People are needed in the field to analyze the overabundant data and determine what should be collected and what should be ignored. The transition from reconnaissance to field study is fuzzy. In any exploration, reconnaissance dominates the earliest phases. Because it is based on broad questions and simple, focused tasks, reconnaissance is the type of exploration best suited to robots.
Unmanned orbiters can provide general information about the atmosphere, surface features and magnetic fields of a planet. Rovers can traverse the planet's surface, testing the physical and chemical properties of the soil and collecting samples for return to Earth.
But field study is complicated, interpretive and protracted. The method of solving the scientific puzzle is often not apparent immediately but must be formulated, applied and modified during the course of the study. Most important, fieldwork nearly always involves uncovering the unexpected. A surprising discovery may lead scientists to adopt new exploration methods or to make different observations. But an unmanned probe on a distant planet cannot be redesigned to observe unexpected phenomena.
Although robots can gather significant amounts of data, conducting science in space requires scientists. It is true that robotic missions are much less costly than human missions; I contend that they are also much less capable.
The unmanned Luna 16, 20 and 24 spacecraft launched by the Soviet Union in the s are often praised for returning soil samples from the moon at little cost. But the results from those missions are virtually incomprehensible without the paradigm provided by the results from the manned Apollo program.
During the Apollo missions, the geologically trained astronauts were able to select the most representative samples of a given locality and to recognize interesting or exotic rocks and act on such discoveries. In contrast, the Luna samples were scooped up indiscriminately by the robotic probes. We understand the geologic makeup and structure of each Apollo site in much greater detail than those of the Luna sites.
For a more recent example, consider the Mars Pathfinder mission, which was widely touted as a major success. Although Pathfinder discovered an unusual, silica-rich type of rock, because of the probe's limitations we do not know whether this composition represents an igneous rock, an impact breccia or a sedimentary rock. Each mode of origin would have a widely different implication about the history of Mars. Because the geologic context of the sample is unknown, the discovery has negligible scientific value.
A trained geologist could have made a field identification of the rock in a few minutes, giving context to the subsequent chemical analyses and making the scientific return substantially greater.
But is the physical presence of people really required? Telepresence—the remote projection of human abilities into a machine—may permit field study on other planets without the danger and logistical problems associated with human spaceflight.
In telepresence the movements of a human operator on Earth are electronically transmitted to a robot that can reproduce the movements on another planet's surface. As a bonus, the robot surrogate can be given enhanced strength, endurance and sensory capabilities.
If telepresence is such a great idea, why do we need humans in space? For one, the technology is not yet available. Vision is the most important sense used in field study, and no real-time imaging system developed to date can match human vision, which provides 20 times more resolution than a video screen.
But the most serious obstacle for telepresent systems is not technological but psychological. The process that scientists use to conduct exploration in the field is poorly understood, and one cannot simulate what is not understood.
Finally, there is the critical problem of time delay. Ideally, telepresence requires minimal delays between the operator's command to the robot, the execution of the command and the observation of the effect. The distances in space are so vast that instantaneous response is impossible. A signal would take 2. The round-trip delay between Earth and Mars can be as long as 40 minutes, making true telepresence impossible.
Robotic Mars probes must rely on a cumbersome interface, which forces the operator to be more preoccupied with physical manipulation than with exploration. The station is not a destination, however; it is a place to learn how to roam farther afield. Although some scientific research will be done there, the station's real value will be to teach astronauts how to live and work in space.
Astronauts must master the process of in-orbit assembly so they can build the complex vehicles needed for interplanetary missions. In the coming decades, the moon will also prove useful as a laboratory and test bed.
Astronauts at a lunar base could operate observatories and study the local geology for clues to the history of the solar system. They could also use telepresence to explore the moon's inhospitable environment and learn how to mix human and robotic activities to meet their scientific goals.
The motives for exploration are both emotional and logical. The desire to probe new territory, to see what's over the hill, is a natural human impulse. This impulse also has a rational basis: by broadening the imagination and skills of the human species, exploration improves the chances of our long-term survival.
Judicious use of robots and unmanned spacecraft can reduce the risk and increase the effectiveness of planetary exploration. But robots will never be replacements for people. Some scientists believe that artificial-intelligence software may enhance the capabilities of unmanned probes, but so far those capabilities fall far short of what is required for even the most rudimentary forms of field study.
He received his Ph. He writes and lectures on the subject of science policy; his commentaries have appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post. PAUL D. He earned his Ph. Geological Survey's astrogeology branch until His research has focused on the moon's geologic history and on volcanism and impact cratering on the planets.
This article was originally published with the title "Robots vs. Humans: Who Should Explore Space? Francis Slakey is an adjunct professor of physics at Georgetown University and associate director of public affairs for the American Physical Society.
Paul D. Spudisis a staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue.
It is noted that new structural factors of safety have not been derived on the basis of any rational consideration of the design conditions for stability or pressure critical structure.
Subscribers can view annotate, and download all of SAE's content. Learn More ». View Details. Browse Publications Technical Papers While probe data is useful, they contend one mission with a live geologist could answer all their questions in a few weeks, while endless robotic probes may never be able to provide a clear picture of Mars. A geologist can apply all his or her senses to quickly make determinations as to what to study and what to ignore.
Robotic probes could easily miss important clues and waste time on unproductive lines of exploration and study. We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can. Scientists aside, public opinion has done much to keep manned spaceflight alive. Humanity sees itself conquering space directly, not by proxy. Indeed, support for astronauts extends well beyond simple polling. People are spending money to go into space as tourists. Chapters of the Mars Society exist in almost every major country - all pushing for manned missions with goals like the human exploration of Mars.
The major missing factor is simply the realization and the commitment necessary to begin. The people of the Mars Society are working to educate and convince the political powers, the industry leaders, and you and me.
We all have a stake in this. President Bush has even stepped up with a promise finish the International Space station by — only five years late — and for a manned mission to the moon by Much political wrangling will need to be done, however, if the funding is to materialize.
Safety problems with the shuttle program continue to dog NASA as well, further putting in doubt these goals. It will take more than just the words of a few politicians to keep manned spaceflight alive. The will of the people needs to be felt through their representatives on Congressional budget committees — we have the money and the technology.
Do we have the will? One avenue now being actively explored by space enthusiasts is private funding. Private industry has more than 1, launches - mostly communications satellites— before Like in the days of early pioneering, private initiative is becoming the mainstay of space exploration.
The question is: can manned space exploration pay? After all, corporations are about by profit for their shareholders. We must go to space — if not now, later, as the living area and resources on Earth dry up. Will we be on the forefront of this exploration, living in space and adapting it to our will like the hardy pioneers of old? Or will we stay at home to see these new horizons via virtual reality — only moving in to our new space bound homes when they are safe and comfortable?
Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form. For general feedback, use the public comments section below please adhere to guidelines. Your feedback is important to us.
However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages. Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email.
0コメント