Putting men into space is costly (at least initially). Can we use robots to
do the job for us?

.. We also have the problem that no one knows how to design an efficient
CELSS that will keep humans alive. This could turn out to be a bigger
problem (till it is solved) than any other issue.

If we use robots, may be the economics of the whole thing may become more
manageable.

Instead of having a human lunar colony for instance, why not start with a
robotic lunar colony.

Modest facilities to set the ball rolling:

1. A materials processing unit of 100 tonne capacity / year

2. A machine shop capable of processing 100 tonne / year

3. An assembly shop capable of assembling 100 tonne of components / year

Once we have the above established and running we can forget 'Earthly'
economics.

Use the above facility to create less modest facilities to process 10,000
tonnes / year .... and so on.

Use similar strategy to expand into the rest of the solar system.

(May be, for setting up solar powered satellites in orbit around earth, this
strategy will yield quick results. Creating space habitats for humans will
be more demanding. In either case, the key strategy is to start small and
use robots to scale up, without any transfer of $$$ from Earth. )

Regards,

Selvaraj

Yes! Exactly.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:

I don't think robots are quite there yet. If they were,
you'd see such set-ups on Earth. But robots can certainly
be multipliers. You can build a Moon base with twenty
people and a bunch of robots, and get more work done than
five hundred people without the robots.*

I like robots, really I do, but I don't think they're quite
there yet. And since I want lots of PEOPLE in Space, that's
A-OK with me.

* 20 and 500 are guesses; if it's actually 15 and 1,000 or
50 and 500, well whatever. Let's just get the machinery and
however many people it takes and start already!

Sending robots into space is costly,too!

Do you have a personal robot yet? The group I have seen using these devices the most so far is the military. For some reason, they can afford it.

If we ever get around to colonizing space openly, I am sure robots will play a big part. They can be built to stand up to off-planet conditions a lot better than humans.

But if you want a cheap, fairly workable way to EXPLORE space, I suggest getting more people to develop the ability to go exterior (out of body). You heard me right. People are learning to do it. If all you want to do is go and look, then leave your body in bed, and just go look. I know I am oversimplifying the process, but it's no joke. People have been doing it for a long time, and more could learn how. You can learn to do it awake in a session, like the remote viewers, or by various other methods where your body does not participate as much.

It's a good, energy-efficient exploratory method. It just needs more people to master it.

Of course, the ramifications of this need to be further explored. But it seems like a more realistic approach to the problem than raising billions of dollars for a space launch and off-planet habitat.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:

Are you seriously advancing the idea that we should use astral projection to explore space instead of men and machines?

From: l_ed_cox
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:47 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: : Robotics for conquest of space

Sending robots into space is costly,too!

Do you have a personal robot yet? The group I have seen using these devices the most so far is the military. For some reason, they can afford it.

If we ever get around to colonizing space openly, I am sure robots will play a big part. They can be built to stand up to off-planet conditions a lot better than humans.

But if you want a cheap, fairly workable way to EXPLORE space, I suggest getting more people to develop the ability to go exterior (out of body). You heard me right. People are learning to do it. If all you want to do is go and look, then leave your body in bed, and just go look. I know I am oversimplifying the process, but it's no joke. People have been doing it for a long time, and more could learn how. You can learn to do it awake in a session, like the remote viewers, or by various other methods where your body does not participate as much.

It's a good, energy-efficient exploratory method. It just needs more people to master it.

Of course, the ramifications of this need to be further explored. But it seems like a more realistic approach to the problem than raising billions of dollars for a space launch and off-planet habitat.

--- In mailto:spacesettlers%40yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:

> I don't think robots are quite there yet. If they were,
> you'd see such set-ups on Earth. But robots can certainly
> be multipliers. You can build a Moon base with twenty
> people and a bunch of robots, and get more work done than
> five hundred people without the robots.*

I remember quite a while back Jerry Pournelle writing about being on a study looking at "can we set up a totally automated factory on the moon". They found that replacing about half the people was easy, replacing another quarter was considerably more difficult, replacing some others was flat-out impossible. He then suggested they simply change the scope of the study to "how few people can we get by with for a lunar factory". He was then told (to his tremendous upset) that NASA was not capable of getting people to the moon.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Exactly why we should take the job away from them and give it to someone more capable (and I have NO doubt that there are many such, given that level of funding).

From: Combs, Mike
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:04 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: : Robotics for conquest of space

> I don't think robots are quite there yet. If they were,
> you'd see such set-ups on Earth. But robots can certainly
> be multipliers. You can build a Moon base with twenty
> people and a bunch of robots, and get more work done than
> five hundred people without the robots.*

I remember quite a while back Jerry Pournelle writing about being on a study looking at "can we set up a totally automated factory on the moon". They found that replacing about half the people was easy, replacing another quarter was considerably more difficult, replacing some others was flat-out impossible. He then suggested they simply change the scope of the study to "how few people can we get by with for a lunar factory". He was then told (to his tremendous upset) that NASA was not capable of getting people to the moon.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Yes.

Except I don't know it a "astral projection."
That's some sort of paranormal thing that mystics and people who meditate do.

I know it as "going exterior." The technology for learning it is modern.

Apparently doing it the mystical way works, too, but I'm not familiar with that.

Hey, we might need to think "outside the envelope" to find workable solutions for some human challenges, and this is one of those envelopes.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:

By any chance is the modern technology to make this work a chemical? Is it a controlled substance? If so can you possibly trust it to be giving truthful perceptions of what is "exterior"? If I take LSD and seem to see Atlantis at the bottom of New York harbor, I hope people would stop me from trying to legally block all harbor traffic to carry out under water archeology there. All that's down there is Luca Brazzi sleeping with the fishes.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
From: elaurens.cox@...
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:15:58 +0000
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: : Robotics for conquest of space

Yes.

Except I don't know it a "astral projection."

That's some sort of paranormal thing that mystics and people who meditate do.

I know it as "going exterior." The technology for learning it is modern.

Apparently doing it the mystical way works, too, but I'm not familiar with that.

Hey, we might need to think "outside the envelope" to find workable solutions for some human challenges, and this is one of those envelopes.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:

On 4/11/11 10:15 PM, l_ed_cox wrote:

> Except I don't know it a "astral projection."
> That's some sort of paranormal thing that mystics and people who
> meditate do.
>
> I know it as "going exterior." The technology for learning it is modern.

It's bunk either way, unless you can show even a single controlled study
where somebody who "went exterior" gained any concrete knowledge they
didn't already have.

I'd also expect to see a slew of Nobel Prizes for the discoverers of all
the new laws of physics such an effect would imply.

Best,
- Joe

So we use remote control from Earth for the last 25%. Today on Earth mining machines are controlled remotely from three different control rooms in three different time zones so the operators are always on first shift. Yes there is a time lag to the moon so the work may go slower but still cheaper than sending people to the moon.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike" wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joe Strout wrote:
> It's bunk either way, unless you can show even a single controlled study
> where somebody who "went exterior" gained any concrete knowledge they
> didn't already have.
>
> I'd also expect to see a slew of Nobel Prizes for the discoverers of all
> the new laws of physics such an effect would imply.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
Though a full report on the subject of going exterior would not be appropriate in this topic, I thought that I should give readers some idea where to find out more about it (since some asked).

Certainly the vast majority of data about this subject is anecdotal, as most scientists outside of some neurologists have not shown much interest in studying the phenomenon.

It is most often cited and studied in the scientific literature in connection with near-death experiences. Though the studies associated with such experiences document them as real, we're not interested in inducing the experience using any kind of heavy physical trauma, including drugs. To re-iterate: I am not advocating the use of any kind of drug for this purpose.

The other body of scientific evidence on this subject consists mostly of tests of remote viewers or similar people who claim to have the ability. There has been some validation of the phenomenon from these tests, too. However, a lot of data on this remains under the radar, as it (remote viewing) was originally a secret government project.

The people working on this from a paranormal viewpoint are quite numerous. When I mentioned that the technology for teaching this is modern, I was thinking mostly of these people, though some remote viewers also offer classes in their techniques. I am not saying that this field, taken as a whole, is entirely ethical or wrapped up at this point, but there can be no doubt that it exists as a serious subject in the minds of many and diverse persons.

Wandering over to the Wikipedia article on out-of-body experiences, we find some of the more well-known studies mentioned. I have edited that text to keep it brief.

Van Lommel studies:

The first clinical study of near-death experiences (NDE's) in cardiac arrest patients was by Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist from the Netherlands, and his team (The Lancet, 2001). Of 344 patients who were successfully resuscitated after suffering cardiac arrest, approximately 18% experienced "classic" NDE's, which included out-of-body experiences. The patients remembered details of their conditions during their cardiac arrest despite being clinically dead with flatlined brain stem activity.

Michael Persinger studies:

...In a second study, Ingo Swann was asked to draw images of pictures hidden in envelopes in another room. Individuals with no knowledge of the nature of the study rated Swann's comments and drawings as congruent with the remotely viewed stimulus at better than chance levels.

The article lists several OBE training and research facilities. Some of these are obviously less science-oriented than others:

The Monroe Institute's Nancy Penn Center is an old and established facility specializing in out-of-body experience induction.
The Center for Higher Studies of the Consciousness in Brazil is another large OBE training facility.
The International Academy of Consciousness in southern Portugal features the Projectarium a spherical structure dedicated exclusively for practice and research on out-of-body experience.
Olaf Blanke's Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience is another laboratory for OBE research.

In the article's list of references, a variety of books on the subject are named:

Buhlman, William. "Adventures Beyond the Body: How to experience out-of-body travel". ISBN 0062513710
Review of the tome "Projectiology: A Panorama of Experiences Outside the Human Body" by Waldo Vieira, MD Journal of Parapsychology
Jones, Zakary et al. (2009). Filters and Reflections: Perspectives on Reality. "Out-of-Body Experiences: An Exploration of Non-Local Filters" (Contributed chapter by Nelson Abreu, International Academy of Consciousness). ICRL Press.
Leland, Kurt. (2001). Otherwhere: A Field Guide to Nonphysical Reality for the Out-of-Body Traveler. Hampton Roads Publishing. ISBN 978-1571742414
Leland, Kurt. (2002). The Unanswered Question: Death, Near-Death, and the Afterlife. Hampton Roads Publishing. ISBN 978-1571742995
Monroe, Robert. (1971). Doubleday Journeys Out of the Body. reprinted (1989) Souvenir Press Ltd. ISBN 978-0285627536
Monroe, Robert. (1985). Far Journeys. Doubleday. reprinted (1992) Main Street Books. ISBN 978-0385231824
Monroe, Robert. (1994). Ultimate Journey. Doubleday. reprinted (1996) Main Street Books. ISBN 978-0385472081
Pritchard, Mark H (2004). "A Course in Astral Travel and Dreams". Absolute Publishing Press. ISBN 0-9740560-1-4
Raduga, Michael. (2009). School of Out-of-Body Travel. A Practical Guidebook. ISBN 978-1445766713
Raduga, Michael. (2009). Ultimate Yoga 2012
Tart, Charles (1997). "Six Studies of Out-of-the-Body Experiences" Journal of Near Death Studies
Vieira, Waldo (2002). Projectiology: A Panorama of Experiences of the Consciousness Outside the Human Body. ISBN 978-8586019586
Vieira, Waldo (2007). Projections of the Consciousness: A Diary of Out-of-Body Experiences. International Academy of Consciousness.

The point was made that we are not seeing Nobel Prizes being handed out for this sort of research. I don't see that this fact invalidates the research.

I can only mention that it has been my perception over the years that not everyone on this planet is "pulling in the same direction" so to speak. This observation remains my best explanation for why we aren't yet overtly exploring and colonizing our solar system, to say nothing of our apparent lack of regard for the survival of our own planet.

--- In spacesettlers, "edpell" :

> So we use remote control from Earth for the last 25%.
> Today on Earth mining machines are controlled remotely
> from three different control rooms in three different
> time zones so the operators are always on first shift.
> Yes there is a time lag to the moon so the work may go
> slower but still cheaper than sending people to the moon.

Are there any mines on Earth with no people on site? Where
everything is done with robots and/or remote control?

I'm not asking if there are any mines where robots and
remote control are used; I'm asking if there are any with
no people actually physically there.

I have to say that "astral projection," "going exterior,"
or "OBE" is not useful for our purposes, even if it works.
Astral people can't build powersats, can't bring back rare
earth elements, can't build a habitat for those old-
fashioned folks who want to go into space and take their
bodies along.

The question of whether or not it's possible or whether or
not anybody can do it today is beside the point.

I closest I know about are certain uranium mines in Saskatchewan. On average
uranium ore contains 0.15% uranium. However, the McArthur River mine, for
example, has ore that is almost 22% uranium making it far too dangerous for
H. Saps to mine. There are people at the site but not in the mine. See
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm.

Ed

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:04 PM, sailor.barsoom wrote:

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:04 PM, sailor.barsoom wrote:

"Are there any mines on Earth with no people on site? Where
everything is done with robots and/or remote control?"

"I'm not asking if there are any mines where robots and
remote control are used; I'm asking if there are any with
no people actually physically there."

No. There is no need for that on earth. The economics do not favor it.

Of course, it does not cost $10,000 / kgtransporting people + life supportto
site either.

Thanks, both of you.

So, robotics isn't quite there yet. Robots are very
good, they can help us do things we either could not do
without them, or could only do without them at great
cost and risk. But as of now, they can't do it without
us. Robotics isn't quite there yet. Some day it will
be, but it isn't right now. We could devote additional
resources (money, brains, time) to making it so, but as
of now, it is not so.

Yes, it costs thousands of dollars per Kg to put any-
thing into LEO, much less the Moon or some asteroid.
But that, too, is a problem at which we can throw money,
brains, and time. And we should, robots or no. After
all, it would help if those robots could be sent up for
less.

Why not a mixed approach? Do as much with robots as you
can, but don't put things off until robots can do every-
thing. In the mean time, is there any way to do things
on Earth that will help out? Closed-system life support?
Maybe a "Biosphere X" to test it out, but this time don't
obsess about having a rain forest AND a desert AND a
prairie AND an ocean...

Just have what you need to keep the system going, people
and all. Heck, make it into a reality show and you can
turn a profit whether it works the first time or not.
Maybe test robots too, or not.

From: sailor.barsoom
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, May 17, 2011 3:25:33 PM

"Closed-system life support?
"Maybe a "Biosphere X" to test it out, but this time don't obsess about having a
rain forest AND a desert AND a prairie AND an ocean...

"Just have what you need to keep the system going, people and all. Heck, make it
into a reality show and you can turn a profit whether it works the first time or
not. Maybe test robots too, or not."

Had a similar thought. A CLSS could be set up for TV show. It would be a
little more like Survivor. Just more mundane. Very.

Adding to the list of things to do, you could have it all in oneslow rotating
torus structure equivilent to a few railcars in volume.The containers could
pivot which would allow for slight variations in speed.As long as you don't
have too high an rpm (g force), you could also see tolerance to working in
spinning structure. Not exactly comparable to rotating in space...Just adding
to your thoughts.

On May 17, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Matt Gallimore wrote:

> Maybe a "Biosphere X" to test it out, but this time don't obsess
> about having a
> rain forest AND a desert AND a prairie AND an ocean...
>

You do, however, probably want a very large variety of plants, mostly
food producing. Some will die out, others will survive. You won't be
able to predict, too complex, but nature's been doing this job for a
long time.

> "Just have what you need to keep the system going, people and all.
> Heck, make it
> into a reality show

That is a ****really***** good idea. How do we make it so?

sailorbarsoom wrote:

In the mean time, is there any way to do things
on Earth that will help out? Closed-system life support?
Maybe a "Biosphere X" to test it out, but this time don't
obsess about having a rain forest AND a desert AND a
prairie AND an ocean...

Just have what you need to keep the system going, people
and all. Heck, make it into a reality show and you can
turn a profit whether it works the first time or not.
Maybe test robots too, or not.

..

A portion of the space budget should be earmarked to simulate how life will
be in space colonies.

How much space will each individual occupy?
How will families merge into communities?
How will they recycle?
Will the ability to recycle form an important criteria in product design?
How will the work be shared?
What will be the degree of automation?
What will be the extent of manual work to keep people healthy?
What will be the nature of agriculture?
How will children be taught?
etc.

It is possible for six people to sleep In a sleeper railway compartment
measuring 10' x 6'; It should be theoretically possible to have a complete
house in four such units, occupying a space not exceeding 300 sq ft. Why
then do we make houses occupying thousands of square feet? Will it not be
easier and cheaper to manage such a house, leaving ample spare time for
other activities?

Our present lifestyle promises to take humanity over a precipice; if that
were to happen forget about space colonization. What we need are fresh
lifestyle horizons that are more environmentally sustainable. Making believe
that we are living in space colonies, has the exciting possibility of
pointing us in a new direction.

Regards,
Selvaraj

On 18 May 2011 00:55, sailor.barsoom wrote:

The programme to develop the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is expected to cost
the US and its allies more than $380 billion, meaning it is likely the most
expensive military project in history - and politicians seem to feel the
need to justify such a massive outlay of resources to sceptical electorates.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201151713273937174.html

There seems to be plenty of money for all kinds of cranky things!

Selvaraj

On 22 May 2011 13:28, sraj wrote:

--- In spacesettlers, Al Globus wrote:

> You do, however, probably want a very large variety
> of plants, mostly food producing. Some will die out,
> others will survive. You won't be able to predict,
> too complex, but nature's been doing this job for a
> long time.

Yep. By the time we start building habitats in Space,
we WILL know which plants survive, because we've been
practicing on Earth.

>> "Just have what you need to keep the system going,
>> people and all.
>> Heck, make it into a reality show

> That is a ****really***** good idea.

Thanks.

> How do we make it so?

I have no idea. Wish I did. It'd be great to help out
the dream, and get rich too.