Remote-Controlled Robots Explore 'Lost City'

Roland Piquepaille writes "A large team of oceanographers is again exploring 'Lost City,' an hydrothermal vent field located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, which was discovered in 2000 and named like this because of the myth of Atlantis. But this time, the oceanographers are not on a ship. Most of them are in a room at the University of Washington in Seattle. And according to this article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, they're using high-speed Internet connections to control robotic vehicles exploring the deep Atlantic Ocean thousands of miles away. Thanks to satellites, the remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) Argus and Hercules can transmit videos back to Seattle in real time. After analysis, the scientists can move the ROVs to specific areas of interest without having their feet wet. Read more for other details, references and pictures about this project."

Re:Science, with clean hands

[JanneM]

In this case, what's the difference, really? If you go "there" in person, you're still looking out through a thick glass window (or, more likely, at a monitor), and manipulating the world around you with buttons, joysticks and other remote controls.

The difference really is, when you're there in person you're only in control of one (large, cumbersome) exploring unit, you can explore for a lot shorter time (since so much resources is spent on keeping you alive), and you waste hours just traveling down, then up again. Oh, and due to safety reasons and a far larger, more fragile craft, you won't be able to take the same risks or all the same observations you can remotely.

Much of science hasn't been "hands on" for years or decades. Mostly, it's not a loss. It may be romantic to freeze your ass off on some mountain top with a telescope, but there is again little point when all your observations and data analysis is done off-site anyway. And it's not only in exploratory science either; just check out the state of automation in a chemistry lab today. Then check out the life expectancy of an experimental organic chemist and you'll see a reason automation is a good thing.

Re:not real time

[JanneM]

The critical parameter is "upper limit". Hard real-time systems are fairly slow; what they have is that they _guarantee_ a response within some time limit. Every time. Soft real-time systems would typically have one limit stating the maximum allowable average response rate, and a second, higher limit stating the maximum allowable ever. "real time" implies that the system won't let the world "get ahead"; things will not get queued further and further afield without limit.

Nothing in the concept of "real-time" does it say the response has to be fast. Consistent, yes, but not fast. If you have a system guaranteeing a response within ten seconds, every time, that is real-time.

Re:Science, with clean hands

[Locke2005]

You have obviously never actually experienced a 7 hour commute to the ocean floor to do a few hours work, followed by a 48 hour decompression period. And by the way, given that the pressure is several atmosheres, you're pretty much forced to do everything by remote control anyway, even if your are in a sub! Given a choice of sitting around 80% of the time doing nothing, or working by remote control, I think I would choose remote control. Unless, of course, we're exploring the Dallas Cheerleaders' locker room... some things you just have to do by hand!