Robotics essay
For those of you who have a little extra time, you can read the robotics essay (the funny version). Tara, Josh, and I worked on it but Catherine and Brian said no. So, we kept it and sent it to multiple emails before we "boreifyed" it and made it monotonous. For those of you who don't have so much time, I suggest watching "Canon Rock", the link to which you can find on the post below this one.
There is a word coming into headlines today: "robots", more specifically, robots in space. NASA, ESA, and others are sending robots into space to do things that humans normally do. This raises a major question though, should robots replace humans in space? First, what are robots doing out in the galaxy? Should they continue to replace jobs in on a shuttle or station? What gives them the advantage over us? Last, what advantage do humans have that robots do not?
Despite this recent controversy, robots have already been sent to space. For example, one of the most recent major launches was the launch of twin Martian landers, Spirit and Opportunity in 2003 and landed in 2004. The main purpose of this expedition was to gather data on life, geology, and the atmosphere to prepare for human exploration on Mars.
More directly related to the theme, there are robots in space used for general maintenance and tasks. For example, the arm on the space shuttle is entirely composed of robotic technology and manipulated by humans (for now). This arm is used for many different tasks, from repairing satellites to changing batteries on telescopes (*cough*).
Other robots are satellites themselves: the Hubble, the ISS, GOES, Chandra, and your favorite TV station. They give us images of the Earth, other planets, other galaxies, and on a smaller scale…us. They also protect us from other countries by tracking different operations around the world.
Besides these mentioned, other robots are in production, on paper, in the ideas, and dreams of many different people. For example, SEI is creating a robot that is to protect us from a little known, but a possibly major threat: asteroids. Their robot is called MADMEN (Modular Asteroid Deflection Mission Ejector Node). In summary, it lands on and drill into the asteroid and flings its pieces into space, thereby altering the initial course of the asteroid.
The debate over whether robots should replace humans in space can now be further examined. The side some people take in this ongoing debate is influenced by the many advantages robots have over humans in space. First, robots are cheaper to put into space. When putting a human in space one has to consider all the necessities of a living being: food, water, shelter, and…I know there’s something else…hold on…wait…I got it…AIR! A robot only needs to be capable of surviving the harsh conditions of space. Second, putting a robot in space is safer than putting a human in space (will you imagine that don’t tell Catherine I said that) because, there is no moral conflict in the loss of equipment as opposed to the loss of human life. This brings up the next reason, robots are replaceable. One cannot build another human if one is destroyed.
On the other hand, humans have many advantages in space over robots. First, robots cannot think on their feet if a crisis arises. A human can make decisions and solve problems (well, some can anyway) whereas a robot has to wait for a human command. Robots also cannot make moral decisions. If someone gives a command to a robot, it is going to implement it (wish the band could do that). However, a human can see that a decision is wrong and rebel, possibly saving lies. Last, robots only take in information they are programmed to collect. Humans, on the other hand, take in all the data they are around (some just can’t use it). For example, should a robot pass a Martian civilization, it would take no notice of it. A human, though, would certainly notice it (if they don’t they’re just retarded).
Thus, robots have replaced humans in many fields of astronomy and space exploration. Should they continue to do so? After all, robots are replaceable, safer, and all around easier to send into space. However, humans have the innate advantage of a human mind, which can think, consider consequences, and make decisions based on moral judgement and instincts. Therefore one must consider what is more important to a job well done in space and what one is willing to risk for the sake of discovery.
There is a word coming into headlines today: "robots", more specifically, robots in space. NASA, ESA, and others are sending robots into space to do things that humans normally do. This raises a major question though, should robots replace humans in space? First, what are robots doing out in the galaxy? Should they continue to replace jobs in on a shuttle or station? What gives them the advantage over us? Last, what advantage do humans have that robots do not?
Despite this recent controversy, robots have already been sent to space. For example, one of the most recent major launches was the launch of twin Martian landers, Spirit and Opportunity in 2003 and landed in 2004. The main purpose of this expedition was to gather data on life, geology, and the atmosphere to prepare for human exploration on Mars.
More directly related to the theme, there are robots in space used for general maintenance and tasks. For example, the arm on the space shuttle is entirely composed of robotic technology and manipulated by humans (for now
Other robots are satellites themselves: the Hubble, the ISS, GOES, Chandra, and your favorite TV station. They give us images of the Earth, other planets, other galaxies, and on a smaller scale…us. They also protect us from other countries by tracking different operations around the world.
Besides these mentioned, other robots are in production, on paper, in the ideas, and dreams of many different people. For example, SEI is creating a robot that is to protect us from a little known, but a possibly major threat: asteroids. Their robot is called MADMEN (Modular Asteroid Deflection Mission Ejector Node). In summary, it lands on and drill into the asteroid and flings its pieces
The debate over whether robots should replace humans in space can now be further examined. The side some people take in this ongoing debate is influenced by the many advantages robots have over humans in space. First, robots are cheaper to put into space. When putting a human in space one has to consider all the necessities of a living being: food, water, shelter, and…I know there’s something else…hold on…wait…I got it…AIR! A robot only needs to be capable of surviving the harsh conditions of space. Second, putting a robot in space is safer than putting a human in space (will you imagine that don’t tell Catherine I said that) because, there is no moral conflict in the loss of equipment as opposed to the loss of human life. This brings up the next reason, robots are replaceable. One cannot build another human if one is destroyed.
On the other hand, humans have many advantages in space over robots. First, robots cannot think on their feet if a crisis arises. A human can make decisions and solve problems (well, some can anyway) whereas a robot has to wait for a human command. Robots also cannot make moral decisions. If someone gives a command to a robot, it is going to implement it (wish the band could do that). However, a human can see that a decision is wrong and rebel, possibly saving lies. Last, robots only take in information they are programmed to collect. Humans, on the other hand, take in all the data they are around (some just can’t use it). For example, should a robot pass a Martian civilization, it would take no notice of it. A human, though, would certainly notice it (if they don’t they’re just retarded).
Thus, robots have replaced humans in many fields of astronomy and space exploration. Should they continue to do so? After all, robots are replaceable, safer, and all around easier to send into space. However, humans have the innate advantage of a human mind, which can think, consider consequences, and make decisions based on moral judgement and instincts. Therefore one must consider what is more important to a job well done in space and what one is willing to risk for the sake of discovery.
posted by Chris at 7:36 PM
5 Comments:
Thank you, and I know you...you're Katie (is that how you spell it?). And to Catherine, you see? She thinks it's good.
KAITE!!!!
you know the judges would not have thought that good!
and wow chris you are really proud of that essay aren't you?
I would comment under the name "known errata", but re-changing all of the information to get it right again would take too long, and you might not know who it is.
Right off the bat, I could barely take in what was being said for all of the grammatical errors and sentences that just don't make sense. I am a critical proofreader, and I expect the same type of excellence from an essay as I do from a marching band. I am not going to make a lot of suggestions for this though. Just keep in mind that the people reading this are experienced engineers from Raytheon (possibly some other companies as well), and it would most likely be profitable to be able to write on a level that impresses them.
The only thing I will say beyond my general statements is that it is always wise to use the full form of an acronym before using the actual acronym (e.g. NASA, ESA, SEI...), even if it is common knowledge.
First, yes, I am proud of my essay. Second, it is only a rough draft. Third, it was not submitted to the notebook.
I read what was submitted to the notebook. It was no better.
My word verification ("omeeh") looks oddly like "Oh me!", a phrase which could have gone through our heads at robotics.
Post a Comment
<< Home