| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » NASA and robotic research |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 10:12 am |
|
|
|
|
http://www.stnews.org/News-528.htm
At last there is news that NASA is doing some serious robotics
research. I feel though that NASA is thinking in a far too
anthropomorphic way. If you are talking about LEO telepresence I
suppose that anthropomorphism is to a degree necessary. However where
the return light journey is a matter of minutes or hours I would
advocate something like a hub with manipulators and sensors attached. I
note that robot - robot communication is envisaged as is "speech and
gestures". Why not simply have the normal protocols of computer -
computer communication - Ethernet , WiFi, Bluetooth, USB or Firewire?
gestures/speech. If telepresent one communicates by pressure on the
suit If Mars (telepresence impossible) simply send something
resembling an E-mail.
BTW If the normal computer - computer protocols are used we can perform
a task using UNIX and PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine).
I note too that decision making and geometrical understanding is going
to be made a priority. I have said before that the basic step for a Von
Neumann machine was understanding CAD/CAM. The article did not mention
building and repairing robots, but this is implicit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 12:04 pm |
|
|
|
|
It is because everything is defined in terms of CAD/CAM. It is
inconceivable that a robot would not in itself be so defined. This
being the case all the processes needed to construct such a robot,
including the basic extraction processes would be thus defined.
No it is not a VN machine, but after CAD/CAM the momentum towards one
is irresistable.
BTW - We should be speaking of a VN swarm. If we send 2 robots + spares
to Mars one can repair the other. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| zzbunker@netscape.net |
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 12:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ianpark...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:092483999c]It is because everything is defined in terms of CAD/CAM. It is
inconceivable that a robot would not in itself be so defined. This
being the case all the processes needed to construct such a robot,
including the basic extraction processes would be thus defined.
No it is not a VN machine, but after CAD/CAM the momentum towards one
is irresistable.
[/quote:092483999c]
We know that, just like the sun is irrestibale.
But the engineering problems are the same as
submarine problems, and concern the shape of
lungs, not brains.
[quote:092483999c]
BTW - We should be speaking of a VN swarm. If we send 2 robots + spares
to Mars one can repair the other.[/quote:092483999c] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
|
[quote:0969836793]We know that, just like the sun is irrestibale.
But the engineering problems are the same as
submarine problems, and concern the shape of
lungs, not brains.
[/quote:0969836793]
I find this hard to follow. A robot is electrically powered, it needs
no lungs. The only reason why you want anthropomorphism is in LEO where
you can be telepresent, get into a suit and become the robot. This is
impossible at distances greater than about 0.2 sec (60,000km).
For telepresence of couse no understanding, other than transfer
functions, is needed as a human is providing all the intelligence.
The basic reasoning which will lead to VN capabilities is the ability
to understand the CAD/CAM environment, assemble assemblies from parts
and sub assemblies, and carry out instructions to build something,
defined in CAD terms. Understanding must, of course, be such as to
carry out these functions unaided.
The nature of the operating environment is to some extent irrelevant,
except to say that it must be understood, and the robot must have the
basic capabilities within whatever environment it is operating. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Spencer |
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1148919174.956973.144800@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:9c0ee4c678]http://www.stnews.org/News-528.htm
At last there is news that NASA is doing some serious robotics research...
[/quote:9c0ee4c678]
Uh, notice that said "news" is a year old. And it's probably obsolete,
because NASA's latest budget is drastically cutting many R&D areas which
are seen as not immediately relevant to the return to the Moon. As Jeff
Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex Terrell |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Henry Spencer wrote:
[quote:794a12dc8a]
As Jeff
Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
--
I wonder what those are? Any thoughts?[/quote:794a12dc8a] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:46 am |
|
|
|
|
Henry Spencer wrote:
[quote:acf8ee0b23]In article <1148919174.956973.144800@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.stnews.org/News-528.htm
At last there is news that NASA is doing some serious robotics research...
Uh, notice that said "news" is a year old. And it's probably obsolete,
because NASA's latest budget is drastically cutting many R&D areas which
are seen as not immediately relevant to the return to the Moon. As Jeff
Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net
[/quote:acf8ee0b23]
To me it is obvious that robotics are the key to space. The ISS (and
the Shuttle) which is costing all the money is going precisely nowhere.
A golf shot - Big big deal!
A determined effort, spending a lot lot less than on the above items,
will somewhere down the line create a VN machine. I suppose being
British I should welcome this, but if the US does not do it other
countries will. A lead in robotics will represent a lead in space in
general, such is its importance.
If what you say is true, the US has lost its lead in space. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul F. Dietz |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alex Terrell wrote:
[quote:a811b0bbb3]Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
I wonder what those are? Any thoughts?
[/quote:a811b0bbb3]
Consuming federal funds.
Paul |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149575747.381554.124680@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[quote:1d6e95e7cc]Henry Spencer wrote:
As Jeff
Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
--
I wonder what those are? Any thoughts?
[/quote:1d6e95e7cc]
Spending money?
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Chomko |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul F. Dietz (dietz@dls.net) wrote:
: Alex Terrell wrote:
: >>Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
: >>business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
: >
: > I wonder what those are? Any thoughts?
: Consuming federal funds.
Sounds like NOAA, DOD, DOE, DOJ...hell every branch of the US Govt. Are
you claiming that NASA does it better?
Fess up, Paul. Does your hatred of NASA come after NASA's hatred of you?
Eric
: Paul |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Spencer |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1149575747.381554.124680@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Alex Terrell <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:bf21e206be]As Jeff
Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
I wonder what those are? Any thoughts?
[/quote:bf21e206be]
Well, considering that R&D was the one thing that NASA generally did a
passably good job on...
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:36 am |
|
|
|
|
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
[quote:4367425c8e]"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149575747.381554.124680@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Spencer wrote:
As Jeff
Greason put it at Space Access: "NASA is well and truly out of the R&D
business; they're going to focus on their core competencies."
--
I wonder what those are? Any thoughts?
Spending money?
[/quote:4367425c8e]
I saw the training for astrronauts on television news. It would appear
that a telepresence system is in use for training. Why not simply send
it into space? NASA is indeed extert at spending money.
Telepresence can repair Hubble. It won't take us deeper into space. It
cannot give Von Neumann capability. This can only be done by
understanding the physical world.
ProEngineer with Jlink is the right place to simulate robotics, the
NASA training room could be used as a final check for PE derived
software. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hyper |
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:6cd26d99f0]Telepresence can repair Hubble. It won't take us deeper into space. It
cannot give Von Neumann capability. This can only be done by
understanding the physical world.
[/quote:6cd26d99f0]
Right now telepresence can't repair jack, let alone Hubble. And will
you give this von Neumann crap a rest - for 20 years or so. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Chomko |
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hyper (hyperboreea@yahoo.com) wrote:
: ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
: > Telepresence can repair Hubble. It won't take us deeper into space. It
: > cannot give Von Neumann capability. This can only be done by
: > understanding the physical world.
: Right now telepresence can't repair jack, let alone Hubble. And will
: you give this von Neumann crap a rest - for 20 years or so.
I was wondering if Ian got paid for each reference he makes to Von Neumann
machines. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Chomko |
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred J. McCall (fmccall@earthlink.net) wrote:
: ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
: :
: :Hyper wrote:
: :> ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
: :> > Telepresence can repair Hubble. It won't take us deeper into space. It
: :> > cannot give Von Neumann capability. This can only be done by
: :> > understanding the physical world.
: :>
: :> Right now telepresence can't repair jack, let alone Hubble. And will
: :> you give this von Neumann crap a rest - for 20 years or so.
: :
: :Telepresence can, I just don't know why it has never been attempted.
: Because having a real human being on the scene works so much better.
: As already noted, telepresence simply doesn't work that well for
: repairs.
But surely something that could shake or simply bang on a high gain
antenna, like a robotic spider or monkey, would have been better on the
Galileo probe than simply losing the high gain antenna outright.
Telepresence doesn't have to be sophisticated in order to be useful. We
should try somethings and test them on ISS.
Eric
: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
