HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Blogs
Blog

Slideshow: Robots in Space

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Oldest First|Newest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 3/4  >  >>
Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Cast of robot characters
Rob Spiegel   10/4/2012 10:54:41 AM
NO RATINGS
Interesting points, Btwolfe. The idea that anthropomorphism would be used for marketing purposes hadn't occurred to me. But it does make sense.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Cast of robot characters
Ann R. Thryft   10/4/2012 6:42:50 PM
NO RATINGS
Rob, I think you're right about that. Humanoid robots are mostly designed to interact with humans or equipment built for humans. They're not particularly useful otherwise, and would be over-designed in many cases, or just not functional.

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Cast of robot characters
Charles Murray   10/4/2012 9:02:59 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree, Rob. Up to now, most of the humanoid robots were designed to alleviate the psychological discomfort of dealing with a machine (consider Marilyn Monrobot's stand-up comedy robot). In space, that's the least of concerns.  

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Cast of robot characters
Rob Spiegel   10/5/2012 11:02:04 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, Ann, there is a certain beauty to robots designed exclusively for function. Even so, you can still see certain elements of nature appearing, particularly insect functionality.

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Cast of robot characters
Rob Spiegel   10/5/2012 11:04:26 AM
NO RATINGS
Good distinction, Chuck. These robots are not designed to interact with humans.

Jack Rupert, PE
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Cast of robot characters
Jack Rupert, PE   10/19/2012 10:54:26 AM
NO RATINGS
Interesting point btwolfe.  I never thought of the marketing angle, but it makes perfect sense.  A lot of these robots are not just being purchased by the technical gurus to fill the function that they were designed for.  They have to be approved by the non-technical or outside organizations who are providing the funding (or worse, a Congressional committee).  If these things look "nice" or provide and interesting photo-op, there is an increased chance of approval even if there is no functional difference.

Battar
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Robots in Space- Just when you weren't afraid to go back!
Battar   12/5/2012 9:17:05 AM
NO RATINGS
Sparkywatt,

                  Just waht exactly would be the use of a permanent outpost on the moon? And if it was setup, is there any reason that it souldn't be fully automated/robotic, rather than launching millions of dollars worth of life support with each human space tourist?

SparkyWatt
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Robots in Space- Just when you weren't afraid to go back!
SparkyWatt   12/6/2012 2:03:56 PM
NO RATINGS
The moon is a perfect exploration base.  An interplanetary spaceship assembled there could be launched with far less energy than from Earth, and returned without re-entry.  This would enable a ship of livable size to be built by shipping the complex systems up from Earth.  The Moon itself could be mined for simple bulk materials.  In this way a ship with cabin space equivalent to a small house could be launched repeatedly from the moon for approximately the energy cost of an Apollo spacecraft.  Such a space base would be a logical step on the way of sending people to Mars or Vesta.  Also, with virtually no atmosphere, systems that combine the best of Hubbel and Palomar could be placed there and manned.

Battar
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Robots in Space- Just when you weren't afraid to go back!
Battar   12/7/2012 5:14:19 PM
NO RATINGS
Sparkywatt, every single nut and bolt of an interplanetary spaceship launched from the moon would first have to be launched from Earth, so the "far less energy" physics don't add up. A Hubble type telescope could be placed, unmanned on the moon, (what would a man do in the telescope that couldn't be done by telemetry?) but it would be continually rotating with the moon, while if placed in orbit it might be easier to keep it pointed where you want to look. Earth is a good place for launching robots to Mars, too. Can't see the point of sending people to do a robots' job, unless it's just for the Hollywood drama.

SparkyWatt
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Robots in Space- Just when you weren't afraid to go back!
SparkyWatt   12/7/2012 6:25:00 PM
NO RATINGS
Your comments are correct if you ignore three factors:

1 - A ship with a large cabin is far harder to launch than a collection of parts.

2 - I mentioned in my post the possibility of mining the moon for bulk materials, potentially structural members and partitions, which is a large part of the weight.  These would never have to leave the Earth.  Granted, developing the capability for manufacturing complex parts on the moon would be long term, so the electronics, precision machined parts, and so on would have to be shipped up to the moon.  Other heavy items that it may be possible to get on the moon include the oxygen and water (of which evidence has recently been found).  That is quite a weight savings.

3 - I also mentioned in my post that there is no re-entry required to return to the moon.  That eliminated the need for heat sheilding, and reduces the structural requirements, and vastly increases the re-usability of the craft.  Shipping up two thirds of an interplanetary craft that can fly 20 or 30 missions is far more efficient than trying to launch the whole thing when it can only be used once without a major refit (as was the case with the Shuttle).

As to the telescope point, un anmanned system like Hubbel can do (and has done) wonderful things.  But it cannot adapt to a new mission quickly.  The problems with robotic missions are: They have to be planned years in advance (because they have no capability to move beyond the mission they were designed for or for self repair), there is no first hand observation, reacting to something outside the plan is not possible, there is little or no ability to inspire.  Robots can do a lot, but they cannot take people there emotionally.

You talked cynically about "Hollywood drama".  While it is true the media hypes everything, consider this.  Nobody is going to explore without something exciting to explore.  We need to inspire kids to get into science, and we won't do that unless someone can stand at the forefront and say, "this is amazing!"

Consider also that we are outgrowing our cradle.  The only place to go is up.  If we don't learn how to go elsewhere, we will have nowhere to go.

Most of the people who object to this stuff do so because of money.  They scream about 100 billion dollar - 10 year programs as huge wastes of money.  100 billion dollars over 10 years in the US is less than $10 per family per month.  I would gladly pay that to put a colony on the moon.  People who beef about that simply have no sense of proportion.

<<  <  Page 3/4  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs
Thanksgiving is a time for family. A time for togetherness. A time for… tech?
The promise of the Internet of Things (IoT) is that devices, gadgets, and appliances we use every day will be able to communicate with one another. This potential is not limited to household items or smartphones, but also things we find in our yard and garden, as evidenced by a recent challenge from the element14 design community.
Researchers have developed a new flexible fabric that integrates both movement and sensors, introducing new potential for technology-embedded clothing and soft robots.
If you didn't realize that PowerPoint presentations are inherently hilarious, you have to see Don McMillan take one apart. McMillan -- aka the Technically Funny Comic -- worked for 10 years as an engineer before he switched to stand-up comedy.
The first Tacoma Narrows Bridge was a Washington State suspension bridge that opened in 1940 and spanned the Tacoma Narrows strait of Puget Sound between Tacoma and the Kitsap Peninsula. It opened to traffic on July 1, 1940, and dramatically collapsed into Puget Sound on November 7, just four months after it opened.
Design News Webinar Series
11/19/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
11/6/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
10/7/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
12/11/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Dec 1 - 5, An Introduction to Embedded Software Architecture and Design
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Last Archived Class
Sponsored by Littelfuse
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service