Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Moon Space Robotics

Robot for India's Moon Mission by IIT Kanpur 152

Posted by CmdrTaco
ISRO, Indian Space Research Organisation, is planning to send a robot for its mission to moon. It is probably going to be made by students and profs of IIT-Kanpur (the Indian equivalent of MIT). The two-legged robot, fitted with sophisticated sensors and high-resolution cameras, is capable of recording information and images using laser beams. It can also detect the distance of a hindrance, enter a small crater, bring surface samples and return high resolution images to the lunar vehicle. It balances cost and sophistication; basic functionality for only $50,000.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robot for India's Moon Mission by IIT Kanpur More

Robot for India's Moon Mission by IIT Kanpur

Comments Filter:
  • Why spend only whats needed, when you can spend 10x as much and make it sound more impressive?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 )
      Close but no cigar.

      The question is: Why compare total R&D, Manufacturing and Operations budget to a lone manufacturing cost without any of the R&D and operation costs taken into account? And the answer is - because it sounds cool on Slashdot.

  • The best thing about it only costing 50 grand is that it will be easier to send up a replacement when the cheap parts on the first one fsck up. Thanks for assuming the large amount of cash spent on space exploration is wasted, subby. Way to be a team player. When I leave this planet, I'm leaving you behind, kthxbi.
    • Agreed. If these 50 grand robotic explorers can accomplish their mission then fine, NASA is should be ashamed.

      I suspect, however, that these cheap robots will not stand up to the rigors of space and dust.

      • The price of the Indian robot is offset by the fact that it is fueled by chicken vindaloo, which is a cheap inexhaustable source of energy, as well as burning stools.
    • That explains why NASA still needs 8088's to run the shuttle program.

  • Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by westlake ( 615356 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @11:42AM (#19292737)
    The two-legged robot, fitted with sophisticated sensors and high-resolution cameras, is capable of recording information and images using laser beams...Although it needs some more sophisitication the cost of it is less than $50,000. Now that a penny infront of the obscene amounts of money NASA spends every day.

    It seems fair to ask how much this off-the-shelf robotic technology owes to the "obscene" amounts of money invested by NASA and others in R&D over the last half-century.

    • Absolutely, but I think the point is that although NASA laid a lot of the groundwork, it may have become administratively challenged over the years. No one can deny the immense contribution of NASA to science in general, but I think this research group proves that NASA isn't as nible, and certainly not as cost-effective, as it can be. Imagine the crazy sh** we'd see if it were.
      • NASA is a US government organization http://nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]. It's always going to be internally vulnerable to politics, budget cuts, but also shares one trait that plagues many government branches-inefficiency. As the Ansari X-prize demonstrated, NASA is good for some stuff concerning space flight, including doing key research that could not easily be done by private individuals, but at the same time, it is not a one-organization-fits-all solution.
      • truly an American icon.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ghyd ( 981064 )
      I'd be interested by a proper answer to that question. Do they own more to the NASA than the NASA to Newton and Nazis? or not really more than that? it's a real question, because obviously they are doing something right here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ScorpFromHell ( 837952 )
      ISRO [Indian Space Research Organization - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research _Organisation%5D [wikipedia.org], and India's Space & Atomic Energy research in general, has been targeting self sufficiency by indulging in indigenous research & manufacturing capabilities, including the whole supply chain. India owes wrt the science [For eg., Sir Newton did come up with some workable equations/formulae for these kinda stuff]. But wrt technology India has tried to or has had to be self sufficient, especia

      • NASA & ESA are being offered to send their payload (some kinda sensors) FREE of cost on board the Chandrayan - I in 2008, only under the condition of equal access to data from those sensors.

        Well that's one way of spinning it. Another would be that somebody has been reading Tom Sawyer. "We'll let you build and pay for the high-tech for our craft if you'll agree to let us have all the data as well." Don't get me wrong, though, I like the idea of cooperation in space.

        • Eh? India is building the craft, USA is building the sensor & India wants only the data from the sensor. Not the money to build or send the sensor nor the know how about building the sensor. Only the data from the sensor. Seems reasonable to me. Data from the sensor is for science, data about the sensor is for technology.
    • They're even outsourcing NASA now! I wonder if the engineers had to train their replacements?

      (disclaimer: JOKE)

  • space "waste"? No, it's not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PatrickThomson ( 712694 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @11:42AM (#19292739)
    Well, how much does it weigh? If a robot costing ten times as much weighs 10% less and does the same job, you've saved money. Getting there is the costly thing, compared to that design and construction is a trivial amount of money.

    • Re:space "waste"? No, it's not. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GoulDuck ( 626950 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @12:03PM (#19292899)
      Agree. And another thing is the Mars Rovers Spirit and Opportunity that have lasted more than 10 times than NASA expected. Let us see how long the ISRO robot will last. I do hope it will last very long. And if possible, take some pictures of one of the Apollo mission sites.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by gardyloo ( 512791 )

        I do hope it will last very long. And if possible, take some pictures of one of the Apollo mission sites.
        Heck, they can do that here on a sound-stage somewhere!

    • Well, how much does it weigh?

      Its supposed to weigh in between 30 to 100 KGs as per the intentions of ISRO in this article --> http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/04/stories/2007010401 342200.htm [hindu.com]

      If a robot costing ten times as much weighs 10% less and does the same job, you've saved money. Getting there is the costly thing, compared to that design and construction is a trivial amount of money.

      Yes, and that is exactly why ISRO is trying to make the cab fare cheaper. If they get the rover for cheap too, then why not give it a shot? And yeah, your case for making it lighter at the same time makes for a triply superb idea. Am sure they would take it into account. ISRO might not be NASA & IIT may not be MIT, but they are no dullards ei

  • The article says it will be four-legged.

    With the difficulties making a walking robot here on earth, how do they plan on making its movements reliable? I see this thing tripping early in it's mission.

    They better make sure to put one of those life line badges on it.

    "I've fallen! And I can't get up!"
  • It's simple economics. If you spend billions of dollars getting it there (they will), it's going to be worth it to spend more than $50,000 on it.

  • This is a journal entry folks, not a regular story (Score:4, Informative)

    by Old Man Kensey ( 5209 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @12:04PM (#19292911) Homepage
    When critiquing the grammar and spelling, remember it's a Slashdot journal entry -- it's unlikely the author had any idea it was going to be seen by the entire Slashdot horde.

  • Wait Until Mission Is Successful (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xelph ( 542741 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @12:05PM (#19292915)
    It is a very nice project and hopefully, it will be successful. But there is no point in making comparisons until *after* the project has proven to be successful. How can one say that a project that has not succeeded yet was cheaper than another one that already passed with flying colors? This does not make sense.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SnowZero ( 92219 )
      How much does it cost in comparison to Beagle 2 [wikipedia.org]? Now there's a comparison we can already make, although it's one the rover designers might not be too fond of.

  • Concise article summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lancejjj ( 924211 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @12:25PM (#19293029) Homepage

    Although it needs some more sophisitication the cost of it is less than $50,000. Now that a penny infront of the obscene amounts of money NASA spends every day.
    Read the article again.

    That's $50,000 for a prototype robot that they wish could be used on the moon. It is not a production model, it is not slated to go to the moon, and there are no plans to send it to the moon. Ever.

    According to the article, which you clearly failed to interpret:

    They have now have shown interest in our prototype. The organisation is seriously considering collaboration with us
    So, a couple folks have looked at it, and they conveyed that they found it interesting. If fact, someone at the instituion thinks the space agency is considering a (mere) collaboration. That's a far and distant cry from them delivering a space-capable robot.

    Suddenly, this $50,000 student-built prototype robot seems like it could be a squandering of institutional funds, and that someone is trying to cover it up by pretending that it will go to the moon.
    • $50,000 is barely enough buy lubricant that can endure high vacuum, both low and high temperature and strong radiation for such a robot.

  • Cost of getting there far outpaces robot cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grond ( 15515 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @12:35PM (#19293089) Homepage
    The Apollo missions got 47,900 kg to the moon for $2.75 billion [spaceagepub.com] in today's money. That's $57,411/kg. Let's say the Indians can do it vastly cheaper: $25,000/kg.

    Let's say the robot weighs the same as Spirit and Opportunity (the current Mars rovers): 175kg [cornell.edu]. So the cost to get the robot to the moon would be $4,375,000, completely discounting the cost of the rocket itself, the payload container, the landing mechanism, support personnel, etc, etc.

    Practical upshot: they could easily spend 10 times as much on the robot and only increase the cost of the mission 11%. And once the real costs are taken into account, the increase would probably be negligible ( 1%).

    That's why NASA spends so much on the robot: a) it's incredibly expensive just to get the robot anywhere and b) if the robot screws up once it's there, the bulk of the money was completely wasted, so making the robot robust & reliable is very important.

    • Hey, that works just like Ebay (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nymz ( 905908 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @01:14PM (#19293377) Journal
      Have you ever seen a CD for only 1 penny, but Shipping & Handling was like 20 bucks?
      That little robot may only cost 50K, but Shipping & Handling to the moon is going to require upping your credit limit into the millions.

    • Re:Cost of getting there far outpaces robot cost (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScorpFromHell ( 837952 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @03:30PM (#19294297) Homepage

      The Apollo missions got 47,900 kg to the moon for $2.75 billion [spaceagepub.com] in today's money. That's $57,411/kg. Let's say the Indians can do it vastly cheaper: $25,000/kg.
      Wrong, ISRO wants to do it for a mere $0.075 Billion. The launch vehicle is 316 tonne, with the spacecraft weighing 1304 kg at launch and 590 kg at lunar orbit. TThe scientific payload has a total mass of 90 kg and contains six Indian instruments and six foreign instruments. A total of 296394 KGs. That comes around to $236/kg!
      From the official FAQ [isro.org] on Chandrayaan -I:

      The budgetary estimate for realising the proposed Indian lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 stands at Rs. 386.00 crores (about $76 million). This includes Rs. 53.00 crores (about $11 million) for Payload development, Rs. 83.00 crores (about $17 million) for Spacecraft Bus, Rs. 100.00 crores ($20 million) towards establishment of Deep Space Network, Rs. 100.00 crores ($20 million) for PSLV launch vehicle and Rs. 50.00 crores ($10 million) for scientific data centre, external network support and programme management expenses.
      Assuming it would cost the same for Chandrayaan - II too (even though the expenditure on the Deep Space Network establishment & scientific data center will not recur), $76 Million is a pittance against Apollo's $2.75 Billion in today's money.

      Let's say the robot weighs the same as Spirit and Opportunity (the current Mars rovers): 175kg [cornell.edu]. So the cost to get the robot to the moon would be $4,375,000, completely discounting the cost of the rocket itself, the payload container, the landing mechanism, support personnel, etc, etc.
      As per this news [hindu.com] ISRO wants the rover to be between 30 - 100 KGs, which is way lesser than 175 KG of Spirit & Opportunity. And the rover's fare to the moon will come out to be between $7100 to $23630. That's certainly cheaper than the cost of the rover ($50000) who's prototype has been built by IIT-K as per TFA!

      Practical upshot: they could easily spend 10 times as much on the robot and only increase the cost of the mission 11%. And once the real costs are taken into account, the increase would probably be negligible ( 1%).

      That's why NASA spends so much on the robot: a) it's incredibly expensive just to get the robot anywhere and b) if the robot screws up once it's there, the bulk of the money was completely wasted, so making the robot robust & reliable is very important.
      Fiddlesticks. That's why NASA is hitch hiking for free on Chandrayan - I. India does seem to have better brains, sharper accounting and a bigger heart, considering the embargoes that USA had put on India. And yeah, they gave zero for free without any royalties ;)
      • Oops! The total weight should have been mentioned as around 317000 KGs.

      • Assuming it would cost the same for Chandrayaan - II too (even though the expenditure on the Deep Space Network establishment & scientific data center will not recur), $76 Million is a pittance against Apollo's $2.75 Billion in today's money.

        So what? You are comparing apples and oranges. The proper program to compare it to is Surveyor - not Apollo.
        • Yes, its an apples to oranges comparison. Not my fault, the GP did that & I didn't know what to compare it with :)

          OTOH, you will have to agree that its gonna be a lot cheaper provided its successful. As some other said, lets come back to discuss after the successful launch.

          In the meantime, lets just agree on the fact tht ISRO is more cost effective than NASA or ESA wrt transportation costs. Even NASA & ESA admit that :)

          • OTOH, you will have to agree that its gonna be a lot cheaper provided its successful.

            No, I don't have to agree - as a) it hasn't been compared to Surveyor and b) the mission is unflown, yet alone complete.

            As some other said, lets come back to discuss after the successful launch.

            Anyone who says that may safely be regarded as lacking a clue - as a successful launch does not imply a sucessful mission.

      • That's a very interesting number.

        The NASA space power satellite (SPS) [nasa.gov] system was planned on a basis of $400/kg shipping cost. [archive.org] in the hopes that we might get to that price point someday. Shipping to synchronous orbit is quite a bit cheaper than shipping to the moon. Note that the URL is from the Wayback Machine. Since the Bush Administration killed the Solar Power Satellite program, it appears that they'd rather none of the rest of us were thinking about it.

        Perhaps India's space agency shoul

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sbaker ( 47485 ) *
      Correction: NASA got XXXkg to the moon AND BACK for $YYY USING SAFETY STANDARDS AS REQUIRED FOR HUMAN CREW...it is vastly cheaper to only go one-way - and even cheaper still if you can take more risks with the payload.

      However, my suspeicions are always aroused when roboticists start talking about walking (especially bipedal) robots. The technical problems are immense compared to wheeled/tracked robots and given the success of Spirit/Opportunity - the Indian team would be well advised to consider that kind
  • When they're going somewhere other than the moon, let me know. That barren chunk of rock is a pointless waste of money IMHO. Unless you're going to build a lunar colony. So if they're starting that, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, you might as well spend the money it costs to get there on Big Macs. With cheese.

    TLF
    • but maybe you were just trying to be funny.

      The moon is a preliminary step toward going anywhere else.

      If we establish a moonbase vehicles will not need to re-enter earth atmosphere after their initial launch, thus eliminating the most dangerous and structually damaging aspects of any space mission.

      You can retask, refurbish, completely reconfigure or whatever else you want to do without bearing the cost/risk of re-entry and subsequent relaunch. All of this work could be performed in a pressurized environment
      • Like I said: If we are going there to work on starting a base/colony, I'm all for it. If we're going there to collect moon dust and play robot golf, I'm not.

        TLF
        • I just re-read my post and realized that I left out my actual disagreement with your post. Right now we can't even get proper international cooperation for mid-large size projects. The ISS is a disaster, the ESA screwed up their super-rocket project, and NASA is apparently run by accountants.

          If it takes small projects to get us further toward getting up there then I support that.

          Now if someone actually suggested that the money to fund the 'robot golf' would instead be used to address issues like starvatio
          • I agree with you. FOUR!

            TLF
          • I used to feel like our money could be better spent on Earth than getting into space, but if we can make cost-effective launches we could solve our energy and food crises by launching a bunch of hydroponics and solar energy satellites into orbit and growing food and beaming energy back down to Earth. That's the sort of thing NASA et. al. should be focusing on, using space to develop unique solutions to terrestrial problems. The geology and such is interesting, but our money would be better spent on our ene

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by freakxx ( 987620 )
      You have no idea of how important the moon is. There are two major things people have started rushing on to moon once again:

      1). It is the 1st starting point to outer space. Because of no atmosphere there, there are plenty of advantages.

      2). It has a hell lot of Helium-3. I remember Indian president (a former leading scientist of India's defense program) 's speech in which he had mentioned that if we can develop technology to bring those Helium-3 to earth, it can fulfill our energy needs for next 10000 y

  • A Two legged robot would be very difficult to get right and possibly very unreliable too. I hope they've taken into account the differing gravity of the moon in their gait algorithm.
    • RTFA...

      Weather conditions in space are very different than on earth. So we have agreed that our robot to space will be a four-legged device for better navigation and convenience.

    • I hope they've taken into account the differing gravity of the moon in their gait algorithm

      That should be easy. They just need to divide everything by 6.
  • The Mars Sojourner rover and landing system cost something like $65 million in hardware. Total development was $150 million. While the total project cost $280 million. Compared to the Viking missions of $3.5 billion each, adjusted for inflation, there is cause to show NASA is being conscience of costs nowadays. [Source:Wikipedia.org] Also, because the bulk of cost is R&D, launch and support, it makes no sense to cheap out on the hardware area in the final prototype.

    Also, the trick is to land this

    • Also, the trick is to land this thing. It took the Russians something like 12 tries before they managed to soft land a probe on the moon due largely to lack of processing power.

      Nonsense. It takes very little processing power to land on the moon - the problem is timing and precision control, even the US sidestepped those requirements somewhat by using a direct trajectory and a modified crasher stage in the Surveyor program. You don't need significant (by 1960's standards) processing power until you are tr

  • Well, you know, I had to ask.

    Seriously, googling I was not able to see if this thing is running on GNU Linux or even just the kernel.

  • As Carl Sagan Said (Score:5, Insightful)

    by one1plus1one ( 1108087 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @01:16PM (#19293389)
    As Carl Sagan used to say, it's not as if NASA is taking hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and launching the money into space. The money is spent and circulated right here on Earth. For example a large amount of expenses is spent on salaries for scientists, engineers, technicians (and yes it is also spent on salaries for annoying beaurocrats as well). All of those people in turn then spend the money to purchase homes, cars, groceries, college educations for their kids, vacations, etc... Some of the money spent by NASA also goes to universities in the form of research and project grants. A lot of the research that comes out of these NASA projects benefits humanity in more ways than one can really count. Also, spending money is not necessarily a "sin" or bad thing. Money is meant to be spent. Spending money benefits a nation in many ways. Spending money to explore the vastness of the cosmos and universe is one of the best things we can spend money on. If we don't spend money on exploration we are doomed to become trapped on an ever increasingly crowded and depleted planet, soon to become extinct as a species one way or another. Once we do gain cheap access to space, it's hard to imagine humans waging war and battling for a tiny strip of land when the entire universe suddenly becomes open to us. (But the only way the universe will become open is if we spend money now to build the technology and experiment and explore.) And finally... if you still think the money could be "spent to help the poor", consider that our civilization has more than enough money to spend on both the poor and space exploration. And if you think that money diverted from NASA will really go to the "poor" or "education" or something great like that, then you are naive in the ways of the world and the powers that be. Money diverted from NASA will go somewhere else and it won't be to the poor I can guarantee that.
    • That is a not-so-common way of looking at it. People look at NASA expenses and complain as if NASA takes

      hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and launching the money into space

      . The actual amount that is thrown out into the space would only be the cost of the materials. Money spent on the cost of labor remains on planet earth itself and can be accounted as R&D expenses.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by homer_s ( 799572 )
      I agree with you on the usefulness of NASA and space exploration - frankly if you guys can spend a gazillion in Iraq, no one can call money spent on NASA a waste. But...

      For example a large amount of expenses is spent on salaries for scientists, engineers, technicians (and yes it is also spent on salaries for annoying beaurocrats as well). All of those people in turn then spend the money to purchase homes, cars, groceries, college educations for their kids, vacations, etc.

      I've heard the same justifica

  • IIT = MIT? ha (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mephistophyles ( 974697 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @01:18PM (#19293405)

    IIT-Kanpur(For those who dont know, its Indian equivalent for MIT)
    Aside from the grammatical error, you don't think that's a bit of a stretch? MIT: staff: 998, students: approx. 10000 Nobel Laureates: 63 working there (27 alumni have one). Not to mention all the alumni (Buzz Aldrin, Kofi Annan and many more) and their various inventions and discoveries. IIT staff: approx. 500, students: approx. 4000 Nobel Laureates: 0 A few notable alumni, granted and it has often been named the best engineering college in India. Not to slam IIT too much, I'm sure it's a fine college, but claiming it as India's MIT is not the same as saying it's India's MIT, which I assume the submitter meant.
    • 10000 Nobel Laureates ? Are you on crack ?

      It would be instructive for you to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_co untry/ [wikipedia.org]. There are only 758 persons + 18 organizations who got this prize, less than a 10th of what you claim to be in MIT. Be a flamebait for all I care, atleast use realistic figures!

    • The biggest problem with the comparison is that MIT isn't "America's MIT." It's MIT, a world-
      renouned institute. Oxford isn't Britain's Harvard, or vice-versa, they're both famous and
      similarly ranked.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just to repeat what has been said many times since the IIT PR extravaganza began a few years ago: the basic reason this comparison sounds stupid and embarrassing even to most people inside the IIT system is that these institutions are not modeled as research unversities at all!

      They are primarily colleges for undergraduate engineering education. Having done a reasonable job at that mandated task for the last half century or so, they are just beginning to build graduate programs and research capabilities need

    • Re:IIT = MIT? ha (Score:5, Informative)

      by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @02:41PM (#19293971)
      I dont believe those numbers. Are you saying IITK has a better faculty student ratio than MIT. Thats very hard to believe given that IITK is not even the top engineering college in India (that title oscillates between IIT Bombay and IIT Delhi) and definitely not the the top research instititute - that honor belongs to Indian Institute of Science Bangalore. Not many in the west hear about IISc as it does not have any undergraduate programs only postgradute research so there is no large population like the IIT B.Engg population working in US industry but if you want to do hard core research in India either you go work for the Army (DRDO), space (ISRO), Atomic establishment(DAE) or you go to IISc. There may be a few others like Indian Statistical Institute(ISI) which built the first Indian computer back in the 50s but the IITs are definitely not premier research institutes. The job of the IITs is to churn out large numbers of well trained Engineers not to carry out Fundamental research.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by buzzzz ( 767841 )
        Not to burst your bubble but I think the India Today rankings are bull. In all that matters the top few IIT's are more equal than not and are hard to rank against each other.

        Having said that, IITK is indeed ranked first in this years rankings. Also, while all IITs have been up and down the rankings IITK has been first more times than all the others and has always remained in the top 2 except once when it was third. All the other IITs have seen lower rankings. India Today is a subscription only website so I

  • Beagle 3? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Sunday May 27, 2007 @01:44PM (#19293579)
    This article reminds me of the same hype we heard before the Europeans' Beagle 2 landed on Mars. What a bargin it was, how they would show NASA how it's done, etc. Except no signal was ever detected from Beagle 2, while Spirit and Opportunity are still going strong. Yea, they really showed NASA.

    Mostly, the referenced article sounds like wishful thinking.
  • If we can do it here, they can do it there and cheaper. Thus goes "management think" and away will go even more technical jobs. My experience shows me that this is the way large companies think and where the big corporations go, the government usually follows. Sorry to be such a wet blanket right before memorial day, but it doesn't seem to me like offshoring is what my father and grandfather fought for in WW1 and WW2.
    • Why do you, or any other techie, deserve the job more?
      • Because I do actually do the job better! My company does support for big name companies that fell for that "India can do the job" concept (not my group, but they are folks I know). The jobs came back to the US when India could not do the job well enough to satisfy paying customers. The fact that the jobs came back is small comfort to the guys who had that job before it went to India for a few months.
    • Russian launches are cheaper, more reliable, and safer than NASA's. Would your relatives prefer to see astronauts die because they refuse to use superior technology for the sole purpose of nationalist pride?
  • Brag later.
  • The 50K$ they are talking about is obviously for the prototype. The one they built already walks on 2 legs, the one they want to send "will be a four-legged device ". Plus the one built on the lab can always be made with off-the shelf parts, and TFA does not even attempt to say that the one they will send up will cost 50K$. Remember when NASA pushed the "cheaper, faster, better" program too far? It was crowned by the hugely successful Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander missions. Not to mention the
  • I've fallen and I can't get up.
  • They'll have to give the phone tech the name of the person it's registered to, and then they'll be told to reboot the robot.
  • For me the most fascinating part of the postings and replies is not the badly worded description of a student project that may or may not get off the ground in the near future, but the remarkable gullibility of the discussion that simply takes at face value what is said (and debated seriously). I travel to India frequently (in the software business) and it is clear there claims and boasts overreach somewhat. An example of this is the many companies that claim to have achieved CMM level 5 - when the truth i

  • In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by InterestingX ( 930362 )
    Students and professors at another institution have developed an artificial heart for $20 using over-the-counter parts from Radio Shack.

    They are currently soliciting for volunteers.

  • ISRO with minimal funding(when compared to NASA or other space agencies) has achieved a lot. It has the capability to support all India's commercial and scientific needs through unmanned spaceflight alone, even with lots of scientific and economic sanctions it has achieved that. To believe that they can work with the budget they get is pure non sense one you see its track record over the years....its one of the top 3 space agencies in the world....so i don't think they wont think as much as you guys when p

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close