Earth-Moon Network = Maturing Space Industries

At 10:40 PM 9/2/02 +0000, you wrote:

> > But . . . I have to say that the idea falls away right from the
>start. If
> > the very first step requires human interaction in space, it is too
>costly
> > at this time.
>
>Oh, I didn't know we were talking about real-world scenarios for
>TODAY.

Not necessarily today, but certainly the next 25 years.

>If that's the case, none of this will work because no
>business or government will fund it, whether human based or robotic.

Haven't yet, anyway. But, there again, I'm not so sure I want government to.

>We're talking about cities/countries in space for hundreds of
>thousands of people. You're not going to do that on a shoestring. I
>thought we were talking about something derived from Marshall
>Savage's work, which I consider to be furher from reality than
>anything written here. It appears that I may have misinterpreted
>what you were asking about. Now, I'm not sure what your question is.

What physical elements do we need to establish the necessary infrastructure
to support space-based industry? In order of their importance and in general.

> >There is no need for humans in space right away.
>
>You state this as a fact. You need to support your assertion.

Well, I did say that they are not needed right away because they are too
costly and less expensive robots and telemanned systems can do all of what
a person would need to initially. That, to me, supports my assertion. I
should not, however, be so arrogant as to presume it is fact. It is merely
my opinion. My apologies.

>They cost
> > too much money to support. Besides, robots and computers have
>evolved to
> > the point where they can do most, if not all, of the work humans
>can.
>
>Can they? Show me something to back it up. I don't necessarily
>disagree with you, but if we just fire off our opinions to counter
>the opinions of others, then we're not in a discussion, are we?

It was not my intent to dismiss your idea so readily. I apologize for my
arrogance. I was expressing an opinion of mine as if it was fact and that
is my mistake.

>We're just looking for cheerleaders to back up our vision. That's
>why I try to be specific with what I write.
>
>You'll note that I reference robotic or tele-operated systems where
>I believe that they are functional, designable, and cost effective.
>Namely, in situations that call for a limited set of procedures
>repeated many times.
>
>Complicated assembly procedures that have thousands of unique
>procedures requires robotic technology and A.I. that we don't
>possess yet. I propose using humans where they are most functional.
>and not for menial labor.
> >
> > I agree, it would be great if we could just go into space and
>start working
> > now. We can't. We have to cut costs at every place we possibly can
>or we
> > might as well be whistling dixie.
>
>You need to refine your question. I thought you were asking how do
>we get an infrastructure in space that leads us to a habitat. Now
>you're adding an economic component to your question and that
>changes my response considerably, perhaps it also changes other
>members' responses.

I am not adding an economic component to my question that wasn't already
implied. I am, however, adding it to my point about not needing humans in
space initially.

>Now we're talking about economic bootstrapping
>where each stage needs to help finance the next stage. Human/robotic
>issues are not the deciding factors in this type of scenario, though
>they may play a part, again depending on the types of tasks that are
>required to be performed.
>
>Humans cost too much money initially. I
> > know this isn't popular, but it's a fact.

That was way over the top and i apologize.

>Who says? And humans cost too much compared to what? 5,000 different
>robots, each only able to handle 5 different functions or tools. The
>develpment cost for all those different robots and launching all of
>them into space, when a well trained human can handle a diversity of
>tasks. And point to an alternative. I'm very interested. I'll revise
>my opinion if you can make your case.

I suppose one would have to compare the cost of the robot to the cost of
supporting a human in space. I believe that most tasks a human would need
to do in a station can be done by robots. I also contend that using robots
would be much less expensive than humans. Life-support systems are very
expensive. There's also the issue of launching a human into space vs. a
robot into space.

I agree that robots don't have the multi-tasking ability of most humans,
but nor are they as prone to mistakes. Nor do they require expensive upkeep
(at least, not as expensive as maintaining a life-support system in space).
Do I have exact numbers to support my contention? No, I do not. If anyone
has the numbers to prove my contention wrong, I would be very interested in
seeing them.

>I hope I'm not coming across too harshly, but you shouldn't
>criticize a response by using criteria you didn't have in the
>parameters of the question.

Not harsh at all. If anything, I owe you an apology for my arrogance.
Again, sorry.

Jack