General Motors' NASA Robot On Tour 72
diGitalRchitect writes "Robonaut 2, a.k.a. R2, described by its creator, General Motors, as the strongest, fastest, most dexterous and most technologically advanced humanoid robot visited GM's Warren Technical Center this morning in anticipation of its 'twin' heading off to the International Space Station later this month."
Grammar (Score:4, Informative)
One presumes that you meant to say General Motors' (or General Motors's if you prefer) NASA Robot On Tour.
Unless there's a General Motor who's built a robot for NASA and is current touring, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to believe that we live in a universe that awesome.
Criticising typos was lame 20 years ago... (Score:1)
... never mind now. Have you just stepped out of a time warp from the 1970s or have you really nothing else to contribute?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because this isn't a textbook, this is slashdot where things are typed fast and where the information is more important that complaining about trivial details of apostrophes.
Re: (Score:2)
more important than complaining about trivial details like apostrophes.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this instance the intended meaning was fairly obvious, but that's not always the case.
Don't give me that "Language evolves" crap either; yes it does, but 90% of the people who say that are simply using it as an excuse to be lazy with their grammar or spelling.
Re: (Score:2)
im not laz... snore
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but which "correct" spelling should be used on Slashdot then? English, american, scottish, australian, new zealand or only something which people like yourself approve of?
Re: (Score:2)
Using the apostrophe incorrectly means something different. It's not pedantic adherence to "arbitrary rules", it's like interchanging metric and english units. They are not the same thing. Motors' and Motor's are different. Similarly, if I tell you to drive 40 kilometers down Route 66 to get to my house and pick up a heck for 75 dollars, you'd be pissed if I actually lived 40 miles down Route 99 and you were really getting 75 cents.
But then I'd say "Meh, precision is stupid and outdated and I was in a h
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Look how high his user number is. He probably wasn't alive 20 years ago. lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Still good for +4 Informative though. There's at least a contingent around here who love they're correct grammar.
Further more, that seems to be the only comment on this story that's been upmodded. Wtf people? Do you have nothing to talk about other than apostrophe use?
A minor mention of the designers might be nice (Score:1)
One presumes that you meant to say General Motors' (or General Motors's if you prefer) NASA Robot On Tour.
So, Robonaut is now credited to General Motors, and Robert Ambrose and the Robonaut [nasa.gov]
group at NASA Johnson Space Center don't even get a shout out anymore?
Maybe a link to their 2000 IEEE Intelligent Systems article [ieee.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there's a General Motor who's built a robot for NASA and is current touring, of course.
Didn't William Shatner play him in Loaded Weapon?
Link seems messed up. (Score:1)
By american standards (Score:3)
Remember americans suffer from serious Not Invented Here syndrome. They'll either pretend the opposition doesn't exist or will try and make out their own inferior designs are better. Its something detroit has done since the 70s against japanese and then european cars. And look how well that turned out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:most advanced? (Score:1)
"most technologically advanced" - err, by what standard? It doesn't even appear to have legs or be able to walk.
Um, what use would legs or the ability to walk be for a robot that is built for use the International Space Station, a facility that has neither gravity nor a planetary surface to walk on?
In any case, there are versions of Robonaut with planetary-surface mobility-- take a look at the Robonaut site; there's one on the front page: http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
It appears to be decades behind the stuff coming out of Japan.
Which space-qualified zero-gravity robot from Japan dating to "decades" back might you be referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
Robonaut 2, a.k.a. R2, described by its creator, General Motors, as the strongest, fastest, most dexterous and most technologically advanced humanoid robot
They didn't qualify their description with the term "space-qualified" as you have. And in not doing so they show that unique combination of boasting arrogance, stupidity, and incompetence that we Americans are so famous for around the world. Just once I would like to see an American press release that didn't totally overstate their case or outright lie. The Japanese don't have that problem, and yes, their robots [google.com] are far more advanced than this POS GM legless "humanoid" robot. One of the mo
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't qualify their description with the term "space-qualified" as you have.
Perhaps they didn't. Nevertheless, Robonaut is a space robot. Legs are not useful in a space robot.
This fact is all over the web, try a google search [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terminator stuff.
Made by the same company that brought us the Chevy Vega...
I had a Vega, and surprisingly it wasn't a bad car. But it was a '76, the last year they made them, and they pretty much got the bugs worked out by then. The biggest problem with the earlier models was that the radiator and oil pan was too small.
The '76 held more oil and water, and there was circuit that shut the car off if the oil pressure dropped too low.
It was underpowered, though, and didn't get very good gas mileage for a small
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of an exageration, but it was in fact the reason they gave it a bigger radiator. I drove mine in 100 F weather with no problem, but like I said, it was the last year they manufactured them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fights.
Match this artificial dude up against ASIMO, and we'd finally have what those Robot Wars TV shows should've been. And that Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots game. See kids, robots are useful for more things than just sex, could be the lesson.
Next we could build a 21st century AD version of the Roman Coliseum, to house and showcase mankind's new pastime. The first bout between these two contenders might initially appear mismatched, with the GM product being prone to falling apart on its own. But being an outdo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We could always bring down the cost to operate them, by merging some of the Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR) project's flesh-eating robot technology into them. Then "Powered by Honda" -> "Powered by bums"!
Re: (Score:2)
cheaper to give bums $100 to duke it out...
Robots are FAR cheaper to repair than humans. The cost of repairing a detached retina [slashdot.org] is thousands of dollars.
And, there are already robot death matches, where engineering teams build robots for the express purpose of an incredibly cool and nerdy game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's great but what do they DO? (Score:2)
For all we know, the 'robonauts' will just stream music while playing an interactive game of Chess with the astronauts - not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Its purpose is to break down a lot and cost NASA an arm and a leg for repairs.
No, if that was the purpose they'd have had the Fix Or Repair Daily company manufacture it. I had exactly ONE Ford, a '69 Mustang I bought in '71. I spent more time under the hood of that POS than I did in the driver's seat. The engine was good (FAST car, 351 Cleveland), but the parts that were connected to it, like the starter, fuel pump, etc, were pure shit.
I understand the newer Fords are a whole lot better.
I've had a few GM ca
Weird FA (Score:2)
R2’s DNA also could be used to improve robots currently working in manufacturing operations.
Now I understand why they name it robonaut: the Android, Nexus are some already taken trademarks, R2D2 not being humanoid... not too much of a choice range.
GM has partnered with NASA since the 1960s, when the auto giant made navigation systems for the Apollo missions. More recently, GM worked on the Lunar Roving Vehicle.
Whaa... You mean this Lunar Roving Vehicle [wikipedia.org]? Yes, it ... somehow... is... more recent than 1960, but hey... common... it's still during nineteen-seventy-spring-time.
Re: (Score:2)
I choked on the "DNA" too. Must stand for Does Nearly Anything.
Yes, it ... somehow... is... more recent than 1960, but hey... common...
Well, maybe the writer's a geezer. And, uh, moon buggies weren't that common.
Re: (Score:2)
I choked on the "DNA" too.
Please reconsider your phrasing..
Re: (Score:2)
Well, she enjoyed it...
Re: (Score:2)
Cue epic reference (Score:2)
Robonaut 2, a.k.a. R2, is the younger brother of Destructobot 2, or D2.
legs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In space, legs are just a nuisance.
Appendages used to repel gravity are not of much use in free fall environments.
Re: (Score:2)
Legs are not just to "repel gravity" as you put it. With some kind of velcro like shoe system legs can be used to propel oneself across a room in zero gravity. Also, if you are holding something in your hands it gives you a method to push off a wall or other object to propel yourself across a room without walking. What kind of robot would you use to "pick up" a 100 kg piece of equipment and transport it across a space habitat? Again, I think you would either need legs or some kind of wheeled system that can
Re: (Score:2)
I know people without legs. There's a couple of them that work in my building.
Ever see Forest Gump? Lt. Dan didn't have any legs. R2's simply handicapped, just like somebody who steps on a land mine.
I bet it doesn't have genitals, either.
Another small step (Score:1)
Wonder if Onstar works in space (Score:2)
Might be handy
Didn't the US govt bailout GM recently? (Score:2)
WTF... GM's working on projects like this... when they were about to go under and had to be bailed out by the government? Un-fucking-believable.
This kind of project is fine in a *healthy* company that's making enough money to fund itself... but why the hell didn't this get shut down under the bailout terms? How is this project making any money to help pay back the bailout? I always felt the bailout was a bad idea, and now we see crap like this. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians who voted fo
Re: (Score:2)
GM hopes the humanoid can one day work on the assembly line (mostly manual labour now). Because it is an humanoid, it can use existing infrastructure for humans and a human can step in if the robot fails, without downtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good point. I could fund fantastically expensive projects if I could borrow huge amounts of money, get $50 billion in free government money, stiff bondholders, and screw pensioners on what I promised them.
That's where 99% of GM's brilliance lies. Anyone who could play with that much money could probably do something more impressive.
And have done so: even NASA, with all the bureaucratic stuff they have to put up with, can do a lot more with the same money.
Fuck GM. Fuck GM long, fuck GM hard.
One question (Score:2)
Does it have On Star?
Typo in headline (Score:2)
There, I fixed that for ya!
Changing economics to fit abundance... (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896936&cid=34452646 [slashdot.org]
video (Score:2)
taxi cab (Score:1)
TFA makes no sense? (Score:2)
Possible automotive applications include adaptive lane-changing and adaptive cruise
How does being the "strongest/fastest/most dextrous" humanoid robot assist with such things vs a computer + servo on the automotive controls?
And wtf does this even mean:
“It allows us to do work and do it safely.side by side with astronauts or with workers here on Earth,”
TFA is confusing and very poorly written. It touts one thing, but then hints at completely different things.
-tm