Quote from: Blackstar on 04/04/2017 12:52 amhttp://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.htmlThey're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives. Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.
http://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.html
Quote from: redliox on 04/04/2017 07:02 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 04/04/2017 12:52 amhttp://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.htmlThey're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives. Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.Rovers can cover more ground and do more in less time if operated from orbit, but is it worth the cost of setting up a manned space station? Might be cheaper to send more rovers to be controlled from Earth.
They're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.
I don't bother to post it here because everybody knows that SpaceX is going to settle Mars in seven years, so what's the point?
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/08/2017 01:08 pmI don't bother to post it here because everybody knows that SpaceX is going to settle Mars in seven years, so what's the point?I want to hear about plans like this that are at least serious proposals, and reasonable steps forward.
Quote from: redliox on 04/04/2017 07:02 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 04/04/2017 12:52 amhttp://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.htmlThey're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives. Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.The more I see the development in consumer virtual reality, the more I think teleoperation will be the way to go for science activities: a dedicated robot can give you eyes and hands on Mars, and carry a suite of instruments along with it. The only advantage an astronaut would have would be mobility in hazardous terrain, where you can avoid the rocks on foot but not with a wheeled vehicle.
everybody knows that SpaceX is going to settle Mars in seven years, so what's the point?
Quote from: gosnold on 04/04/2017 07:10 pmQuote from: redliox on 04/04/2017 07:02 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 04/04/2017 12:52 amhttp://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.htmlThey're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives. Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.The more I see the development in consumer virtual reality, the more I think teleoperation will be the way to go for science activities: a dedicated robot can give you eyes and hands on Mars, and carry a suite of instruments along with it. The only advantage an astronaut would have would be mobility in hazardous terrain, where you can avoid the rocks on foot but not with a wheeled vehicle.Toys. The difficulty is not the VR. Itos the actual hardware that does the work. Far better and easier to have people to the work on Mars directly that using telerobotics.
I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/08/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: gosnold on 04/04/2017 07:10 pmQuote from: redliox on 04/04/2017 07:02 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 04/04/2017 12:52 amhttp://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.htmlThey're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives. Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.The more I see the development in consumer virtual reality, the more I think teleoperation will be the way to go for science activities: a dedicated robot can give you eyes and hands on Mars, and carry a suite of instruments along with it. The only advantage an astronaut would have would be mobility in hazardous terrain, where you can avoid the rocks on foot but not with a wheeled vehicle.Toys. The difficulty is not the VR. Itos the actual hardware that does the work. Far better and easier to have people to the work on Mars directly that using telerobotics.I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.
Quote from: gosnold on 04/10/2017 08:44 pmI'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.It may be possible to do an experiment to measure the effectiveness on the Earth. Get a prototype or backup rover. Transport it to a quarry and find out what can be discovered in say 2 weeks. Then repeat with an astronaut is a space suit like in NASA's Desert RATS. Compare results.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/11/2017 04:45 amQuote from: gosnold on 04/10/2017 08:44 pmI'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.It may be possible to do an experiment to measure the effectiveness on the Earth. Get a prototype or backup rover. Transport it to a quarry and find out what can be discovered in say 2 weeks. Then repeat with an astronaut is a space suit like in NASA's Desert RATS. Compare results.That is what the Brian Glass paper linked to above did
While human exploration may appear to be 1-2 orders of magnitude more productive than future Earth-controlled robots, the current study seems to indicate that this capability gap narrows with local Mars control of the robots
So would I! There are a few studies out there that try to do that. But they all have issues. Part of the difficulty is that teleoperated and crewed exploration tend to go about things differently and have somewhat different goals, tailored to their respective strengths and weaknesses. I have found the following helpful. Geoff Landis did this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576507001634 (earlier version here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20050203988) which is quite detailed but (IMHO) flawed by a very optimistic view of teleoperated capabilities.Brian Glass et. al did an interesting study here showing significant improvements of astronauts over teleoperation, but it's quite brief. https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/497h/0497%20(Glass).pdfIan Crawford's paper compares the productivity of Apollo astronauts with the only teleoperated planetary rovers to date, the Lunokhods. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.6250.pdfThe National Academy of Sciences Space Studies Board reviewed the option of servicing Hubble by advanced robotics (e.g. DEXTRE or Robonaut equivalents) and concluded that the teebrotic option had an 80% chance of failure https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11169/assessment-of-options-for-extending-the-life-of-the-hubble-space-telescopeIt may be relevant that Robert Balland was in the late 80s saying that the days of crewed submersibles were numbered and they would be replaced by ROVs. It's 30 years layer and ROVs have certainly proliferated, but they have not replaced either divers or crewed submersibles in many tasks.If there are others papers, let me know!
This paper presents concepts for human missions to the orbits of Mars and Venus thatfeature direct robotic exploration of the planets’ surfaces via teleoperation from orbit.These missions are good examples of Human Exploration using Real-time RoboticOperations (HERRO), an exploration strategy that refrains from sending humans to thesurfaces of planets with large gravity wells. HERRO avoids the need for complex andexpensive man-rated lander/ascent vehicles and surface systems. Additionally, the humansare close enough to the surface to eliminate the two-way communication latency thatconstrains typical robotic space missions, thus allowing real-time command and control ofsurface operations and experiments by the crew. In fact through use of state-of-the-arttelecommunications and robotics, HERRO could provide the cognitive and decision-makingadvantages of having humans at the site of study for only a fraction of the cost ofconventional human surface missions. HERRO is very similar to how oceanographers andoil companies use telerobotic submersibles to work in inaccessible areas of the ocean, andrepresents a more expedient, near-term step prior to landing humans on Mars and otherlarge planetary bodies. Its concentration on in-space transportation systems makes itextensible to destinations that have not been associated with human missions in the past butmay be of potentially great scientific interest, such as Venus.
This quotes has stuck with me:"the unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol a human explorer could do in less than a minute" Steve SquiresDr Squires is Principal Investigator of the Mars Exploration Rovers.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 04/11/2017 06:06 pmThis quotes has stuck with me:"the unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol a human explorer could do in less than a minute" Steve SquiresDr Squires is Principal Investigator of the Mars Exploration Rovers.Robots are getting faster though, and humans aren't.And, of course, there is a "breakeven" point for determining whether there is an ROI for sending humans, which is quite high. For robotic explorers it's far lower, so we can afford to send them to places humans shouldn't yet go.Robotic explorers are great precursors for eventual human exploration, and one would hope they will always be good partners when both are in the same place...
Seems to me the telerobotics mission could even be done without heavy lift, because contrary to the human landing mission it does not need a big shield for EDL, and thus does not need a large fairing.