Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,748
ISS Astronauts Operating Remote Robots Show Future of Planetary Exploration
23 Oct 2017
https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton...e-robots-show-future-of-planetary-exploration
Excerpt:
As I see it, there are two fundamental questions about using telepresence robots for exploration:
The first is whether humans really can do a better job at exploration than robots can. Its certainly true right now: Humans may not have the patience of robots, but were able to quickly and efficiently use all kinds of scientific tools, take samples, move things, traverse things, and use our brains and experience to very quickly make decisions about whats worth exploring and what isnt. Except for that last thing, you can easily imagine how a robot could easily make for better, or at least more efficient, explorers. A robot can move faster, lift and carry more, and handle a wider variety of terrain. As long as that robot has the same kind of sensing and manipulation capabilities as a human (or better, which isnt hard to imagine), the only thing missing is the brains and experience. Putting a human in the loop through telepresence could solve that problem.
The second question is much harder to answer: How much value is there in having a human experience another world in person? How do you calculate the worth of having humans walk on the Moon, for example? It was certainly an inspirational giant leap for mankind moment, but was it really worth the incredible hassle and expense of trying to keep those humans from dying there, and then having to bring them back again? Maybe in the 1970s it was, because 1970s robots were mostly terrible. But again, imagine what robots will be like within the next five to 10 years, or more specifically, what telepresence will be like. My guess is that the audiovisual experience will be pretty close to the real thing, and that haptic controllers will make things feel nearly as real as, uh, reality. Even if thats true, however, it doesnt really answer the questionis it worth going somewhere in person, partly because its hard, just to be able to have that experience? And is it worth doing even if its so dangerous, and so expensive, that people die in the attempt and other exploration is sacrificed as a result?
As robots and telepresence get more capable and more reliable, NASA isnt the only one who will have to make decisions like these.
Are Telepresence Robots the Best Way to Explore Other Worlds?
The most efficient way to exploring other planets may be sending humans to orbit, and letting robots do everything else.
22 Jun 2017
https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton...e-robots-the-best-way-to-explore-other-worlds
23 Oct 2017
https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton...e-robots-show-future-of-planetary-exploration
Excerpt:
As I see it, there are two fundamental questions about using telepresence robots for exploration:
The first is whether humans really can do a better job at exploration than robots can. Its certainly true right now: Humans may not have the patience of robots, but were able to quickly and efficiently use all kinds of scientific tools, take samples, move things, traverse things, and use our brains and experience to very quickly make decisions about whats worth exploring and what isnt. Except for that last thing, you can easily imagine how a robot could easily make for better, or at least more efficient, explorers. A robot can move faster, lift and carry more, and handle a wider variety of terrain. As long as that robot has the same kind of sensing and manipulation capabilities as a human (or better, which isnt hard to imagine), the only thing missing is the brains and experience. Putting a human in the loop through telepresence could solve that problem.
The second question is much harder to answer: How much value is there in having a human experience another world in person? How do you calculate the worth of having humans walk on the Moon, for example? It was certainly an inspirational giant leap for mankind moment, but was it really worth the incredible hassle and expense of trying to keep those humans from dying there, and then having to bring them back again? Maybe in the 1970s it was, because 1970s robots were mostly terrible. But again, imagine what robots will be like within the next five to 10 years, or more specifically, what telepresence will be like. My guess is that the audiovisual experience will be pretty close to the real thing, and that haptic controllers will make things feel nearly as real as, uh, reality. Even if thats true, however, it doesnt really answer the questionis it worth going somewhere in person, partly because its hard, just to be able to have that experience? And is it worth doing even if its so dangerous, and so expensive, that people die in the attempt and other exploration is sacrificed as a result?
As robots and telepresence get more capable and more reliable, NASA isnt the only one who will have to make decisions like these.
Are Telepresence Robots the Best Way to Explore Other Worlds?
The most efficient way to exploring other planets may be sending humans to orbit, and letting robots do everything else.
22 Jun 2017
https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton...e-robots-the-best-way-to-explore-other-worlds
