It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is a serious dilemma that faces space exploration policy makers: establish a foothold in low-Earth orbit and plan new manned missions to the moon, or concentrate on robotic exploration of planets such as Mars?
The progresses in AI are not that big, although the robotics have become extremely advanced.
Originally posted by 29083010384959
Also given how quickly we're making giant leaps in robotics and A.I. it it plausible that there is no need for us to travel to other celestial bodies because of what we can achieve with these probes.
What about the previously stated "giant leaps in robotics and A.I."?
They are also prone to failure and even a simple error could compramise them, such as just getting stuck on a rock or harware malfunction.
We may have high definition vision, but we cannot share what we see with other people or record high definition images. We are more adaptable, we are more agile than some robots but we are less efficient than other robots at specific tasks.
With humans it would be much easier to explore the surface of a planet, 200 degree ultra high definition vision, capable of capturing 2.7 million colors and not to mention we are infinitely more adaptable and agile; it would obviously be alot less tedious just to leave your craft and cover a kilometer in an hour as oppose to taking a month for a rover.
Do you mean that a person on a rover can cover longer distances than an robotic rover?
We would be able to cover vast distances on mars using rover vehicles and would be much more equipped to carry out scientific experements on the surface of a planet especially if we established a temporary or permanet outposts.
Yes that's true were making very quick progress in those fields but right now it's neither Robotics nor AI that makes the mistakes, it's us, it's usually just dumb luck or simple human error of something that was unforseeable, by that I meant even just one error on the rover such as an error in the code or the malfunction of one component could waste millions. There are also cases of rovers doing much better than we expected such as the Spirit and Oppertunity rovers which were designed to last for 90 sols and ended up lasting 15x longer than that.
What about the previously stated "giant leaps in robotics and A.I."?
Yes, but we would be able to share what we see with our crew mates, and use dedicated cutting edge camera technology to capture the images and send back to ground control instead of being stuck with lower resolution cameras that probes are usually equipped with due to design restrictions. And name for me ``specific jobs that robots could do better`` I`d love to see some examples. And we are much much more agile than machines, here`s an example from wiki regarding the Spirit rover. ``As of sol 1736 (November 20, 2008), Spirit's total odometry was 7,529 metres (4.68 mi). Wow, big numbers, it took the rover 1736 days to cover 5 MILES, that`s nothing! A human crew could cover that in one day on some type of rover vehicle.
We may have high definition vision, but we cannot share what we see with other people or record high definition images. We are more adaptable, we are more agile than some robots but we are less efficient than other robots at specific tasks.
Yes, I though that was quite clear.
Do you mean that a person on a rover can cover longer distances than an robotic rover?
Yes, that is my opinion, the opinion of someone that has been following (although not as close as I wanted) AI for the last 10 or 12 years.
Originally posted by 29083010384959
That's your opinion the progress isn't that big, I happen to think in just the last 15 years AI has grown in leaps and bound, take the DARPA grand challange, having a rover that could be given autonomous commands to carry out by a mother satalite that were pre-programmed by our engineers would reduce having to control and look after more mundane aspects of the mission, such as software the could automatically get the rover from point A-B without having a human behind a computer navagating around every rock, day in and out untill they reach the location.
One of the reasons for those rover's success is the fact that they had their software updated several times.
There are also cases of rovers doing much better than we expected such as the Spirit and Oppertunity rovers which were designed to last for 90 sols and ended up lasting 15x longer than that.
That's not good enough, we need the data to study things, not the opinion of someone about what he/she saw, and that would be what we would get in a situation like that, it's very hard to be completely neutral while describing something we have never seen, and what we may consider more interesting in some "scene" could be considered unimportant by other people that would find more interesting something to which we did not even looked a second time.
Yes, but we would be able to share what we see with our crew mates,
That is the problem, design restrictions.
and use dedicated cutting edge camera technology to capture the images and send back to ground control instead of being stuck with lower resolution cameras that probes are usually equipped with due to design restrictions.
And name for me ``specific jobs that robots could do better`` I`d love to see some examples.
If it's "on some type of rover vehicle" then it's not a human characteristic, the physical advantage is from the "rover vehicle", not from the fact that was a human on board.
And we are much much more agile than machines, here`s an example from wiki regarding the Spirit rover. ``As of sol 1736 (November 20, 2008), Spirit's total odometry was 7,529 metres (4.68 mi). Wow, big numbers, it took the rover 1736 days to cover 5 MILES, that`s nothing! A human crew could cover that in one day on some type of rover vehicle.
Robots can fix each other, they just have to have that capability included in them, there is nothing against that. Some robots can fix themselves and/or build copies of themselves (but for that they would need access to the parts).
I didn`t go out of my way to mention that because I though it was obvious, we could tend to each other and take care of the injury on the ship or base camp, robots obviously couldn`t fix each other.
Yes, I though that was quite clear. It was not clear enough to me, English is not my native language and sometimes I have doubts about what other people mean.
Do you mean that a person on a rover can cover longer distances than an robotic rover?
Considering this is a discussion forum, I thought anything that is posted is open to discussion, but if you do not want that I suggest you write it at the end of your posts, in that way you will save people the trouble of writing their answers.
Originally posted by 29083010384959
Sorry Armap but I didn't even read your responce, I really dont have the time to debate pointless topics about my opinion on sending either men or machines to other planets, that's the one thing I dont like about this website, everyone wants a debate.
What I said was not meant to make you change your opinion, just to show you that you may have based your opinion in data that is not up to date.
By the way, everything you've said hasn't changed my original opinion.
I don't know that either, but I know that, in the future, I will probably never answer any post made by you.
Don't even know why I replied.