Talk:ISS into the Pacific - Revision history

Farred: sign & date

2017-03-11T22:19:13Z

sign & date

Farred: info update

2017-03-11T22:16:32Z

info update

Farred: add link

2017-03-11T22:04:10Z

add link

Farred: talk

2017-03-11T21:57:45Z

talk

Farred: talk

2017-03-09T20:56:11Z

talk

Farred: talk

2017-03-07T19:34:06Z

talk

Farred: tweak

2017-03-05T22:26:40Z

tweak

Farred: talk

2017-03-05T22:25:19Z

talk

Strangelv: /* Back to robots repairing robots */

2017-02-15T09:40:39Z

Back to robots repairing robots

Farred: talk

2016-12-03T18:30:49Z

talk

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 I want to make it clear that the only evidence offered on this forum that remotely repairing machines is not possible is the statement by[[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers]] in his 19 May 2007 post that a robot is never a substitute for a human in maintaining robots.  This statement is backed only by his own authority.  The lack of any reasonable attempt to repair machinery remotely as a demonstration is due to the fact that the human space flight program is institutionally jealous of robots and scared of them.  No industrial robot uses a shadow-hand end effector as Robonaut does.  Robonaut can use shadow-hand control because it has no serious industrial purpose.  Astronauts cost a million dollars a day at ISS, probably three times that on the moon.  That is an incentive for developing the robotic repair of machines which is completely ignored by the manned space program which sees the immediate launch of people into orbit as a good in itself without regard for the lack of any economic benefit to humanity.  Jarogers shows this bias in suggesting the development of "a suitable private LEO destination" without showing any economic benefit such development would have.  The advantage (if any) of having a Bigelow Aerospace space station instead of the ISS is that private funds would be wasted for rich people camping out in space as opposed to tax dollars wasted for astronauts camping out in space.  [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers]] wrote (9 July 2008) that I (Farred) have not demonstrated an existing technical capability for robots to repair robots.  He in turn has not demonstrated that it cannot be done.  Sending astronauts to the moon along with their millions of dollars each per day expense is a serious matter.  People ought to be sure that robots cannot do without people before going to such an expense.  I expect that, if the matter is fairly tested, robots will be found able to do without direct help by people if they can be supported by radio signals containing instructions.  What kind of human being would sacrifice the future of humanity to preserve bureaucratic funding in the face of technological obsolescence?  [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] suggested above (19 May 2007) that failures of the ISS are related to its being tangled with the Space Shuttle program.  There is something to that but the main cause of lack of results commensurate with expenses is that the basic idea of men floating around in outer space supported by engineering efforts on Earth with all consumables lifted by rocket is just unsound.  Weightlessness hampers recycling efforts on ISS because systems that people have used on Earth for similar purposes require gravity to operate as designed.  People are sickened by weightlessness and efforts to mitigate the effect consume a large fraction of effort at ISS.  The testing of human response to weightlessness has been done in excess of our immediate needs for knowledge of these limitations.  Until cis-lunar space has seen more thorough capital development, it should be left to the machines which are not subject to the inherent dependence on weight that people are.  Machines can go through design cycles to improve their fitness for outer space more quickly than people can evolve fitness.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (GMT)
-:I have updated my estimate on the cost of people on the ISS.  Each Astronaut on the ISS costs about $7.5 million dollars per day.<ref>[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 The Space Review in association with SPACENEWS]</ref>
+:I have updated my estimate on the cost of people on the ISS.  Each Astronaut on the ISS costs about $7.5 million dollars per day.<ref>[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 The Space Review in association with SPACENEWS]</ref>  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 22:18, 11 March 2017 (GMT)
 :To illustrate a problem that can be solved by engineering efforts but not by near term envisioned artificial intelligence, consider the application of a wrench to a bolt head without the benefit of force feed-back to the operator of a remote device.  First, the lack of force feed-back is a reasonable expectation on the moon because the nearly three second response time makes force feed-back impractical.  Second, the dexterity ordinarily expected of a human being manipulating tools by hand is dependent upon a sense of touch such as was communicated to the operators of early waldos used in doing chemistry on radio-active substances from behind shields.  The sense of touch detected the force feed-back communicated by direct mechanical link of the operator's hands to the waldos.  There is no force feed-back in the Robnaut control system.  Third, using machine vision and targets painted on a machine to be repaired it is possible to identify exactly the plane of orientation of the machine under repair.  From that and the plans of the machine the plane in which a bolt head turns can be exactly determined.  Using a remotely controlled mechanical arm with an adjustable jaw wrench end-effector and a number of joints controlled with computer aid it is possible to restrict the motion of the wrench to move within the plane of the bolt head.  By moving the open jaw of the wrench around the bolt head; adjusting opposing flat sides of the wrench to parallel flat sides of the bolt head; and then closing the adjustable jaw to match the bolt head; a firm grip is obtained.  The story of how all the bolt heads in a lawn mower are gripped, loosened, removed, replaced and tightened in the process of disassembling and reassembling a lawn mower is too tedious for this forum.  I am not a master of the engineering language to specify that story and the wiki format is not suitable for it.  However, I expect that nothing new to engineering experience will be necessary.
 :DeepMind and some other artificial intelligence programs are useful for specifying behavior to follow rules and accomplish some purpose within the limits of following those rules, such as the traffic rules followed by a robotic car.  The engineering required for repairing machines remotely on the moon would write a set of rules.  DeepMind would not be able to write those rules because it only processes elements according to rules.  It does not understand what the elements are or why the rules are as they are.  When the engineering is done to specify industrial infrastructure sufficient to build a [[List_of_Propulsion_Systems|system for launching massive amounts of cargo]] from the surface of the moon, something like DeepMind could possibly run that infrastructure until something unexpected happened and it needed to consult its human masters.  When this is possible, it should also be possible to use similar strategy in producing an industrial infrastructure with an artificial intelligence to control it on Mars.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (GMT)

@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 ::I do not think that the considerable problem solving abilities of DeepMind are necessary or applicable to the problem of remotely repairing machinery on the moon.  The proper techniques for designing machinery and repair robot together as a system in which the robot can used to remotely repair the machinery are known.  What is required is the money, engineers accurately specifying a great many details, and building the system.  One problem is that metals, like those that come into contact to close an electrical switch, have a tendency to cold weld in the vacuum of outer space.  Because repeatedly making and breaking electrical contacts in the vacuum on the lunar surface could be a problem, people might need to have repairs done inside a gas pressurized chamber.  I would suggest (as a guess) that carbon dioxide at one hundredth pound per square inch (0.01 psi) would be a suitable atmosphere to try.  Carbon dioxide is reasonably nonreactive in the absence of water and it can be pumped down to near vacuum pressure by cryogenically condensing the carbon dioxide in a storage chamber at liquid oxygen temperatures.  Oxygen is handily available for heat transport on Luna.  Thus the carbon dioxide would be nearly 100% recycled instead of being lost when airlocks are cycled.
 I want to make it clear that the only evidence offered on this forum that remotely repairing machines is not possible is the statement by[[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers]] in his 19 May 2007 post that a robot is never a substitute for a human in maintaining robots.  This statement is backed only by his own authority.  The lack of any reasonable attempt to repair machinery remotely as a demonstration is due to the fact that the human space flight program is institutionally jealous of robots and scared of them.  No industrial robot uses a shadow-hand end effector as Robonaut does.  Robonaut can use shadow-hand control because it has no serious industrial purpose.  Astronauts cost a million dollars a day at ISS, probably three times that on the moon.  That is an incentive for developing the robotic repair of machines which is completely ignored by the manned space program which sees the immediate launch of people into orbit as a good in itself without regard for the lack of any economic benefit to humanity.  Jarogers shows this bias in suggesting the development of "a suitable private LEO destination" without showing any economic benefit such development would have.  The advantage (if any) of having a Bigelow Aerospace space station instead of the ISS is that private funds would be wasted for rich people camping out in space as opposed to tax dollars wasted for astronauts camping out in space.  [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers]] wrote (9 July 2008) that I (Farred) have not demonstrated an existing technical capability for robots to repair robots.  He in turn has not demonstrated that it cannot be done.  Sending astronauts to the moon along with their millions of dollars each per day expense is a serious matter.  People ought to be sure that robots cannot do without people before going to such an expense.  I expect that, if the matter is fairly tested, robots will be found able to do without direct help by people if they can be supported by radio signals containing instructions.  What kind of human being would sacrifice the future of humanity to preserve bureaucratic funding in the face of technological obsolescence?  [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] suggested above (19 May 2007) that failures of the ISS are related to its being tangled with the Space Shuttle program.  There is something to that but the main cause of lack of results commensurate with expenses is that the basic idea of men floating around in outer space supported by engineering efforts on Earth with all consumables lifted by rocket is just unsound.  Weightlessness hampers recycling efforts on ISS because systems that people have used on Earth for similar purposes require gravity to operate as designed.  People are sickened by weightlessness and efforts to mitigate the effect consume a large fraction of effort at ISS.  The testing of human response to weightlessness has been done in excess of our immediate needs for knowledge of these limitations.  Until cis-lunar space has seen more thorough capital development, it should be left to the machines which are not subject to the inherent dependence on weight that people are.  Machines can go through design cycles to improve their fitness for outer space more quickly than people can evolve fitness.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (GMT)
 :To illustrate a problem that can be solved by engineering efforts but not by near term envisioned artificial intelligence, consider the application of a wrench to a bolt head without the benefit of force feed-back to the operator of a remote device.  First, the lack of force feed-back is a reasonable expectation on the moon because the nearly three second response time makes force feed-back impractical.  Second, the dexterity ordinarily expected of a human being manipulating tools by hand is dependent upon a sense of touch such as was communicated to the operators of early waldos used in doing chemistry on radio-active substances from behind shields.  The sense of touch detected the force feed-back communicated by direct mechanical link of the operator's hands to the waldos.  There is no force feed-back in the Robnaut control system.  Third, using machine vision and targets painted on a machine to be repaired it is possible to identify exactly the plane of orientation of the machine under repair.  From that and the plans of the machine the plane in which a bolt head turns can be exactly determined.  Using a remotely controlled mechanical arm with an adjustable jaw wrench end-effector and a number of joints controlled with computer aid it is possible to restrict the motion of the wrench to move within the plane of the bolt head.  By moving the open jaw of the wrench around the bolt head; adjusting opposing flat sides of the wrench to parallel flat sides of the bolt head; and then closing the adjustable jaw to match the bolt head; a firm grip is obtained.  The story of how all the bolt heads in a lawn mower are gripped, loosened, removed, replaced and tightened in the process of disassembling and reassembling a lawn mower is too tedious for this forum.  I am not a master of the engineering language to specify that story and the wiki format is not suitable for it.  However, I expect that nothing new to engineering experience will be necessary.
 :DeepMind and some other artificial intelligence programs are useful for specifying behavior to follow rules and accomplish some purpose within the limits of following those rules, such as the traffic rules followed by a robotic car.  The engineering required for repairing machines remotely on the moon would write a set of rules.  DeepMind would not be able to write those rules because it only processes elements according to rules.  It does not understand what the elements are or why the rules are as they are.  When the engineering is done to specify industrial infrastructure sufficient to build a [[List_of_Propulsion_Systems|system for launching massive amounts of cargo]] from the surface of the moon, something like DeepMind could possibly run that infrastructure until something unexpected happened and it needed to consult its human masters.  When this is possible, it should also be possible to use similar strategy in producing an industrial infrastructure with an artificial intelligence to control it on Mars.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (GMT)

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 I want to make it clear that the only evidence offered on this forum that remotely repairing machines is not possible is the statement by[[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers]] in his 19 May 2007 post that a robot is never a substitute for a human in maintaining robots.  This statement is backed only by his own authority.  The lack of any reasonable attempt to repair machinery remotely as a demonstration is due to the fact that the human space flight program is institutionally jealous of robots and scared of them.  No industrial robot uses a shadow-hand end effector as Robonaut does.  Robonaut can use shadow-hand control because it has no serious industrial purpose.  Astronauts cost a million dollars a day at ISS, probably three times that on the moon.  That is an incentive for developing the robotic repair of machines which is completely ignored by the manned space program which sees the immediate launch of people into orbit as a good in itself without regard for the lack of any economic benefit to humanity.  Jarogers shows this bias in suggesting the development of "a suitable private LEO destination" without showing any economic benefit such development would have.  The advantage (if any) of having a Bigelow Aerospace space station instead of the ISS is that private funds would be wasted for rich people camping out in space as opposed to tax dollars wasted for astronauts camping out in space.  [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers]] wrote (9 July 2008) that I (Farred) have not demonstrated an existing technical capability for robots to repair robots.  He in turn has not demonstrated that it cannot be done.  Sending astronauts to the moon along with their millions of dollars each per day expense is a serious matter.  People ought to be sure that robots cannot do without people before going to such an expense.  I expect that, if the matter is fairly tested, robots will be found able to do without direct help by people if they can be supported by radio signals containing instructions.  What kind of human being would sacrifice the future of humanity to preserve bureaucratic funding in the face of technological obsolescence?  [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] suggested above (19 May 2007) that failures of the ISS are related to its being tangled with the Space Shuttle program.  There is something to that but the main cause of lack of results commensurate with expenses is that the basic idea of men floating around in outer space supported by engineering efforts on Earth with all consumables lifted by rocket is just unsound.  Weightlessness hampers recycling efforts on ISS because systems that people have used on Earth for similar purposes require gravity to operate as designed.  People are sickened by weightlessness and efforts to mitigate the effect consume a large fraction of effort at ISS.  The testing of human response to weightlessness has been done in excess of our immediate needs for knowledge of these limitations.  Until cis-lunar space has seen more thorough capital development, it should be left to the machines which are not subject to the inherent dependence on weight that people are.  Machines can go through design cycles to improve their fitness for outer space more quickly than people can evolve fitness.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (GMT)
 :To illustrate a problem that can be solved by engineering efforts but not by near term envisioned artificial intelligence, consider the application of a wrench to a bolt head without the benefit of force feed-back to the operator of a remote device.  First, the lack of force feed-back is a reasonable expectation on the moon because the nearly three second response time makes force feed-back impractical.  Second, the dexterity ordinarily expected of a human being manipulating tools by hand is dependent upon a sense of touch such as was communicated to the operators of early waldos used in doing chemistry on radio-active substances from behind shields.  The sense of touch detected the force feed-back communicated by direct mechanical link of the operator's hands to the waldos.  There is no force feed-back in the Robnaut control system.  Third, using machine vision and targets painted on a machine to be repaired it is possible to identify exactly the plane of orientation of the machine under repair.  From that and the plans of the machine the plane in which a bolt head turns can be exactly determined.  Using a remotely controlled mechanical arm with an adjustable jaw wrench end-effector and a number of joints controlled with computer aid it is possible to restrict the motion of the wrench to move within the plane of the bolt head.  By moving the open jaw of the wrench around the bolt head; adjusting opposing flat sides of the wrench to parallel flat sides of the bolt head; and then closing the adjustable jaw to match the bolt head; a firm grip is obtained.  The story of how all the bolt heads in a lawn mower are gripped, loosened, removed, replaced and tightened in the process of disassembling and reassembling a lawn mower is too tedious for this forum.  I am not a master of the engineering language to specify that story and the wiki format is not suitable for it.  However, I expect that nothing new to engineering experience will be necessary.
-:DeepMind and some other artificial intelligence programs are useful for specifying behavior to follow rules and accomplish some purpose within the limits of following those rules, such as the traffic rules followed by a robotic car.  The engineering required for repairing machines remotely on the moon would write a set of rules.  DeepMind would not be able to write those rules because it only processes elements according to rules.  It does not understand what the elements are or why the rules are as they are.  When the engineering is done to specify industrial infrastructure sufficient to build a system for launching massive amounts of cargo from the surface of the moon, something like DeepMind could possibly run that infrastructure until something unexpected happened and it needed to consult its human masters.  When this is possible, it should also be possible to use similar strategy in producing an industrial infrastructure with an artificial intelligence to control it on Mars.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (GMT)
+:DeepMind and some other artificial intelligence programs are useful for specifying behavior to follow rules and accomplish some purpose within the limits of following those rules, such as the traffic rules followed by a robotic car.  The engineering required for repairing machines remotely on the moon would write a set of rules.  DeepMind would not be able to write those rules because it only processes elements according to rules.  It does not understand what the elements are or why the rules are as they are.  When the engineering is done to specify industrial infrastructure sufficient to build a [[List_of_Propulsion_Systems|system for launching massive amounts of cargo]] from the surface of the moon, something like DeepMind could possibly run that infrastructure until something unexpected happened and it needed to consult its human masters.  When this is possible, it should also be possible to use similar strategy in producing an industrial infrastructure with an artificial intelligence to control it on Mars.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (GMT)

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers]] wrote on 22June2008 that we should not stop human spaceflight but promote alternatives to government run spaceflight.  He held up the example of what NACA did for aviation as a guide to what NASA could do for human space flight.  The trouble with this is that when NACA produced their better lift to drag ratio wing shapes and turbochargers that would allow engines to operate at high altitudes there were settled human populations at widely separated spots on Earth so that airplanes could profitably transport people from one to another.  In the solar system there is no other place than Earth where there is a settled human population or even environmental conditions that come close supporting human life.  There is no place worth traveling to outside of Earth unless people first transform the characteristics of another celestial body through industry to be hospitable to life.  This is something that we know how to do in general outline, but the specific tasks to transform even the area under a small dome anchored to a hemispherical inverted-dome-basement are daunting tasks requiring the transport of considerable amounts of industrial equipment.  Promoting astronaut travel in spacecraft is not enough.  Promoting industry in orbit with all materials shipped up from Earth is not enough.  If people ever want to be able to [[Eddy_Current_Brake_to_Orbit#Operational_Details|emigrate from Earth in substantial numbers]], industry on other celestial bodies must be promoted along with the means of traveling there.  Supporting astronauts in space suits on the moon to do the initial set-up of industrial equipment, bulldozing regolith, and various construction tasks would require multimillion dollar payments per day per astronaut, just to keep them alive, with only a small fraction of their total time being possibly used for outdoor in-spacesuit tasks.  Working in a spacesuit is extremely inefficient and there is no evidence that all of the required work cannot be done by remotely controlled machines.  The ISS is a net detriment to human advance into space because it perpetuates the notion that everything must be done by direct manual labor instead of remotely controlled machines.  The robots operated on Mars have an average response time for a command that is about 250 times as long as the response time for a remotely controlled device on Earth's moon.  If people seriously care about making use of the enormous resource base that is the rest of the solar system other than Earth, then the moon is the place to start, with robots, and the ISS should be scrapped.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 20:56, 9 March 2017 (GMT)
 ===References===
 <references/>

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 :To illustrate a problem that can be solved by engineering efforts but not by near term envisioned artificial intelligence, consider the application of a wrench to a bolt head without the benefit of force feed-back to the operator of a remote device.  First, the lack of force feed-back is a reasonable expectation on the moon because the nearly three second response time makes force feed-back impractical.  Second, the dexterity ordinarily expected of a human being manipulating tools by hand is dependent upon a sense of touch such as was communicated to the operators of early waldos used in doing chemistry on radio-active substances from behind shields.  The sense of touch detected the force feed-back communicated by direct mechanical link of the operator's hands to the waldos.  There is no force feed-back in the Robnaut control system.  Third, using machine vision and targets painted on a machine to be repaired it is possible to identify exactly the plane of orientation of the machine under repair.  From that and the plans of the machine the plane in which a bolt head turns can be exactly determined.  Using a remotely controlled mechanical arm with an adjustable jaw wrench end-effector and a number of joints controlled with computer aid it is possible to restrict the motion of the wrench to move within the plane of the bolt head.  By moving the open jaw of the wrench around the bolt head; adjusting opposing flat sides of the wrench to parallel flat sides of the bolt head; and then closing the adjustable jaw to match the bolt head; a firm grip is obtained.  The story of how all the bolt heads in a lawn mower are gripped, loosened, removed, replaced and tightened in the process of disassembling and reassembling a lawn mower is too tedious for this forum.  I am not a master of the engineering language to specify that story and the wiki format is not suitable for it.  However, I expect that nothing new to engineering experience will be necessary.
 :DeepMind and some other artificial intelligence programs are useful for specifying behavior to follow rules and accomplish some purpose within the limits of following those rules, such as the traffic rules followed by a robotic car.  The engineering required for repairing machines remotely on the moon would write a set of rules.  DeepMind would not be able to write those rules because it only processes elements according to rules.  It does not understand what the elements are or why the rules are as they are.  When the engineering is done to specify industrial infrastructure sufficient to build a system for launching massive amounts of cargo from the surface of the moon, something like DeepMind could possibly run that infrastructure until something unexpected happened and it needed to consult its human masters.  When this is possible, it should also be possible to use similar strategy in producing an industrial infrastructure with an artificial intelligence to control it on Mars.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (GMT)
 ===References===
 <references/>

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 :I am not familiar with all of the maintenance requirements of the ISS.  Moth balling it might be a considerable task.  It just does not have an assigned task that is worth the expense of continuing to send people up there.  Sending it to lunar orbit mould make it that much more difficult to send people, and it was never designed to accomplish anything by remote control.  What should it do in lunar orbit?
 :It might be possible to send it to lunar orbit with ion thrusters.  It already has considerable installed solar electric capability.  It just does not have a sufficient purpose.  If there is any place that should have automated industrial activity, it is outer space, because the cost of a man working in orbit is more than $25,000/day.  The space station could research putting together a large heat shield in orbit.  Then the perfected process could be carried out by robots to make several large heat shield landers for getting heavy equipment to Mars.  See [http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=Landing_on_Mars Landing on Mars #A Sure Way to Land on Mars].  If we get a colony running on Mars, colonizing Luna from there would be easier that colonizing Luna from Earth.  --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 01:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
+::I cannot let such an egregious error alone.  I wrote above: "...the cost of a man working in orbit is more than $25,000/day."  I do not recall how I got that figure but the actual cost as well as I could determine it from cost data from the days of Space Shuttle operations is over a million dollars a day per each astronaut.  - [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (GMT)
 ==Back to robots repairing robots==
@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 :With DeepMind and similar self-learning systems, the problems of robots engaged in repairs and actions in microgravity are probably a lot more solvable than they were before 2016.  With a sufficiently developed simulation the AI could be trained in a consequence-free environment at the fastest rate permitted by the speed of the information hardware involved, then move on to real-world tests. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] ([[User talk:Strangelv|talk]]) 09:40, 15 February 2017 (GMT)
 ===References===
 <references/>

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 :The distinction between robots and remote manipulators is important.  Whenever the use of robots is suggested there is likely to be the argument against it that the robot can not substitute for the intelligence of a human.  With remote manipulators one does not substitute for the intelligence of a human, one moves the intelligence to the work by radio through the remote manipulator.  This has drawbacks.  Working with a pair of gloves is something most of us have experienced.  The clumsiness of gloves in an inconvenience.  Working with remote manipulators is worse than an inconvenience.  Work can take 30 to 100 times as long as doing the job with bare hands.  <ref>McGraw-Hill ENCYCLOPEDIA OF Science & Technology (c) 1997, article on "Remote manipulators, Strengths and weaknesses" </ref> Even with the avoidance of human life support in space and crew change, can remote manipulators really be more economic?  They are helped out by the possibility of one device combining remote manipulator and robot functions.  A computer can follow the actions directed by the human operator and learn some tasks that are repetitive.  In satellite servicing well marked points can be painted on the satellite for a computer to orient to.  When operations get to Luna, tasks had better have a high proportion of dull repetition, or the whole notion of for profit operations will simply not apply.
 --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 == ISS is a failiure, due to design. ==
@@ Line 151: / Line 148: @@
 ==Back to robots repairing robots==
-The use of remote manipulators to repair remote manipulators is a necessary capability for industrial development on the moon to to proceed before people arrive, as Jarogers2001 pointed out (02:15, 9 July 2008(UTC)).  This capability might have been demonstrated without my noticing it, but if not, demonstrating remote repair of a lawn mower would be sufficient.  Repairing a robot and rpairing a lawn mower are tasks that are different in degree, not different in kind.  For a demonstration, a lawn mower and a pair of remote manipulators should be made suitable for each other.  The lawn mower should be a model specially modified to have nuts and bolts particularly accessible to the tools the robot will use and surfaces identifiable by remote viewing.  The task should be planned from lifting the mower with a mobile little hoist through taking every piece of the mower apart inspecting and replacing parts as necessary and putting it all together.  As for remote use of improvised tools, I am not sure that is necessary.  Remote controlled repair would be limited to the types of repair that were planned and if some improvised solution to an unexpected problem is possible that is an added benefit.  If an industrial process fails because remote devices cannot handle unexpected problems, it is time to send up the improved model of machine.
+The use of remote manipulators to repair remote manipulators is a necessary capability for industrial development on the moon to to proceed before people arrive, as Jarogers2001 pointed out (02:15, 9 July 2008(UTC)).  This capability might have been demonstrated without my noticing it, but if not, demonstrating remote repair of a lawn mower would be sufficient.  Repairing a robot and rpairing a lawn mower are tasks that are different in degree, not different in kind.  For a demonstration, a lawn mower and a pair of remote manipulators should be made suitable for each other.  The lawn mower should be a model specially modified to have nuts and bolts particularly accessible to the tools the robot will use and surfaces identifiable by remote viewing.  The task should be planned from lifting the mower with a mobile little hoist through taking every piece of the mower apart inspecting and replacing parts as necessary and putting it all together.  As for remote use of improvised tools, I am not sure that is necessary.  Remote controlled repair would be limited to the types of repair that were planned and if some improvised solution to an unexpected problem is possible, that is an added benefit.  If an industrial process fails because remote devices cannot handle unexpected problems, it is time to send up the improved model of machine.
 Jarogers wrote that I had not demonstrated the ability of remote operated devices to repair remote operated devices and that that capability had not been demonstrated "in ANY sector".  What he meant is that it had not been demonstrated on Earth.  There are remotely operated devices to do surgery, to haul the ore form open pit mines, to spot weld auto bodies, and to paint just about anything that industry produces, but not to remotely repair the remotely operated devices.  There is a good reason for that.  On Earth a repairman is always nearby.  A paint robot can be hauled out of a paint shed when the painting operation is shut down, taken to a repair shop and maintained.  With a remotely operated device on the moon that cannot be done.  Suggesting that a remotely operated ore hauler must be remotely repaired on Earth before considering using remotely operated equipment to repair remotely operated equipment on the moon is like saying that a man in a space suit would need to install replacement optics in a telescope on Earth before it would be done for Hubble.  That is just what was done.  It was practiced extensively on Earth before being done to Hubble.  So why do they not do the remote lawn mower repair on Earth to show possibility in concept of remote repair on the moon?  Something similar might have been done but it is not talked about because NASA has a goal of demonstrating success of their missions.  So they do not want any part of the human spaceflight program to seem like a mistake if they can help it.  The problem with not being able to admit a mistake is that when a mistake really is made, it can never be corrected.
 Is the idea of people initiating industry in space in zero gravity and every possible engineering task done on Earth a mistake?  It is if people expect an industrial operation on the moon or Mars someday.  However, T.Neo suggested: "If it were for one simple launch on a Saturn INT-21, the ISS could have been launched in one, no hassle flight." There is talk of generating enough greenhouse gasses on Mars to terraform the planet.  How will that be done if there is not even enough experience in industry off of Earth to assemble satellites and space stations from modules in orbit?  People do not worry about the incongruity if the talk about terraforming Mars is just talk, just blowing smoke, which it is.- [[User:Farred|Farred]] ([[User talk:Farred|talk]]) 00:06, 2 December 2016 (GMT)