Slashdot Mirror
Astronauts As Alien Life Hunters?
astroengine writes "Ever since the last NASA space shuttle mission touched down in Florida on July 21, there has been a spirited debate in articles and blogs across the Internet over the future of humans in space. Everyone seems to be asking: What's the point of spending shedloads of cash getting mankind into space when robots can do it at a fraction of the cost? Well, pending any great (and unexpected) advance in robotics, our adaptability in space may be our biggest asset. Ultimately, the hunt for extraterrestrial life may need an astronaut to physically push deeper into space."
Also, who wants to let the robots have all the fun?
Yes, humans would certainly be a lot better at searching for and finding life in person than any remote robot. But without at least some hint that such life even EXISTS in our solar system outside of earth, that's a pretty bizarre justification for a very expensive and resource-intensive manned space program. And even if it were a reason, if wouldn't justify the last 40 years of the manned space program. If life is out there in this solar system, it's sure as hell not sitting in low earth orbit. You're going to have to go to other planets and moons if you want to find life. And that's going to require a huge investment. Good luck getting that kind of scratch out of a bunch of first-world governments *already* spending way beyond their means.
This guy is actually proposing building research stations on the moon and Mars. And that's going to be an even bigger investment than just getting there. Is that doable? With enough motivation and money, sure. But that's the kind of motivation that's going to require sacrifice. Would you be willing to see your taxes double to pay for it? Would you be willing to give up one of the big government expenses/entitlements (Social Security, the military, Medicare) and funnel that money to NASA? If your answer is "no" to both of those questions, you can probably forget about your Mars bases. Exploration and colonization that far out isn't going to come cheap. That's going to be a pretty tough sell just to answer the philosophical question "Are we alone?" (especially when the answer may well turn out to be "Yes," at least in this solar system).
And for anyone who might suggest going *beyond* our solar system, well that's even more crazy/expensive. With the kind of propulsion we have now, even in the best case scenario it would take tens of thousands of years to reach even the closest other solar system. So unless you have a warp engine on the drawing board, you can pretty much forget that.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No accounting for the fact that putting a man in space is the most expense and bassackwards excuse to self-indulgence, now there's a new holier than robots excuse. Well keep at it NASA! Anything to get funded one more decade, right?
First it was Crocodile Hunters, now Alien Life Hunter, next it will be Dalek Hunter.
Well, we can have a handful of manned missions to a couple of nearby interesting places.
Or, we can scatter thousands of of robotic probes across the solar system like dandelion seeds in the wind and find tons of new and unexpected things.
Sending people into space just so we can say 'been there, done that' at such a premium in price just doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm a believer that humans will need to be involved (i.e., on the ship) as we continue space exploration. Partly it's so we can say "We did this."
Think of it on a smaller context. Do you want to look at pictures of the Grand Canyon, or do you want to be there? I saw plenty of pictures before I went. Standing on the edge, with my toes just over the edge and my girlfriend saying that I was fucking nuts, was something I won't ever forget.
I've been to a lot of places. Sometimes, no matter how many photos you see, it will never be the same as being there.
As the post was about alien hunting, consider this. We make first contact with an intelligent alien species. Should that first contact be a robot claw reproducing the sound of our voice, or a human in a suit.
That's not to say I expect it to happen any time soon, but with as large as the universe is, there is a very good chance that it will happen eventually. The whole idea that we can send robots out to do it for us, while we sit in the air conditioned comfort of our homes and offices, just doesn't sit well with me.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Personally sending men into orbit serves it's purpose right now, which is basically testing and perfecting how to keep human beings sustained in space and performing zero-g experiements and other assorted advances in science that couldn't be achieved on the surface. Robots are ideal for reaching further out into space, they don't need to be fed, they don't get tired, no physiological mental or emotional hurdles to overcome. Granted there's a trade off that machines are very limited in their abilities, or more accurately very specific in their abilities. The more comfortable we feel getting vehicles up and returned from space reliably and cheaply, the further out we'll push with human exploration, it's just a matter of time.
Everything beyond Mars is a telescope or robot.
No! We need more money for foreign wars, keeping Wall Street afloat and Congressional pork!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But let's see them adapt to vacuum. To cosmic rays. To a year of hibernation.
A human mission requires orders of magnitude more cost and complexity than a robotic mission. For the same lift requirements, you could set up a robotic science center good for years if not decades of experiments.
And robots are getting better every year. Computers are getting better every year. It's really no contest at this point.
it worked for the dinosaurs
oh...
It was pretty good and had the guy who played Professor Xavier in it. I'd love to see it happen in real life.
My God... It's full of stars!
We have telescopic data galore. It never occurs to look for something that might be an artifact. I doubt we've identified all the intelligences on Earth yet, much less extraterrestrials? If a species of club moss was intelligent, how, (other than with a zipf analysis of its chemical exchanges), would we know? Ditto for large bacteria colonies, squid or mushrooms.
What would a human physical presence add unless we happened to meet up with a recognizable, tool using, creature, and why would we not use a semi-autonomous avatar/robot to interact with it anyway?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Stop all this hot blathering, don't make it seem as if NASA is some insane portion of the budget or that NASA hasn't been a massive boon to the sciences and inventive ways of thinking of the world, let alone its contribution to technology.
I mean seriously. If we ever did find aliens we'd probably wish we hadn't. Hasn't NASA seen the movies?
Let's forget about the dead heroes in the epic quest to get men to Mars and back (See the race for the South Pole for how it goes.) Lets forget about the quadrillions of dollars. Let's forget about the speed of advances in robotics that have made it possible to explore the Titanic and the deepest points in the ocean with no risk and at low cost.
We do not know what kind of life may still exist on Mars. It may be anywhere in the top couple hundred kilometers of the surface.
I went to Antarctica and saw first-hand what even a bunch of careful scientists can do to trash a place, and it is entirely possible we could destroy all life on Mars before we even knew it was there, if we go in person.
We might also bring back something that we did not consider alive. Andromeda Strain, Alien, etc.
We are being more careful to avoid corrupting Lake Vostok (google it) than we are planning to be with a far more exotic place. There could be entirely new approaches to DNA-based and non-DNA-based life on Mars. The last thing we want to do is go charging in there with guns blazing.
If you want to spend some money, build a huge solar array and send a humongous laser beam to an unmanned vehicle to get it going really fast and lets get something in orbit around a nearby star in the next hundred years or so. Make up some really long-baseline interferometry telescopy application for it when it gets there.
Or play around on the moon. slightly less deadly, get to work on solar powered self-replicating robots to build massive underground habitats for us where we'll be a little safer from impacts and radiation. Start growing a stockpile of food. And then send people up there if you really have to.
DO NOT POOP ON MARS.
Personally I don't see much point to sending robots - unless the goal is to make it easier to get humans there.\
My robot discovered alien life, but all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
First, there is that whole "speed of light" business. Unless we can figure a way around that, we aren't going anywhere useful.
Second, life support. It's just real hard to survive without air, water and food. Robots don't need these.
From the way things are going here on earth, it doesn't look like we'll even be able to survive here much longer, not to mention in space.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
It's not just "robots are cheaper". It's that we are horrible at accelerating/decelerating mass. Once we can propel spaceships by means other than having to jettison most of its mass behind itself, then we can talk about manned missions again.
Not knowing about anything, now that we have robots in space and the ever present government cameras, I think we can finally call ourselves aliens.
Better than sucking Stallman's. At least Tim Cook looks like he's had a bath in the last decade or so. Stallman is a filthy pig.
If robots do all of our space exploration then when it comes time to move into space permanently we will be behind the medical and psych knowledge curve required to adapt the human form, the more time in space a human has the more they know what space (micro gravity, vacuum, radiation) will do to them and how to adapt.
Frankly I think any human living in micro-G for a lifetime would have to be genetically modified, or we need to get to the engineering level of moving and spinning large rocks so we have a livable space for the current gene pool.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Get used to it. Once computers gain the same thinking ability as a human engineer, that will enter a feedback loop building even better computers, not the reality shows and hair loss we have our top human thinkers researching.
Exponential growth in computer intelligence is bound to happen.
They (the robots) won't need us to explore space or for any other reason.
We're obsolete. We're a cruel, pleasure-seeking species which had a brief glimpse of intellectualism fueled by cheap oil. They don't need you sitting on the couch or posting snarky comments.
Why not send ant colonies into space? They're cheaper than robots, and more adaptable than humans. The individual ants are easily dispensable, and with their fast breeding cycle we just let evolution do the mission design work for us. There's really no downside once you think about it for a minute, citizen.
Ultimately, the hunt for extraterrestrial life may need an astronaut to physically push deeper into space.
ultimately astronauts would be relying on manual, hand-held versions of the the same sensors present on robots to do their "life detection". every "sensor" on a human is outperformed by the non-bio version that can be carried by robots.
Send robots to explore. Send robots to build a base with power supply, mining and manufacturing to build more robots. Build a bigger base with air, water and plants to eat. Then, and only then, send human colonists on a one-way trip.
Did you notice the senate had the power to change the rules needed to pass a bill by super majority with riders, hearings and just last week changed them.
Not for Single payer health care or a balanced budget amendment, not to close Guantanamo or leave Iraq not for banking reform either.
Campaign finance has turned us into a wholly owned subsidiary of Military Industrial Inc.
Saw a paralyzed women use motorized legs to walk. Yep developed first for soldiers to be more efficient.
We must leave the planet if mankind it to survive it's own brutish nature.
It doesn't look good for the human race Gliese 581 the nearest star with habitable planets is 20.3 parsecs away and would take 70,000 years to reach were traditional space craft possible and used to get there.
The question becomes reduced to:
Travel the stars or die here like the short sighted natives of Easter Island.
It still looks like the real arguments for and against sending humans to live and work at permanent space colonies are ones of pure PR.
On the one hand, you have the "Nya nya! We built one first!" Dick waving type PR, and the other, which I suspect holds more weight, is the "you sent joe sixpack and everything he finds necessary to live and work into space to clutter up another planet. Bravo." type PR.
This is because a space colony is much more than scientists, engineers, and MIT grad astronauts. A space colony is welders, riveters, janitors, (hookers, they WILL turn up), and all the other blue collar labor needed to have things built, and further, all the things they need to be happy doing it, like beer, porn, sports, etc.
The logistics of builing a bonafide space colony are astronomical in comparison to sending robots, even absurdly priced ones, and the robots don't demand hookers and beer.
The real reason why an actual colony is unlikely to be built by any world government is exactly that reason. No self respecting politician wants to be seen as supporting that kind of lifestyle, or worse, showing segregationalist eliteism by screening for only "cookie cutter straight laced" types, regardless of other work qualifications. (That would be a violation of equal employment laws...)
This makes the issue a poisonous one to politicians and governments. They sent astronauts, since those were already on a silver PR platter as being ivy league types. They will never send joe sixpack into space, as long as they can avoid it.
A moon base with mining facilities would be feasible and profitable.
Then building all the space stuff on the moon for cheaper launch cost with mostly robotic stuff.
Then establishing a mars colony. (in 200-300 years).
By all means use robots to find a good sport to build a house, plant the corn and corral the critters - but it's humans that need to live. Robots can't even do that.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
http://www.mufoncms.com/files/32475_submitter_file1__IMG_1079.MOV
List of Alien Lifeforms that Astronauts Have Discovered So Far:
Whatever we do, it's extremely unlikely that we are going to have mission to Mars before, say, 2030. Now, without making any forecasts for AI, just imagine what robots in 2030 will look like. They'll be perfectly capable of driving or walking around Mars with no human intervention. They will be able to classify rocks or, at the very least, be able to notice something they have not seen before in the terrain. If they miss anything that's seen by their cameras, a whole team of human scientists back on Earth will tell them to go back to point XYZ for further investigations. Best of all, they'll still cost as much as Spirit, Opportunity or Curiosity in 2030 $. That is at least 100x less than a human mission.
A human mission to Mars made sense in the 70s' or 80s'. The more time passes, the less will be the advantage of humans. The window of opportunity of human Mars exploration is gone. Things are even more in favor of robots beyond Mars.
If true AI is then invented by 2030, then there is no point of human exploration ever.
For better or worse, we are hard wired to spread out into new places. We want to see a human land on mars because it makes it feel like maybe we could move there (whether we want to or not is beside the point, it's about having options).
Humans have no business being in space. Period. Robots are cheaper and easier and outside the circle of empathy - they are just machines.Did the robot miss something? Send another one with a different design. Robots are making massive strides in terms of movement and capabilities. Send robots to Mars. Send robots to the moon. Robots don't get grouchy. Robots don't have mental breakdowns half way to Jupiter (fiction not withstanding), robots don't need to eat or shit or breathe. They just need energy and a plan. They don't need to fuck or get pregnant. They don't have to worry about getting cancer from a solar flare. Robots don't have to sleep. Robots don't need recreation or entertainment. . Very simply, humans have no business being in space. Get over it.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
That's going to be a pretty tough sell just to answer the philosophical question "Are we alone?"
Fortunately there are other reasons. Scientific research that potentially offers economic benefits, this includes basic research (benefit is later rather than sooner). Energy production, solar power is far more viable outside the atmosphere. Speaking of outside the atmosphere, how about production of materials and goods that involve processes that are polluting or otherwise present a health or environmental risk. Production of materials or goods that would greatly benefit from low gravity environments. Access to immense amount of resources (asteroids - metals, chemicals), note that such access also *dramatically* reduces the cost of future space based endeavors. And of course there are other things like, oh, a military "high ground" advantage.
Now I'm sure some are tempted to dismiss producing goods in orbit due to "shipping costs" but consider this. Shipping goods across the ocean was once prohibitively expensive except for the most expensive or rare goods. That has changed dramatically. Shipping the cheapest goods across the ocean is now economically viable. Space based production will most likely follow a similar pattern.
Again, I am not claiming an immediate economic benefit (beyond employment and dual use technological advances - perhaps these should be included as factors offsetting the cost of a space based endeavors). I am merely pointing out motivations that are a bit more viable than the discovery of alien life. Of course I am curious too, but its something pretty low on the priority list.
Combining cost-effectiveness with practicality, and, of course, adding the pragmatic, in that the ones with all the money are the Defense Industry Connected, since we have a well-funded Military Drone Program, and military drone operators trained, and the chances of finding real life on extra-stellar planets is sufficiently remote we may ignore amy moral questions, the cost-effective, practical and logical program to put our money and manpower into is Remotely Operated Interstellar Drones, armed with Bio-Missiles.
The Drones, equipped with sensors, will be sent inter-stelllar in likely directions. When one's sensors sense a reasonably "early-Earth-like" planet a signal will be sent back. Upon receipt of the signal a human Drone Operator will take control, survey the potential likely planet for existing life, existing advanced life and existing advanced life potentially dangerous to humans. In event of finding any one of the four, from no life to dangerous life-forms, the Terrestrial Unmanned Rov Driver will survey for best possible release locations and then launch missiles containing terrestrial life biological components into those.
The terrestrial life components may then adapt and grow, be attacked and destroyed by local biological components, attack and destroy local biological components, or adapt and combine with local bio-components to form new life forms and species.
Future probes can check up, and wherever exploitable life, of whatever origin and form, is found to have developed, schedule human missions, to land, to dominate (if necessary) to enslave if workable populations have developed (enslave as draft labor, if necessary, or as workers [prole labor] if possible, since workers, not being provided and so having to provide themselves shelter, feed, etc., can be exploited as consumers to generate additional profits for mission sponsors) and commercially exploit all, planets, populations and resources, organic and inorgnic. Which will cover the costs, of the exploration, the seeding, the dominating, the maintenance of order and management, the resource extraction etc., to provide financial sponsors sufficient profits to attract them.
I mean, we are going to add our micro-biology wherever we go as soon as we cough or exhale, anyway, so why not just get on with it?
I can tell you why it is important to have human access to space.
Lets start by looking around at how everything is so f*cked up.
You know, a long time ago, you use to be able to flee to foreign lands, or undiscovered countries to get rid of the socia/pschyo inbred leaders that enjoy watching people starve, live in misery or otherwise think because what comes out of their dick makes them royal.
We seem to have come to a impasse now. You can't run anywhere. Tyranny is _EVERYWHERE_. From the nut cases in China who find it is perfectly legit to corral people into pens and work them to death or a democrat, republican, tea party psychopath/socio paths who scramble at the drop of a bankers phone call for more bail out money 10 generations from now will be still paying.
With access to space I can leave. Or, better yet, with access to space we can tell these people TO LEAVE.
That is of itself would be incredibly useful, and worth it to expand humans into space.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
http://www.disclosureproject.org/
Mankind will journey to the stars or it will die out and all this will have been for nothing.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Unless you send Johnny 5, people want what we send to space to have personality. Robots are functional but sterile and boring to people that don't use /. and even some who do.
"Upon receipt of the signal a human Drone Operator will take control, survey the potential likely planet for existing life"
Using FTL communications? It's a minimum of several YEARS each way between messages.
Semi-random question: What obstacles are stopping us from permanently having a space-station that's completely cut off from the Earth?
Lack of water is the obvious thing, since energy can be provided by solar. Sigh, we'll be needing energy to matter converters by the looks of it...
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
If astronauts are hunting indigenous life, then they're the aliens. One would think that Slashdot would get that right.
Don't stop where the ink does.
We do have a high adaptability to tasks in space, but we have a decidedly low adaptability to being in space. Long stints in space (meaning as little as a few months) are linked to muscle atrophy, loss of bone density, depression, sleep disturbances and a number of other problems that may or may not prove to be seriously detrimental to the health and abilities of astronauts. And with trips of greater duration and distance there are increasing concerns over cancer and other things, as well as a higher probability of accidents. And of course there are the technical conerns, like the necessity of 100% protection from even short-term radiation and 100% uptime for life support systems - having oxygen and a pressurized environment 99.9% of the time is not good enough for humans.
The answer is to continue to develop both manned and unmanned space travel, progressing as technological advancements allow while pushing the envelope, within reason, and assuming some level of risk and tolerating occasional losses. Our goals should continue to be to better understand the universe, find life, and find intelligent life, and also to eventually colonize other worlds. This will take great patience, but equally great resolve to push on relentlessly.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Is this going to be a standup fight, sir, or another bug hunt?
A more practical justification for spaceflight is orbital solar power plants. due to the deep gravity well of the earth, its much easier and cheaper to send a rocket filled with construction materials from an asteroid or from the moon to an orbital solar construction site. And there's the possibility of using mass drivers to send material from moon to LEO with no expense except the cost of making the mass driver and solar panel. a lunar mining operation implies a lunar colony unless you can go full AI or telepresence its not easy and there are many details, but in principle it works
Also, who wants to let the robots have all the fun?
Suits.
(+1, Disagree)
Why send a human to do a robot's job? Robotic interplanetary probes should be assembled and sent out from low earth orbit and then we wouldn't need to re-invent the Saturn V. We actually can overcome the mistaken thinking that led to the billions wasted on programs like the shuttle and ISS.
Robots werent that helpfull at all. They failed in different tasks and needed a lot of maintenance ... despite the fun factor.
Robots or humans, no matter. Just stay away from animals.
Now you are thinking "oh no, some crazy environmentalist calling". But no.
My first though after reading the head line was about a hilarious short story from , if I remember correctly, Robert Shakely. We read about the thoughts of an astronaut who's ship is failing and he will soon be burned to crisps. Already at this stage of the story you kind of get puzzled that apparently the people who send this astronaut did not in fact take very good care about his life-support and kind of not really care if he dies. At that moment a huge alien ship appears and the astronaut is saved by the aliens. On board their ship though he goes into great detail telling them what a horrible, irresponsible, warmongering species we are and that if the aliens value their piece and way of life they should destroy us. The aliens are shocked and discus what to do for a long time. At the end they tell him that they cannot destroy us because it is against their principles but since we are such a dangerous species they will make a bomb but the button must be pressed by the astronaut. He agrees gladly. The last paragraph states roughly "They led me to the room with the bomb , showed be the button and I immediately pressed it without hesitation. Soon, the mankind will be no more. That is what you deserve, you arrogant humans, for thinking that just because I am an ape, you can do whatever you please with me"!
So, we should be careful that the first account of our deeds to the aliens is given by a human rather than any other species from Earth, cause we will get the same fate as in the story. I mean, the way we conduct our affairs even the ants probably have a grudge against us....
Let's not forget all the nice little things we've learned since NASA became a little more open in what happened during the moon missions. From those spooky mini Elmo's fire incidents to the fact that low or no gravity can blind us, and surely a Mars mission now is out of the realm of possibility until we get a rotating mid section ship, unless we don't care about blind astronauts (yes go read about it, was quite disturbing)
End of Line.
donate to or invest in a private organization that shares your goals. They are not only more likely to succeed, but more likely to spend that money wisely and in a way that reflects your interests. Bonus: you might see profits someday.
Drax Industries was pretty big a few years back, but they had some unfortunate setbacks.
Well, from all the nay-sayers here, it looks like most people would like to just sit around and await the inevitable end... Let's just keep all our eggs in one basket, shall we... There are any number of catastrophes that could befall our little world that could end our species. It's happened many times before in history. We are the first species that can actually do something about that, and make sure we preserve ourselves... but apparently most people don't feel it's important.
At least there are other countries out there that have the will and the means. The US doesn't have to be the biggest and best any longer, and won't be for much longer anyway... China, India, and who knows who else will be out there long before we go back... Pretty soon, all the big announcements, advancements, etc. will be coming from them. Who knows, maybe one day we will be humbly asking China if they'll take us along, or let us spend time on their moon base.
Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
We are the most adaptable of species, and must colonize to preserve the human species (a species that does not expand range becomes eventually extinct due to statistical factors). Exploration is a freebee of colonization, i.e. we are there, and we like to explore, so we should.
If we happen to stumble alien species above the bacterial level, all the better, though if bacterial/microbial, that would not stop colonization.
I can't be the only one to have imagined ALF as a trophy hanging on the wall and some guy in a space suit kicked back in an arm chair underneath.
The purpose of sending humans into space is not about science, finding life or anything commercial. Sending people into space is about HUMAN EXPLORATION! Even if they'd had the technology, Columbus wouldn't have sent robotic ships to the America's, Cook wouldn't have sent probes to the south seas. They went sailing because they could. FFS, spare us from politicians with purse strings. Every country on earth should have some sort of space programme.
The argument that keeps coming up, that says that we can't afford it (as a public service) - is really a bunch of crap.
Yes - it is TRUE, that if a space program is run as a pork-barrel project (like STS was), then it will be an unsafe, money-suck. Meaningful science will be done, and it will still be FAR cheaper than your imperial war machine. But, please, politicians, sit the FUCK down, and let the engineers do the rocket science. Thanks.
The argument that it must be a sound business proposition, is also a great big pile of crap.
How much did Queen Isabella "invest" in exploring the new world? (not really all that much, in the big scheme of things. I'm sure her jewels were precious to her - but as monarchs and royalty go. . . it was fucking peanuts, and was a no-brainer). What was HER PERSONAL RETURN on that investment? BUPKUS! (actually really awful, since Columbus gets blamed for the extermination of all the indiginous people. It really wasn't solely HIS doing. . . he was a sailor and navigator, not a conqueror or exterminator. I think you're confusing him with someone else. Clearly - extermination HAPPENED. Genocide HAPPENED. But Columbus wasn't really directly responsible.)
But overall - as an ROI to Western Civilization, what was the New World worth?
You can't even estimate that.
Listen - our monetary system - this banking crisis, it's all fucking manufactured. It's ridiculous. A farce. The people who are in charge now, are in charge, because we allow them to be in charge. Their currency has value, because we believe it has value. They preferentially lend it to whomever or whatever, continues their hegemony. So don't fall for the bullshit that we don't have enough money for NASA or space exploration.
The argument that we don't currently have the technology - IS A VALID ARGUMENT. Oh my!
So do we roll over and die? Do we crawl back into the slime at the bottom of the ocean? Or do we choose to do the hard things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard? Sounds like an easy decision to me.
Personally - I believe that robots will make much better "searchers" for extraterrestrial life. But I also believe that humans need to be there, to manage the robotic systems. Spirit and Opportunity could both use a tune-up right about now. A new wheel, maybe some upgraded sensors, faster RAM, etc. Those are probably overy-simplistic examples as a model for the future. Almost anywhere within our solar system, the economics probably favor sending new robots. The capabilities of sensors, mobility and longevity of telerobotic platforms, favor robotics over direct human observation by tens of thousands to one. But someday, we'll be expanding our operations beyond that range.
Just as soon as we solve the technical problem of how we keep bankers from wetting their beds every time the business cycle flips. I believe that this is a psychopharmaceutical problem. Not an economic problem.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.