# 5153 bydante.feditech@... on March 15, 2004, 5:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"Why don't we land robots on the moon to build a base/mine materials for
us?"
things and build anti-gravity cars: Because no-one knows how to do that!
Look at a modern steel mill and you will find people working the
machinary, not robots. If a robot can't shift things safely and reliably
around the werehouse (which they can't) what chance do they have on the
moon? Now sure, technology can (eventually and in theory) make all things
possible, but our current and likely near future understanding of it make
somethings impractical or inadvisable.
Sometimes doing things the old fashioned and boring way, using tried and
tested technologies, is better than gambeling (sometimes against all
reason, experience and common sense) that you can develop a dozen
different technologies from scratch and somehow make them all work.
ANTIcarrot.
# 5154 bystemarie@... on March 15, 2004, 6:03 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I must, respectfully, totally disagree,
and NASA engineers can make robots that drill and take samples of rocks
on mars, then I think that with the right balance of human / robot
thrown into the mix it surely can happen.
Why do we not do it today? Because humans like control, humans don't
like it when their existence is being controlled by a third party,
especially if that third party is not trusted (because it's not human).
How many elderly people do you see lining up at the ATM machine? How
many of them are using the human teller? That's tried and tested, the
ATM is new compared to the human teller.
People today, have the knowledge to do quite a few amazing things - if
they put their mind to it. The problem is that they don't. They prefer
the tried and tested combustion engine to the new alternate power
sources that are out there. They prefer the tried and tested brick and
wood materials as opposed to using new materials that insulate a house
better like strawbale.
Granted that tried and tested does have its charms (it does not require
though to reproduce nor explanation to understand, so let's keep
launching the shuttle at 500 millions a trip just for the gas...) and
see where it leads us.
I think that you reaction is caused by the fact that you aren't
suffering enough, you aren't looking for anything better because you are
currently reasonably happy with your surroundings and the way that they
operate.
Why would a segway become one of the hotest and toughest items to get
these days if walking is a tried and tested (and long-adopted) approach,
simply because there are advantages to the new method.
If you had to pay a portion of that trip for the shuttle, hang on, you
do - you wouldn't want to pay it anymore, even if it's just for the sake
of building a station out there just because we can. Just because we can
doesn't pay the bills, if they want to continue with their shuttle they
are going to have to find a way to reduce the bill, and that means
dropping the tried and tested way.
Besides, tried and tested doesn't mean problem-free, it means problem
(mostly) known. When I get into my gas-powered car, I understand most of
the things that can go wrong, if I get into a jet I don't, doesn't mean
that the jet is inferior. The jet is different, it's made for a
different purpose. You may elect to take the car, if you have no other
choice, if you have a choice, then you at least have the freedom to take
your pick and perhaps raise your efficency (get a computer) or stay
where you are (do your taxes manually and mail them), of course,
sometimes raising your efficiency can have it's issues (computer
crash?).
With all due respect, (please debate, I love a good polite debate, hope
I didn't cross the line anywhere there)
Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
# 5155 bytango_dancer@... on March 15, 2004, 6:10 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
> possible, but our current and likely near future understanding of
> it make somethings impractical or inadvisable.
I do understand your point which is why I advocate using robots
where we can and humans where robots aren't sophisticated enough.
You might find this article on Robotics and Dark Factories
interesting:
http://www.pmtdirect.com/website/article.asp?id6&navitemid=48
TangoMan
# 5156 bymikecombs@... on March 15, 2004, 7:10 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: ANTIcarrot [mailto:dante.feditech@ntlworld.com]
> materials for us?"
>
> Mostly for the same reason we don't stop using all these
> silly wheel things and build anti-gravity cars: Because no-one
> knows how to do that! Look at a modern steel mill and you
> will find people working the machinary, not robots. If a robot
> can't shift things safely and reliably around the werehouse
> (which they can't) what chance do they have on the moon?
Indeed, the embarrassing performances witnessed at the recent DARPA race
speak to this subject. If we can't even design an automated ore car
which would drive back and forth between the mine and the refinery, then
there're probably plenty of other gaps as well.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 5157 bytango_dancer@... on March 15, 2004, 7:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
DARPA race
> speak to this subject. If we can't even design an automated ore
car
> which would drive back and forth between the mine and the
refinery, then
> there're probably plenty of other gaps as well.
You might find this article on teleoperated mining interesting.
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/may03/features/armchair/armchair
.html
TangoMan
# 5158 bymikecombs@... on March 15, 2004, 7:38 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@hotmail.com]
> http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/may03/features/armchair/armchair
.html
Yeah, there ya go. I'd consider that at least over the near term,
teleoperation offers us far greater potential than does automation.
Which, if true, would strongly favor lunar mining happening before
asteroid mining.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 5159 bydante.feditech@... on March 15, 2004, 8:26 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Karell Ste-Marie [mailto:stemarie@...]
>
> If japanese engineers can make a robot that can climb stairs
> and dance,
> and NASA engineers can make robots that drill and take
> samples of rocks
> on mars, then I think that with the right balance of human / robot
> thrown into the mix it surely can happen.
Yes. And in twenty or fifty years such robots may get to the stage where
they can be used for menial tasks. The japanese seem to be completely
serious about making robot butlers and construction workers and I'm
perfectly willing to believe they'll find a way somehow. But they can't do
it now. Even if they could do it now, the earth is a much more forgiving
enviroment than the moon is.
> How many elderly people do you see lining up at the ATM machine? How
> many of them are using the human teller? That's tried and tested, the
> ATM is new compared to the human teller.
The ATM isn't new. It's been around for twenty years at least. It has a
proven track record of reliability. The reason so many people use tellers
though is because they are quicker and because there are more of them than
human staff and in more convenient locations.
> People today, have the knowledge to do quite a few amazing things - if
> they put their mind to it. The problem is that they don't. They prefer
> the tried and tested combustion engine to the new alternate power
> sources that are out there. They prefer the tried and tested brick and
> wood materials as opposed to using new materials that insulate a house
> better like strawbale.
I said use tech that's proven itself, as oposed to tech that might one day
exist. Electric cars work. They've been used as milkfloats in england for
decades. Nowadays they're building electric cars that are fast and have
decent range. Unfortunately the petrol-industry has enough money to burry
this fact under a mountain of BS publicity. Do a google search and most of
what you'll get is an endless list of web sites that say electric cars
aren't practical because lead-acid batteries can't hold enough energy.
Only very slowly are some automotive journalists learning about the hgigh
performance *reality* of lithium ion batteries.
> Granted that tried and tested does have its charms (it does
> not require
> though to reproduce nor explanation to understand, so let's keep
> launching the shuttle at 500 millions a trip just for the gas...) and
> see where it leads us.
If you'll remember the shuttle was based upon the 'let's invent twenty
different things at once' strategy, and look what it gave us. Granted,
that's not the only thing that wrecked the shuttle, but it was a leading
cause. At that point the tried and tested technology was the Saturn V.
(Which had a *perfect* flight record IIRC.) Modern costs for that was
$120m per launch for 140 tons into LEO. At $400/lb that's still 4 time too
high for practical space industry, (SSPs etc) but it's still ten times
cheeper than the shuttle.
Nowadays the shuttle launch system (dubious as it is) has most of the bugs
ironed out. Remove the orbiter completely and replace it with a HHLV
module and you could cut costs very quickly. (10 - 25 times cheaper) Of
course you could do better, but not as cheaply nor as quick.
You certianly wouldn't do it be trying to build a 747-sized mach-6 HTHL
boaster for a next gen shuttle.
> I think that you reaction is caused by the fact that you aren't
> suffering enough, you aren't looking for anything better
I think you don't know enough about me. Personally I'd rather NASA
scrapped the shuttle tomorrow, and spent money it'd save over the next
year building something like the DH-1.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/SpecialTopics/RocketCom/titlePage
.html
> If you had to pay a portion of that trip for the shuttle, hang on, you
> do
Hang on, no I don't, because not everyone lives in America.
I'm not against new things or inovation. (Quirte the oposite in fact.) But
I do get annoyed when money is spent on things that fly in the face of all
reason. If the shuttle has taught us anyhting, it should be that aircraft
make lousy spaceships. Yet what does NASA keep suggesting as a
replacement? Oh look! Another aircraft! With even more useless cross range
performance than the shuttle!
IMHO, rockets should be rocket shaped, reusable rockets should be cone
shaped, and neither should have wings.
ANTIcarrot.
# 5160 byAxel.Walthelm@... on April 18, 2004, 3:14 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
victoriatangoman wrote:
>
>http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/may03/features/armchair/armchair
>.html
>
But we should be aware: doing this kind of automation for mines on the
moon is magnitudes more difficult. Those tele-operated machines are
specialized for some rather simple task. Doing the maintenance is
still done by humans and needs a lot of general purpose manipulation
skills. And it would be interesting to learn how often something
breaks and has to be replaced...
# 5161 byAxel.Walthelm@... on April 18, 2004, 3:15 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Combs, Mike wrote:
>
>>"Why don't we land robots on the moon to build a base/mine
>>materials for us?"
>>
>>Mostly for the same reason we don't stop using all these
>>silly wheel things and build anti-gravity cars: Because no-one
>>knows how to do that! Look at a modern steel mill and you
>>will find people working the machinary, not robots. If a robot
>>can't shift things safely and reliably around the werehouse
>>(which they can't) what chance do they have on the moon?
>>
>>
>
>Indeed, the embarrassing performances witnessed at the recent DARPA race
>speak to this subject. If we can't even design an automated ore car
>which would drive back and forth between the mine and the refinery, then
>there're probably plenty of other gaps as well.
>
Very true, unfortunately.
I've been working in that field during the last years. Autonomous robots
can only survive in very simple and predictable environments. Like empty
space between planets, moon and asteroids. Place a robot into the dirt
and it will get stuck rather sooner than later. Human brains are a
million times more powerful than todays computers, as far as evaluation
of complex sensor information from real world environments are
concerned. I did some estimates, which led me to believe that it will be
at least 40 years until computers could have the potential of comparable
mental capabilities as a human. (Assuming computers become more powerful
in the way they did during the last twenty years, which I can't take for
granted.) The human brain is not very smart when it comes to number
crunching, but it has specialized abilities to correlate large amounts
of data in real-time and---what I believe to be more
important---remember a lot of this data. Of course finding the right way
to program such a hypothetical powerful computer is yet another unsolved
problem.
I see two promising ways to get around this. The first one is more of an
alternative to making computers powerful enough: use large amounts of
smaller robots and teach them to replicate themselves. This would be a
long-term project. Don't expect big results for the next 10 years. Even
though the first one to build such a robotic ant society for, say, the
moon will de facto own the moon after some years.
The other way around it is tele-operation, which is possible with
(almost) existing technology, as the mars rovers did demonstrate.
Nonetheless to do any real amount of work before the robot starts to
fail for some reason or another, it must be operated much quicker than
on mars. Moon is an option. But note that easy tele-operation needs
reaction times of less than 0.2 seconds. This is not true for robots on
the moon tele-operated from earth. Some degree of semi-autonomous
behavior will be necessary. Like moving autonomously on a track that has
been traveled several times before, but stopping as soon as something
looks unfamiliar or something unexpected happens.
Okay, enough on that for today.
Best
Axel
# 5162 bymikecombs@... on April 19, 2004, 1:37 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: Axel Walthelm [mailto:Axel.Walthelm@...]
> moon is magnitudes more difficult. Those tele-operated machines are
> specialized for some rather simple task. Doing the maintenance is
> still done by humans and needs a lot of general purpose manipulation
> skills. And it would be interesting to learn how often something
> breaks and has to be replaced...
All valid points which only mean that we cannot depend 100% on
teleoperation, not that it might not be of tremendous benefit. For the
foreseeable future, some humans will remain in the loop.
Regards,
Mike Combs