4 ms·

You also don’t need smart rovers. You just need dumb rovers with a bunch of sensors and a radio, a few satellites and then a local command server with all the p

by jorvi 3y ago

You also don’t need smart rovers. You just need dumb rovers with a bunch of sensors and a radio, a few satellites and then a local command server with all the processing power centralized. You run an AI on that with a bunch of safeguards, and constant human albeit speed-of-light-delayed monitoring that can correct erroneous decision making.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Stop poking holes in my desperate attempt to save the future of manned space exploration! :(. (If we keep reasoning this way, humanity will forever be stuck on this ball of mud, eventually wiring our heads to computers, and then the closest we'll come to exploring the universe is browsing through pictures snapped by ancient probes.)
- jorvi 3y ago
  My very far future prediction is that either: A. We retreat in the comfy matrix whilst we let robots rule the roost. If the matrix could simulate.. say.. Star Trek style exploration for you in a more interesting, comfortable and challenging way than reality, why would you want the watered down real version? B. We digitize ourselves, but (most of us) prefer reality. To travel to a different world you get beamed over, into a vat-grown android body. Human bodies are much too fragile for long distance space travel. Why add massive amounts of extra required resources (cryo-G couches, extra fuel due to those couches, bigger ship for those couches, redundancy, etc.) when you can just launch a robotic factory at much higher Gs, land (always perilous), let it bootstrap itself into a forward base, vat-grow a couple of android bodies and then you get to beam into the frontier :) For the not-so-far future I see us putting a few bases on the moon and a very scrappy base on Mars, all manned by warm-blooded humans.
acdha 3y ago
You’d probably want some intelligence in both places to improve the odds if a survivable mishap or dust storm breaks communications, but yes, keeping it in orbit does have some really nice properties for a longer running program.

by jorvi 3y ago

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Stop poking holes in my desperate attempt to save the future of manned space exploration! :(. (If we keep reasoning this way, humanity will forever be stuck on this ball of mud, eventually wiring our heads to computers, and then the closest we'll come to exploring the universe is browsing through pictures snapped by ancient probes.)

jorvi 3y ago
My very far future prediction is that either: A. We retreat in the comfy matrix whilst we let robots rule the roost. If the matrix could simulate.. say.. Star Trek style exploration for you in a more interesting, comfortable and challenging way than reality, why would you want the watered down real version? B. We digitize ourselves, but (most of us) prefer reality. To travel to a different world you get beamed over, into a vat-grown android body. Human bodies are much too fragile for long distance space travel. Why add massive amounts of extra required resources (cryo-G couches, extra fuel due to those couches, bigger ship for those couches, redundancy, etc.) when you can just launch a robotic factory at much higher Gs, land (always perilous), let it bootstrap itself into a forward base, vat-grow a couple of android bodies and then you get to beam into the frontier :) For the not-so-far future I see us putting a few bases on the moon and a very scrappy base on Mars, all manned by warm-blooded humans.

acdha 3y ago

You’d probably want some intelligence in both places to improve the odds if a survivable mishap or dust storm breaks communications, but yes, keeping it in orbit does have some really nice properties for a longer running program.