President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond
I'd like to encourage everybody to go to the website for the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond and let your opinions be known. It's up to us to influence space policy decisions if we want things to go in the direction we feel they should.
http://www.moontomars.org/
http://www.moontomars.org/notices/contact.asp

Regards,
Mike Combs

One note here - the purpose of the commission is not to determine
detailed technical designs, nor to change the broad outline Bush gave
last month: the site name "Moon to Mars" and the commission's
abbreviated name, "Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond" indicates that
that part, at least is pretty much fixed. The main focus of the
commission, from the public hearing yesterday, seems to be figuring out
appropriate management changes that may be needed for NASA and the
overall space activities of the federal government to make this a
sustainable path, through future changes in president, congress, and
budgetary ups and downs. The testimony of Norm Augustine, head of a
previous commission 14 years ago, spoke volumes about how difficult it
is to actually effect changes; Greg Klerkx' recent book "Lost in Space"
(which I recommended to several of the commission members myself) is one
key to understanding the failure of innovation to thrive at NASA in
recent years. Klerkx quotes our friend Eric Dahlstrom, by the way, among
many others.

So, before telling the commission what you think, think carefully about
what structural or management issues would help the federal government
turn this into a sustainable space enterprise. We don't want another
Apollo here, nor another Shuttle program. This is supposed to be
something very new - and yet perhaps similar to what has been done in
other technology areas in the past.

Arthur

Here is my comment to the commission. Please be
curteous, concise, and to the point. Make them think
we are excited about the prospect.

"Please consider that the US and world is watching the
emergence of robotic technologies in hazardous
environments. NASA can play a pivotal role in the
development and standardization of remote controlled
utility robots.

This is a boon to the IT industry to furnish the parts
and software. This is a boon to US manufacturing to
produce reliable robots for undersea and hostile
environments (including the military). This is a boon
for science on a budget to determine if there is water
in quantity in the perminently shadowed craters of the
moon.

I encourage you to consider the benefits that a well
developed base on the moon would offer to visiting
astronauts - especially if it was built for them in
advance by robots.

Sincerely, Thor Olson
"

> [...comment to Moon, Mars & beyond commission...]
> I encourage you to consider the benefits that a well
> developed base on the moon would offer to visiting
> astronauts - especially if it was built for them in
> advance by robots.

If we have robots capable of building a moonbase, we have robots
capable of doing most of the exploration a human could do. I think you
overestimate the usefulness of robots. We should send robots to make
sure humans won't be killed by something obvious and then send humans.
If we really want robots, we'll need to have humans in the neighborhood
to fix them anyway. Look at the Mars rovers - they are so worried
about damaging them that they move them only a tiny amount at a time.
If there was someone there to fix problems the rovers could afford to
take risks. Machines can extend human capabilities, but they simply do
not have the necessary flexibility to replace humans.

I suspect that the commission is going to get hundreds of letters from
technophiles pushing their pet idea, be it nanotech, space elevators,
scramjets, robots, whatever. I hope they ignore all of these ideas.
Simple, pedestrian, boring, reliable technologies should be used at
every step of the way. If we let this turn into yet another technology
development project, we'll never get anywhere. Exploration is hard
enough without adding needless complexity.

......Andrew

I respectfully disagree. A moonbase is close enough to allow remote control and close monitoring, and self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire solar system within a reasonable timeframe, IMHO, holds the key to the future of the exploration of space, and any other approach would be very short-sighted and short lived by comparison, with a fraction of the benefits self replicating system would bring.
Just consider that once whatever the current program is completed, you would be left with a fully functional system that will be able to produce vital equipment for other mission, orbital power stations, and the further colonisation of the moon and in the long run the entire solar system.

> [...comment to Moon, Mars & beyond commission...]
> I encourage you to consider the benefits that a well
> developed base on the moon would offer to visiting
> astronauts - especially if it was built for them in
> advance by robots.

If we have robots capable of building a moonbase, we have robots
capable of doing most of the exploration a human could do. I think you
overestimate the usefulness of robots. We should send robots to make
sure humans won't be killed by something obvious and then send humans.
If we really want robots, we'll need to have humans in the neighborhood
to fix them anyway. Look at the Mars rovers - they are so worried
about damaging them that they move them only a tiny amount at a time.
If there was someone there to fix problems the rovers could afford to
take risks. Machines can extend human capabilities, but they simply do
not have the necessary flexibility to replace humans.

I suspect that the commission is going to get hundreds of letters from
technophiles pushing their pet idea, be it nanotech, space elevators,
scramjets, robots, whatever. I hope they ignore all of these ideas.
Simple, pedestrian, boring, reliable technologies should be used at
every step of the way. If we let this turn into yet another technology
development project, we'll never get anywhere. Exploration is hard
enough without adding needless complexity.

......Andrew

Greetings Andrew,

You are correct that currently robots are not very
useful in space and treated like glass lest they
break. It will not stay this way and NASA can provide
the sort of leadership that it did in the 1960's with
material & engineering research. This is what gets
policitians to back a major project. They have
constituencies that benefit. We benefit by seeing our
dreams get closer to reality.

Eventually it will be desirable to put humans in space
to fix robots as the cost of sending up new ones will
exceed the cost of a human going up to fix them. At
current there is a gigantic cost differential between
sending a bunch of cargo to the moon and sending a
human. Especially in such a high risk environment
would you want a human to operate a front end loader?
Think of all of the industrial applications like
mining where they would buy reliable battle tested
robots by the thousands to mine coal and everything
else where the accident rate is high. The future is
in adopting and perfecting new technologies which is
exactely what NASA did with the Apollo missions.

The commission is likely to read only a few of the
comments and do what most political bodies do -
measure the public's interest by the volume of
comments it receives. The Sierra Club knows that
they can sway major ledgislation by simply getting
people to write, call, whatever. The politicians know
that in apathetic America, a single letter represents
10, 20, 50 voters that didn't bother. This is a
lottery I recommend playing if for no other reason
than to show that we care.

I assert that it is precisely the development of
technology that will get NASA and the politicians
fired up. It is not my pet project if it is the
enabler to all of the other ideas that have been
discussed on this message board. The military is
looking for modern battle field advances like robotic
planes. The science community would love powerful
exploration tools and facilities. The economic
community wants to take everything that was developed
to market and make some money out of it. This is what
funds the space movement to date. I wrote to the
commissions strengths and common interests and
sincerely hope you do as well.

- Thor

On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 05:26 PM, Thor
> [...comment to Moon, Mars & beyond commission...]
> I encourage you to consider the benefits that a well
> developed base on the moon would offer to visiting
> astronauts - especially if it was built for them in
> advance by robots.

If we have robots capable of building a moonbase, we
have robots capable of doing most of the exploration a
human could do. I think you overestimate the
usefulness of robots. We should send robots to make
sure humans won't be killed by something obvious and
then send humans. If we really want robots, we'll
need to have humans in the neighborhood to fix them
anyway. Look at the Mars rovers - they are so worried
about damaging them that they move them only a tiny
amount at a time. If there was someone there to fix
problems the rovers could afford to
take risks. Machines can extend human capabilities,
but they simply do not have the necessary flexibility
to replace humans.

I suspect that the commission is going to get hundreds
of letters from technophiles pushing their pet idea,
be it nanotech, space elevators, scramjets, robots,
whatever. I hope they ignore all of these ideas.
Simple, pedestrian, boring, reliable technologies
should be used at every step of the way. If we let
this turn into yet another technology
development project, we'll never get anywhere.

Exploration is hard enough without adding needless
complexity.

......Andrew

> I respectfully disagree.
> A moonbase is close enough to allow remote control and close
> monitoring, and self-replicating automated lunar factory system,
> capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the
> long run, exploration of the entire solar system within a reasonable
> timeframe, IMHO, holds the key to the future of the exploration of
> space, and any other approach would be very short-sighted and short
> lived by comparison, with a fraction of the benefits self replicating
> system would bring.

No self replicating nonbiological system exists. Putting such an
enormous technology development task in the critical path for lunar
exploration all but guarantees failure. The program you propose
requires enormous amounts of R&D and long planning timelines. All
that's necessary to derail it is a change of administration or a
recession.

Why make things more complex than they need to be? If self-replicating
factories are possible, build on independent of the return to the moon.
That way if it fails the lunar plans are intact. If it succeeds,
there will be small scale infrastructure on the moon to help setting up
the first factory.

> Systems like these, considerate feasible by a a NASA study, conducted
> in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost
> of 11.7 million dollars, are well within our current technology and
> have little to do with having robots that can do al the exploration
> humans can.

NASA claimed X-33 would lead to low cost space access. Note the lack
of low cost space access despite funding X-33 even beyond the amount
initially budgeted. NASA studies prove little.

Self replicating factories are not even close to being well within
current technology. I have looked into the problem of self
replication, and it's much harder than it looks.

Here's a simple project which you ought to be able to do at home:
Build a self replicating system out of Lego or some other construction
toy. I'm not suggesting it has to build the blocks - those can be
given as feedstock. Anything that can take an unsorted collection of
lego blocks and build a replica of itself will impress the hell out of
me.

I'm not opposed to research on self replicating systems, in fact I
would like to see more of it. What I oppose is putting such a
difficult task in the critical path for lunar exploration.

......Andrew

> I'm not opposed to research on self replicating systems, in fact I
> would like to see more of it. What I oppose is putting such a
> difficult task in the critical path for lunar exploration.
>
> ......Andrew

Ah, a key statement. Are we after flags and footprints or
colonization? If colonization, then keeping people out of the equation
as long as possible will be the most cost effective. Therefore some
sort of minimal replication / tele -manufacturing becomes important. It
takes quite a bit of equipment to reproduce a factory. The question
will be what pieces is it more cost effective to ship or to manufacture
in place.

By the way, I agree that talking to the presidential commission or
talking to congress about any specific technology or project is
counter-productive. What we must be after is fundamental change to HOW
space projects get done. It is the HOW that is most important right now.

Mitchell James

Greetings Andrew,

"I'm not opposed to research on self replicating
systems, in fact I would like to see more of it. What
I oppose is putting such a difficult task in the
critical path for lunar exploration."

We are in full agreement in this aspect. Would you
not also agree that NASA has taken on these difficult
tasks in the critical path to putting humans in space

1) Solving bone/muscle loss in low gravity
environments by medication.
2) Getting hundreds of billions in funding for a human
base on the Moon/Mars.
3) Providing adequate radiation shielding for long
term exposure.
4) Overcomming monumental space station cost overruns.
5) Loosing the status of being the respected innovator
of solutions.

- Thor

> No self replicating nonbiological system exists. Putting such an
> enormous technology development task in the critical path for lunar
> exploration all but guarantees failure. The program you propose
> requires enormous amounts of R&D and long planning timelines. All
> that's necessary to derail it is a change of administration or a
> recession.

Beg to differ, no hardware self replicating nonbiological system exists,
simulated systems of this kind are common, we made several in the computer
games company I was working for a couple of years ago.

> Why make things more complex than they need to be? If self-replicating
> factories are possible, build on independent of the return to the moon.
> That way if it fails the lunar plans are intact. If it succeeds,
> there will be small scale infrastructure on the moon to help setting up
> the first factory.

Failure is not an option. :)
Fact is IMHO they won't make things more complex, but a lot easier.
Think of whatever you want to do with a manned mission. Now how much easier
things would be if you had a practically unlimited amount of building
materials, paved surface, energy power stations and assembly lines already
in place? Sounds like a much better scenario to me... :)

> Self replicating factories are not even close to being well within
> current technology. I have looked into the problem of self
> replication, and it's much harder than it looks.

The key here is that complete closure is not a requirement, in fact is not
even important.
That's another big difference between building in our backgarden as opposed
to distant exploration! All the "self replicating" system really needs to
actually replicate are the big chunky bits. Things like concrete slabs,
vehicles chassis and body parts, glass panels, furnaces melting pots, etc.
All the electronics and micromechanics can be shipped from earth ready
assembled at a relatively small cost, being small and light. The seed plants
just need to be able to churn out the chassis, wheels and tracks, excavating
scoops, etc. to build more and more mining vehicles and similar. These are
all well tested technologies currently used in all factories, nearly the
totality of this kind of manufacture and assembly job is done already by
robots. The simpler and tougher parts are the more reliable the final
assembly will be. Forgot the martian rover with his clockwork, self
replicating systems can make bulldozers, by the hundreds. You'll still need
to ship the pre-assembled distributions and some spare sparks, fair enough,
but it is still hundred times better than ship the whole thing!

> Here's a simple project which you ought to be able to do at home:
> Build a self replicating system out of Lego or some other construction
> toy. I'm not suggesting it has to build the blocks - those can be
> given as feedstock. Anything that can take an unsorted collection of
> lego blocks and build a replica of itself will impress the hell out of
> me.

This is a bit of nonsense of course, based on what exactly you "ought to be
able to do it" with lego blocks? Here is a small counter-test for you, build
me a flying airplane, a floating ship or a internal combustion engine with
lego blocks... Surely you "ought to be able to do it", as these are all
proven existing reliable technologies? Note I'm being kind and I'm not
asking you to make a rocket engine or a CD player... :)

> I'm not opposed to research on self replicating systems, in fact I
> would like to see more of it. What I oppose is putting such a
> difficult task in the critical path for lunar exploration.

Obviously I have done a very poor job at explaining the basic concept of
what "self replicating" means in this context... no research is needed in
the technology itself, only in how to optimize it for shipping to the moon.
Nearly everything in the modern industrial world is already made by semi
automatic machines. Look at the assembly robot arms used in the car
factories, do you think those are made by hand in a middleage kind of
ironsmith? :) That's what "selfreplicating is about". Forget the 100%
closure required to imitating a living organism and other similar abstract
philosophical concepts: this is a very down-to-earth (no pun intended!)
simple concept. Instead of shipping bulldozers and containers full of
building materials to the moon you send parts of factories and assembly
lines needed to make bulldozers and the building materials you need, as well
as more of the factories and assembly lines themselves. You then let the
thing doing his job, under constant human supervision, remote control when
needed, and supplying all bits that are too hard (or anyway uneconomical) to
make in place, and you get hundreds of square miles of paved building areas,
underground storage facilities, solar power plants, mining refining and
smeltering facilities, plus an exponentially increasing industrial capacity
in place at a fraction of the cost of sending a dozen people with a digger.
Once you have enough of this background work done (ten years according to
the original 1980 plan, but could be even less these days) you can start to
send people over there, in a safe, comfortable and suitable environment,
where they can start to get at work immediately...

I hope this helps to make things a bit more clear!

Cheers,

Claudio

When I read "self replicating systems" I think of science fiction.

What you have finally described is "in-situ resource utilization".
The idea that we can make glass, Iron, concrete and oxygen using a
machine/furnace unit (yet to be developed but within modern
technology) and some robot end loaders that bring dirt to the furnace
machine. that is a feasible system to manufacture raw materials.
But, we would need to have people there to operate the machines.
That is the way it is in mining, manufacturing and so on. Robots
that do work here on earth have engineers and technicians working
around them at all times.

Robots used on the moon and mars, without humans to maintain them, do
not have a record of surviving very long at all. I believe that
pathfinder has the record at 90 days before a malfunction. All it
takes is one little bolt to break, or one circuit to fry, or one part
to overheat (or freeze) and the robot stops.

>
> Robots used on the moon and mars, without humans to maintain them, do
> not have a record of surviving very long at all. I believe that
> pathfinder has the record at 90 days before a malfunction. All it
> takes is one little bolt to break, or one circuit to fry, or one part
> to overheat (or freeze) and the robot stops.
>
Takes even less to kill a human in the same situation. Your thinking
earth surface too much. The advantage that robotic installations have
on earth is that their maintainers (humans) are in their natural
environment. Put the requirements on those facilities that humans would
have to wear and maintain all the equipment that will be required to
keep them alive on the moon or mars and watch them quickly disappear
from the operation.

Mitchell James

When I read "self replicating systems" I think of science fiction.

What you have finally described is "in-situ resource utilization".
The idea that we can make glass, Iron, concrete and oxygen using a
machine/furnace unit (yet to be developed but within modern
technology) and some robot end loaders that bring dirt to the furnace
machine. that is a feasible system to manufacture raw materials.
But, we would need to have people there to operate the machines.
That is the way it is in mining, manufacturing and so on. Robots
that do work here on earth have engineers and technicians working
around them at all times.

Robots used on the moon and mars, without humans to maintain them, do
not have a record of surviving very long at all. I believe that
pathfinder has the record at 90 days before a malfunction. All it
takes is one little bolt to break, or one circuit to fry, or one part
to overheat (or freeze) and the robot stops.

Em Sex 13 Fev 2004 18:08, Mitchell James escreveu:
> Takes even less to kill a human in the same situation.

History tells a different story.

We have seen several cases of manned spacecraft that suffered
near-catastrophic failure (Apollo 13 and Mir come to my mind, but I think
that there were others) were much of the electronic and even mechanical
systems of the crafts were disabled, but humans kept "functioning" and
recovered the mission as much as they could in a near-miraculous way.

On the other hand, we have seen robotic missions failing due to really stupid
reasons (e.g., mess with Metric versus Imperial systems) or being crippled
due to extremely simple problems (stuck antennas) that a on-board human would
probably detect/correct easily.

I don't think those example apply much to the situation debated here
actually...
The robots failure depended on their being on their own and beyond
intervention, where they operating in a self-replicating seed plant on the
moon the software problems would be easily solved by reprogramming and the
mechanical failure fixed as a matter of routine work. This was of course
impossible on the deep space exploration probes.
OTOH in a failure of the kind of Apollo 13 the crew only survived because
the craft was going back in a very short time anyway, where the crew stuck
on the moon they would have all died, or another very expensive mission
would have to be sent to their rescue...

Once again, building a permanent settlement near the Earth has very little
to share with deep space exploration mission, if anything is probably closer
to underwater deep sea operation or artic mining operations... still it's a
lot easier to have human operators in those cases then it is on the moon,
let alone cheaper and safer, so the balance is still way over to
semi-automatic operations anyway IMHO, at least until those have prepared
the ground and grown to the point where it becomes convenient and desirable
to have a semi permanent crew on location, probably a dozen years after the
first seeds have landed at the very least, I'd guess...

Cheers,

Claudio

>> No self replicating nonbiological system exists. Putting such an
>> enormous technology development task in the critical path for lunar
>> exploration all but guarantees failure. The program you propose
>> requires enormous amounts of R&D and long planning timelines. All
>> that's necessary to derail it is a change of administration or a
>> recession.
>
> Beg to differ, no hardware self replicating nonbiological system
> exists,
> simulated systems of this kind are common, we made several in the
> computer
> games company I was working for a couple of years ago.

Simulation is not reality. The fact that you can simulate something
may be helpful in designing the real thing (or it may be nearly
irrelevant), but until there are existence proofs of the desired
technology here on earth it makes no sense to plan to do it on the moon.

>> Why make things more complex than they need to be? If
>> self-replicating
>> factories are possible, build on independent of the return to the
>> moon.
>> That way if it fails the lunar plans are intact. If it succeeds,
>> there will be small scale infrastructure on the moon to help setting
>> up
>> the first factory.
>
> Failure is not an option. :)

No, it's a requirement. Really. In practice things break. Smart
designs allow for this and provide flexibility to deal with the
consequences. The ultimate in flexibility is still a live human being
on site. Technology to replace that human is many decades, if not
centuries, away.

> Fact is IMHO they won't make things more complex, but a lot easier.

No. Imaginary technology doesn't make practical accomplishments
easier. If you want to do something that's possible with existing
technology, you do it with existing technology. Throwing in
requirements for massive R&D programs makes everything more expensive,
and the enterprise as a whole more likely to fail.

> Think of whatever you want to do with a manned mission. Now how much
> easier
> things would be if you had a practically unlimited amount of building
> materials, paved surface, energy power stations and assembly lines
> already
> in place?

All of that infrastructure costs money. Make the R&D program a
prerequisite to a return to the moon and we'll never get there. Don't
put stuff in the critical path unless it absolutely has to be there.

> [...] Forgot the martian rover with his clockwork, self
> replicating systems can make bulldozers, by the hundreds.

With current or near future technology they cannot. You are proposing
something which is simply not within reach for current technology.
Return to the moon and the beginnings of lunar infrastructure are
within reach with technology from the 1960s. Putting as yet
undeveloped technology in the critical path makes no sense at all.

>> I'm not opposed to research on self replicating systems, in fact I
>> would like to see more of it. What I oppose is putting such a
>> difficult task in the critical path for lunar exploration.
>
> Obviously I have done a very poor job at explaining the basic concept
> of
> what "self replicating" means in this context... no research is needed
> in
> the technology itself, only in how to optimize it for shipping to the
> moon.

Now you're talking about something more like a kit with a modest
contribution of local materials, and constant human supervision from
earth. Even so, you need to ship thousands of tons of stuff to the
moon before sending the first human. The alternative is to ship less
than a hundred tons, including the first humans, and then ship the rest
as needed. When lunar manufacturing becomes a viable option, people
can start doing it.

> Nearly everything in the modern industrial world is already made by
> semi
> automatic machines. Look at the assembly robot arms used in the car
> factories, do you think those are made by hand in a middleage kind of
> ironsmith? :) That's what "selfreplicating is about".

Those robot factories are supported by a vast infrastructure that does
not exist on the moon. In principle you could package up the factory
(suitably modified), along with the needed elements of infrastructure
(again, suitably modified), and ship them to the moon. You'd have no
guarantee that they'd work properly in the lunar environment, and if
they didn't you'd have no way to fix them. In addition, the total mass
you'd have to lift is in the thousands of tons. The factories are cost
effective only because they are turning out tens of thousands of
identical items. Early lunar exploration and development doesn't need
tens of thousands of anything. Under ideal circumstances you'd have a
factory churning out very expensive hardware that there is no market
for.

> Forget the 100%
> closure required to imitating a living organism and other similar
> abstract
> philosophical concepts: this is a very down-to-earth (no pun intended!)
> simple concept. Instead of shipping bulldozers and containers full of
> building materials to the moon you send parts of factories and assembly
> lines needed to make bulldozers and the building materials you need,
> as well
> as more of the factories and assembly lines themselves.

Nobody is going to be using bulldozers on the moon for a very long
time. Initially it will be only one or two. There is no need for a
bulldozer factory on the moon at this point or for the foreseeable
future. By the time significant amounts of regolith need to be shifted
around we'll know a lot more about the moon and how to work there, and
we can design a bulldozer to do the job right.

......Andrew

>> No self replicating nonbiological system exists. Putting such an
>> enormous technology development task in the critical path for lunar
>> exploration all but guarantees failure. The program you propose
>> requires enormous amounts of R&D and long planning timelines. All
>> that's necessary to derail it is a change of administration or a
>> recession.
>
> Beg to differ, no hardware self replicating nonbiological system
> exists,
> simulated systems of this kind are common, we made several in the
> computer
> games company I was working for a couple of years ago.

Simulation is not reality. The fact that you can simulate something
may be helpful in designing the real thing (or it may be nearly
irrelevant), but until there are existence proofs of the desired
technology here on earth it makes no sense to plan to do it on the moon.

>> Why make things more complex than they need to be? If
>> self-replicating
>> factories are possible, build on independent of the return to the
>> moon.
>> That way if it fails the lunar plans are intact. If it succeeds,
>> there will be small scale infrastructure on the moon to help setting
>> up
>> the first factory.
>
> Failure is not an option. :)

No, it's a requirement. Really. In practice things break. Smart
designs allow for this and provide flexibility to deal with the
consequences. The ultimate in flexibility is still a live human being
on site. Technology to replace that human is many decades, if not
centuries, away.

> Fact is IMHO they won't make things more complex, but a lot easier.

No. Imaginary technology doesn't make practical accomplishments
easier. If you want to do something that's possible with existing
technology, you do it with existing technology. Throwing in
requirements for massive R&D programs makes everything more expensive,
and the enterprise as a whole more likely to fail.

> Think of whatever you want to do with a manned mission. Now how much
> easier
> things would be if you had a practically unlimited amount of building
> materials, paved surface, energy power stations and assembly lines
> already
> in place?

All of that infrastructure costs money. Make the R&D program a
prerequisite to a return to the moon and we'll never get there. Don't
put stuff in the critical path unless it absolutely has to be there.

> [...] Forgot the martian rover with his clockwork, self
> replicating systems can make bulldozers, by the hundreds.

With current or near future technology they cannot. You are proposing
something which is simply not within reach for current technology.
Return to the moon and the beginnings of lunar infrastructure are
within reach with technology from the 1960s. Putting as yet
undeveloped technology in the critical path makes no sense at all.

>> I'm not opposed to research on self replicating systems, in fact I
>> would like to see more of it. What I oppose is putting such a
>> difficult task in the critical path for lunar exploration.
>
> Obviously I have done a very poor job at explaining the basic concept
> of
> what "self replicating" means in this context... no research is needed
> in
> the technology itself, only in how to optimize it for shipping to the
> moon.

Now you're talking about something more like a kit with a modest
contribution of local materials, and constant human supervision from
earth. Even so, you need to ship thousands of tons of stuff to the
moon before sending the first human. The alternative is to ship less
than a hundred tons, including the first humans, and then ship the rest
as needed. When lunar manufacturing becomes a viable option, people
can start doing it.

> Nearly everything in the modern industrial world is already made by
> semi
> automatic machines. Look at the assembly robot arms used in the car
> factories, do you think those are made by hand in a middleage kind of
> ironsmith? :) That's what "selfreplicating is about".

Those robot factories are supported by a vast infrastructure that does
not exist on the moon. In principle you could package up the factory
(suitably modified), along with the needed elements of infrastructure
(again, suitably modified), and ship them to the moon. You'd have no
guarantee that they'd work properly in the lunar environment, and if
they didn't you'd have no way to fix them. In addition, the total mass
you'd have to lift is in the thousands of tons. The factories are cost
effective only because they are turning out tens of thousands of
identical items. Early lunar exploration and development doesn't need
tens of thousands of anything. Under ideal circumstances you'd have a
factory churning out very expensive hardware that there is no market
for.

> Forget the 100%
> closure required to imitating a living organism and other similar
> abstract
> philosophical concepts: this is a very down-to-earth (no pun intended!)
> simple concept. Instead of shipping bulldozers and containers full of
> building materials to the moon you send parts of factories and assembly
> lines needed to make bulldozers and the building materials you need,
> as well
> as more of the factories and assembly lines themselves.

Nobody is going to be using bulldozers on the moon for a very long
time. Initially it will be only one or two. There is no need for a
bulldozer factory on the moon at this point or for the foreseeable
future. By the time significant amounts of regolith need to be shifted
around we'll know a lot more about the moon and how to work there, and
we can design a bulldozer to do the job right.

......Andrew

> Andrew,
> I really see no point to answeryour comments one at the time because
> they shows clearly that 1) you haven't even took a look at the
> proposed system and therefore speak only about prejudices and wrong
> assumptions, and 2) I think I've already answered most of the issue
> you raise already anyway.

I've read the study (albeit a long time ago). It presumes a level of
commitment to space colonization that has never existed and more than
likely never will exist. It also puts a massive technological effort
in the early phases of returning to the moon. Incremental development
works. There is no need to build infrastructure in advance of humans.
Insisting on doing so makes it more likely the project will fail before
anyone even gets to the moon.

> The bottom line is that shipping a seed plant and let it grow is
> cheaper and safer than a manned mission of comparable size that
> involve human operators.

The fundamental problem is that you want to build massive
infrastructure before even establishing where the useful resources are,
and what the markets might be. Incremental development works. Massive
centrally planned projects tend to do poorly.

> The unmanned operation can use all the space and weight required for
> personnel to carry more equipment, you can turn things around as much
> as you like but this simple basic fact won't change.

Nor will the fact that an individual human and associated life support
systems is more flexible and capable than the equivalent mass of
machinery. For exploration and early phases of development flexibility
is an absolute necessity.

> As for the large infrastructure the whole point is that you get them
> effectively for "free" using a seed plant, as it grows and creates
> them for you. The alternative you seem to prefer is to bring up people
> and equipment to make them, and that's surely is not more efficient
> from any point of view.

Why is it harder to build a "self replicating" factory with people
right on site to service it than to do so with the nearest service
personnel 250,000 miles away?

> As for the technology not being there, once again this is simply not
> true, all the technology required is basic industrial technology
> already used everyday in any modern factory.

Not in low gravity, hard vacuum, and exposed to incredibly abrasive
lunar regolith. All of those are going to be major issues for any
plans to develop the moon. That's just one reason why incremental
development is important.

> Try to think of it this way: what would you need to buildthe smallest
> ofmanned permanent bases on the moon?
> List all materials, equipment etc. now consider this: is it going to
> be more than hundred tonnes? That's very roughly the payload of four
> Apollo missions. I seriously doubt you could put up anything with less
> than a dozen times that payload.
> Now with those 100 tons alone you could have a basic system that will
> exponentially grow with a tiny amount of further supply, no more than
> a few tons per year, mostly rare raw elements and a electronics,
> anothing compared to the supply any manned mission would need. With
> this absolutely minimal support(in relative terms anyway) that seed
> would double every year, that's an exponential growth which roughly
> means in ten years time you'll have 102400 tons of working equipment
> in place, plus hundred of miles of paved surface, power lines, storage
> facilities etc, left over and ready to be used for human settlement,
> all at nearly zero cost after the initial investment.
> What would you have left after ten years of continuous spending on a
> manned mission? If everything goes well a square mile of pressurized
> bunker with half a dozen people in it. I don't think the two scenario
> even compare.

The two scenarios don't compare because one of them presumes
near-magical technology. A hundred tons for a seed in-situ resource
utilization plant is incredibly optimistic. All that needs to happen
is a few surprises early on in the program and you have exactly nothing
to show for your effort. If ISRU plants are so straightforward, send
up those hundred tons and a second hundred ton ship with a couple of
crew members to keep an eye on the plant. A basic hab with living
conditions no worse than those on a nuclear submarine ought to mass
less than a hundred tons. Even so, you're putting the cart before the
horse. Explore, then develop.

> As for feasibility, I don't see much point in keep arguing about it,
> to me the conclusion that a government committee drawn after spending
> a dozen millions in feasibility studies are good enough. They thought
> it was possible with 1980 technology, it certainly it isn't any harder
> today. If you doubt this I'd suggest you to read that study first,
> after allit was made by NASA, not by a mad scientist from a badly
> written SF novel... :)

NASA studies in the 1960s clearly showed that the way to make space
travel cheap and routine was to build the space shuttle. In the 1990s
they showed how X-33 would bring massive reductions in launch costs.
NASA studies need to be looked at very closely before one takes them
seriously. In some areas (notably when they aren't looking at billion
dollar programs) they can be quite useful. In others they border on
fantasy.

These sorts of studies are churned out by people who are very smart but
who for some reason ignore the lessons of history. This is close to
home for me, since the fusion community (in which I am a researcher)
has a fondness for this type of study, too. They'll extrapolate trends
way past what's justified, assume perfect government bureaucrats with
no personal agendas, assume ideal funding environment, and show how
amazing technical advances are quite reasonable, assuming no surprises.
Such studies serve a purpose, but they are not reliable guides to what
is realistically possible.

......Andrew

> Andrew,
> I really see no point to answeryour comments one at the time because
> they shows clearly that 1) you haven't even took a look at the
> proposed system and therefore speak only about prejudices and wrong
> assumptions, and 2) I think I've already answered most of the issue
> you raise already anyway.

I've read the study (albeit a long time ago). It presumes a level of
commitment to space colonization that has never existed and more than
likely never will exist. It also puts a massive technological effort
in the early phases of returning to the moon. Incremental development
works. There is no need to build infrastructure in advance of humans.
Insisting on doing so makes it more likely the project will fail before
anyone even gets to the moon.

> The bottom line is that shipping a seed plant and let it grow is
> cheaper and safer than a manned mission of comparable size that
> involve human operators.

The fundamental problem is that you want to build massive
infrastructure before even establishing where the useful resources are,
and what the markets might be. Incremental development works. Massive
centrally planned projects tend to do poorly.

> The unmanned operation can use all the space and weight required for
> personnel to carry more equipment, you can turn things around as much
> as you like but this simple basic fact won't change.

Nor will the fact that an individual human and associated life support
systems is more flexible and capable than the equivalent mass of
machinery. For exploration and early phases of development flexibility
is an absolute necessity.

> As for the large infrastructure the whole point is that you get them
> effectively for "free" using a seed plant, as it grows and creates
> them for you. The alternative you seem to prefer is to bring up people
> and equipment to make them, and that's surely is not more efficient
> from any point of view.

Why is it harder to build a "self replicating" factory with people
right on site to service it than to do so with the nearest service
personnel 250,000 miles away?

> As for the technology not being there, once again this is simply not
> true, all the technology required is basic industrial technology
> already used everyday in any modern factory.

Not in low gravity, hard vacuum, and exposed to incredibly abrasive
lunar regolith. All of those are going to be major issues for any
plans to develop the moon. That's just one reason why incremental
development is important.

> Try to think of it this way: what would you need to buildthe smallest
> ofmanned permanent bases on the moon?
> List all materials, equipment etc. now consider this: is it going to
> be more than hundred tonnes? That's very roughly the payload of four
> Apollo missions. I seriously doubt you could put up anything with less
> than a dozen times that payload.
> Now with those 100 tons alone you could have a basic system that will
> exponentially grow with a tiny amount of further supply, no more than
> a few tons per year, mostly rare raw elements and a electronics,
> anothing compared to the supply any manned mission would need. With
> this absolutely minimal support(in relative terms anyway) that seed
> would double every year, that's an exponential growth which roughly
> means in ten years time you'll have 102400 tons of working equipment
> in place, plus hundred of miles of paved surface, power lines, storage
> facilities etc, left over and ready to be used for human settlement,
> all at nearly zero cost after the initial investment.
> What would you have left after ten years of continuous spending on a
> manned mission? If everything goes well a square mile of pressurized
> bunker with half a dozen people in it. I don't think the two scenario
> even compare.

The two scenarios don't compare because one of them presumes
near-magical technology. A hundred tons for a seed in-situ resource
utilization plant is incredibly optimistic. All that needs to happen
is a few surprises early on in the program and you have exactly nothing
to show for your effort. If ISRU plants are so straightforward, send
up those hundred tons and a second hundred ton ship with a couple of
crew members to keep an eye on the plant. A basic hab with living
conditions no worse than those on a nuclear submarine ought to mass
less than a hundred tons. Even so, you're putting the cart before the
horse. Explore, then develop.

> As for feasibility, I don't see much point in keep arguing about it,
> to me the conclusion that a government committee drawn after spending
> a dozen millions in feasibility studies are good enough. They thought
> it was possible with 1980 technology, it certainly it isn't any harder
> today. If you doubt this I'd suggest you to read that study first,
> after allit was made by NASA, not by a mad scientist from a badly
> written SF novel... :)

NASA studies in the 1960s clearly showed that the way to make space
travel cheap and routine was to build the space shuttle. In the 1990s
they showed how X-33 would bring massive reductions in launch costs.
NASA studies need to be looked at very closely before one takes them
seriously. In some areas (notably when they aren't looking at billion
dollar programs) they can be quite useful. In others they border on
fantasy.

These sorts of studies are churned out by people who are very smart but
who for some reason ignore the lessons of history. This is close to
home for me, since the fusion community (in which I am a researcher)
has a fondness for this type of study, too. They'll extrapolate trends
way past what's justified, assume perfect government bureaucrats with
no personal agendas, assume ideal funding environment, and show how
amazing technical advances are quite reasonable, assuming no surprises.
Such studies serve a purpose, but they are not reliable guides to what
is realistically possible.

.Andrew

> works. There is no need to build infrastructure in advance of humans.
> Insisting on doing so makes it more likely the project will fail before
> anyone even gets to the moon.
>
You seem to be saying that just putting people on the moon before
anything happens automaticly makes the mission a success. This
discussion is verging on the same type of absolute reasoning that some
people have that Mars is the only valid place for a space habitat
because it is a planet and humans live on planets. A whole section of
NASA (manned flight) has been wasting a lot of money for decades using
the reasoning that there cannot be a space program that the public will
support if there are not humans being blasted into space. It may be
that we end up with humans as part of the first load, but it will be
done because nobody was willing to shut down the manned space flight
center not because it was cost effective or required.

> Nor will the fact that an individual human and associated life support
> systems is more flexible and capable than the equivalent mass of
> machinery. For exploration and early phases of development flexibility
> is an absolute necessity.

Come, come! The first phase is detailed mapping all done by satellites,
a type of robotic system. You'll notice that there are no satellites in
orbit that have people ridding in attendance. All those satellites that
take weather maps, scan the sun, zap communications around the globe,
and that will make detailed maps of the moon are remote controlled and
seem to work just fine. Nothing that needs done on the moon is
technically more difficult than the myriad of robotic devices in orbit
currently do. It is a little bit of hardware being driven by a lot of
software.

Mitchell James

>
>> works. There is no need to build infrastructure in advance of humans.
>> Insisting on doing so makes it more likely the project will fail
>> before
>> anyone even gets to the moon.
>>
> You seem to be saying that just putting people on the moon before
> anything happens automaticly makes the mission a success.

No. I'm saying insisting on robots doing jobs for which humans are
better suited reduces the chances of success (that's point #1). In
addition, putting large complex technical development programs in the
critical path when they are not needed further reduces the chances of
success (point #2).

> This
> discussion is verging on the same type of absolute reasoning that some
> people have that Mars is the only valid place for a space habitat
> because it is a planet and humans live on planets. A whole section of
> NASA (manned flight) has been wasting a lot of money for decades using
> the reasoning that there cannot be a space program that the public will
> support if there are not humans being blasted into space.

I have problems with the manned spaceflight folks at NASA, since
they've screwed up so badly on Shuttle and ISS. On the other hand,
they're what we have, and there's no use pretending they'll go away.
There simply isn't that kind of political will in Washington.
>
>> Nor will the fact that an individual human and associated life support
>> systems is more flexible and capable than the equivalent mass of
>> machinery. For exploration and early phases of development
>> flexibility
>> is an absolute necessity.
>
> Come, come! The first phase is detailed mapping all done by
> satellites,
> a type of robotic system.

Satellites are not what people usually think of as robots. Even under
the more restrictive definition of robot there are many cases where
robotic missions are preferable. I fully support robotic exploration -
my objection is to asking robots to do tasks for which humans are a
better choice. Complex tasks that require flexibility and on the spot
judgment are simply not well suited to robots. That is precisely the
kind of task that will come up over and over again in the early phases
of lunar exploration and development. By all means the humans
explorers should be supported by robotic pathfinders where possible.

The basic issue comes down to this: if we want to really explore with
an eye to eventual human presence, we should send humans early in the
process. Humans will return more of the relevant information for the
buck than robots can. In addition, sending humans will help us build
infrastructure for human spaceflight. Once the infrastructure (in the
form of launchers and vehicles, as well as possibly small lunar bases)
is in place commercial ventures will be able to take advantage of it,
and it it is commercial ventures that will pave the way for a true
spacefaring civilization.

.....Andrew

Greetings Andrew,

I'm begining to understand your position. Please
comment on the following to see if I have this
correct.

1) Simple remote control robots that have no
'intelligence' would be fine since a human makes all
of the judgements and they cost significantly less.
The robot is just an extention of a human's abilities.
To prevent being sluggish, avoid the use of batteries
(which don't last that long) and have a cord of some
type running back to a central power source.

2) The moon is roughly 2.5 seconds away round trip for
commands. This means that if you had a decent power
source and a robot that just does simple things like
moving items and scooping dirt it would be a cheap
assistant. A little more complicated and you do spot
welding and setup of simple structures. No where am I
suggesting anything the complexity of lacing a boot.

3) Setup of infrastructure starts with a power grid.
The cheapest power by weight that I know of is premade
solar panels which need to be spread out to collect
power. Would not a robot be able to do this well?
All that I see required is the simple moving about of
panels and wiring them up.

4) Collection of iron ore, water ice, or setup of the
berm for a shielded habitat can all be done by simple
robots. These are the critical resources that need to
be available to astronauts in quantity to generate
oxygen and build additional infrastructure. This
gives you everything needed in a very small place
ready for utilization.

All of these missions should be cheap as nothing fancy
is needed. What makes the Mars missions so complex is
that the solar panels are carried on the rover and
they leave the central base long behind. The panels
will get dusty and that will be the end of the power
supply as the batteries wear out.

If you land on one of the perpetually sunlit peaks in
the North or South lunar pole then you should be fine.
The moon has no wind so dust is not an issue (save
the electrostatic type). Practice with a couple of
robots for a year and see what you can do before
sending in astronauts. Furthermore anything you would
send astronauts in is well tested prior to use by
shipping cargo.

Assuming NASA can pass the 6-pack test, this should be
no problem, right?

Thanks, Thor

On Friday, February 13, 2004, at 08:56 PM, Mitchell

>
>> There is no need to
>> build infrastructure
>> in advance of humans.
>> Insisting on doing so makes it more
>> likely the project will fail
>> before anyone even gets to the moon.
>>
> You seem to be saying that just putting people on
the moon before
> anything happens automaticly makes the mission a
success.

No. I'm saying insisting on robots doing jobs for
which humans are better suited reduces the chances of
success (that's point #1). In addition, putting large
complex technical development programs in the critical
path when they are not needed further reduces the
chances of success (point #2).

> This
> discussion is verging on the same type of absolute
reasoning that some
> people have that Mars is the only valid place for a
space habitat
> because it is a planet and humans live on planets.
A whole section of
> NASA (manned flight) has been wasting a lot of money
for decades using
> the reasoning that there cannot be a space program
that the public will
> support if there are not humans being blasted into
space.

I have problems with the manned spaceflight folks at
NASA, since they've screwed up so badly on Shuttle and
ISS. On the other hand, they're what we have, and
there's no use pretending they'll go away. There
simply isn't that kind of political will in
Washington.
>
>> Nor will the fact that an individual human and
associated life support
>> systems is more flexible and capable than the
equivalent mass of
>> machinery. For exploration and early phases of
development
>> flexibility
>> is an absolute necessity.
>
> Come, come! The first phase is detailed mapping all
done by
> satellites,
> a type of robotic system.

Satellites are not what people usually think of as
robots. Even under the more restrictive definition of
robot there are many cases where robotic missions are
preferable. I fully support robotic exploration - my
objection is to asking robots to do tasks for which
humans are a better choice. Complex tasks that
require flexibility and on the spot judgment are
simply not well suited to robots. That is precisely
the kind of task that will come up over and over again
in the early phases of lunar exploration and
development.

By all means the humans explorers should be supported
by robotic pathfinders where possible.The basic issue
comes down to this: if we want to really explore with
an eye to eventual human presence, we should send
humans early in the process. Humans will return more
of the relevant information for the buck than robots
can. In addition, sending humans will help us build
infrastructure for human spaceflight. Once the
infrastructure (in the form of launchers and vehicles,
as well as possiblysmall lunar bases)
is in place commercial ventures will be able to take
advantage of it, and it it is commercial ventures that
will pave the way for a true spacefaring civilization.

.....Andrew

> Greetings Andrew,
>
> I'm begining to understand your position. Please
> comment on the following to see if I have this
> correct.
>
> 1) Simple remote control robots that have no
> 'intelligence' would be fine since a human makes all
> of the judgements and they cost significantly less.
> The robot is just an extention of a human's abilities.
> To prevent being sluggish, avoid the use of batteries
> (which don't last that long) and have a cord of some
> type running back to a central power source.

There are alternatives to batteries, such as fuel cells or
flywheels. These would be recharged by plugging in to the base
station.

>
> 2) The moon is roughly 2.5 seconds away round trip for
> commands. This means that if you had a decent power
> source and a robot that just does simple things like
> moving items and scooping dirt it would be a cheap
> assistant. A little more complicated and you do spot
> welding and setup of simple structures. No where am I
> suggesting anything the complexity of lacing a boot.

I agree, for teleoperation one wants to keep the tasks as simple as
possible. Even so, an operator would quickly get used to the 2.5
second lag.

>
> 3) Setup of infrastructure starts with a power grid.
> The cheapest power by weight that I know of is premade
> solar panels which need to be spread out to collect
> power. Would not a robot be able to do this well?
> All that I see required is the simple moving about of
> panels and wiring them up.

Even cheaper: have the robots assemble sheets of aluminum foil in
the shape of a parabolic reflector, with the focus on a Stirling (or
Brayton or Rankine) cycle heat engine. The only heavy part is the
heat engine, which can be light enough that multiple copies could be
sent, with each set at the focus of large aluminum reflector
fields. The first reflectors can be sent up from earth, but the
remainder may be made simply from lunar regolith. Heat engines are
relatively simple technology compared to solar panels, and have very
few moving parts. Once one is set up and running, the size of the
reflector can be increased simply by adding more aluminum foil
panels, up to the limit of the heat the heat engine can handle.

As a bonus, if an aluminum foil panel is damaged, it can simply be
recycled.

>
> 4) Collection of iron ore, water ice, or setup of the
> berm for a shielded habitat can all be done by simple
> robots. These are the critical resources that need to
> be available to astronauts in quantity to generate
> oxygen and build additional infrastructure. This
> gives you everything needed in a very small place
> ready for utilization.

Agreed.

>
> All of these missions should be cheap as nothing fancy
> is needed. What makes the Mars missions so complex is
> that the solar panels are carried on the rover and
> they leave the central base long behind. The panels
> will get dusty and that will be the end of the power
> supply as the batteries wear out.

KISS is the best method, hands-down.

>
> If you land on one of the perpetually sunlit peaks in
> the North or South lunar pole then you should be fine.

Clementine data shows that on the South pole, there is no one spot
which is sunlit 100% of the time. There are however three areas,
all within about 20km of each other on the rims of the Shackleton
and de Gerlache craters, which together receive sunlight about 95%
of the time.

The same data shows that there are several large crater floors which
are permanently shadowed, including Shackleton and de Gerlache.

> The moon has no wind so dust is not an issue (save
> the electrostatic type). Practice with a couple of
> robots for a year and see what you can do before
> sending in astronauts. Furthermore anything you would
> send astronauts in is well tested prior to use by
> shipping cargo.

Yes. Once unloaded, the cargo container shells should become the
(buried) tanks for oxygen, water, and the habitat interior itself.

>
> Assuming NASA can pass the 6-pack test, this should be
> no problem, right?
>
> Thanks, Thor

What's the 6-pack test?

Ed

I want to say something I've been thinking while reading all these posts
about the pro's and con's of manned versus robotic exploration.

The highlight of the recent spate of robotic mars missions has been "Mars
probe drills hole in rock".

Do you think that the headlines from a manned mission will bother to report
that one of the astronauts (or maybe Chinese equivalents as the case may be)
drills a hole in a rock?

Of course not. A living, thinking, well educated person of presumably high
intelligence is going to accomplish and order of magnitude more than some
remote control buggy with a spectrometer. Sure the cost will be higher but
aren't the rewards worth the expense? The general public cannot get excited
about a toy on a distant planet. The human drama aspect of a manned mission
alone will be worth money given the right exploitation.

Regards
Marty

Feel free to flame away as this is a sensitive topic.

Greetings Andrew,

I'm begining to understand your position. Please
comment on the following to see if I have this
correct.

1) Simple remote control robots that have no
'intelligence' would be fine since a human makes all
of the judgements and they cost significantly less.
The robot is just an extention of a human's abilities.
To prevent being sluggish, avoid the use of batteries
(which don't last that long) and have a cord of some
type running back to a central power source.

2) The moon is roughly 2.5 seconds away round trip for
commands. This means that if you had a decent power
source and a robot that just does simple things like
moving items and scooping dirt it would be a cheap
assistant. A little more complicated and you do spot
welding and setup of simple structures. No where am I
suggesting anything the complexity of lacing a boot.

3) Setup of infrastructure starts with a power grid.
The cheapest power by weight that I know of is premade
solar panels which need to be spread out to collect
power. Would not a robot be able to do this well?
All that I see required is the simple moving about of
panels and wiring them up.

4) Collection of iron ore, water ice, or setup of the
berm for a shielded habitat can all be done by simple
robots. These are the critical resources that need to
be available to astronauts in quantity to generate
oxygen and build additional infrastructure. This
gives you everything needed in a very small place
ready for utilization.

All of these missions should be cheap as nothing fancy
is needed. What makes the Mars missions so complex is
that the solar panels are carried on the rover and
they leave the central base long behind. The panels
will get dusty and that will be the end of the power
supply as the batteries wear out.

If you land on one of the perpetually sunlit peaks in
the North or South lunar pole then you should be fine.
The moon has no wind so dust is not an issue (save
the electrostatic type). Practice with a couple of
robots for a year and see what you can do before
sending in astronauts. Furthermore anything you would
send astronauts in is well tested prior to use by
shipping cargo.

Assuming NASA can pass the 6-pack test, this should be
no problem, right?

Thanks, Thor

On Friday, February 13, 2004, at 08:56 PM, Mitchell

>
>> There is no need to
>> build infrastructure
>> in advance of humans.
>> Insisting on doing so makes it more
>> likely the project will fail
>> before anyone even gets to the moon.
>>
> You seem to be saying that just putting people on
the moon before
> anything happens automaticly makes the mission a
success.

No. I'm saying insisting on robots doing jobs for
which humans are better suited reduces the chances of
success (that's point #1). In addition, putting large
complex technical development programs in the critical
path when they are not needed further reduces the
chances of success (point #2).

> This
> discussion is verging on the same type of absolute
reasoning that some
> people have that Mars is the only valid place for a
space habitat
> because it is a planet and humans live on planets.
A whole section of
> NASA (manned flight) has been wasting a lot of money
for decades using
> the reasoning that there cannot be a space program
that the public will
> support if there are not humans being blasted into
space.

I have problems with the manned spaceflight folks at
NASA, since they've screwed up so badly on Shuttle and
ISS. On the other hand, they're what we have, and
there's no use pretending they'll go away. There
simply isn't that kind of political will in
Washington.
>
>> Nor will the fact that an individual human and
associated life support
>> systems is more flexible and capable than the
equivalent mass of
>> machinery. For exploration and early phases of
development
>> flexibility
>> is an absolute necessity.
>
> Come, come! The first phase is detailed mapping all
done by
> satellites,
> a type of robotic system.

Satellites are not what people usually think of as
robots. Even under the more restrictive definition of
robot there are many cases where robotic missions are
preferable. I fully support robotic exploration - my
objection is to asking robots to do tasks for which
humans are a better choice. Complex tasks that
require flexibility and on the spot judgment are
simply not well suited to robots. That is precisely
the kind of task that will come up over and over again
in the early phases of lunar exploration and
development.

By all means the humans explorers should be supported
by robotic pathfinders where possible.The basic issue
comes down to this: if we want to really explore with
an eye to eventual human presence, we should send
humans early in the process. Humans will return more
of the relevant information for the buck than robots
can. In addition, sending humans will help us build
infrastructure for human spaceflight. Once the
infrastructure (in the form of launchers and vehicles,
as well as possiblysmall lunar bases)
is in place commercial ventures will be able to take
advantage of it, and it it is commercial ventures that
will pave the way for a true spacefaring civilization.

.....Andrew

Will people really pay 10 times the total revenue of
the super bowl to watch an astronaut drill a hole in a
rock?

I'd be impressed by a HEALTHY "living, thinking, well
educated person of presumably high intelligence" going
back to a hot shower afterwards and leisurely study
the results in a field lab.

To me healthy means radiation shielding, artificial
gravity, independent food supply, and the hot shower
to shake off the stress. I'm proposing we do all of
the mundane unglamorous setup robots *before* the
astronauts show up or at least try to. Human drama in
space only sells once. Robotic technology has
thousands of applications.

Cheers, Thor

"Why bark when you can buy a dog?" - Mark Twain

--- Martin Ravell martin.ravell@...

I want to say something I've been thinking while
reading all these posts about the pro's and con's of
manned versus robotic exploration.

The highlight of the recent spate of robotic mars
missions has been "Mars probe drills hole in rock".

Do you think that the headlines from a manned mission
will bother to report that one of the astronauts (or
maybe Chinese equivalents as the case may be)
drills a hole in a rock?

Of course not. A living, thinking, well educated
person of presumably high intelligence is going to
accomplish and order of magnitude more than some
remote control buggy with a spectrometer. Sure the
cost will be higher but aren't the rewards worth the
expense? The general public cannot get excited
about a toy on a distant planet. The human drama
aspect of a manned mission alone will be worth money
given the right exploitation.

Regards
Marty

Feel free to flame away as this is a sensitive topic.