All I heard was that it had been canceled. I thought it was doing rather well from a technical point of view. Did it get too expensive? Would it just not be ready in time to be of help on ISS? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
- Status
Not sure what you're talking about here?<br />Can you be more specific?<br />What of the hundreds of robonaut concepts are you talking about? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robonaut <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
Sounds like an unfocused fluffy idea to me.<br />What is the purpose of developing such a device?<br />With no purpose, there's no point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Robonaut was recently re-purposed for Desert-RAT field trials. They took the unit and bolted it onto an ATV four-wheeler, making a "centaur". The original project got canceled when Hubble servicing went to another Shuttle flight. It was to expensive and there were some kind of tech issues with it, not sure what. The current configuration apparently worked great. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
The Hubble servicing mission went onto a shuttle flight when it became clear that robonaut was not up to the task. It would eb as expensive as a shuttle mission, could do less, and had a higher chance of failure. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
IIRC, the Robonaut plan to service Hubble would have cost about 3X what the Shuttle mission would cost. Plus it had the higher technical risk. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
The CGI I saw had Robonaut working on ISS. It was supposed to do stuff that normally required an astronaut -- but they could stay inside. It was supposed to be a breakthough in telepresence. Instead of legs, the CGI version had an end effector resembling a tail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
That's strange. I had heard that Robonaut was being developed for use on ISS. It was the Canada Hand that I had heard would be sent to Hubble instead of ISS. Is Canada Hand back on for ISS? (I assume Hubble would not have gotten a duplicate.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
The NAS had a fairly damning report on the utility of robotic Hubble mission, as I recall. I can't find a copy though. Another problem was that Robotnaut just would not be ready in time.<br /><br />It's an interesting project though, with lots of promise long term. It's good to see the Centaur idea being developed for the Moon and (perhaps eventually) Mars.<br /><br />But perhaps the money would be better spent on developing robots that do the tasks that robots do best, rather than trying to get one to do taks that humans do better. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
Incidentally, Robonaut was never just a humoind bot like that Honda bot. Rather, it was designed to specialize in Telepresence. It provided the operator (an astronaut on board ISS) with binocular vison and hands that intuitively followed the operators hands. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
My recollection is that is was torpedoed by Psycho Dan for whatever reason popped into his head, near the end of his tenure as NASA Admin.<br /><br />It was always targeted at ISS as I recall, and the Hubble idea was a "hail mary" last ditch effort by the folks who had worked on it. Trusting my memory here too much perhaps.<br /><br />The basic concept was sound in some ways but in the end the economics don't stack up. <br /><br />The idea is to have the robot out there in the harsh environment doing as much as possible and put the humans out there only to do the few things robo can't. Design things to be worked on by both, but make that design easy by giving the robo the same form factor and basic geometry as the human.<br /><br />So far so good, but the economics doesn't work for ISS simply because you've got to support a full on robonaut program and you still haven't got rid of the humans. You've nearly doubled the programmatic cost of exterior maintenance.<br /><br />Robonaut is a fine candidate for private firms to license. Clever business plans could possibly find homes for the robos. Maybe a Bigelow station would use one for exterior maintenance and thus they'd only do human EVAs on a on-call basis. For undisturbed long-term microgravity you don't want full-time residents anyway, so human EVAs could coincide with periodic visits, while Robonaut minds the exterior for months at a time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"Robonaut is a fine candidate for private firms to license."<br /><br />Huh, for the price of Robonaut project you could probably buy an army of humanoid bots from Korea or China, practically off the shelf, by now. The idea is right, though.
You mean there are countries besides the USA working on this stuff? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Perhaps Americans should take this robotics thingie more seriously. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
The HRP series (HRP-1s, 2, 3) robots have demonstrated all sorts of capabilities. The -1s has demonstrated working using human-scale tools, famously dressed in rain gear and operating a small excavator. The -3 has demonstrated the ability to jump (slightly) and to autonomously perform fuzzy voice task, like "I think I'm thirsty" and the robot tells another one via WiFi to go get a juice for you. The -3 has a cool exterior, too, it was designed by the artist that made Patlabor.<br /><br />I would argue that the Japanese are years ahead of the US in humanoid robots and robotics in general. Except for BigDog. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
Other countries besides USA ? Yes .. heres a news .. there ARE other countries besides USA, and some of them are getting really far ahead in some areas of technology.<br /><br />A telltale sign: On RoboCup 2006 Humanoid League soccer competition, there were NO american teams competing, only in 2-wheeled toy-thingy competition did MIT take part in.<br />http://www.humanoidsoccer.org/teams.html<br /><br />Another telltale sign is, that if you want to purchase an _interesting_ hobby robotics kit these days, you get it imported from Japan, Korea or China. Sometimes getting the manuals in hieroglyphs. See here:<br />http://robosavvy.com/Home/1<br />http://www.robots-dreams.com/<br /><br />Companies like Honda, Sony, Kawasaki etc are throwing their full weight behind dexterious robotics development. Can you name one american industry giant doing that ?
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />spacester: Perhaps Americans should take this robotics thingie more seriously.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Don't know about Americans, but I have hoped that European countries would concentrate on robotic missions, since I see it one of the most important area of space exploration & exploitation in the future. And if Europeans would not do that, I hope that someone does. Yes, true, I'm a computer programmer and I tend to overestimate the future abilities of artificial intelligence... 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>I don't see how Robonaut would have helped with Hubble unless a orbiter was present. Seeing as it was based on Telepresence, Robonaut was heavily reliant on a nearby human presence. Too much timelag would cause problems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
So does anyone see a future for Robonaut-derived technologies? If so, how far in the future? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
Last I heard on some NASA news video, as others have said the intention is to continue developing it for usage on mars/moon.<br /><br />I think engineers responsible for robonaut and similar robotics would have like to have significantly updated many features of their bots but as things stand there is only a very small budget remaining for moving this work forwards and as such the work progresses slowly.
> So does anyone see a future for Robonaut-derived technologies? If so, how far in the future?<br /><br />Maybe, but any humanoid robots will probably be Japanese. Arms, Canada. Rovers/Chassis, USA. Cultural pressure is a major factor for androids coming from Japan (and more loosely, East Asia). Another advantage is the large number of Linux/Open Source powered robots available from Asia. The HRP has a free development kit, at least for the kit unit. Then again, Microsoft just released a robotics programming kit that goes in the other direction, geared towards $40,000 "hobby" robots. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
Got anything you could build R2D2 with? I think it would be great to have a remote-controlled Artoo that would have all the arms and other goodies in one robot. Holograms and actually understanding human speech are a little too far off. If you want to fool George Lucas in to thinking Artoo was real, a Robot like I described would help. If Lucas adresses the "Artoo," a human would trigger a canned bit of "Droid speak."<br /><br />No fair putting a midget in your Artoo look alike. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
The Japanese are mainly interested in humanoid robots with smart brains. Most shown were designed to be automonous. However, the rarely show them that way in public. (At least Honda doesn't.)<br /><br />On the contrary, as I previously noted, Robonaut had no real brain. It was humanoid in function only because it had to be in order to support telepresence. Even that was limit. It never had legs and no descendants with legs were planned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
> The Japanese are mainly interested in humanoid robots with smart brains. Most shown were designed to be automonous... On the contrary, as I previously noted, Robonaut had no real brain....It never had legs and no descendants with legs were planned.<br /><br />This exemplifies my point. Japan is way ahead of everyone in humanoid robotics. Some of them are both autonomous and telepresent. They don't build One True Droid, but incremental series - the HRP includes wheeled chassis and walking units, but the humanoid walker is the basic unit. very different design philosophy. <br /><br />The best part of Robonaut, from what I understand, is the extremely dextrous hands. <br /><br />As far as R2D2, you can get all sorts of robot kits that make wheeled "task" bots. Put it in a round housing and put some chirping MIDI sequences on it.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The best part of Robonaut, from what I understand, is the extremely dextrous hands.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The show I watched also noted the stereo vision. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram