Humans and Robots test case

> ...
>
> 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.

I would hope that the situation would be simular to the communication
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