RE: Moon is part of Mars
June 17, 2019 at 8:52 am
(This post was last modified: June 17, 2019 at 9:12 am by Anomalocaris.)
(June 16, 2019 at 7:58 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Do you find this uplifting?
A future astronaut looks for signs of ancient life on Mars, pictured in NASA concept art by Pat Rawlings, 1996.
Some other people find building replica of noah’s Ark uplifting too. I do not propose that “uplifting” can often be a sufficient justification for colossal investment of limited collective resources of humanity if one is interested in, ta some level, sound custodianship of humanity’s future .
The issue is never whether a robot could earn a PhD in field archeology, field geology, or field paleontology. Although I think he chances that one able to do so can be made in the next 50 years or so is actually quite good.
The question is can a robot be a efficient eyes and hands of a not one self contained PhD, but any appropriate team of such PHD at 1/10, 1/100, or even 1/1000th the cost of putting an actual PhD in situ.
For the same cost, can a fleet of robots explore 10, 100, 1000 times as much of mars with the same consideration and discernment as any PhD because such PhD are managing the robots, as a single suited PhD on mars?
What is more, when the first PhD To inevitably meet a grisly end on Mars gasps out his last in his breached suit and beneath an avalanche of interesting mars rocks that may have piqued his interest out of superficial resemblance look like misshapen obelisk, or an owl’s skull, would the nation that thumped it’s collective chest at his touch down continue to think the “uplift” worth the cost? Ronots can be, and has been, written off and replaced, often with better and more capable replacements, many times already.
(June 17, 2019 at 7:31 am)LastPoet Wrote: It's similar to the batsign or the thundercats call.
Doesn’t call or signify much of anything if it’s always showing what it shows according to a rigid predictable schedule.