Slashdot Mirror


Humanoid Robot for Spacewalks

Nils writes "Here is the web page of a research project at NASA JSC's Dexterous Robots Lab (DRL) to develop a humanoid robot for use in space. It is state-of-the-art with incredible hands, arms, torso, and stereoscopic vision for remote control. Very cool." We had a story on the Robonaut two years ago, but it looks like they've come a long way since then.

30 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not Impressed by H3XA · · Score: 3, Funny

    6 million dollar (worth of surgery) man?

    I wonder how long before NASA buys Abyss Creations (maker of RealDoll) so NASA can build useful "recreational" robots for those long trips to Mars.

    - HeXa

  2. Data by LunarOne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cool! Star Trek's "Data" version 0.001 (alpha)

    --

    Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
  3. Re:It all comes down to... by Kredal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Too bad it's got a faulty motivator.... what about that R-2 unit?

    --
    Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  4. Maybe I'm an ignorant dumbass but... by The_Guv'na · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't it make sense to have the robot designed to a form that's efficient and practical as possible? Sure, current EVA hardware is human-form oriented, but in the long run they will be replaced anyway.

    Mine would have 8 arms, a beer cooler, joint roller [munchies make space food taste nicer!], and puncture repair kit.

    1. Re:Maybe I'm an ignorant dumbass but... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      Mine would have 8 arms, a beer cooler, joint roller [munchies make space food taste nicer!], and puncture repair kit.
      And a shiny metal ass!!!
  5. Star Wars fans? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    One wonders if the builders of this robot are Star Wars fans. The robot's head bears a striking resemblance to Jango Fett's helmet...

  6. Then why bother with astro-nuts? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Then why bother with astro-nuts at all? The weight of that life-support system hurled into orbit would mean so much extra capability in orbit!

    In close earth orbit, the transmission lag time could stay tolerable; nothing proper training shouln't be able to fix. (The russians only used people with no driving experience to control their remote-controlled Lunokhod roving lunar probes, so they would not get hindered by earthly reflexes...)

    And ground tele-workers could work in shifts so the action would occur 24/4, instead of being shut down for several hours every day.

    The space shuttle is nothing but a tin-can jallopy to inflate the egoes of a picked few space/science-jocks.

    1. Re:Then why bother with astro-nuts? by MarkusQ · · Score: 2

      Then why bother with astro-nuts at all? The weight of that life-support system hurled into orbit would mean so much extra capability in orbit!

      You may have a point initially, but in the long run the main reason to go to space is exactly that: space. The earth is, after all, only so large. If we all stay down here we will either have to 1) force people to stop having children (and kill the excess kids that sneak through the cracks), or 2) institute a regular program for killing adults (and eventually, killing them before they reach breeding age), or 3) let nature do it for us.

      None of these sound too appealing to me. But moving out into space (note: not "moving to other planets") gives us a great deal more time to find a better solution. It doesn't solve the problem, but it gives us another thousand years or so to work out a solution.

      -- MarkusQ

    2. Re:Then why bother with astro-nuts? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      You may have a point initially, but in the long run the main reason to go to space is exactly that: space. The earth is, after all, only so large.
      You are perfectly correct; my remark goes strictly for low earth orbit operations; further up, the lag would be intolerable, so a human presence there would definitely be needed.

      Indeed, we have to move out, sooner or later. However, it is unreasonable to do so unless we have reliable cheap (by a factor of 40 to 100) surfact-to-orbit transportation. Until then, the cost of lofting people up should be used far more wisely; telepresence is one such way of doing so.

    3. Re:Then why bother with astro-nuts? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

      With missions that are as important and as expensive as the repair, maintenance, etc, redundancy is a high priority. If these robots were operated from the ground and failed, it could takes months before astronauts could come fix the problem themselves.

      Not really. Reduntancy would be much cheaper with robots than with astronauts; and since you won't need the same safety precautions with teleprecense robots than with humans, you could very well get as much as 5 times the capacity as with humans, this with full reduntancy.
    4. Re:Then why bother with astro-nuts? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2


      Hmph, sounds like sour grapes to me. Don't feel too bad though, I wish it was me up there, too.

      I wished that, too, until the husband of a friend's sister became an astro-nut. I never had expected that someone educated enough to make it up there would be such a goddammed asshole.

      But seriously, why bother with space at all then? Either people will be living and working in that environment, in which case we need to develop the technology to cope with that environment as well as familliarity with that envronment, or people won't be living/working in that envronment, in which case, why bother with it at all?

      We should bother, yes, but until we have cheap surface-to-orbit transport, we better not waste what little capability lifting up expensive and bulky life-support systems.
    5. Re:Then why bother with astro-nuts? by 2g3-598hX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Forget about human controllers; leave the robots to do it themselves.

      This is a perfect application for artificial intelligence. I believe the field has suffered on earth due to a lack of funding because there are no real applications where computers are really an economical solution instead of humans.

      AI is the economical solution to space travel - if it is used it could undoubtedly save billions. Therefore at least millions should should go into developing and researching AI for space travel. Instead NASA and many "scientists" seem obsessed with the symbolism of uneconomically sending real people into space...

    6. Re:Then why bother with astro-nuts? by jafac · · Score: 2

      There aren't enough planets, and enough time to get people to these other planets to even make a tiny dent in the "population problem".

      Even if we do colonize other worlds, we'll still have to implement solutions 1, 2, or (much more likely) 3 - not just at home but on the other worlds as well.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  7. benefits on earth? by dankelley · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Regardless of the significance for space research, there may be many earthly benefits to this NASA research on human-style robots.

    I'm thinking of people with disabilities.

    Since NASA is so well-funded and since it attracts such talented engineers, let's hope for spinoffs of research into mimicking human function will improve the quality of life for disabled individuals.

  8. Re-inventing the wheel again by sh0rtie · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Honda have spent millions on research and development of their humanoid robot and nasa start from scratch again with what looks like an inferior product ?, Honda was at robonauts development status years ago , it seems a shame to ignore it and try to re-invent it, dont forget that they probably has more practical experience of robots in the commercial workplace than nasa do (car factories)

    why dont they collaborate with people such as Honda instead of starting from scratch and wasting millions of dollars in the process ?

    i presume Honda's goals are similar to Nasa's in regards to putting robots in hostile enviroments, i think its about time people took humanoid robots a bit more seriously than some do and start putting them to practical uses, sure there is the argument that they are not suited to those enviroments but hey we havent done to bad with 10 fingers 2 hands,legs and a torso and these research groups would probably agree.

    if people talked to each other more on this planet maybe we would get somewhere

    1. Re:Re-inventing the wheel again by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honda have spent millions on research and development of their humanoid robot [honda.com] and nasa start from scratch again with what looks like an inferior product?

      Honda's robot is designed to be used on Earth. Weight isn't nearly as big a consideration for it. Neither is the need to be rad-hard, the need to tolerate micrometeorites, etc.

      NASA's robot was designed from the start to be used in space. It also was designed from the start to be tool-using - its hands are a lot more dextrous than those of Asimo, and the rest of the robot's design reflects this philosophy.

      i presume Honda's goals are similar to Nasa's in regards to putting robots in hostile enviroments

      Not according to Honda's Asimo page. Their robot was designed to be used in human dwellings, which meshes nicely with the "robotic servants" theme that shows up in a lot of Japanese pop culture. Completely different design criteria vs. NASA's applications (NASA wants something that can build/maintain fiddly bits of the space station without requiring a human to suit up and go outside the station).

      In summary, using Honda's design would not be a practical solution for NASA.

  9. DaVinci inspired? by Tekmage · · Score: 2

    Is this the same robot that derived it's inspiration from Leonardo DaVinci's mechanical knight notes and studies of the kinetics of the human body?

    --
    --The more you know, the less you know.
  10. robot soldiers by Jaez · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Is it me or does the illustration show it brandishing something that looks a lot like a gun?

    It's all well and good developing robots for civilian use, but what's to stop the mature version of this being given a gun and told to patrol government institutions. Or even fire on demonstrators? Something here just doesn't feel right...

  11. yeep the head is creepy. by lingqi · · Score: 2

    look like the Fett;

    but moreover -- if they are going for "life-like", the really need to implement moveable "eyes" (cameras) instead of having the head do all the moving. it mould make the head go through much extaneous range of movements, while still not have the flexibility of a human head / eye system. (bend head one way to avoid, say, a beam, while still be able to look to your left side.)

    otherwise very cool -- even if it's just half-a-robot. but even if mounted on a cart i bet i can program it to clean my room.

    hmm... wait a sec; i can't even clean my room.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  12. Re:Human Form? by MarkusQ · · Score: 2

    I would infer that they plan to have (or at least want the option to have) these remotely controlled by an operator in some sort of "waldo" suit. Thus it makes sense to have the same basic configuration as your operator.

    -- MarkusQ

  13. But when are NASA scientists going to develop... by Navius+Eurisko · · Score: 2

    a robot that does the moonwalk?

  14. Re:Human Form? by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    I would infer that they plan to have (or at least want the option to have) these remotely controlled by an operator in some sort of "waldo" suit. Thus it makes sense to have the same basic configuration as your operator.

    Besides which, if it is a critical (eg life supporting) part that needs repaired, and the robot breaks down, it is nice to have the option of suiting up and going outside yourself to fix it. By designing the robots to be humanlike, and the space station to be servicable by said robots, you have built in redundancy in terms of deployment options (human v. robot) if things go awry.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  15. keep us updated by C0D3X · · Score: 2, Funny

    "We had a story on the Robonaut two years ago, 16 months ago, 14 months ago, 12 months ago, 10 months ago, 9 months ago, 7 months ago, 6 months ago, 5 months ago, 2 months ago, 2 weeks ago, 4 days ago, and yesterday, but it looks like they've come a long way since then. "

  16. NASA already blew $288 million on this. by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The article doesn't mention the Flight Telerobotic Servicer, a $288 million NASA project to do this that ran from 1987 to the mid-1990s. This project was actually funded. Martin Marietta had a $297 million contract to develop one. Didn't work.

    NASA has a long-standing robotics program, but not a very successful one. It's embarassing, or ought to be.

  17. Still a bad idea by MrResistor · · Score: 2

    When I was working for a company that produced custom industrial robots I dealt with a similar situation on one of my first projects.

    Basically, all the machine had to do was measure and cut wire. That's a pretty simple task, and the whole thing could have been finished in a week for a few thousand dollars. For some reason, though, the customer insisted that instead of using easily replaced, sensible cutting blades designed specifically for the machine, it had to use the custom made, diagonal cutters their assemblers were using to cut the stuff by hand. The reason being that the diagonal cutters were of a special material required for the job (a medical application). Of course, we could have easily made machine blades out of the same material for about 1/20 of the cost, but the customer insisted...

    The end result: the machine took almost 2 months to complete and cost almost $15,000, it requires constant re-calibration because the cutters move a tiny bit with each cut, and it takes nearly an hour to change and align the cutters when they dull. (The design we proposed would have cut that time down to a few minutes)

    Designing a machine to use tools designed for a human is always a bad idea. No matter how much you have invested in those tools, redesigning them to be used by a machine will always be cheaper.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    1. Re:Still a bad idea by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
      By the sounds of it that robot only had to perform one task. I think your missing the point of this robot.

      This NASA robot seem to be intedned for quite a few differnt tasks. And they also said that was meant to be used in a human environment. So they have to design it to use human tools.

      ...Unless they custom design humans to work in a robots environment instead ;)

      Oh yeah. You could always design the environment to suit both humans and robots. But in space, the has serious drawbacks.

    2. Re:Still a bad idea by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      I'm not missing the point at all. Based on my experience, designing a robot to use human tools is an incredibly bad idea, and the result will be expensive and error-prone.

      Again, based on my experience, it will still be cheaper to have 2 sets of tools, one set for humans and one set for robots. A machine-centric toolset and a machine to use that toolset, even in a "general purpose" situation, will always be much cheaper and easier to design, and the result will be more reliable, than trying to design a machine to use human tools.

      Your hand is an incredibly complex system,.I had no idea how complex it was until I spent a year automating tasks previously done by hand. Replicating the tasks that can be done with human hands is hard enough, having to replicate the "grasping qualities"[1] increases the difficulty by at least an order of magnitude, and not just in design but in fabrication as well.

      You are correct that the robot in my example only had to do one task, and it's a damn good thing! The fact that the task was so simple only lends further support to my arguement. Every additional task increases the difficulty and reduces the efficiency and reliability of the design. Multiply that by the increased difficulty and reduced efficiency and reliability inherent in designing around human tools, and you will quickly exceed the cost of designing a new machine-centric toolset. Add to that the fact that the machine-centric toolset will be considerably lighter and smaller than the human-centric one, and it totally boggles my mind that NASA is even considering their current course.

      [1] meaning shape, friction, deformity, and all the other qualities a human tool is designed to take advantage of.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  18. -1 Redundant by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
    FRom the artical:

    A new set of articulating eyes has been built for Robonaut. The pointing system directs two pairs of eyes, independently verging them for tracking humans and objects. Each pair includes a large camera with computer controlled zoom, focus and iris adjustments, as well as a smaller camera to provide peripheral vision. The system has been assembled, and integrated with the brainstem for pointing control and calibration. The next step will be integration with the visual cortex, and then insertion of the system into the robot's helmet, replacing the old cameras.

    Please....Read the artical first

  19. Re:But when are NASA scientists going to develop.. by daeley · · Score: 2
    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  20. Re:But when are NASA scientists going to develop.. by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

    How about a robot that does The Robot?

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!