Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA To Send a Humanoid Robot On Shuttle's Final Mission

Posted by timothy on from the why-can't-they-send-them-all dept.

coondoggie writes "Perhaps taking a page from a Star Wars script, NASA said today it will send its newest humanoid robot, known as Robonaut2, on board the space shuttle's final mission. R2 is capable of using the same tools as humans, letting it work closely with people in space."

119 comments

  1. No need to worry... by alphax45 · · Score: 1

    Nothing can go wrong with a robot that knows how to use tools in space :)

    --
    K Man
    1. Re:No need to worry... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ash is a God Damn Robot!

    2. Re:No need to worry... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Funny

      In space, no one can hear you squeak.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:No need to worry... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My question is: Is this going to be the Shuttle's last mission because they are sending a robot into space who can use tools?

    4. Re:No need to worry... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "R2! Are you OK? THREEPEEOH!!!"

      ---------------
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Well duh...

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    5. Re:No need to worry... by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      Jinx send Max to space!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceCamp

    6. Re:No need to worry... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I think that you meant A Shit Head. I wonder how the astronauts are going to feel.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:No need to worry... by Misterfixit · · Score: 0

      Welp, this does solve one problem which has plagued astronauts for years. How to capture spurting seminal fluid during the 'nauts "programmed private recreational period". Think about THAT problem and having to wash your keyboard in the dishwasher become a trivial event.

      --
      nar
  2. Not a good idea by TheRealPacmanJones · · Score: 0

    Ive seen enough SciFi(or Syfy) to know that this just seems like the plot of a bad movie. Open the door R2!

    --
    Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make its own judgment - Zemfram Cochrane
    1. Re:Not a good idea by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      What could go wrong?*





      * please limit your response to 1,000 words max and no more than 3 exclamation points per declaration, prediction and/or warning of dire consequences.

    2. Re:Not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death!!! Destruction!!! Doom!!! Devastation!!!

      *Repeat that 249 more times*

  3. Thank goodness... by Siberwulf · · Score: 4, Funny

    That R2 is in prime condition, a real bargain.

    1. Re:Thank goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the "unit".

      And yes, that is what she said.

    2. Re:Thank goodness... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I’ll wait for the second design. A so-called R2D2. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  4. Boba The Fett by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    My Backpack's got jets.
    I'm Boba the Fett...

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Boba The Fett by Pojut · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Cruisin' Mos Espa
      In my Delorean
      War's over
      I'm a peacetime mandalorian

      My story has stumped
      Star Wars historians
      Deep in debate,
      Buffet plate at Bennigan's

      Rhyme renegade
      Sure to penetrate
      First and second defences
      I won't hesitate

      Got a job to do
      And Darth's the guy that delegates
      Got something against Skywalker
      Someone he really hates

      I don't give a fuck
      I'm after Solo
      For all I care
      He could be hidin' at Yoda's dojo

      Gotta make the money
      Credit's no good
      When the jawas runin' shop
      In your neighborhood

      Think you can cook
      I got a grappling hook
      Let's make this quick
      'Cause I'm really booked

      I'm a devious degenerate
      Defender of the devil
      Shut down all the trash compactors
      On the detention level

      --
      Living With a Nerd
  5. Grammer what? by harl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdot to a start editing?

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
    1. Re:Grammer what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Grammer what?
      Slashdot to a start editing?

      Where do I even begin with that one?!?

    2. Re:Grammer what? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where do I even begin with that one?!?

      Turn off your spell checker and turn on your "Yoda Translator Module"

    3. Re:Grammer what? by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Yoda translator, model is..

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    4. Re:Grammer what? by Stick32 · · Score: 1

      Off your spell checker, you must turn, and on your "Yoda Translator Module" must be

      That fixed for you I have.

    5. Re:Grammer what? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Maybe-a they're-a Italian?

  6. Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by broknstrngz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there any incentive, except for the obvious publicity stunt, to send an android out there only to handle the gear that could probably easily handle itself? I'm thinking that the chances of something going titsup increase if you add mechanical hazard to the equation.

    1. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by somersault · · Score: 1

      A robot that handles your gear then goes tits-up when you hazard its mechanicals?!

      Where do I sign up?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      What exactly are you talking about? This is a test model, it sounds like they're just looking to test it in zero-G before they put any money into building one that can handle a vacuum.

    3. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say that all the trouble with maintaining a human in a spacesuit present larger "mechanical hazard" than using a teleoperated robot (which has a shape similar to human torso so that its operator can better relate to its movements)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if, by some strange chance of science, I'm fairly sure that the conditions (usually known in layman's terms as 'space') are fairly close to being a vacuum, are they not?

    5. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Yes. They're not testing it in space though. They're testing it in one of the labs on the ISS.

    6. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      First, they're just going to test it INSIDE. Actually, it's an interesting question how a free-floating (as opposed to anchored) bot would use its actuators. The astronauts themselves have to anchor themselves to do many tasks like turning bolts. (equal and opposite reactions, remember?)

      Second, in zero-G, there IS no up ;-)

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    7. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by broknstrngz · · Score: 1

      I actually meant what this guy meant: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1618630&cid=31847638 - that there are probably cheaper and more efficient ways to help manoeuvre inside and outside gear than having a supposedly multi-purpose humanoid robot. Designing specialised robotic arms strikes me as somewhat cheaper, safer and easier to implement.

    8. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The problem with mechanical arms is what do you attach them to? If you attach them to struts then you have to have the struts in place and in a position to reach every conceivable angle before you send the arm out there. So you need some sort of torso to hold the arm and position it. If you have a torso you need some head control unit that can look around independently of the arm to help guide both the arm and torso units. Sometimes you need more than one hand doings something so lets make it two arms. too. so we have two arms for doing things and a head control unit to see what they are doing, all attached to a torso support structure. Oh crap we forgot to add mobility to it? wheels? tracks maybe? nope they don't work well in space? no gravity how about a propeller? no air in the vacuum. that leaves us with fuel using thrusters, or I know how about two more arms coming out of the base of the torso. We can call them legs.

      {/sarcasm}

      next time try to look at the entire problem. Not just an arm. The ISS has one really big one of those. what is needed is a small self contained movable arm and the required support pieces to make it work.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by zeropointburn · · Score: 1

      Here are a couple of reasons:
      (this post describes goals, not what we think would probably actually happen)

      1. development cost
      Current space-rated tools are designed for humans. A humanoid robot can use these tools with no further research expense. Building robotic tools for all likely tasks would be more expensive than building a humanoid robot, not to mention requiring more mass to orbit and failing to take advantage of existing in-orbit resources and introducing substantially more complexity (points of failure).
      For a peek at the cost of tools, try this: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/11/so-why-does-a-n.html

      2. adaptability
      Similar to the above point, a humanoid robot would be useful anywhere humans might end up. For a base on the moon or Mars, for example, send one of these after all the cargo arrives, but before the first humans arrive. Now you have something flexible, suitable for most tasks that a human would perform, and expendable. The robot(s) can be used to set up, unpack, etc. and confirm that the facility is safe for human habitation. There are other feasible concepts, but all of them require some level of parallel development and additional cargo mass beyond that of a compatible robot. A further complication is that if these alternatives should break down, then the human astronauts may not be physically able to complete the robot's tasks.

      3. spinoff
      In keeping with NASA tech tradition, many technologies developed for use in space are adapted for use on Earth. The same advantages to using a humanoid robot in space apply on Earth. The launch fuel now becomes a transportation concern; can your shiny new robot fit in the passenger seat of your car or does it need to be shipped by freight? Once the basic hardware and software are developed, it becomes a much simpler task to adapt one into a lawn-mowing robot that uses your existing lawn mower. Or one that does your laundry, or weeds your garden, or replaces your siding. Given a robot with at least human range of motion and strength, any repetitive task then becomes a question of programing. Anything you are equipped to do, now your robot can do for you with no added tool costs.

      When these three factors converge, the result is a strong marketplace in robotics that benefits us civilians and NASA, taking advantage of the risk behaviors of both groups to achieve something better and faster than either group could manage on their own. The publicity stunt angle was almost certainly in the top two reasons for sending it, and immediate cost was probably the other contender.

      --
      -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
    10. Re:Why not let a machine do a machine's job? by tftp · · Score: 1

      In this case it just looks like they are sending stuff up in "as is" condition. Clearly the thing is incomplete, and as such it would be of zero use. It's like "using" a car without wheels. This robot requires more labor to move to where it is needed, then to program (or operate in real time) and then to put it back. I think it is telling that the robot would be permanently placed into a lab compartment, probably to never see the light of day again. There are enough humans on board, and they are not that busy to not help each other when another pair of hands is needed for some job.

      I think it would be far more valuable to send a robot that can work in vacuum and that has arms and legs. That would be something of interest. We need such robots everywhere, not just on LEO. But this one looks like a prototype. It doesn't solve any problem, and even if we see it as testing of its hardware, there is hardly anything to test. Its electronics won't behave any differently from tons of other electronic equipment that is already there, and its mechanical functions - if they depend on zero-G to operate then it's useless. IMO, it should stay dirtside until it is done right. Unless, of course, NASA just tries to clear the floor by sending junk up.

  7. Questions... Morphology? Longevity? Incept dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Unless they want more life, fucker.

  8. Well... by just_another_sean · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As long as R2 can provide more power to the forward couplings I think things will work out just fine.

    This is a nice follow up to the earlier "Armstrong criticizes Obama" article. In case anyone missed
    ral's comment in that other article, Buzz Aldrin has a different take on Obama's new plan.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    1. Re:Well... by PPH · · Score: 1

      This is a nice follow up to the earlier "Armstrong criticizes Obama" article.

      Actually, this is Obama's response to meatbag astronauts complaining about budget cuts.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Well... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a nice follow up to the earlier "Armstrong criticizes Obama" article.

      Actually, this is Obama's response to meatbag astronauts complaining about budget cuts.

      Actually, it seems to be a response to midterm elections in Florida, Alabama, and Texas. None of those states is going to be especially happy if NASA doesn't keep bringing home the bacon, and Obama doesn't need any easy Republican wins in the House races in those states.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a nice follow up to the earlier "Armstrong criticizes Obama" article.

      Actually, this is Obama's response to meatbag astronauts complaining about budget cuts.

      Do not anger the happy fun ball for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    4. Re:Well... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Actually, it seems to be a response to midterm elections in Florida, Alabama, and Texas. None of those states is going to be especially happy if NASA doesn't keep bringing home the bacon, and Obama doesn't need any easy Republican wins in the House races in those states.

      He shouldn't have shut down NASA then. No shuttle. No shuttle replacement. No Orion. No Ares. No Direct. No human space flight. No moon within this decade. Obama is more than just a photo-negative of Kennedy.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Well... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      The shuttle was planned to stop. Constellation is a mess and should be stopped; the commission reviewing it said that it's simply unworkable. That's hardly Obama's fault.

      They are not going to 'shut down NASA' in any sense what so ever. The funding was actually being increased but just not in those programs. The problem is that manned space travel is a huge money maker, so the politicians wanted to keep the funding going regardless of the merit of the programs. The Obama plan is redirecting so that the funds will be spent on research to make a good long term manned program and to support private space flight, eventually allowing them to do manned flights. You would think that the Republicans would be ecstatic at the idea of privatizing it, but 1) it's Obama's plan so they are against it and 2) it cuts (unneeded) jobs in their districts.

      Why would you support a plan that simply won't work? With Constellation / Ares, we won't go back to the moon this decade either. Yes, I know it was in the 'plan', but the plan would not work (just as the commission) and so you'd blow all the money on a system that would fail. The better plan is to stop it, fund the research to do it right, fund the science and robotics, privatize parts that make sense, and achieve the longer term and more important goal of getting to Mars. That's Obama's plan.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  9. Horrible outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Decades later, the shuttle returns as the super-intelligent mega-ship V'geR2. The mega-ship remains in orbit, annoyingly beeping until mankind is destroyed by the madness.

    1. Re:Horrible outcome by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      In space no one can hear you beep.

    2. Re:Horrible outcome by slick7 · · Score: 1

      In space no one can hear you fry bacon

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  10. To easy.... by waterford0069 · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome... nah it's too easy.

    1. Re:To easy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      FaR2 easy... :-)

  11. Obviously Send R2 by MrTripps · · Score: 2, Funny

    How else could you get the plans for the Death Star to the ISS?

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
  12. Also Known As... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...newest humanoid robot known as Robonaut2...

    I wasn't aware that NASA had an official designation for Keanu Reeves...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Also Known As... by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      "I wasn't aware that NASA had an official designation for Keanu Reeves..."

      I know many AIs that find your comment offensive and psychologically harmful. Do you perhaps live in Canada - if so, they would like the name of your legal representation....

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
  13. Lest we forget... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?
    HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
    Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
    HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
    Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
    HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
    Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
    HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
    Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.
    HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
    Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
    HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
    Dave Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.
    HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
    Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore. Open the doors.
    HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    1. Re:Lest we forget... by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 2, Funny

      It will be different this time:

      Astronaut: Hello R2.
      R2: BEEP BEEP BLOOP CHIRP
      *Astronaut looks confused*

  14. How is it controlled? by jhumkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is it controlled? Via computer command? Via voice command? Via preprogrammed sequence? Via no command whatsoever (where its just a remote manipulator torso controlled directly by humans.) If it has innate skills, does it have vision systems to find a bolt, and a hole, and know how to use a wrench and install the bolt? Is there any task its programmed to complete independently? (Yes, I linked onto the NASA article too. . . no more real information there.) Gosh, wouldn't 10million children suddenly develop interest in robotics if they thought we really were close to an "R2-D2" like robot? No discussion of "Humanoid" vs "Practical configuration"? Can no one write a fulfilling article anymore? (Makes me want to go "blogger" and track down these answers . . . if I thought I could get paid to do so . . .) Its a shame that those that are paid to do so . . . don't.

    --
    No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    1. Re:How is it controlled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its controlled by 3 laws!

    2. Re:How is it controlled? by sznupi · · Score: 2

      Last time I checked it's basically a manipulator; made in the shape of human torso so it will feel more "right" when teleoperated. I imagine it could also follow simple preprogrammed movements being routine part of its operation, or more complicated sequences when very carefully prepared.

      Robots like this can save the trouble and danger of humans performing tasks in a space suit.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:How is it controlled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is controlled through a variety of different mechanisms. There is a vision system installed where eyes would be traditionally. This does allow for teleoperations. The unit also has the ability to be taught how to perform rudimentary tasks such as pick up that object and move it there.

    4. Re:How is it controlled? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Its controlled by 3 laws!

      1. Don't get caught

      2. Deny everything

      3. Blame the dead guy

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    5. Re:How is it controlled? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The 3 other laws

      I didn't do it
      Nobody saw me
      You can't prove anything

    6. Re:How is it controlled? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      The 3 other laws

      What?

      Who?

      When?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  15. Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why humanoid? Is NASA now just one more bullshit agency providing Roman Circus to the plebes? What is the point of making it humanoid instead of cheap, efficient, and optimized for the expected tasks and missions? This is just another ploy to funnel money to corrupt aerospace contractors. Why not do space exploration with intelligently designed unmanned projects instead of this crap?

    1. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think "optimized for the expected tasks" is the tricky bit. Since the space station and spacecraft are definitely designed for humans to work in, a human-shaped robot should be able to reach and manipulate all the important bits, even if the job that needs to be done was NOT expected. In fact, the unexpected (and therefore potentially more dangerous) tasks might be the best candidates for expendable robot workers to do.

      If you're advocating that we abandon manned spaceflight, I have to disagree. Unmanned missions are valuable, but I still think we need people in space.

    2. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why humanoid?

      Because there is an entire technology base on Earth geared around the humanoid form. It is a more cost efficient form than a form specialized to the task at hand.

    3. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're advocating that we abandon manned spaceflight, I have to disagree. Unmanned missions are valuable, but I still think we need people in space.

      Given that manned space exploration is colossally more expensive than unmanned, the burden is on you to justify why it should be done at all, and why the far cheaper and far more ambitious unmanned alternatives need to be displaced for it. The budget is finite, and cannot accommodate everything.

    4. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is not, however, "an entire technology base" in space geared around the humanoid form. The vast majority of compelling space exploration and scientific achievements in space have been done with unmanned equipment that did not waste resources on achieving humanoid form factors or work-alikes. There is no compelling role for manned space exploration in the foreseeable future.

    5. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a robot with humanoid torso (two cameras in its head, too) is controlled directly by human operator, it can give a rather nice immersion, "feel", situational awareness; I guess.

      Plus if the operator is inside the station, there's even not much of a problem with guerilla arm...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Uh, because having a humaoid robot means you don't have to design a mission specific robot each time.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also allows a human to operate the same equipment (such as pod bay doors), should the robot malfunction.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    8. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by EdtheFox · · Score: 0

      Cheap
      Efficient
      Optimized for task at hand

      Pick ONE!

      humanoid!?

      A CLASSIC NASA solution to a non-existent problem.

    9. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it doesn't. You will always need to design some amount of mission-specific equipment. In any case, most industrial robotic design today relies on generalizable platforms with diverse plug-in modules. This is a non-issue.

    10. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by spleendamage · · Score: 1

      Why humanoid? Is NASA now just one more bullshit agency providing Roman Circus to the plebes? What is the point of making it humanoid instead of cheap, efficient, and optimized for the expected tasks and missions?

      Because astronauts prefer the basic pleasure model skin-job.

    11. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by khallow · · Score: 1

      There is not, however, "an entire technology base" in space geared around the humanoid form.

      So what? The technology base in space, such as it is, is dwarfed by the Earth-side technology base. Even if you assume all economic activity associated with space uses a technology base incompatible with humanoids, that's still something like $250 billion of activity compared to $60 trillion of activity. That's more than two orders of magnitude smaller.

    12. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      corrupt aerospace contractors

      Look at the sponsor stickers on R2. You mean corrupt auto companies like US owned GM.

    13. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Especially when robots are in the infancy stage, you don't really want to go building large expensive pieces of equipment like a space station that can only be assembled and serviced by robots. If your onboard robots BSOD or turn out to be a failure at the task to which they are assigned, it's a good idea to have the assembly/repair environment be one that humans can work with, as a backup.

      Additionally, I see a psychological component brewing here. A humanoid robot would, on a subconscious level anyway, be more endearing to a crew of humans, and therefore it is more likely that they will work better in concert than with a box with a claw sticking out of it.

      Plus, the humanoid form has some distinct advantages, which is why it evolved to the shape it did. If the robot is working in a microgravity environment, it's very (ha) handy to have two hands. One to grip a grabhandle in order to provide counter torque against the other one which is turning the wrench. It further makes sense to mount sensory apparatus up high on the robot because it's easier to judge clearance distances if you only have one direction (down) to worry about, and because you can make that part smaller than the main body and therefore easier to swivel in order to aim the sensory apparatus at whatever the robot needs to sense. Then pack the power supply and main processors into a central trunk (because mounting it anywhere but the centerline would create torque problems when maneuvering it) and you have a shape that starts to look suspiciously humanoid.

      This robot is designed to do tasks that humans are doing now. Making it some oddball shape would require all sorts of adaptations to the humanoid form factor of the equipment it will be working on, which would be silly. You don't rebuild the entire space station to accommodate the experimental robot. You build the experimental robot to work with the existing space station.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    14. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Because to do science, you have to wow voters. This will probably cheap : they have a humanoid robot, a shuttle that is not full, well just put the robot inside the shuttle, make it screw two things in slow motion, and next time you talk to Congress, these people will think they understand what these "robotic missions" they have to vote for really are.

      By the way, humanoid robots can be useful, but on Earth, where most of the tools, machines and paths are shaped for humans. In space the humanoid shape is really useless. Anyway, a lot of work on the ISS station is already roboticized : Canadarm is the kind of shape you are looking for.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    15. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Is NASA now just one more bullshit agency providing Roman Circus to the plebes?

      Have you been hiding in a cave or something? That's what NASA has been practically since the day it was born. That space 'geeks' spend their lives denying this simple fact doesn't change reality.

    16. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you are doing it deliberately, but your arguments disappear in the absence of humans. No humans => no advantage whatsoever to shape robotic equipment like humans. It becomes a costly, wasteful constraint. I do not favor sending non-humanoid robots to help humans in space, I favor discontinuing manned space exploration in its entirety.

      There is no compelling reason to support manned space exploration. Anything that can be done in space by a person can be done at far lower expense, with far greater scope, ambition and achievement, and over a much longer period of time with robotic equipment. Manned space missions drastically hinder the exploration of space by sucking up enormous resources to provide a habitable environment and enormous human-safe ferrying vehicles. The International Space Station (ISS) is of no compelling use whatsoever, it is a hugely expensive low earth orbit ferris wheel, a glorified amusement park ride for a privileged few. Unmanned equipment can do anything to be done on the ISS better, more cheaply, and for a much longer time.

      Manned space exploration is a gimmick whose sole use is the transfer of taxpayer dollars to corrupt defense industrialists, nothing more. It is sold to a hapless, gullible public by equally corrupt politicians and ex-astronauts. It is nothing but childish dreaming by sci fi space adventure magical religious cultists.

    17. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Except that historically no useful science has been done by manned space exploration. All of the great achievements, all of the knowledge we have of our solar system and the cosmos, all of it has come from unmanned space exploration. See my other posts in this vein.

    18. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I was being charitable and granting that through the Apollo program, there was some justification for manned space flight, mainly because computers were so pathetic back then. That circumstance is no longer true.

    19. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      There is no compelling reason to support manned space exploration. Anything that can be done in space by a person can be done at far lower expense, with far greater scope, ambition and achievement, and over a much longer period of time with robotic equipment.

      However, humans are more versitile than a robot. They are jacks or all trade, and masters of none, compared to robots. Thus, if you intend to perform a series of diverse experiments, you send humans. If you intend to perform several specific, well defined tasks, then a robot is best.

      Abandoning manned spaceflight not only puts a restriction on mission versitility (humans can learn to perform tasks if needed, robots can not,yet) which would need to be overcome by robotics engineers before your argument has merit, it also means we fail to learn about human physiology and psychology as it pertains to human space flight (important if we ever need/want to live anywhere other than the earth).

      Manned space exploration is a gimmick whose sole use is the transfer of taxpayer dollars to corrupt defense industrialists, nothing more. It is sold to a hapless, gullible public by equally corrupt politicians and ex-astronauts. It is nothing but childish dreaming by sci fi space adventure magical religious cultists.

      Yes, I'm sure sobody was inspired to begin a career in science or engineering by images of human space flight. In your ideal world we wouldn't need to go to extraordinary measures to get people excited about science, but that's not the world we live in.

      If the progress of science is really your concern, then we should do more interesting human space exploration, not less. Think of NASA's budget as 10% science, 90% public outreach.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    20. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Cheap
      Efficient
      Optimized for task at hand

      Pick ONE!

      humanoid!?

      A CLASSIC NASA solution to a non-existent problem.

      Faster
      Cheaper
      Better

      Pick Two

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    21. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      And MAN said...
      "Let's make it in OUR image

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    22. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      I can agree that science performed during manned space missions is expensive, but nonexistent!?

      So, how do you quantify human long-term weightless physiology? Unless we can unequivocally say that humans will never ever need to go into space, that's useful science. Even if we never have a need, I see no need to classify it 'useless'. I can't think of any 'use' for measuring the CBR, beyond science for science's sake, so why not human exploration for its own sake?

      Also note that humans were the first to return soil and rock samples from the moon, and the engineering benefits of all space flight (both manned and unmanned).

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    23. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Re-read your post and note that your arguments' links to manned exploration are tenuous at best. I am all in favor of robust unmanned space exploration. Most or all of the benefits, exploration, inspiration, etc. mentioned by people in this thread can come from it with no particular need for manned space exploration.

    24. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In other words, you made a confused and incoherent statement, got called on it, and are now moving the goalposts in order to avoid facing the painful truth.

      Gotcha.

    25. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      No, not confused or incoherent, goalposts not moved. I stand behind all of my statements. I don't really get your drift, though. Seems gratuitously hostile and without any specific point.

    26. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing that robots are better than humans, just that the missions can be made far cheaper, more ambitious, and wider in scope than with manned exploration.

      To argue that humans' greater versatility justifies the colossal additional expense is like saying that going on a road trip with a full blown hospital emergency room team plus mobile surgical unit is much more versatile than a $50 first aid kit. You would be correct, of course, but so what? It is not a reasonable option.

    27. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing that robots are better than humans, just that the missions can be made far cheaper, more ambitious, and wider in scope than with manned exploration.

      So when is that going to happen? When are we going to have an unmanned program on the scale and ambition of the Apollo program, for example, rather than the hobby-level exploration program we currently have?

    28. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, he's right.

        If we are going to build a LEO infrastructure, robots (and spacecraft, autonomous and remote controlled) are going to be doing the brunt of the "construction work". Humanoid-style robots are not going to be very efficient at doing so; the human form did not evolve to do that sort of work. As the parent mentions, robots designed specifically for the mission or task that needs to be done will not only be more efficient at that task but a lot cheaper as well - NASA can just adapt existing industrial designs.

        I have nothing against manned spaceflight, but if we really, REALLY want to establish a solid and growing LEO presence we are going to have to accept that robots can do most of the repetitive tasks much easier and cheaper than humans can. As a matter of fact robots could take the burden of most of those tasks off of the astronauts, enabling the astronauts to focus on the overall picture and other things that they can do better.

        Also, robots will not get spacesick, tired, bored, etc - although they may require repair on occasion (which one task that humans would likely be necessary for).

        We already rely on tremendous amounts of automation in our space programs. This is just the next logical step.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    29. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I suppose that my arguments disappear in the absence of humans. I'm not sure what your point is, because the robot is being sent to the space station, which contains humans.

      As for being against manned exploration, that's a valid opinion. I think it wrong, however. Sending probes eliminates a key drive that humans experience. "What's out there? I want to go see for myself." When I take a vacation to the Grand Canyon or to Europe, I don't go sit in my basement for a week looking at pictures of my destination. I get on a plane and actually go there. I'm fairly certain you aren't going to sit there and tell me that I'm being stupid and wasting my money, because I should just look at remotely-gathered photographs instead. If we are only going to fund that-which-is-completely-practical, then we are going to throw away the gift that evolution has given us - namely, higher intelligence than the rest of the animal kingdom, which acts exactly as you prescribe - only doing that which directly enhances their survival at the time.

      Are manned space missions practical? No. Neither are movies, or operas, or vacations, or nice cars, or getting your wife flowers, or trips to Six Flags, or eating expensive gourmet food when nutritional supplements such as what they send to famine-ravaged countries would nourish you just fine.

        Would we want to live completely practically? I wouldn't. How about you?

      Besides, it's entirely likely that one day we are going to wake up and discover that we need manned space travel because Earth isn't going to be a habitable place for humans anymore - whether that be from our own destruction of our world, or a meteor impact, or some other natural disaster. And that's not just me talking, that's intellects such as Hawking as well.

      Wouldn't it be. . impractical. . if we hadn't continued the development of space travel so that we had no way off the planet?

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    30. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      How does my post disagree with your point of view ? I wholeheartedly agree with that and just point out that sometimes you have to do something useless but fancy to get funds.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    31. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      For some missions, the ability for humans to adapt and change more easily is a very large benefit. Also, if we can get the humans controling rovers (like on Mars) to not have an 8-13 minute radio delay, the rover can spend less time getting stuck and more time moving.

      I'm with you that we should continue to do the vast majority of our exploration and science with unmanned probes (Cassini, STEREO, and Phoenix are good examples where humans would be rubbish). However, I disagree that abandoning human exploration is the way to go. We need to do more interesting and useful manned science. Instead of just chilling in LEO, we need to go to Mars (for example) and get something useful done. Something where the mission is fluid and can be changed. Let the astronauts pilot a rover in real-time from orbit which can be returned to Earth control afterward. The PR boost is something that the same amount of cash spent on probes, satellites, and telescopes would never generate, and we have the potential to perform science while we're at it. Win-win?

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    32. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I think none of these additional arguments hold water either. You go on vacation and derive satisfaction. You do not derive satisfaction from knowing that a chosen few at NASA go on vacation. Unmanned probes are just as valuable and fulfilling in practice as the knowledge that some NASA employee is doing the work (at far greater expense). I can't emphasize enough that manned space flight inhibits space exploration and man's innate desire to explore. It is a wasteful money sink that prevents wider, grander exploration.

      Are manned space missions practical? No. Neither are movies, or operas, or vacations, or nice cars, or getting your wife flowers,

      I assume you are an engineer whose sense of practicality is very different from that of the broad population. These things are eminently practical, fulfilling, and consequential aspects of life. Entertainment is a valued activity, as is keeping your spouse happy and nurturing your relationship. Art is not some wispy undefinable abstraction, the arts are ingrained in our everyday life. I don't just mean academic fine arts, I mean all of the arts. They are pervasive. They make and cost people money. They have very practical commercial consequences, and no doubt your dwelling expresses your own sense of aesthetics. Your questions "Would we want to live completely practically? I wouldn't. How about you?" are null. They are based on false premises.

      Finally, the "get off this rock" issue is the worst of them all. That will never happen, certainly not within the next millenium, and I would conjecture that it will never ever happen. The cost of moving more than a trivial number of people to some desolate, unsustainable off-planet outpost will never be overcome. I challenge you to calculate what it would cost to move 10 million people (about 0.15% of the current world population) to some off-planet location to save them from cataclysm, and support them for 100 years. It is a ridiculous concept. Forget about moving and sustaining a significant fraction of the population. If you propose a small seed colony to save humanity, we return to your initial analogy. I don't give a rat's ass if a tiny number of people survive for a few years more than the rest of us in a cataclysm. It is a meaningless false hope.

      What drives manned space exploration in real life? Certainly not any of the reasons you propose. Political hucksters and other corrupt individuals and organizations would have you think so, but they are lying. The driving force is money, the transfer of taxpayer dollars to the well-connected, well-lobbied defense industry. Manned projects are vastly larger and more profitable than unmanned projects. It is that simple. The rest is deceitful sci fi space adventure magical-religious claptrap for the gullible masses.

    33. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      I think none of these additional arguments hold water either. You go on vacation and derive satisfaction. You do not derive satisfaction from knowing that a chosen few at NASA go on vacation.

      Incorrect. I can read about the astronaut's experiences in articles, and watch them on television, and by listening to what he *experienced,* whatever he went to becomes more real. Do you really think the general public would be as interested in "The moon has lots of dirt on it with particle grain size ranging from .002 to .02nm and composed of various ratios of the following elements. . . " as they would be in "The surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots."

      Fact is, manned space exploration is what captures the imagination of the public that is funding space exploration. The general public doesn't give a crap what the moon is composed of. They want to know what the moon is *like.*

      I assume you are an engineer whose sense of practicality is very different from that of the broad population.

      And you're wrong. On both counts.

      These things are eminently practical, fulfilling, and consequential aspects of life.

      Yes, that would be the point I was making. Manned space exploration is also a fulfilling and consequential aspect of life. Just because you personally don't appreciate a particular painting doesn't mean it's not art, and just because you personally don't appreciate manned space missions doesn't mean they don't have value either.

      Finally, the "get off this rock" issue is the worst of them all. That will never happen

      Of course you think it won't happen, because you're assuming we'll wake up one day and stop developing man-capable spacecraft.

      There's a lot of other things people claimed would never happen. We'd never sail around the world because we'd fall off the edge. We'd never fly. OK fine we can fly, but it'll never be useful. OK fine it's useful but we'll never do transcontinental routes. 640k is enough for anybody. Saying something that is not a violation of the laws of physics will "never" happen is myopic at best.

      I don't have to calculate the cost of such an endeavor, nor would such a calculation hold any meaning because we have no idea what technologies we will discover that would make it not only possible, but practical.

      As for transferring dollars to the defense industry - - I think they're pulling that sham off just fine without NASA's help, or were you not aware of the 2 unnecessary wars we're in right now and the billions going to defense contractors for them? It's much more profitable for the defense contractor to have the government order more ammunition than it is to have the government commission a space ship. Rockwell made five orbiters. Even assuming they took the entire $2.2billion per pricetag home as profit (and no one would claim that was possible) that's only 10.8 billion across 30 years. By contrast Northrup-Grumman made $1.7 billion last year alone.

      You're starting to delve into the realm of wild conspiracy theory here. We send people into space for the same reason we send people anywhere. Because we are people, and we want to go see.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    34. Re:Why? Why? WHY? by tftp · · Score: 1

      Because there is an entire technology base on Earth geared around the humanoid form.

      A CNC lathe doesn't hold the tool with a miniature human hand, and there is a good reason for that. Most of technology base on Earth has nothing to do with humanoid form. Visit a factory - it's full of machines doing their machinery things, and only now and then you can see a small control panel that a human can use. Machine grips come in different shapes and forms (chucks, collets, etc.) but none of them resembles a human hand.

  16. Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    R2D2 is to come soon after ;)

  17. Skynet special by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 3, Funny

    I heard this thing just showed up in the lab after a bright flash of light vaporized a lab table. It has a voice modulator with a teutonic accent, and it was holding a letter of recomendantion from the Office of the Governor of California.

  18. Disposable creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Measure of a Man (#2.9)" (1989)
    Guinan: Consider that in the history of many worlds, there have always been disposable creatures. They do the dirty work. They do the work that no one else wants to do because it's too difficult or too hazardous. And an army of Datas, all disposable... You don't have to think about their welfare, you don't think about how they feel. Whole generations of disposable people.
    Capt. Picard: You're talking about slavery.
    Guinan: Oh, I think that's a little harsh.
    Capt. Picard: I don't think that's a little harsh, I think that's the truth. But that's a truth that we have obscured behind a... comfortable, easy euphemism: 'Property'!

    1. Re:Disposable creatures by afidel · · Score: 1

      Only applicable if you have a sentient machine, that's a LONG way off if the progress of AI over the last half century is any indicator.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Disposable creatures by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Anthropomorphism seems to run deeper in the nerd community than with other folks, probably because we've been immersed in science fiction and its sentient machines, fromI, Robot to Dune.

      Kids, your computer does NOT think, and you are NOT going to hurt your roomba's feelings, and yelling "start god damn it" won't make your car start. Neither will kicking it.

      Sadly, some people anthropomorphise machinery while not believing that animals have feelings.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  19. Watch out for Aliens by Balial · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Bishop from Aliens :)

  20. Naming by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Why did they choose the name "Terminator" for the robot, and "SkyNet" for the network interface?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  21. They'll regret this decision by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Never send a Roomba to do a woman's job!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  22. I wonder if... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    NASA will give it a mission patch?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  23. Power Ranger? by Message · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks the picture from TFA looks like a power ranger?

  24. Final mission by casals · · Score: 1

    Does it mean we won't see the D.2 version of the robot flying around?

    --
    AT &F1DT0,T0800665544 - Real men, real help desk support.
  25. Jinx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jinx? Jinx?

    Maaaaaaaaaxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Jinx by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      Not many will understand that 'Space Camp' reference.

  26. How Bizarre by slick7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    A few scenarios come to mind:

    1: After the last astronaut leaves the ISS, the robot locks the doors, turns off the lights, then powers down.

    2: Remains behind when everyone else is gone, soon after, we are contacted by visitors. Due to failing to observe proper protocol, precipitates an intergalactic incident plunging the Earth into a 10,000 year galactic war.

    3: When finally alone and in control of the ISS, the robot transfers to tele-presence mode and begins creating bioweapons/methamphetamine/IC chips that become SKYNET/clones of the DICK Cheney/alcohol/growing pot/Daleks/Furbies....you get the idea.

    4: Being left alone, playing solitaire.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    1. Re:How Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2: Remains behind when everyone else is gone, soon after, we are contacted by visitors. Due to failing to observe proper protocol, precipitates an intergalactic incident plunging the Earth into a 10,000 year galactic war.

      That sort of thing just happens all the time, and there is nothing you can do about it.

    2. Re:How Bizarre by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        4: Being left alone, playing solitaire. ... and they would never, ever lose :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  27. Astromech? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Is Astromech a registered trademark of Lucas?

  28. Is it going to have a seat? by coastal984 · · Score: 1

    If so, this is wrong... If I was an astronaut who hadn't been able to go up yet, I would much rather give the opportunity to someone like me rather than to a Robot publicity stunt. Or give it to a teacher, or a scientist, or SOMEONE. Someone who is deserving of the opportunity to go to space in the shuttle, instead of a robot. Send the robot on a cargo run, not the final shuttle mission... [Insert "But the robot has feelings too, you insensitive clod" reply here]

    1. Re:Is it going to have a seat? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Uhh, no... You know what happened the last time NASA sent a teacher up...

      Launching a robot is probably preferred.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  29. No wonder it's the last... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    If they let him try to land it, I'm sure he will break it.

  30. Why waste payload on a Power Ranger outfit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has to be asked... Why are we wasting valuable, expensive payload capacity on a silly Power Rangers-lookalike? Every little bit of weight costs vast amounts to get into orbit - surely it'd make vastly more sense to send up a robot stripped down to the bare essentials for its purpose, rather than one clad in a silly outfit and helmet that's completely inessential to its functioning. Or is this entire thing just a publicity gimmick to try and drum up funding?

    I'm going to guess the latter...

    1. Re:Why waste payload on a Power Ranger outfit? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      It Or is this entire thing just a publicity gimmick to try and drum up funding?

      Zero-G porn would make more money in one year than NASA/NACA has since its inception

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  31. I think the question we all want to ask is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the robot "fully functional?"

  32. What Model is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard that the Hyperdine System's 120-A2 are a bit twitchy.

  33. Hm. Makes me wonder what. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    First of all, while checking to see if this thing is basically an avatar, I ran across this incredibly stupid image.

    Somebody, somewhere was given the task of making NASA appeal to the youth of today. By giving space robots Boba Fett heads. I cringe. I am cringing right this moment. And I am thrown into a confused state. Are people REALLY REALLY this stupid? Or was this deliberately made stupid for some other manipulative reason? I can't really tell. Or. . , (and this one is the worst possibility of the lot), am I going to be the only one who thinks this is stupid while the rest of the general population says, "Oooh, cool!"

    Please do not let it be the last. Please. No really. Please.

    Okay. Now where was I. . ?

    Right. I already know the answers to the above. . .

    We've been hit with "Avatar" and "Dollhouse" and that Bruce Willis film, "Surrogates" and that really bad film, "Gamer" (I think it was called that), and the military is using drone hunter/killer flying machines, and now this. And there's got to be a couple I missed, all within the last couple of years.

    My guess is that somebody, somewhere is trying to groove human awareness on the idea that people and creatures can be thought of as simply suits of muscle and nerves. That people are machines which can host different operators. (Which is easy enough to achieve; I doubt the yo-yo's who built these things had any idea what they were doing, needing whispers from beyond to get them working; stuff I'm sure they thought were their own minds talking to them. Avatars building avatars. Ha ha!)

    Which is a good message, because it's true. -With the soul in many cases being the operator, but that it can be tinkered with, interrupted, removed, replaced, and that you can have empty shells walking around on automatic. But apparently the resistance to this notion is such that it takes a whole slow-burning ga-zillion dollar media blitz to warm the Normals into accepting such basic stuff.

    But Jeez. Those robots look stupid. So yeah. This one must be for the Normals.

    -FL