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."

Re:Why?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

You obviously don't have children.

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?

[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?

[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.