Humans and Robots test case

> 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.

I admire that you wax poetic on the occasion of answering a question
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