D
docm
Guest
I've seen a lot of posts on the net full of hand-wringing over the idea of the "deep space" missions being 'no touch', meaning most would be no-landing observation tours.
Thought about it for a while and came to the conclusion that many of these missions (Mercury, Venus, large asteroids and planetoids etc.) might be best done using a mix of humans in orbit or in parallel trajectories and a new generation of rovers using 'telerobotics' - humans controlling robot missions from a closer range than ever possible before.
I know NASA had been working on a human-robot interface for ISS, but I think that paradigm needs to go further.
Humans do have this 'thing' about reaching out and touching a new environment under control of our stereoscopic peepers. Heft the rock, fine motor control of the geology tools, close inspection etc. are some of the advantages of humans on the rock.
Using telerobotics on the surface with humans within light-milliseconds would allow for realtime manipulation, which should allow more science to be done in a much shorter time.
Sad to say the bucks aren’t there for the personal touch. Maybe some day, or on the other hand maybe telerobots could be built with sensory feedback and HD stereo vision to make the issue near to moot.
Recent developments in robotic prostheses by DARPA & others plus advances in virtual reality are allowing for very fine control of robotic arms and hands, in addition to information like pressure, texture, temperature, touch etc. being passed along to a human controller remotely. Same for remote HD stereoscopic viewing.
Last I heard DARPA's hand had 25 ways of freedom, only a few short of a real humans and it had sensory feedback. Arms are advancing so fast it's hard to keep track of them. Stereo HD remote vision systems are already there.
Perfect for rovers with at least one human-like arm controlled by a human in close proximity to the space body under study.
Savings would come in reduced infrastructure: no hab on the ground, no lander/return vehicle/manned rover/environmental gear etc.
Thought about it for a while and came to the conclusion that many of these missions (Mercury, Venus, large asteroids and planetoids etc.) might be best done using a mix of humans in orbit or in parallel trajectories and a new generation of rovers using 'telerobotics' - humans controlling robot missions from a closer range than ever possible before.
I know NASA had been working on a human-robot interface for ISS, but I think that paradigm needs to go further.
Humans do have this 'thing' about reaching out and touching a new environment under control of our stereoscopic peepers. Heft the rock, fine motor control of the geology tools, close inspection etc. are some of the advantages of humans on the rock.
Using telerobotics on the surface with humans within light-milliseconds would allow for realtime manipulation, which should allow more science to be done in a much shorter time.
Sad to say the bucks aren’t there for the personal touch. Maybe some day, or on the other hand maybe telerobots could be built with sensory feedback and HD stereo vision to make the issue near to moot.
Recent developments in robotic prostheses by DARPA & others plus advances in virtual reality are allowing for very fine control of robotic arms and hands, in addition to information like pressure, texture, temperature, touch etc. being passed along to a human controller remotely. Same for remote HD stereoscopic viewing.
Last I heard DARPA's hand had 25 ways of freedom, only a few short of a real humans and it had sensory feedback. Arms are advancing so fast it's hard to keep track of them. Stereo HD remote vision systems are already there.
Perfect for rovers with at least one human-like arm controlled by a human in close proximity to the space body under study.
Savings would come in reduced infrastructure: no hab on the ground, no lander/return vehicle/manned rover/environmental gear etc.