CEV Devils advocate

[dobbins]

10 or 20 identical robots equals the same limited information from 10 or 20 locations.<br /><br />Making them different brings up the risk that you will have designed the robot to ask the wrong questions. Doing it like we do now, send a robot, then design another one to answer a couple of questions raised by the first mission means at least 5 years in between each robot and the process is drug out over decades.<br /><br />That is hardly an efficient means of exploration in any of the cases.<br /><br />The whole robot vs human debate is absurd, the best option is "c. all of the above" don't just limit yourself to just humans or just robots. The debate is also founded on a false assumption, that the funds spent on human exploration will be available for robotic probes. That isn't going to happen, the money will be diverted to some new welfare program or some tax cut. At best you will wind up with no more money for robots than you have now, and more likely you will wind up with less because it's the human exploration will severely undermine the public support for NASA. Buck Rogers brings in the bucks that are used to buy the robots.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

In the long range it's cheaper to move mass from the Moon to LEO than it is to do it from the Earth's deep gravitational well, but you have to get there first.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

Question: do you know what that rock is?

 

[tomnackid]

The whole point is for HUMANS to learn to live and work in space. Doing science and bringing back samples is just a bonus. If humans are to survive for the long run (thousands of years into the future) we will HAVE to learn to live and work in space. One planet is just too dam small. If we limit ourselves to just planet earth while robots go out to explore the rest of the universe we will extinct or worse yet, back to a stone age existence within a few thousand years. All the easy to get to resources will be used up and getting to the difficult to use resources will mean bigger, deeper strip mines, clear cut logging, more irrigation and pesticide use--and all the impact on quality of life that goes with those things.<br /><br />Be careful when you say things like "There's nothing on the moon or mars that we need." The French said the same thing about the Louisiana Territory. The Russians said that about Alaska. The moon's biggest resource is, as they say in the real estate biz, location, location, location. Until somebody invents anti-gravity an airless, low gravity source of building material high in earth orbit is going to be very very valuable! Even if moon dirt is used for nothing more than radiation shielding for deep space vehicles it will still be a bargain. Maybe the first project after we return to the moon could be setting up a demonstration mine and mass driver--or some other low cost method of launching material form the lunar surface.<br /><br />We can't wait around for a robust infrastructure to be developed before taking the next step. Columbus didn't wait for steam ships. The American pioneers didn't wait for the railroads to be completed. NASA shouldn't wait for "2001" space stations and scramjet spaceliners. Don't get me wrong, they will be welcome when they come! But, we need exploration to drive the interest. As people see more and more of whats out there and what the possibilities are there will be more pressure to build the systems needed to take p

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Question: do you know what that rock is?<br /><br /><font color="white">Oooh thats a subtle way of advocating manned exploration.</font></font>

 

[najab]

For those who might not know, that rock is the <b>one and only</b> piece of the Moon's orignal crust which humans have ever seen. It was found, not by a random sample, but by two moderately trained field geologists who knew what to look for, and that it was important to "get the unusual one".

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>See that's the thing. The transportion mechanism. That right there is our problem in a nutshell. The shuttle is a more capable transport mechanism than the CEV proposed to replace it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The Shuttle is very capable, but it cannot do everything. Most notably, it cannot go to the Moon. If we want to go to the Moon, we need a new vehicle. Period. That's where the CEV comes in.<br /><br />We will lose certain capabilities when Shuttle is retired. That will be the price of going to the Moon. There just isn't enough funding to do both. I'd like it if there were, but there isn't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>10 or 20 identical robots equals the same limited information from 10 or 20 locations. <br /><br />Making them different brings up the risk that you will have designed the robot to ask the wrong questions. Doing it like we do now, send a robot, then design another one to answer a couple of questions raised by the first mission means at least 5 years in between each robot and the process is drug out over decades. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Don't you think the same applies to humans? If they find something interesting, they'll need the specialized equipment to deal with it. That means developing the instrument, or whatever and sending it with a mission in five year's time?<br /><br />The identical vs. differentiated robot is an interesting one. I'm somewhat frustrated that we don't reuse robotic design. For example, if we'd designed Hubble to be disposable as opposed to serviceable we can build them on an assembly line and launch a new one every five years for far less than the cost of a service mission. I don't see why we don't release robotic designs to the public domain. I'm sure some wealthy indivduals will purchase old designs and send them to the moon, giving us a much higher return of knowledge per design.<br /><br />As to the Gus Grissom quote - we've been getting a lot of money in the past two decades for robotic probes, despite having a human program that has no bearing on the robotic program. Many members of congress have called for unmanned exploration only, and have decried the continual raiding of the unmanned programs and the aeronautics programs for funds to support the human program.<br /><br />Make no mistake, I'm not saying we should scrap the human program, I'm looking for a robust answer as to what humans can do. I used to think that it's a radio telescope on the dark side of the moon, but I've been told that is not really a better option than an unmanned scope in space. *shrugs* still lookin

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"You fail to take into account that for the same money as a human mission you can place between 10 and 20 robots on the moon. A single robot may or may not be as capable as a human, but a flotilla of 10 or 20 can be."<br /><br />Current experience is that a human is about 1,000 times as productive as a robot.<br /><br />One word is sufficient to dispose of this argument - Antarctica. If robots are so good, why are there none in Antarctica replacing at least some of those expensive human beings? Because it's not cost-effective. And the cost ratio between maintaining robots and humans is even greater in Antarctica than on the Moon (Antarctic robots can be a whole lot cheaper than lunar ones because there are some humans to maintain them; parts are easily flown in; control systems can be simplified, and you can have smaller specialised ones because you're not limited to a few missions a year).

 

[dobbins]

Humans are capable of intuitive thought. Evolution has given us the ability to just glance at a situation and analyze it without going through a logical thought process. Time spent as both a prey and a predictor resulted in an evolutionary strategy of being very good at spotting the unusual, the element that is out of place at a glance. This is how the most important sample from the Apollo missions was found. The rare, the unusual, the out of place is often the most important, and humans are far better at finding that than any robot is, or ever will be.<br /><br />Humans are capable of improvising. Armstrong was capable of taking control of the LM and steering it away from the boulder strewn area it's autopilot was heading for. If Apollo 11 had been an unmanned probe it would have crashed on landing. When one of the Lunar Rovers had a damaged fender the humans were capable of putting together a makeshift fender so that the mission could continue without the problem of the rover tossing regolith all over itself.<br /><br />We almost lost one of the Mars rovers earlier this year when it got stuck in the sand, it took a month to free it. If a human had been ridding on that rover he could have hopped off tossed some rocks under the wheels and restored traction in a matter of minutes. Now we face the situation of one of the Mars rovers losing a lot of it's capabilities because of a stuck arm. If there was a human on site the chances of overcoming that problem would be far greater.<br /><br />Last of all robots are nowhere near at inspiration as humans are. A human can inspire other humans to go into science, into engineering. Robots can't do that, they aren't very good at inspiring those young kids to take the road that will lead them to being the scientists and engineers of tomorrow.<br /><br />As for the congress critters that talk of probes rather than men, their motive is to get their grubby little fingers on the manned exploration funds for other non-space programs, a new w

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One word is sufficient to dispose of this argument - Antarctica. If robots are so good, why are there none in Antarctica replacing at least some of those expensive human beings? Because it's not cost-effective.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, there has been at least one robot program in Antarctica. I'm not sure what it's current status is, but the idea is to build a rover that can autonomously search for, detect, and collect meteorites on the Antarctic ice. It could cover a lot more ground than the human researchers and doesn't need to come inside to warm up. Being solar powered, of course, it can only operate in the summer, but frankly human operations get pretty limited in the winter as well.<br /><br />There is an ulterior motive to the project -- they want to advance the state of the art of artificial intelligence so that better rovers could be sent to other worlds and do more useful geology. That's the main limiting factor with rovers. They're just not anywhere near smart enough to go truly autonomous yet and acheive what we'd all like them to acheive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

What is the best means of exploring space?<br /><br />A. Humans<br />B. Robots<br />C. All of the above.<br /><br />The correct answer is C. A and B each has strengths and weaknesses, use of both is better than only using A or B.<br /><br />A space program that only uses robots is like a toolbox that only has wrenches in it, not as effective as a box that has more than one type of tool in it.<br /><br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Current experience is that a human is about 1,000 times as productive as a robot<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's an interesting observation, and definitely would be a strong argument in favor of human space exploration. Can you provide a source for this, or an explanation of how the productivity differential is determined?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Antarctic robots can be a whole lot cheaper than lunar ones because there are some humans to maintain them<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's a fair point, but I'm not convinced that it is an appropriate comparison for the following reasons:<br /><br />- The cost of sending an autonomous robot to antarctica is most likely higher than sending a human (we already have human delivery systems - ships and aircraft, but no robotic delivery systems - yet); the opposite is true for space exploration<br />- Humans have minimal lifesupport requirements compared to space. In antarctica you already have oxygen, water, no pressure differential and minimal radiation issues. On the moon, these four factors become a serious issue for humans but do not affect robots. Perhaps there is ice and oxygen, but it will require extensive investment to be harvested.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>just not anywhere near smart enough to go truly autonomous yet and acheive what we'd all like them to acheive. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I'm pretty excited about increasing autonomy for robots. The last few years have seen significant breakthroughs - for example the DARPA desert challenge. Since autonomy is a major component for efficient robotic exploration of bodies with a large information and control time lag, such as Mars, NASA is definitely doing the right thing in my opinion with the Grand Challenges.<br /><br />I think you're in software? What is your opinion of the time horizon for significant breakthroughs in the development of highly autonomous robots?

 

[CalliArcale]

I absolutely agree, Dobbins. There are jobs out there for robots AND humans. The best space program would use both as appropriate and practical for each job. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think you're in software? What is your opinion of the time horizon for significant breakthroughs in the development of highly autonomous robots?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Depends on what you mean by "highly autonomous". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I'm thinking a robot that can carry out a mission on the ground that involves moving around, selecting targets of interest, and making critical mission decisions without intervention from Earth for days at a time. I want the robot able to manage itself productively, reliably, and effectively without any help. It's anybody's guess how far off that kind of technology is, but I'd say we're well on the way to it. We're not there today, but I'd say that within twenty years we can have an autonomous robotic geologist suitable for operation on other planets or moons. I don't think it'll replace human geologists in that time. That involves a degree of sophistication that doesn't exist right now, so it's tough to estimate when it'll be available. The tricky part is defining the concept of "interesting rocks" in a way that is useful to a computer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[starfhury]

Does it matter whether I know? Unless it holds the secrets to the orign of life, its importance is lessend compared to having a better means at getting at more like it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Does it matter whether I know? Unless it holds the secrets to the orign of life...</i><p>Life, no. But the origin of the Moon, yes. And it is <b>very</b> unlikely that it would have been found by anything other than human explorers.</p>

 

[n_kitson]

Tell me a little more about how the rock was found:<br /><br />- Were the geologists specifically looking for a crust sample?<br />- If they were looking for a crust sample, how long did they spend searching?<br />- What did they use to identify the rock?<br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>Were the geologists specifically looking for a crust sample?</i><p>Yes and no. They were looking for any and all geologically 'interesting' rocks, but had been briefed that crystalline anorthosite would be particularly important.<p>><i> If they were looking for a crust sample, how long did they spend searching?</i><p>They found it during their second scheduled EVA, the EVA itself lasted about 8 hours.<p>><i>What did they use to identify the rock?</i><p>Their hands and eyes - they did a scan of the area, saw an interesting looking rock and walked over an picked it up. Held it up to the light, saw twinning and realised what they had: the genesis rock. A classic example of how a human on site can do in a couple of minutes what it would take days to do robotically.</p></p></p></p></p>

 

[CalliArcale]

I've been doing some poking around at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and I think this might be the "Genesis Rock" from Apollo 15. It's not totally unchanged since its formation four billion years ago; later testing showed that it had been shocked at least a couple of times. But to answer your questions, N_Kitson, the astronauts were indeed specificially tasked with finding a crust sample. It was discovered on the second of three EVAs, after only three hours. The main tool used to identify the rock was their eyeballs. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> They had been trained in geology, so they recognized anorthosite when they saw it. It's a very crystalline rock, and it was expected to be found somewhere in the Hadley Delta area.<br /><br />It wasn't the oldest rock ever found on the Moon, nor even the oldest rock found by Apollo 15, but it was close. It got a lot of press, though. The rock caught their attention because it was oddly white sitting on top of a pedestal of compressed regolith. Click here to see it before they picked it up. The funny-looking tripod is a gnomon placed in many pictures as a known reference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

BTW, here's the transcript of radio chatter, copied from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: Apollo 15: Genesis Rock. Scott and Irwin are the astronauts; Allen is the CAPCOM.<br /><br />145:41:15 Scott: Okay. Now let's go down and...<br />145:41:17 Irwin: Get that unusual one?<br />145:41:19 Scott: Get that unusual one. (Pause) Here's some dense...And there's another unusual one; look at the little crater here, and the one that's facing us. There is a little white corner to the thing.<br />145:41:34 Allen: Okay, Dave. Get as many of those as you can, and you might be watching for a place where you think the rake might help you.<br />145:41:43 Scott: Yeah. I think we can probably do a rake here, Joe.<br />145:41:47 Allen: Okay, sounds like a good place....<br />145:41:48 Scott: Okay, there's a big boulder over there down-Sun of us, that I'm sure you can see, Joe, which is gray. And it has some very outstanding gray clasts and white clasts, and oh, boy, it's a beaut! We're going to get ahold of that one in a minute.<br />145:42:07 Irwin: Okay, I have my pictures, Dave.<br />145:42:10 Scott: Okay, let's see. What do you think the best way to sample it (meaning the Genesis Rock) would be?<br />145:42:14 Irwin: I think probably...Could we break off a piece of the clod underneath it? Or I guess you could probably lift that top fragment right off.<br />145:42:23 Scott: Yeah. Let me try. (Pause) Yeah. Sure can. And it's a...a white clast, and it's about...<br />145:42:41 Irwin: Oh, man!<br />145:42:41 Scott: Oh, boy!<br />145:42:42 Irwin: I got...<br />145:42:42 Scott: Look at that.<br />145:42:44 Irwin: Look at the glint!<br />145:42:45 Scott: Aaah.<br />145:42:46 Irwin: Almost see twinning in there!<br />145:42:47 Scott: Guess what we just found. (Jim laughs with pleasure) Guess what we just found! I think we found what we came for.<br />145:42:53 Irwin: Crystalline rock, huh?<br />145:42:55 Scott: Yes, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>...I think this might be the "Genesis Rock" from Apollo 15.</i><p>It is indeed.</p>

 

[starfhury]

The question is 'why do we have to go back to the moon with this program now?' There really is no urgency to do it. We know enough about what's there so that we don't need to send more exploration missions immediately. Another decade or two here won't matter so much. Another "genesis rock" is not going to make a big difference in the short term and it's not going to make going to space any easier or more accessible. My thing is that we need to focus on making space itself more accessible. The more accessible it is the more people can explore thus increasing our chances of discovery and utility. In the past, people walk almost anywhere to explore. They had a cheap effective means of doing it how ever slow it might have been. But then anyone could choose to explore at anytime. The otherr point here is that we are not exploring truly unknow territory. If we were , CEV sure makes sense otherwise it's a fork down a road we will be forced to retrace our steps. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

NASA has been trying since Apollo to get cheap access to space, it's not happened yet, why do you think waiting will change anything?<br /><br />NASA has to show it will use a comercal CATS option and the only way a venture capitalist is going to investin making that happen is if he can see NASA spending the money and going rather than just saying they will. It seems on the surface a real chicken and egg problem.