Slashdot Mirror
Robot for India's Moon Mission by IIT Kanpur
ISRO, Indian Space Research Organisation, is planning to send a robot for its mission to moon. It is probably going to be made by students and profs of IIT-Kanpur (the Indian equivalent of MIT). The two-legged robot, fitted with sophisticated sensors and high-resolution cameras, is capable of recording information and images using laser beams. It can also detect the distance of a hindrance, enter a small crater, bring surface samples and return high resolution images to the lunar vehicle. It balances cost and sophistication; basic functionality for only $50,000.
Also some grammar checking by the editors would be nice. Still, I would assume that this article was submitted by a student at IIT-Kanpur, and English isn't their first language.
All that being said, it sounds like a really interesting project, not to mention really cheap. The article also says that they plan on making it into a four legged beast for stability, which sounds more reasonable than a two-legger. Bots are still getting the hang of walking on two pegs here in 1G, so designing one that will walk upright on the moon must be tougher.
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
It seems fair to ask how much this off-the-shelf robotic technology owes to the "obscene" amounts of money invested by NASA and others in R&D over the last half-century.
Well, how much does it weigh? If a robot costing ten times as much weighs 10% less and does the same job, you've saved money. Getting there is the costly thing, compared to that design and construction is a trivial amount of money.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
It is a very nice project and hopefully, it will be successful. But there is no point in making comparisons until *after* the project has proven to be successful. How can one say that a project that has not succeeded yet was cheaper than another one that already passed with flying colors? This does not make sense.
That's $50,000 for a prototype robot that they wish could be used on the moon. It is not a production model, it is not slated to go to the moon, and there are no plans to send it to the moon. Ever.
According to the article, which you clearly failed to interpret: They have now have shown interest in our prototype. The organisation is seriously considering collaboration with us So, a couple folks have looked at it, and they conveyed that they found it interesting. If fact, someone at the instituion thinks the space agency is considering a (mere) collaboration. That's a far and distant cry from them delivering a space-capable robot.
Suddenly, this $50,000 student-built prototype robot seems like it could be a squandering of institutional funds, and that someone is trying to cover it up by pretending that it will go to the moon.
The Apollo missions got 47,900 kg to the moon for $2.75 billion in today's money. That's $57,411/kg. Let's say the Indians can do it vastly cheaper: $25,000/kg.
Let's say the robot weighs the same as Spirit and Opportunity (the current Mars rovers): 175kg. So the cost to get the robot to the moon would be $4,375,000, completely discounting the cost of the rocket itself, the payload container, the landing mechanism, support personnel, etc, etc.
Practical upshot: they could easily spend 10 times as much on the robot and only increase the cost of the mission 11%. And once the real costs are taken into account, the increase would probably be negligible ( 1%).
That's why NASA spends so much on the robot: a) it's incredibly expensive just to get the robot anywhere and b) if the robot screws up once it's there, the bulk of the money was completely wasted, so making the robot robust & reliable is very important.
As Carl Sagan used to say, it's not as if NASA is taking hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and launching the money into space. The money is spent and circulated right here on Earth. For example a large amount of expenses is spent on salaries for scientists, engineers, technicians (and yes it is also spent on salaries for annoying beaurocrats as well). All of those people in turn then spend the money to purchase homes, cars, groceries, college educations for their kids, vacations, etc... Some of the money spent by NASA also goes to universities in the form of research and project grants. A lot of the research that comes out of these NASA projects benefits humanity in more ways than one can really count. Also, spending money is not necessarily a "sin" or bad thing. Money is meant to be spent. Spending money benefits a nation in many ways. Spending money to explore the vastness of the cosmos and universe is one of the best things we can spend money on. If we don't spend money on exploration we are doomed to become trapped on an ever increasingly crowded and depleted planet, soon to become extinct as a species one way or another. Once we do gain cheap access to space, it's hard to imagine humans waging war and battling for a tiny strip of land when the entire universe suddenly becomes open to us. (But the only way the universe will become open is if we spend money now to build the technology and experiment and explore.) And finally... if you still think the money could be "spent to help the poor", consider that our civilization has more than enough money to spend on both the poor and space exploration. And if you think that money diverted from NASA will really go to the "poor" or "education" or something great like that, then you are naive in the ways of the world and the powers that be. Money diverted from NASA will go somewhere else and it won't be to the poor I can guarantee that.
And the OP was what?
Start out by dissing NASA and America and the response is predictable.
Students and professors at another institution have developed an artificial heart for $20 using over-the-counter parts from Radio Shack.
They are currently soliciting for volunteers.