>Asgardia is not defined as future robotic nation but human one. And all decisions but to be done by the human. The definition of "decision" is likely important here. Humans should make the decisions, the "AI" just works out how to get it done. Even with quantum computers we're quite some way off "AI" and much closer to "simulated intelligence" where a handfull of variables are weighed and reacted to in order to give the *impression* of intelligence. A few simple systems layered up is all it should take, not sentience. With regards to standards and "padding for marign" this should IMHO be kept - things like saftey are never a bad thing, you can't have "too safe". Especially where life is involved. Elseways I can see legitimate cause in "starting from scratch" - possibly absorbing the sensible things from existing standards.

Aim of my post was not to ignore all standards, specially this one in a safety and quality but not to accept all standards without deep review. This is what we really need if we are going to develop faster than other earth countries for a space missions. The reason for reviewing are more than a simple: many standards comes in a different stages of our development (for better understanding of today HW/SW technology - 30+ years behind us we should recognize as a "prehistorical technology era") and behind of this is that there are too many parameters implemented in the standards "to play safe". I understand that in last century people didn't have such advanced technologies so they put than more materials or more controls as they didn't trust in quality of calculations, quality of production, in all this measuring sensors etc. so they add "parameters for more safety". This we should recognize, and remove it from our "standards". In this area we have to be more advanced and not bothering with standards whose some countries accept because of their own administration and their own legacy reasons. That is the reason that I took an example of African mobile market as an example how easy is to jump through "mobile telecom centuries" and not to feel any missing of copper connections and PBX centrals. Moreover they teach me one more thing - if something is not really working fine - rather don't invest in maintenance but start looking for new as ROI is done. That is the point - old western European countries invest still in maintenance of old technologies but not because this technologies are good but because they have a number of people whose are not able to absorb and learn something new, so this than is more social category than technological. And this we DON"T NEED. As than we will not move ahead. Humans are the fastest thinking entities in the world we know and this must to stay as it is. There is no simple reason to use anything else for do the work we are doing. And there is no cost for it. Asgardia is not defined as future robotic nation but human one. And all decisions but to be done by the human. Several years back, Japanese University of the robotics decide to stop with AI. As not only that this can be danger for us in a sense of future threat but because technology should be a tool for a human development. Not for AI robotics development. Robotics should be used as a tool where is not possible to reach something - as is Opportunity mission on Mars. But to give rights to robot to decide in areas where human can decide even this will takes much more time is not a reason to provide to robots this right - right to decide. Robot should be a human tool. And that is all. By the way too many software tools failed so far and did a damage with a great negative impact than human was able to provide it under the same conditions. I believe that if we will establish such margins in our future road-map we can avoid than catastrophic events in out future. Not shortest way is the fastest, we know this. We have to use a wisdom of ours fathers but make it better with newest and better things we have now. ... that is my message :) D.

I'll agree that the proliferation of competing standards is a problem, but standards themselves are definitely a good thing. Starting again is a good idea, but accounting for the future in a new system is less easy than it sounds. Failure to account for this results in the "suppression of innovation" by the standard itself. Within the field of robotics, the mechanical articulation is of limited design possibilities. Most have been throughly explored. What remains to work on is the control software - the "computer" part of the robot, specifically the "AI" which is essential as humans cannot operate enough equipment, fast enough, reliably enough. African countries with a better phone service than some european countries have achieved this by investing late into the technology, deploying "better" things "ealier" in their timeline - the weakest link in their chain is stronger than the weakest link in the many decades old chain only being used to scrape more profits out of something that's paid them back countless times in the first 12 months. They don't have this "legacy" hardware to fall back on and thusly started with the modern equipments, dropping down fibre before copper. If they'd invested in copper earlier, they'd possibly still be there now, assuming universal greed. They didn't try to hold on to 2G technology making it pay back even more, they deployed 3G to start with, 4G in some places. It's not about standards it's about "more money". When it comes to standards, efficiency is just one face of this dodecahedron. Different purposes may lend different weights to different variables, like safety - which in most cases should prioritise above. The advantage of "standards" is being able to legitimately expect a, or a group of features. If attempting to build "new standards", first identify the desired features, this should then begin to sketch how to provide for them. Existing standards can save a lot of this workload, and ensure others are potentially complient.