🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Feb9.211549.19516@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <665@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >> >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish
> >> >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature.
> >When I say "manned presence," I refer to something a bit more substantial
> >than demonstration/research projects, and something that might eventually
> >act as something other than an economic sink...
> 
> Fair enough... but you still haven't explained why robotics and teleoperation
> are so vital to it.  To repeat Mike's question:  are you sure "must" is
> the right word?

I've read Nick Szabo's response to this question, and I believe he
echoes my views here. I will make explicit the notion implicit in his
words, that I also discussed about four articles back in this thread:
human labor costs in space are likely to be anywhere from 1-3+ orders
of magnitude higher than human labor costs on earth. Lower launch
costs will help, but they cannot erase the permanent disadvantage
resulting from having to engineer and cart around an artificial
environment.

High labor costs do not necessarily stop the show. To offset high labor
costs, you need either a tremendous payoff on the project (e.g., the
Alaska Pipeline), or you need high labor productivity. No doubt some
space projects will produce high payoffs, but I don't believe we can
safely count on this for largely autonomous space colonies. That leaves
us with the option of boosting labor productivity. This approach, BTW,
is (as Nick points out) the safest and most viable avenue to developing
self-sustaining space colonies. Colonies that rely on high terrestrial
returns to overcome their high costs will have a dangerous exposure to
changing market forces. They may also, by their very success, depress
commodity prices until their survival is endangered.

To boost productivity, we must learn to think of humans in space as a
precious resource, not as some sort of astronautical coolie labor. We
must build a space work environment that maximizes the useful output
from each human. We have to minimize (1) necessary hand labor, (2)
time wasted in transit to and from worksites, (3) confusion due to
lack of standardization, (4) unnecessary EVA's. High human resource
utilization implies a high degree of careful planning and coordination
to insure that every single effort counts and requires close to the
minimum amount of time for the task.

This is a difficult environment for terrestrial humans to envision,
since our economies have historically been fairly profligate with
labor. For example, note the political difficulties with implementing
computer standards---in some ways this reflects a low cultural
appreciation for labor productivity. Also consider suburban
development patterns that increase the time each person must spend on
travel. Don't forget the widespread practices of union featherbedding
and other Luddite reactions to advancing technology. BTW, the word
"Luddite" means "labor-preserving" as much as it implies
anti-technological sentiment. Ned Lud did not smash the looms because
he hated technology per se--he only wanted to keep his job.

I envision the work environment in space consisting of a nucleus of
broadly skilled and highly motivated humans surrounded by a fleet of
semi-autonomous and tele-operated robots. Depending on the degree of
autonomy, each human will monitor between 5 and 100 robots through a
high-bandwidth VIVED (Virtual Visual Environment Display) and perhaps
datagloves or force-feedback manipulators. The human supervisor will
ignore robots that are functioning normally or in transit to and from
worksites. When a robot breaks, gets in trouble, or faces a task it is
not programmed for, the human will step in and guide its operation
more closely, or send other robots to assist. The humans will also be
responsible for designing field fixes, reprogramming, and otherwise
raising their own productivity. The humans should find their jobs
absorbing, rewarding, and just plain fun. After all, we all want to
maximize our power and control over things. EVA's will be reserved
for emergencies or, possibly, for recreation.

Clearly, such an environment requires significant advances in the
information and robotics technologies. Compared to these problems,
the questions relating to boosters and such are mere details. I submit
that the frustrated space fan should pursue a career in, say, the
AI, workstation, robotics, or undersea development industries. The
technologies vital to eventual space development are emerging in
those fields. Moving them into space will be a natural extension.

Cheers,

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu