Men on Mars

[tw]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
It seems that you and I are operating with differing definitions on the term "robot." I'm referring to a programmable automaton, where your defintiion seems to include any technological tool, such as a desktop computer, infrared imaging systems, etc. To me, if it's not automated, if it requires human input to be useful, it's a "tool," not a "robot."

Robots as they exist today cannot improvise, because improvisation requires intelligence and creativity. A robot can appear to improvise, but one of two things is really happening... A) It is behaving as it was pre-programmed to do in a situation which was anticipated, or B) A human controller intervened and improvised on behalf of the robot.

It does not matter whether controlled in the man's hand or by hands some million miles away. The better answer is "what is more cost effective" - requiring a scientific and not a political decision. What you call robots are simply more scientific tools doing what man cannot. Do we send men up with the wrong tools and then expect him to modify those tools? Not up there. Man on Mars doing less for tens of times more cost and risk.

Example of a robot. No mechanical movement. A meter that figures out what electricity it is measuring, adjusts the circuits accordingly, then reports all relevant numbers. Man alone could do none of this. Man with simpler tools would be less efficient or cost effective - or even damage the tool. It is not a mechanical robot. It is an electronic robot. Nothing more than another scientific tool.

Robots in the lab doing genome research or robots on Mars doing mineral, water, and geological research. Today, the more productive man does his work through robots or simpler 'robots' such as PCs, multimeters, scanners, and radio wave devices. Man today cannot do research without his robotic (intelligent) tools. It matters little where or how far away those tools are. Some want to glorify tools and call them robots. Fine. But they are still connected to a hand somewhere in the universe and they are still nothing more than flexible science tools.

Astronomers no longer go the telescope. Astronomy is done via electronics - robotically. Welcome to more robots. It is too expensive and difficult to haul men up the mountains in Hawaii. Today, telescope 'robots' in Hawaii, Chile, etc do the work while men analyze back in the universities. It is how research is now done - more with robots and less with man on site.

If man must be on site, then why is the ISS not loaded with telescopes? Because robots - Hubble - do a better job when men are not 'hands on'. The new way of doing science is very difficult for a president who makes science decisions to advance his politics. He only understands the old way: men must always be at the telescope to do astronomy research? Only when it is for political gain - science be damned.

Robots do on Mars far more than a man could do. Will we have a man live on -60 degree Mars for one year awaiting his return trip? Do you realize how technically impossible that is with the early 21st Century science? What is necessary to put a man on Mars? It starts with the research that was not done in a super collider - and other science best decided by those who come from where the work gets done. We have too much to do down here before we can even consider a man on Mars.

Worst decisions are made by an MBA president who never learned science nor how to run a successful company.