained by not being afraid to take that extra step. I said use the robots as tools but do not depend on them to do it all for you. Not using machines would have left Colombus swimming off the coast of Europe, but also, he did not wait for the Queen Mary to be built before he ventured out. I would very much indeed want our colonists to WALK on other worlds, barefoot if possible (since that is what you seem to be implying). Better to lose a foot then lose your drive and ambition! Monty Saine
buck@drax.gsfc.nasa.gov (Loren (Buck) Buchanan) (07/13/90)
Hi All,
My feelings on the subject line (are of course highly biased) is that
there should more funds for the entire unmanned portions of NASA (but
don't take any away from the manned programs). The "Peace Dividend" is
one of the places money could come from.
B Cing U
Buck
Loren Buchanan | buck@drax.gsfc.nasa.gov | #include <std_disclaimer.h>
CSC, 1100 West St. | ...!ames!dftsrv!drax!buck | typedef int by
Laurel, MD 20707 | (301) 497-2531 | void where_prohibited(by law){}
CD International lists over 40,000 pop music CDs, collect the whole set.hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (07/13/90)
~Sigh~ I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later -- our first
flame war.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is supposed to be a technical group. Please
move the philosophical debate elsewhere (sci.space?) and the ad hominem
attacks to alt.flame.
Thank you.
Technical note:
The deadline for entry in the Robot Olympics is approaching (July 31st).
Those interested should contact:
Paul Grant
The Turing Institute
George House
36 North Hanover Street
Glasgow G1 2AD
UK
e-mail: paul@turing.ac.uk
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)
Citicorp(+)TTI Illegitimis non
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Carborundum
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombecmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/14/90)
In article <$}T$X6&@ads.com> pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) writes: > Let me ask you a question, > -Do you want to go out in space every day for countless years with a wrench > in hand turning nuts to create a space platform. ? > -Would you like to work in a moon coal mine 3 miles below the surface digging > out minerals to manafacture steel to create some shelter. And since you > would be the first explores on the moon, you would have to live in a small > space ship for the years it would take you to create something big enough > to be productive in.? Wrong question but I'll throw in my .02. This question (like most) has a simple opinion based answer and raises some other difficult to answer question. The opinion based answer (in this case based on my opinion) is that if by doing the manual labor Man will be on the moon in this decade rather than in the next or maybe the decade after that, I'll go today. Other questions this one raises : Consider for the moment that it is already very difficult to teach robots to do something you or I can do today, in conditions we can experience today. Attempting to design a robot that can construct a space station is an order of magnitude more complex because no human has ever constructed a space station in space and so there is no one to ask things like "what is the most efficient way to move from beam to beam?" The current state of robotics is such that we are almost able to teach a robot to do something "we" as humans are already completely familiar with, we are no where close to being able to teach a robot to go into a situation that we can only speculate about and learn how to do something. Further, since the final test will undoubtedly involve sending it up and trying it out, are you willing to bet that you can debug a robot assembler in few enough less expensive manned flights to be more cost effective than one possibly two manned flights? In my opinion it is much more rational to send a human up to build a space station, then have her come back and help train robots to do it, (who then build 10 more). -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/14/90)
In article <2787@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> (Loren (Buck) Buchanan) writes: > The "Peace Dividend" is one of the places money could come from. #define FLAME_ON THERE IS NO FRIGGING "PEACE DIVIDEND"! Our government is spending more than they squeeze out of us, so Gorby helps us build the national debt more slowly, BFD! The only "Peace Dividend" possible are the billions we spend every year to pay interest on that monster. Pay of the debt _then_ you have a dividend (the old interest payments) that you can spend on something else. Until then, there isn't anything to spend. #endif -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (07/14/90)
In article <138874@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >#define FLAME_ON >THERE IS NO FRIGGING "PEACE DIVIDEND"! Gee, and here I thought that was comp.robotics... In reply to your posting about using robots to build a space station in earth orbit -- there is no reason why the only choice is building an autonomous robot to do this. The current plans for the US space station, for example, include a robot arm which one hopes can be run from the ground, so it can be a 24-hour-a-day worker that never gets tired. Also, one of the plans for a Mars mission involved putting humans in orbit of mars, teleoperating robots on the surface. The robotics people seem to be able to build some very impressive hardware already, but the software lags a bit behind the humen kind. -- "Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to." - Dan Bernstein
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (07/14/90)
In article <854@sagpd1.UUCP>, monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: > In article <A:L44S1@xds8.ferranti.com> jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > --I believe we will get there much faster if we let the robots do all our > > --dirty work. > > >Actually, the posting did *not* say "let someone else do the dirty > >work" -- it said "let machines do the dirty work". This attitude > ^^^^^^^^^^ > >is why we have technology in the first place ... or would you want > >your colonists to *walk* to other worlds? It's a tad odd to knock > >someone for wanting to use machines if your own plan is 100% > >dependent on them. > > My point was to NOT to be 100% dependent on machines. I was and still > am upset about the "couch potato" mentality that feels we can sit back > and not take risks and still progress. Every achivement in our society > has been gained by not being afraid to take that extra step. I said use > the robots as tools but do not depend on them to do it all for you. Well, that "couch potato mentality" could save billions for the individuals from whom the monies are taken ... the taxpayers. And if robots make the way safer first, then the public hesitation on space exploration will be reduced. > > Not using machines would have left Colombus swimming off the coast of > Europe, but also, he did not wait for the Queen Mary to be built before > he ventured out. I would very much indeed want our colonists to WALK > on other worlds, barefoot if possible (since that is what you seem to > be implying). Better to lose a foot then lose your drive and ambition! > I didn't ask if you wanted folks to walk ON other worlds -- I asked if you wanted folks to walk TO other worlds ... in other words, Humans won't get out in space without technology. Jeff > > > Monty Saine -- "Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (07/17/90)
I'd hoped this would go away if ignored. I see it won't (and I hate
waiting for kill files to cycle through). This is a second attempt to
pour some water on the flames.
NASA is in charge of all our manned space exploration. That's their job.
Any robotics involved is strictly as support for the human crews.
Our unmanned space effort is run by JPL. That's their job. They compete
with NASA for funding. They do a _lot_ more robotics research.
If you want more robots in space, lobby for more funding for JPL projects.
Asking NASA to do it is like asking the National Endowment for the Arts to
fund low income housing. It's not their job. Pestering them about it
will only piss them off.
Now, may we _please_ get back to discussing "what is" and "what could be"
and move "what should be" to sci.space?
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)
Citicorp(+)TTI Illegitimis non
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Carborundum
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombegerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (07/17/90)
In his post, Chuck states that we have a hard time teaching robots to do things we do easily. This is true. However, those things which we do well were DESIGNED such that we can do them well. The same applies to robots. A succesfull design for a space station, etc, will be one which will allow robots to assemble/repair it. -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (07/17/90)
In article <18608@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: > >Our unmanned space effort is run by JPL. That's their job. They compete >with NASA for funding. They do a _lot_ more robotics research. JPL does not COMPETE with NASA for funding. (I worked there...) JPL is one of the NASA centers, although they are different from the others due to historical reasons. Each of the NASA centers tries to get a piece of the NASA pie. And yes, each center does have an area for which they are noted. JPL is not the only center working on robotics. In typical governemental stupidity, NASA has robotics work proceeding at several centers. This does not allow the appropriate people to work together. Also, because of limited budgets, each center tries to prove that they should get money. Therefore, a great amount of time is spent geting demos tweaked to prove things work, and answering bureaucratic nonsense to ensure a steady stream of funding into the center. Basically, the above was a flame of NASA... it just slipped out. Based my my experience, and some estimation, probably less than 25% of the money spent by NASA (at their centers) is actually used to advance robotics. -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
abp@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (Andrew B Philips) (07/18/90)
In article <9935@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: > JPL does not COMPETE with NASA for funding. (I worked there...) > JPL is one of the NASA centers, although they are different from > the others due to historical reasons. > In typical > governemental stupidity, NASA has robotics work proceeding > at several centers. This does not allow the appropriate people > to work together. This is true about JPL not competing. JPL is viewed as the center for robotics at NASA. Also, NASA does a lot of work at other centers (like Ames) with unmanned space probes (Voyagers, Pioneers, etc) which are robots in a sense! I am currently working at NASA Ames in the area of AI and we have pushed very strongly to connect with other centers doing robitics like JPL and Langley. Most of the people we speak with are willing to work with us, so, at least in our case, intercenter distances has not prevented communication. > gerry roston, field robotics center :Andy Philips, Sterling Federal Systems, NASA Ames Research Center These opinions are mine solely, and do not reflect those of NASA or the government. -- =========================================================== = Andy Philips = "Life is a fatal, sexually = = abp@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov = transmitted disease" = ===========================================================
kas@cs.aber.ac.uk (Kevin Sharp) (07/18/90)
I'd like to make two points. One for either side of this argument.
1) If manned space flight is seen as valuable for seducing the young
into science, is robotics not able to compete? Personally I find the
idea of creating autonomous intelligent machines far more exciting
than taking a space flight. I'm sure that I'm not unique in this view.
2) In comparing the cost of human life with that of a machine it's as
well to remember that there's no problem finding volunteer astronauts.
The calls to ban manned space flight on account of the danger to
individuals amounts to gross protectionism. Such an attitude is
extremely patronizing towards those who are willing to risk their
lives for experience of traveling outside the Earth's atmosphere.
--
--
Kevin Sharp, UUCP : {WALES}!ukc!aber-cs!kas
AI and Robotics Research Group, JANET: kas@uk.ac.aber.cs
Department of Computer Science, PHONE: +44 970 622450
University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, UK. SY23 3BZhollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (07/19/90)
Well, I've once more demonstrated my ability to place my foot securely in
my mouth. (Kids, don't try this at home. I've had years of practice).
Thanks to those who wrote to correct my misunderstandings about the
relationship between JPL and NASA. That you did so as calmly and politely
as you did says great things about this group (didn't even singe my
eybrows). I apologise for posting misinformation.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)
Citicorp(+)TTI Illegitimis non
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Carborundum
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombejeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (jeff daiell) (07/19/90)
In article <KAS.90Jul18175627@casandra.cs.aber.ac.uk>, kas@cs.aber.ac.uk (Kevin Sharp) writes: > I'd like to make two points. One for either side of this argument. > > > 2) In comparing the cost of human life with that of a machine it's as > well to remember that there's no problem finding volunteer astronauts. > The calls to ban manned space flight on account of the danger to > individuals amounts to gross protectionism. No one has called for a *ban* on manned space flight, only for an end to NASA manned space flight, at least until it's safer. This would in no way preclude private firms from manned space exploration, were they not also smart enough to send a machine to test the waters before risking a Human. > Such an attitude is > extremely patronizing towards those who are willing to risk their > lives for experience of traveling outside the Earth's atmosphere. Their willingness in no way obliges the taxpayers to pick up the tab for their 'experience'. Jeff -- "...the American dream, in recent years the object of much denigration even within our own borders, turns out to have been the world's dream, as well." -- Louis Rukeyser on events in Eastern Europe
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (07/19/90)
In article <KAS.90Jul18175627@casandra.cs.aber.ac.uk> kas@cs.aber.ac.uk (Kevin Sharp) writes: >2) In comparing the cost of human life with that of a machine it's as >well to remember that there's no problem finding volunteer astronauts. >The calls to ban manned space flight on account of the danger to >individuals amounts to gross protectionism. Such an attitude may or may not be protectionism, bt it is certainly realism. While the death of the astronaut may not be of major concern to him (Heck, he volunteered didn't he?), the affect on the public is tremendous, especially given that our media tends to blow such things way out of proportion. Do you want a simple prediction: If there is another shuttle accident involving the loss of life within the next 2-3 years, it will be a decade before NASA launches another man into space... if at all. -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
crs@lambda.UUCP (Charlie Sorsby) (07/20/90)
In article <9954@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: > In article <KAS.90Jul18175627@casandra.cs.aber.ac.uk> kas@cs.aber.ac.uk (Kevin Sharp) writes: > to him (Heck, he volunteered didn't he?), the affect on the public is > tremendous, especially given that our media tends to blow such things > way out of proportion. Yep! Compare the media "coverage" of the 3 astronauts killed with that of the 40 to 50 *thousand* killed in motor vehicles *each year*. This is a simplistic comparison if one considers only absolute numbers of participants. Consider it in terms of participant-miles and it becomes, I believe, rather less simplistic. Best, Charlie Sorsby "I'm the NRA!" crs@lanl.gov sorsby@pprg.unm.edu