Quote:
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
She linked to an article that basically said what many of us, including myself, have been saying throughout this discussion.
|
The article provided numbers - not wild speculation such a 'launch for Mars in 2015'. Article provided factual background which those other posts did not. Not to say the article drew valid conclusions. But at least the author could draw from hard reality - not wild speculation.
For example, using those hard facts, we add that a moon robot could spend 115 days, many times over, collecting and analyzing samples whereas the men must grab only what they can find right then, and run. Men in the example were in a relatively mild environment - vacuum. Men being far more limited in a chlorine and sulfur environment that robots can thrive in. These hard facts added to what the SciAm article posted meaning hard conclusions can be drawn.
Men cannot stay and keeping working. Men cannot collect subsurface samples; machines being required anyway. Ok. When the article was written, some abovev facts were not yet known. But facts provided by that article can be used for further analysis because they were not based upon speculation, wild assumption, or popular myth.
Again take the 1 man doing 115 times more work. It assumes robots will not advance. Already robots are playing soccer - which was not even considered possible when that SciAm article was written. Already the 1 man day verse 115 robot days has substanically diminished.
Those other posts instead used a "John Henry" reasoning that machines will never replace man. Replacement is happening everywhere from telescopes to deep ocean study, to inside microprocessor development, to nuclear power operations, to deep space exploration because man can no longer do the jobs well enough. Men can no longer go where robots do. Example. Automobiles no longer can be constructed by man. Some environments too hazardous either to man or man too hazardous to the product. Tolerances no longer possible by man even running the machine. Computerized robots are now the only way to make or assemble many car parts. 'Robots are superior' also applies to current and 2015 Mars missions. That conclusion does not even consider the extraordinary less cost.
IOW because the article bases conclusions on solid examples and facts, then the errors in those conclusions can be logically discussed.
The article does provide logical reasonings for its conclusions. That was not the case in challenged posts. One hard fact made most obvious - a Mars flight in 2015 is not even close to reality - if only based on time it takes for simple robotic spaceflights. In fact a 2015 spaceflight is so far from reality that only a fiction writer (and not a leader) could have proposed it. Even a space telescope takes twelve years to build - not including upfront planning - for operation in an environment that is, relatively, extremely friendly. Notice the difference. Hard facts are provided to justify a conclusion.
Real world examples on which a conclusion is based. No wild speculation that because we went to the moon in 1970, then going to Mars will also be simple in 2010. That is junk science reasoning; not used in the Scientific American article. Big difference in what some posted here and what that Sciam article said - even though that Sciam article did not know of or forgot to mention other important points. Example: the robot at now less than 1/10th cost can stay there working for far more than 115 days - thereby doing more productive work. A point we can now make because the author provided a basic fact - with numbers. Hard facts that those 'speculations leading to conclusion' posts did not provide.
Please fee free to post numerical facts proving that robots cannot do the job. Please don't insult me by reposting 1990 robots as proof that 2010 robots cannot do the job. If a robot cannot do the job, then put up good technical facts. Show us how a robot with IR, UV, visible, X-ray, Radar, and sub-IR vision can locate and find less than a human.
hot_pastrami - you posted four reasons why we should put a man on Mars. They were all wild speculation without any supporting facts. One was based on classic myth. Note the difference between how the SciAm article supported its claims and how you reached mostly for popularly held beliefs - or myths. The SciAm article used hard facts to reach a conclusion. You simply speculated, as demonstrated by four reasons to put a man on Mars. That is the difference between your post and what she posted.