Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 ROBOTS AND HUMANS: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
2 ROBOTS AND HUMANS: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
Pages 9-16
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 9... ...
The result is that the concepts are biased according to the background of the study group; human exploration advocates tend to minimize the use of robots, whereas traditional space scientists tend to downplay the potential of human presence. CHEX believes that decisions regarding the mix of robots and humans to explore the Moon and Mars, and to carry out other scientific investigations in space, should be made with explicit cognizance of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each evaluated in the context of well-defined and specific tasks to be performed.
|
From page 10... ...
will not be expert in all relevant activities, although every attempt should be made to select crews that are highly qualified scientifically. Lastly, as was demonstrated in the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the potential for rapid human reaction in response to a local stimulus or observation has a concomitant potential for rapidly introducing errors.
|
From page 11... ...
Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of humans and robots, CHEX envisages that their relative roles in a Moon/Mars program will evolve as knowledge increases and as technological capabilities advance. The initial phases, largely an extension of current space science and involving such activities as global orbital reconnaissance and the deployment of geophysical and meteorological networks, will be conducted exclusively by robots controlled from Earth or operating with varying degrees of autonomy.
|
From page 12... ...
However, an orderly series of future robotic missions will be required for collection of data relevant to human safety, for site selection, and for the effective identification and development of enabled scientific opportunities. Such a series of robotic missions would include many that would be a normal complement of an ongoing robotic planetary science program.
|
From page 13... ...
This will permit a more informed choice of the landing sites for human missions and the types of investigations to be conducted during surface exploration. The Space Studies Board has recommended that "the next major phase of Mars exploration for the United States involve detailed in situ investigations of the surface of Mars and the return to Earth for laboratory analysis of selected martian surface samples."6 Stepping-stone missions, or "waypoints" in the language of the Synthesis Group's report, may provide significant scientific return and at the same time help to develop the technological capabilities required to get humans to Mars.7 For example, possible waypoints are human exploration of a near-Earth asteroid or the martian moons Phobos and Deimos.~-~° An
|
From page 14... ...
Robotic systems developed, for example, to replace a human welder on an assembly line will not be adequate to function as an extension of humans engaged in field work or maintaining complex instruments on the Moon or Mars. Special features not currently found in industrial robots, such as high-resolution stereoscopic vision and multispectral imaging, would most likely be required to conduct robotically assisted geological field worked i2 Coincident with the development of suitable robotics, one must address their effective use.
|
From page 15... ...
That not much progress has been made can be attributed to a combination of many factors, not all of which are under NASA's control: bureaucratic inertia, organizational conflicts, persistence of irrelevant technologies, low priority relative to nearterm flight programs, inadequate justification of the need, lack of an appropriate requirement for an approved program, and political fear of enabling future programs. This combination of somewhat disconnected reasons begs for top-level, determined attention inside and outside of NASA.
|
From page 16... ...
14. Space Studies Board, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, Committee on Space Science Technology Planning, Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1993.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.