Google Search
Login & Blog Feeds
Blogroll
Recent Comments
- Engineering, Control Systems and Statistics | Blog at ControlTheoryPro.com on Observations on Control System Modeling
- spradlig on MATLAB Pricing (Final Part in the Mathworks is behaving like Microsoft series)
- spradlig on MATLAB Pricing (Final Part in the Mathworks is behaving like Microsoft series)
- PointOnePA on MATLAB Pricing (Final Part in the Mathworks is behaving like Microsoft series)
- spradlig on Observations on Control System Modeling
Archives
- October 2009
- April 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
Categories
19th October 2008
The argument among space enthusiasts…
Space exploration funds are very limited and have been for decades. I haven’t worked onsite at NASA for years but the last number I remember is something like $15B for NASA’s annual budget. This sounds like a lot but with the better part of $1B devoted to each Shuttle launch $15B doesn’t last long.
So the classic argument among space enthusiasts is should we bother with human space flight? It’s far more expensive than robotic space exploration. Can humans bring enough extra to the mission that it is worth the extra expense and risk?
The risks of human space flight
The most obvious risk to manned space flight is a fiery and most spectacular death. It is most likely to happen on launch or re-entry. If we start landing on the surface of other planets then that landing will be risky as will any surface exploration.
When we lose a space vehicle meant for manned space flight we lose people and an extremely expensive vehicle. The people, at least to date, are very well trained, very intelligent people. Often they have PhDs in engineering and years if not decades of training. The vehicle is extraordinarily expensive because of its ability to support human life in space for any significant time duration. Additionally, there are redundant systems and user interfaces.
Robotics, the cheap and (largely) risk free way to explore space
Robots are cheap. Robots that are lost in exploration don’t have crying widows; there is no lost human potential. And robots like Spirit and Opportunity offer glimpses into greatness. Robots designed to survive months have run around the planet for years despite “injuries” and degraded solar panel performance.
I don’t think proper space exploration can be done without robots. They allow us to explore without risk to human life. They provide us with information beyond our own senses. We spend billions of dollars to send people without spending an extra couple of hundred million on support robots?
Robots are essential but exploration with robots alone misses the point
If I had my druthers I’d work on rovers like Spirit and Opportunity. I’d work on adding lots and lots of artificial intelligence to them. How much more area would Spirit and Opportunity cover with smart fault detection and robust automatic use of remaining resources? How much more area if we could say go here and leave the obstacle avoidance to the rover rather than having to move it a little at a time and wait for the time lag of signals coming back from Mars?
The purpose of exploration is the expansion of the human spirit. Economically we make exploit the resources of the lands we explore. From a survival standpoint the farther we spread the less likely we are to be wiped out by war, an asteroid or plague. Exploring with robots alone doesn’t accomplish any of this.