On November 1, 2010, Kenneth Chang from The New York Times published an article that sparks new interest in the slow moving NASA. “NASA’s Quest to Send a Robot to the Moon” discusses Project M, “a guerilla effort within NASA, cooked up a year ago by Stephen J. Altemus, the chief engineer at Johnson (Space Center)”. “That’s the magic” said, Mr. Altemus, referring to the integration of technologies, and prototypes. This project includes companies such as General Motors, who worked with NASA to develop the humanoid dexterous robot named Robonaut 2, which is “packed on the shuttle discovery, scheduled for liftoff on Wednesday”. Boston Power donated a $300,000 lithium battery prototype to NASA in exchange for assistance with battery management. Armadillo received from NASA about $1 million, engine technology, and access to test facilities, in exchange for their lunar lander prototype. Project M uses data from other NASA project “including rocket engines that burn liquid oxygen and methane – a cheap and nontoxic fuel combination – and an automated landing system that could avoid rocks, cliffs and other hazards.” All of which can be used to better our own society in the future, proving integration of many technologies will benefit society as a whole, and should be something to invest in.
Project M was started as a cheap and effective way to go to the Moon, and possibly beyond. The cost of sending astronauts to the Moon is stated to be $150 billion, and the cost of the robot to the Moon would cost “less than $200 million, along with about $250 million for a rocket”. If such technology were created and given enough support towards, it may be possible to discover much more about other planets than we can currently discover. However, this project remained unnoticed by everyone in NASA, “including the administrator, Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr.” and therefore was under tight budget constraints. According to Project M’s planners, “a robot walking on the Moon would capture the imagination of students, just as the Apollo Moon landings inspired a generation of scientists and engineers 40 years ago”. The planners’ opinion of our reception of this robot is very progressive. Certainly seeing any being walk on the Moon live would capture our imagination, but this is because it has not happened in our life time. By having a robot do this walk on the Moon, many would be captivated that technology was this capable, but others may not see this as a feat since a robot making a one way trip is far different from a human living the trip there as well as the trip back. NASA claimed to be able to accomplish the robot to the Moon in 1000 days, said to be arbitrary since they claim to work better under sense of urgency. Although this project has cost about $9 million to date, plans to the Moon are on the back burner, and there is not enough money to work on legs for Robonaut, the project sparked some interest among International Space Managers and is the reason for Robonauts’s launch to the Space Station.
Human Spaceflight is currently over-rated with our cost of life being so great. In order to live we require food, oxygen, water, and many more things. To provide people with so many substances where they are lacked, in space, costs a lot of money that can be put elsewhere, where it may be of more use. I feel like people would understand and be very welcome to the idea of sending robots into space on shuttles knowing the cost difference. For now it would be best to invest the appropriate money into NASA and Project M, so that research may be done on enough planets and new technological possibilities in as reasonable a time as possible.
The Following is a link to the video of Project M’s lander test flight:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/11/01/science/1248069258460/project-m-lander-test-flight.html
(Video unable to be embedded)
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/space/02robot.html?_r=1&ref=technology
http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp
1 comment:
This article speaks about an application of Artificial Intelligence (in this case, Robonaut of Project M), that replaces humans in a typically dangerous occupation to get more information and explore regions of space that we have yet to venture into. This relates to the article I wrote about for my third blog post, which concerned the applications of AI and how it is potentially gaining too much power in our everyday lives. NASA’s Project M, on the other hand, appears to have numerous positive aspects to it (including lower costs, higher amounts of information, lower risk of losing data and human lives). NASA’s explanation of the technology of Robonaut also describes how this technology would be applicable to various sectors of NASA’s operations; project director Matt Ondler mentions how the project includes “humanoid robotics that are relevant and extensible to a multitude of NASA missions” (Ondler). As a result, this new technological venture would enable NASA to conduct more experiments for less money while minimizing danger for its employees. However, this connects back to the idea of trusting a machine to be as competent as a human. We have discussed in class how algorithmic systems thought the stock market was crashing when it really wasn’t: would a robot in space confuse data or accidentally believe that data was useless when it could have been crucial? NASA should consider the risks involved in fully trusting a robot to conduct a mission in space worth almost $500 million. If robots cannot do the job as competently as a human in this case, their cost efficiency will be meaningless when met with useless data. Another risk is a relatively simple one: in the case of a technological malfunction without any human to fix a problem, would months of data be lost if Robonaut shuts down unexpectedly? Also, I am concerned about NASA’s “1000 day” promise, since they wish to streamline production of this robot and its spaceship to minimize cost and time spent (Ondler). I wonder whether in this rush to become faster and cheaper, NASA will sacrifice the quality of work and data collection. While I do think that sending a robot (that means significantly less than a human life and does not require any food or oxygen to survive) into space is a sound moral decision, I think NASA should remain concerned with the importance of the work they are doing. Spending $1 billion on a crucial mission that brings back a lot of important information is more worthwhile, in my opinion, than a 1000-day Robonaut gathering a lot less.
Sources:
Ondler, Matt. "Robonaut: Project M History and Philosophy." NASA Website. 6 July 2010. Web. 04 Nov. 2010. .
Post a Comment