Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!space
From: dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Teleoperators
Message-ID: <8603020342.AA00246@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 11:45:47 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8603020342.AA00246
Posted: Sat Mar  1 11:45:47 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 19:19:27 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 20

It's clear from the pounding I've received that I'm being too optimistic
on teleoperators.  Mea culpa.

The Oberg's have just written a book (whose titles escapes me) that
has a chapter on space robotics and teleoperators.  I don't recall
all it said, but one interesting point was this: if the cost of
man-hour of work in space is around $35K it makes no sense to automate
a task that will be performed fewer than about 1000 times, because
development cost swamps operating cost.  They also quoted a report
on teleoperators and robotics that said manned presence in GEO is very
difficult due to shielding requirements (you would need a "submarine
made of lead" according to one expert).  [GEO must be in the fringes
of the radiation belts?]  I'm not sure I believe that 1000 times
figure, but development costs are nonnegligible, especially for
special purpose devices (like space station assemblers, for example).

One difficulty they described with teleoperators is the operator
remains in normal gravity, making it hard to overcome up/down
orientation biases.  Astronauts in zero gee apparently quickly adapt
to the lack of a preferred orientation.