Japanese Consortium Projects a Humanoid Robot On the Moon By 2015

JoshuaInNippon writes "A Japanese manufacturing cooperative named Astro-Technology SOHLA announced on April 27th that they are planning to create and send a two-legged humanoid robot to the moon, have it draw the Japanese flag on the surface, and hopefully then get it to return to the Earth, all by the year 2015. The group wants to inspire people, particularly in Japan, about space and generate confidence among SMEs to create low-cost space technology. While the idea may seem far-fetched to some, SOHLA had success in building a small low-cost satellite named Maido-1, which was launched into space aboard a Japanese H-IIA rocket in early 2009. The group also commented that they want to have their future humanoid robot hitch a ride to the moon with a surveying rover that JAXA is building."

Comments

And What Will It Do?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Will it be able to hit golfballs like the earlier astronauts? Will it plant a flag? Hell, will it even be able to right itself or free itself from its restraints once it 'lands'?

If they just want to lose a robot, they should send it down the Jersey Turnpike and see how it does in the truck lanes.

Re:And What Will It Do?

[sabt-pestnu]

Perhaps there are. However, perhaps you missed the implications of this plan.

Humanoid robot. Complex action. Manipulation.

To achieve the goal of "drawing a flag" it seems reasonable that the robot would a) have both sensors and manipulators, and probably b) be updateable, or even teleoperation/telefactor.

At that point, what it can do once it gets there is only really limited by what you send with it, or what you can assemble once you get there.

Why 2-legged?

[Grishnakh]

Honestly, this push for 2-legged robots seems pretty silly, and the only reason it's done is because they look more like us. A 4-legged or even 6-legged robot would make far more sense. 4 legs are much more stable than 2, and easier to walk on. If pickup up and handling objects is a concern, then 6 legs is a good alternative. Many insects work this way, after all. Praying mantises are a good example: they have six legs, and use the front two for grasping. For extra stability on rough terrain (which certainly describes the moon), the front legs can be dual-purpose, used for both walking about grasping.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Or, you know, they could just use wheels like other, very successful robotic explorers....Legs are complicated.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[natehoy]

So, waa-a-a-ait, you're saying four legs good, two legs baa-aa-aad?

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but preferably we want our "Greeting Robot" on the moon to look like us. Any approaching aliens will train their weapons on it, check it out. If they shoot it, we know they are hostile. If they leave it alone, and come for a visit to Earth, then they will know what to expect.

I would hate the first interstellar war to be caused by the aliens expecting a 6 legged species and getting a 2 legged one.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Grishnakh]

That's true, legs are complicated. However, they have distinct advantages over wheels on extremely rough terrain. Wheels easily get stuck and lose traction. Legs can easily cope with holes, small and large obstacles, etc. A rock in the way can cause a wheeled vehicle to get stuck, but a legged vehicle can step right over it.

Have you ever seen someone try to take a wheeled vehicle on one of the hiking trails in the Grand Canyon? Even if it weren't against the rules, not many people would be that stupid, because it would mean certain death. But thousands of hikers and mules go up and down the extremely steep and rocky trails every year with almost no problems. The 4-legged mules actually do a lot better than the 2-legged humans too, even if humans are sitting on top of them.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Grishnakh]

If that's a concern, then 6-legged is a better way to go. That way, when the hostile aliens come to earth looking for whoever sent the 6-legged robots, they'll attack the insects first, thinking they're the more intelligent species that built everything, and that the humans are just some dumb animals they use as beasts of burden. I don't think there's any insects that are endangered, so we can stand to lose some of them.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Monkeedude1212]

Honestly, this push for 2-legged robots seems pretty silly, and the only reason it's done is because they look more like us.

Its not just because they LOOK more like us - you basically demonstrated half the reasons in your post. They move like us, they have to handle the same stresses as us. Agreed - the human form is not the most efficient for gathering materials or effective travelling on harsh ground. However, we can learn what traveling on the ground would be like for a human WITHOUT sending a human, and thats why you would send a humanoid robot.

It's job is to be drawing the Japanese Flag on the moon. Which, in case you haven't noticed, looks a lot like a crater, so its not like the moon isn't already covered in Japanese flags. This mission is not going to be so much about efficient robotics as it is about getting people into the idea of space travel.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Grishnakh]

There are advantages to being bipedal, hence why humans and birds are.

Like what?

The only "advantages" to being bipedal is that it frees up two limbs to do things other than walking. With humans, we use our front legs for grasping and carrying and manipulating things. With birds, they use their front legs to fly, which has distinct advantages over walking. Most birds only walk when they're resting, eating, or doing something else where they don't need to travel any significant distance. For primary locomotion, they use their wings, because it's a lot more efficient (and faster) than walking.

But, if we solve a few problems the relevant advantages would be weight (2 vs 4 legs)

If you don't have 4 legs, then you won't be able to do anything on the moon. Humans have 4 legs. We only walk on two of them, and call the other two "arms". They are smaller and lighter, but not that much lighter. Most quadrupedal mammals also have smaller, lighter front legs, which they happen to walk on. With them, just like with us, the rear legs are larger and heavier and provide most of the locomotive power.

efficiency (wheels are best, but humans are the most efficient long distance runners)

Wheels suck for rough terrain. Let's see a 4x4 truck or a mountain biker climb the Grand Canyon, or a mountainside for that matter.

Humans might be energy-efficient long-distance runners, but they're not very fast at it. That efficiency doesn't help too much when you're being chased by a bear or a lion. And I'm pretty sure birds are more efficient than humans at long-distance travel.

and the ability to step out of a hole.

Huh? I'm pretty sure just about any quadrupedal or 6-legged animal can do the same with ease. And with narrow holes (relative to their body size), they wouldn't fall in them to begin with, as their body is spread out more horizontally and if one pair of legs slips, the other pair (or two pairs) is still on the ground.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[John Hasler]

> Have you ever seen someone try to take a wheeled vehicle on one of the
> hiking trails in the Grand Canyon?

Have you ever seen someone try to take a humanoid robot on one of the
hiking trails in the Grand Canyon?

Re:Why 2-legged?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Well yeah, it's a trade off like everything else in space-vehicle design. If you are definitely sending your robot to rocky parts of the moon, then you should probably use legs. However, if you are going to be wandering around in a fairly small area where rocks can be avoided, wheels make much more sense. Also, wheeled configurations can do much better on rough terrain than those found on Spirit and Opportunity. Just look at the capabilities of a quad or a hummer to see just how rough terrain can get and still allow for wheeled designs. At this point, of course, things probably become so expensive that it does make sense to switch to legs. My point was just that, unless you really are designing a robot to clamber over obstacles, or climb moon-cliffs, legs may very well be an over-design to the system.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Mindcontrolled]

All true, but when, if you get the humanoid robot right, it can't just use the vacuum cleaner, it can mop the floor, clean the toilet, cook dinner, change lightbulbs, and do basically everything needed in my household, whatever task is around. The roomba will still work great vacuuming the floor, but it'll sit pathetically in its corner, whining sadly while the humanoid bot outclasses him in every other task. I agree though, that we are not remotely at this point. Given that, it is little more than a publicity stunt to put a bipedal on the moon. That doesn't mean, however, that we should not continue researching humanoid robots - or, let me rephrase that, multipurpose robots able to use any tool you throw at them. The main problem is not the number of legs, heck, let it be quadruped - the main problem to solve is the dexterity. For true tool-using multipurpose robots, it would probably be best to give them highly dexterous hands and flexible arms. There's been a lot of success in that field lately - just look at this video.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Dawgmatix]

Because defence agencies are willing to fund two legged. This can potentially act as legs for double amputees

Re:Why 2-legged?

[justin12345]

I think the point is that it's a challenge.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Nadaka]

Not to discredit any of the very good points that you bring up...

But there are some of the advantages of being bipedal:

1: It weighs a lot less.

2: there is a lot less drag.

3: dynamic equalibrium allows faster turns.

4: If you need a set of limbs for some new function (flight, carrying stuff), evolution is a lot more likely to work if you convert existing limbs instead of growing a whole new pair.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Mursk]

Good point about the flag. Hopefully Turkmenistan has no such plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Turkmenistan.svg

Re:Why 2-legged?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

You must spend your time observing different quads and hummers than I do. I grew up in the country where four-wheeling and quading were one of very few past times. I have seen hummers and jeeps alike scramble, literally, over boulder ridden inclines. I have watched quads with paddle tires tear through deep sand efficiently. In that same sand, I have watched bipedal humans get off their broken down quads and expend a ridiculous amount of energy having to practically swim their way out of sand that they sink knee deep into. I have seen basic 4 x 4 trucks drive up loose dirt inclines that I, myself, slide down on my ass trying to get up.

I am not saying that either hummers or quads are the end all, be all of wheeled all terrain vehicles. I am just saying they demonstrate that wheels can be effective on some forms of rough terrain. Similarly, legs can be effective on some forms of rough terrain. Your Pinzgauer can be effective on many forms of rough terrain and so on. The original point that I was making was that for any space design mission (moon invasions included) you need to design your system to work particularly well in whatever environment it will be operating in. This requires various trade offs and design analysis. If your design process can show, definitively, that four, six, or eight legs will be the best, cheapest, most successful design, then you should use that. If your analysis shows that two legs would be best, use that. If your design shows that having a massive suspension and monster tires on it is the best design (like a hummer), use that. The point is not whether a hummer or quad can drive where you hike, the point is that your vehicle should use whatever locomotive system best suits it. You may be able to hike up the side of the Grand Canyon whereas a quad cannot. However, I guarantee you that I can ride my quad faster across large distances in deep, loose sand thank you can hike. So it isn't a matter of whether or not those two vehicles, or any vehicle, can do everything. In a given space exploration mission, the necessity to maneuver every possible terrain configuration is very likely unnecessary. However, if your mission calls for maneuvering through terrain that is better explored via wheels, then you should use wheels. If it calls for legs, use legs. If it calls for treads, use treads.

Mind you, I don't intend to disagree with you or pick a fight or anything. I am just explaining that legs require very complex designs with multiple points of failure (both in control software and hardware). If you can navigate the same terrain with some big tires and a heavy suspension, and you don't particularly care about climbing up narrow trails on the Grand Canyon on the moon, then maybe you should look at that design option as well.

Re:Why 2-legged?

[Grishnakh]

They do it because they're Japanese. They want an actual Gundam in space.

But will it be under the control of the Agriculture Ministry?

Flag planting as proof of ownership or visitation

[networkzombie]

Flag planting by proxy? Will the robot then walk over to the U.S. flag and tear it down?

Asimo?

[jameskojiro]

Couldn't they just Send an Asimo and a Solar array to charge it's batteries, maybe a "suit" to keep the dust off it's joints?

Re:Why?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

You obviously don't have children.

What a Waste!

[TomRC]

... put a robot on the moon, then bring it home after drawing a flag.

Why not have the robot do something semi-constructive? Maybe set up a solar mirror capable of melting lunar rocks. Or set up a drill to see if there are more volatile elements deeper beneath the surface? Or at LEAST give it lots of equipment to play with, and turn it over to their brainiest kids to "experiment with", inspiring their next generation.

If they just want to demonstrate the capability to put a human on the moon and bring them home, have the robot load their return lander with moon rocks - at least that payload would have some value other than publicity, and the robot will have served a purpose.

Re:Call me naive...

[zero_out]

Japan has an interesting facination with humanoid robots. Their ideal robot is essentially human, and treated as a human in all respects. This includes cost-inefficient recovery of the robot. The whole purpose of this proposed mission is to generate interest in humanoid robotics, so they want to show that a robot can do everything that a person can do. Sending it to the moon and back is just a glamorous way of doing this.

Re:Flag planting as proof of ownership or visitati

[bugnuts]

The whole "draw a flag" thing I consider to be the same as vandals tagging walls.

As long as it can only be seen with a really high-power telescope, I guess I don't care a lot. But it's still vandalism, and very distasteful.

Imagine if corporations could simply buy moon advertisements.... We'd be seeing crap like [KRAFT CHEESE] and other crap. The original footprints from the astronauts are still there 50 years later.

Baby Steps

[LordBmore]

How about we get a humanoid robot that can successfully walk up and down stairs on earth before we send that bad boy to the moon?

Re:Flag planting as proof of ownership or visitati

[DamienNightbane]

I'm reminded of an old Cold War joke.

"Mister President, the Soviets have just landed on the moon and are painting it red!"
"Good. We'll just wait until they finish, then send up our own boys to paint Coca-Cola on it."