Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Insect Robots For Mars Exploration 120

Posted by Hemos from the looking-more-deeply dept.
destructor writes "Thanks to these guys, I found this little robotic article. Aided by NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts, flying insect robots are looking at a life on our "little red planet", Mars in order to procure some atmospheric information and samples. Since conventional aircraft are unable to precisely navigate the Mars surface due to very thin air qualities, the robots actually have the ability to "move only their wings rapidly - while the body flies slowly", to ease sample collections." Space.com is carrying a piece on this.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Insect Robots For Mars Exploration More

Insect Robots For Mars Exploration

Comments Filter:

  • so now (Score:5, Funny)

    by llamalicious ( 448215 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:36PM (#2660808) Journal
    so once big brother gets his hands on it, the tool of choise for personal privacy protection is going to be a fly swatter?
    :)

  • Wonder if they will try it here first (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eaddict ( 148006 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:38PM (#2660812)
    I always get a kick out of these stories about robots being used on other planets. Anyone have a NASA link of these things being tried in some of our (Earth) extreme environment? Also, why don't we do these robot things on the moon first before we spend a billion or so going a few miles down the road?

  • Must... Resist... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Orne ( 144925 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:38PM (#2660814) Homepage
    ... So when they there are bugs in NASA's program, they aren't kidding!
  • I'd still like to see people get sent to Mars though. It seems that they are almost counting on it not happening anymore. We can send all the research tools and robots we want. I think we still need to go there.

    arc

  • Nature never fails to amaze me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:43PM (#2660847) Journal
    It blows my mind that something created thousands (if not millions ) of years ago by nature is versatile enough to be deployed for extraplanetary exploration.

    If nature did not come up with flapping wings as a method of flight, how long would it have taken humanity to come up with the idea?

    • One the age of engineering was here, it didn't take us very long to create fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, parachutes... I don't see flapping wings as any more of a big deal than rotating ones or the principle of the aerofoil.

      • Re:Nature never fails to amaze me (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DahGhostfacedFiddlah ( 470393 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @02:18PM (#2661017)
        From what I understand, we still don't fully understand how flapping wings fully work. Until recently, calculations on the lift provided by bees wings showed that they should crash and burn. I think, though, that without flapping-winged animals, we could have gotten there by studying fish, whose flexible bodies have far better propulsion than any of our fixed-shape vehicles nowadays.

        Anyway, more on-topic, I love the fact that they're so small - NASA could put a few thousand in a single payload, and even if 90% fail, we'd be able to closely map a *lot* of Mars' surface. I was thinking, though, that a better design might be something more grasshopper-like? In the low gravity and pressure, you'd think this would make more sense than trying to design something to fly, and take less energy than constant wing movement.
        • The trouble with any ground bsed thing, particularly a small one, is that it's going to take forever to cover any interesting amount of territory, and in practice would likely fail somehow (reach end of life or get disabled by terrain) before it got too far.

          What I'd like to see would be some kind of self inflating blimp that could survey a lot of land and transmit back imaging info. Maybe a helium blimp or perhaps even a hot air one powered by solar electricity.

          What would be really cool would be if they had a public competition to allow one or two non-NASA designed bots to go along too. Fighting with the NASA bit would have to be a no-no, though!
          • What I'd like to see would be some kind of self inflating blimp that could survey a lot of land and transmit back imaging info. Maybe a helium blimp or perhaps even
            a hot air one powered by solar electricity.

            One question: how will the air be heated? On Earth, all we have to do is strike a match because Earth has oxygen. Mars has very little, if any, oxygen. Oxygen is a prerequisite for something to combust, as it said in the article.

            Also, someone else in this thread made a very good point-- the temperature varies way too much for a blimp to be feasible. It would explode-- or, on the other hand, the air pressure would decrease so much that the balloon part of the blimp (I know there is a special term for that part-- anyone know what it is, by any chance?) would essentially deflate.

            BTW, they have tested the entomopter. Every couple of monthes the Discovery Channel runs a show that has a bit about the entomopter. It's due to air pretty soon, I think. (My dad is addicted to Discovery, TLC, & the History Channel; he watches the show about the entomopter every time it comes on. (oy!)) But anyway, it's not like the people at GIT have only tested it on computer models; they just can't test a full-sized model with a full payload-- it would quite literally crash-and-burn. Oh yeah, now I remember-- the show is about mini-aircraft in general, and the bulk of the show is specifically about mini-spycraft. Some of the things the CIA has in the works are really fascinating :)

        • From what I understand, we still don't fully understand how flapping wings fully work. Until recently, calculations on the lift provided by bees wings showed that they should crash and burn.
          No, what the calculations indicated was that bees could not glide. Which they can't, and don't. Until CFD work was sufficiently advanced it wasn't well-understood how they did fly (the behavior of fluids at low Reynolds numbers wasn't that easy to analyze), but nobody seriously wrote "Bees shouldn't be able to fly".

          There's a full analysis of this folktale on the web somewhere, but I'm at work and don't have time to go looking for it to post a cite.

    • Re:Nature never fails to amaze me (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We'd probably have come up with conventional flight a little sooner. Before the Wrights, most people had been trying to emulate a bird's wings. Obviously, they didn't know enough about flight or how a bird flies to be able to do it very well.
    • It blows my mind that something created thousands (if not millions ) of years ago by nature is versatile enough to be deployed for extraplanetary exploration.

      The reason that they have been around that long is because of that versatility. As such, It isn't that impressive that they can be adapted to other planets.
    • It is amazing the solutions nature comes up with to problems.

      Imagine how dangerous the world would be if nature figured out projectiles. Or wheels. Or fission. That would be one mean shark.

      I guess nature did come up with those things - it just used humans as an intermediary.
    • I would think a small blimp, similar to those seen at hockey, basketball games, would work just as well and in fact be much cheaper. It can still hover, move side to side, etc, could transport video equipment, arms for picking up samples, etc. Isnt this like NASA, to create a billion dollar pen that writes upside down when you can just use a pencil?
      • "I would think a small blimp, similar to those seen at hockey, basketball games, would work just as well"

        The issue is that the atmosphere is too thin. The normal gasses used blimps (i.e. helium) would probably be too dense (i.e. not enough bouyancy) to work effectively in this environment.

        And besides, in the Martian day when the temperature is hundreds of degrees celsius, the gasses would expand and burst the balloon. In the night, the gasses would contract (possibly liquify and damage the sail's lining) and cause the thing to land/crash.

  • Storms... (Score:4, Funny)

    by scott1853 ( 194884 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:46PM (#2660861)
    Haven't they had enough problems controlling fairly large machines on that planet? Making a flying robot that flaps it's wings really fast to fly doesn't sound too reasonable. Maybe I have my planets wrong, but doesn't Mars experience some major storms every year. How much wind would it take to blow these things into a rock and smash them into tiny little pieces.
    • Martian storms are frequent, fast and long-lasting (years are not unheard of), but they are not "powerful" in the sense that storms push things around. The reason is air density, it is too low. You can walk in a 500kph martian storm, and have no problems except loss of visibility.

      Perhaps this doesn't apply at all to this robots, I mean, how can it fly when its surface is too low compared to its weight such that it is invulnerable to storms?

      • > You can walk in a 500kph martian storm, and have no problems except loss of visibility.

        Followed quickly by the stripping of flesh from your newly sandblasted bones.

        • Re:Storms... (Score:3, Informative)

          by nusuth ( 520833 )
          Not at all, kinematic viscosity of air and consequently the drag force is not enough to carry "sand" aloft, though it can carry very small particles with ease. Mars happens to have a fair amount dust made of small particles (no rain to wash them away), this is what gives foggy and dark looks to Martian storms. It is not like an desert storm on earth.

          Ofcourse "no problems except visibility" is a bit off the mark. There would be many problems with loss communication, static, dust seeping in the suits and possibly breathing apparatus, mechanical failures of instruments due to dust accumulation, unavaliability of air transorts etc. Let me put it this way, there is practically no difference between a 200kph martian storm and a 500kph one for someone on Martian surface.

    • We have come to understand with great vigor this fall that when large aircraft come down unexpectedly, this leads to very bad things.

      The same is not true for smaller craft.

      If a 747 "prangs" on landing, there are likely to be people injured or killed. On the other hand, smaller aircraft take hard landings rather a lot better.

      Taking it to a more significant extreme, I used to fly radio controlled planes. The five pound 5 foot wingspan planes could take a pretty hard landing without damage. Move to an 8 footer weighing 15 pounds, and the plane is much more fragile.

      Taking it in the other direction, it's probably impossible to kill an ant by dropping it from high altitude; there's not enough density for the terminal velocity to be too terribly high, and there's not enough mass for there to be much of an impact.

      A "flying robot" is liable to be a bit bigger than an ant, but it's certainly down there in the "small scale" category. If it's made of tough materials, it should be quite resilient.

    • Another thing.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by nusuth ( 520833 )
      Haven't they had enough problems controlling fairly large machines on that planet?

      No they haven't. AFAIK, all crafts that succeded in landing on the surface performed well beyond their design. Mars was russians nightmare, they send countless probes, and none (or a few) got there. States has only two major failures with crafts bound to Mars, it is just that those two were the last two missions to Mars.


    • How much wind would it take to blow these things into a rock and smash them into tiny little pieces.
      If it's small, light, and made of durable materials...it'll withstand quite a beating and still work. (Think Tonka.)
      • Tonka Toys don't meet those first two requirements. They also aren't self propelled flying machines with lots of highly intricate and mission-critical electronics inside.

        So if one of these robots can handle my 4 year old jumping up and down on it, and then tossing it out the second story window onto the sidewalk, then I'd consider it durable.
  • If you watch Nadesico at all, all the Characters that were born/lived on Mars are infected/gifted with worm-like nanites that live in their bodies. The nanites are the original exploratory and terraforming machinery in the story...

  • This seems too complicated (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:48PM (#2660868) Homepage
    I liked thetumbleweed [cnn.com] idea a lot more, though it's not so sexy. It seems like the odds of mechanical/electrical failures on a flyer are greater than the odds of our tumbleweed falling in a hole.
    • Nice idea, but no real point unless the tumble weed can fly long distances.

      "The trouble with the rovers is that they land in one spot and are very limited in the extent to which they can explore," says Robert Michelson, principal research engineer at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and lead developer of the Entomopter design. "It's frustrating to be looking through the camera of a rover and wonder what might be on the other side of the next ridge. If we could get a vehicle that could fly over that ridge, we could do surveys much more efficiently."

      • You're right - the two ideas aren't really competing. They'd be filling different roles in any potential mission.

        I believe, though, that the tumbleweed is the sort of idea that NASA should be looking for with regards to a first mission- simple, sturdy, and focused.

        I see the Entomopter, or other complex solutions being most useful when humans are there as well to do the debugging.

  • I really think this is the way to go... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wnknisely ( 51017 ) <wnkniselyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:48PM (#2660872) Homepage Journal
    With the present success of the robotic drones in Afghanistan, the idea of using some sort of similar robot to explore difficult environments is looking seriously promising.

    There is of course the delay time in communication that makes it unlikely we'll be able to control the drones remotely from Earth - but that just makes it an interesting programing problem.

    Seriously - cheap disposable robots that don't need the kinds of life support systems (or return flight ticket) that human exploration needs makes a ton more sense then sending up an expensive and non-expendable team.

    Sure you don't get the kind of glamor exposure that a human explorer would get - but robots are clearly the best pragmatic and economical choice.
  • Okay, I know this is off-topic, but look at the headlines on the main page of space.com:

    "NASA Report: Space Travel 'Inherently Hazardous' to Human Health"

    Well, duh.
  • I was thinking small flying robots with a camera attached would be a great way to hunt down people like Osama. Assumming these could be built cheaply enough you could send out hundreds of these to invade caves, scout out undergroud bunkers, etc. Design them so that it doesn't matter if someone manages to take out a few of them as long as some of the bots complete their mission.


    Its kind of frustrating with all the modern tech we have not to be able to track down a hiding enemy. Something like this could accomplish our mission a lot quicker and probably save a lot of lives.

    • Assumming these could be built cheaply enough you could send out hundreds of these to invade caves, scout out undergroud bunkers, etc. Design them so that it doesn't matter if someone manages to take out a few of them as long as some of the bots complete their mission.

      Personally, I think that a good weapon/suveillance device is one that can't be defeated by mosquito netting.
  • "Mars is a nasty place to fly a conventional air vehicle because almost everything there is working against you," said Anthony Colozza

    To be fair, he does say almost everything. However, the first thing that comes to my mind when talking about flight is gravity. In that repect, Mars is a better friend than Earth to the airborne.
    • Hey, its a nice idea. Lets just hope they actually send some *usefull* information back instead of pics that people of alt.conspiracy love ! we shall see :)

  • before we explore mars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by perdida ( 251676 ) <thethreatproject@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:53PM (#2660896) Homepage Journal
    we had better work out who owns it, etc.

    The U.S. and the Russians are arguing over the I.S.S. already. This is why the Russians would not send up their cargo module.

    It's gotten beyond the point of treaties for international peace saying "we all own space." No nation will go into space, and neither will any company go there, without some way of deriving profit.

    Before anyone sets a toe down anywhere in the name of anything, let's figure this out.
    • Well, last I checked. Exploration still has the same rules. I don't think that Mars will be "owned" by anyone. As humans begin manned missions (and more) to Mars, sections will be claimed, and the whole faction system will probably be started again.

      Whichever country first lands on Mars will have first claim to it, but they just won't be able to over the entire planet. Just like how the Americas were explored and claimed.
    • Well...that's one of the neat things about exploring: you don't care who owns it, so long as the owner can't kick you out. And, right now, there are no guns on Mars to force explorers away.

      Mars, and other celestial properties, will belong to those who actually land there and develop them. Arguing about it before actually using it just delays the time when people will actually start using it.
    • The Russians would not send up their cargo module because they were too destitute to finance it's construction and launch. USia has already contributed millions of dollars towards portions of the ISS for which Russia claimed responsibility. They should not have committed to the ISS in the first place if they are unable to foot the bill for their share. A third-world country such as Russia or China has no business exploring space until they can successfully their internal problems. It makes no sense that the government should launch a $15 million Soyuz rocket while it's citizens spend a month's salary on a single loaf of bread.

  • BEAM (Score:4, Informative)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:59PM (#2660924) Journal
    Anyone interested in 'insect-like' robots will want to do some reading on "B.E.A.M. Robotics", B.E.A.M. stands for Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, and Mechanics. Bascially, it is the idea, codified by Mark Tilden (linus to beam roboticists (sp?)) that says that roboticists (sp?) should start by building/adapting simple autonimous robots, capable of small tasks. Each successive robot (the next one you build) should be slightly better. If we continue this (un?)natural evolution we should come up with life-like machines. Simple. Elegant. Capable.

    See this Google search to start: http://www.google.com/search?q=beam+robotics [google.com]

    To we the appetite, here is a small gallery of Tilden's bots. [beam-online.com]

    • Re:BEAM (Score:1)

      by demo ( 8301 )
      More or less the same idea shows up in Rod Brooks' [mit.edu] research.

      The pragmatic level at least - starting with simple autonomy in the real world, then building upon this foundation to create a robot (mobot?) with more complex properties.

      I see some difference in the non-pragmatic layer, though. Brooks tries to escape symbolic representation using his subsumption architeture, but still...
    • You can buy Mark's robots, for about $40 a piece. Hasbro is selling BIO Bugs [wowwee.com], a "consumerized" version. Wired has a piece [wired.com] on them and their development.

      I know him from when he was still at the University of Waterloo many years ago. Whenever there is a piece on TV about simple, emergent robots, he's quoted without fail.

  • Honestly.

    This thing will not work very well in an environment that we don't know that much about. It'd be hard enough to get them to work here on Earth. That robot will be treated just as well as the insects are. Once they start to annoy anything or anyone, they're going to be attacked. They will also be greatly affected by weather, winds and such.

    However, they will be good as "scouts" and watch out bugs. Let's say, a terraforming project finally has gone underway on Mars. These bugs will be great to have around to fly around the station and outside nearby the station. Let them go far away, they'll never make it back.

    There is definately a good future for these things, as long as it doesn't start running a high bill.
    • > Honestly.

      How about 'realistically'?

      > This thing will not work very well in an environment that we don't know that much about

      How do you draw that conclusion? We know plenty about the environment on Mars. We know the gravity, the temperature, the air pressure, the air composition, the weather patterns, the sunlight, etc. These robots are being designed just for this environment.

      > That robot will be treated just as well as the insects are. Once they start to annoy anything or anyone, they're going to be attacked.

      WTF? Attacked by WHO? Nobody lives on Mars! There are no poorly treated insects on Mars. If there is life it is microbes, not angry aliens. Turn off the TV and go outside for a while.

      > However, they will be good as "scouts" and watch out bugs

      Watching out for WHAT?! Subversive rocks? Seditious sand?

      > Let's say, a terraforming project finally has gone underway on Mars. These bugs will be great to have around to fly around the station and outside nearby the station.

      Again, turn off the TV, go outside for a while. These bugs are being designed to be the first robotic explorers of an untouched planet, not "scouts" and "guards" for a fictional terraforming station! By the time we have a terraforming station on Mars these robots will be long gone.

      > Let them go far away, they'll never make it back.

      This, no doubt, is from your extensive experience working with them in your capacity as "security guard" at the Mars terraforming station?
  • These would make great Christmas presents, but for Mars, how would one control these? You can't navigate directly, since the latency is too great. Do these have little insect-brains that allow you to give an instruction ("go to point b") and it takes care of the details of lifting off, flying while adjusting for turbulence and other atmospheric factors, and finally landing?

    15 minutes later, you'd 'hear' back from the insect on how its trip went and where, exactly, it is.

    Bah. What do I know...?
    • We're used to lag... so what's 15 minutes?

      To pay for the exploration, let people buy the bugs. We control them, give them commands on where to go, what to do. Like any online game, you build clans and alliances, then wage war on other armies. Ok, maybe it wouldn't be good to be able to PK (or BK) other bugs since it's not easy to replace them and I suppose they won't be too cheap. Have some sort of power modules dropped around where our bugs can automatically home in on when they're low on energy, or just drop them ahead of the advancing army of bugs.

      I bet within a year we'd have all of Mars explored.

  • Am I the only one who thinks that there is a serious problem with the researchers getting a patent on this after being funded by NASA and the Georgia Insitute of Technology? If public money funds innovation, that innovation should be made public domain. Even if the details aren't made public domain, I shouldn't be prohibited from making and selling similar devices if I can build them. Scott
    • > Am I the only one who thinks that there is a serious problem with the researchers getting a patent on this after being funded by NASA and the Georgia Insitute of Technology?

      Given the speed with which NASA moves on adopting and deploying new technology (somewhere between "glacial" and "sloth on valium"), the patents will have expired by the time the devices are ever used, so develop away to your heart's content.

    • I agree, work funded by public money should be public domain, but not necessarily in all cases. For one, they might not be funding it completely. NASA might only have put up some of the development cost, and the company maybe put up the rest. In such a case, I have no problem with the company patenting what they make.

      If you could build a similar device, without looking at the details of the patented devices, you would probably not even infringe their patent. I would be willing to bet they can only get protection for the particular way they made their devices, and their technique would have to be "non-obvious" in order to get a patent. They couldn't patent a "flying robot" because such already exist or are obvious to build given current technology. Their protection is probably narrower. Of course it depends on the breadth of their patent protection, but if you built your own flying bug, you would probably not come up with the same bug they came up with (unless you looked at their patent...). If not, you would not infringe their patent.

  • ahem... (Score:3, Funny)

    by turbine216 ( 458014 ) <turbine216.gmail@com> on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @02:10PM (#2660983)
    GUARD #1: Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, an entomoper needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?

    ARTHUR: Please!

    GUARD #1: Am I right?

    ARTHUR: I'm not interested!

    GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African entomoper!

    GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African entomoper maybe, but not a European swallow, that's my point.
  • Now that we have these, we finally have a force capable of opposing his accursed dinobots.
  • You can find an artists conception of what these robots might look like in action here [temple.edu].

  • X-files (Score:2, Informative)

    by eclectric ( 528520 )
    Since nobody else pointed this out, I will. This was suggested in an Episode (season 3) of the X-files. In the episode, a scientist theorized that explorations like a Mars expedition would be conducted by robots, and that creating robots to mimic insects was much more practical than making them mimic humans.

    The episode further suggests that in fact this is how alien civilisations are exploring our planet.

  • Simulating flight on Mars (Score:3, Informative)

    by PseudonymousCoward ( 161283 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @02:26PM (#2661058)


    The X-Plane [x-plane.com] web site has a description of some of the problems of conventional (non-flapping) flight on Mars. They also have flight models to allow simulation of flight. (However, the propulsion is a little unrealistic; maybe "muscles" would work better.)

  • Sorta stupid when you think about it. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @02:37PM (#2661124) Homepage


    This sounds more like a "Lets build an unorthodox. unusual and attention-getting device so we can attract supporters for the idea!" concept rather than a truly practical and realistic one. Sounds like a varitable CueCat of Mars exploration.

    Being able to navigate in a particular direction isn't the issue. There are solutions to the navigation problem that are far cheaper, and yeild far better results than "insect robots". For example:

    Balloons. Whats wrong with having a computer-controlled balloon with a cannister of hydrogen or helium beneath it? As local temperature and air pressure change, the computer could inflate or deflate accordingly. Toss in a good altimeter, and you can drift across the surface within a few feet for months on end. A small armada of these could cover a very wide area in a relatively short amount of time. It requires no propulsion, it will never run out of fuel, its a simple device that by its very design lessens the risk of mechanical failure, and its extremely cheap to produce and deploy.

    If not balloons, why not use spring-loaded "grasshoppers" ? Essentially big wind-up toys, you can deploy thousands of these on the surface. They dont require intelligence, they dont consume fuel, and they dont require supervision of any sort. They simply pop around the surface taking photographs both on the ground and in the air, and when their spring begins to run low, they use the remainder of the spring's potential energy to broadcast the pictures and atmospheric data they recorded during their lifespan of hopping around Mars for a few weeks. Both of these ideas make sense, because when used in large groups, you can map enormous areas of terrain fairly well, like sending out guys in every direction at the beginning of a game of Command & Conquer. Once all the balloons (or grasshoppers) collect all their data, you can decide an interesting path for any subsequent rover to take.

    I think this guy fails to realize that the more complicated his device becomes, the more risks of failure you encounter, the higher the pricetag becomes, and the more problems you'll have no way of addressing. As the old saying goes, "Keep it simple, stupid!". Sure, brainless observers & reporters arent nearly as glamorous as FLYING ROBOT INSECTS, but Mars exploration isnt about being able to license the design to Matchbox to sell miniatures of your invention to kids. Its about getting the job done as cheaply and reliably as possible.

    Cheers,
    • Balloons. Whats wrong with having a computer-controlled balloon with a cannister of hydrogen or helium beneath it?

      But it would be pretty hard to get them where you want them to go. So it's prolly not the best.

      If not balloons, why not use spring-loaded "grasshoppers" ? Essentially big wind-up toys, you can deploy thousands of these on the surface. They dont require intelligence, they dont consume fuel, and they dont require supervision of any sort.

      If they can take photos, they will require fuel. Also, if you can't control them, then they're pretty usless. And I'd imagine that if they landed on the side of a bolder, they'd probably end up up-side down. If they where 'intelligent' they might be able to filp themselves back up. And they also can't cross big cliffs/canyons very well.

      I think this guy fails to realize that the more complicated his device becomes, the more risks of failure you encounter, the higher the pricetag becomes, and the more problems you'll have no way of addressing. As the old saying goes, "Keep it simple, stupid!".

      Some people forget there is a differece between something that's simple and a concept that is simple.
      A flying insect is a complex concept. But really. If you read the artical, it's pretty simple. It has 2 sets of wings the occsilate, powered by mucsels that feed on chemicals. Pretty simple really. All they have to do it find the right design (since it's a complex concept). Much more simple that wind-up grasshoppers, that would have to take off, glide thought the air, and land perfectly, over any terrain (45 degree slopes etc.) without needing any sort of control.

      • But it would be pretty hard to get them where you want them to go. So it's prolly not the best.

        Thats the whole point. Who cares where they end up? With enough of them, over time they'll map everything anyway without any sort of guidance.

        If they can take photos, they will require fuel. Also, if you can't control them, then they're pretty usless. And I'd imagine that if they landed on the side of a bolder, they'd probably end up up-side down. If they where 'intelligent' they might be able to filp themselves back up. And they also can't cross big cliffs/canyons very well.

        You're wrong here. The energy required to take photos can be stored in a spring. Apparently you've missed Slashdot's umpteen billion stories on the "wind-up radio". And so what if the grasshopper lands upside down, or on an angle? The images are going to undergo image processing back on Earth anyway--All you have to do is just rotate the image so that its oriented correctly. Use your head, man. And use GIMP while you're at it. :)

        Cheers,
        • I'm just parrotting what it says in another later comment, but a few problems w/ balloons:

          1. Getting the gas (presumeably h2). Either build a support infrastructure there to generate it, with is tough and expensive, or carry it, which is not easy either.

          2. A balloon can only lift as much as the difference in weight between the weight of the gas in the balloon and the weighty of an equivalent volume of the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is already pretty thin, you'd need pretty large balloons. Plus the extreme temp changes (as mentioned in the article) change things constantly, so you have to ensure that all your materials can stretch as the gas inside expands, or they have to be full only at the hottest temperatures, and thus be relatively empty later, or carry a tank to transfer gas in and out.. but that adds a lot of weight.
        • That's the whole point. Who cares where they end up? With enough of them, over time they'll map everything anyway without any sort of guidance.

          Sure. And if an infinite number of monkeys type at an infinite number of typewriters...

          The amount of balloons that NASA could actually get to mars, probably wouldn't be enough to be able to go with the 'with enough time' idea.
          They'd probably be better of with satellites for that kinda thing. Don't forget, they want to take soil samples to, balloons wouldn't make the most graceful landing if they're traveling fast or land on a bolder and topple off the side of it.

          You're wrong here. The energy required to take photos can be stored in a spring. Apparently you've missed Slashdot's umpteen billion stories on the "wind-up radio". And so what if the grasshopper lands upside down, or on an angle? The images are going to undergo image processing back on Earth anyway--All you have to do is just rotate the image so that its oriented correctly. Use your head, man.

          And how long would the springs last if they had to operate cameras, communication devices, mineral analysts computer as well as making them jump?

          It's not just the direction angle of the photos (although they would have to record the direction it was taken). But if it's facing the ground or horizon, or the sky. It's impossible to correct that in a photolab, and if they could, it wouldn't be considered at scientific resource photo because the image would have been altered.
          They might be able to use flywheels for power, but that would mean weight problems. And you didn't explain how these spring loaded grasshoppers could jump canyons. Unless NASA made a complex, flying mothership they could deploy them in different places. But of course, that means making a flying device that could operate well in the mars atmosphere. Hmmmm....Wonder what they could use for that.
          I think the grasshoppers also suffer from infinite monkeys syndome.

          Both are good ideas. But I just don't think they are suited for this particular job. And to modify them to suit the job, would mean you'd probably end up with something more complex than this flying insect.

    • Maybe, maybe not... it depends on what the goals are. If you want to have targeted exploration without a huge impact on the environment, it excludes some solutions.

      Balloons. Whats wrong with having a computer-controlled balloon with a cannister of hydrogen or helium beneath it? As local temperature and air pressure change, the computer could inflate or deflate accordingly. Toss in a good altimeter, and you can drift across the surface within a few feet for months on end.

      But you can't go and check out that thing over there as the research engineer mentions as on of the goals... You just go where the wind carries you, and if you release several from the same place at the same time, they are likely to all go the same place.

      If not balloons, why not use spring-loaded "grasshoppers" ? Essentially big wind-up toys, you can deploy thousands of these on the surface. They dont require intelligence, they dont consume fuel, and they dont require supervision of any sort. They simply pop around the surface taking photographs both on the ground and in the air, and when their spring begins to run low, they use the remainder of the spring's potential energy to broadcast the pictures and atmospheric data they recorded during their lifespan of hopping around Mars for a few weeks.

      I don't know what makes a spring a better place to store energy than the electo-chemical solution they have. And you need electricity throughout the probes life to pop photos etc, so you have a spring driven generator onboard, getting kind of complex. Plus having thousands of spring "grasshoppers" randomly popping around on the pristine martian surface is going to destroy a lot of potential data that scientist might be interested in.

      I think this guy fails to realize that the more complicated his device becomes, the more risks of failure you encounter, the higher the pricetag becomes, and the more problems you'll have no way of addressing.

      I think this guy is a senior research engineer who would understand that very well. Since the article states that this is an adaptation of a military project to mars exploration, I think the device is the simplest one that meets the requirements of it's original military purpose. NASA just seems to think it will work well on Mars also.
    • I forgot to add this to my comment:

      This sounds more like a "Lets build an unorthodox. unusual and attention-getting device so we can attract supporters for the idea!" concept rather than a truly practical and realistic one. Sounds like a varitable CueCat of Mars exploration.

      IMHO, a windup grasshopper is just as complex, unorthodox, unusual and attention-getting as a flying insect. In fact, it's probably more complex.

    • Balloons. Whats wrong with having a computer-controlled balloon with a cannister of hydrogen or helium beneath it?

      Research is going on in this area. For example, a proposal from a Texas Uni is here: www.tsgc.utexas.edu/tadp/2001/tcu.pdf. It's not a trivial problem - the air's a lot thinner on Mars, so a Mars balloon would need to be v. similar to a high-altitude balloon on earth.

      If not balloons, why not use spring-loaded "grasshoppers" ?

      ANd for this one, see here - http://www.beyond2000.com/news/Nov_00/story_900.ht ml

      Sure, brainless observers & reporters arent nearly as glamorous as FLYING ROBOT INSECTS, but Mars exploration isnt about being able to license the design to Matchbox to sell miniatures of your invention to kids. Its about getting the job done as cheaply and reliably as possible.

      Well, when you're trying to get funding, and when you want publicity (hell, who doesn't) being glamorous IS important. Unfortunately, this is what led to years of AI researchers talking about how their computers were going to be smarter than humans oh... any day now. Believing your own hype is a classic AI disease.

      And in the research field, you've gotta have your own angle, otherwise no-one will pay attention. On the good side, this leads to people trying out wild and crazy ideas about flapping wing robots (and off-the-wall ideas that end up working). On the down side, it leads to no end Academic Bitchfighting over whose idea is better.

  • Airships (Score:2, Interesting)

    by shpoffo ( 114124 )
    I still have not heard a good arguement for why airships are not used in this scenario. Most of the volume/weight is acquired on-location making transport cheaper/easier and the skin of the ballon could be made of a photo-voltaic substance that could harvest light for operation.

    -shpoffo
    • Well,
      (a) How to get that lighter-than-marsian-atmosphere gas into the balloon? If you want to produce it (probably only hydrogen is feasible, see b) on-site, you first have to get the necessary infrastructure up there. Carrying gas is very expensive, because you either need a huge container or a high-pressure one (heavy).

      (b) The marsian atmosphere is much thinner than the earth's, thus every m of atmosphere is much lighter than here on earth. Because like real ships, airships have to be as light as the amount of atmosphere they displace, you would need huge balloons filled with very thin gas, and you're not carrying any payload yet. Weather balloons are feasible, but an airship additonally has to carry around engines. And the robots and cargo holds for the samples are much heavier than weather sensors.

      -Anno
  • hopefully they can prop themselves up, or we will have a bunch of them wiggling about in vain.
  • they will change the way cities in Mars will be built in the process of getting these insectbots to do their jobs!!
  • Red Mars [amazon.com] Is the first of a trilogy that deals with the terraforming (should I say aeroforming?) of Mars. A great read. Kim Stanley Robinson has done his homework on the science behind the effort. Yes, it is Science fiction, but the emphasis is on the first word.
  • About 20 years ago, some of the AI types had a NASA conference where they proposed building self-replicating machines capable of building a moon base. By the year 2000. I asked, "How soon will you be able to do this in New Mexico?". They hated that.
  • Alright, suppose MASA (Mars Air and Space Administration) wanted to explore the big blue planet. Their engineers have low gravity, and look like floating octopi with heads full of hydrogen, so their first thought is obviously to make a convenient aerial surveilance system. It needs to be durable, with a hard structure, and capable of dissolving just about anything for fuel.....CRAP DON"T SWAT ANY FLIES.
    For this reason, I suggest talking to the insects, to try to insure that our defeat by the martians will be swift and painless.

  • biomology or something (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The term Entomopter combines the concept of an insect (ento) with segmented wings (mopter).


    Of course it's only to be expected of a website called "Cosmiverse" but these guys are awful at philology.

    For the record: Wing is "pter" - pterodactyl means "wing finger", helicopter means "helical wing". The "entom" means insect - "en" means "in" and "tom" means "cut". ("Tom" also features in the word "atom", which means uncuttable.)

    Insects are so called ("in" = "in", "sect" = cut, as in section) because they are segmented.


    The "o" in the middle is just linguistic glue to stick the word together.

  • BUGS (Score:1)

    by ehiris ( 214677 )
    Sounds like a take out of the movie "Red Planet".
    Populate mars with BUGS.

Slashdot Top Deals

I put up my thumb... and it blotted out the planet Earth. -- Neil Armstrong

Close