Moon-Excavation Robots Face Off 61
avishere writes "Student teams designed and built robotic power-lifters to excavate simulated lunar soil (a.k.a. 'regolith') earlier this month, with $750,000 in prizes up for grabs. Excavating regolith, according to NASA, will be an important part of any construction projects or processing of natural resources on the Moon. Interestingly, regolith is especially difficult to dig because its dust particles want to stick together. The whole robotic system has to be sturdy enough to scoop moon dirt and powerful enough to move through the dust while still meeting the weight requirements. The winning excavator, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, lifted 1,103 pounds within the allotted time, and got its creators a sweet $500,000 for their troubles."
I hear... (Score:1, Insightful)
Caterpillar aka. CAT machinery is pretty efficient at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe NASA is so 1960's (Score:4, Insightful)
I am wondering if the money being spent on a manned space program is just wasted. With the davances in robotics, we could be scooping up Martian soil, Europan ice, and goo from Saturn's moons and bringing it home for a fraction of putting a man on Mars.
Unless we get volunteers for a one way manned Martian mission, I think the money should be put into advanced robot probes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
within 50 years (Score:1)
That's exactly what we all thought in 1969....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Manned space effort is based on the premise that there will be a sizable number of people living or visiting in space in the not so distant future (within say 50 years)."
Right, that's the vision of the Space!Future! I was sold as a kid in the 1970s. And I thought it must be true, because Scientists were saying so.
But one important bit was left out. What will all those people be *doing* that can't be done cheaper either on Earth, or by robots?
Doing Science? Uh-huh. That would have to mean 'astronomy'. Who p
Re:Maybe NASA is so 1960's (Score:4, Insightful)
I am wondering if the money being spent on a manned space program is just wasted. With the davances in robotics, we could be scooping up Martian soil, Europan ice, and goo from Saturn's moons and bringing it home for a fraction of putting a man on Mars.
These are not, or shouldn't be, mutually exclusive. Clearly picking up a sample of Martian soil and bringing it back to Earth is going to prove out some technologies that are useful for human missions.
Robots and humans can, and should, work together. But, ultimately, it's not about the robots-- it's about us. The goal should be extending our civilization out beyond the Earth.
(...and, in a final comment, let me note that you may be vastly optimistic about how hard it is to return samples from the Jupiter and Saturn systems. These are some very very difficult missions.)
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect that if anyone asked for such volunteers, they would be plentiful.
Before I had kids, I would have been first in line.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that if anyone asked for ill-qualified volunteers, they would be plentiful.
Fixed that for you, emphasis mine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless we get volunteers for a one way manned Martian mission, I think the money should be put into advanced robot probes.
We won't get any unless we start asking for some and putting up the money to make it a reality.
What good would volunteering now do, when they'll tell you you ought to be ready to roll in 2020? If you're, say, 40 now, in pretty good health, feel like you've accomplished a lot on earth and are ready to cast yourself away to the depths of space never again to see mother earth except via video camera so you decide to volunteer for a one-way mission to build the first Martian colony, then you're told, "OK great,
Re: (Score:2)
Including me. I'd do it as a labourer, if that was the only option. and I'd be on the highway toward Canaveral in 45 minutes....
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno.
Moon rocks returned by Apollo manned missions: 382kg
Moon rocks returned by Soviet robot missions: 0.326 kg
So they cost less but they return less.
There's also the argument that, assuming a geologist is collecting them, you'll end up with better "quality" rocks than an automated mission could return.
Lunar lander challenge (Score:2)
The moon challenge is cool-- and it's great to see students compete (this is something we really need)-- but what I really love is the lunar lander challenge (also previously featured on /.). Seeing videos like this one [htttp] just thrill me. The real problem with spaceflight has been that some time back in the '50s it moved the ability of individuals and small groups to participate in, and I just love that idea that real experimental rocketry is coming back.
Rocket Ship Galileo, let's do it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Moon Carbon Credits. (Score:3, Funny)
If a Molotov cocktail is thrown in space, does it make a noise?
Only Al Gore will know.
Re:Moon Carbon Credits. (Score:4, Funny)
On behalf of the Society for the Advancement of Humour through Awkward Reframing, I'd like to convey our admiration for your tenacious and comprehensive example of this not so fine art. We'd be pleased to have you as an Honorary Member.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
cupcakes and a chainsaw
TIP: it's easier to dunk them in your tea instead.
something missing (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no mention of the additional challenge presented by the mechanical properties of lunar regolith [wikipedia.org]. Since there's no wind or liquid water, the grains of "sand" have been formed only by breaking up larger pebbles [wikipedia.org] and have not been eroded since, so they're rather jagged and very abrasive.
In other words, imagine your garden-variety backhoe or skid loader digging through finely ground glass - you'll pray to @DEITIES for its gaskets and bearings.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Nature handles this by putting a protective skin over the internal organs. A similar approach avoids the issue. A four or more legged walker with digging arms with a flexible outer skin would work well. It doesn't have to be rubber just have give like mylar. Most of the approaches I've seen ignore the dust issue and go for traditional exposed mechanics. Even if breaches happened it'd still keep out the bulk of the dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good one. One small issue: all designs would have to forfeit anything that spins as its business-end, much like whales don't have propellers. Still, there are alternatives, and you may look at living sand-diggers for clues. You still need something hard for "claws" and a pretty resistant skin, perhaps with scales where it's closer to the action.
Bigger issue: the reactions of politicians / taxpayers when you show them your design for a robotic mole / lizard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I meant was that anything enclosed by a skin cannot have rotating parts, by the same reasons living critters don't have any.
As for the cylinders with bristles I figure those would be protective devices at the "out" sides of a traditional bearing which will handle the load (the bristles would be mashed otherwise). Kind of a self-cleaning gasket. Good one - from my limited perspective :)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... Yes, of course.
Although... If you had a flexible skin, you could have a part that rotates, a number of times one way, then reverses and rotates the opposite way. You just couldn't have a continuous rotating part.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is overrated.
Aw, there goes my Nobel. ;) Okay, I was actually shooting for a "3, Interesting" at most.
As the other replier noted, you can protect the delicate parts of your machine.
Yup - gaskets, flexible boots and such. But they have limited effectiveness since there's some sliding action exposed to the nasty elements.
You can also maintain it (eg, clean and oil on a frequent basis the relevant parts).
Are they sending a maintenance bot along with it? I expect this to be deployed initially as a prospector robot - likely the Lunokhod [wikipedia.org] chaps gave it a lot of thought.
It's merely another engineering problem and I see no reason that the issue has to be addressed in this stage of technology development.
True dat - self-maintenance probably wasn't a part of this challenge. But sure as hell it will have to be addressed bef
Re: (Score:2)
But sure as hell it will have to be addressed before we send the first titanium-digger on its own out there.
I agree. My point though is that these incremental contests can't cover everything at once, otherwise they wouldn't be incremental. And you sure couldn't offer just $500k to demonstrate a digger on the Moon capable of say, six months of activity.
Re:something missing (Score:4, Insightful)
> Yup - gaskets, flexible boots and such. But they have limited effectiveness > since there's some sliding action exposed to the nasty elements.
There doesn't have to be except at the wheels.
Gas jets could be used to blow seals clear. Shouldn't take much gas. Or maybe positive pressure on the inside of each seal and a very slightly leaky seal so that there is a constant outward flow of gas or lubricant when the bearing is in motion to carry contaminants away.
A search for "self cleaning seals" gets lots of hits.
Re: (Score:2)
The next step... (Score:4, Interesting)
Regardless of the speed and mass abilities of the excavators, I'd be interested in seeing a system that can excavate, process, and create something from simulated regolith in a high-static, near-vacuum environment.
Specifically, I recall seeing articles about how it might be easy to create low-efficiency solar cells and a form of concrete from regolith.
Assuming that works, I'd like to see a 'bot that can dig up some regolith, make a concrete igloo big enough to be useful, and cover it and the surroundings with solar cells. I suppose we're decades away from that...
Re: (Score:2)
And I'd rather see a robot that looks like Angelina Jolie and does whatever I want.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm married so... no, she won't let me!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see a robot that can make low-efficiency solar cells and a form of concrete from sand in the Sahara.
Umm, I think I get your point. Yes, I'd rather put the dollars and brainpower towards solving a lot of remaining problems here at home rather than sending bots out there to dig out whatever valuable minerals are there, just to have cheaper LCDs and mobile phones. There's a lot to be said for beating rockets into plowshares.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they might have been able to establish a permanent settlement, and from there, spread out across the continent.
Units - fixed (Score:2)
[The article lists all weights in kilograms]
1,103 "pounds"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Moon! (Score:2)
Now we just need a Sam Bell. And a GERTY
Shredded diamonds (Score:2)
This is not why it's difficult to dig. Regolith is the exact same dust and sand that you see here on earth...before it was broken down by mechanical weathering. You start with rock, big rocks. Over time these break down into smaller and smaller rocks and then finally you get sand like you'd find on a beach. On the moon you have amazingly sharp, tiny rocks. This is because there's no process to weather them down i