The robotics stuff maybe needs its own thread. If someone knows a thread that already exists feel free to PM me... but right now we might be close to the edge of the topic. Not saying anyone's mumbling but are we adding anything new?
Again missing the point. The tests are not being done for disarming bombs, puncturing tires or breaking car windows. The tests are being done for generic telerobotic capabilities, like level of dexterity, durability, traversability, lifting weights and negotiating obstacles, sampling and handling etc etc. I recommend even a brief reading of what NIST, National Tactical Officers Association and others are actually are doing in this area.The capabilities are generic, and useful in multiple applications, which is why the same platforms are finding uses in multiple areas like industrial inspection and hazardous materials handling, mining, disaster recovery etc.Just because planetary geologists haven't done a specific evaluation of what low latency vs high latency ops for a particular mission profile might mean, does not mean that there is no thorough understanding of existing low-latency telerobotic capabilities and more autonomous systems.And, NASA itself and ESA have been running various teleoperation programs and field tests for about two decades now, including simulated time lag vs direct operated systems even going as far back as the Marsokhod mentioned above, if Mars geologists do not know what the comparative capabilities are then maybe thats easy to fix with a lecture.
Interesting , but still not a lot of space for an extended voyage, especially once you factor in space requirements for consumables and stores. I would love to see the use of a cargo module to be used in place of one of the Orion based habitats.
I wonder about the amount of interior space needed just for the mental well being of the team members
The flip side of the question is "how much more efficient is it to have an astronaut on the ground, compared to teleoperation, with low or high latency" ?Because people on the ground are limited by the same factors identified by Blackstar: - to cross long distances, they need power for their rovers - to run instruments, they need power too - they need to wait on their instruments as they complete their analysis - doing field geology means they cannot do something else like maintenanceSo would a geologist on Mars have produced the same amount of science as Curiosity in a few hours, if he had the same instruments and the same power budget?
This looks to me like a personal spacecraft, possibly with manipulator arms.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/25/2016 12:54 pmThis looks to me like a personal spacecraft, possibly with manipulator arms.For simplicity's sake, it's likely an airlock. If there are arms, its an autonomous drone that can make repairs outside or perform routine maintenance.
I understand answering the telerobotics thing is important, but I'd rather answer the question of what orbit Lockheed's idea would best occupy. One reason I emphasis this is that low Mars orbit seems the default target for the Mars Ascent Vehicle; problem is something far higher like Phobos or synchronous seems the default parking spot for an Earth Return Vehicle; IMO I would think synchronous or even higher would be better to minimize the ERVs departure fuel and maximize the benefit of surface ISRU.Any answers or educated guesses for this as opposed to more telerobotics mumbling?
Quote from: redliox on 05/24/2016 06:33 pmI understand answering the telerobotics thing is important, but I'd rather answer the question of what orbit Lockheed's idea would best occupy. One reason I emphasis this is that low Mars orbit seems the default target for the Mars Ascent Vehicle; problem is something far higher like Phobos or synchronous seems the default parking spot for an Earth Return Vehicle; IMO I would think synchronous or even higher would be better to minimize the ERVs departure fuel and maximize the benefit of surface ISRU.Any answers or educated guesses for this as opposed to more telerobotics mumbling?Telerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!
Personally I think having a geology/chem lab in orbit is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the telerobotics aspect.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/25/2016 11:17 pmTelerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!*bonks on head with a Bigelow inflatable mallet*
Telerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!
I could say the same thing with Deimos/Phobos exploration!As for a telerobotics/orbit connection, consider this: it tends to be easier to talk to your robot on the ground if your station is in visual contact for as long as possible. This would eliminate low Mars orbit as a candidate. A synchronous orbit is an obvious contender, but what if this orbital laboratory has purposes elsewhere around Mars?