6 ms·

You may be interested in "Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency" [1]: > There is a widely held view in the astronomical community that unmanned robotic spa

by twic 7y ago

You may be interested in "Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency" [1]: > There is a widely held view in the astronomical community that unmanned robotic space vehicles are, and always will be, more efficient explorers of planetary surfaces than astronauts (e.g. Coates 2001, Clements 2009, Rees 2011). Partly this comes from a common assumption that robotic exploration is cheaper than human exploration (although this isn't necessarily true if like is compared with like) and partly from the expectation that developments in technology will relentlessly increase the capability and reduce the size and cost of robotic missions to the point that human exploration will not be able to compete. I argue below that the experience of human exploration during the Apollo missions, more recent field analogue studies and trends in robotic space exploration all point to exactly the opposite conclusion. [1] https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/53/2/2.22/212515 https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/53/2/2.22/212515

mannykannot 7y ago
This looks like a case study in tendentious reasoning - for example "This is because much of the scientific benefit of human missions will consist of samples returned, drill cores drilled and geophysical instruments deployed, all of which were demonstrated by Apollo on the Moon, but none of which have been achieved by the MERs nor will be achieved by the more capable (and vastly more expensive) Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) that is due to land on Mars in 2012." MSL is "vastly more expensive" than what? Not Apollo, and not a human mission to Mars, which are the benchmarks that matter in this context. I am not opposed to manned missions, but the case for their utility is thin, to say the least.
- bluGill 7y ago
  It is cheaper and easier for a robot to return samples from mars if that is what we want to do. However not by much: either way you now have to carry a rocket and fuel to mars to get back with. It is generally cheaper just carry a full lab and study samples on mars. Where humans excel is on the spot decision making: looking around and saying "that looks interesting, I'm going to ignore the mission plan and go over there instead". That is where great breakthroughs are found, but it is also where mission control gets mad because the important things everyone was interested in don't get studied for something pretty but otherwise uninteresting. We know from earth that there are some interesting geographical features that are only a couple meters wide: such features on mars would not be visible from earth. Thus whatever is on mars needs to recognize interesting things and find it. Humans intuitively recognize interesting things (and do better with just a little training). Teaching computers to recognize such features is a hard, partially unsolved problem. On the moon you can do remote control of robots from earth and get the same level of power from a robot if you want it. (do not read can as we should - there are reasons to not do remote control) You can't do that on mars unless you are working at a speed of meters/day, so whatever is on mars needs to have local control to decide how to get around and what samples to get. Robots generally do best for solved problems. A factory can replace 100 humans with saws with two robots and get more accuracy, but the shapes being cut out of a flat sheet of steel of a standard size. When you only need one part it is often faster to have a human with a saw cut it out (this is less and less true as the design to part chain gets better). The truth is there are advantages to both. At the current state of technology humans can do more than robots. However robots are enough cheaper that we use them anyway: we still don't have the ability to get anything back from mars. Ethically we will not send humans on a one way trip with enough supplies to live on mars for two weeks and then die, so humans are not an option yet.
  - wnkrshm 7y ago
    While robots will carry a certain array of sensors, imo a robotic mission has better ability to choose what to examine and choose what to spend time on, because the mission has experts that can think about these decisions for a week before making a call. The mission is under no significant time pressure when things go off-script. The time pressure of a manned mission is significant - this ability to make decisions quickly is only necessary because of the time constraints of a manned mission and the need to be careful enough to get back. This time pressure can be a factor in making mistakes and irrepairably damaging the instruments or hardware you brought. In one instance, Apollo crew has destroyed a camera they brought by accidentally pointing it into the sun for example. The flexibility of humans does not give any significant benefit if those humans don't have the time to use it. When every minute is planned for something, with some buffers to make mistakes, your ability to improvise only comes in to remedy your mistakes. And some are not fixable. The operation is exciting and all rests on the ability of 2-3 people and the preparation of dozens and their skill under time pressure. A robotic mission has months to remedy some fuckups and come up with workarounds. Some things are not fixable either. But a robotic mission has all the knowledge of a team of experts and is not put on the spot - they don't need to be as superhuman. The operation is comparatively boring and rests on the ability of dozens of scientists and engineers. They don't have to prepare for contingencies as much, they can analyze a situation, compare plans, simulate consequences (such as software patches, hardware operation) and act on them.
  - dr_zoidberg 7y ago
    Not just on the spot decision making (there are human operators behind Curiosity after all), but improvising a solution to a problem that was not contemplated. Take for example the lunar rover fender that broke, and they patched together a solution on the spot. And compare that to the Insight Lander mole, which found a particularly hard-to-drill rock and can't move from the spot (after all, it's a lander, not a rover). Now they are trying to push it with the landers arm, but there's only so much that can be done.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    >Where humans excel is on the spot decision making: looking around and saying "that looks interesting, I'm going to ignore the mission plan and go over there instead" This is where the real advantage is. Intuitive curiosity is not something AI is anywhere near being able to replicate in a useful way. Plus being able to explain why something is interesting and worth investigating. Look at image recognition- even where it's extremely accurate, in the instances where it screws up, we topically have no idea why. (Like confusing a leopard with a hair brush.) Which in the context of exploration is not very useful. If we don't know why the AI finds a feature interesting, then how are we (or the AI itself) supposed to know what to do about it? How to further study it? Every other comparison between humans and robots is somewhat debatable depending on context and mission. Secondary is certainly reaction time, especially in the context of timely investigation. As someone mentioned elsewhere with large scale drilling, many types of equipment still require a human operator with near-realtime feedback to be used effectively and efficiently in a non-specialized manor. If a rover on Mars rolls around a boulder and spots a little green man, or a pink Martian rabbit, they're probably not going to hang around and wait to be studied. More likely, it might dig a hole, uncovering water or some other unknown material that's evaporated or sublimated before it gets instructions on how to react. Of course if it's a pink martian rabbit, we'll have to wait 8-12 years to develop and delete a new rover with trapping capabilities. :-)
j9461701 7y ago
> Compare the 35.7 km traversed in three days by the Apollo 17 astronauts in December 1972 with the almost identical distance (34.4 km) traversed by the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity in eight years. Yes, and the Rover costs 1/150th the price. We could send up literally a hundred rovers for the cost of the Apollo program and still have billions of dollars left to burn. We could build a giant Nolan Joker style money pyramid and roast marshmallows. More-over all modern Mars missions are done on a relatively shoe-string budget using robots NASA knows are much less capable than they feasibly could construct. Basically Opportunity only went 34.4 km in 8 years because it was built by the NASA equivalent of 2 guys in a shed for beer money. Since the humiliating loss of Mars Climate Orbiter NASA has focused only on sending things to Mars they're not quite so afraid to lose, which means rather drastically reduced rover capabilities and lessened scientific payloads. >Greatly increased efficiency in sample collection and sample return capacity. Compare the 382 kg of samples returned by Apollo with the 0.32 kg from the Russian robotic sample return missions Lunas 16, 20 and 24, and the zero kg returned so far by any robotic mission to Mars. This is comparing apples to oranges. One of the great benefits of robots is they don't have to come back, which massively saves on the budget. Manned missions by necessity do need to bring about 3 x 75 pounds of dead weight (aka 3 man crew) back home, so you may as well have them line their pockets with rocks if you're just burning money anyway. >Increased potential for large-scale exploratory activities (e.g. drilling) and the deployment and maintenance of complex equipment. This I do agree with. Large scale drilling in the asteroid built would actually benefit from human presence, as it's far enough from Earth that light speed lag is non-trivial and mining in space will likely be a very complex, novel situation that will benefit from human level intelligence. But just walking around on Mars, doing sample collecting? The case seems extremely thin. Especially as, even by the article's own admission, robots are improving to the point a human is only "1-2x better" than modern AI-assisted drones. Rather than the 1500x human-robot performance disparity the author highlights for earlier robots. Given the relative costs of people and robots, it's very much still tilted in favor of drones.
- andruby 7y ago
  You can't compare the price of the Apollo program with one Mars rover mission. The Mars rover missions built upon the discoveries and experience from the Apollo missions.

by twic 7y ago

mannykannot 7y ago

This looks like a case study in tendentious reasoning - for example "This is because much of the scientific benefit of human missions will consist of samples returned, drill cores drilled and geophysical instruments deployed, all of which were demonstrated by Apollo on the Moon, but none of which have been achieved by the MERs nor will be achieved by the more capable (and vastly more expensive) Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) that is due to land on Mars in 2012." MSL is "vastly more expensive" than what? Not Apollo, and not a human mission to Mars, which are the benchmarks that matter in this context. I am not opposed to manned missions, but the case for their utility is thin, to say the least.

bluGill 7y ago
It is cheaper and easier for a robot to return samples from mars if that is what we want to do. However not by much: either way you now have to carry a rocket and fuel to mars to get back with. It is generally cheaper just carry a full lab and study samples on mars. Where humans excel is on the spot decision making: looking around and saying "that looks interesting, I'm going to ignore the mission plan and go over there instead". That is where great breakthroughs are found, but it is also where mission control gets mad because the important things everyone was interested in don't get studied for something pretty but otherwise uninteresting. We know from earth that there are some interesting geographical features that are only a couple meters wide: such features on mars would not be visible from earth. Thus whatever is on mars needs to recognize interesting things and find it. Humans intuitively recognize interesting things (and do better with just a little training). Teaching computers to recognize such features is a hard, partially unsolved problem. On the moon you can do remote control of robots from earth and get the same level of power from a robot if you want it. (do not read can as we should - there are reasons to not do remote control) You can't do that on mars unless you are working at a speed of meters/day, so whatever is on mars needs to have local control to decide how to get around and what samples to get. Robots generally do best for solved problems. A factory can replace 100 humans with saws with two robots and get more accuracy, but the shapes being cut out of a flat sheet of steel of a standard size. When you only need one part it is often faster to have a human with a saw cut it out (this is less and less true as the design to part chain gets better). The truth is there are advantages to both. At the current state of technology humans can do more than robots. However robots are enough cheaper that we use them anyway: we still don't have the ability to get anything back from mars. Ethically we will not send humans on a one way trip with enough supplies to live on mars for two weeks and then die, so humans are not an option yet.
- wnkrshm 7y ago
  While robots will carry a certain array of sensors, imo a robotic mission has better ability to choose what to examine and choose what to spend time on, because the mission has experts that can think about these decisions for a week before making a call. The mission is under no significant time pressure when things go off-script. The time pressure of a manned mission is significant - this ability to make decisions quickly is only necessary because of the time constraints of a manned mission and the need to be careful enough to get back. This time pressure can be a factor in making mistakes and irrepairably damaging the instruments or hardware you brought. In one instance, Apollo crew has destroyed a camera they brought by accidentally pointing it into the sun for example. The flexibility of humans does not give any significant benefit if those humans don't have the time to use it. When every minute is planned for something, with some buffers to make mistakes, your ability to improvise only comes in to remedy your mistakes. And some are not fixable. The operation is exciting and all rests on the ability of 2-3 people and the preparation of dozens and their skill under time pressure. A robotic mission has months to remedy some fuckups and come up with workarounds. Some things are not fixable either. But a robotic mission has all the knowledge of a team of experts and is not put on the spot - they don't need to be as superhuman. The operation is comparatively boring and rests on the ability of dozens of scientists and engineers. They don't have to prepare for contingencies as much, they can analyze a situation, compare plans, simulate consequences (such as software patches, hardware operation) and act on them.
- dr_zoidberg 7y ago
  Not just on the spot decision making (there are human operators behind Curiosity after all), but improvising a solution to a problem that was not contemplated. Take for example the lunar rover fender that broke, and they patched together a solution on the spot. And compare that to the Insight Lander mole, which found a particularly hard-to-drill rock and can't move from the spot (after all, it's a lander, not a rover). Now they are trying to push it with the landers arm, but there's only so much that can be done.
- beerandt 7y ago
  >Where humans excel is on the spot decision making: looking around and saying "that looks interesting, I'm going to ignore the mission plan and go over there instead" This is where the real advantage is. Intuitive curiosity is not something AI is anywhere near being able to replicate in a useful way. Plus being able to explain why something is interesting and worth investigating. Look at image recognition- even where it's extremely accurate, in the instances where it screws up, we topically have no idea why. (Like confusing a leopard with a hair brush.) Which in the context of exploration is not very useful. If we don't know why the AI finds a feature interesting, then how are we (or the AI itself) supposed to know what to do about it? How to further study it? Every other comparison between humans and robots is somewhat debatable depending on context and mission. Secondary is certainly reaction time, especially in the context of timely investigation. As someone mentioned elsewhere with large scale drilling, many types of equipment still require a human operator with near-realtime feedback to be used effectively and efficiently in a non-specialized manor. If a rover on Mars rolls around a boulder and spots a little green man, or a pink Martian rabbit, they're probably not going to hang around and wait to be studied. More likely, it might dig a hole, uncovering water or some other unknown material that's evaporated or sublimated before it gets instructions on how to react. Of course if it's a pink martian rabbit, we'll have to wait 8-12 years to develop and delete a new rover with trapping capabilities. :-)

j9461701 7y ago

> Compare the 35.7 km traversed in three days by the Apollo 17 astronauts in December 1972 with the almost identical distance (34.4 km) traversed by the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity in eight years. Yes, and the Rover costs 1/150th the price. We could send up literally a hundred rovers for the cost of the Apollo program and still have billions of dollars left to burn. We could build a giant Nolan Joker style money pyramid and roast marshmallows. More-over all modern Mars missions are done on a relatively shoe-string budget using robots NASA knows are much less capable than they feasibly could construct. Basically Opportunity only went 34.4 km in 8 years because it was built by the NASA equivalent of 2 guys in a shed for beer money. Since the humiliating loss of Mars Climate Orbiter NASA has focused only on sending things to Mars they're not quite so afraid to lose, which means rather drastically reduced rover capabilities and lessened scientific payloads. >Greatly increased efficiency in sample collection and sample return capacity. Compare the 382 kg of samples returned by Apollo with the 0.32 kg from the Russian robotic sample return missions Lunas 16, 20 and 24, and the zero kg returned so far by any robotic mission to Mars. This is comparing apples to oranges. One of the great benefits of robots is they don't have to come back, which massively saves on the budget. Manned missions by necessity do need to bring about 3 x 75 pounds of dead weight (aka 3 man crew) back home, so you may as well have them line their pockets with rocks if you're just burning money anyway. >Increased potential for large-scale exploratory activities (e.g. drilling) and the deployment and maintenance of complex equipment. This I do agree with. Large scale drilling in the asteroid built would actually benefit from human presence, as it's far enough from Earth that light speed lag is non-trivial and mining in space will likely be a very complex, novel situation that will benefit from human level intelligence. But just walking around on Mars, doing sample collecting? The case seems extremely thin. Especially as, even by the article's own admission, robots are improving to the point a human is only "1-2x better" than modern AI-assisted drones. Rather than the 1500x human-robot performance disparity the author highlights for earlier robots. Given the relative costs of people and robots, it's very much still tilted in favor of drones.

andruby 7y ago
You can't compare the price of the Apollo program with one Mars rover mission. The Mars rover missions built upon the discoveries and experience from the Apollo missions.