Jump to content

What? Dancing robots going to mars?


PB666
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dancing tests what essential function for scientific experimentation on mars? i seemed to have missed the non-elective course in dancing while in graduate school. 

How about testing robot by bend knees while maintaing balance, then bend over and pick up rock and place in basket?

How about take shovel and dig down, then sweep off remaining dirt, then holster broom, unholster coring drill, drill core, reholster coring drill, remove chilsilng hammer chisle out section of rock along side core, chisle out core.

Take probe insert into loose soils, analyze water percent, follow grid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Dancing tests what essential function for scientific experimentation on mars? i seemed to have missed the non-elective course in dancing while in graduate school. 

How about testing robot by bend knees while maintaing balance, then bend over and pick up rock and place in basket?

How about take shovel and dig down, then sweep off remaining dirt, then holster broom, unholster coring drill, drill core, reholster coring drill, remove chilsilng hammer chisle out section of rock along side core, chisle out core.

Take probe insert into loose soils, analyze water percent, follow grid. 

I still don't see why it has to be humanoid to do all those things.

 

Anyway, actual news link with details here: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-gives-r5-valkyrie-humanoid-robot-mit-northerwestern-develop-software-mars-1529363

Edited by RainDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because it's NASA, and everything NASA does these days has to be tied to Mars some way or another.

A humanoid robot makes sense if it's designed to use tools and vehicles that were designed to be used by humans. Other than that, anthropomorphic robots are a silly idea. The human body isn't some sort of universally perfect form. It's more often a compromise that performs suboptimally for most specialized tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

It's because it's NASA, and everything NASA does these days has to be tied to Mars some way or another.

A humanoid robot makes sense if it's designed to use tools and vehicles that were designed to be used by humans. Other than that, anthropomorphic robots are a silly idea. The human body isn't some sort of universally perfect form. It's more often a compromise that performs suboptimally for most specialized tasks.

It's probably just for research, to see how far they can take the bot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It's because it's NASA, and everything NASA does these days has to be tied to Mars some way or another.

A humanoid robot makes sense if it's designed to use tools and vehicles that were designed to be used by humans. Other than that, anthropomorphic robots are a silly idea. The human body isn't some sort of universally perfect form. It's more often a compromise that performs suboptimally for most specialized tasks.

For specialized tasks, sure, but what about as a general purpose design? Can it do everything "well enough" to accept the compromises?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

For specialized tasks, sure, but what about as a general purpose design? Can it do everything "well enough" to accept the compromises?

I don't think so. Look at locomotion for example: a bipedal robot has more single failure points than a 6-wheeled chassis. It's also less stable, meaning that if it does fail, it can fall down and damage its payload, whereas a wheeled platform will remain stable and can still work as a fixed station.

And the same is true for arms. Why go with only two arms. Why not four or five ? Why use an imitation of the human hand when you can design a claw that fits much better onto those EVA rails, and a purpose-built electrical/mechanical interface for tools.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I don't think so. Look at locomotion for example: a bipedal robot has more single failure points than a 6-wheeled chassis. It's also less stable, meaning that if it does fail, it can fall down and damage its payload, whereas a wheeled platform will remain stable and can still work as a fixed station.

And the same is true for arms. Why go with only two arms. Why not four or five ? Why use an imitation of the human hand when you can design a claw that fits much better onto those EVA rails, and a purpose-built electrical/mechanical interface for tools.

A 6 wheel chassis is specialized for "relatively" level ground. After a certian point, enough articulation to get over increasingly rough terrain results in a 6-legged walker with wheels on it;s feet anyway.

A Bipedal walker embraces instability, like a bicycle. It requires much more on-site processing as it requires a minimum "reaction speed" to compensate for it;s own instability, but if a bipedal  sence of balance becomes a solved computational problem, combining bipedal tool use with quadrapedal vertical mobility ("climbing") results in a flexible exploratin platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...