<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi Jon,I just wanted to point out this is a slightly unfair comparison.Landing humans on mars also involves some technology we havent developed yet. <br /> Posted by kelvinzero</DIV><br /></p><p>Humans only need to get to Mars orbit to perform about 90% of "human" activities on Mars - telepresence can cover the last mile. Robots aren't smart or flexible enough to do it alone, people are to fragile to do it alone (consider the mechanization of terrestrial mining). Robots either require significant maintenance or are very task-designed. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Humans only need to get to Mars orbit to perform about 90% of "human" activities on Mars - telepresence can cover the last mile. Robots aren't smart or flexible enough to do it alone, people are to fragile to do it alone (consider the mechanization of terrestrial mining). Robots either require significant maintenance or are very task-designed. <br />Posted by j05h</DIV></p><p>I remember this conversation and I absolutely agree. Jon did however bring up the point that current robots were found to be inadequate for servicing the hubble telescope so I guess there is a way to go before they are ready for performing similar tasks on a dusty and uneven planetary surface. That isnt to say that they <em>wouldnt be</em> though, for the sorts of costs implied here.</p><p>Im not actually a space-for-robots advocate. I would love to see a monumental effort into long term life support. I think that is an area that promises accelerating returns rather than diminishing ones. A week becomes a month becomes a year becomes indefinite.<br /></p>
<p>Hi Kelvin</p><p>Thanks for your input! </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi Jon,I just wanted to point out this is a slightly unfair comparison.Landing humans on mars also involves some technology we havent developed yet. I have heard that mars is a difficult planet to land on with anything of greater mass than the current robots due to its faint atmosphere and significant gravity. This technology may not seem as 'SF' as a better robot but it will not be cheap.</DIV></p><p>I would argue that a human mission to Mars requires no technology that does not exist, at least in the laboratory. Landing say 30-40 tonnes of the surface is certainly very challenging, but there are a number of ways that we can go about it. It is only impossible if people insist on simple Viking-style ballistic entries. But this the subject for another thread.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>But I agree with your comment. Hence my allowing of robot technology that presently exists only in the lab or in field propotypes. But we have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise we are back to the technology indistinguishable from magic. Just as we don't (or shouldn't) assume fusion power or gas core rockets for human missions, so we should not assume robot technology that does not exist, at least in the lab. But if you think that alternative limits should be assummed, then by all means suggest them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To compare a human and robot mission, it presupposes that the political will for an expensive one-off mission exists.</DIV></p><p>Whether a humaan mission would be one off or a series is again a subject for another thread. But give the scale of operations I think we can assume a series, just like Apollo was a series of missions. But that again is something for another time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would be interesting if we could establish that a mission 10 times as expensive could perform much more than ten times the science, but clearly multiple nations have been able to budget for robotic missions, but none have approached sufficient enthusiasm for a manned mars mission. </DIV></p><p>This is an important point. Do we really want to know that much about Mars? But let;s assume for discussion that we decide that we do. Whaat then is the most efficient way to achieve that?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is hard to say what a robotic mission with that sort of budget would look like. </DIV></p><p>It's never been done, as far as I know. Which is why I am asking the question! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Some technologies absolutely cannot be tested in a mars mission without people, such as the effects of long term exposure to mars gravity.</DIV></p><p>Agreed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather than saying the cost of using robots to perform a human mission approaches infinity, it would be more fair to ask if performing half the science of a human mission could be performed at less than half the cost. <br />QUOTE]</p><p>I think this is a useful question. It comes down to howw much about Mars do we really want to know and how much we are prepared not to know because of technological limits? </p><p>I have posited a list of science missions in the OP, and then later some science instruments. Can you go throughy these and prune those (other than the known human-related aspects) which may be too difficult to achieve with the specified technology?</p><p>cheers<br /><br />Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Humans only need to get to Mars orbit to perform about 90% of "human" activities on Mars - telepresence can cover the last mile. Robots aren't smart or flexible enough to do it alone, people are to fragile to do it alone (consider the mechanization of terrestrial mining). Robots either require significant maintenance or are very task-designed. <br />Posted by j05h</DIV></p><p>The capabilities of telepresence from Mars orbit are a very interesting question. Depending on how this discussion goes, maaybe I can do similar discussion for that. Or maybe you would like to have a try in a new thread?</p><p>cheers</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p>I cant help much with designing a space mission but it would be interesting to hear a discussion of what sort of dexterity is required for each of these tasks. Firstly because I expect a robot capable of so many tasks would have to be some sort of tool user, with less arms than tools, so it would come down to what sort of human actions we have to duplicate to apply each tool. Secondly it would be interesting to get an impression of what a human scientist on mars would be spending their time doing.</p><p> btw is there a good book to read on that subject?</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I cant help much with designing a space mission but it would be interesting to hear a discussion of what sort of dexterity is required for each of these tasks. Firstly because I expect a robot capable of so many tasks would have to be some sort of tool user, with less arms than tools, so it would come down to what sort of human actions we have to duplicate to apply each tool. Secondly it would be interesting to get an impression of what a human scientist on mars would be spending their time doing. btw is there a good book to read on that subject? <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p><font size="2">There is a whole library of books out there on what would be involved awith a human missin. the Porceedings of the 6 Case for Mars conferences, and of the annual Mars Society Conferences, for example.</font></p><p><font size="2">Two useful summaries, from from 7 years ago and one from this year are:</font></p><font face="Courier New"><font size="2">Planning for the Scientific Exploration of Mars by Humans (2008)</font></font><font face="Courier New"><font size="2">http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/HEM-SAG_final_draft_4_v2-2.doc</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2"> </font><font face="Courier New"><font size="2">The Mars Surface Reference Mission (2001) http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2001-209371.pdf</font></font> <p><font size="2">Jon</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p>Thanks! These look like necessary reading for this thread!</p><p>(I will go away and do that now)</p><p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The capabilities of telepresence from Mars orbit are a very interesting question. Depending on how this discussion goes, maaybe I can do similar discussion for that. Or maybe you would like to have a try in a new thread?cheersJon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /></p><p>Hey Jon, we've covered Mars-from-orbit extensively before, i'd consider a new thread of it but will keep it out of this thread. All I'll say is that for various reasons it is the ideal way to start exploring cis-Mars. Check out Mars 9 Tons at a Time and Private Mars Missions in this forum. </p><p>The only way to make a robots-only general-purpose mission is to create an ecosystem of robots. This ecosystem would need several super-computer class controllers, more an expert system or rudimentary AI. This kind of processing power isn't going to happen in each vehicle, it's something to put in orbit or centralized at the robot-base. Orbit is a good choice for power and dust issues. The robots that do the dirty work can then be simpler machines, preferably being modular, standardized and multi-role. </p><p>A small rover chassis and a heavier dozer chassis might be a good place to start. Each unit has comm, avionics and attach points for hardware. Items like the longer drilling rig might be built into a trailer that a dozer tows, the drill is hammered down using the dozer and tended by the more agile rovers. All of this is controlled/monitored by the central brain (but each unit has at least MER-level intelligence alone).</p><p>One large leverage to making a robots-only approach is assembly of a central servicing base. Like a human base, this is where parts are swapped out, gear is cleaned off and units get recycled. Damaged rover chassis might used as power-cable tenders for tethered dozers, etc. </p><p>All told, to make a general-purpose robotic base like this is going to cost nearly as much as a human base, perhaps more. </p><p>Josh </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
<p>The orbital robot control facility is interesting idea. Rather like the teloperated human missions with with high level super computers rather than a human mission. (Itwould still require decision making from Earth, of course, as it could not do detailed science or non routine servicing unsupervised. Do you know of any terrestrial work in, for example mine robots, that would provide an example of this?</p><p>You will also need a lot of orbital support for such an approach. A constellation of at least three aerostationary comsats and another of 24 navasats. That's ~60 tonnes of satellites (based on terrestrial navsat and comsat masses). maybe we could get by with fewer naavsats, as we will not be providing global coverage, For example GLONAS needs 18 satellites for Russia, so a smaller region might need only 6. But that is still 18 tonnes or so in Mars orbit.</p><p>This isnot counting the mass of AI mainframe in orbit, of course.</p><p>cheers</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p>Hi again.</p><p>Still chugging though those documents.</p><p>Just wanted to suggest a less AI approach though. Clearly no AI can rival a six year old let alone a specialist.</p><p>Im just thinking of the problem of emulating a human wandering over a landscape, picking up and looking at rocks, making a combination of informed and intuitive decisions to find the most interesting ones. picking up a rock is hard enough for an AI teleoperated robot with a several minute lag, let alone an AI deciding what is interesting.</p><p>To solve this sort of problem with a teleoperated robot how about something like this: A low wide platform, say ten meters across, with wheels at the edges. (if it were circular then perhaps the wheels could redistribute themselves if one fails. It could unload as a semicircle that telescopes.)</p><p>This robot might not be much faster than the current variety. However it has an arm that can move accurately on some sort of rail within the circle. When stationary and without any supervision it can scan within its circle producing a very high resolution 3d scan of the surface. Also any warping of the platform will be exactly measured.</p><p>This information is sent to some sort of VR environment on earth where multiple people can examine the hundreds of rocks and discuss which are the most interesting. Once the most interesting rocks are chosen a team of engineers designs the exact movements to pick up each rock and and deliver it to the next stage. Rather than any intelligence it relies on a very accurate 3d scan and very accurate knowledge of its own position in space. If it fails to pick up one rock (eg the force required exceeds what is considered safe) it moves on to the next rock, rather than wait for feedback from earth.</p>
<p>Sorry for the slow reponse, I missed the fact you had updated it. </p><p>The platform sounds very much like the Chariot or Athlete concepts.</p><p>The operation sounds like an improved version of what we have now, with better sensors and a larger pool of expertise. Taking advanatage of terrestrial improvements in VR networking and communications to improve exploration.</p><p>Of course more sensors, tools, and expertise probably means it will probably be slower than the present rovers. And you would need considerable navigation, remote sensing and comminications infrastructure to support.</p><p>cheers</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p>Too many articles about future robotic capabilities are simple fantasy.</p><p>The following are some that are very helpful in outlining what robots can, and cannot do well. </p><p>http://www.barrett.com/robot/products-hand-articles-MHT-1.htm</p><p>http://www.improve-education.org/id25.html</p><p>http://www.ars-journal.com/ars/Free_Articles/Lawrence_Kamm.htm</p><p>cheers</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p>(this post was before reading your last post) </p><p>Links to those two robots for anyone that wants a picture:</p><p>http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/video-nasa-s-athlete-is-a-giant-six-legged-robot</p><p>http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080312-technov-nasa-chariot.html</p><p>I was actually hoping that something with a much wider base could move somewhat faster with less reliance on navagation abilities than the current robots.</p><p>My guess was that what really slows a robot down is that the people on earth want a chance to stop it before it tumbles into a rut it couldnt pull itself out of. If for example it were like centipede: a train of multiple wagons, it could probably pull itself back even if two or more sections went over the edge. At a last resort it could discard them. The vital part of the robot would slide back and forward along a rail on its spine. It wouldnt be at the front when travelling. Also a wider base would allow stability to lift a camera higher, to get a much better look around.</p><p> You mentioned before the problem that it becomes exponentially harder to squeeze more functionality into one robot. I guess for small missions we try to squeeze all this functionality into one robot because atleast that means we are reusing the locomotion portion of the robot. For a small mission we wouldnt add in the ability of arms that can swap tools because that is more mass that could have been spent on instruments, with the result of an arm which is not as good at any one task, and if fails, for example it is unable to let go of a tool, then all other tools are useless.</p><p>For a larger mission, I think redundancy would begin to pay off. Suppose for example you have a robot that as a 1/10 chance of getting itself stuck during any one action, such as moving a km or digging a hole. It would perform about 10 actions before becoming useless. If one of the actions you can perform is to right another robot (also with a 1/10 chance of tipping yourself) then with two robots you could perform about 100 actions before both end up on their backs, three could hope for 1000 actions, 4 gives 10,000 etc. This is a very simplistic example of course.</p><p> </p><p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Too many articles about future robotic capabilities are simple fantasy.The following are some that are very helpful in outlining what robots can, and cannot do well. http://www.barrett.com/robot/products-hand-articles-MHT-1.htmhttp://www.improve-education.org/id25.html</p><p>http://www.ars-journal.com/ars/Free_Articles/Lawrence_Kamm.htmcheersJon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>(after reading your post)</p><p>For the most part I think im on the right track trying to work around robots limitiations.</p><ul><li><div>Rather than building a robot that can navigate arbitrary terrain with the common sense of a human, can we build one that knows just enough sense to stop and wait for human instruction when the terrain exceeds what it is 100% confident of? This isnt just in the robot brain but in the chassis. With the 'centipede design above, I was hoping that the decision to stop is as simple as if the front wheel position deviates beyond some simple limit. If it only moves half a foot a second that would far exceed what the mars robots can do unsupervised.</div></li><li><div>Rather than having the robot back up and look at a rock, Have (a) really tediously detailed scanning of its surroundings, and (b) allow movement over minor distances to be done not by wheels but rails within which movement is not subject to the complexity of the terrain.</div></li><li><div>Rather than expect a robot to solve basic problems of dexterity, convert the problem to one where humans can solve these problems, and the robot only is expected to follow movements accurately. This is similar to the example from the last article where a robot could not solve the problem of evenly spraying a car door, but it could record and reproduce motions of a human doing this task.</div></li></ul><p>One thing I disagree with (at least wrt to a mars mission) is the statement about 'The convertable robot'</p><p>"One of the hype fantasies was that a robot, being similar to a human, could be easily reassigned from one job to another merely by moving it across the factory floor and plugging in a new program, just as a human is reassigned to a new task and given a new instruction. This conceit is not just an exaggeration, it is flat out not so."</p><p>What I mean is, observing that It has never ever been economical to simply reprogram a robot for doing very different tasks in a production line rather than build a new robot is NOT the same as demonstrating that a multipurpose robot is impractical for a mars mission. Building a new production line robot is a one off payment and you would still have the old robot to do the old job wereas a more adaptible robot having a mere 50% more components to wear out could be a permanent 50% increase in costs for no gain if your plant is efficiently set up. A multipurpose robot on a production line always implies inefficiency that could be solved by larger scale production. For a Mars mission the one off payment of delivering the robot to mars is far more significant and the potential savings of sending only new programming are far greater.</p><p><br /><br /> </p>
<p> Hi Kelvin</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(after reading your post)</p><p>For the most part I think im on the right track trying to work around robots limitiations.</p><ul><li>Rather than building a robot that can navigate arbitrary terrain with the common sense of a human, can we build one that knows just enough sense to stop and wait for human instruction when the terrain exceeds what it is 100% confident of? This isnt just in the robot brain but in the chassis. With the 'centipede design above, I was hoping that the decision to stop is as simple as if the front wheel position deviates beyond some simple limit. If it only moves half a foot a second that would far exceed what the mars robots can do unsupervised.</li><li>Rather than having the robot back up and look at a rock, Have (a) really tediously detailed scanning of its surroundings, and (b) allow movement over minor distances to be done not by wheels but rails within which movement is not subject to the complexity of the terrain.</li><li>Rather than expect a robot to solve basic problems of dexterity, convert the problem to one where humans can solve these problems, and the robot only is expected to follow movements accurately. This is similar to the example from the last article where a robot could not solve the problem of evenly spraying a car door, but it could record and reproduce motions of a human doing this task.</DIV></li></ul><p>Definitely need to play to a robots strengths, rather than its weaknesses. Use it as a machine designed for specific tasks, rather than as ersatz humans. I have thought of this rail idea too. It's rather like the rail that Canada arm 2 uses to move about the ISS.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One thing I disagree with (at least wrt to a mars mission) is the statement about 'The convertable robot'"One of the hype fantasies was that a robot, being similar to a human, could be easily reassigned from one job to another merely by moving it across the factory floor and plugging in a new program, just as a human is reassigned to a new task and given a new instruction. This conceit is not just an exaggeration, it is flat out not so."</p><p>What I mean is, observing that It has never ever been economical to simply reprogram a robot for doing very different tasks in a production line rather than build a new robot is NOT the same as demonstrating that a multipurpose robot is impractical for a mars mission. Building a new production line robot is a one off payment and you would still have the old robot to do the old job wereas a more adaptible robot having a mere 50% more components to wear out could be a permanent 50% increase in costs for no gain if your plant is efficiently set up. A multipurpose robot on a production line always implies inefficiency that could be solved by larger scale production. For a Mars mission the one off payment of delivering the robot to mars is far more significant and the potential savings of sending only new programming are far greater. <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>The article was referring to industrial robots, which is a rather different challengee. Certainly a multi prupose machine can be built, Of course it has to be much bigger as a result rathe than one which is more specialised. Much (not all) of the growth from Sojourner to Spirit to MSL is due to the increasing number of tasks the machines have been designed to do.</p><p>cheers</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p> That was all I was trying to get at with the tipping robot example. On a small scale multipurpose does not pay off. and on a production line it also doesnt pay off. However in the tipping robot example, giving each robot the ability to right another robot might (for example) require a robot ten times as heavy, but each additional robot increased the total functioning hours by a factor of ten. </p><p>A similar example could be made with repair. Even a dedicated robot probably couldnt dismantle a mobile phone. Those plastic catches are difficult. We could design a mobile phone that could be dismantled by a robot but the phone would be twice as heavy, and possibly put together with wing nuts 
. No one would put up with that. Certainly we wouldnt put up with that extra mass to mars unless we get a huge advantage back. We could though, because most mechanical devices fail with 99% of their components still usable.</p><p>Cramming more and more scientific instruments onto one robot would become exponentially more difficult. Putting one instrument on each robot would mean you have to duplicate all the locomotion abilities, including their communication and human controllers.</p><p>My guess is that rather than a machine or a device for each scientific test we would have break it into different abilities of dexterity.</p><p>These are some obvious ones I have come up with: </p><ul><li>The reliable (and faster) transport. </li><li>the intelligent rock collector (but it cant be intelligent)</li><li>the hole driller.</li><li>A rock cutter. (and other mechanical operations needed to prepare samples for the lab)</li><li>A laboratory, cleanroom etc.</li><li>Probably some form of repair, or atleast to pull malfunctioning robots out of other robots way.</li></ul><p>What other sorts of human dexterity have to be duplicated? Are there some that are real show stoppers? (deep drilling, one or more km to find water sounds tough)</p>
. No one would put up with that. Certainly we wouldnt put up with that extra mass to mars unless we get a huge advantage back. We could though, because most mechanical devices fail with 99% of their components still usable.</p><p>Cramming more and more scientific instruments onto one robot would become exponentially more difficult. Putting one instrument on each robot would mean you have to duplicate all the locomotion abilities, including their communication and human controllers.</p><p>My guess is that rather than a machine or a device for each scientific test we would have break it into different abilities of dexterity.</p><p>These are some obvious ones I have come up with: </p><ul><li>The reliable (and faster) transport. </li><li>the intelligent rock collector (but it cant be intelligent)</li><li>the hole driller.</li><li>A rock cutter. (and other mechanical operations needed to prepare samples for the lab)</li><li>A laboratory, cleanroom etc.</li><li>Probably some form of repair, or atleast to pull malfunctioning robots out of other robots way.</li></ul><p>What other sorts of human dexterity have to be duplicated? Are there some that are real show stoppers? (deep drilling, one or more km to find water sounds tough)</p><p>Hi Kelvin</p><p>You sugested the following</p><li>The reliable (and faster) transport. </li><li>the intelligent rock collector (but it cant be intelligent)</li><li>the hole driller.</li><li>A rock cutter. (and other mechanical operations needed to prepare samples for the lab)</li><li>A laboratory, cleanroom etc.</li><li>Probably some form of repair, or atleast to pull malfunctioning robots out of other robots way.</li><p>All very desirable capabilities. Note that these are definely high power requirements, to move fast , to run the high end computers, and equipment. It takes a lot of power to saw through a rock, for example.</p><p>I suspect this is beyond the ability of vehcile mounted DIPS ot solar panels to supply. So some kind of stored energy is required, as chemical propellants, fuel cell reactants, or battery charge. So this means a centra power storage facility, and means of docking and replenishment. </p><p>Some other areas of high dexterity would be in the reployment and recovering of geophysical surveys. These require long antennae arrays, electrodes etc., and can be quite tricky to lay out and move. They can also get caught on rocks etc., and you have be able to have them adjusted. Some techniques, such as resistivity surveys, need to have electrodes hammered into the ground.</p><p>And "intelligent" rock sampler would be good. It would need some kind of ability to remotely identify and classify rocks by rule-based spectral characteristics, follow up with analyses and then sample them using a rock saw and manipulator or and small corer. The Nomad rover demonstrated the first part of this in the Antarctic and Atacama aa decade ago. This of course was a machine with cosiderably more electrical, mechanical, and computing power tha martian rovers seen to date. We use unsupervised classifications at work all the time for processing DEMs and remote sensing data. they are useful, but they always have to be guided. In the same way a martian rover's classifcations would have to be cross checked by the operators.</p><p>Making of microscope slides would also be very tricky. Samples have to be collected prepared, and mounted. But important for laab based studies.</p><p>Deep drilling would need be a challenge</p><p>One thing to remember is not to make things to small. Bigger is better for many sampling operations, as we are seeing with Phoenix at the moment. With a 1 mm seive it may be possible that Pheonix will not get enough sample to analyse. Whereas the ability to have larger samples and process them would not have this problem.. Bigger is also more robust.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi KelvinYou sugested the followingThe reliable (and faster) transport. the intelligent rock collector (but it cant be intelligent)the hole driller.A rock cutter. (and other mechanical operations needed to prepare samples for the lab)A laboratory, cleanroom etc.Probably some form of repair, or atleast to pull malfunctioning robots out of other robots way.All very desirable capabilities. Note that these are definely high power requirements, to move fast , to run the high end computers, and equipment. It takes a lot of power to saw through a rock, for example.I suspect this is beyond the ability of vehcile mounted DIPS ot solar panels to supply. So some kind of stored energy is required, as chemical propellants, fuel cell reactants, or battery charge. So this means a centra power storage facility, and means of docking and replenishment. Some other areas of high dexterity would be in the reployment and recovering of geophysical surveys. These require long antennae arrays, electrodes etc., and can be quite tricky to lay out and move. They can also get caught on rocks etc., and you have be able to have them adjusted. Some techniques, such as resistivity surveys, need to have electrodes hammered into the ground.And "intelligent" rock sampler would be good. It would need some kind of ability to remotely identify and classify rocks by rule-based spectral characteristics, follow up with analyses and then sample them using a rock saw and manipulator or and small corer. The Nomad rover demonstrated the first part of this in the Antarctic and Atacama aa decade ago. This of course was a machine with cosiderably more electrical, mechanical, and computing power tha martian rovers seen to date. We use unsupervised classifications at work all the time for processing DEMs and remote sensing data. they are useful, but they always have to be guided. In the same way a martian rover's classifcations would have to be cross checked by the operators.Making of microscope slides would also be very tricky. Samples have to be collected prepared, and mounted. But important for laab based studies.Deep drilling would need be a challengeOne thing to remember is not to make things to small. Bigger is better for many sampling operations, as we are seeing with Phoenix at the moment. With a 1 mm seive it may be possible that Pheonix will not get enough sample to analyse. Whereas the ability to have larger samples and process them would not have this problem.. Bigger is also more robust.Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I would thing humans, in a month would discover more then a robotic mission would discover in years. The Rovers and now Phoenix, have proven the fact, a human could have answered the questions their data has asked. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would thing humans, in a month would discover more then a robotic mission would discover in years. The Rovers and now Phoenix, have proven the fact, a human could have answered the questions their data has asked. <br />Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>I aam inclined to agree Scott.</p><p>But what I am trying to do here is see much much can and cannot be done by unmanned missions and what would be required to do it. The parameters of crewed missions are well understood. the parameters of equivalent unnmanned missions are not.</p><p>cheers</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
Is there anyone here who didnt think at some point over the last few days "I sure wish there was someone to give that thing a few taps with a screwdriver!" <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" />
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just my minimaly informed guess, but I don't think robots will compete with humans on any truly varied multi-purpose mission. Not before AI makes some significant progress. <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV><br /><br />Quoting CNN report on 5/17/99 6 robots were built utilizing twin pentium xeon processors and AI programming aka fuzzy logic. "Two of the six robots turned aggressive by attacking other robots. Scientist could give no reason, or discover why the two robots turned aggressive". So for the forseable future "program specific" robots will have to be used. For additional info Go to CNN, September 26, 1995, Research Scientist Maja Metaric, MIT's artificial intelligence lab.
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quoting CNN report on 5/17/99 6 robots were built utilizing twin pentium xeon processors and AI programming aka fuzzy logic. "Two of the six robots turned aggressive by attacking other robots. Scientist could give no reason, or discover why the two robots turned aggressive". So for the forseable future "program specific" robots will have to be used. For additional info Go to CNN, September 26, 1995, Research Scientist Maja Metaric, MIT's artificial intelligence lab. <br />Posted by mentor121</DIV></p><p>Sounds hilarious! Do you have a link?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds hilarious! Do you have a link? <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Yeah, homicidal (or robicidal) robots are always funny.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div style="text-align:center"><font style="color:#808080" color="#999999"><font size="1">"I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them"</font></font><br /></div> </div>
<p>Rather than attempt to include a complete science lab on each rover, the drilling rig, etc, etc, what about having a central science facility with smaller rovers that would journey out, pick up several samples, and return to it? Perhaps a rover could take samples from the deep drilling rig and deliver them to the science lab as well. That might allow a more complex science lab and more rovers for the same price. The main disadvantage is that your rovers would need to operate around a central point (the science lab) and they would be travelling back to their start point. However, if for the same price you could drop off several lab/rig/rover/rover/rover teams on different points on the planet, it might be preferable.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>I think this is a very interesting idea. But a central laboratory would be better than a mobile rover. The rover could concentrate on just field characteriation and sample collection, the lab would work on the samples while the rover colected more. Obviously designing a lab to be able to do multiple experiments on a wide range of materials using many techniques would be major challenge. </p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
SpaceX launches 21 Starlink internet satellites from Florida, lands rocket at sea (photos)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram