What we need is a test case. Something that shows that one or more
activities required for "assembly, mining, refining or fabrication of a
multitude of discrete components" can or cannot be done by some
assembly of robots or humans. This test case has to be something that
we can physically replicate here on earth so that physical
demonstrations are possible.
disapproved. Since these are the same assumptions that any engineering
team will have to deal with when given the REAL task to "assembly,
mining, refining or fabrication of a multitude of discrete components"
in space it would be excellent to have some basis for them to make a
decision on. Or at least justification for which ever approach they choose.
Mitchell James
www.InnerTransit.org
> What we need is a test case. Something that shows that one or
more
> activities required for "assembly, mining, refining or fabrication
of a
> multitude of discrete components" can or cannot be done by some
> assembly of robots or humans. This test case has to be something
that
> we can physically replicate here on earth so that physical
> demonstrations are possible.
>
> Then the basic assumptions that are involved can be proven or
> disapproved. Since these are the same assumptions that any
engineering
> team will have to deal with when given the REAL task
to "assembly,
> mining, refining or fabrication of a multitude of discrete
components"
> in space it would be excellent to have some basis for them to make
a
> decision on. Or at least justification for which ever approach
they choose.
>
> Mitchell James
> www.InnerTransit.org
state of the art for robotics.
If, or when, a large project is in the planning stage, I'm sure the
planners will do a system's analysis and isolate the tasks to be
performed and determine which can be performed robotically, which
need further R&D and which, if any, require human presence. Then
they'll design the mission accordingly.
In case I haven't made my position clear in this ongoing dialogue
we've been having, let me do so now; I'm not in the least
philosophically opposed to the position of orbital work being done
robotically. I'm skeptical that large projects can be done entirely
by robots, but if the technology can be demonstrated then as you've
written, the costs could come down considerably. I'm just allowing
for human presence as a means of circumventing robotic limitations.
It is this principle that I'd like my debating partners to
acknowledge. That'll take the wind out of my sail :)
That said, you can interpret everything I've written that requires
human presence as being substitutable with robots if they can indeed
perform the required tasks and are cost effective.
TangoMan
In this "robots versus humans" debate, I urge y'all to distinguish between
robots that have a lot of autonomy and teleoperated machines that have
little or no autonomy. I think that it is possible for someone in
Atlanta to remotely operate from Atlanta a little bulldozer on the Moon.
Remote operation from Atlanta of a dumb bulldozer on the Moon is a
different thing from an autonomous robot bulldozer on the Moon that works
for hours at a time without human intervention.
be solved.
Ron
"victoriatangoman victoriatangoman@...
> What we need is a test case. Something that shows that one or
more
> activities required for "assembly, mining, refining or fabrication
of a
> multitude of discrete components" can or cannot be done by some
> assembly of robots or humans. This test case has to be something
that
> we can physically replicate here on earth so that physical
> demonstrations are possible.
>
> Then the basic assumptions that are involved can be proven or
> disapproved. Since these are the same assumptions that any
engineering
> team will have to deal with when given the REAL task
to "assembly,
> mining, refining or fabrication of a multitude of discrete
components"
> in space it would be excellent to have some basis for them to make
a
> decision on. Or at least justification for which ever approach
they choose.
>
> Mitchell James
> www.InnerTransit.org
Absolutely agree. I'm sure the challenge would even advance the
state of the art for robotics.
If, or when, a large project is in the planning stage, I'm sure the
planners will do a system's analysis and isolate the tasks to be
performed and determine which can be performed robotically, which
need further R&D and which, if any, require human presence. Then
they'll design the mission accordingly.
In case I haven't made my position clear in this ongoing dialogue
we've been having, let me do so now; I'm not in the least
philosophically opposed to the position of orbital work being done
robotically. I'm skeptical that large projects can be done entirely
by robots, but if the technology can be demonstrated then as you've
written, the costs could come down considerably. I'm just allowing
for human presence as a means of circumventing robotic limitations.
It is this principle that I'd like my debating partners to
acknowledge. That'll take the wind out of my sail :)
That said, you can interpret everything I've written that requires
human presence as being substitutable with robots if they can indeed
perform the required tasks and are cost effective.
TangoMan
Good point. It is important to have good lines drawn in the sand. I
would say that the line is anything that requires life support and man
rated equipment vs everything else. Everything else would include the
full range of autonomy.
Mitchell James
www.innertransit.org
I think that it is possible for someone in
Atlanta to remotely operate from Atlanta a little bulldozer on the Moon. SSI has done a little bit of research in this area (to address concerns about signal delay time) and would tend to agree with your assessment.
Mike Combs
> Good point. It is important to have good lines drawn in the sand.
I
> would say that the line is anything that requires life support and
man
> rated equipment vs everything else. Everything else would include
the
> full range of autonomy.
> Mitchell James
> www.innertransit.org
>
infrastructure entirely constructed by autmated or tele-operated
robots would be for human habitation in orbit.
Surely, if robotic technology develops to the point where all
orbital equipment, factories, processes can be constructed without
local human oversight, then why even embark on a habitat project.
There would be no need, nor any work, for the humans and the cost
couldn't even be justified by the need to have workers in orbit.
I can't imagine that after a certain point, that the cost structure
of introducing humans would suddenly flip and be competitive against
robots.
Just curious.
TangoMan
Surely, if robotic technology develops to the point where all
orbital equipment, factories, processes can be constructed without
local human oversight, then why even embark on a habitat project.
There would be no need, nor any work, for the humans and the cost
couldn't even be justified by the need to have workers in orbit. How about this: the presence of the automated/teleoperated infrastructure in space pushes down the price of space construction to the point where the constructions costs of Island One would be only about 10,000 times the price of the ritzier properties in the choicer locales here on Earth. That would result in space habitat construction being worthwhile just for the real estate sales alone. Don't necessarily expect it to go down that way, though. Just speculating on different scenarios.
Mike Combs
> I can't imagine that after a certain point, that the cost structure
> of introducing humans would suddenly flip and be competitive against
> robots.
perform better than machines. Not in construction, perhaps, but as our
infrastructure in space develops, we will become capable of more esoteric
projects outside Earth's gravity. Even now we have dozens of satellites
in orbit, yet we still send humans up on the Shuttle to perform scientific
experiements.
But beyond than that, I personally believe that one of the most important
things we can be working towards in our lifetimes is getting humans off
this single liferaft in space we happened to have evolved upon. So that
should any number of unlikely but terrible events happen, the human race
will continue. The trick is to get the business markets to agree. ;)
Take care,
--Justin
> How about this: the presence of the automated/teleoperated
infrastructure in
> space pushes down the price of space construction to the point
where the
> constructions costs of Island One would be only about 10,000 times
the price
> of the ritzier properties in the choicer locales here on Earth.
That would
> result in space habitat construction being worthwhile just for the
real
> estate sales alone.
>
> Don't necessarily expect it to go down that way, though. Just
speculating
> on different scenarios.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
As the list moderator is there any way that you could mask my e-mail
culled my e-mail address and I get over 100 spams a day to an
account I use only for group correspondence.
I don't see other member's addresses being visible in either the
member's section of the website, nor in the body of the text
responses, like in your response to my message.
Hope you can help.
TangoMan
--- In ssi_list@... "Combs, Mike"
>
> [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
>
> Surely, if robotic technology develops to the point where all
> orbital equipment, factories, processes can be constructed without
> local human oversight, then why even embark on a habitat project.
> There would be no need, nor any work, for the humans and the cost
> couldn't even be justified by the need to have workers in orbit.
>
> How about this: the presence of the automated/teleoperated
infrastructure in
> space pushes down the price of space construction to the point
where the
> constructions costs of Island One would be only about 10,000 times
the price
> of the ritzier properties in the choicer locales here on Earth.
That would
> result in space habitat construction being worthwhile just for the
real
> estate sales alone.
>
> Don't necessarily expect it to go down that way, though. Just
speculating
> on different scenarios.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
Time-share apartments? How expensive would it be to have an oasis in
the desert just to visit occasionally and having no other rationale
to exist as a curiousity.
I may be limited in my vision of how this would play out, which is
why I'd like the perspective of someone who is an advocate
of "robotic development" to share their insights into the question.
TangoMan
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round.
/Kubla Khan/, 1798 (sounds like a space colony to me)
I was sure that you were going to ask this question. I believe that
there is a inverse connection between having people working in space and
having people living in space as a final product.
As previously discussed very few of the people who might be involved
with building in space actually want to take their families there until
something with sufficient amenities exists. When I have a new home
constructed, neither I nor the workers live in tents on the site until
it is completed. We commute. When construction is completed, I move in
to a house complete with running water and a high speed internet
connection. Teleoperation is a form of commuting.
When I buy clothes, I don't know if they were sewn by hand or in a
highly automated factory. Why should we care how a colony gets built.
Why would we go to the bother of building complete space colonies? Why
are there tourists? Why are there explorers? Are there populations
that would rather be someplace than where they are now? Are there
populations that the rest of us would pay to move somewhere besides
where they are now?
Given cheap enough construction costs there will be lots of reasons to
escape to space. Putting humans in space at the beginning of the
process is a sure way to make the whole thing so expensive that the
final goal will never be reached.
I know that you think that you can avoid the NASA cost structure but you
can't once you have taken that first step of saying that humans must be
present. Every single decision on a program then becomes centered
around the human element and out of that comes the NASA cost structure.
By building the International Space Station, NASA has proven that
putting humans in the equation kills any chance to complete the original
goals. A multibillion dollar example of going nowhere.
HUMAN WORKERS => NASA cost structure => dead program
Robotics of all types => very lean cost structure => possibilities
Mitchell James
www.innertransit.org
> In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
> A stately pleasure dome decree:
> Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
> Through caverns measureless to man
> Down to a sunless sea.
> So twice five miles of fertile ground
> With walls and towers were girdled round.
>
> -Samuel Taylor Coleridge,
> /Kubla Khan/, 1798 (sounds like a space colony to me)
>
> I was sure that you were going to ask this question. I believe
that
> there is a inverse connection between having people working in
space and
> having people living in space as a final product.
that you knew was coming. I think this is a first for the list;
congratulations. I'm also glad I didn't disappoint :) I felt that we
had both gone far enough in our dialogue to clearly stake out our
positions, critique them and I was curious how you would reconcile
human presence in orbit after completing a build-up process devoid
of their presence.
>
> When I buy clothes, I don't know if they were sewn by hand or in a
> highly automated factory. Why should we care how a colony gets
built.
I don't think people do care, other than those who relish the
adventure and frontier challenges, but those would be a small subset
of the space fans. Personally I'm more than willing to give up a
comfortable life-style, endure some hardship, and face orbital
dangers in order to be part of something I believe in and to create
a new world but not being an engineer nor a scientist, I'm not sure
that I would be valuable to the orbital construction process :(
>
> Why would we go to the bother of building complete space
colonies? Why
> are there tourists? Why are there explorers? Are there
populations
> that would rather be someplace than where they are now? Are there
> populations that the rest of us would pay to move somewhere
besides
> where they are now?
>
> Given cheap enough construction costs there will be lots of
reasons to
> escape to space. Putting humans in space at the beginning of the
> process is a sure way to make the whole thing so expensive that
the
> final goal will never be reached.
I'm having a lot of trouble accepting your reasoning on this issue.
If it is indeed possible to robotically develop an orbital
infrastructure then I really don't see a NEED to have humans in
orbit after the infrastructure is in place. Yes, I can see some LEO
tourist facilities being built for the two week vacation crowd,
maybe a resort on the moon for the more well-heeled, but I don't
really see the O'Neill Island habitats for thousands to millions of
people. Those people must live within an economy, an economy that
demands their diverse talents and an economy that serves as a
component part of a larger global economy within which the
competitive advantages of companies, industries and nations are
sifted and if your argument is indeed accurate, then the human
activities in orbit, in support of that economy, will have more
efficient substitutes to compete against. Such a scenario spells
economic doom for a permanent and diverse domestic orbital economy,
and as a result will provide little attraction for immigrants.
Therefore, all of the products that must be manufactured in orbit
will continue to rely on robotic technology and earth-located tele-
operators.
>
> I know that you think that you can avoid the NASA cost structure
but you
> can't once you have taken that first step of saying that humans
must be
> present. Every single decision on a program then becomes centered
> around the human element and out of that comes the NASA cost
structure.
You know, back in the days of my youth, I was a research assistant
and co-author on a number of management case studies. How I would
now like to write one on NASA and their dysfunctions but also on how
well they meet their multiple stakeholder goals. The delivery of
space products satisfies only one stakeholder goal and that is what
we see as a failure.
So much of the ISS is themed on foreign relations, NASA centers
competing against each other, yearly budget limitations,
congressional district jobs programs, make-work projects for
employees and contractors, management fiefdoms and on and on and
on . . . Those perverse goals are being met. Its very interesting to
watch a corporate culture form, and then transform under the
internal and external stresses and in an environment removed from
competitive cost pressures that usually influence and discipline
more efficient management organizations.
So many of the problems are outlined in Thomas Young's IMCE report.
Read between the lines and watch NASA with a jaded eye and you'll
see that they aren't all necessarily pulling in the same direction
towards the same goal.
Further, to draw a conclusion on design, manufacturing and
implementation operations from NASA's performance and generalize
that conclusion to more efficient management structures is weakly
supported reasoning. The most confident inference would be one that
applies solely to future NASA projects.
Also, there are many industries that face enormous technological
challenges and operate under more onerous conditions but manage to
meet their challenges. I haven't yet come across a convincing
argument which supports the hypothesis that space industry is unlike
any other industry and thus cannot operate under the same management
constraints. Yes, space has unique challenges, but many other
industries also face unique challenges.
> By building the International Space Station, NASA has proven that
> putting humans in the equation kills any chance to complete the
original
> goals. A multibillion dollar example of going nowhere.
I can't disagree with your final assessment of the ISS, but I don't
agree with your reasoning. Coincidence of factors doesn't lead to
causality. Just because I wake moments before sunrise every morning
doesn't mean that I cause the sun to rise. Just because there are
humans involved in the ISS project doesn't mean the failure of ISS
is attributable to human presence.
>
> HUMAN WORKERS => NASA cost structure => dead program
NO, rather . .
NASA HUMAN WORKERS => NASA cost structure => internal NASA goals
fulfilled => political maneuvering => salvaged program preserving
internal NASA fiefdoms.
>
> Robotics of all types => very lean cost structure => possibilities
>
> Mitchell James
> www.innertransit.org
NO, rather . .
Robotics where technologically possible => less human support in
orbit => more efficient use of limited resources
and the related axiom . .
Robotics where technologically possible => NO humans in orbit => no
means available to complete some tasks => dead program
TangoMan
> I can't imagine that after a certain point, that the cost structure
> of introducing humans would suddenly flip and be competitive against
> robots.
>
Cost x benefits of automation/robotization are in general poorly understood, I
think. Robots are a *very* expensive technology, with *very* expensive
maintenance. On Earth, it is economically viable to introduce robots
(manipulators, and many other forms of automation) just when you want
high-quality, high-repeatability in the manufacturing of your products.
Otherwise, it is often cheaper to just build a plant in the Third World, were
labor force is *so* cheap that you can put a zillion of workers doing the
same task of one robot (though with less quality/repeatability) and still
save money.
So, I would not doubt that a robot-based bootstrap would eventually lower
launch costs/habitat construction costs enough for making some tasks cheaper
if done by a zillion of third-worlders shot into space.
> TangoMan
Lucio
--- In ssi_list@... Lucio de Souza Coelho
> (...)
> > I can't imagine that after a certain point, that the cost
structure
> > of introducing humans would suddenly flip and be competitive
against
> > robots.
> >
> Well, I *can* imagine.
>
> Cost x benefits of automation/robotization are in general poorly
understood, I
> think. Robots are a *very* expensive technology, with *very*
expensive
> maintenance. On Earth, it is economically viable to introduce
robots
> (manipulators, and many other forms of automation) just when you
want
> high-quality, high-repeatability in the manufacturing of your
products.
> Otherwise, it is often cheaper to just build a plant in the Third
World, were
> labor force is *so* cheap that you can put a zillion of workers
doing the
> same task of one robot (though with less quality/repeatability)
and still
> save money.
>
> So, I would not doubt that a robot-based bootstrap would
eventually lower
> launch costs/habitat construction costs enough for making some
tasks cheaper
> if done by a zillion of third-worlders shot into space.
>
> (...)
> > TangoMan
>
> Lucio
grief.
OK, I can imagine that scenario, though I think it is very
improbable. I think by the time you can afford to shoot that
multitude of workers into orbit, you'll have brought down the cost
curve on your robots and increased the experience curve to boot.
You noted maintenance in your post; I wonder how that would be
performed in orbit?
TangoMan
What would those Island one property owners do up there? Tourists?
Time-share apartments? How expensive would it be to have an oasis in
the desert just to visit occasionally and having no other rationale
to exist as a curiousity. In his book"The Millennial Project", Marshall Savage made the point that settlers in Earth orbit could continue to have information technology jobs back on Earth via data and video links (like for example you could continue to function as a stock broker). But frankly, I was a bit underwhelmed by that argument. I don't feel that it's sufficient to suggest that a person could still have gainful employment even while living in orbit. I think we have to go much further than that and suggest ways that people could make a living that could be done from Earth orbit much better than from any other conceivable location. I always felt that O'Neill had provided that with the suggestion that space settlers would work on SPS construction, and to this day still feel that O'Neill presented a more economically plausible scenario than either Zubrin or Savage.
Mike Combs
> I hope that the floods in Belo Horizonte didn't cause you too much
> grief.
>
uninterruptedly during the last two months or so.
Brazil is a country of appalling social inequities, and that gets no different
when it comes to natural catastrophes. :-( The victims so far have all been
inhabitants of riverside and hillside shantytowns - people who are also
basically excluded from the Internet. As for me, a member of our narrow
middle class, I live and work in solid concrete buildings in highground,
stable terrain.
> OK, I can imagine that scenario, though I think it is very
> improbable. I think by the time you can afford to shoot that
> multitude of workers into orbit, you'll have brought down the cost
> curve on your robots and increased the experience curve to boot.
>
I'm not sure if the cost curves will get down in the same way. I think that
robots (manipulators) are being used since the 60's , and they still are not
as common as, say, computers are. As for transportation, I hope that when
space travel bootstraps the cost will drop dramatically like what happened
with air travel and railways. (But perhaps it's a vain hope. Great part of
the development of air travel and railways was stimulated by the need of
connecting populations that were already there and used less efficient means
of transportation, like horses.)
> You noted maintenance in your post; I wonder how that would be
> performed in orbit?
>
Well, in the early phases of bootstrapping all reposition components would
have to be shipped from Earth, and the cost would be correspondingly
increased. As bootstrap progresses, however, I would expect factories of
robot parts, and all the related industries, to grow in orbit. In fact, they
would be a stimulating element in the bootstrapping.
> TangoMan
Lucio
> ... Those people must live within an economy,
must be part of is the Earth economy until they have the purchase price.
Once a colony has been purchased I forsee the amount of interaction
with the Earth's economy has being very minimal. I also don't forsee
colonies being purchased on credit through some may try. It is
difficult to reposess a colony as compared to a house or car on earth.
> an economy that
> demands their diverse talents and an economy that serves as a
> component part of a larger global economy within which the
> competitive advantages of companies, industries and nations are
> sifted and if your argument is indeed accurate, then the human
> activities in orbit, in support of that economy, will have more
> efficient substitutes to compete against. Such a scenario spells
> economic doom for a permanent and diverse domestic orbital economy,
> and as a result will provide little attraction for immigrants.
> Therefore, all of the products that must be manufactured in orbit
> will continue to rely on robotic technology and earth-located tele-
> operators.
Ya. If company A is able to create and sell it's product for much less
than company B then company B is not going to be in business for long.
I expect that there will be several countries/companies groups that will
build SPSs once we arrive at the critical mass for that to happen. The
group that picks the lowest cost approach will win and the others will
go out of business. If as I suspect, a non manned approach will be the
lowest cost approach then there simply will not be a reason for an
INDIVIDUAL to emigrate to space for economic reasons. So if
manufacturing in space is an economic operation then the economic
marketplace will destroy the weakest competitor ie manned
manufacturing. Now I like O'Neil's bootstrap approach and when it was
written it was almost impossible to envision a realistic robotic
capability and therefore manned manufacturing was the primary
candidate. I believe a robotic manufacturing capability is now within
our grasp which should cause us to reevaluate the cause and effects of
bootstrapping. Putting humans in space to perform manufacturing is no
longer economicly justifiable.
This is not disaster! I see at least two possible roads:
1. A group of people whose goal is Space Colonization steps forward to
build the best and lowest cost space robotic systems based on the bazaar
system of software development. They then use these systems to
manufacture in space what other people are willing to pay for and use
the profits to build space colonies. This is why I created
www.InnerTransit.org. It is a tool to start this process.
2. When the greedy capitolistic pigs finish creating all the SPSs they
need to make gobs of money, they will have excess manufacturing
capability and those groups wanting to exit the earth can pay them to
create space colonies to order.
The concept of there needing to be jobs in space in order for emigration
to happen is very true for individuals but not for GROUPS. If you think
of a space colony as the city you currently live in beamed into space
then the only option is individual emigration and therefore a dead end.
Instead think of a space colony as something closer to a kibbutzim,
United Order if your Mormon, or what a commune was supposed to be before
the communists got a hold of it. Groups of this type go where no
individual would consider going for reasons hardly ever linked to economics.
> So many of the problems are outlined in Thomas Young's IMCE report.
> Read between the lines and watch NASA with a jaded eye and you'll
> see that they aren't all necessarily pulling in the same direction
> towards the same goal.
Very true which only emphasises my point. The two great non geographic
divisions of NASA are "manned space flight" and "space science". The
"space science" side manages to get projects out the door within the
normal limits of government efficency. The "manned space flight" side
in comparison has the bulk of the money and the least to show for it.
What is the major difference in the two sides? "Manned" vs "Unmanned".
Mitchell James
www.innertransit.org
>
> > ... Those people must live within an economy,
>
> The economy (at least at the beginning of colony building) that
they
> must be part of is the Earth economy until they have the purchase
price.
> Once a colony has been purchased I forsee the amount of
interaction
> with the Earth's economy has being very minimal. I also don't
forsee
> colonies being purchased on credit through some may try. It is
> difficult to reposess a colony as compared to a house or car on
earth.
you would a car or house. An asset that has a value of hundreds of
billions of dollars, perhaps even a trillion dollars isn't something
that is even in the same realm of finance as a consumer item. The
sheer amount of capital involved will create its own economy. I
don't really want to start a whole other thread on banking theory
and macroeconomic principles, but I do feel very comfortable in
disputing the idea that some entity will construct a Habitat and
some other entity will "purchase" it. As for your comment on credit
purchases, the same critique applies; don't think in terms of an
individual consumer buying a Habitat on their VISA card :)
>
> > an economy that
> > demands their diverse talents and an economy that serves as a
> > component part of a larger global economy within which the
> > competitive advantages of companies, industries and nations are
> > sifted and if your argument is indeed accurate, then the human
> > activities in orbit, in support of that economy, will have more
> > efficient substitutes to compete against. Such a scenario spells
> > economic doom for a permanent and diverse domestic orbital
economy,
> > and as a result will provide little attraction for immigrants.
> > Therefore, all of the products that must be manufactured in orbit
> > will continue to rely on robotic technology and earth-located
tele-
> > operators.
>
> Ya. If company A is able to create and sell it's product for much
less
> than company B then company B is not going to be in business for
long.
> I expect that there will be several countries/companies groups
that will
> build SPSs once we arrive at the critical mass for that to
happen.
I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion. If the initial
construction of that "critical mass" is performed by a consortium of
companies, are they going to allow their competition to ride on
their coattails? Same question for a country or group of countries
that finance that critical mass. Or do you expect that many
different groups are going to be putting up their own "critical
mass?" Don't think in terms of Bob's SPS Co., but in terms of a few
dozen large multinationals forming a partnership, or an ISS type of
partnership at the governmental level. Once that critical mass is
up, then the builders will have a monopoly because they'll have
erected a HUGE barrier to entry for their competitors.
The
> group that picks the lowest cost approach will win and the others
will
> go out of business. If as I suspect, a non manned approach will
be the
> lowest cost approach then there simply will not be a reason for an
> INDIVIDUAL to emigrate to space for economic reasons. So if
> manufacturing in space is an economic operation then the economic
> marketplace will destroy the weakest competitor ie manned
> manufacturing. Now I like O'Neil's bootstrap approach and when it
was
> written it was almost impossible to envision a realistic robotic
> capability and therefore manned manufacturing was the primary
> candidate. I believe a robotic manufacturing capability is now
within
> our grasp which should cause us to reevaluate the cause and
effects of
> bootstrapping. Putting humans in space to perform manufacturing
is no
> longer economicly justifiable.
You keep reaching conclusions without facts or without even making a
case in support of your hypothesis. This is as frustrating as
arguing about god with the religious; they can't start at the
beginning and try to build their argument, rather they presume the
existence and then proceed from that point. I'm completely willing
to accept your position concerning robotics, with the supoort of a
compelling argument, but I fear you're unwilling to accept the
possibility that robotics may not be able to do it all. As I read
your commentaries I continually see a reliance on the faith of your
position rather than offering me something substantive in support of
it.
I'm all for re-evaluating O'Neill's concepts but on what basis will
we perform that re-evaluation? Your website is set up to perform a
systems engineering breakdown on the bootstrapping process;
shouldn't the same principles be applied to making your case about
robotics. All I need to do to invalidate your argument is to
demonstrate that robotics cannot perform ONE crucial task and your
your argument falters. To invalidate my argument you need to
demonstrate that robotics can perform ALL tasks in orbit. I ask you,
which position is more easily defensible?
>
> This is not disaster! I see at least two possible roads:
> 1. A group of people whose goal is Space Colonization steps
forward to
> build the best and lowest cost space robotic systems based on the
bazaar
> system of software development. They then use these systems to
> manufacture in space what other people are willing to pay for and
use
> the profits to build space colonies. This is why I created
> www.InnerTransit.org. It is a tool to start this process.
You'll really need to flesh this out for me as I don't understand
the point you're trying to convey. Maybe others can help clarify for
me.
Where are the consumers for these space manufactured products from
which the profits will finance a Habitat?
> 2. When the greedy capitolistic pigs finish creating all the SPSs
they
> need to make gobs of money, they will have excess manufacturing
> capability and those groups wanting to exit the earth can pay them
to
> create space colonies to order.
Think about this for a second. For the moment let's assume that the
SPS are of the PV type. You have these factories that are making
mass quantities of PV cells and then you're going to flip a switch
and that same "manufacturing capability" is going to output the
thousands to millions of distinct components needed to create a
Habitat. The "manufacturing capability" I have in my basement (I
don't know why my friends call it a woodworking shop?) can't be
transformed from furniture making to auto making, circuitboard
making, or even sewing machine making. The same will apply in orbit.
>
> The concept of there needing to be jobs in space in order for
emigration
> to happen is very true for individuals but not for GROUPS. If you
think
> of a space colony as the city you currently live in beamed into
space
> then the only option is individual emigration and therefore a dead
end.
> Instead think of a space colony as something closer to a
kibbutzim,
> United Order if your Mormon, or what a commune was supposed to be
before
> the communists got a hold of it. Groups of this type go where no
> individual would consider going for reasons hardly ever linked to
economics.
So what's your point? That people with millions of dollars each will
go into orbit to live in a Habitat that is constructed without an
economic rationale, and these people won't have anything to do there
that can't be done on Earth or that robots can't do better, no way
to make a living, but they'll go to this frontier because as a group
they are bound by some common philosophy. I really don't get it.
TangoMan
> So what's your point? That people with millions of dollars each
> will go into orbit to live in a Habitat that is constructed
> without an economic rationale, and these people won't have
> anything to do there that can't be done on Earth or that robots
> can't do better, no way to make a living, but they'll go to this
> frontier because as a group they are bound by some common
> philosophy. I really don't get it.
a fantastic world were people live in beautiful homes constructed by
robots using materials extracted for free from non-terrestrial
sources, right? You don't have to do anything but sit around being
waited on hand-and-foot by robots that can do anything and everything
for you. You can focus your energies on art, entertainment, mental
pursuits, or just plain relaxation. Wow, sounds like a great place
to me. Where do I sign up?
No, I don't buy it either. If it sounds too good to be true...
Chris.
(This space colony starts to sound a lot like Utopia, Nervana,
Heaven, Valhalla, or various other final resting places.)
> ...
>
> I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion. If the initial
> construction of that "critical mass" is performed by a consortium of
> companies, are they going to allow their competition to ride on
> their coattails? Same question for a country or group of countries
> that finance that critical mass. Or do you expect that many
> different groups are going to be putting up their own "critical
> mass?" Don't think in terms of Bob's SPS Co., but in terms of a few
> dozen large multinationals forming a partnership, or an ISS type of
> partnership at the governmental level. Once that critical mass is
> up, then the builders will have a monopoly because they'll have
> erected a HUGE barrier to entry for their competitors.
and satellite industries where there are multiple players. A single
overwhelming monopoly would be a major problem. Even with overwhelming
monopolies such as Microsoft, Railroad Barrons, etc. these monopolies
eventually crack for a number of reasons. One can hope that this one
would crack as well.
>
> You keep reaching conclusions without facts or without even making a
> case in support of your hypothesis. This is as frustrating as
> arguing about god with the religious; they can't start at the
> beginning and try to build their argument, rather they presume the
> existence and then proceed from that point. I'm completely willing
> to accept your position concerning robotics, with the supoort of a
> compelling argument, but I fear you're unwilling to accept the
> possibility that robotics may not be able to do it all. As I read
> your commentaries I continually see a reliance on the faith of your
> position rather than offering me something substantive in support of
> it.
>
> I'm all for re-evaluating O'Neill's concepts but on what basis will
> we perform that re-evaluation? Your website is set up to perform a
> systems engineering breakdown on the bootstrapping process;
> shouldn't the same principles be applied to making your case about
> robotics. All I need to do to invalidate your argument is to
> demonstrate that robotics cannot perform ONE crucial task and your
> your argument falters. To invalidate my argument you need to
> demonstrate that robotics can perform ALL tasks in orbit. I ask you,
> which position is more easily defensible?
We are both relying on faith. Which is why test cases are important.
You are relying on the premise that a human in a critical situation can
fix the problem instead of becoming a death statistic. While I am
relying on the assumption that the total cost for organics on the spot
is more than scraping a few failures that could have been saved. I also
assume that there will be failures that no amount of organic on the spot
presence could repair. In fact there would likely be many failures
where on the spot organics are the failures.
I don't need to show that robotics can do every job. That is a given
because robotics are tools and if we cannot design tools to do
everything that is required then we cannot perform the task. Adding or
subtracting colocated organics will not change this fact only the way
the tool is implemented.
However there needs to be another line in the sand here. What
constitutes human presence? It is absurd to assume that what you intend
is for bare ass naked people to be swimming around in space arriving in
the nick of time to save the day with their bare hands. Obviously most
intervention as you see it would have to be through tools. Is it that
he has to be present in a space suit physically using a tool or is
entering commands through a keyboard or haptic interface acceptable.
Does he rely on instruments to tell him what is going on or does he have
to see it with his own eyes (no cameras). What constitutes a physical
presence and why is this important? From my point of view humans are
present if their tools are present and humans have some method of
controlling the activity of the tool. Telepresence is perfectly
acceptable. ( note: I am talking about manufacturing only. I expect to
be breathing the air on a finished space colony.) The question here is
really about if the tool interface no longer requires human muscle power
to be effective is it necessary for the unused muscle to be colocated?
Yes this discussion should be part of an IBIS breakdown and I would love
to have enough people using my site to do such things. In email
discussions it is very difficult to put that sort of structure.
>
> Think about this for a second. For the moment let's assume that the
> SPS are of the PV type. You have these factories that are making
> mass quantities of PV cells and then you're going to flip a switch
> and that same "manufacturing capability" is going to output the
> thousands to millions of distinct components needed to create a
> Habitat. The "manufacturing capability" I have in my basement (I
> don't know why my friends call it a woodworking shop?) can't be
> transformed from furniture making to auto making, circuitboard
> making, or even sewing machine making. The same will apply in orbit.
>
Okay, I have to admit that there are a lot of assumptions here.
1. that SPSs will be manufactured using space resources. If everything
is just shipped up and unfolded, then you don't need anything and this
whole discussion is moot.
2. that raw materials will be processed into useful products.
3. that the mining, transportation, and refining of the raw materials
can be reutilized in other end products.
4. the stuff making PV cells might not be useable but the infrastructure
supporting it should be.
Mitchell James
www.InnerTransit.org
We know that 'robotic' spacecraft can be constructed for a couple of
hundred million dollars. For example, NEAR Shoemaker cost $223 million,
soup to nuts, and it vastly expanded our knowledge of NEOs. In the end,
it was landed on Eros even though the craft had never been designed for
that purpose.
So the question really is, "What other useful, frontier-expanding things
can be performed with robotic spacecraft? ".
Ron
So what's your point? That people with millions of dollars each will go into orbit to live in a Habitat that is constructed without an economic rationale, and these people won't have anything to do there that can't be done on Earth or that robots can't do better, no way to make a living, but they'll go to this frontier because as a group they are bound by some common philosophy. I really don't get it. Why do they need to "make a living"? What has been described here is a fantastic world were people live in beautiful homes constructed by robots using materials extracted for free from non-terrestrial sources, right? You don't have to do anything but sit around being waited on hand-and-foot by robots that can do anything and everything for you. You can focus your energies on art, entertainment, mental pursuits, or just plain relaxation. Wow, sounds like a great place to me. Where do I sign up? No, I don't buy it either. If it sounds too good to be true... The problem comes in that there's always something you want that needs human beings to provide it.
But wait! If it's built by robots, why do I have to pay for it? Well, even if the unit cost of the car is negligable/free, the manufacturers still need to recoup the development costs; and development usually requires people. Hence, straight away the manufacturer needs engineers; and they need to be paid. Then, the engineers are flush with money, so they want to have a cleaner in, cos they are too busy working. So they employ a cleaner... and so on. You get a net of money flowing around; an economy bootstraps itself up.
It's considerations like that that pretty soon end up with a 40 hour week, a negotiable currency, based to some extent on the cost of peoples' time; multiplied by some factor such as how rare their skills are.
Or the entertainment; that needs actors. Actors expect to be paid; they're funny like that, because they want to buy a car...
Some form of economics isn't going away any time soon. There's always going to be money.
Chris.
>Are there populations
>that would rather be someplace than where they are now? Are there
>populations that the rest of us would pay to move somewhere besides
>where they are now?
Sociopolitical dissidents are ideal volunteer communities for space
colonization! Even stodgy ole NASA agrees that forward-looking communities
wishing to experiment with unconventional/radical forms of political and
social organization would do well to consider an orbital home:
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html#who
That sort of pioneer, already highly self-selected by his/her very
dissidence for precisely the sort of intelligence, initiative, and
adaptability early orbital life will demand, WILL want to "live in tents on
the site" -- and bring their families with them! -- while they build their
new homes from their own vision and their own sweat. After all, what value
remains in any Utopia-- real OR imagined Utopia -- if it cannot be shared
with those for whom we built it: our own families and friends?
Ad astra per aspera -- spike