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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vinni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Money
Click For Summary
NASA's current moon project proposals lack small-scale testing for resource exploitation, such as using lunar soil for construction and propellant. Critics argue that NASA's focus on large-scale missions and political influences detracts from innovative experimentation that could lead to new technologies. The discussion highlights concerns over the efficiency of NASA's funding and mission planning, particularly regarding the shift from Mars to lunar objectives. There is skepticism about the feasibility studies for new transport methods that could enhance mission capabilities. Overall, the conversation reflects frustration over the perceived stagnation in NASA's approach to lunar resource utilization and the broader implications for space exploration.
  • #31
Vinni said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Vinni said:
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
 
  • #33
wuliheron said:
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) - ?
 
  • #34
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
  • #35
wuliheron said:
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."
 
  • #36
Vinni said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
enigma said:
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)
 
  • #38
FlexGunship said:
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".
 
  • #39
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
MrNerd said:
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.
 
  • #41
FlexGunship said:
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 :smile:
 
  • #42
Ryan_m_b said:
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 :smile:

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.
 
  • #43
FlexGunship said:
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).
 
  • #44
FlexGunship said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
wuliheron said:
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."
 
  • #46
enigma said:
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.

enigma said:
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.

enigma said:
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. :smile:

enigma said:
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.
 
  • #47
Vinni said:
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?
 
  • #48
enigma said:
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?

enigma said:
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?

enigma said:
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.

enigma said:
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.

enigma said:
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?


enigma said:
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...
 
Last edited:
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
Ryan_m_b said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Vinni said:
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

Regarding the ASIMO do you really think that is comparable with Robonaut 2? You keep moving the goal posts here, you list faculty after faculty but you should demonstrate why these are desirable for NASA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Ryan_m_b said:
Regarding the ASIMO do you really think that is comparable with Robonaut 2? You keep moving the goal posts here, you list faculty after faculty but you should demonstrate why these are desirable for NASA.

The question was wether a robot could carry its own battery pack, so I'm not moving the goal posts. That robonaut 2 not have at least what MIT's COG has in autonomous capabilites is prolematic. Especially when that technology from MIT is available to NASA.

The point has always been are "we the people" gettng our monies worth? When GM's objective is to use a robot for a very structured environment and NASA's goals need more dexterirty, such as being able to visiually sense and track objects so as to grab items and handles. It doesn't appear the two, NASA and GM, have enough common points that the joint effort proves to be productive as it would have using, say MIT's, or Carnigie Mellon's R&D.
 
  • #53
This thread is ridiculous.
 
  • #54
Isn't Robonaut 2 a "love" robot?

[URL]http://www.robotsnob.com/pictures/Robonaut2.jpg[/URL]


http://spacecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Robonaut2updated2-300x225.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
collinsmark said:
isn't robonaut 2 a "love" robot?

robonaut2.jpg



http://spacecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/robonaut2updated2-300x225.jpg

lol! :!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Evo said:
This thread is ridiculous.

Agreed. Experiment failed, thread locked.
 

Similar threads

NASA NASA's Mars Plan May Include a Yearlong Mission to the Moon
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Plan to colonize the moon and mars.
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
22K