Re: Argosy Mission Overhaul

[kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39)]

At 10:06 AM 3/14/96, Brian Mansur wrote:
> ----------
>From: kgstar
>To: T.L.G.vanderLinden
>Cc: KellySt; kgstar; stevev; jim; zkulpa; hous0042; rddesign; David;
>lparker; bmansur
>Subject: Re: Argosy Mission Overhaul
>Date: Tuesday, March 12, 1996 9:51AM
>
>At 3:11 PM 3/12/96, Timothy van der Linden wrote:
>>To Brian,
>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>We "know" AI-robots could make anything work but that solution would be a
>>>bit >too simple, unless we could come up with a rough design for such kind
>>>of >robot.
>>>
>>>Actually, I'm assuming that robots would have limits based on their
>>>programming.  I imagine that the first working, completely automated
>systems
>>>would, in some ways, be less efficient in computer controled hands than if
>>>humans were doing the same job.  For example: how do you think computers
>and
>>>robots would have handled the job of bringing home the  Apollo 13 crew?
>>
>>In my opinion such robots are intelligent or they aren't (no way between).
>>Say that you have figured out a machine with an IQ of 40. Then you could
>>probably link them up in such a way that 10 of them together would have an
>>IQ of 100.
>
>>Kelly
>>Have you ever tried putting a room full of morons together and expect them
>>to do one inteligent persons work?  It doesn't work.  Mobs tend to be less
>>equivelent then the sum of their parts.  Given that we have no idea on how
>>to make an A.I. work its hard to tell what it could do, or what its
>>limitations would be.  It could be far more inteligent than humamans, or be
>>an idiot savant.  Great at one thing, and hopeless in general.
>
>Point taken, but I see no other option than to assume that we can create
>them.   We need them to set up opposing maser arrays at TC.  And these
>robots may (or may not) be doing an "intelligent person's" work.  Even by
>2050, we can expect automation in the factory to increase even beyond what
>we have today.   We already make cars with minimal human supervision.  Why
>not maser cannons and solar arrays.  Then we build computers and program
>them to run the whole system.

The whole issue of heavy construction at the target star system(s) is a
mess. The Explorers would need a lot of minning to fuel them for the return
flight, or a lot of prefab laser launchers.  The sail systems would need to
mechaform (terraform to a machine world) a planet into a maser emmitter.
These are the weakest parts of our ideas.

Given that the A.I.s would be forced to work in an uncontroled environment
(I.E. not in a factory.) and expected to self replicate they would be way
over the top technically.

>Of course, if we want to lower our terminal velocity to .33c, we could
>launch our ship via maser sail and decel into TC using a 144:1 fuel ratio as
>figured in New idea Laser launcher/scoop systems.  This would allow us to
>scale down AI's to mindless robotic machines that are task specific.  We
>take some along with us to mine iron ore from asteroids for the trip home.
> Of course, going to TC would take forever at .33c (compared to what you
>guys want).
>
>Here is a thought I've heard before.  We could even break down the sail for
>added fuel.  Still, the extra fuel is going to increase the sail size.  And
>for the ions from the sail to be useful, they must be of the same kind.
> Unless we could separate them during the breakdown process and feed only
>one kind of ion at a time into the ion drive.  Oh boy.

Problem is, sails arn't built out of fuel.  We could use them for reaction
mass, but that doesn't help without power.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kelly Starks                       Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)

----------------------------------------------------------------------