Telepresence — Our Best Bet For Exploring Space 309
Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute recently wrote an opinion piece for the NY Times discussing the limitations of our space technology. He makes the harsh point that transporting human beings to other star systems isn't a reasonable goal even on a multi-generational time frame. However, advances in robotics and data gathering could instead bring the planets and stars to us, and do it far sooner. Quoting:
"Sending humans to the stars is simply not in the offing. But this is how we could survey other worlds, around other suns. We fling data-collecting, robotic craft to the stars. These proxy explorers can be very small, and consequently can be shot spaceward at tremendous speed even with the types of rockets now available. Robot probes don't require life support systems, don't get sick or claustrophobic and don't insist on round-trip tickets. ... These microbots would supply the information that, fed to computers, would allow us to explore alien planets in the same way that we navigate the virtual spaces of video games or wander through online environments like Second Life. High-tech masks and data gloves, sartorial accessories considerably more comfortable than a spacesuit, would permit you to see the landscape, touch objects and even smell the air."
'Human' (Score:4, Interesting)
The real first step in exploring the stars will be re-evaluating what it means to be human. This article assumes that our descendants will be flesh-and-blood, with all of the weaknesses that that entails. But why should we bind our offspring to the ancient, easily-corrupted, and not so easily amended DNA that we ourselves use, when we could give them minds of silicon and arms of steel which fold up in an instant to sleep for the journey from star to star? Or better still, why not send a simple automaton, and transmit its brain at the speed of light? Human is as human does, I suppose, and the human era will quickly draw to a close if we decide that human must mean flesh and blood.
Re:We need a warp drive... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but until then, lets just try another star trek approach [wikipedia.org].
Re:Human exploration IS worthwhile IF... (Score:5, Interesting)
The long term goal of all space exploration should be a permenant human presence on another planet, Mars most likely. All the science is great, but I want the human race to survive if the Earth takes a big hit.
Sooner or later (Score:5, Interesting)
Saying that even multi-generational ships are not "a reasonable goal" begs the question (and is debatable... after all, this is an "opinion piece").
Reasonable or not, eventually it will be done. I have nothing against robotic explorers, but only as precursors to something better.
Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the proposal exactly (well with latency actually yes), but...
Robot probes don't require life support systems, don't get sick or claustrophobic and don't insist on round-trip tickets.
They also can't use intuition and years of training and curiosity combined to go, "hey what's that" as they glance over to the side at something a rover would have just rolled past.
We could learn more in a day of manned exploration of Mars for example than we have with the entire exploration effort to date.
Humans are too flexible not to send out for exploration, and I hate to say it but far cheaper to build (though again you have the issue of latency).
I also refuse to believe we'll never be able to freeze and re-animate a living person hundreds of years later, though that will take a good long while to get right.
Re:Latency (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh... Aren't they forgetting the inconvenient slowness of the speed of light? Unless they solve the FTL comms problem...
Using quantum entanglement, that may not be so far off. If it turns out information can be transmitted near-instantaneously, telepresence could become a reality. Available bandwidth would only be limited by our capacity to create and address these particles and how fast we can read and write to them.
Of course, that's a big "if"...
Re:Latency (Score:4, Interesting)
Which speed of light are you using? The moon is about 385,000 km from Earth.
When the robots land, what they'll find is... (Score:5, Interesting)
More advanced robots, that we developed (along with much faster propulsion systems) in the decades since the originals were launched.
Hat tip: Carl Sagan, I think. Or maybe Azimov.
- Alaska Jack
What risk? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sending "watchers" first, robots, AIs, telepresence, etc, could avoid some of the risks, but will we have enough time?
If there is one resource we have a shitload more than we need or know how to handle its - people. Should we really care for their safety back on Earth?
1.8 people die every second. 106 every minute. Do we hold a minute of silence for those 106 every other minute? People are highly expendable.
Safety is not a problem. If you send colony ships time is also not a problem. Even technology is not really a problem - even now.
Problem is in the liftoff price per kilogram.
Once we get it down to around the price of an intercontinental flight today - colonial-sized ships will start costing something like cruise ships today.
When we get it down to what it costs in gas to drive 100 km today - colony ships will be cheap as jumbo-jets are now.
Only then - we will not be interested in going outside the solar system cause there is enough to keep us busy and well fed here for couple of centuries.
Well... most of the people that is.
Some of us will be busy digging habitat holes in an asteroid or two, strapping some engines to it and pointing it towards the nearest exoplanet.
Re:Latency (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't really agree. I'm not an astronomer or anything, but I would think that most of the interesting science that is done using interstellar probes will end up being done via data analysis, not utilizing systems that simulate environmental engagement (if that doesn't describe the essence of telepresence, then the word doesn't mean anything anyway).
So interstellar probes probably will be used to explore the universe, but describing something where input and feedback takes years as telepresence doesn't add any clarity to your message, and it maybe makes telepresence less useful as a word.
Re:Round trick tickets? (Score:3, Interesting)
You or any other individual doesn't need to live that long. All you need is to create a vehicle that can be a comfortable home to a group of people who can live together and reproduce without killing each other off. They can work at maintaining the vehicle, producting food, and use simulations for entertainment and exercise. If the group doesn't contain pairs that can breed safely, even that can be acomplished with in vitro fertilization, using simulations of better than the real thing to make it more fun.
This would probably require a lot more psychological and physical testing than required to live on our current spaceship, but for those lucky enough to pass the tests, it could be an extremely satisfying lifestyle. Sign me up.
Re:Latency (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, Slashdotters really think *way* too highly of themselves... or way too little of the average scientist.
I believe the question was about whether this plan takes into account that there's a speed limit. Realistically, the best idea within our present technological imagination is either solar wind sails or ion drive. With either of those, the further you go, the faster you'll go. But at the halfway point of either of those technologies so far, you reverse the craft (drive) because it takes as long to decelerate that accelerate. Now, doing an rough order of magnitude calculation where you achieve half of the speed of light, it will take you more than 4 years to get to the halfway point of our nearest star, more than 8 years to get there, more than 12 years to get your first signals back. So - rough order of magnitude - take the distance to target in light years, multiply by 3, to get time to receipt of first signal - minimum. (Yes, the approach falls apart the further you go out - I beg the reader's patience - note well that a target 60 light years away will take (way) well over 120 years, anyway.)
So - I do not see how your response to the question in any whatsoever responds to the question.
I don't know who these Slashdotters are that too highly of themselves of which you speak. I have worked space systems - to iterate in clear text: platforms I've performed significant (at the very in least, in time and level of effort) work on are in deep space flight as we speak. I have worked under the auspices of the US DoD, DOE and NASA.
Some people might think that I think pretty highly of myself. In fact, it's a common common occurrence in my real life to meet that prejudice. But I do not think too highly of myself because at the aforementioned agencies, I've met a lot of people who are really smart, and I wouldn't dare to lump myself in with them.
In other words - the validity of a question in the world of science has absolutely nothing to do with who thinks what of themselves and who has what credentials. In the world of science and engineering, good questions and good points stand on their own merits.
That said - it is a VERY good question as to whether or not extreme distance has been taken into account. As far as I recall, the neighborhood doesn't get interesting until you get out some 20 light years, at least. The parent's question is VERY good because it raises at least one really interesting engineering question - who here believes that the envisioned ground-based tech will survive for 50 or more years? Probably no one. Who here believes that this will just all work out with equivalent or presumed-superior future technologies? Who want to raise their hand without a brief overview of the many case histories where that was NOT the case?
Here's another good question: what does it mean that these proxy explorers can be very small? So far as I recall, the only tech to get data back will be on some kind of EM wave. So far as I know, the viable viable EM tech - due to maturity, reliability, power consumption and xceiver size - is radio. I repeat the question - what are the assumptions of equipment size, weight and power consumption when we say we can do this - transmit from, say, 20 light years away? In other words, what is this "small" of which SETI speaks? (Another reference to the parent's unaddressed concern about comm problems, but from a different perspective.)
Permit me to reign back from interstellar to interplanetary - and continue my criticism of the quotes attributed to Dr. Shostak (kindly note my important choice of those words) - at what point would I want to experience the smells of the deadly airs predominant in our solar system? Ridiculous!
Dr. Shostak is well published and credentialed. However - the summary and article suggests that either the NYT is lame or Dr. Shostak is.
Therefore, your criticisms of TheLink are neither insightful nor well-founded. You did not addres
Re:Latency (Score:3, Interesting)
The furthest traveled object (Voyager 1) has gone for over 30 years with very high speed and has not even left the planetary system yet (it is around the distance of Eris, ~110AU), not to mention Heliopause [1,2].
Here is your flight map though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solarmap.png [wikipedia.org] (note: logarithmic)
Can we ever overtake this? Good luck getting a object faster than Voyager 1.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Voyager_1_entering_heliosheath_region.jpg [wikipedia.org]
[2] http://heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp?/ [heavens-above.com]
Re:Latency (Score:1, Interesting)
An easy way to remember the Earth-Moon distance is that it's roughly 256+128 = 384. I always find it easier to remember numbers like 384, 192 etc. which are sums of powers of two.