Developing Extra-Vehicular Robotics (EVRs) that use different methods of locomotion and manipulation is one strategy for coping with the bigger, heavier payloads of future space science platforms and vehicles, especially those in orbit. NASA researchers are looking at arachnid modes of locomotion for such operations, such as its Spidernaut. A spider's eight legs give it a multipoint stance with as many as seven down during a step. This allows footholds that can be more easily supported and that spread climbing loads more evenly across a structure without imparting torques. Spidernaut could carry large payloads across delicate solar arrays or telescopes, with very little structural loading. Spidernaut is being constructed at about 1/4 of its estimated final size. A one-leg test bed was constructed to perfect leg kinematics and walking capabilities. Researchers then built a successor two-leg prototype to test software and onboard electronics. Combined with an additional wheeled support structure, the two-legged model used linear actuators in a 3-degrees-of-freedom design that supports 100 lbs. per leg pair. Before building the eight-legged version, Spidernaut's hip actuator packaging was reduced, and flex between the leg and connecting structure was eliminated. (Source: NASA)
Nice slide show, Ann. Certainly depicts the wide range of robots, some humanoid and some mimicking insects and animals, that are an on-going part of the space program. It's interesting that so much of what you see in this slide show that was once only the domain of government-backed space programs is now filtering down into more mainstream applications.
Beth and Ann, that is a motley crew. Actually the NASA robot looks a little like the bounty hunter from Star Wars, doesn't it? I wonder that the Curiosity rover was not pictured. It seems to be one of the most complex yet.
Thanks, Rob. As it turns out, there aren't that many humanoid robots destined for space: The DLR's Justin and NASA's Robonaut are the only two I came across.
Ann, I'm not too surprised there are not many humanoid robots in space. I would think function trumps all other considerations in space. Thus the robots are going to resemble what is required for function.
Rob, I think the primary motivation for robot anthropomorphism is advertising. If you're trying to get more funding for your project and the way you do that is by demonstrations to non-engineers, then you want to make it as visually compelling as possible. People easily identify with the human form. However, if you're trying to do real science, function has to come first.
Then again, symmetry forces a lot of design choices that just happen to be anthropomorphic, or, at least, naturally inspired. For example, if you have two robotic manipulators and a set of sensors to observe what the manipulators are doing, you'd naturally want to put the sensors in between them and on a mast that can point the sensors in the desired direction. It's not biologically inspired, it's just a logical configuration. And if encasing the sensors in a humanoid head sells the project without affecting funtionality, why not do it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lou, did you mean NASA's Robonaut? It does look a lot like the Star Wars bounty hunter. I wonder if that's where the NASA engineers got their inspiration. The Curiosity rover is shown in slide 5.
I agree, Naperlou. The NASA robot does look like the bounty hunter from Star Wars. When I look at the headline of this article and look at the GM Robonaut photo, I am also reminded of the line, "Danger, Will Robinson."
I used to work on Robonaut, so, yes, Bobafet is the inspiration for the original head, although you'll never get them to admit it because they don't want Lucas breathing down their neck.
There's plenty of online resources about Robonaut and related work on the NASA website and elsewhere, so I won't elaborate. If it's not redily aparent, Robonaut 2, Centaur, and Spidernaut are all from the same team of engineers.
As to other blogger's comments about why NASA has not been more of a leader in innovation, it's partially because there's a lot of fifedoms in the agency and some of them will not be content unless their group is the only one doing a certain of type of work. I've seen plenty of comments and behavior by NASA "bosses" that serves to exclude other divisions (e.g., JSC vs Ames vs JPL) to the detriment of the agency as a whole. When these groups are forced to work together, they only do so grudgingly. Most of the NASA people are truly interested in doing good work, but it only takes a few power-hungry people to spoil it for the rest.
btwolfe, I've read a lot about Robonaut's design, and you're right, there's a lot available online about it. Just thought you might have some other interesting tidbits to share, but we understand if you can't. Your comments about NASA fifedoms sound a lot like other industries, as well.
Ann, I understand that fifedoms exist in inducstry, and there's nothing wrong with healthy competition since it often generates multiple good ideas. There are brilliant minds in each NASA center, and I think we'd get better results if they colaborated more instead of sabotaging each other's work.
Image 7, of the German DLR crawlers, is just plain scary.
By rights, the ESA ATV cargo craft that has flown to the space station 3 times, and the Russian Progress cargo craft that has gone to ISS dozens of times belong in this list. Both of those vehicle types dock automatically (albeit with a manual control backup mode).
The Japanese ATV and SpaceX vehicles are not as capable; they rendezvous automatically but must be docked using a different robot (CanadArm2).
Besides being a "great title for a "B" movie, why can't they build cars and airplanes out of the same stuff they built Voyager? That little puppy has been gone for 35 years and counting!
Great slide show, although some of them might give me nightmares, like the crawler spidery thingie.
I have always been impressed with how NASA not only keeps up but sets the bar for new things technology. Too bad they weren't smart enough to go back to the moon and keep the public's interest up, so they could get sufficient funding. And that is from a guy who thinks the government overreaches its authority doing such things.
As I recall, NASA's moon program was cut short by the government. There were supposed to be two more Apollo flights than actually happened. The program was axed by Congress on the grounds that we had proved our point and the money was better spent elsewhere.
Too bad. The next logical step would have been a permanent outpost on the Moon. The shuttles near earth capability was originally supposed to be a stepping stone in that direction.
Sadly, they would have been the most popular agency, group, band of heroes on earth if they had kept going to the moon. As a young adult I followed every launch and update. No wonder the American people got so disallusioned with NASA. The Space Shuttle was not very exciting. I don't care about the logistics of manned space flight. The American people love the excitement of space- Star Trek, Star Wars, ET, etc. shows where the money is. And it ain't in space lab, no matter the value!
Thanks for the history, SparkyWatt. I thought I remembered it was a cutback in fed funds, not a lack of will from NASA, that stopped further moon exploration. I agree with Warren, they could have been long-term stars with continued exploration. Cutting their funds short was a tragedy.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sparky, seriously, would you be willing to leave earth and go live on the moon, in a life-support bubble? Think of the shipping rates from Amazon to your new address.
There has been a robot in space for decades. Who can forget "Warning, Warning Will Rogers."
I am not happy for robots in space. I want humans! It is our destiny. Robots can suppliment but not replace. It is our nature. We just lack a government and space agency without vision.
Warren, I'm with you on the creepiness factor of the Crawlers and, even more so, Spidernaut. But I found the analysis of Spidernaut's gait extremely interesting--more legs means more (potential) stability) on rough ground, assuming they are coordinated correctly.
We looked at a number of sources to determine this year's greenest cars, from KBB to automotive trade magazines to environmental organizations. These 14 cars emerged as being great at either stretching fuel or reducing carbon footprint.
Researchers at MIT and Sandia National Labs have observed a reaction in lithium-air batteries that could help improve the design of these cells for electric vehicles and other applications.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
0 
