Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Humanoid Robot for Spacewalks 93

Posted by michael from the send-a-robot-to-do-the-dirty-work dept.
Nils writes "Here is the web page of a research project at NASA JSC's Dexterous Robots Lab (DRL) to develop a humanoid robot for use in space. It is state-of-the-art with incredible hands, arms, torso, and stereoscopic vision for remote control. Very cool." We had a story on the Robonaut two years ago, but it looks like they've come a long way since then.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Humanoid Robot for Spacewalks More

Humanoid Robot for Spacewalks

Comments Filter:
  • ...compatibility.

    "Over the past five decades, space flight hardware has been designed for human servicing. Space walks are planned for most of the assembly missions for the International Space Station, and they are a key contingency for resolving on-orbit failures. Combined with our substantial investment in EVA tools, this accumulation of equipment requiring a humanoid shape and an assumed level of human performance presents a unique opportunity for a humanoid system."
    • An artificial personality would help it iteract with people. They should get with these guys [slashdot.org].

      And name it Marvin.

    • Wouldn't it make sense to have the robot designed to a form that's efficient and practical as possible? Sure, current EVA hardware is human-form oriented, but in the long run they will be replaced anyway.

      Mine would have 8 arms, a beer cooler, joint roller [munchies make space food taste nicer!], and puncture repair kit.

    • When I was working for a company that produced custom industrial robots I dealt with a similar situation on one of my first projects.

      Basically, all the machine had to do was measure and cut wire. That's a pretty simple task, and the whole thing could have been finished in a week for a few thousand dollars. For some reason, though, the customer insisted that instead of using easily replaced, sensible cutting blades designed specifically for the machine, it had to use the custom made, diagonal cutters their assemblers were using to cut the stuff by hand. The reason being that the diagonal cutters were of a special material required for the job (a medical application). Of course, we could have easily made machine blades out of the same material for about 1/20 of the cost, but the customer insisted...

      The end result: the machine took almost 2 months to complete and cost almost $15,000, it requires constant re-calibration because the cutters move a tiny bit with each cut, and it takes nearly an hour to change and align the cutters when they dull. (The design we proposed would have cut that time down to a few minutes)

      Designing a machine to use tools designed for a human is always a bad idea. No matter how much you have invested in those tools, redesigning them to be used by a machine will always be cheaper.

      • By the sounds of it that robot only had to perform one task. I think your missing the point of this robot.

        This NASA robot seem to be intedned for quite a few differnt tasks. And they also said that was meant to be used in a human environment. So they have to design it to use human tools.

        ...Unless they custom design humans to work in a robots environment instead ;)

        Oh yeah. You could always design the environment to suit both humans and robots. But in space, the has serious drawbacks.

        • I'm not missing the point at all. Based on my experience, designing a robot to use human tools is an incredibly bad idea, and the result will be expensive and error-prone.

          Again, based on my experience, it will still be cheaper to have 2 sets of tools, one set for humans and one set for robots. A machine-centric toolset and a machine to use that toolset, even in a "general purpose" situation, will always be much cheaper and easier to design, and the result will be more reliable, than trying to design a machine to use human tools.

          Your hand is an incredibly complex system,.I had no idea how complex it was until I spent a year automating tasks previously done by hand. Replicating the tasks that can be done with human hands is hard enough, having to replicate the "grasping qualities"[1] increases the difficulty by at least an order of magnitude, and not just in design but in fabrication as well.

          You are correct that the robot in my example only had to do one task, and it's a damn good thing! The fact that the task was so simple only lends further support to my arguement. Every additional task increases the difficulty and reduces the efficiency and reliability of the design. Multiply that by the increased difficulty and reduced efficiency and reliability inherent in designing around human tools, and you will quickly exceed the cost of designing a new machine-centric toolset. Add to that the fact that the machine-centric toolset will be considerably lighter and smaller than the human-centric one, and it totally boggles my mind that NASA is even considering their current course.

          [1] meaning shape, friction, deformity, and all the other qualities a human tool is designed to take advantage of.

  • Star Wars (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Any reason the head looks like Fett's helmet? Me thinks that one too meany NASA engineers were watching The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi one to meany times.

  • Data (Score:3, Funny)

    by LunarOne ( 91127 ) on Sunday July 28, 2002 @09:14AM (#3967369) Homepage
    Cool! Star Trek's "Data" version 0.001 (alpha)
  • Wow! I knew it has always been Dexter's dream to work for NASA... Let's just hope he can keep Dee Dee out of the robotics lab!

  • One wonders if the builders of this robot are Star Wars fans. The robot's head bears a striking resemblance to Jango Fett's helmet...

  • Then why bother with astro-nuts? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday July 28, 2002 @09:27AM (#3967390) Journal
    Then why bother with astro-nuts at all? The weight of that life-support system hurled into orbit would mean so much extra capability in orbit!

    In close earth orbit, the transmission lag time could stay tolerable; nothing proper training shouln't be able to fix. (The russians only used people with no driving experience to control their remote-controlled Lunokhod [google.com] roving lunar probes, so they would not get hindered by earthly reflexes...)

    And ground tele-workers could work in shifts so the action would occur 24/4, instead of being shut down for several hours every day.

    The space shuttle is nothing but a tin-can jallopy to inflate the egoes of a picked few space/science-jocks.

    • Hmph, sounds like sour grapes to me. Don't feel too bad though, I wish it was me up there, too.

      But seriously, why bother with space at all then? Either people will be living and working in that environment, in which case we need to develop the technology to cope with that environment as well as familliarity with that envronment, or people won't be living/working in that envronment, in which case, why bother with it at all?


      • Hmph, sounds like sour grapes to me. Don't feel too bad though, I wish it was me up there, too.

        I wished that, too, until the husband of a friend's sister became an astro-nut. I never had expected that someone educated enough to make it up there would be such a goddammed asshole.

        But seriously, why bother with space at all then? Either people will be living and working in that environment, in which case we need to develop the technology to cope with that environment as well as familliarity with that envronment, or people won't be living/working in that envronment, in which case, why bother with it at all?

        We should bother, yes, but until we have cheap surface-to-orbit transport, we better not waste what little capability lifting up expensive and bulky life-support systems.

    • Then why bother with astro-nuts at all? The weight of that life-support system hurled into orbit would mean so much extra capability in orbit!

      You may have a point initially, but in the long run the main reason to go to space is exactly that: space. The earth is, after all, only so large. If we all stay down here we will either have to 1) force people to stop having children (and kill the excess kids that sneak through the cracks), or 2) institute a regular program for killing adults (and eventually, killing them before they reach breeding age), or 3) let nature do it for us.

      None of these sound too appealing to me. But moving out into space (note: not "moving to other planets") gives us a great deal more time to find a better solution. It doesn't solve the problem, but it gives us another thousand years or so to work out a solution.

      -- MarkusQ

      • You may have a point initially, but in the long run the main reason to go to space is exactly that: space. The earth is, after all, only so large.
        You are perfectly correct; my remark goes strictly for low earth orbit operations; further up, the lag would be intolerable, so a human presence there would definitely be needed.

        Indeed, we have to move out, sooner or later. However, it is unreasonable to do so unless we have reliable cheap (by a factor of 40 to 100) surfact-to-orbit transportation. Until then, the cost of lofting people up should be used far more wisely; telepresence is one such way of doing so.

        • Forget about human controllers; leave the robots to do it themselves.

          This is a perfect application for artificial intelligence. I believe the field has suffered on earth due to a lack of funding because there are no real applications where computers are really an economical solution instead of humans.

          AI is the economical solution to space travel - if it is used it could undoubtedly save billions. Therefore at least millions should should go into developing and researching AI for space travel. Instead NASA and many "scientists" seem obsessed with the symbolism of uneconomically sending real people into space...
      • There aren't enough planets, and enough time to get people to these other planets to even make a tiny dent in the "population problem".

        Even if we do colonize other worlds, we'll still have to implement solutions 1, 2, or (much more likely) 3 - not just at home but on the other worlds as well.
      • Or we could start utilizing the more liquid two thirds of the surface of the planet.
    • With missions that are as important and as expensive as the repair, maintenance, etc, redundancy is a high priority. If these robots were operated from the ground and failed, it could takes months before astronauts could come fix the problem themselves.

      Redundancy is also a reason why these researchers are developing such an intricate, versatile humanoid robot instead of using non-humanoid designs that would probably be easier to build and more reliable. If one of those robots were to fail, there is no gaurantee that an astronaut could hop in a space suit and do the repair himself. So by forcing the robots to use the same tools as humans, astronauts can always perform as a back up and expensive shuttle missions are more likely to succeed.

      • With missions that are as important and as expensive as the repair, maintenance, etc, redundancy is a high priority. If these robots were operated from the ground and failed, it could takes months before astronauts could come fix the problem themselves.

        Not really. Reduntancy would be much cheaper with robots than with astronauts; and since you won't need the same safety precautions with teleprecense robots than with humans, you could very well get as much as 5 times the capacity as with humans, this with full reduntancy.
  • You've got to wonder why they chose the human form for this? It isn't very efficient in this environment.

    How about something that can old on with one arm, use two or more arms to actualy do work. Add a camera to each arm, plus a central camera, etc. The options are endless, so why human?
    • From the article:

      "Robonaut is a humanoid robot designed by the Robot Systems Technology Branch at NASA's Johnson Space Center in a collaborative effort with DARPA. The Robonaut project seeks to develop and demonstrate a robotic system that can function as an EVA astronaut equivalent. Robonaut jumps generations ahead by eliminating the robotic scars (e.g., special robotic grapples and targets) and specialized robotic tools of traditional on-orbit robotics. However, it still keeps the human operator in the control loop through its telepresence control system. Robonaut is designed to be used for "EVA" tasks, i.e., those which were not specifically designed for robots ."

      Thats why its human form.

    • No, I don't have to wonder. As stated in the article, the spacecraft these robots will be working on were designed to be serviced by humans. Hence, a robot designed to service them is most efficient if it is in human form.

      I'd imagine in spaceflight you don't want to have to rely on specialized robots in order to service your craft (which is the only thing keeping you alive). It's much smarter to have these robots for routine maintenance, but still have the option of suiting up and going out there yourself in case the shit really hits the fan.

      • Yes, I read the article, but actually, I was thinking that the robots could perform human tasks. However, why not have it go beyond that as well? Your best option for survival is more options, so wouldn't it follow that restricting the robot to only human capabilities would limit its usefulness?


        • I would infer that they plan to have (or at least want the option to have) these remotely controlled by an operator in some sort of "waldo" suit. Thus it makes sense to have the same basic configuration as your operator.

          -- MarkusQ

          • I would infer that they plan to have (or at least want the option to have) these remotely controlled by an operator in some sort of "waldo" suit. Thus it makes sense to have the same basic configuration as your operator.

            Besides which, if it is a critical (eg life supporting) part that needs repaired, and the robot breaks down, it is nice to have the option of suiting up and going outside yourself to fix it. By designing the robots to be humanlike, and the space station to be servicable by said robots, you have built in redundancy in terms of deployment options (human v. robot) if things go awry.
    • i'm forced to agree with this, despite the other repilies on this thread. for our level of technology, the human form is one of the least efficient to try to build as an autonomous robot. granted, in space the conditions are a bit different, what with the lack of gravity, but it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to match the balance of a real flesh-and-blood human. we actually have a quite amazing system for keeping our balance. i once read an article (i wish i knew where) that pretty much gave up on the idea of creating a humanoid-android, in favor of insect- or arachnid-like robots. much more efficient and stable. pretty creepy to look at tho, imho...
  • No legs, weird "see-through" face, "hands" proportionally too small. If you look at monster movies, you'll notice that the freakiest-looking monsters have a basically human shape, with some very oddly distorted features. I'm not saying the designers should put cosmetics before function, just make some minor changes to get the proportions approximately correct.

    Why is this important? Astronauts on a space walk probably have many other things to think about without having their subconscious mind drawn to the fact that the humanoid robot they're working with doesn't look "quite right".

    • No legs

      That was my first thought too. See also these [rose-hulman.edu].

    • Yeah, the "face" looks like a cross between Ultraman ( http://www.ultraman.com/ ) and a Power Ranger.
    • No legs and disproportional hands? What would you expect from the agency that can't keep thier units straight.

      I'm suprised it doesn't have one leg longer than the other or look like one of those giant-headed costumed characters you see at the fun-park.
    • I used to work in this lab as an engineer about 5 years ago when the forearm/hand was being first developed and would like to clarify a few things...

      As to there being no legs, well, the lab is the Dexterous Robotics Lab, hence they mostly develop new articulated robotic hands and test with their current telerobotics capabilities. And the hands arent small. The forearms are a little large.. Robonaut just has really wide shoulders. The 'see-through' face, well, that is just a plastic head (and the designer told me that it was just a coincidence that it looked like Boba Fett) created using stereolithography and mainly there to hold the camera (eyes). You should see it without the coverings....

      The problem with proportions when building these types of telepresense robots is that the motors/linkages/cables needed to power all the degrees of freedom in motion. Also, creating complex custom one-off circuit boards for motor contol have to fit in small places.. The brain is a big ol' VME rack (in the chest). The forearm and hand is a whole unit that can detach... all the motors to control the fingers are housed in the forearm.. not to mention all the wires running to and from the joints to sense positon and joint angles.

      All in all, this is a functioning advanced PROTOTYPE. Im not sure what the probability is that THIS robonaut will ever fly (probably pretty low), but I know that the engineers plan to thermo and vibro test this prototype somewhere along the way. Functionality over aesthetics. Actually, the dexterity of the Robonaut hand is considerably better that a pressurized astronaut glove.

      Plus, the last time I looked at an astronaut flying though space, that big bubble head didnt really give me a great impression of stardard human proportionality.

  • benefits on earth? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dankelley ( 573611 ) on Sunday July 28, 2002 @09:35AM (#3967402)
    Regardless of the significance for space research, there may be many earthly benefits to this NASA research on human-style robots.

    I'm thinking of people with disabilities.

    Since NASA is so well-funded and since it attracts such talented engineers, let's hope for spinoffs of research into mimicking human function will improve the quality of life for disabled individuals.

  • Question is, how will this robot look in a tuxedo [slashdot.org]?

  • - Dave? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    - Yes, HAL.

    - Please open the door, Dave.

    - I can't do that, HAL.

  • Re-inventing the wheel again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sh0rtie ( 455432 ) on Sunday July 28, 2002 @09:49AM (#3967424)

    Honda have spent millions on research and development of their humanoid robot [honda.com] and nasa start from scratch again with what looks like an inferior product ?, Honda was at robonauts development status years ago , it seems a shame to ignore it and try to re-invent it, dont forget that they probably has more practical experience of robots in the commercial workplace than nasa do (car factories)

    why dont they collaborate with people such as Honda instead of starting from scratch and wasting millions of dollars in the process ?

    i presume Honda's goals are similar to Nasa's in regards to putting robots in hostile enviroments, i think its about time people took humanoid robots a bit more seriously than some do [sony.com.au] and start putting them to practical uses, sure there is the argument that they are not suited to those enviroments but hey we havent done to bad with 10 fingers 2 hands,legs and a torso and these research groups [uec.ac.jp] would probably agree.

    if people talked to each other more on this planet maybe we would get somewhere
    • If I am not mistaken the Honda robot's (was it called the Humanoid?) main excitement was that it walked and balanced like a human. Most of the engineering had gone into the balance and bipedal movement. Since NASA's 'bot will be working in a zero G environment most of Honda's engineering would have been wasted. NASA's focus is on giving the Robonaut dexterity equvilent or better than a suited astronaut. Combine that with the fact that Honda is a private company all the engineering on the Humanoid would probably be "closed source" and cost NASA a bundle to purchase and it would seem more cost efficient for NASA to start "from scratch".
    • IIRC, most of the R&D in the Honda project was/is directed at making the thing walk properly, without much emphasis on it being particularly dexterious (i may be wrong). It seems that the NASA team is more after somthing that will have the level of hand/finger/arm control as a human, so it can do things in space, where the legs don't matter as much.

      And considering how expensive Hondas cars are, it may have been cheaper for NASA to develop the robot itself. ;)

    • Re:Re-inventing the wheel again (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Sunday July 28, 2002 @10:08AM (#3967455)
      Honda have spent millions on research and development of their humanoid robot [honda.com] and nasa start from scratch again with what looks like an inferior product?

      Honda's robot is designed to be used on Earth. Weight isn't nearly as big a consideration for it. Neither is the need to be rad-hard, the need to tolerate micrometeorites, etc.

      NASA's robot was designed from the start to be used in space. It also was designed from the start to be tool-using - its hands are a lot more dextrous than those of Asimo, and the rest of the robot's design reflects this philosophy.

      i presume Honda's goals are similar to Nasa's in regards to putting robots in hostile enviroments

      Not according to Honda's Asimo page [honda.com]. Their robot was designed to be used in human dwellings, which meshes nicely with the "robotic servants" theme that shows up in a lot of Japanese pop culture. Completely different design criteria vs. NASA's applications (NASA wants something that can build/maintain fiddly bits of the space station without requiring a human to suit up and go outside the station).

      In summary, using Honda's design would not be a practical solution for NASA.
      • While the robot is capable of some incredible feats of movement, it is all basically done by remote control at this stage. Where's the AI?

        I would say that the whole "Let's balance it on two legs" stage of development is far less challenging and interesting than the "Let's teach it to be able to tell when I need a beer and bring one over" stage. I frankly don't give a shit if my robots move on legs or wheels or what, as long as they're bringing me beer when I want it.

    • They can't collaborate. There are just too many patents in the way. Nasa has to build their own and can't use any of the technology Honda used to do it. That's capitalism.

      if people talked to each other more on this planet maybe we would get somewhere

      Or maybe we'd all just be communists.

    • I have to agree with you. I dont buy this "Honda was working toward different goals" argument. I see things like this to be "funding hunts"... not that I'm not pro-NASA and pro-research, but ASIMO is way ahead of this thing.

    • If you've had a look at the internals of the Nasa bot, you would have a better idea of it's sophistication. IIRC, they didn't start from scratch with their designs.

      They actually got the basic mechanical architecture from a very old roboticist named Leonardo da Vinci. He had very detailed drawings of how to build a machine that could replicate much of human motion sketched out here and there in his famous notebooks.

      After improving his designs and adding the motorized bits, they are far ahead of where the Honda team is with Asimo. The hands and arms are far closer to the human range of motion and capability. If they had to send Asimo to do the work, it would be easier to just throw a human out the air lock.

      I'm not saying this to dis Honda, their job is quite impresive as well. But the Nasa team packed a lot more sophistication into their leaner and meaner package.

      Oh, and yes, I think they did put Boba Fett's helmet on the robot to give it a little personality.

  • Looks like a cross between 2-1B http://www.starwars.com/databank/droid/21b/index.h tml and Boba Fett http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/bobafet t/index.html.
    I can't really see why they are goiung this way, though it will probably have positive ramifications in the prosthetics industry.
    I suspect a subtle move to developing "human like" robots over a darwinistic approach that develops the best, regardless of form.
  • Though their EVA is "Extravehicular Activity", it reminds me of the character "Lilith" that appears in famous anime by GAINAX studio, "Evangelion", aka EVA.

    Here's the picure of dead Lilith:
    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/ngeL il01.html [upenn.edu]

    Creepy design of Robonaut shares something with this Lilith. Lilith in EVA is an evil angel, but it's very complicated story that you can't comprehend with a few google searches.

    Is it coincidence? Or one of NASA crew is cmdrtaco?
  • I propose the name "Maximilian".
  • [The robot] is state-of-the-art with incredible hands

    And we know all the geeks have been waiting for a robot with the slow hands, the easy touch....

    "Please wait while Onanism 2.0 lubes -- er, boots -- up"
  • Anyone else notice the big DARPA logo. Let's see attach the torso to some tank style treads and those fingers are perfect for firing an M16. Ladies and gentlemen the solider of the future.
  • Is this the same robot that derived it's inspiration from Leonardo DaVinci's mechanical knight notes and studies of the kinetics of the human body?
  • ...they come to a McDonalds near you?

    "Would you like some '3-in-one' with that order sir? No? Drive through!"

    Seriously - maybe 2 efficient ones working round the clock versus a crew of 10 or 12?

  • robot soldiers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jaez ( 86714 ) on Sunday July 28, 2002 @11:07AM (#3967618)
    Is it me or does the illustration show it brandishing something that looks a lot like a gun?

    It's all well and good developing robots for civilian use, but what's to stop the mature version of this being given a gun and told to patrol government institutions. Or even fire on demonstrators? Something here just doesn't feel right...

    • This is why we need to institute some sort of punctuation mark to indicate sarcasm people. This comment seems to be sarcastic to me, but this guy could really be serious (because |we need robots to kill our fellow humans, alone we can't seem to do it|)

      My proposal, which I have suggested before is to use the "|" or pipe to distinguish sarcasm. As in, |now that this is on slashdot, it will totally catch on|. See how useful this could be?
      • Sarcasm? Tell that to the people who called this "insightful". If I had any points today, I'd mod it "funny".

        "It's all well and good developing robots for civilian use, but what's to stop the mature version of this being given a gun and told to patrol government institutions. Or even fire on demonstrators? Something here just doesn't feel right..."

        Yeah, we all know how easy it is to kill Kevlar-wearing highly-trained urban warfare specialists.
    • I think it's only you. If you mean the third picture, that looks like some kind of normal grip to me. How else to test hands?
  • look like the Fett;

    but moreover -- if they are going for "life-like", the really need to implement moveable "eyes" (cameras) instead of having the head do all the moving. it mould make the head go through much extaneous range of movements, while still not have the flexibility of a human head / eye system. (bend head one way to avoid, say, a beam, while still be able to look to your left side.)

    otherwise very cool -- even if it's just half-a-robot. but even if mounted on a cart i bet i can program it to clean my room.

    hmm... wait a sec; i can't even clean my room.
    • The difference is, you would only need to program the robot to clean your room once.
    • FRom the artical:

      A new set of articulating eyes has been built for Robonaut. The pointing system directs two pairs of eyes, independently verging them for tracking humans and objects. Each pair includes a large camera with computer controlled zoom, focus and iris adjustments, as well as a smaller camera to provide peripheral vision. The system has been assembled, and integrated with the brainstem for pointing control and calibration. The next step will be integration with the visual cortex, and then insertion of the system into the robot's helmet, replacing the old cameras.

      Please....Read the artical first

  • ... Will Robinson.. Danger Danger...

  • keep us updated (Score:2, Funny)

    by C0D3X ( 300627 )
    "We had a story on the Robonaut two years ago, 16 months ago, 14 months ago, 12 months ago, 10 months ago, 9 months ago, 7 months ago, 6 months ago, 5 months ago, 2 months ago, 2 weeks ago, 4 days ago, and yesterday, but it looks like they've come a long way since then. "

  • NASA already blew $288 million on this. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday July 28, 2002 @01:06PM (#3968027) Homepage
    The article doesn't mention the Flight Telerobotic Servicer [astronautix.com], a $288 million NASA project to do this that ran from 1987 to the mid-1990s. This project was actually funded. Martin Marietta had a $297 million contract to develop one. Didn't work.

    NASA has a long-standing robotics program, but not a very successful one. It's embarassing, or ought to be.

    • This is why we don't need NASA. A private funded company would be more efficient. Also, what does the government need from space? We need to stand up and tell our governments to stop monopolizing this valuable piece of real estate.
  • Why a humaniod robot??

    Design something that more suited for it's purpose than something that looks nice. The only benefit in building humanesks is that they are easier for real people to interact with.

    This thing is remote controlled. There is no use for a nice-looking design.

    A cool idea I once had is just an arm with a number joint and hand at each end. It can hold on with one hand and work with the other, or use both hands to climb around on the outside of a spacecraft.
  • Mechanization puts more out of work... Does no one think of the poor astronauts who will lose their jobs to the machines? This could have many far reaching consequences... The astronauts will unionize, and during strikes the American public will be denied much needed weightlessness footage! Stop these "ro-bot" workers before it is too late!
    • "Mechanization puts more out of work...Does no one think of the poor astronauts who will lose their jobs to the machines?"

      They'll probably still need astronauts to go up and fix these machines when they break down. Anyway, considering the number of qualifications an astronaut has, I don't think it'd be difficult for them to get a new job, anyhow:

      INTERVIEWER: So, what was your previous job?
      EX-ASTRONAUT: I was an astronaut. I helped fix the Hubble Space telescope.
      INTERVIEWER: Really? Wow!

      "This could have many far reaching consequences..."

      Not really, other than that satellites and the like will have to be built more reliably (since no one will go up to fix them).

      "The astronauts will unionize, and during strikes the American public will be denied much needed weightlessness footage!"

      Actually, I doubt an astronaut union could have a great effect. There aren't more than a couple of hundred astronauts, and the industry they work in isn't considered terribly important by most of the public, so an astronaut union wouldn't have much effect. Anyway, it's not as if an astronaut union could stop NASA from using humanoid robots instead of people. Unless of course the robots turned out to be total failures.

      "Stop these "ro-bot" workers before it is too late!"

      Bring 'em on, I say! Oh, wait, were you kidding?

  • Yes I read NASA's requirement: but wouldn't a growable extra opposable thumb be useful ... just look where we (humans) got with just one.
  • ummm you think would be a way to slashdot this bot.......like the webserver it's on
  • ..If one of these things tries to sell me a Han Solo frozen in carbonite or whatever, then (I'm Doug, and) I'm ooouuutta heeEEeerreee..
  • I knew the team lead, about 5-6 years ago. I can't remember for sure but some of the answers are this:
    (1) it's humanoid because humans and robonauts are designed to be "hot-swappable" - what and where a human can do or go, the robot can and vise-versa, also, it allows for direct human control of the robot without requiring 4 humans (in the case of 8 arms).
    (2) He liked Star Wars and Boba Fett =)

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close