Media Casualties Mount
Administration Split On Europe Invasion
Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire
Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan
Pot, Kettle On Line Two...
Allies Seize Paris
Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics
Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit
Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff
A New Beginning
My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
James Lileks Bleats
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Space Flight
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Nanobot (Howard Lovy)
Lagniappe (Derek Lowe)
Geek Press (Paul Hsieh)
Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge)
Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin)
Cowlix (Wes Cowley)
Quark Soup (Dave Appell)
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck)
Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al)
Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil)
Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling)
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum
Day By Day
Happy Fun Pundit
Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon)
Scrapple Face (Scott Ott)
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs)
England's Sword (Iain Murray)
Daily Pundit (Bill Quick)
Daimnation! (Damian Penny)
Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli)
The Kolkata Libertarian
Midwest Conservative Journal
Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al)
Dean's World (Dean Esmay)
Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee)
Spleenville (Andrea Harris)
Random Jottings (John Weidner)
On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman)
Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen)
Inadvertent Comic Relief
Warblogger Watcher (Cowardly Anonymous Idiotarians)
Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse)
A libertarian reads the papers
Anna Franco Review
Ben Kepple's Daily Rant
Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher)
End the War on Freedom
Insolvent Republic of Blogistan
James Reuben Haney
Mind over what matters
Page Fault Interrupt
Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief)
The Blogs of War
The Fly Bottle
The Illuminated Donkey
What she really thinks
Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet
Zem : blog
Space Policy Links
The Space Review
The Space Show
Space Frontier Foundation
Space Policy Digest BBS
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste)
Unremitting Verse (Will Warren)
World View (Brink Lindsay)
The Last Page
More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer)
Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd)
Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons)
The New Space Age (Rob Wilson)
Rocketman (Mark Oakley)
Site designed by
Don't Try This In LEO, Robots
In the midst of an article in which he recommends that the administration encourage the Chinese to race us to the moon, Dwayne Day writes: "There is nothing that a human can do in low Earth orbit, other than the study of other humans, that a robot cannot do better."
I hope that he didn't give very much thought to that statement, because it's demonstrably untrue. Could a robot have done this better? How about this? Or especially this, which happened over three decades ago?
I doubt that we have the robotic capability today to do those things, let alone at the time. Dwayne can argue if he likes that they weren't worth doing (I would disagree in all cases, especially in the case of Skylab), but to say that there's nothing that robots can't do better than humans in LEO is...mistaken.
Interestingly, of course, this is being discussed as an alternate means to save Hubble, but it will clearly be a technical challenge, and it's not being done because it's a better way, but because NASA is unwilling to send a crew.Posted by Rand Simberg at April 26, 2004 09:41 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Humans vs. robots
Excerpt: On the subject of believing that robotics is the answer to the cost of human spaceflight: Heck, we've been too technologically conservative to develop even robotic docking and fuel transfer in 30 years. Imagine all the problems that could be...
Weblog: Kevin Parkin's Weblog
Tracked: April 27, 2004 08:07 AM
Robots don't do snark
Excerpt: [source] There is nothing that a human can do in low Earth orbit, other than the study of other humans,...
Weblog: Low Earth Orbit
Tracked: April 27, 2004 05:33 PM
Rand, you were correct to point out that Day's statement about "nothing huans can do in LEO that robot's can't do" was incorrect, but not for the reasons you stated.
In order to definitively state that there is nothing that a human can do in low orbit that a robot cannot, empirical evidence provided by the operation of a teleoperated robot is required, to provide a comparasin to human performance. So far the only data available is for the Canadarm on the shuttles and the Canadarm II on the ISS - in both cases, teleoperation is from a distance measured in a few meters rather than hundreds or thousands of kilometers, and astronauts are close by to jump in and assist if needed. There is no data for any other robots operating in low earth orbit, so no meaningful comparasins can be made.
"nothing humans* can do... that robots cannot"
remember, robots don't make spelling mistakes, people doPosted by Ed Minchau at April 26, 2004 12:03 PM
Um .. dont misunderestimate what modern robotics is capable of these days.
That’s one heck of an assertion. Certainly I don’t agree. Robots are good for specialized tasks, but have little flexibility. I would be curious of his definition of “robot.” I don’t consider a teleoperated device or a manipulator arm to be a “robot” because they are not independent. Still, I wouldn’t mind seeing the development of teleoperated devices for LEO that could be operated from the ground. We certainly don’t have them NOW.
And, kert, if you can show me a robot with two arms that can take ambiguous voice commands and follow them as well as a human, then I’ll agree with you. Robotics finally is starting to go somewhere because of the exponential improvement in computers, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to “teach” robots many things we take for granted, because we don’t know how we do them. Look at the recent DARPA race. Knowing some of the difficulties, I was impressed they got as far as they did, but it was called a failure in the news. And compared to what a general purpose robot would need to do, that was a very simple task.Posted by VR at April 26, 2004 03:22 PM
You could make the same sort of arguements against tourism or spectator sports. There's really no need for people to go, in person, to exotic places, or gather in huge groups for no logical reason. You will see more and learn more from your television set than you will in person.
The reason to go to space is for the experience, and to not live one's life vicarously through the efforts of professionals. Witness also the popularity of various "extreme" sports-- people want thrills, and if their life is so otherwise comfortable that it doesn't provide them, they'll make the up.
Any space enthusiast who can't understand that needs to find another line of work.
Well, one thing a human can do in LEO that a robot cannot do in LEO is think. Granted, this is a skill that is undervalued in today's marketplace, but thinking is still important, and can be very helpful when trying to make decisions about the unexpected.
I always find it laughable when people make the argument that humans are inferior to machines. These are the arguments of couch potatoes, who have no appreciation for the difficulty or complexity of everyday physical tasks.Posted by John at April 27, 2004 07:35 AM
"And, kert, if you can show me a robot with two arms that can take ambiguous voice commands and follow them as well as a human, then I’ll agree with you. "
"I always find it laughable when people make the argument that humans are inferior to machines."
Funny, my impression was that people, in the general public at least, tend to wildly overestimate what robots can do. They expect C3PO and are shocked to find that, for a robot, getting through a room without hitting something is pretty tricky stuff.
“BTW, tech that you can see on MER rovers or this years DARPA race is far from state of the art in robotics. And one more thing, AI currently has very little to do with practical robotics.”
Those are mutually contradictory statements. Or perhaps you have a very different definition of AI? Making sense of visual information and reacting to it properly are usually considered to be major areas in AI research. Probably the single biggest problem in development has been the fact that we don’t understand how we do things consciously, so we don’t know how to program for it. Fast hardware isn’t nearly enough, you also need to know how to use it.
I’ve been closely watching robotics develop since the ‘80s, and finally, with the increase in computer capability, they are starting to get somewhere. But I certainly haven’t yet seen anything that even begins to approach the “Apple II” (a general purpose, useful, not too expensive, reasonably programmable) robot. If you have seen one, please provide examples.Posted by VR at April 27, 2004 06:02 PM
"Or perhaps you have a very different definition of AI?"
Post a comment