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."

9 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
  2. 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?

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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!
  4. 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"