7 ms·

For all of the things we want to do, automation outperforms humans in space. I pointed this out in my earlier post - this wasn’t the case in the 50’s and early

For all of the things we want to do, automation outperforms humans in space. I pointed this out in my earlier post - this wasn’t the case in the 50’s and early 60’s, so these satellites were planned to be manned (and actually were in the USSR’s case). But automation made much more sense, so the plans changed to unmanned satellites. Perhaps this could change in the future. But at least in the present, unmanned makes more sense, which is why these things are unmanned. And historically, increased automation has lessened the need for something to be manned (which, is to be expected), so it’s likely the same will be true when it comes to space.

pfdietz 2y ago
Really? Automation outperforms astronauts for (say) Hubble Telescope Repair? Or for that matter for doing maintenace on robots? Your assertion only makes sense if the set of activities we do in space is sharply circumscribed. It's a mindset that comes from the "space is extremely expensive" environment.
- usrbinbash 2y ago
  > Automation outperforms astronauts for (say) Hubble Telescope Repair? The last hubble repair mission was in 2009. Robotics have come a long way since then. And the Hubble was still pretty close to earth. I can guarantee you that no human hand will ever touch the James Webb telescope ever again. If things go wrong at the 2nd lagrange point, its either robots-to-the-rescue, or bye-bye-telescope. Comparing a short, limited scope mission, close to earth, to the challenges of doing space things on other planets, is a bit far fetched. > Your assertion only makes sense if the set of activities we do in space is sharply circumscribed They are. They have to be, because activities that are not sharply circumscribed, have a very high probability to kill people in space. > It's a mindset that comes from the "space is extremely expensive" environment No, it's a mindset that comes from the "space is extremely deadly, and humans are surprisingly fragile outside of the habitat they evolved in" environment.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Your assertion can be reality checked by looking at the proposed private mission to service HST. This mission would use crew to do manual maintenance, not develop robots to try to do the servicing. Yes, HST is close to Earth. It's still in space. This is a demonstration that when costs of getting the people there are low enough, people > robots.
    - usrbinbash 2y ago
      > This is a demonstration that when costs of getting the people there are low enough, people > robots. Maintenance missions close to Earth and space exploration are 2 very different tasks. This does in no way "reality check" my assertion that trying to make people live long term on other planetary bodies, or even send them there on limited excursions, makes no sense in todays reality. You want a reality check? Fine, here is a reality check: [Perseverance Mission cost][1]: 2.725 Billion $, is already up there doing work, and only the lastest in a line of ever more capable robots. [2014 Projected Manned Mars Mission Cost][2]: 100 Billion $, could take 20 years or more. That was 10 years ago. Today we know it's likely to be even more expensive and take much longer. This is the reality. Today, Robots outperform people when it comes to going to other planets, by any scientific or economic metric. [1]: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance [2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140422-mars-mission-manned-cost-science-space https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140422-ma...

pfdietz 2y ago

Really? Automation outperforms astronauts for (say) Hubble Telescope Repair? Or for that matter for doing maintenace on robots? Your assertion only makes sense if the set of activities we do in space is sharply circumscribed. It's a mindset that comes from the "space is extremely expensive" environment.

usrbinbash 2y ago
> Automation outperforms astronauts for (say) Hubble Telescope Repair? The last hubble repair mission was in 2009. Robotics have come a long way since then. And the Hubble was still pretty close to earth. I can guarantee you that no human hand will ever touch the James Webb telescope ever again. If things go wrong at the 2nd lagrange point, its either robots-to-the-rescue, or bye-bye-telescope. Comparing a short, limited scope mission, close to earth, to the challenges of doing space things on other planets, is a bit far fetched. > Your assertion only makes sense if the set of activities we do in space is sharply circumscribed They are. They have to be, because activities that are not sharply circumscribed, have a very high probability to kill people in space. > It's a mindset that comes from the "space is extremely expensive" environment No, it's a mindset that comes from the "space is extremely deadly, and humans are surprisingly fragile outside of the habitat they evolved in" environment.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Your assertion can be reality checked by looking at the proposed private mission to service HST. This mission would use crew to do manual maintenance, not develop robots to try to do the servicing. Yes, HST is close to Earth. It's still in space. This is a demonstration that when costs of getting the people there are low enough, people > robots.
  - usrbinbash 2y ago
    > This is a demonstration that when costs of getting the people there are low enough, people > robots. Maintenance missions close to Earth and space exploration are 2 very different tasks. This does in no way "reality check" my assertion that trying to make people live long term on other planetary bodies, or even send them there on limited excursions, makes no sense in todays reality. You want a reality check? Fine, here is a reality check: [Perseverance Mission cost][1]: 2.725 Billion $, is already up there doing work, and only the lastest in a line of ever more capable robots. [2014 Projected Manned Mars Mission Cost][2]: 100 Billion $, could take 20 years or more. That was 10 years ago. Today we know it's likely to be even more expensive and take much longer. This is the reality. Today, Robots outperform people when it comes to going to other planets, by any scientific or economic metric. [1]: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance [2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140422-mars-mission-manned-cost-science-space https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140422-ma...