The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Internet & Technology (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Space Exploration - Human vs Robot (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=384726)

Desinishon December 4th, 2016 5:59 AM

Space Exploration - Human vs Robot
 
So like title says who should dominate space exploration.

Humans in space provide operational flexibility, inspiration and native intelligence. While Robotic exploration is necessary to enable human exploration by setting the context, providing critical information, and reducing the risk to humans.

What are your thoughts on this? C:

gimmepie December 4th, 2016 6:59 AM

I think that most exploration needs to e done by robots, especially preliminary research. Robots are cheaper, don't need to be kept healthy, can go places human beings can't and are less valuable than human lives.

They can't think creatively though. They can't experience things and relate them back with words. They take longer to do things too. So human exploration is still a must.

Nihilego December 4th, 2016 7:13 AM

Robots are necessary for testing equipment and safety and environmental conditions etc., so I think that preliminary or experimental tests regarding actual means of space exploration is best handled by robots. We can use them as sort of throwaway proof-of-concept tools for models of space exploration which may be likely to have advantages, but may also pose a risk to the humans using them. Robots are an easy way around that, and they can monitor and record loads more data more quickly than a human can. Give them something to test and they'll test it well.

However, robots lack a key capability that is required in space exploration and, indeed, all of science: they cannot observe. By "observe" I don't simply mean take recordings - I mean look at things and evaluate them. In science, "observation" refers to taking an action and looking at its effects without expectations of what you'll see. Ergo, you aren't "looking" for any particular thing; you're simply seeing what happens. If you don't give a robot something to look for, it won't see anything; they have to be told to monitor particular variables but if you try to tell them to just look for interesting stuff, they'll have no idea what they're meant to be doing and will either record every tiny insiginificant event or won't record anything at all. You need unbiased, unexpecting thought and reasoning to observe properly. For this, we require independently-thinking humans. So while robots can prove that things are possible and safe, we won't make any actual progress without the human getting directly involved.

LegendChu December 7th, 2016 1:35 AM

If u ask an astronaut, most of them will be of the view that anything a human can do in space, a robot can as well. Its also cheaper & there's no risk of losing a life. If u look at the records of the past few decades, rovers, landers & orbiters have visited the moon, asteroids, comets, almost every planet in the solar system & many of their moons too.

On the other hand though, humans can make quick decisions in response to changing conditions or newer discoveries, rather than waiting for instructions. Humans are also more mobile, can drill for samples deep underground & deploy large-scale geologic instruments, better than any robot has achieved on another celestial body.

So I guess both humans & robots have their own advantages for outer space exploration.

Pika Pika :chu:

Legobricks December 9th, 2016 9:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9507465)
Robots are [...] are less valuable than human lives.

I wonder about that. Of course the worth of a human life can be viewed through the lens of sentimentality, but the sort of people eligible to go into space are those willing to take the risk; danger shouldn't be a reason not to send them. In practical terms, however — does the cost of a whatevernaut's training, wages and support exceed that of a robot's design, construction and maintenance? I suspect they're quite similar in standalone investment, and that manned missions are significantly more costly overall purely on the basis of the increased mass of life support. One should, I think, therefore consider the value of manned missions versus robotic missions, not robot 'lives' versus human lives.


Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9507465)
They take longer to do things too.

Which means what? Most of space exploration is travel time. The fact that robots can just as easily spend two years reaching and achieving orbit around an asteroid as two months speaks more in their favour than against it. The things they are, however, are more clumsy and either poor at or completely unable to make split-second decisions (ie. react). A purely robotic attempt to do something extravagant like terraform Mars might (ironically, in this example) benefit greatly from instead directly involving humans, but for any foreseeable mission within the scope of what we've beeing doing for the past four decades: even if human working pace is desirable, it is so much more desirable to not go to the great trouble involved with bringing humans along that I don't see matters changing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf (Post 9507473)
However, robots lack a key capability that is required in space exploration and, indeed, all of science: they cannot observe. By "observe" I don't simply mean take recordings - I mean look at things and evaluate them. In science, "observation" refers to taking an action and looking at its effects without expectations of what you'll see. Ergo, you aren't "looking" for any particular thing; you're simply seeing what happens. If you don't give a robot something to look for, it won't see anything; they have to be told to monitor particular variables but if you try to tell them to just look for interesting stuff, they'll have no idea what they're meant to be doing and will either record every tiny insiginificant event or won't record anything at all. You need unbiased, unexpecting thought and reasoning to observe properly. For this, we require independently-thinking humans. So while robots can prove that things are possible and safe, we won't make any actual progress without the human getting directly involved.

What 'things' would they be looking at? A human mission does, what, bring some instruments to the surface to take readings? And a robotic mission does... the same thing. The devices we use to take measurements of any kind are already machines we've designed to look for specific criteria and we're working through them in either case. If you've got a robotic rover on some celestial body and it can send a video feed back for you to observe for unusual things yourself before directing the rover toward them, what more would you need?


Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendChu (Post 9510707)
Humans are also more mobile

Not exactly. Humans require significant infrastructure to support their biological needs. At that point they would be significantly more mobile given suitable transportation, but until that point robots are the only thing that is mobile at all beyond an hour's walk from a landing site.

Nihilego December 15th, 2016 9:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassino (Post 9513775)
What 'things' would they be looking at? A human mission does, what, bring some instruments to the surface to take readings? And a robotic mission does... the same thing. The devices we use to take measurements of any kind are already machines we've designed to look for specific criteria and we're working through them in either case. If you've got a robotic rover on some celestial body and it can send a video feed back for you to observe for unusual things yourself before directing the rover toward them, what more would you need?

Pretty much anything, really. Think of anything that's ever made you stop what you were doing and go "huh, look at that" and go and investigate it. A robot can't do that because it has no idea what's worth looking at and what isn't.

Your scenario already has a human up there anyway, unless you're thinking of controlling said robot remotely from Earth and recieving video and audio information in sufficient fidelity that the robot's feedback from its environment would be comparible to a human's (which isn't even achievable on Earth yet). I get where you're going with this idea but we'd need to be at the sort of level in robotics where we'd be able to have robots go out and live our lives for us on Earth, which as I say, we're nowhere near - let alone doing it on another planet.

Esper December 15th, 2016 11:07 AM

I sympathize with Cassino's point about the value or human life. I do think that if there is sufficient evidence to believe that a mission would not be an immediate death trap, that it was fairly safe, that a human who wants to take the risk should be able to, assuming that it isn't cost prohibitive or less likely to result in "success" (however that's defined by the mission).

Lots of our breakthroughs in travel have been fairly risky. The early space programs saw quite a number of deaths of astronauts, and going further back, oceanic travel was not the safest or surest thing once you left sight of land.

I think that, so long as we're not pressuring people into taking personal risks or giving them few other options, then letting people take the risks isn't a bad idea at all.

Legobricks December 15th, 2016 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf (Post 9519259)
Pretty much anything, really. Think of anything that's ever made you stop what you were doing and go "huh, look at that" and go and investigate it. A robot can't do that because it has no idea what's worth looking at and what isn't.

Your scenario already has a human up there anyway, unless you're thinking of controlling said robot remotely from Earth and recieving video and audio information in sufficient fidelity that the robot's feedback from its environment would be comparible to a human's (which isn't even achievable on Earth yet). I get where you're going with this idea but we'd need to be at the sort of level in robotics where we'd be able to have robots go out and live our lives for us on Earth, which as I say, we're nowhere near - let alone doing it on another planet.

Mmm, I see. Suppose I've overestimated the state of the technology; when one reads about scientific breakthroughs it's easy to think we're more advanced than we are... if that makes sense. A point I didn't end up raising in my original post was how human habitation onboard an orbital station would be great for assisting robotic missions. I don't know if this would actually be sufficiently easier than setting up a surface base though, like maybe if you're gonna send anyone to Mars at all then the mission(s) may as well go 'all the way'.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9519348)
I sympathize with Cassino's point about the value or human life. I do think that if there is sufficient evidence to believe that a mission would not be an immediate death trap, that it was fairly safe, that a human who wants to take the risk should be able to, assuming that it isn't cost prohibitive or less likely to result in "success" (however that's defined by the mission).

Lots of our breakthroughs in travel have been fairly risky. The early space programs saw quite a number of deaths of astronauts, and going further back, oceanic travel was not the safest or surest thing once you left sight of land.

I think that, so long as we're not pressuring people into taking personal risks or giving them few other options, then letting people take the risks isn't a bad idea at all.

It's worth noting that space travel is actually been conducted very safely relative to other forms (cars, planes, etc.). Despite the infamy of a few disasters due to its large crew, the STS actually had a good record. We'll only get better at as we do it more and more, while the consequences of abandoning space to avoid some short-term discomfort are ultimately extremely dire.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.