What are NASA's plans for utilizing resources on the moon?

[Vinni]

NASA's proposals for moon projects never seem to involve the kind of experimentation that would test the ideas of exploiting resources on the moon. Why hasn't there been small scale testing, using robotic spacecraft to the moon, to try various theories, such as using lunar soil for cements that are not hydraulic and propellants. I mean we send people to ISS to watch cheap gadgets like the GM robot, a silently better version of the toy robots sold in toy stores, and spiders make webs, and the futile pursuit of dealing with zero gravity with drugs. How in any way is society benefiting from NASA's current programs? At least testing ideas as to how to use resources on the moon is an impetus for innovation that could lead to new technologies...

Below is a site I found that at least has some ideas:

http://www.wickman spacecraft .com/moon1.html

 

[wuliheron]

NASA just revealed new designs for a rocket that can carry over 4 times what the old Saturn 5 could. Plenty for colonizing Mars much less the moon.

 

[Vinni]

NASA just revealed new designs for a rocket that can carry over 4 times what the old Saturn 5 could. Plenty for colonizing Mars much less the moon.

Well OK but really? I mean when Bush decided to change the goal from Mars to the moon NASA came up with a slightly larger Apollo capsule!

Think about it this way: Better to air lift to orbit hardware that can be refueled and allows missions with more personnel and hardware to be sent than to try and airlift everything in one lanuch. I've heard arguements against this idea! They have the audacity to claim they need a fessiablity study to validate wether or not this apporach could actually transport more hardware and personnel per misson than a direct lanuch, and more cost effectively I may add since transporting hardware to the moon involves pushing mass not weight to lunar orbit!

I have to say this...The Ivy league accedemics have seriously messed up this world! Think about it: All the leadership and important decisions are made by Ivy league alumnist, at least most of them are. What do we have to show for it?..a bankrupt world!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Huge space projects cost hundreds of billions and take decades of commitment. Apollo was one thing, a Moon base or Mars mission would be orders of magnitude more complex. At a time when money is tight it's hardly justified.

Having said that some countries clearly have the money to burn
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15101890

 

[rock1987]

I think they will do it as long as they have got enough money. They use more money in campaingn instead of the mission.

 

[Astronuc]

One can participate in proposing future mission or promote technology.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2012/
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/

http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html

 

[wuliheron]

Well OK but really? I mean when Bush decided to change the goal from Mars to the moon NASA came up with a slightly larger Apollo capsule!

Think about it this way: Better to air lift to orbit hardware that can be refueled and allows missions with more personnel and hardware to be sent than to try and airlift everything in one lanuch. I've heard arguements against this idea! They have the audacity to claim they need a fessiablity study to validate wether or not this apporach could actually transport more hardware and personnel per misson than a direct lanuch, and more cost effectively I may add since transporting hardware to the moon involves pushing mass not weight to lunar orbit!

I have to say this...The Ivy league accedemics have seriously messed up this world! Think about it: All the leadership and important decisions are made by Ivy league alumnist, at least most of them are. What do we have to show for it?..a bankrupt world!

Yeah, yeah, scientists are all Frankenstein's out to destroy the world and NASA is the cause of all our economic problems, while we should all believe every word politicians like Bush spout.

It was the military that insisted on the shuttle being as large as it was and, no doubt, the military that is insisting this new rocket be so large. If you want to argue with them I'd suggest writing the pentagon.

 

[Drakkith]

Vinni have you ever read the history of the Space Shuttle program? Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:

Early during development of the space shuttle, NASA had estimated that the program would cost $7.45 billion ($43 billion in 2011 dollars, adjusting for inflation) in development/non-recurring costs, and $9.3M ($54M in 2011 dollars) per flight.

And:

Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.

At 134 missions, the original quote would have costed about 50 billion in 2011 dollars. Instead it costed almost 4 times that much. Given the history of the space shuttle I can easily see NASA and the government being a little wary of "cheap" reuseable space vehicles.

 

[Vinni]

At 134 missions, the original quote would have costed about 50 billion in 2011 dollars. Instead it costed almost 4 times that much. Given the history of the space shuttle I can easily see NASA and the government being a little wary of "cheap" reuseable space vehicles.

Look at the design of the space shuttle: First off the main engines point at an angle from the center of gravity. Wana know why? Cause the darn design has this big tank on the other end of its center of gravity, so the engines have to compensate for it! Wary of cheap reusable space vehicles? Throwing away a huge expensive fuel tank for each launch is hardly cheap, the whole design of the space shuttle wasn't looking at making things cheap, it was an clugy experiment to test a reusable launch vehicle approach, hoping to find optimal solutions for the future based on the experience of the shuttle craft.

Meaning? Those ivy league geniuses where and still are clueless as how to develop a truly reusable spacecraft ...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Look at the design of the space shuttle: First off the main engines point at an angle from the center of gravity. Wana know why? Cause the darn design has this big tank on the other end of its center of gravity, so the engines have to compensate for it! Wary of cheap reusable space vehicles? Throwing away a huge expensive fuel tank for each launch is hardly cheap, the whole design of the space shuttle wasn't looking at making things cheap, it was an clugy experiment to test a reusable launch vehicle approach, hoping to find optimal solutions for the future based on the experience of the shuttle craft.

Meaning? Those ivy league geniuses where and still are clueless as how to develop a truly reusable spacecraft ...

I don't think your tone is very appropriate here. You are basically insulting tens of thousands of highly intelligent, highly qualified scientists and engineers who have worked tirelessly for decades. No the shuttle never did live up to its political promises but to suggest from an armchair that this is poor effort is just arrogant and plain wrong.

Space travel is incredibly non-trivial. Unfortunately popular culture from the last half century has instilled this idea in people that if NASA just sorted its act out we could be hopping in and out of space as easy as taking a bus.

 

[Vinni]

I don't think your tone is very appropriate here. You are basically insulting tens of thousands of highly intelligent, highly qualified scientists and engineers who have worked tirelessly for decades. No the shuttle never did live up to its political promises but to suggest from an armchair that this is poor effort is just arrogant and plain wrong.

Space travel is incredibly non-trivial. Unfortunately popular culture from the last half century has instilled this idea in people that if NASA just sorted its act out we could be hopping in and out of space as easy as taking a bus.

If you recall the original Apollo project was going to build a single craft approach! von Braun wouldn't tolerate anyone else’s criticism. One and only one guy knew it wouldn't work and no one would listen to him for fear of offending the "guy in charge" or thinking that such critisism is arrogant. Fortunately people around von Braun saw that the math didn't add up and that "arrogant" guy was vindicated.

Taking the next step from the Apollo approach would be to refuel in orbit, but that exercise hasn't even been tried yet and its been over 50 years of NASA telling us how they think it should be done!

The real world of NASA is about egos and politics. He who has the clout wins and good ideas are pretty much left behind and those with the good ideas are "armchair" enthusiasts.

 

[MrNerd]

Space travel won't just happen by throwing money at it and expecting results. Some things are not technologically feasible until new discoveries are made. These discoveries may not be thought of as related to anything for a while, like boolean logic. It took a while before someone realized you could use them in early computers(I mean the really early ones, like beginning of the 20th century).

Besides, they may be studying the spiders you mentioned for a reason. I hear that it's stronger than steel by weight or something along those lines.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you recall the original Apollo project was going to build a single craft approach! von Braun wouldn't tolerate anyone else’s criticism. One and only one guy knew it wouldn't work and no one would listen to him for fear of offending the "guy in charge" or thinking that such critisism is arrogant. Fortunately people around von Braun saw that the math didn't add up and that "arrogant" guy was vindicated.

Taking the next step from the Apollo approach would be to refuel in orbit, but that exercise hasn't even been tried yet and its been over 50 years of NASA telling us how they think it should be done!

The real world of NASA is about egos and politics. He who has the clout wins and good ideas are pretty much left behind and those with the good ideas are "armchair" enthusiasts.

I don't know if any of what you said about one arrogant guy is true so I'd like to see a reference for that claim please, though it wouldn't really matter if it were true because it invalidates your point because all those "ivy leagers" were the ones to point out such a flaw. Secondly after Apollo (which by the way was a huge achievement, it got a man on the moon in nine years and was effectively invented from scratch) NASA wanted to continue Moon missions with new technology such as the proposed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA#NERVA_in_the_space_program"! Unfortunately the public and political will to fund these hugely expensive science experiments was waning and in the end NASA was forced to choose between them all and eventually went with the shuttle, reason being if they could experiment with and perfect launching to LEO the overall price of everything would plummet.

I bolded a section of that last paragraph because it is important to remember that above all NASA is a scientific institute. As such you cannot say "here are your 10 year goals and $10billion" and expect all the goals to be magically met. Space travel is experimental, along the way there have been discoveries that it is far harder a task than people originally thought. But we learn from that progress and continue to improve, to suggest that since the apollo everything that has done has been a waste of money is just plain ignorant.

Lastly I let it slide earlier but I feel I have to comment on this;

we send people to ISS to watch cheap gadgets like the GM robot, a silently better version of the toy robots sold in toy stores, and spiders make webs, and the futile pursuit of dealing with zero gravity with drugs

That robot is a brilliant test bed for future robonaught technologies. Having primates along for the ride increases the complexity and cost of any space mission by orders of magnitude. If we could develop robots to do the same thing the cost and risk would plummet allowing us to do far more with far less. Spider webs and other such animal experiments are very beneficial in zero gravity, they tell us things like how embryonic development is affected by the lack of a gravity field which would be very important for future space colonisation (and there are a wealth of other reasons too). Lastly treatments for things like bone wastage under free fall conditions would be hugely beneficial on Earth for conditions like osteoporosis, indeed I have met people who work on regenerative medicines like this and get their funding from space agencies and industries. The technologies we develop for dealing with space also have great promise on the ground.

 

[Vinni]

Space travel won't just happen by throwing money at it and expecting results. Some things are not technologically feasible until new discoveries are made. These discoveries may not be thought of as related to anything for a while, like boolean logic. It took a while before someone realized you could use them in early computers(I mean the really early ones, like beginning of the 20th century).

That is not what I'm asking or from my tax dollars. Certain data should already be available to us such as:

What are the long term effects of exposure to the environment of space on polymers?

What kind of building approaches could be effective in space? Example: using a wifi network composed of low orbit communications satellites that provide continuous ground connectivity to specialized remote controlled robots for construction. Literally no need to air lift personnel to build a space station on a 24/7 schedule!

How effective is fuel generation using solar energy in space? For instance using electrolysis to separate Hydrogen and Oxygen in water.

Testing a small scale centrifugal gravity simulation platform.

How effective is hydroponics for growing plants for use of generating oxygen and purifying air in space. Note that an approach of using a dome that houses the hydroponic farm would be idea.

What kinds of clear polymers could be use to filter radiation such as ultra-violet light?

None of what I describe is in need of any scientific or technological break through!

Also note that I believe that JPL and NASA should be separate entities. JPL's objective is to use as much as possible know technologies to explore the solar system and is not neccesserily promoting innovation as is the agenda of NASA.

 

[Vinni]

I don't know if any of what you said about one arrogant guy is true so I'd like to see a reference for that claim please, though it wouldn't really matter if it were true because it invalidates your point because all those "ivy leagers" were the ones to point out such a flaw.

It was more of a political fight and there were letters written to the president regarding the flawed approach von Bruan was promoting.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That is not what I'm asking or from my tax dollars. Certain data should already be available to us such as:

What are the long term effects of exposure to the environment of space on polymers?

Which polymers? Who says there's no research on this?

What kind of building approaches could be effective in space? Example: using a wifi network composed of low orbit communications satellites that provide continuous ground connectivity to specialized remote controlled robots for construction. Literally no need to air lift personnel to build a space station on a 24/7 schedule!

That's hilarious considering earlier in the thread you criticised the current testing of a robonaut on the ISS.

How effective is fuel generation using solar energy in space? For instance using electrolysis to separate Hydrogen and Oxygen in water.

Why test that in space? It would be no different to doing it on the ground with the exception that the solar energy would be more powerful and the hydrogen and oxygen far less present. Besides that NASA already has done and continues to do lot's of research on this topic.

Testing a small scale centrifugal gravity simulation platform.

You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X#ISS_centrifuge_demonstration"?

How effective is hydroponics for growing plants for use of generating oxygen and purifying air in space. Note that an approach of using a dome that houses the hydroponic farm would be idea.

We could test that on Earth using rotating bioreactors to simulate the freefall (this has already been done by NASA).

What kinds of clear polymers could be use to filter radiation such as ultra-violet light?.

Again that can be tested on Earth very cheaply (and already is being investigated).

None of what I describe is in need of any scientific or technological break through!

Nor does it require some huge reorganisation of NASA.

I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go at you but so far you've started this threads, made accusations about the people that work at NASA, suggested what they have done is crap and done nothing to demonstrate that. In fact since I posted this ~10 minutes ago I've been editing it a bit because for every one of your points I have found extremely quickly just using google evidence that NASA has done and/or is still doing research on these topics. This makes me wonder just how interested you are in NASA and space science, if you were genuinely interested in what NASA is doing for these surely you should be looking them up.

 

[Vinni]

That robot is a brilliant test bed for future robonaught technologies. Having primates along for the ride increases the complexity and cost of any space mission by orders of magnitude. If we could develop robots to do the same thing the cost and risk would plummet allowing us to do far more with far less.

I agree with the idea of robotics not the implementation of what NASA subscribed to. The robot that GM produced is useless as a constuction device. Hands evolved as a general purpose appendage for tool making, but robots may be better off with an ability of haivng an appendage that directly interfaces to different kinds of tools, like a screew driver, wrench, simple clap, etc. Such a multi-tool approach allows for the immediate testing of space construction. The anthropological ressemblance of the robot is useless and more of an eccentric stunt. Also why use GM whose specialty is not robotics? There are better smaller companies that could do the job more ecconomically. Not to mention that the robot is no different than what has been developed by enthusiasts and private industry so I don't see why my tax dollars went towards an approach that realizes itself in virtually no real solutions to solving bigger problems of space colonization.

 

[Vinni]

Which polymers? Who says there's no research on this?



That's hilarious considering earlier in the thread you criticised the current testing of a robonaut on the ISS.



Why test that in space? It would be no different to doing it on the ground with the exception that the solar energy would be more powerful and the hydrogen and oxygen far less present. Besides that NASA already has done and continues to do lot's of research on this topic.



You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X#ISS_centrifuge_demonstration"?



We could test that on Earth using rotating bioreactors to simulate the freefall (this has already been done by NASA).



Again that can be tested on Earth very cheaply (and already is being investigated).



Nor does it require some huge reorganisation of NASA.

I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go at you but so far you've started this threads, made accusations about the people that work at NASA, suggested what they have done is crap and done nothing to demonstrate that.

Very little data of what I'm asking for is available and what you site is recent and is not being tested in a realistic approach that could answer the questions. What you state could be done on Earth is laughable because it doesn't answer the question of how the effects of space are a factor. Also the testing of the centrifugal platform should have been done by now, which is my point...We didn't get our tax dollars worth.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I agree with the idea of robotics not the implementation of what NASA subscribed to. The robot that GM produced is useless as a constuction device. Hands evolved as a general purpose appendage for tool making, but robots may be better off with an ability of haivng an appendage with the capacity to interface to different kinds of tools, like a screew driver, wrench, simple clap, etc. Such a multi-tool approach allows for the immediate testing of space construction. Also the robot is no different than what has been developed by enthusiasts and private industry so I don't see why my tax dollars went towards an approach that realizes itself in virtually no real solutions to solving bigger problems of space colonization.

I've edited my post a bit since you responded to it so you may want to look back. My advice to you would be to ditch this idea of solving the bigger problems of space colonization (although various US departments still have workshops for looking into those wicked problems). As for robonaut 2 it is a test bed for future operations, the reason it has human hands is because this way multiple sets of tools don't have to be shipped up. Instead the humans and robot can share the same tools, the spinoff technologies from this elsewhere in the world (improving robot dexterity and increasing our biomimicry capability) could be huge. Lastly if you are going to teleoperate a robot it would be far simpler to do if it was humanoid, it's not that hard to build a toolbox into it's chest but it would be very hard for a human to control a robot with two hundred tentacles all with different tools. As well as this NASA already has a tonne of experience in producing robots with custom made tool arms, just look at any probe that's ever been sent to Mars!

Very little data of what I'm asking for is available and what you site is recent and is not being tested in a realistic approach that could answer the questions. What you state could be done one Earth is laughable because it doesn't answer the question of how the effects of space are a factor. Also the testing of the centrifugal platform should have been done by now, which is my point...We didn't get our tax dollars worth.

You can drop the we, not everyone on this site (including me) is American. No we can't reproduce all the conditions of space all the time but we also don't need to all of the time. Tell you what, instead of vaguely complaining that your tax dollars weren't spent right because the progress you want hasn't been made why don't you start posting, with references, specific policies that NASA has adopted over the last half a century and provide, with supporting evidence, better paths that they could have taken (excluding those paths that we can only see in hindsight).

I know that this is the GD forum but above all this is a science website and there are standards; provide evidence for your claims.

Posters please note that future posts will be moderated and possibly deleted if they don't comply with the conditions stated immediately above. Too many discussions over NASA and space issues degenerate into discussions of unsubstantiated personal feelings/theories.

 

[DoggerDan]

These days, manned space exploration is a very expensive love affair, not a viable endeavor on either a scientific or business basis.

As a former diver, I've seen what happens when non-divers try to design hardware for use underwater. If it does work, it doesn't work well, which is why nearly everything we use down there has been designed by, or in consultation, with a diver.

The difference between diving and space exploration is that we need divers to build things underwater. We do not need astronauts to place satellites. We do need them to augment space exploration, but do we really need manned space exploration at all? For what purpose? Because it's there and we haven't been to Mars or established a permanent colony on the Moon?

Many are in love with the idea of doing so, but from a business perspective, it's a no-go. On the other hand, if someone had a viable solution for being the world's power from the Moon as generated by fusion, then let's hear it. That might be viable.

 

[Vinni]

I don't know if any of what you said about one arrogant guy is true so I'd like to see a reference for that claim please,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houbolt

 

[Vinni]

These days, manned space exploration is a very expensive love affair, not a viable endeavor on either a scientific or business basis.

As a former diver, I've seen what happens when non-divers try to design hardware for use underwater. If it does work, it doesn't work well, which is why nearly everything we use down there has been designed by, or in consultation, with a diver.

The difference between diving and space exploration is that we need divers to build things underwater. We do not need astronauts to place satellites. We do need them to augment space exploration, but do we really need manned space exploration at all? For what purpose? Because it's there and we haven't been to Mars or established a permanent colony on the Moon?

Many are in love with the idea of doing so, but from a business perspective, it's a no-go. On the other hand, if someone had a viable solution for being the world's power from the Moon as generated by fusion, then let's hear it. That might be viable.

I agree that manned space flight for the purpose of exploration and constuction is unneccesary. But if my tax dollars have been spent to develop such technologies than I'm asking where's the beef?

 

[Vinni]

Again I ask why was GM given the task of making the robots for NASA?

Look at what others are doing:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJmQqC1nHTU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfBpqsqnf80&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kp7V8qNbxQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40l2mrCJZiU&feature=related


Compared to Robonaunt 2's capabilities:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/gm-nasa-robonaut-2/

Just the use of motion capture technology for robotics is leaps and bounds ahead of anything NASA is doing.

 

[Drakkith]

Crazy question, but has anyone bothered to ask NASA? I just sent in a question about this from here: http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html

 

[Ryan_m_b]

These days, manned space exploration is a very expensive love affair, not a viable endeavor on either a scientific or business basis.

As a former diver...

It's even worse than that. Imagine if to get to the sea you had to pay a toll of several thousand dollars per kg. There are two arguments I can see for people in space

1) To gain experience of how to keep humans alive in space

2) As inspiration to the public

Never underestimate the last one. If the public are inspired by space then politicians will capitalise on it to get votes and funding will flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houbolt

I don't see how this supports your claim.

Again I ask why was GM given the task of making the robots for NASA?
Look at what others are doing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJmQqC1nHTU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfBpqsqnf80&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kp7V8qNbxQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40l2mrCJZiU&feature=related

Compared to Robonaunt 2's capabilities:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/gm-nasa-robonaut-2/

Just the use of motion capture technology for robotics is leaps and bounds ahead of anything NASA is doing.

Youtube videos do not count as a comprehensive comparison! Show some evidence. Where are the technical specifications for all these robots and very importantly you should ask yourself why NASA is using Robonaut 2. I could easily show a video of a buggatti veyron and then compare it to the lunar rover and say "what's NASA doing?" but it ignores the role NASA's equipment is filling.

Robonaut 2 has highly dexterous hands, is quite strong and can operate in space. All those other robots are interesting at most, I doubt any of them could sit on the side of a space station and use human tools.

I agree that manned space flight for the purpose of exploration and constuction is unneccesary. But if my tax dollars have been spent to develop such technologies than I'm asking where's the beef?

Crazy question, but has anyone bothered to ask NASA? I just sent in a question about this from here: http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html

Brilliant suggestion!

 

[wuliheron]

These days, manned space exploration is a very expensive love affair, not a viable endeavor on either a scientific or business basis.

You left out military applications. Automation is great and saves money, but if you can afford to put boots on the spot as well as use automation its an advantage that can't be easily calculated by accountants or scientists. One example is the ability to have astronauts repair and upgrade military satellites that would otherwise require years to replace.

It started out as a military space race and those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Vinni]

Youtube videos do not count as a comprehensive comparison! Show some evidence. Where are the technical specifications for all these robots and very importantly you should ask yourself why NASA is using Robonaut 2. I could easily show a video of a buggatti veyron and then compare it to the lunar rover and say "what's NASA doing?" but it ignores the role NASA's equipment is filling.

Robonaut 2 has highly dexterous hands, is quite strong and can operate in space. All those other robots are interesting at most, I doubt any of them could sit on the side of a space station and use human tools.

Robonaut 2 doesn't have a human interface like a motion capture suit to manipulate it. Your evaluation of the dexerous hands is based on a video, no different than the uTube ones. The comparison to the Buggatti is riddiculous and infact the lunar rover was quite manuverable and was clearly a well thought out idea that did work.

Here are some hand robots that are comparable to what is seen Robonaut 2 doing:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqmRKqFqiok&feature=related

This robotic hand is mind controlled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppILwXwsMng&feature=related

With no human interface to Robonaut 2 its virtually useless as a tool, but not only that, robots such as Cog from MIT can at least identify and track objects, something I don't see Robonaut 2 doing. So over all; the autonomous capabilities and the human interface capabilities aren't there and this is version 2 of the robot.

The Robonaut project looks like another subsidy from the U.S. governement for big buisness.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Vinni, show some evidence for your claims other than YouTube videos. You know; technical specifications, peer reviewed work published data etc

These videos are not evidence unless backed up by any kind of technical data to explain them.

 

[Vinni]

Vinni, show some evidence for your claims other than YouTube videos. You know; technical specifications, peer reviewed work published data etc

These videos are not evidence unless backed up by any kind of technical data to explain them.

The video depicting the robotic hand controlled by the mind of an amputee is from the Discovery Channel, a reliable source, albeit rendered for the layman. Unless of course you also question Kaku's Discovery Channel specials, then obviously its not a good source.

 

[D H]

Vinni, there is a lot of misunderstanding, anger, and even misinformation in your posts against NASA, starting from post #1.

So starting with post #1, I'm going to address the second issue your raised first.

Why hasn't there been small scale testing, using robotic spacecraft to the moon, to try various theories, such as using lunar soil for cements that are not hydraulic and propellants.

There are several answers to this question.

• Reason number one, Congress hasn't funded such an endeavor. This would be a big project. NASA is a federal agency. It cannot do whatever it feels like doing. In particular, it cannot undertake a big project without Congressional approval.
• NASA's budget is rather small, about a half a percent of the total US federal budget, and it is shrinking. NASA's funding comes from the non-defense discretionary part of the federal budget. Non-defense discretionary spending is going to be under immense downward pressure for the next several years.
• Building a very expensive infrastructure (and sending anything to the moon would be very expensive) is in general a poor way to address technologies that are at a perpetually low readiness level, particularly in a constrained budget environment.
• Occasionally people will ask at PhysicsForums, "Why isn't NASA doing research into X" where "X" is that person's pet low TRL capability. (Those people also directly ask NASA these questions, only the word "occasionally" is not the operative word. "Bombard" is.) NASA is investigating lots of perpetually low TRL concepts. It funds research into these technologies, holds conferences on them, etc. Prematurely picking a winner is the wrong way to go. Most of these perpetually low TRL concepts never will pan out. A select few will, but which ones? There's no telling in advance which will fail, which will succeed.
• In situ resource utilization is one of many perpetually low TRL capabilities that NASA is funding, admittedly at a low level.

NASA's proposals for moon projects never seem to involve the kind of experimentation that would test the ideas of exploiting resources on the moon. ...
Below is a site I found that at least has some ideas: http://www.wickman spacecraft .com/moon1.html

NASA has been doing and subsidizing at a low level research into in-situ resource utilization for a long, long time. It is, for example, topic X1 in this year's NASA SBIR solicitations. Regarding your link, where do you think John Wickman is getting his funding? A lot of it comes from NASA.

References:
Rather than an obnoxious "let me google that for you" link, I suggest you do it yourself. Do a google search on "in situ resource utilization site:nasa:gov".

NASA In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Development & Incorporation Plans
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/203084main_ISRU TEC 11-07 V3.pdf

NASA SBIR 2011 Solicitations Topic X1
http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbirsttr2011/solicitation/SBIR/TOPIC_X1.html

Wickman Spacecraft & Propulsion Company News & Events
http://www.wickman spacecraft .com/wspcnews.html

 

[D H]

Again I ask why was GM given the task of making the robots for NASA?

First, and consider this a strong warning, drop the attitude. You have been asked nicely by Ryan to do so, multiple times. I'm not asking nicely. I am telling you to drop your attitude.

To answer your question, GM came to NASA with money, with technologies that NASA could use, and with technically savvy people that GM would throw at a joint effort. All NASA had to do in exchange was to work jointly with GM, share NASA's technology with GM, and protect GM's side of the investment. This is a joint effort between NASA and GM and its cost to the taxpayers is incredibly small. NASA's side of the Robonaut 2 effort is on a shoestring budget. The arrangement between NASA and GM is covered under a Space Act Agreement rather than a FAR contract. These agreements get considerable scrutiny by NASA legal and by the Government Accounting Office because of the potential for abuse. There is no abuse here. This is instead a potentially big win for NASA, for GM, and for the taxpayers.

One big problem NASA has always faced is how to get NASA-developed technologies out into the world at large. Space Act Agreements are arguably the most successful approach to solving this sticky problem. Another problem NASA has faced is the burdensome Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR); FAR is a big part of why the federal government is so incredibly inefficient. Space Act Agreements address these problems as well. NASA recently did an internal study to compare how much it would have cost NASA to use FAR to build the Falcon 9 being built by SpaceX under an SAA. The answer: FAR more than triples the cost, from 443 million to 1.38 billion dollars. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The video depicting the robotic hand controlled by the mind of an amputee is from the Discovery Channel, a reliable source, albeit rendered for the layman. Unless of course you also question Kaku's Discovery Channel specials, then obviously its not a good source.

The discovery channel is absolutely not a good source! It has shows like Excorcist: a true story and has documentaries that show people's alien abduction accounts! Like all TV it's purpose is to attract viewers and it does that brilliantly with a lot of pseudoscience and popular nonsense.

The following are acceptable sources of information;
- Peer-reviewed research
- Official technical specifications
- Official documentation over policy

 

[FlexGunship]

NASA just revealed new designs for a rocket that can carry over 4 times what the old Saturn 5 could. Plenty for colonizing Mars much less the moon.

Um... do you mean 1.07 times as much?

Low Earth Orbit
SLS (initial design) - 150,000lbs
Saturn V - 262,000lbs
SLS (evolved design) - 280,000lbs

Trans-lunar Injection
SLS (initial design) - ?
Saturn V - 100,000lbs
SLS (evolved design) - ?

 

[wuliheron]

Um... do you mean 1.07 times as much?

Low Earth Orbit
SLS (initial design) - 150,000lbs
Saturn V - 262,000lbs
SLS (evolved design) - 280,000lbs

Trans-lunar Injection
SLS (initial design) - ?
Saturn V - 100,000lbs
SLS (evolved design) - ?

Sorry about that, you are correct. It is only about 10 metric tons more then the Saturn 5.

 

[FlexGunship]

Sorry about that, you are correct. It is only about 10 metric tons more then the Saturn 5.

No worries. I would've loved to hear that I had missed the Super SLS announcement, but I've been following closely. Glad we have a Saturn-V-like replacement, but sad that it isn't a Nova competitor.

EDIT: For the unaware, the Nova was the original Mars rocket spec'd out in 1962 based on the Saturn V. The Saturn V technically had three variants: C-1 (pre-Apollo and post-Apollo Skylab), C-5 (moon rocket), and the C-8 (Mars rocket). The C-8 was nicknamed the "Nova."

 

[enigma]

Again I ask why was GM given the task of making the robots for NASA?

Look at what others are doing:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJmQqC1nHTU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfBpqsqnf80&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kp7V8qNbxQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40l2mrCJZiU&feature=related


Compared to Robonaunt 2's capabilities:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/gm-nasa-robonaut-2/

Just the use of motion capture technology for robotics is leaps and bounds ahead of anything NASA is doing.

Ground based robots do not work in space. The environment is so foreign and counter-intuitive to "common sense" that I, as someone who has worked developing tools for use in space who knows what needs to go into the construction, cannot watch sci-fi anymore.

Bring a ground robot into space, the lubricants would boil off due to outgassing, the gimbals would overheat due to not having appropriate thermal control systems, the control systems would not know how to properly orient itself due to the constantly changing reference frames and full 6 degree of freedom motion that is needed, the power systems (notice most of those robots were plugged in) would draw so much energy they'd need a football field sized solar array, and the body itself would be so much heavier than a specially designed robot that it would cost too much fuel to move it around.

As to the human motion readers to control the robot - If you want to control it from in space, you don't want to use a human motion reader because the human is floating. If you turn your arm to move the robot's arm, guess what? You are now looking away from the viewscreen. Furthermore, relative motion in space is very tricky. If you are behind an object in orbit, you need to decelerate to get closer, accelerate to get farther away. Doing so will also cause you go move "up" and "down" relative to your target as well. All of that can be easily compensated into the transfer functions of a fly-by-wire system, but it doesn't work very well if you are tied to a human being making a set motion. There is a reason it takes hours to link up with the ISS, and that reason isn't because astronauts and NASA scientists are stupid.

 

[FlexGunship]

Ground based robots do not work in space. The environment is so foreign and counter-intuitive to "common sense" that I, as someone who has worked developing tools for use in space who knows what needs to go into the construction, cannot watch sci-fi anymore.

Really, you don't enjoy watching Star Trek anymore?!

"Captain, there's an incoming wave of science particles!"
"Invert the polarity of the physics beam and try to dissipate it."
<beep boop beep> (inverting the polarity of anything is a standard function of that equipment)
"It's not working!"
"Divert all power from the space engines and use a shifting harmonic pattern."
<boop>
"The wave of science particles is dissipating. The flux of anti-science particles is rising."
"Evacuate decks 9 through 16 and flood the area with inverse physics particles." (it's ALWAYS decks 9 through 16)

 

[enigma]

Really, you don't enjoy watching Star Trek anymore?!

"Captain, there's an incoming wave of science particles!"
"Invert the polarity of the physics beam and try to dissipate it."
<beep boop beep> (inverting the polarity of anything is a standard function of that equipment)
"It's not working!"
"Divert all power from the space engines and use a shifting harmonic pattern."
<boop>
"The wave of science particles is dissipating. The flux of anti-science particles is rising."
"Evacuate decks 9 through 16 and flood the area with inverse physics particles." (it's ALWAYS decks 9 through 16)

Yeah, and in BSG when they are working on their fighters in a facility that looks like a back room of "West Coast Choppers".

 

[MrNerd]

Really, you don't enjoy watching Star Trek anymore?!

"Captain, there's an incoming wave of science particles!"
"Invert the polarity of the physics beam and try to dissipate it."
<beep boop beep> (inverting the polarity of anything is a standard function of that equipment)
"It's not working!"
"Divert all power from the space engines and use a shifting harmonic pattern."
<boop>
"The wave of science particles is dissipating. The flux of anti-science particles is rising."
"Evacuate decks 9 through 16 and flood the area with inverse physics particles." (it's ALWAYS decks 9 through 16)

I never had much of an opinion on Star Trek(I've never watched it before), but this most certainly does not increase it.

It might be good for a laugh for all the silly names and ridiculousness, if you know what the things actually are.

The science and physics particles did make me laugh a bit.

 

[FlexGunship]

I never had much of an opinion on Star Trek(I've never watched it before), but this most certainly does not increase it.

It might be good for a laugh for all the silly names and ridiculousness, if you know what the things actually are.

The science and physics particles did make me laugh a bit.

Star Trek has always been about exploring fantastical places and opening your mind to new ideas. The details are almost always absurd, but the experience is fun! I happen to love Star Trek, partly because of how campy it is. Some of the ideas are very scientific, they're just executed in a profoundly non-scientific manner.

Watch it for fun, mystery, and plot. Don't watch it for science.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

EDIT: For the unaware, the Nova was the original Mars rocket spec'd out in 1962 based on the Saturn V. The Saturn V technically had three variants: C-1 (pre-Apollo and post-Apollo Skylab), C-5 (moon rocket), and the C-8 (Mars rocket). The C-8 was nicknamed the "Nova."

I knew of the proposed Mars missions by NASA and knew that it involved some variant of Saturn V technology but I did not know this. Thanks for giving me something to read up on

 

[FlexGunship]

I knew of the proposed Mars missions by NASA and knew that it involved some variant of Saturn V technology but I did not know this. Thanks for giving me something to read up on

The Apollo-era of space exploration is kind of my guilty pleasure. The C-8 was also proposed as a way to land on the moon without relying on lunar orbit rendezvous. It was large enough to land an entire return rocket (and integrated launch pad) on the moon.

Houbolt (the father of LOR and savior of the Apollo program) rendered early development of the C-8 useless by making optimum use of the C-5. When Nixon entered office and started his hack-and-slash on the space program, the C-8 never got another look.

 

[D H]

When Nixon entered office and started his hack-and-slash on the space program, the C-8 never got another look.

Yeah, the Republicans were not friends of NASA back then. Apollo was perceived as a Democratic success story by both the people and by Republicans, so it had to come down when the Republicans gained ascendancy. Not that Democrats are big friends of NASA. They came this close, →‖← , to dismantling the International Space Station (a Reagan legacy, so therefore rather evil) and more recently they did manage to dismantle Constellation (a Bush legacy, so therefore evil of the 180 proof sort).

 

[wuliheron]

No worries. I would've loved to hear that I had missed the Super SLS announcement, but I've been following closely. Glad we have a Saturn-V-like replacement, but sad that it isn't a Nova competitor.

EDIT: For the unaware, the Nova was the original Mars rocket spec'd out in 1962 based on the Saturn V. The Saturn V technically had three variants: C-1 (pre-Apollo and post-Apollo Skylab), C-5 (moon rocket), and the C-8 (Mars rocket). The C-8 was nicknamed the "Nova."

The confusion arises when you add the space shuttle. It reduces the available lift capacity to 27 tons and the largest current unmanned rocket can only carry 25 tons. With these new unmanned rockets I suppose they'll be able to routinely lift really big objects as far as geosynchronous orbit. The more crowded near Earth orbit becomes the more valuable the suburbs become.

 

[FlexGunship]

With these new unmanned rockets I suppose they'll be able to routinely lift really big objects as far as geosynchronous orbit.

Must... resist... mom... joke... can't... get... more... infractions...

I hope I live to see the day when raw materials are lifted and dedicated space vehicles are built. Vehicles that don't need to endure 9.81 m/s² gravity. Vehicles that don't need to survive liftoff thrust. Big, majestic, things... like the Enterprise.

I could never understand why the Enterprise was constructed on the ground in the new Star Trek movie. What an absurdly weird place to build a starship: at the bottom of a deep gravity well.

"Well, we've finished building the new SLS rocket."
"Why'd you build it under water?"
"What do you mean?"
"You build it on the ocean floor. It's under tons of water. Why'd you do that?"
"Pffft. We took bids."

 

[Vinni]

Bring a ground robot into space, the lubricants would boil off due to outgassing, the gimbals would overheat due to not having appropriate thermal control systems

Then obviously use lubricants that can work in space.

the control systems would not know how to properly orient itself due to the constantly changing reference frames and full 6 degree of freedom motion that is needed

6 degrees of freedom as in the kind of freedom UAV's work in. That BTW can be controlled with autopilot? For that matter autopilots for many aircraft deal with 6 degrees of freedom. Changes in reference can be dealt with gygoscopes which is how most pipedal robots orient themselves.

the power systems (notice most of those robots were plugged in) would draw so much energy they'd need a football field sized solar array, and the body itself would be so much heavier than a specially designed robot that it would cost too much fuel to move it around.

The Robonaut weighs 300 lbs! Most of which are batteries! Why many researchers work without the batteries is to develop the coordination software and hardware. Also recharging those Robanaut batteries is time consuming, since ISS doesn't have a football field array of solar panels.

As to the human motion readers to control the robot - If you want to control it from in space, you don't want to use a human motion reader because the human is floating. If you turn your arm to move the robot's arm, guess what? You are now looking away from the viewscreen. Furthermore, relative motion in space is very tricky. If you are behind an object in orbit, you need to decelerate to get closer, accelerate to get farther away. Doing so will also cause you go move "up" and "down" relative to your target as well. All of that can be easily compensated into the transfer functions of a fly-by-wire system, but it doesn't work very well if you are tied to a human being making a set motion. There is a reason it takes hours to link up with the ISS, and that reason isn't because astronauts and NASA scientists are stupid.

A motion capture suit would work if the human is secured which would prevent the kinds of problems when moving arms or legs.

 

[enigma]

Then obviously use lubricants that can work in space.

You are obviously missing the point. You posted a half dozen "gee-whiz" videos and appear to be making a point that NASA is wasting money because their robot doesn't do the same neat stuff. The point I was making was if NASA's robot did the same neat stuff, it wouldn't work in space.

Changes in reference can be dealt with gygoscopes which is how most pipedal robots orient themselves.

Bipedal robots will not work in space. What are they going to walk on? Motion in space near other space assets cannot currently be done on autopilot. It is far too dangerous. I know this because it is currently an avenue of research by both NASA and several US companies. Search 'vivisat' for an example.

The Robonaut weighs 300 lbs! Most of which are batteries!

And how much would the batteries weigh on an autonomous bi-pedal robot which can breakdance (or whatever other unneccessary feature you seem to think would make the thing 'better' than what NASA has been working on)?

Why many researchers work without the batteries is to develop the coordination software and hardware.

Try again. They work without the batteries because the robots couldn't move if they had to lug the batteries around.

A motion capture suit would work if the human is secured which would prevent the kinds of problems when moving arms or legs.

So a tethered human is going to move around and his motions are going to control the free-floating robot? How is that "better" than having the computer pre-program repetative motions for the robot to perform?

 

[Vinni]

You are obviously missing the point. You posted a half dozen "gee-whiz" videos and appear to be making a point that NASA is wasting money because their robot doesn't do the same neat stuff. The point I was making was if NASA's robot did the same neat stuff, it wouldn't work in space.

You mean the dexterous fingers that can be controlled by the human mind would not work in space?

Bipedal robots will not work in space. What are they going to walk on?

Is that why NASA wants to put legs on Robonaut 2?

Motion in space near other space assets cannot currently be done on autopilot. It is far too dangerous. I know this because it is currently an avenue of research by both NASA and several US companies. Search 'vivisat' for an example.

Do you think it might be cause the relative velocities are much higher for space vehicles than most commercial aircraft? What does that have to do with a robot on a space station? The relative velocities of stuff on board the ISS in comparison to the robot are identical.

And how much would the batteries weigh on an autonomous bi-pedal robot which can breakdance (or whatever other unneccessary feature you seem to think would make the thing 'better' than what NASA has been working on)?

Point is the coordination and the complex software that animates the robot to do that. Such articulate capabilites of a robot that can break dance can do other manuvers with just as much ease and organic motion.

Try again. They work without the batteries because the robots couldn't move if they had to lug the batteries around.

Oh you mean like the Honda and Sony Robots?

So a tethered human is going to move around and his motions are going to control the free-floating robot? How is that "better" than having the computer pre-program repetative motions for the robot to perform?

Pre- programmed repetative motions work in very structured environments like an assembly factory, which is what GM's objectives are. Space exploration has to deal with dynamic environments that are un-predicatable. So having the ability to use a human to control the robot is a neccessity for NASA. But the man machine interface is pressing on with nueroligical interfaces, something that NASA can't touch. But without a good man machine interface Robonaut 2 is destine to failure, an expensive toy that was sent to orbit...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

For the last time, Vinni for all your claims provide citations as to where you are getting this from. When you say "NASA wants to put legs on Robonaut 2" give a link! When you say there a robots that carry their battery give a link with the technical specifications. If not I will lock this thread.

 

[Vinni]

For the last time, Vinni for all your claims provide citations as to where you are getting this from. When you say "NASA wants to put legs on Robonaut 2" give a link! When you say there a robots that carry their battery give a link with the technical specifications. If not I will lock this thread.

Legs on Robonaut:

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp

The Honda robots carrying their battery packs I assumed to be common knowledge. But trying to get more detailed specifications is propably a issue of proprietary information.

http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/technology/spec.html