Project M Could Send Every Scientist To the Moon, By Proxy

The speed of light is a bit of a problem by Bruce+Perens · 2010-02-26 18:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can't get instant feedback from the moon. There's a slight delay. So, it doesn't really feel like you are holding something in your hands unless you're standing still. It mostly feels like you're drunk when you operate a waldo with a delay. People are going to have to get trained to deal with that.

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by colonelquesadilla · 2010-02-26 18:24 · Score: 5, Funny

You can't get instant feedback from the moon. There's a slight delay. So, it doesn't really feel like you are holding something in your hands unless you're standing still. It mostly feels like you're drunk when you operate a waldo with a delay. People are going to have to get trained to deal with that.
We train for that in grad school.

--
It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by pcolaman · 2010-02-26 19:49 · Score: 1

You've got to rotate the shield harmonics and remodulate the deflector dish to emit Tachyon Particles...DUH! Jesus dude didn't you take Star Trek 201 in college?
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by blahplusplus · 2010-02-26 20:39 · Score: 1

They could time shift the pre-recorded data into of delayed movments into a simulation where you could experience it in real time (i.e. post-real time)
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by sarahbau · 2010-02-26 22:04 · Score: 1

I love Star Trek, but that part of it always drives me crazy. If someone figures out their shield frequency, they can shoot right through them as if they aren't there. Luckily, changing the shield frequency is all they need to do to block the enemy attacks once again. It doesn't even seem difficult for them to tell the shields to randomly change frequencies, because they often do this when fighting the Borg. So why isn't it just standard for shields to constantly change frequencies? I assume the Enterprise's own weapons are calibrated for their own shield frequency so they can go through it, but it shouldn't be too difficult to have them set to the same frequency variation program.
Borg shields seem to be the opposite. They are completely vulnerable to all phaser frequencies until they've "adapted," which they can do after one shot, or maybe two or three if the frequency is randomized. Either they're picking between 3 random frequencies, or the Borg shields just adapt to the entire range of the phasers. Of course they only keep this adaptation for a short time, because the next encounter, they're vulnerable again.
They also can't beam things to or from the ship when their shields are up, but there are a few times when they are able to calibrate the transporter to beam through enemy shields. If they can do that, can't they calibrate the transporters to work through their own shields?
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by ultranova · 2010-02-26 22:32 · Score: 2, Funny

They also can't beam things to or from the ship when their shields are up, but there are a few times when they are able to calibrate the transporter to beam through enemy shields. If they can do that, can't they calibrate the transporters to work through their own shields?

No, because the laws of physics in Trek universe aren't stable, but change unpredictably from time to time. The locals have adapted to that and update their thinking without even noticing; those of us outside the continuum perceive changes as discontinuity.
It's amazing how widespread that phenomena is. This universe seems to be the only one with stable and self-consistent enough set of physics that you can apply them to problems logically. Here, if you can bypass enemy shields, you can bypass your own; in Trekverse, that phenomenom only works on enemy shields, and even then inconsistently, and the locals have evolved in such a way as to see nothing strange in that. It is truly a testament to the power of evolution that sentient beings can function - even build an interstellar empire - in such a chaotic mess of a world.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by SolitaryMan · 2010-02-26 23:10 · Score: 1

I'm also wondering how are they going to emulate 1/6G on Earth.

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by bickerdyke · 2010-02-27 00:26 · Score: 1

feeling drunk??

--
bickerdyke
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by gmuslera · 2010-02-27 01:14 · Score: 1

A few rounds in very lagged FPS games and will eventually adapt to shoot to something that is not there since 5 seconds ago.
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by maxume · 2010-02-27 01:19 · Score: 1

A lot of it is because episodic television is a crappy format to write for. There aren't that many stories to tell, so to get dozens and dozens of episodes, they are constantly retelling them and get lazy and fall back to poorly used, inconsistent devices (the viewer doesn't know the limitations of the characters knowledge, so it isn't very satisfying to watch them use knowledge to solve problems). And then people like the comfort they get from 'knowing' the characters, so no one ever dies or changes (there is some character development, but not anything resembling real life).
(For me, the format works best when a character is shown dealing with the consequences of a choice that they have made)

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by dominious · 2010-02-27 02:06 · Score: 1

I was thinking about how we may solve this problem and came up with prediction methods:

So imagine you bend to pick up a rock. Instead of waiting for the video to come, you may predict what the video will look like after you bend...Then you may as well do corrections as the video stream comes in.

Ofcourse there are still limitations, but I believe we can always do improvements until some point it will actually be feasible to control humanoids even on Mars. This is great!
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by Teancum · 2010-02-27 02:18 · Score: 1

No, because the laws of physics in Trek universe aren't stable, but change unpredictably from time to time. The locals have adapted to that and update their thinking without even noticing; those of us outside the continuum perceive changes as discontinuity.
Of course, you are missing the point that the physics in the Trek universe are unstable due to economics of Paramount Studios and the casual whims of the screenplay writers who may need a plot devices of some sort or another. Forgetting that the Trek universe is mostly explained by the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition is a mistake that most Trek fans seem to miss. I think secretly the Trek writers simply discovered a hidden tome buried in the Paramount executive suite and simple pretended that those rules were fictional.
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 02:26 · Score: 0

Or, you know... it could be just that "our" shields use a different technology than "their" shield.
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 02:47 · Score: 0

(For me, the format works best when a character is shown dealing with the consequences of a choice that they have made)
I agree with you there, but I suspect a lot of the things that people enjoy about TV is that it DOESN'T have to deal with burdensome things like "consequences to actions". I'd venture that this is because regular people enjoy TV because it doesn't challenge them; regular people don't like to be challenged. Geeks/Nerds, however, love to be challenged - we love problem solving (and what is problem solving without a problem?) - so what we want and what the vast majority of people want are in complete opposition. Technically, that makes us geeks/nerds a little bit masochistic..
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by jeremyp · 2010-02-27 04:49 · Score: 1

In Star Trek the shields are always exactly the right strength to keep the crew alive without making the crisis too short to fill a one hour slot on TV.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 06:50 · Score: 0

The high ping whiners are still among us...
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by Stoutlimb · 2010-02-27 10:05 · Score: 1

Simple solution, administer enough alcohol to the scientists to synchronize the delay.
Re:The speed of light is a bit of a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 17:53 · Score: 0

There is a solution to the propogation delay. We're assuming that we want real-time feedback on what is actually happening to the robot on the moon, but most of this we can reasonably simulate. For instance, if we bend down all we need to see if that we are bending down. This can be simulated. The robot will bend down 3 seconds later, but so long as nothing unexpected happens it's only confirming that the action happened. Meanwhile we're picking up a rock to examine it. Chances are we already spotted the rock, so low resolution information is available and the low res surface is used in the VR simulation to show the rock. When the robot does the same action and the high resolution images gets back to Earth the image can be updated to display the high resolution image. If something unexpected happens, say we bend over and the robot falls over, then the simulation will glitch when the data gets to Earth. No problem. It's a momentary unexpected fault and the user can fix it when they become aware of it. Do the simulation well and the operator will almost forget the communications delay. Most of the routine tasks (walking, bending, picking up objects) can be simulated. We know the dynamics of the robot and the Moon's gravity. Simulate real-time for the operator and confirm the status a few seconds later.
-Wayne

Seriously by blakedev · 2010-02-26 18:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's the fun in that?

--
QamuIs Heg qaq law' lorvIs yInqaq puS

Obvious Hoax by QuantumG · 2010-02-26 18:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Wow.. the Internet really is an echo chamber isn't it?

This nonsense video has been floating around for months now. There's no confirmation from NASA.. no-one even knows who made it.

If you RTFA you'll see the last paragraph reads:

Whoever did this at NASA should put together an actual budget as soon as possible. And while you are at it, make it possible for regular people to use one, maybe at the Johnson Space Center or some selected museums through the world. That will definitely inspire people.

Send an email to Jesus Diaz, the author of this post, at jesus@gizmodo.com.

Hey Jesus Diaz, were you sick the day of journalism school when they taught chasing up sources? Maybe if you called JSC and heard the exasperated public relations officer explain, again, that no there is no Project M but thanks for your call, you could save yourself some embarrassment.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

Re:Obvious Hoax by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 18:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey Jesus Diaz, were you sick the day of journalism school when they taught chasing up sources? Maybe if you called JSC and heard the exasperated public relations officer explain, again, that no there is no Project M but thanks for your call, you could save yourself some embarrassment.
Gizmodo: "jour-nal-ism?..."

It's also possible to blame /. for picking the story. But looking for journalism on Gizmodo or /. is unrealistic. I'm not mocking here, I'm regulating expectations -- expecting even the "established" blogs to look for multiple sources or contact a company for feedback prior to posting a story is setting the bar too high. It's up to the readers to be more discerning and critical, and most aren't.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Obvious Hoax by QuantumG · 2010-02-26 18:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you're a subscriber to Slashdot you see stories like this hit the front page a half hour or so before they go live. There's a link that says "Any serious problems with this story? Drop our on duty editor a line." and there's an email link with prefilled subjected line etc. I sent basically what I wrote here as an email nearly an hour ago.. they chose to ignore me. I've done this before and they've pulled stories.. so it seems some editors are interested in stopping nonsense and some are not. So yes, I do blame Slashdot for being part of the echo chamber. There's no reason to post shit that is obviously fake.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Obvious Hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 19:25 · Score: 0

It is odd, why would they want to sent biped robots to the moon when there are simpler/cheaper alternatives.
Either this video was made by some kid of a NASA employee or they are smoking some good shit down there.
Re:Obvious Hoax by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 19:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I tend to hold Slashdot to a higher standard too, which is why I'm here rather than Digg/Reddit (where anything that draws clicks is welcome, and any discussion is, well, you know...). However, occasionally Slashdot will post bait stories (not necessarily "flaimbait", just "plain bait"), especially when it comes to anything regarding MS/Apple/YRO where the main purpose is to let people vent. In such cases, I don't really see it as a mistake, or "wrong", partly because anyone with high karma doesn't see ads, so at most it's "pandering", rather than something used to boost page views. In the case of this particular story, I imagine that the editor thought it would make a good discussion piece in its field, and the source (and even validity) was irrelevant because just the theory/concept will produce an interesting discussion (as users discuss the viability of such an undertaking).

I'd blame Gizmodo, if I visited the site directly, but I don't -- I let other filters point me there if they think there's anything interested posted. As for Slashdot, probably less so in this particular case. If they ignored the comment that you sent, then it changes the "judgment" somewhat, but it may still be arguable that the story was posted just for general interest, and the source/validity wasn't a factor. As you said, it's also (or primarily) up to individual editors, though I'd hope that they at least talk to one another and try to get minimal feedback prior to posting (I've no idea what their actual process is, of course).

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Obvious Hoax by YourExperiment · 2010-02-26 20:27 · Score: 1

Given that the best humanoid robots around today fall over while walking up a set of perfectly level stairs, and then can't get back up again without human intervention, I say "Project M" is definitely worth a go. After all, the robot might not fall over for ages if we're lucky.
Re:Obvious Hoax by TapeCutter · 2010-02-26 20:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

"There's no reason to post shit that is obviously fake."

On the contrary, it will attract a lot of comments, some from people who believe it and some from those who don't. Compared to other sites a disproportionately high number of those comments will be from people who actually know what they are talking about and have the evidence to back it up. Those comments demonstrate to readers the true meaning of skepticisim and even those who already practice the art can learn a great deal from them, just as I have learnt something from you today without having RTFA. Of course being a practising skeptic I'm not just taking your word for it, I did do a bit of googling before posting this. :)

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Obvious Hoax by phantomfive · 2010-02-26 21:10 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info, I just gave the story a negative mod, hopefully others will too.

When you think about it, it's really hard to see how what they have suggested is all that different than a rover.

--
Qxe4
Re:Obvious Hoax by cgenman · 2010-02-26 21:56 · Score: 1

There's no reason to post shit that is obviously fake.
Because some people seem to thrive on picking apart technical forgeries? Why do they post stories on arbitrary compression algorithm announcements and free energy generators?

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Obvious Hoax by sictransitgloriacfa · 2010-02-26 22:02 · Score: 1

Ah, pity. This really should be done. Granted the lag would be a problem, but see my post above for several reasons why this is better than sending humans and all their life support.
Re:Obvious Hoax by westlake · 2010-02-26 22:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Slashdot will post bait stories especially when it comes to anything regarding MS/Apple/YRO where the main purpose is to let people vent. In such cases, I don't really see it as a mistake, or "wrong", partly because anyone with high karma doesn't see ads, so at most it's "pandering", rather than something used to boost page views.
Pandering is pandering. The poster with his high Karma perks doesn't pay the bills. He's there to lend an air of respectability to the proceedings.
Re:Obvious Hoax by TheRaven64 · 2010-02-27 01:14 · Score: 1

I have excellent karma, so I don't see ads, but I don't RTFA either. I see the stories /. posts more as a topic for a debate than a news item of real value. I came to this story because a discussion about the feasibility and benefits of operating in space via telepresence seemed interesting. So far, it has been. Whether the source for this is a NASA press release, a blogger's hoax, something timothy made up, or a science fiction story is completely irrelevant to me.
This is why I block kdawson stories from the front page. He just posts flamebait that leads to long and boring sequences of trolls. Timothy's stories may be nonsense, but they're nonsense that sparks an interesting discussion.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Obvious Hoax by ascari · 2010-02-27 01:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Lunacy if you ask me...
Re:Obvious Hoax by MrShaggy · 2010-02-27 01:40 · Score: 1

Ever see 'I am William Shatner, and this is how I changed the world'
It was a 2 hour documentary about how Star Trek has influenced Science.''
So something that people bicker about the time line issues go on to make flat-screens.
Even dealing with warp-drive.

--
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
Re:Obvious Hoax by jandoedel · 2010-02-27 01:44 · Score: 1

Why do you assume that all high karma people switch of the ads? The ads are what pays for this sites, so why turn them of...?
Re:Obvious Hoax by QuantumG · 2010-02-27 02:35 · Score: 1

why are you misspelling "off"? can you honestly not spell a 3 letter word?

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Obvious Hoax by jandoedel · 2010-02-27 03:25 · Score: 1

THe second after I hit the submit button, I noticed that I forgot the second 'f'. Or maybe my keyboard ate it.
So, for everyone who still needs to have this missing letter, I will post it here:

f

PS: This error is actually a very common one for non-native speakers. And probably for a lot of native ones too. Btu in my cas it was a sipmle typo. PPS: Yes, that last sentence was misspelled on pupose. PPPS: The 'r' in purpose was eaten by my keyboard.
Re:Obvious Hoax by mdwh2 · 2010-02-27 04:21 · Score: 1

Perhaps his "f" key got lost in the same place as your shift key.
Re:Obvious Hoax by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-02-27 06:05 · Score: 1

If they fall, they will at least fall slower. Anyway, we don't have to send humanoid robots - we can send wheelchairoid ones.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Wikipedia + google calculator by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 18:33 · Score: 4, Informative

363104km = moon's orbital perigee.
405696km = moon's apogee.

2*363104 km/c = 2.42236914 seconds of round-trip signal delay.
2*405696 km/c = 2.70651238 s

So maybe we don't need round-trip time, but just one-way streaming time. Divide by two.

Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by QuantumG · 2010-02-26 18:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Most of the delay on the Deep Space Network is a result of the 30 year old hardware that processes and transmit the signals.. the speed of light defines a minimum that is never practically met. Emory Stagmer talks about it in his interview on Spacevidcast.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by Bruce+Perens · 2010-02-26 18:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Add a varying amount between 0 and 1/2 the circumference of the earth, with the 1/2 being best-case. I don't know what the velocity factor of optical fiber is. Yes, there's also a signal-processing delay, but let's not assume we're using 30-year-old equipment so it should not add very much.

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by advocate_one · 2010-02-26 19:29 · Score: 1

round trip time is what matters... seeing the results of your action before being able to correct it...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 19:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Depends. Suppose you saw another robot before he noticed you. You could take several shots at him before knowing whether the first shot hit, just to be on the safe side. It's a matter of knowing how to handle lag.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 22:06 · Score: 0

Then it looks like this is another goal in the timeframe for this project, replace the old crap floating in space.
And smash the old crap in to another crater in the moon, or something.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by jonbryce · 2010-02-26 22:18 · Score: 1

Cellphones add a delay of about a second when both phones are on the same network and talking to the same mast. I would have thought the kit to send signals to the moon would introduce an even longer delay. Then bear in mind that we are not always at the point of the earth closest to the moon, so that will introduce an even greater delay. I guess to have continuous contact with the moon, we would need to send the signal up to a satellite network which bounces it round to the nearest bird to the moon at that point, then sends it up to a lunar network, and round to the robot in question.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 22:33 · Score: 0

Its old but can sustain high doses of EM radiation that would kill a common semiconductor in a second.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by AigariusDebian · 2010-02-26 23:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

That might be true for US cellphones, but for the rest of the world the delays are a few milliseconds within any country.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by selven · 2010-02-27 00:32 · Score: 1

0:00:00.000 - Data from machine's eyes sent out
0:00:01.211 - Data reaches Earth, human acts on it
0:00:02.422 - Data gets back to moon, machine acts on it
0:00:03.633 - Human sees himself acting more than 2 seconds ago
No matter what, if Earth is involved you have to have round trip delay since Earth itself is operating on 1 second old data.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by Teancum · 2010-02-27 02:03 · Score: 1

Still, no matter how hard you upgrade equipment and deal with processing delays, there is still the raw physics that must be addressed.
I admit that some of the hardware is using radio receivers which have vacuum tubes and computers processing data with core memory. This is a sort of thing that comes with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. It is also something that comes from government service, where it can take several different budget cycles to update equipment in a program like the Deep Space Network that generally doesn't scream for attention.
Another aspect of the Deep Space Network that needs to be considered is that it supposedly is being replaced by the "interplanetary internet" or whatever the current acronym and terminology is at the moment for the concept (it has changed a couple of times and I don't bother keeping track any more). There still is legacy hardware that is incompatible with this new communications scheme, so the DSN must be kept for awhile longer, but the money is getting dumped into the newer concept. While incredibly useful as a concept, the idea of sending internet packets around to planetary "nodes" is also going to introduce additional communications delays that simply weren't there before. Hopefully there won't be packets getting shipped off to Mars first before they go to the Moon, but that can be at least in theory happen with the routing protocols.
I would presume that "waldo" communication systems would have a more direct link to the surface of the Moon if it was to be something used on a regular basis.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 03:02 · Score: 0

Doesn't matter - everyone knows Han shot first.
Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by jonbryce · 2010-02-27 10:19 · Score: 1

It is certainly the case for UK cellphones, and I would imagine it is the same for any country that uses GSM networks.

Not imitating art... by fahrbot-bot · 2010-02-26 18:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Title of TFA:

NASA Project M Puts Scientists' Avatars On the Moon

Call me when they are 3m tall, blue, w/tail.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:Not imitating art... by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 18:59 · Score: 1

Call me when they have any such model that's even remotely usable, on earth. This is fiction, almost as much as the 3m-tall smurfs with the indeterminate amount of digits on each hand.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Not imitating art... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 19:15 · Score: 0

And call me when I can get a realdoll of one.
Re:Not imitating art... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 19:24 · Score: 0

They had 4 digits on each hand. Jake had 5 due to his partly human genome. See? Not that indeterminate after all.
Re:Not imitating art... by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 19:47 · Score: 1

I actually didn't notice that.. I thought that the females had 4 digits, since I only noticed that when Jake and Zoe Saldana were on screen together. I thought that was sexist, but if it's the case that the number of digits was due to the Avatar design -- then it's a flawed design. They wanted to blend in, didn't they? This made them instantly recognizable to the natives. What if the natives didn't have any digits on their feet, for example? Would the avatars still have toes?

Human engineers in sci-fi movies make such obvious mistakes.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Not imitating art... by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 19:50 · Score: 1

On the moon? Would you be the one "steering" the realdoll? I'm not sure what the particular purpose/fantasy is here...

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Not imitating art... by pcolaman · 2010-02-26 19:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Call me when they are 3m tall, blue, w/tits.
There, fixed it for ya
Re:Not imitating art... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 22:05 · Score: 0

You must also have missed the part about the Avatars being a BLEND of human and Navi DNA. Perhap, just perhaps, that means they'll also have *some* human characteristics, like, say, 5 digits on each hand.
WRT to the Avatar design being able to blend in, the Avatars were never going to be indistinguishable from the natives, due to the global neural network. If they didn't connect to that, that would have made them stand out. If they did, their totally different thought patterns would have distinguished them, as evidenced by the long time it took Jake to learn to "interface" with animals.
It seems there's quite a bit to the movie that you didn't notice.
There are quite a few plot holes in the movie, but you don't seem to possess the intellectual firepower to be able to find the real ones.
Re:Not imitating art... by derGoldstein · 2010-02-27 03:01 · Score: 1

Ouch! An AC bit me!

Well I tried getting into the Thundercats vs. Gundam movie, but the sheer amount of cliches and two-dimensionality of Running with Pocahontas wore me out. I didn't have your "intellectual firepower" that was apparently necessary to not fall asleep, and laugh, at the same time.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Not imitating art... by gad_zuki! · 2010-02-27 04:43 · Score: 1

>Call me when they are 3m tall, blue, w/tail.
Call me when they are 3 apples high, blue, w/tail and little white outfit.
Re:Not imitating art... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-02-27 06:07 · Score: 1

What, you get turned on by *blue whales*?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Not imitating art... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 06:31 · Score: 0

Human engineers in sci-fi movies make such obvious mistakes.
It's almost as if not a single one of them is more intelligent than a liberal arts major with a limited vocabulary...
Re:Not imitating art... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 16:34 · Score: 0

They also wore human clothes. The idea wasn't to spy on them. More to not freak them out with their pink skinned ugliness.

Why something so complex? by the_other_one · 2010-02-26 18:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Rovers have already been effective on Mars. Use them on the moon first.

--
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!

Re:Why something so complex? by Volante3192 · 2010-02-26 19:01 · Score: 1

As Spirit has shown, a patch of ground that a person could stride over can lodge a rover in it permanently.
Now, did we have just bad luck with the soft ground, or did we have exceptional luck the rest of the time?
Plus, the moon is slightly less likely to have the dust devils that have been graciously dusting off the panels.
Re:Why something so complex? by the_other_one · 2010-02-26 19:17 · Score: 1

I cannot make any predictions on luck, however, I might suggest some sort of brush or wiper. You could probably borrow some technology from the auto industry. Hopefully they will have built a Canadian Tire on the moon by the time the rover is ready for a blade replacement.

--
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Re:Why something so complex? by tftp · 2010-02-26 19:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I cannot make any predictions on luck, however, I might suggest some sort of brush or wiper.
You don't want to run wipers dry - the sand will scratch the glass (the windshield or the solar panel.) Rubber will not work in the range of temperatures that are found on other planets. If the material is soft the dust will embed itself into it; if the material is hard then it won't clean anything. I believe NASA went through this for the rovers, and decided to do nothing because they didn't see any solution that would be simple and effective.
Re:Why something so complex? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 19:39 · Score: 0

What about legs? They may not be as energy efficient but perhaps the numbers would work out with just a little more panel...
MOON SPIDERS
Re:Why something so complex? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 20:00 · Score: 0

tilt the panels to ~20 degrees and then vibrate them until clean. That way gravity does some of the work, and the rest is done by a motor on the underside of the panel
Re:Why something so complex? by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 20:06 · Score: 1

Most of the moon's surface is hard, and the gravity is low. You'd design for that terrain (I'm assuming tires?). As for the smoothness of the topology, you can pick a site with far better precision on the moon, so we wouldn't choose to land on a cliff. Another advantage, in this case, is the lack of an atmosphere -- wind won't get sand on the solar panels in the first place, and won't blow the rover on its side.

Specifically about the panels -- program it to flip them over and shake vigorously once a week (and also wash behind its ears...).

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Why something so complex? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 20:12 · Score: 0

Some sort of electrostatic repulsion?
Re:Why something so complex? by tftp · 2010-02-26 20:15 · Score: 1
tilt the panels to ~20 degrees and then vibrate them until clean.
Even I can see problems with this (though it may work in very specific situations:)
1. Presumes sufficient gravity. Mars and Moon provide only weak gravity.
2. Presumes minimal "stickiness" of the dust. In reality the dust is statically charged and adheres to panels.
3. Requires motors to tilt the panels, moving parts that those motors move, and power for the motors. Eats into science payload.
4. It is very untrivial to vibrate large, flexible panels. There will be many vibration modes, and some may be destructive to panels. You also can't get the same displacement everywhere, and you will get plenty of bending. Solar panels are very rigid and don't bend well.
A simple experiment in most favorable conditions - on Earth - will demonstrate that a sheet of glass, once it gets dusty, can't be cleaned by any amount of vibration. Try with your window, for example. Dust is very light, but it adheres well. You'd need to try hard to even dislodge grains of sand from that glass.
Re:Why something so complex? by tftp · 2010-02-26 20:20 · Score: 1

Some sort of electrostatic repulsion?
Perhaps - as long as you can guarantee that all the dust on an alien world is charged to the same polarity. In some cases it is possible.
Re:Why something so complex? by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 20:47 · Score: 1

You'd need quite a bit of dust to cover an entire surface to the point where it's ineffective, and you don't need to get the surface 100% clean -- even 50% efficiency would probably suffice (no atmosphere on the moon -- solar panels will be more effective than on either earth or mars). Use a piezoelectric surface on the panel (or a mesh of one, or a bunch of spots). Also, you can't replicate these experiments on earth, not easily at least -- most earth dust is organic, which is much finer, and often "stranded". Mineral dust is made up of larger particles (usually), and it almost never appears as a "string" shape, just chunks.

Another idea -- move a statically charged rod over the surface instead of a wiper. It doesn't need to touch the surface, just get close enough to make particles cling. Make the surface area of the rod larger (add fins). Once over the surface, vibrate the rod. Repeat as needed.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Why something so complex? by tftp · 2010-02-26 21:04 · Score: 1

even 50% efficiency would probably suffice
Maybe. That's for the mission designers to calculate.
Use a piezoelectric surface on the panel
The displacement will be very small - micrometers. Maybe it could be enough. But beware of resonances. Still this can be done, if only the method itself proves to be effective.
you can't replicate these experiments on earth, not easily at least -- most earth dust is organic
For a low, low sum of $1,000,000 I volunteer to build a test chamber that is large enough to contain the rover, and it will allow scientists to feed any materials into it as a dust source, even those that they didn't scoop up at the nearest garden :-) In fact, NASA has about a ton of genuine lunar dust, perhaps that's the best use for it.
Another idea -- move a statically charged rod over the surface
An AC replied to my initial comment and proposed static repulsor, and I replied with a link that says that something like that is being worked on. It's better to have no moving parts. Besides, if the electrostatic force was strong enough to dislodge dust some distance from the panel, it probably would be way too strong when the dust is in physical contact with the rod, making it hard to shake it off.
Re:Why something so complex? by TapeCutter · 2010-02-26 21:38 · Score: 3, Informative

"Plus, the moon is slightly less likely to have the dust devils that have been graciously dusting off the panels."

It's also less likely to have dust suspended in a vacum above the ground, just design the moon rover so it doesn't kick sand in it's own face. Maybe something high tech like mud gaurds over the wheels

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Why something so complex? by sictransitgloriacfa · 2010-02-26 22:06 · Score: 1

Perhaps a good method would be to blast the dust off the panels with pressurized gas. This assumes it's available, of course; an oxygen factory would be a good thing to build, as a prelude to colonization.
Re:Why something so complex? by Patch86 · 2010-02-26 22:50 · Score: 1

They should send up Boston Dynamics' BigDog.
Seriously. A guy kicked it and it just, like, carried on. 4 legs clearly > 2 legs which is totally > wheels.
Also, I want one. Walking around the park would never be dull again.
Re:Why something so complex? by thrillseeker · 2010-02-27 02:01 · Score: 1

It will be considered as smart as a mule when it turns around and kicks the guy back.
Re:Why something so complex? by Eudial · 2010-02-27 03:05 · Score: 1

Uh. There already are rovers on the moon. The Russians put them on the moon in the early '70s. Granted, with 1970s technology, they were less sophisticated than today's mars rovers. But they did essentially the same job, remarkably well I might add.
It's more than likely that these lunar rovers inspired the mars rovers. So it's amusing that the mars rovers should inspire lunar rovers.

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Re:Why something so complex? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 03:14 · Score: 0

You can take giant steps, walking on the moon. I just hope the legs don't break, walking on the moon. With nuclear batteries, we could walk forever...walking on the moon. And with consciousness transfer, we could live forever, just walking, walking on the moon.
Re:Why something so complex? by derGoldstein · 2010-02-27 03:27 · Score: 1

Use a piezoelectric surface on the panel
The displacement will be very small - micrometers. Maybe it could be enough. But beware of resonances. Still this can be done, if only the method itself proves to be effective.
Remember that this is in combination with the panel being face-down. Just vibrating it, when it's face-up, will only move the dust around.

you can't replicate these experiments on earth, not easily at least -- most earth dust is organic
For a low, low sum of $1,000,000 I volunteer to build a test chamber that is large enough to contain the rover, and it will allow scientists to feed any materials into it as a dust source, even those that they didn't scoop up at the nearest garden :-) In fact, NASA has about a ton of genuine lunar dust, perhaps that's the best use for it.
I only mentioned that because you oversimplified your example -- "Try with your window, for example". That isn't a good test, you'd need to try it out under the right conditions.

Another idea -- move a statically charged rod over the surface
An AC replied to my initial comment and proposed static repulsor, and I replied with a link that says that something like that is being worked on. It's better to have no moving parts. Besides, if the electrostatic force was strong enough to dislodge dust some distance from the panel, it probably would be way too strong when the dust is in physical contact with the rod, making it hard to shake it off.
This surprises me, to be honest. I understand that it's not as simple of a problem as people think, but I think it's solvable. If there's an atmosphere, you could use that to artificially generate the naturally-occurring dust devils you find on mars (yes, it'd require additional motors and vents, but almost any solution would require additional mass/weight). If there isn't an atmosphere, then surely choosing the right coating on the solar panels, and then the right material for a type of wiper, would be possible. The panels could be coated with the helicopter-blade film used to protect touch panels, for example, and the wiper could have small strands made of flexible silicone. Maybe add piezoelectric vibration while this process takes place. It wouldn't last forever, but then what does?

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.

Thanks Bruce by symbolset · 2010-02-26 18:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I probably would have gone with "You can't take and hold ground with bots - to stake a claim requires Men on the ground." But that works.

The bot thing is a distraction. If we don't get our genome off this mudball we're as doomed as the dinosaurs. Sooner or later some unpleasantness will occur.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:Thanks Bruce by derGoldstein · 2010-02-26 19:57 · Score: 1

What if you could transfer your consciousness to the robots? Would that count? Just getting the genome off the planet is simple -- just send some human DNA up in a satellite. We need to better-define our goals.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Thanks Bruce by symbolset · 2010-02-26 20:16 · Score: 1

When robots count as Men, we'll have bigger problems than exploration of space.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Thanks Bruce by cgenman · 2010-02-26 21:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

The bot thing is a distraction. If we don't get our genome off this mudball we're as doomed as the dinosaurs. Sooner or later some unpleasantness will occur.
If utilizing remote robots advances our knowledge faster right now than attempting to stuff a human being up there, we'll achieve sustainable space travel faster that way.
Though to be perfectly honest, we've sent remote robots to other planets many times. The mars rovers come to mind. The only difference is that this would be more representatively shaped... though with a 3 - 6 second lag time, it's going to have to be pretty autonomous anyway.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Thanks Bruce by sictransitgloriacfa · 2010-02-26 21:59 · Score: 1

Well, yes; but sending up telepresence robots would let us build necessary infrastructure on the moon to make colonization much easier. One way, you have to keep launching oxygen, water, and food out of a deep gravity well to supply the astronauts until they can make all that for themselves. The other way, you just use robots to build the needed infrastructure first. The robots can also be made more resistant to solar radiation and temperature extremes, and if there's a big snafu, at least no one dies of it.
Re:Thanks Bruce by grumbel · 2010-02-26 22:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

The bot thing is a distraction. If we don't get our genome off this mudball we're as doomed as the dinosaurs. Sooner or later some unpleasantness will occur.
If we can't get our act together and manage to survive on earth, our chances to survive anywhere else are pretty much zero.
Re:Thanks Bruce by Patch86 · 2010-02-26 22:43 · Score: 1

No-one ever thinks that all the way through.
"Transferring consciousness", in practice, would just mean programming the robot so that it acts exactly like you would in every way. You still have the original- it's more like you've copied it than transferred it. Unless you destroy the original (good luck with that) then it's not really any different from creating a regular automated robot.
And then there's the problem of "transferring back" when the robot has finished it's tour. Basically, that'd mean overwriting your brain with the one in the robot- again, good luck finding volunteers for that one. Anything less (just transferring over a few images and videos, say) is no different from what we do now- just looking at the images and videos sent back by robots.
And anyhow, we still haven't got computers anywhere near the point of being able to rival a human brain. If we did, sending humans up wouldn't be necessary anyway. Hell, the best we can do at "humanoid robots" is Asimo- which can *just about* climb up stairs...
Re:Thanks Bruce by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 22:43 · Score: 0

Our genome evolved on this mudball, and the biggest hurdle in getting it off of said mudball is keeping it alive. Which is the reason we prefer to send bots, which are much better suited to the environmental conditions of outer space.
The smart way to go about things, then, would be to aim for ditching the genome altogether, and transfering "us" (our consciousness) directly onto the bots. The way computer technology is evolving compared to space travel, that's likely to be feasible long before the space elevators and warp drives anyway.
Re:Thanks Bruce by Hurricane78 · 2010-02-27 01:16 · Score: 1

Pff... We can build machines and soon grow bodies. What do wen seed our genome for? Yes, may be nice. But definitely not a must.
Usually, our brain, in form of data, would suffice. And that one could be sent as data. Giving us light-speed travel to every location that we already reached the normal way. Think about it: Using Project Orion style rockets, we would perhaps just about get to Alpha Centauri when we would find a way to read a whole brain to transfer it.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:Thanks Bruce by imakemusic · 2010-02-27 02:06 · Score: 1

If we can get out act together but don't get off earth then our chances are pretty much zero too. If we distribute ourselves around the galaxy then there is at least a higher chance of at least one group getting their act together before being annihilated.

--
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Re:Thanks Bruce by Teancum · 2010-02-27 02:09 · Score: 1

If you can even remotely define consciousness in terms of a mathematical formula or something that can be put into a clearly defined algorithm, I might be able to bite on this concept of projecting our consciousness onto a robot of some kind.
To me, that is a couple of millenia away, not something which can be done next week. We know so stinking little about artificial intelligence that those who claim otherwise are simply raving lunatics. What we know about intelligence and sentient thought is mostly what we don't know.... sort of like what Aristotle knew about nuclear physics. He guessed correctly that there were atoms, but that was about the limit of correct understanding. I'd put our understanding of AI at about that level.
Re:Thanks Bruce by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 02:53 · Score: 0

last i checked we were all managing to survive on earth just fine. unless mankind went extinct and i didn't notice.
i think the poster was referring to an inevitable cataclysm for which having "our act together" will make no difference.
for example, a large scale asteroid impact, or our sun going red giant.
Re:Thanks Bruce by gox · 2010-02-27 03:00 · Score: 1

The bot thing is a distraction. If we don't get our genome off this mudball we're as doomed as the dinosaurs. Sooner or later some unpleasantness will occur.
If we can't get our act together and manage to survive on earth, our chances to survive anywhere else are pretty much zero.
IMO the post-WWII rhetoric is there to make people get their act together, not to be taken as a fact. The probability of humans destroying ALL humanity is arguably far less than Earth becoming unable to sustain life because of non-human causes (e.g. impact events).
OTOH, I probably would relate myself to sentient robots created by humanity as much as some human beings that are totally alien to me. Human-operated robots could be a fine way to seduce people into investing on robotech, though it's a long shot.
Re:Thanks Bruce by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 06:02 · Score: 0

The bot thing is a distraction. If we don't get our genome off this mudball we're as doomed as the dinosaurs. Sooner or later some unpleasantness will occur.
If we can't get our act together and manage to survive on earth, our chances to survive anywhere else are pretty much zero.
"pretty much zero" is better than zero.
Re:Thanks Bruce by zippthorne · 2010-02-27 06:25 · Score: 1

How much will this man-robot soul transfer process cost (i.e. how accessible will it be?), and what happens when the robot-men and the meat-men inevitably clash over resources?

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Thanks Bruce by LifesABeach · 2010-02-27 07:27 · Score: 1

I think with over 7 Billion examples of survival on Earth; I would be surprised if you required more examples. Understanding of things around us are based on our ability to move around. Some people feel uncomfortable about understanding new things. But for the rest of us, it is different. Opening up commercial space flight is not a bad thing. The use of Waldos is only a stepping stone, and it is superior to hiding on this planet, alone.
Re:Thanks Bruce by c6gunner · 2010-02-27 08:29 · Score: 1

How much will this man-robot soul transfer process cost (i.e. how accessible will it be?), and what happens when the robot-men and the meat-men inevitably clash over resources?
Same thing as now, when meat-men and meat-men clash over resources. One side wins and one side loses.
I dunno why, but people seem to think that the human race should no longer be subject to any type of evolutionary pressure. Seems like a silly belief to me.
Re:Thanks Bruce by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 08:51 · Score: 0

[citation needed]
Re:Thanks Bruce by Ihmhi · 2010-02-27 09:23 · Score: 1

We could have a Utopian society and streets paved with gold, but if an asteroid the size of Texas smashes into our planet it will be all for naught.
We, as a race, have to start by getting off this planet and then proceed to get out of our solar system.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Thanks Bruce by grumbel · 2010-02-27 12:58 · Score: 1

If you want to protect against rocks, just do more observation, given a few years warning its not that hard to let a rock miss earth and certainly much easier and cheaper then creating a self sustaining colony. On top of that conditions after an asteroid impact are not that bad, they might wipe out large quantities of life, but even then you are still much better of then on the moon, where you have absolutely no life to begin with nor the conditions to sustain it.

We, as a race, have to start by getting off this planet and then proceed to get out of our solar system.
Yes, someday sure, but there is no need to waste time and money now on efforts that are completly wasted. Building moon colonies is like building colonies on the north pole, sure you can do it, but its not exactly a great place for a self sustaining colony.
For the time being robotic exploration gives you a much bigger bang for the buck.
Re:Thanks Bruce by Ihmhi · 2010-02-27 17:55 · Score: 1

If people had your attitude we would never get anywhere. We learn how to do things well by actually fucking building things and going places.
Yes, it will cost money. Yes, people will die. There is not one robot that exists today that can do what a human can do better on an extraterrestrial surface. And let's not even forget the benefits of having colonies on the moon and in space.
Sure, we can recreate the conditions of a moon colony out in Antarctica. Can we recreate the gravity, which would make a lunar base an ideal staging ground for launching ships?
Can we recreate the effects of zero gravity on the human body and learn about how that will effect us in long term space travel?
Can a man sitting in a geodesic dome in Antarctica inspire schoolchildren the same way that Neil Armstrong and co. did when they went to the moon?
Cost isn't and shouldn't be the only concern when it comes to exploration. If people worried about the cost of exploring, Columbus would have never made it to America, America would have never made it to the moon, and the ISS would just be some scientists pipe dream while 50 overweight NASA techs sit at computers reading telemetry from probes and satellites.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Thanks Bruce by sentientbeing · 2010-02-27 21:01 · Score: 1

Yeah. Robots would put a lot of us porn actors out of work for a start

--

------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Re:Thanks Bruce by grumbel · 2010-02-27 23:13 · Score: 1

There is not one robot that exists today that can do what a human can do better on an extraterrestrial surface.
For the cost of shipping a human to another planed you should have not much of a problem to build one. The reason robots are so inferior is mainly because they are cheap.

Can we recreate the gravity, which would make a lunar base an ideal staging ground for launching ships?
And how exactly do you propose we build a factory that can build rockets on the moon? For the cost to launch all the required stuff to the moon you could likely do an in depth exploration of all the rest of the solar system, you know, that kind of exploration where you actually learn something new. Also to actually build something on the moon, so that you don't need hundreds or thousands of workers, it would help to have some good autonomous robots, the kind of robot you might learn to build when you actually build robots for space exploration.

Can we recreate the effects of zero gravity on the human body and learn about how that will effect us in long term space travel?
Thats what the orbit is good for. You don't really want to learn about long term effects when you are already on the trip to Mars, as that would be a little late to actually do something about it.

Can a man sitting in a geodesic dome in Antarctica inspire schoolchildren the same way that Neil Armstrong and co. did when they went to the moon?
I find our robotic space probes quite inspirational and for the cost of human space colonies you could probably shoot enough to the moon that school kids could drive a few on them on their Xboxs for promotional purposes. That would be cool.

Cost isn't and shouldn't be the only concern when it comes to exploration.
If cost isn't a concern you are just wasting time and money and you won't ever create something that is actually sustainable. Just look at the moon program, sure we managed to shoot man to the moon, but we failed at actually building cheap rockets. Thus no more moon rockets for now, as it isn't worth the cost.
Re:Thanks Bruce by Ihmhi · 2010-02-28 06:36 · Score: 1

For the cost of shipping a human to another planed you should have not much of a problem to build one. The reason robots are so inferior is mainly because they are cheap.
Right, and yet despite all the money Honda is throwing at Asimo it still can't do everything a human can do nearly as well or remotely as fast.

And how exactly do you propose we build a factory that can build rockets on the moon? For the cost to launch all the required stuff to the moon you could likely do an in depth exploration of all the rest of the solar system, you know, that kind of exploration where you actually learn something new. Also to actually build something on the moon, so that you don't need hundreds or thousands of workers, it would help to have some good autonomous robots, the kind of robot you might learn to build when you actually build robots for space exploration.
Why should we bring construction materials to the Moon when it already has lovely things like Iron, Titanium, Magnesium, Aluminum, and many other materials? We don't need to bring construction material to the Moon; we just need to bring mining equipment.

Thats what the orbit is good for. You don't really want to learn about long term effects when you are already on the trip to Mars, as that would be a little late to actually do something about it.
Getting into orbit still requires putting people in space, so that still goes with my point.

I find our robotic space probes quite inspirational and for the cost of human space colonies you could probably shoot enough to the moon that school kids could drive a few on them on their Xboxs for promotional purposes. That would be cool.
You might, yeah. That's because (and I don't think I'm making a far-flung assumption here), you're a geek. I'm sure many people can tell you that Sputnik was the first satellite to make it into space (especially those who lived through it). I wonder how many Americans can tell you what the first man-made object that landed on the moon (P.S. it was the Soviet's Luna Program) compared to how many Americans could tell you who was the first man that landed on the moon? I'd wager that if you sampled 100 everyday Americans, 98 could tell you Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, 20 or so could tell you Buzz Aldrin was the second, and maybe 2 or 3 could tell you that the Luna Program was the first man-made object on the moon.

If cost isn't a concern you are just wasting time and money and you won't ever create something that is actually sustainable. Just look at the moon program, sure we managed to shoot man to the moon, but we failed at actually building cheap rockets. Thus no more moon rockets for now, as it isn't worth the cost.
We're not going to put anything worthwhile in space for anything less than hundreds of thousands of dollars in launch and operations costs. The U.S. military probably spends more on toilet seats and hammers than NASA spends on their entire budget. NASA's budget is comparatively small to the overall yearly U.S. budget.
If it cost $100 billion to make a spaceship that could launch out of orbit under its own power (i.e. no throwaway boosters, just refueling), would you consider that a worthwhile cause? I think most people wouldn't, but that's because mankind is full of a bunch of short-sighting dumbasses. We need to think of space exploration as a very, very long term project - not in terms of months or years but in terms of decades and centuries.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)

Let's do something even more useful by urusan · 2010-02-26 19:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

In addition to sending human-controlled robots to the moon, lets send along refineries and factories to produce solar panels. Then we can build thousands of square kilometers of the stuff on the moon from local materials at a very low cost and beam the energy back to Earth. Covering roughly 1% of the moon's surface area with present-day solar tech would yield on the order of 20TW, worth tens of trillions at today's energy rates and capable of meeting the world's energy needs.

I'm not sure how good this paper is, but it has some more details on the basic idea: http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v7i28_kumar.html Certainly a more detailed study would be needed before really doing this to ensure there weren't any show-stopping problems (such as the one DOE/NASA undertook on the solar satellite idea, where they concluded it was not economically worthwhile with the lifting costs http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/doe.htm).

This path would be even better for science too, as it would create a permanent human presence on the moon instead of probably being a one-off mission. There would also be interest in creating a self-sufficient lunar economy so that Earth wouldn't have to keep supplying it. A robotic lunar colony capable of launching solar satellites and other craft would be of great value to both science and the economy.

We can do this with today's technology, as it's essentially a different approach to the old solar satellite idea.

Re:Let's do something even more useful by Animats · 2010-02-26 20:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

In addition to sending human-controlled robots to the moon, lets send along refineries and factories to produce solar panels.
Yeah, right. Back around 1985, I went to a conference where some AI professors were mouthing off about putting self-replicating factories on the Moon within 20 years. I asked "How soon can you do it in Arizona?" They didn't like that.
Re:Let's do something even more useful by urusan · 2010-02-26 21:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

In addition to sending human-controlled robots to the moon, lets send along refineries and factories to produce solar panels.
Yeah, right. Back around 1985, I went to a conference where some AI professors were mouthing off about putting self-replicating factories on the Moon within 20 years. I asked "How soon can you do it in Arizona?" They didn't like that.
This idea does not require AI or self-replication. The intelligence could be provided by humans remotely controlling the robots on the moon.
While self-replication would be nice because it would allow the project to grow without bound at a very low cost, it is not needed as long as we can lift enough robots, bases, and other materials that can't be created on-site to the moon. Self-replication might even be realistically achievable with something like a fab lab staffed by remote controlled robots.
I think a trial run in Arizona is a fantastic idea. If we couldn't get it working in a desert on Earth then there would be no point in spending all that money lifting it to the moon.
Re:Let's do something even more useful by sictransitgloriacfa · 2010-02-26 22:10 · Score: 1

I think we very likely could do it in Arizona now, if there was an economic reason to do so. In Arizona, there isn't. In space, there is.
Re:Let's do something even more useful by ascari · 2010-02-27 01:27 · Score: 1

Why stop with scientists? Another really useful thing would be to send all lawyers to the moon.(No proxy.)
Re:Let's do something even more useful by Teancum · 2010-02-27 02:49 · Score: 1

Whenever somebody suggests that space-based solar power should be used, they keep forgetting to mention the largest solar panel installation ever put into orbit:
The International Space Station
The solar panels are the defining feature to the structure, and what sets it apart from all previous space vehicles. I think the power generated on the ISS is something on the order of about 50 kilowatts.... which certainly is a fair bit to consider and something akin to a small-town power plant. Running a power cable from the Earth to the ISS is not practical, so clearly solar power is the cheapest alternative (instead of using fuel cells... the only other realistic alternative up there). If you want to see a solar power satellite, any study that ignores the ISS and the technical issues they have discovered in its construction is to me a study not even worth reading in the first place.
Arizona has some innovative solar power generation facilities, including some that are "on the grid" right now. I'd have to say though that the economics really aren't there except for those who are looking for self-sufficiency. There are some companies like Solar City which has a product that certainly is interesting and is just on the threshold of being competitive with other forms of power generation. There are also some other manufacturers of solar panel equipment, and certainly the economics of solar panels and power generation make sense in rural areas where the expense of running a power line out to a remote place is cost prohibitive.
Re:Let's do something even more useful by khallow · 2010-02-27 04:04 · Score: 1

I asked "How soon can you do it in Arizona?"
You're about 10,000 to 20,000 years too late for that. That's when a new group of evolved Von Neumann machines settled in North America (including presumably Arizona). Their manufactured products were rather simple at first, stone and wood tools, but leading to significant towns of adobe dwellings at later stages. Later more advanced Von Neumann machines of the same design, brought metal working and other much more advanced manufacturing facilities to Arizona. If for some reason, you aren't interested in humans as technology, there's the advent of the industrial age, which I imagine manifested in Arizona at some point in the late 19th century (by the time railroads went through).

This last instance of self-replicating factories is particularly relevant since with teleoperations, it can be repeated on the Moon. The industrial age has a well established pathway for establishing factories. First, you create a machine shop. Then the machine shop builds the tools and early infrastructure of the factory (later, large scale infrastructure can be made by the factories themselves). The machine shop can also either enlarge its own production or make more machine shops.

So we've reduced the factory problem to the machine shop problem. What does a machine shop need? Well it needs a source of workable metal and some basic metal working tools: lathe, drill press, milling machine, etc. The lathe as it turns out is the most important of these tools. So what do you need to make the tools? It turns out that you need just one thing, a furnace and some sort of cast (something to hold molten metal in a desired shape). For example, David Gingery back in the 80s developed a process for making a sufficient collection of machine tools starting with a furnace. He published a series of books on it. I haven't read the books through, but here's my understanding of what they do. It turns out that you start by building a charcoal foundry (a lunar equivalent would probably be a solar or electric furnace capable of melting iron, steel, or aluminum). Using sandcasting techniques, you cast the parts to build a proto-lathe. This is a machine that has enough of the functionality of a lathe, that one can use it to build a true lathe (Gingery used it to extend the functionality of the proto-lathe to be a true lathe). I don't know the proper order, but past that you build a milling machine, drill press, and metal shaper.

Once you have these basic machines, you can use them either to improve the machine shop, build more machine shops, or build other infrastructure like factories.

So to sum up, it's been done in Arizona. I'm a bit surprised that these academics couldn't have come up with a good answer (though the Gingery example probably wouldn't have been known at that point).
Re:Let's do something even more useful by Herkum01 · 2010-02-27 04:28 · Score: 1

The difference between Arizona and building a machine shop with charcoal for heating and the moon is that the moon does not have enough oxygen to support any of this stuff.
Realistically at least at this point, they can only mechanically sort your resources. Anything like refining on earth would require some sort of power plant and come up with a process not only for heating but cooling as well(any problem that can occur with the lack of atmosphere.
Re:Let's do something even more useful by khallow · 2010-02-27 04:41 · Score: 1

The difference between Arizona and building a machine shop with charcoal for heating and the moon is that the moon does not have enough oxygen to support any of this stuff.
I wrote

(a lunar equivalent would probably be a solar or electric furnace capable of melting iron, steel, or aluminum)
No charcoal or oxygen is required.

Realistically at least at this point, they can only mechanically sort your resources. Anything like refining on earth would require some sort of power plant and come up with a process not only for heating but cooling as well(any problem that can occur with the lack of atmosphere
If they're speaking of factories on the Moon, then they'll have progressed beyond the mechanical sorting stage. And solar power either via solar cells or solar thermal would be adequate as a power source. Cooling could be achieved by either heat radiated to space or transferred to the ground.
Re:Let's do something even more useful by mdwh2 · 2010-02-27 05:08 · Score: 1

Last time I looked, we already had factories and refineries on Earth, which is what the OP was talking about.
Re:Let's do something even more useful by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-28 00:34 · Score: 0

There are plans to power Europe from the Sahara.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar%20sahara

Not a bad idea by vtcodger · 2010-02-26 19:08 · Score: 1

It's really not a bad idea at all even with the time lag. But I suspect that it doesn't waste enough money or risk enough lives unnecessarily to appeal to the space cadets who make funding decisions.

--
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey

Science? by piemcfly · 2010-02-26 19:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Science?! Screw science! You mean sports!

Become Lunar Boxing Heavy Weight Champion by punching an opponent into orbit!

Epic!

Why's it so tough? by DynaSoar · 2010-02-26 19:19 · Score: 1

"NASA can put humanoids on the Moon in just 1000 days. They would be controlled by scientists on Earth using motion capture suits, giving them the feeling of being on the lunar surface. If they can achieve this for real, the results for science research of our satellite could be amazing."

Why so fast? "Because we can" is not sufficient for budgetary planning.

Why so many? About the only reason I can foresee is construction. A good reason, but needs specified. All of them? Might there not be other worthy projects? Not every surface of interest is lunar.

Motion capture would provide transmission of behaviors. It would not provide 'feeling as if'. That could be done, and likely should, but that costs too.

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B

Re:Why's it so tough? by joe_frisch · 2010-02-27 04:42 · Score: 1

I still need to fly all over the world just to go to meetings. A couple of years ago we did some tests of diagnosing accelerator hardware remotely - it took 8 hours to fix a problem that would have taken 10 minutes in person. Until we have effective tele-presence technology on earth I think using it on the moon is a bit optimistic.
Also the time delay will make a avatar-like experience impossible - you couldn't even stand without falling with that long a delay between senses and muscles. Might as well use mars-rover like robots.

The results for science research of our satellite by mac1235 · 2010-02-26 19:25 · Score: 1

Like what? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Send Every Scientist To the Moon by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 19:35 · Score: 0

Could we just start out with the Creationist and see how it goes?

solar cells cost to much by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 19:57 · Score: 0

Solar cells, unsurprisingly, are cheaper to make on earth than on the moon, and there is plenty of desert on Earth. Both the Earth and moon are spherical and the same distance away from the sun. True, the moon does not have an atmosphere, but the atmosphere has only a moderate degredation of solar, at the right place on earth.

Re:solar cells cost to much by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 20:12 · Score: 0

but the moon is not inhabited, nor are there ecology activists (because there is no known life on the moon). You could cover the entire side of the moon not facing earth with panels and no one not involved, or a scientist, would care.
Re:solar cells cost to much by QuantumG · 2010-02-26 20:15 · Score: 1

I think you're grossly misrepresenting the resources of the earth and the Moon. The lunar regolith is basically made of solar cell materials, whereas here you have to dig them up.. not to mention that there's a little matter of ownership, human labor, etc. That said, there's no mature technology for doing this kind of processing of regolith and, even when there is, it's unlikely to be something that could be tended by robots or weigh so little that it can be sent up on an existing booster.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:solar cells cost to much by urusan · 2010-02-26 22:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

That said, there's no mature technology for doing this kind of processing of regolith and, even when there is, it's unlikely to be something that could be tended by robots or weigh so little that it can be sent up on an existing booster.
Indeed, this is the main technical challenge for such a project. Is it possible with present-day technology at a reasonable weight or not?
The robot part can definitely be handled because it doesn't require AI, as they can be remotely controlled by human operators and any AI will merely simplify the process.
The weight issue seems more promising than the solar satellite idea, which requires millions of tons of material lifted into orbit to cover our energy needs. While there is still no guarantee that we can develop refineries and factories that can meet the needs of such a project at a reasonable overall cost and weight, it should be noted that the project does not need to be lifted in large indivisible pieces. Unlike manned space flight which needs a heavy lifter booster to carry all the essential equipment up in one go, the factories can be lifted in many small pieces in many smaller flights and assembled on-site by the human-controlled robots. The biggest single piece may be an assembler robot.
Additionally, the returns on the investment could be staggering. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the US carried out the program at a cost of $1 trillion USD (NASA's 2010 budget for 53 years or 7 International Space Stations) and it delivered 5TW of power (covering roughly 0.25%-0.5% of the moon's surface area). At current electricity rates it would generate something like $400 billion USD a month, which would mean it would pay for itself in roughly three months. After three years of operation it would have generated enough revenue to pay off the US public debt (what other trillion dollar program can even consider doing this?). Afterwards there would be a trillion dollar surplus even with taxes reduced to 0%.
Of course realistically it would cause energy prices to plummet, but the overall benefits would be on the same order of magnitude. The above is merely meant to illustrate the enormity of impact a success would have.
Also, the above scenario is probably quite pessimistic, as $1 trillion is pretty insane for a space program (would a moon factory really cost seven times as much as the ISS to develop, build, and launch?) and after the concept was proven it would keep expanding beyond its initial capacity as long as it was economical to do so. Getting an accurate figure will require more in-depth research.
If such extreme returns are reasonably possible, then shouldn't we at least consider the idea very seriously? It's not like we need to start with the part where we lift the equipment to the moon: an in-depth study would iron out the details and if it still looks promising then an Earth-based demonstration of the technology would remove all doubt before we start pouring billions into launches.
Re:solar cells cost to much by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 00:00 · Score: 0

Given ISS is a very small TOY, yes, indeed, a lunar powerplant may very well cost 7 times as much.
Re:solar cells cost to much by pydev · 2010-02-27 00:39 · Score: 1

The lunar regolith is basically made of solar cell materials, whereas here you have to dig them up
The lunar regolith is mainly silicon oxide with some iron oxide thrown in; you can find entire deserts filled with the stuff on earth.
not to mention that there's a little matter of ownership
Ownership of sand? You can get that in bulk for really cheap, you know.
, human labor, etc.
And the need for human labor magically disappears on the moon??

In Soviet Russia... by mi · 2010-02-26 19:59 · Score: 1

Two Ukrainians talking:

Have you heard? Russians went to the Moon...
Oh, dear Lord, we can't be so lucky, all of them?!

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

25 minutes of moon by srussia · 2010-02-26 20:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

If "being" on the moon means controlling a humanoid avatar by motion-capture suit, and assuming 2 such avatars. Each scientist in the US (around 1.25 million) could get 25 minutes of "moon time" over a period of 30 years.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:25 minutes of moon by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 21:10 · Score: 0

This!
For (insert favorite deity here) sake NASA, get your collective heads out of your asses and quit wasting the tax payers money on shit like this!
If you want to go back to the moon, use rovers like you did on Mars! They have exceeded their life expectancy by a huge margin and would be a far better investment than what you're planning now.
FWIW, been in the business and done that. Helped put lots of NASA payloads in orbit.
Re:25 minutes of moon by red_blue_yellow · 2010-02-27 07:47 · Score: 1

Now, instead of including all of the sciences that would benefit in no way from controlling an avatar on the moon, restrict that number to the *much* smaller number of geologists, astronomers, etc whose field of study would directly benefit from this. My estimate would put that around 1,000 people in the U.S. That's 1/3 of a day per year each. When they collaborate (like scientists tend to do), this could add up to quite a bit of time very quickly.

--
A neutral communications medium is essential. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.

kirov by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 20:34 · Score: 0

maybe some day i'll be so drunk that i will just pass out instead of comment on stupid shit which i do not even know what it is talking about.

that's the spirit

If this is a problem put them in LUNAR orbit by wisebabo · 2010-02-26 21:46 · Score: 1

If the delay is a problem to this or any other tele-operated mission, put the scientists in orbit around the body to be explored (in this case LUNAR orbit).

I know that it may seem stupid to transport them 230,000 miles just to end up 100 miles away from their goal but consider the expense of getting them down (and back up) from the surface.

1) a landing/ascent vehicle will have to be designed, tested and built. Same thing with lunar spacesuits (primarily dustproof).
2) all this gear will have to be shipped to cis-lunar orbit. Remember life support supplies will also have to landed.
3) to duplicate the functionality of multiple robots in various areas around the moon you'll have to move the whole kit and kaboodle every time you want to explore using landed explorers. Expensive, time-consuming and dangerous.
- This will cost billions! (Remember also the time required to de-orbit, land, set up camp, put on suits etc. etc.)

On the other hand, you could just put them in orbit around the moon to operate the robots. The cost? "Only" about 5x the cost ($20M?) of getting a person into LEO. This is what Space Adventures was quoting for a trip around the moon using a modified soyuz spacecraft. (I don't know if they included insertion into lunar orbit though and it doesn't include the tele-operation equipment).

The only problem is that the scientists will be way up out of the magnetosphere so solar flares could be a deadly event. They could bring a "storm shelter" (a little space in between some water tanks) that they could hide out in during the few hours the flare would be peaking. Or, they could modify their orbit around the Moon (or Mars, asteroid or other celestial body) to put it between them and the sun. Since they get (I think) a few days warning, they should be able to do this without burning too much fuel.

Again, maybe the delay won't be a problem for lunar exploration and maybe it will be. Obviously for other targets it will be. A "classic" story on this problem is Arthur C. Clarke's "Meeting with Medusa". I hope someday Mankind will be facing such problems!

Think AVATAR!

Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 22:51 · Score: 0

This totally misses the point.

The reason for setting up sustainable colonies on other celestial bodies is to prevent extinction if something nasty happens down here.

Sure - any thoughts who controls that beam? by cheros · 2010-02-27 00:59 · Score: 1

The next hacker into NASA systems will now have a new shiny toy to play with. I don't know if you know this, but there are SCADA controllers that can be nuked with one SINGLE packet (yes, one), leaving it in an undetermined state, and a reboot or reset won't cure it, it needs reprogramming.

There is no way I would want that aimed at my back garden, thanks.

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.

Re:Sure - any thoughts who controls that beam? by urusan · 2010-02-27 08:24 · Score: 1

Well, I have to admit that there's an electronic security hole that will be difficult or even impossible to close completely, but it's not what you're talking about. SCADA controllers and such will not be connected to an electronic network accessible from Earth, even in NASA's control room (at least for actuation, possibly for view).
The real hole is the robots, as they are remote controlled. If a hacker can get a robot to obey its commands then they will have a physical presence in the lunar base, which will be very difficult to guard against fully, and especially if the robot in question occupies an important position (such as manning the control room).
On the other hand, such an attack can be made nigh impossible to successfully carry out. I'm not a security expert, but here are some ideas I have. The system will be split into many different independent bases, and taking over one base will probably not be particularly useful while taking over several will take a large team of coordinated attackers. Signals coming from areas of Earth other than designated control points could be ignored, though of course this does not protect against the control points being subverted...but these control points could be disconnected like Earth-based power plants. Any system that can should be completely automated to avoid subversion, and such systems can ignore potentially dangerous control inputs (a good strategy would be to have them shut down in such an event, so they can be shut down and repaired if they themselves go haywire but preventing easy subversion). The transmitter could require a constant signal from the base station on Earth, causing it to shut down automatically if it is directed elsewhere even by accident. Optionally, a similar secondary system could be required to keep the entire plant up and running, and stopping that signal would cause the plant to SCRAM.
By the time a potential hacker could get in and make enough changes to control the system to fire on ground targets, the people on the ground would have had enough time to figure out what they were doing and take back control. Needless to say, the legal penalties for such an attempt would be extremely steep.
Even if someone was able to completely subvert a single base and alter it to fire its beam on ground targets...it would not be all that impressive a weapon. By the time the beam reaches earth it is something like 10km in diameter at a low energy density (about 2 times the OSHA standard for indefinite workplace exposure). It would not be powerful enough to kill people or destroy buildings. That said, several bases could combine their beams to cause more significant damage. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the possibility of it being used as a weapon by the legitimate owners...

Idea from Stanislaw Lem's "Peace on Earth" by FilatovEV · 2010-02-27 02:17 · Score: 1

The idea of "proxy" androids to investigate the Moon was introduced in a 1987 Lem's novel "Peace on Earth". If you haven't did it yet, read it, it's totally worthy! Besides "proxy androids", the novel explores issues of an arms race and lobotomy. Yes, exactly :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)

BS:Re:Wikipedia + google calculator by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 02:56 · Score: 0

nonsense.
No amount of fiddling at DSN is going to get around the 2 second round trip light time to the moon. Do you think that old equipment somehow slows down the electromagnetic waves in the vacuum between Earth and Moon?
The actual transmitter at DSN probably has a delay from "bit in" to "electromagnetic wave out" of a few microseconds.

And Emory just describes the time lag from Ames to JPL to DSN to a DSN station. That's not 30 year old hardware for the most part, any more than what you're using to access slashdot. (granted, the traffic was probably carried on NISN not the internet, but NISN isn't using some old manky gear from 1970 either) There's a fair number of intermediate hops in the path that he left out, and each one does it's little bit of store and forward routing.

Besides, why bust your backside trying to get the MOC(mission ops center) to DSN time down by a second, when you're stuck with the 2 second roundtrip light time, and a data rate of a few tens of kilobits/second.

Unobtanium by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 04:05 · Score: 0

So, erm... When is my avatar ready ?

How about we send the politicians instead? by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-02-27 04:44 · Score: 1

How about we send the politicians instead, only not by proxy?

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Boney M by turgid · 2010-02-27 05:03 · Score: 1

And Boney M could send them on a Nightflight to Venus... segue to Rasputin.

--
Stick Men

Wrong Project M by daemonc · 2010-02-27 05:32 · Score: 1

At first I thought this was going to be about giving scientists LSD, playing some Pink Floyd, and making them watch visualizations until they think they're flying through space...

--
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.

Send construction workers. by WindBourne · 2010-02-27 08:29 · Score: 1

Seriously, lets send some robotics around to locate a new base, and then send these to set up the site and put in BA units. That would allow us to get ppl up there ASAP.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

projectM is an awesome music visualizer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-28 23:47 · Score: 0

http://projectm.sourceforge.net/

I don't see the connection with moon though.

Slashdot Mirror

Project M Could Send Every Scientist To the Moon, By Proxy

150 comments