Re: Physicist James Van Allen Dies at 91

Alan Anderson wrote:

Frank Glover <starr176@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Derek Lyons wrote:


On the other hand, when they want to do science or exploration in the
deep ocean - the tendency is to send robots. You don't get much more
remote than the abyssal plains.

Even those devices take a lot of technology from many decades of manned submersible experience.


Are you talking about mostly autonomous robots, or about RPVs? There's a real difference, with each having possible arguments on both sides of the debate. There's great potential for miscommunication unless you clarify what you mean.


Not sure about Derek, but I was referring to pressure vessel design, electric propulsion and the like, that we saw for decades in manned submersibiles before anyone got serious about unmanned ones, wether autonomus or tethered.

It's much the same with aircraft. RPVs are the 'in' thing in some circles, but except for some of the very smallest ones (that can use flapping wings, for example), their aerodynamic designs were established with manned aircraft long before. (and yes, I know drones of *some* kind go way back too, [the V-1 may be the first cruise missile] but they had limited usefulness before radio control and small, solid-atate electronics)

Only in space did we use machines before and in greater numbers than human presence, making it necessary to specify that a system was 'manned' or 'unmanned.' Until very recently, in aircraft or submersibles, human piloting was an unspoken given. And development of both, has been based on that (we all know what a 'test pilot' does). Unmanned aircraft and submersibles *do* start with that knowledge and technology, before going into RPV-specific issues, rather than re-invent wheels.

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"Man who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt man doing it."
- Chinese Proverb
.

Quantcast