Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!milton!brucec%phoebus.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET
From: brucec%phoebus.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bruce Cohen;;50-662;LP=A;)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: NASA technology choices
Message-ID: <17669@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 91 18:00:40 GMT
References: <221.27C7998F@nss.FIDONET.ORG> <1991Feb25.175137.2792@elroy.jpl.
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
Lines: 24
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu



In article <17372@milton.u.washington.edu> szabo@sequent.com (Nick Szabo) 
writes:
> 
> Does operator fatigue cost even a significant fraction of the space station
> astronaut time required for on-site teleoperation? 

It certainly might if it increased the incidence of accidents caused by
operator error due to fatigue.  I suspect that shifts would have to be very
short to prevent the level of fatigue which can cause those kinds of slip.
The problem is that when using very "laggy" control systems the operator is
kept at a high mental tension / concentration level, with a high level of
muscular tension as well, constantly overcontrolling muscles so as not to
oversteer the controlled system.

I'm not saying that this is an overriding reason to use the more expensive
system, just that it's not as trivial objection as it looks at first blush.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker-to-managers, aka
Bruce Cohen, Computer Research Lab        email: brucec@tekchips.labs.tek.com
Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc.                phone: (503)627-5241
M/S 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR  97077