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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vinni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Money
AI Thread 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.
  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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

Replies
116
Views
22K
Back
Top