Re: LA-4541-MS

What do you know about robotics that I don't know? Do you know about
the 'bin picking problem?' Check it out

http://www.automationworld.com/view-1878

Here is what this industry leader says;

"For more than two decades, machine vision practitioners have been
predicting the commercial emergence of robotic random bin-picking--the
ability of vision-guided robot arms to locate and pick individual
parts from a jumble of parts piled haphazardly in a bin or container.

"Highly flexible, random bin-picking systems would produce major
savings for manufacturers, the early proponents declared. Human
workers would no longer be required to unload incoming parts bins
shipped by suppliers. And on machining and production lines,
randomized parts piled in bins could replace expensive fixturing,
tooling and component feeders used for part orientation.

"Unfortunately, the widespread exuberance for the technology in the
early 1980s gave way to hard reality later on. The "bin-picking
problem" proved more difficult than anticipated. Bin-picking systems
developed in the laboratories, it turned out, didn't translate well
into real-world factory applications. "The industry found out that
this wasn't so easy."

Now, this is how difficult it is to IDENTIFY and pick up a part in a
bin of identical parts! The tooling to hold parts so they can be
picked, kills a lot of applications.

That's because humans EMBODY information as well as know information.
WE EMBODY huge amounts of information that EVOLVED over BILLIONS OF
YEARS of PLANETARY EVOLUTION.

We have to KNOW a thing before we can program a thing.

So, we have had automation in things like Calculus, or logistical
management - getting rid of millions of middle managers with college
degrees - but we don't have automation in things like burger flipping
or rest-room cleaning - because we embody but do not know - HUGE
amounts of information.

So, I know enough about automation to say this - if you think you do
anything with robots on the moon in a realistic way - you are
supposing another unobtainium at the present time.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A THEORY OF MECHANICAL MANIPULATION.

Take an arm with a wrist, an elbow and a shoulder. That's seven
degrees of freedom. Now you pick up a well placed object at point A,
and place it in a well placed reciever at point B. Easy.

WHATS THE OPTIMAL CONFIGURATION IN THE 7 DIMENSIONAL SPACE TO QUICKLY
MOVE THE GRIPPER FROM WHERE IT IS TO POINT A AND THEN TO POINT B?

This is an NP dificult problem! Do you even know what that means?
The problem suffers from combinatorial explosion. Add another arm,
and coordinate them efficiently, and you get 7! (seven factorial)
times as difficult! Its like look-ahead in chess playing - it gets
really really hard really really quick.

YET WE EMBODY THIS INFORMATION SUBCONCIOUSLY! Its so easy for us to
pick up something at A and move it to B efficiently - we don't even
think about it. We don't even know we need to know. That's how
ignorant we are.

We don't even know the knowledge we need to know in order to solve the
problem of EFFICIENT robotics.

Brooks at MIT may have a glimmer of a clue - and he's spent his entire
career teasing his idea of emergent systems into the basis of a
science - but its slow going.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/publications.html

I believe we will have workable robots in about 100 years, if we're
lucky. This is just an article of faith at present, since we don't
even know enough to make predictions. It may be if we're unlucky,
never.

That's okay, we can use tele-robotics. I've suggested that several
times. Thus you can have a workforce on Earth, control a robotic
workforce at a remote location.

But then we have a problem of time delay. You need about 1/10th
second response times at present - we may with tricks extend that to
1/5th second.

This is related to the Nyquist stability criterion for accurate and
repeatable control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_stability_criterion

This limits the range of your radio relay to about 30,000 km on the
inside, and 60,000 km on the outside. The moon is over 300,000 km
away. So, while you can control a rover, and some automatic
processes, very slowly, very inefficiently when compared to onsite
production, you cannot run a factory on the moon from Earth.

You CAN run a factory in MEO from Earth - but that's a totally
different proposition.

But of course, you might know so much more than me, I couldn't even
begin to understand your thinking.

While I agree with the latter proposition - you have yet to convince
me of the former.

YOU Brad - said you were going to use LUNAR resources. Not me. If I
were building a lunar tether - assuming I had unobtainium - I'd fly
off to the asteroid belt and find a suitable asteroid, and using
nuclear pulse units, bring it back to MEO and build a teleoperated
factory on that asteroid. THEN, I'd build the tether on orbit,
telerobotically.

Once I had my tether and all the fixins, I'd fly a crew of about 300
in a big nuclear pulse ship, back to the finished tether and the
remains of the asteroid. Using the same nuclear pulse technique that
captured the asteroid again - I'd then fly the whole shebang to L1.
Leaving the teleoperated factory in MEO.

I'd use the asteroid remnant as a counter weight, and lower my tether
to the moon, slide down the tether, with stuff I made to secure it
there, and then fly the ship back to Earth.

In that way, I'd have no more than 300 people in space, and save about
99% the cost of the project,

Of course that's just me - you may have a better idea. But somehow I
doubt it.



On Apr 8, 1:37 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My goodness, you really don't understand the first fundamental thing
about robotics, but you know all there is to know about imposing your
nayism, as though it were the one and only word of God. Way to go,
Willie (aka God).

Sadly, Willie.Moo just doesn't deductively think, much less outside of
your cozy mainstream box. You can't even hardly make your PC/MAC do
the thinking for you.



Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 7, 2:18 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:43 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 7, 12:17 am, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 6, 12:15 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 6, 2:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 5, 2:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 5, 4:08 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Again, you take statements of facts personally. I neither like nor
dislike any concept. I can say of any concept however, whether it is
workable or not. Your CM/ISS and attached LSE doesn't appear to me to
be workable or especially useful even if it were. I have given you
detailed technical and engineering reasons for these conclusions. You
have not appreciated them, misunderstood them, and generally ignored
them. So, I will not repeat them here yet again.

Now, my conclusions may be in error. If so, then it is up to you to
understand the factual basis of my conclusions, and provide clear and
rational rebuttal. You have failed to do that. While you have stated
quite ardently that you believe my conclusions are in error, you have
failed to provide any rational basis for such a conclusion. That is,
blaming various religious orders and a vast conspiracy to hide or
distort scientific facts - is not a rational rebuttal to the fact that
say hydrogen peroxide has 1/9th the energy content and 3x the cost of
gasoline per gallon. haha..

The thing isBrad, I'm writing about nuclear pulse rockets here. Why
do you think its alright to come along and post endless blahter about
things having nothing to do with nuclear pulse rockets? Because you
need to? Well, you can come to a dinner party uninvited, and that
might be alright, no one will throw you out. And you might even have
to *** urgently. That's okay too, the toilets over there. But when
you come to my dinner party and *** all over my fine china, well I've
gotta ask you to leave old friend. Look at this thread just look at
it. 75% - 3 out 4 posts are about you and me talking about nothing at
all to do with nuclear pulse rockets in the report I mentioned. WHY
IS THATBRAD? Not only that, the stuff you say is damned
offensive! Anyone reading any of the bull*** you routinely put out
- for the first time - would never come back to this thread again.
And 3 out of 4 posts in the thread will contain something that
objectionable - because you've taken a lot of time - to make sure they
are there.

brad, if you were a paid agent dedicated to disrupting reasonable
discourse about nuclear pulse rockets, you couldn't do a better job
achieving it. You are sick, and you are destroying the very thing you
care most about. GET HELP AND LEAVE ME THE *** ALONE! haha..

Finally, imho, fusion powered rockets are the way to go if you have
them. Barring that, laser powered rockets do a helluva job. Barring
that, efficient reusable chemical rockets of adequate size can be made
to serve. Making these technologies possible, and lowering their
cost, is the way to promote the opening of the solar system. Tethers
and all that are highly speculative, far more than fusion rockets -
and they need rockets to be put in place.. They will in all
likelihood be used one day - but they won't blaze the first trails
into the unknown, they're built up after the frontier is opened..
We'll use rockets to start, and once traffic volume exceeds a certain
level, we'll use tethers as a mean to support increased volumes at
lower costs.

Your LSE-CM/ISS nayism is noted. Too bad the best available gateway/
oasis/outpost is going to be created and controlled by China, or
perhaps India.

Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/OASISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf

Building an L1 Depot in Phases:
Growing in step with operations on the Moon's surface
http://chapters.nss.org/hub/pdf%20presentations/LIphases.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per any given fly-by-rocket method is by far
the most obtainable if such payload tonnage were intended for
deployment into the moon's L1 pocket. This ML-1 location is an
interactive gravity-null or quiet zone of otherwise being nearly ideal
for efficiently station-keeping as much volumetric size and tonnage as
you'd like, and rather fly-by-rocket efficient if it's robotically
getting there in no special hurry, such as for taking a lunar month if
need be, is good enough as far as robotics seem to care.

However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also
double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even
partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar
energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid
yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon,
especially as for the moon's L1 being the least bit cool or much less
cold as reported by those NASA/Apollo missions it is not, especially
if there's multiple human bodies plus loads of systems and
instrumentation heat to continually get rid of, as such thermal energy
is not as technically easy to get rid of such internal and absorbed
solar heat as you'd think, especially since unlike the 50% dark time
of ISS, there's not much greater than 2% dark time per any given year
while situated within the moon's L1, meaning that for days on end
there's none of that shade whatsoever, as well as at times getting
that IR energy as derived from three directions at once.

My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its
counter mass of a truly substantial space habitat that's extremely
well shielded, and of its tether dipole element reaching that other
habitat capable pod or module to within 2r of Earth, is far better
than either of the above or that of anything NASA's NExT space station/
gateway has to offer.

BTW, I'm not the least bit opposed to nuclear impulse rockets, or much
less of my Rn222 ion thrusters for the long haul so that only a small
amount of controlled thorium nuclear derived energy is required. I'm
actually one of the few good-guys when it comes to using the best
available energy for accomplishing the interplanetary task of getting
folks safely to/from those off-world places.
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Using the lagrange points as a transfer point makes sense if you are
energy limited. That does not describe a nuclear pulse spacecraft -
so you need to take your discussion to a thread, or start a thread
yourself, on this subject to share it with others.

The LSE/CM/ISS that's moon tethered and situated at the moon's L1
would offer an ideal remote location and long-term survivable habitat,
as an outpost/oasis/gateway in order to assemble and even fuel up that
massive nuclear pulse spacecraft of yours.
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You build it on Earth and depart from Earth. That's the easiest way
to go, and then land where you want to land, and take off from there.

Have it your massive and environment polluting way.

BTW, the private environmental permit ticket to ride will likely add a
few billions to the cost of your budget, just to buy off the horrific
amounts of CO2, NOx and any number of other toxins getting put into
the polluted atmosphere and of our badly failing surface environment.

BTW No.2, is this project of yours or of others going

...

read more >>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading