6 ms·

The deeper problem with the shuttle is that we need to bring the astronauts back because we sent them to space, and we sent them to space to do a mission, and t

by patio11 13y ago

The deeper problem with the shuttle is that we need to bring the astronauts back because we sent them to space, and we sent them to space to do a mission, and that mission is to go to space. There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better, except die.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
This is trivially untrue. Perhaps someday machines will be able to perform comparably with humans across a range of general actions, but it certainly not the case today.
- tptacek 13y ago
  He left the word "important" out, which makes it easy to score a debate point against him. What's the important thing humans actually end up doing in space that a machine couldn't do?
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    I'm not out to score debate points. I'm out to say this oft-repeated sentiment is trivially incorrect. While there are a range of activities which can be performed better by machines than humans, there is still a very wide range of actions that can't be performed better by machines. One would expect technologists to understand this better than anyone. But the crucial thing here is that a given human is capable of a much wider range of actions than a given machine. True, this can be made up for to an extent by using a wide variety of machines. Though at some point the weight of said machines will outweigh the human and their required support systems. And even then, those machines will be limited to a small subset of actions that the human can take. So what do humans have that machines don't? Versatility. PS- If I wanted to score points, I'd say he said "absolutely nothing", which overstates his case and makes your response invalid.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Which actions would those be?
      - waterlesscloud 13y ago
        Anything that requires a versatile response or independent judgment.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        Sure, for missions that aren't performed within a light-second of Earth. So far we have sent a total of zero humans far enough away to take advantage of their superior reasoning capabilities.
        leoc 13y ago
        That's a very generous threshold for usefulness. For difficult interactive tasks—like, perhaps, performing fiddly repair work on a $2.5bn+ satellite—there is clearly some advantage to not having a ping of 2000 or even 350.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        The human mind has a pretty awful ping time, and there's no reason not to take things slow in microgravity.
        leoc 13y ago
        > The human mind has a pretty awful ping time But unless the repair is going to be conducted by an AI—highly unlikely in the foreseeable future—then this is moot, as there will be a human brain in the loop in either case.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        It's not moot. A high fixed latency from involving humans makes it far less useful to reduce the control latency by a quarter of a second.
- acqq 13y ago
  Read the other article linked here: useful experiments don't need humans even now: http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm#experiments http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm#experim... The reason the astronauts flip the switch to start them: "The experiments could not be made fully automatic because NASA policy requires that experiments on manned missions involve the crew." Politics, again.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    Right up until something goes wrong that requires an adjustment the automation wasn't designed to make.
    - acqq 13y ago
      Voyager 1, launched 1977, never reachable to humans, still sends us the data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1
      - waterlesscloud 13y ago
        And dozens of probes lost because they couldn't adapt to small unforeseen problems.
        tptacek 13y ago
        So? They're machines. We just make more of them. Lots more, if we can recover the funds we waste on manned stunt trips to orbit.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        waterlesscloud 13y ago
        Which doesn't change the fact that a human overseeing an experiment can do a better job than a machine, and could cause the experiment to not be lost in the first place. Due to the versatility and adaptability of humans.
objclxt 13y ago
> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better, except die I would love to hear you explain how to perform, for example, research on the effects of long-term zero-gravity on humans using only machines. Or to take another example: I suppose it would have been possible to develop robots to repair the Hubble, but the cost of developing said robots to a point at which they can perform without failure is going to be equal - if not greater - than the cost of actually sending someone up to do the repair work in the first place.
- nradov 13y ago
  It would have been cheaper to build another Hubble and launch the replacement on a disposable rocket.
  - leoc 13y ago
    Would it really? Hubble ended up costing over $2.5bn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope by launch day while a Shuttle launch cost around $450m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle . Probably a rebuilt Hubble would have cost less, but how much less?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- tptacek 13y ago
  The first observation you made is a little tautological: the reason you'd study the effects of zero gravity on humans is so that you can more safely and effectively send them into space. The second example is an extraordinary claim presented without evidence, since the cost of sending humans to space appears to dominate the costs of the space program.
- Retric 13y ago
  We could have literally had 3 new Hubble's in orbit for less than the cost of all those repair missions. Repairing a space station is useful because unlike the Hubble it takes more than one launch to get it into orbit, but repairing a satellite is pointless.
rbanffy 13y ago
> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better I don't think a machine can be inspiring like this: http://ubuntuone.com/5LLIgal8tHKtHpFuDc3ZYl http://ubuntuone.com/5LLIgal8tHKtHpFuDc3ZYl We send machines to pave the way for humans, to see if it's safe and what precautions should we take. If you said that only to humans in LEO, then I'd agree. There is no reason for a manned space station right now or humans riding along the satellites they launch. Maybe someday one would be useful as a buffer between long haul traffic and a new generation of shuttlecraft ferrying people and cargo to and from LEO for other ships to carry to deeper space, but that day only exists in our dreams of today.
Dylan16807 13y ago
I'm not so sure. Machines can die pretty efficiently.
timsally 13y ago
> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better, except die. I can think of two things. The first is a bit morbid, but consider what happens if some country ever decides to weaponize space. Being able to have people up there who can use the weapons available to them and exercise their independent judgement even in the face of an earth-to-space communication failure is important. It's the same doctrine that's behind ballistic missile submarines equipped with nuclear warheads. The second is less morbid-- the colonization of other planets. This is necessary to protect the human species from an extinction event. Maybe even one that resulted from the aforementioned submarines. Naturally in order to colonize other planets we need to study the effects of space on humans. In order to do that we need to send them into space. All of that said, I also believe most of our current missions can be done much more cost effectively by changing them to unmanned missions. But you can't take your eye of the long game, which just like the rest of history, is manned and involves militarization and colonization.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > It's the same doctrine that's behind ballistic missile submarines equipped with nuclear warheads. Did you see the article "Unsug hero of the nuclear age" a couple of days ago (yesterday?) on HN. That would probably shake your confidence in human reliability when facing the choice to launch or not to launch a warhead. Please have a look. > The second is less morbid-- the colonization of other planets. We can send humans in space, but the technology part that is lacking is still there: we don't have the "know-how" to colonize other planets, and before sending people in space there's a lot of work to be done in that field.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    > we don't have the "know-how" to colonize other planets, and before sending people in space there's a lot of work to be done in that field. And sending people into space is how we're getting that know-how.
    - ekianjo 13y ago

by patio11 13y ago

waterlesscloud 13y ago

This is trivially untrue. Perhaps someday machines will be able to perform comparably with humans across a range of general actions, but it certainly not the case today.

tptacek 13y ago
He left the word "important" out, which makes it easy to score a debate point against him. What's the important thing humans actually end up doing in space that a machine couldn't do?
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  I'm not out to score debate points. I'm out to say this oft-repeated sentiment is trivially incorrect. While there are a range of activities which can be performed better by machines than humans, there is still a very wide range of actions that can't be performed better by machines. One would expect technologists to understand this better than anyone. But the crucial thing here is that a given human is capable of a much wider range of actions than a given machine. True, this can be made up for to an extent by using a wide variety of machines. Though at some point the weight of said machines will outweigh the human and their required support systems. And even then, those machines will be limited to a small subset of actions that the human can take. So what do humans have that machines don't? Versatility. PS- If I wanted to score points, I'd say he said "absolutely nothing", which overstates his case and makes your response invalid.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Which actions would those be?
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      Anything that requires a versatile response or independent judgment.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        Sure, for missions that aren't performed within a light-second of Earth. So far we have sent a total of zero humans far enough away to take advantage of their superior reasoning capabilities.
        leoc 13y ago
        That's a very generous threshold for usefulness. For difficult interactive tasks—like, perhaps, performing fiddly repair work on a $2.5bn+ satellite—there is clearly some advantage to not having a ping of 2000 or even 350.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        The human mind has a pretty awful ping time, and there's no reason not to take things slow in microgravity.
        leoc 13y ago
        > The human mind has a pretty awful ping time But unless the repair is going to be conducted by an AI—highly unlikely in the foreseeable future—then this is moot, as there will be a human brain in the loop in either case.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        It's not moot. A high fixed latency from involving humans makes it far less useful to reduce the control latency by a quarter of a second.
acqq 13y ago
Read the other article linked here: useful experiments don't need humans even now: http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm#experiments http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm#experim... The reason the astronauts flip the switch to start them: "The experiments could not be made fully automatic because NASA policy requires that experiments on manned missions involve the crew." Politics, again.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Right up until something goes wrong that requires an adjustment the automation wasn't designed to make.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Voyager 1, launched 1977, never reachable to humans, still sends us the data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      And dozens of probes lost because they couldn't adapt to small unforeseen problems.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        So? They're machines. We just make more of them. Lots more, if we can recover the funds we waste on manned stunt trips to orbit.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        waterlesscloud 13y ago
        Which doesn't change the fact that a human overseeing an experiment can do a better job than a machine, and could cause the experiment to not be lost in the first place. Due to the versatility and adaptability of humans.

objclxt 13y ago

> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better, except die I would love to hear you explain how to perform, for example, research on the effects of long-term zero-gravity on humans using only machines. Or to take another example: I suppose it would have been possible to develop robots to repair the Hubble, but the cost of developing said robots to a point at which they can perform without failure is going to be equal - if not greater - than the cost of actually sending someone up to do the repair work in the first place.

nradov 13y ago
It would have been cheaper to build another Hubble and launch the replacement on a disposable rocket.
- leoc 13y ago
  Would it really? Hubble ended up costing over $2.5bn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope by launch day while a Shuttle launch cost around $450m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle . Probably a rebuilt Hubble would have cost less, but how much less?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
tptacek 13y ago
The first observation you made is a little tautological: the reason you'd study the effects of zero gravity on humans is so that you can more safely and effectively send them into space. The second example is an extraordinary claim presented without evidence, since the cost of sending humans to space appears to dominate the costs of the space program.
Retric 13y ago
We could have literally had 3 new Hubble's in orbit for less than the cost of all those repair missions. Repairing a space station is useful because unlike the Hubble it takes more than one launch to get it into orbit, but repairing a satellite is pointless.

rbanffy 13y ago

> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better I don't think a machine can be inspiring like this: http://ubuntuone.com/5LLIgal8tHKtHpFuDc3ZYl http://ubuntuone.com/5LLIgal8tHKtHpFuDc3ZYl We send machines to pave the way for humans, to see if it's safe and what precautions should we take. If you said that only to humans in LEO, then I'd agree. There is no reason for a manned space station right now or humans riding along the satellites they launch. Maybe someday one would be useful as a buffer between long haul traffic and a new generation of shuttlecraft ferrying people and cargo to and from LEO for other ships to carry to deeper space, but that day only exists in our dreams of today.

Dylan16807 13y ago

I'm not so sure. Machines can die pretty efficiently.

timsally 13y ago

> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better, except die. I can think of two things. The first is a bit morbid, but consider what happens if some country ever decides to weaponize space. Being able to have people up there who can use the weapons available to them and exercise their independent judgement even in the face of an earth-to-space communication failure is important. It's the same doctrine that's behind ballistic missile submarines equipped with nuclear warheads. The second is less morbid-- the colonization of other planets. This is necessary to protect the human species from an extinction event. Maybe even one that resulted from the aforementioned submarines. Naturally in order to colonize other planets we need to study the effects of space on humans. In order to do that we need to send them into space. All of that said, I also believe most of our current missions can be done much more cost effectively by changing them to unmanned missions. But you can't take your eye of the long game, which just like the rest of history, is manned and involves militarization and colonization.

ekianjo 13y ago
> It's the same doctrine that's behind ballistic missile submarines equipped with nuclear warheads. Did you see the article "Unsug hero of the nuclear age" a couple of days ago (yesterday?) on HN. That would probably shake your confidence in human reliability when facing the choice to launch or not to launch a warhead. Please have a look. > The second is less morbid-- the colonization of other planets. We can send humans in space, but the technology part that is lacking is still there: we don't have the "know-how" to colonize other planets, and before sending people in space there's a lot of work to be done in that field.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  > we don't have the "know-how" to colonize other planets, and before sending people in space there's a lot of work to be done in that field. And sending people into space is how we're getting that know-how.
  - ekianjo 13y ago