This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Procurement

NASA JSC Has Developed A Girl Robot in Secret (Revised With NASA Responses)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 12, 2013
Filed under ,

NASA JSC Unveils ‘Valkyrie’ DRC Robot, IEEE Spectrum
“While NASA’s official position is that Valkyrie is a genderless humanoid (as is Robonaut), the robot does have some features that we would call unmistakably female. For example, there’s the name of the robot. “Valkyrie” (the roboticists call it “Val” for short) refers to the female figures in Norse mythology who decided which warriors fought valiantly enough in battle to be taken to Valhalla when they died.”
Keith’s update: This placeholder website just appeared. But it only shows Valkyrie’s back – not her front. There was a Facebook page up until yesterday that referred to Valkyrie as a female and said that Robonaut was her “brother”. NASA JSC was originally directed by NASA HQ to make this robot gender neutral. JSC then ignored that direction and deliberately made the robot overtly female – at least its upper torso. Now they deny that it is female or that it was ever intendeded to evoke or portray a female characteristics in any way. This project was also kept secret from a large number of JSC engineers who would otherwise be aware of such activities. Someone is not being truthful.
Just for the record folks, I have no problem whatsoever in making robots and other NASA hardware more approachable to people in ways that make them feel included. None whatsoever. And if you are going to make a space robot why not make it look cool? Lets see more of it! What is troubling is how NASA JSC played favorites with one specific media outlet to the exclusion of all others – and still does; how NASA JSC is being less than honest when they say that there was no intent to imply gender identity on this robot when in fact multiple well-placed sources state that this was intentional from the onset at JSC; and that HQ PAO is now trying to tell me that a robot with an overtly female chest configuration and a female name is not trying to invoke a female identity. I’m not that stupid – neither is everyone else.
Why can’t they just admit the obvious to the public in the same way that they discuss it internally? Its time for NASA JSC to be honest and stop trying to weasel out of the obvious by hiding behind HQ PAO responses. Ellen Ochoa knows the whole story.
Keith’s note: I submitted the following questions to NASA PAO, JSC PAO, and Mike Gazarik – the reply from NASA HQ is listed below:

1. why has there been no PAO material issued about this robot? Why is the only information online at IEEE? Why were other media not afforded an opportunity to interview people working on this program? NASA chose not to promote R5 in the press prior to the DARPA Robotics Challenge both because it is part of a competition and because of the extraordinary workload the team has faced.
NASA: In many challenges, teams wait to reveal their designs until just before the competition. Also, the NASA team lost two weeks of work when JSC was closed due to the government shutdown. They’ve been very busy working to get R5 ready for next week.
IEEE approached NASA JSC and the R5 team last summer and requested access to R5 and interviews with the team at JSC. In return for access to the team and the robot as it was being built, the IEEE reporter agreed to hold his story until now to avoid disclosing the NASA design prior to the robot’s completion. The reporter’s research was conducted last October, before NASA formally named the robot “R5.”
The robot will be competing in the DARPA Robotics Challenge http://go.usa.gov/We9W Dec. 20 and 21 in Homestead, Fla. NASA will participate in press events at the challenge — journalists will be able to interview team members and see the robot at the competition.
R5 was referenced in a NASA press release we issued last Monday about R2 getting legs http://go.usa.gov/ZcPz . In that release we mention R5 and link to the DARPA Robotics Challenge website.

NASAWatch Follow up: Your answer makes no sense. First you say that you don’t want to reveal anything and yet you let IEEE all over the place – with an exclusive – allowing them to take photos and have preferential access to government personnel – and then you refuse to allow any other media to have similar access after that story is released. You don’t even post any imagery online even though the secret of its appearance is now all over the place. You just said that the competition is on 20 Dec and yet IEEE has revealed the design “prior to the robot’s competition”. Did IEEE sign an NDA on this? Can you point me to the NPD or other agency policies whereby NASA allows exclusive access to something that (as you note below) contains restricted technology? Was IEEE limited in what it could describe or photograph?

NASA Follow-up response: Keith, as the recipient of numerous NASA “exclusives” over the years, including private budget briefings and policy discussions with previous NASA Administrators, I’m amused by your feigned outrage over our unintentional exclusive to IEEE Spectrum on R5.
 
IEEE was the first to ask for an insider’s video view of the robot as it was being built. Their request came in before the government shutdown and before the need for the team to accelerate work to due to undiscovered technical hurdles.
 
Due to the government shutdown, after IEEE’s visit the team did not have the time to accommodate additional media visits and still meet their already extremely aggressive schedule. Accommodating such visits would have required the team to go into downtime and interfere with the lab environment.
 
IEEE did not sign an NDA. Their access was not originally planned to be exclusive. Events warranted flexibility in our communications approach to stay on schedule. As a very kind professional courtesy to NASA, IEEE held the story to allow us to make our initial announcement and point people to the competition for media avails and interviews. Journalists will have access to our team and robot at the competition Dec. 20-21 – I encourage you to register now and come on down.

2. how much did this robot cost? Who paid for this robot?
NASA: NASA received $3 million from DARPA and matched that with $3 million from NASA. We also received $1.5 million from the State of Texas Emerging Technology Fund and $100,000 from Houston’s Jacobs Engineering. These funds were mainly used for design and development of the first robot.
3. What specific NASA program(s) sponsored this robot?
NASA: NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate’s Game Changing Development Program funds robotic research at the agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston and provided NASA funding for this project.
4. Who actually built this robot – was this done in house? Were contractors used – if so which one(s)? How were their services procured?
NASA: An R5 team of 55 people includes NASA engineers from the agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston working with engineers from Houston’s Jacobs Engineering and Oceaneering Space Systems, as well as students from the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and the State University of New York at Buffallo.
5. Will there be more than one robot constructed?
NASA: NASA does not have plans to build a second R5, but hopes that other government, university or commercial partners may choose to build upon the technology developed for R5 for applications that can aid in disaster recovery or mitigation efforts, or in commercial applications here on Earth.
6. Will the plans for this robot be made available to the public in open source format?
NASA: Because the team consists of partners outside of NASA who have invested time and financial resources into the project, some parts of the IP for R5 may be restricted.

NASAWatch Follow up: Who is on the team? How did they partner with NASA – SAAs? MOUs? Contracts? What aspects of this robot are specifically is restricted – and why? Who actually owns the design of this robot? Is anything on this robot ITAR restricted?

NASA Follow-up response: NASA and NASA contractors – contracts – CRAVE II, JETS, EPIC, Bioastronautics), UT, A&M, SUNY, IHMC Agreements – Cooperative Agreements, then ETF funding from the State of Texas for universities. We’re not allowing photos “under the skin,” as NASA is still early in the process of disclosing and filing for protection of intellectual property. This is the same approach we have taken on other robots, like Robonaut 2.

7. Why was this robot overtly designed with a specific gender? Was this a program requirement?
NASA: R5 is neither male nor female, it is a humanoid robot. While humanoids do not have a defined gender, they have certain characteristics that are found in human beings. NASA hopes to show that robotic designs do not have to be of a specific gender-design. R5 was designed with form and function in mind, with consideration to the challenges the upcoming competition poses.

NASAWatch Follow up: Oh please, everyone calls it by a girl’s name and says “she” when referring to it. The robot has a blatantly female upper torso. Why anyone would intentionally put that obstructive feature on the front of the torso so as to restrict the movement of its arms is baffling. Bad ergonomics. If it is a design feature with an intentional purpose, can you tell me what specific subsystems are inside the upper portion of the torso such that the obvious pronounced projection (female shape) is required – a feature, by the way, that Robonaut does not seem to require?


Photos from IEEE

NASA Follow-up response:The short answer is – it made the most functional sense.
A longer answer: The engineering analysis on the form was done before the idea to model the robot’s form – the form was driven solely by function and engineering need.
R5 is completely self-contained, that is to say it has all its computers, power source and cooling onboard the robot. To keep the center of mass as close to the geometric center of the robot, we had to push the battery as far forward into the torso as we could. The battery weighs more than 30lbs. If we had not, and instead chosen an R2 style backpack, we would have had a very ‘hunched over’ walking style and therefore it would have been very challenging from a manipulation standpoint.
In addition, we also needed to have an articulating waist so that the manipulation workspace of the robot could be repositioned while standing and not moving. The linear actuators for the waist then were positioned around the battery and subsequent power converters. Given the kinematics of the waist and therefore subsequent angle of the actuators, it led to a feminine humanoid feature.
Currently, R2 only rotates at the waist – but does not ‘bend.’ What we are talking about is the functional equivalent of the lumbar portion of a human spine. Robonaut does not have that and therefore packing strategies between the two robots were very different. A spine is very necessary in center of mass management when walking in a gravity field, something Robonaut doesn’t have to contend with.

8. The total possible prize to be awarded by DARPA Robotics Challenge is $34 million. If NASA enters the Valkyrie robot and it wins where will the prize money go?
NASA: As the owner of the competition, you should check with DARPA concerning the expected value of their final prize purse and their prize award criteria.
The first round of trials for the competition takes place later this month. The final prize money will not be awarded until there is a winner during the final competition in December 2014. NASA is seeking guidance from our General Counsel on whether the agency or team could accept any prize money if we were to win the competition a year from now.

NASAWatch Follow up: Do any of the non-NASA partners share in the prize money? How is their percentage determined?

NASA Follow-up response:We’re waiting for legal opinion on what we would legally be allowed to do if we won money from the competition and how any prize monies might be managed. We have plenty of time for gaining a legal opinion about prize money — the team is focused on the trials taking place next week.

9. Is the Valkyrie program related to Robonaut? If so, how? If not, why not?
NASA: Yes. R5’s physical design comes from prior technology developed for Robonaut, the X1 Exoskelton and several other robot spinoffs. R5 has Robonaut’s arms and neck, the X1’s legs and shoes, a hand derived from the RoboGlove, the battery from NASA’s Chariot rover and the navigation sensors from NASA’s Centaur rover.
Additional Follow up questions
1. NASAWAtch: Did NASA HQ direct NASA JSC to make the robot gender neutral? Did JSC agree to that HQ direction? Did JSC project staff then ignore direction from NASA HQ or did JSC management not send HQ direction down to JC project staff?
NASA: NASA’s policy — longstanding — is that all robots are gender neutral. They are machines. The R5 team at JSC is focused on preparing for next week’s DARPA Robotics Challenge. Our communications coordination is a collaborative effort between interested offices at HQ and JSC.
2. NASAWAtch: There was a Facebook page online by one of the team members at https://www.facebook.com/nasa.valkyrie?fref=ts that what since been removed. It referred to Valkyrie as female and that Robonaut as her brother. Why was that page taken offline?
NASA: The Facebook page was publicly posted before appropriate agency reviews were made and was taken down. We review public web and social media sites for clarity and accuracy.
3. NASAWATCH: Multiple JSC sources report that this project was kept secret from other JSC personnel. What level of secrecy/proprietary information restriction was applied to this project and what is the contractual basis for such secrecy/proprietary information restrictions?
NASA: It’s not uncommon for teams that are preparing to compete in challenges to prefer privacy as they build their entries. JSC management was fully aware of this activity and it was funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate at HQ. It also was no secret that the team had entered the competition.
4. NASAWATCH: Did any foreign nationals work on this project? If so what clearances were required for them to work on it?
NASA: No foreign nationals worked on R5.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “NASA JSC Has Developed A Girl Robot in Secret (Revised With NASA Responses)”

  1. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Since Robots relate to humans, robots should have gender.
    What does NASA plan to use this bot for other than prize money??

    On the Job I always see ground working contractors running remote controled compacting machines. These machines look very much like a large dog on a leash. I always walk over to it and pat it on the “head” which always brings a smile to its driver.

    Have you petted a compacting machine lately? 🙂

    • Treetop says:
      0
      0

      Well the DARPA challenge has the robots doing the following tasks… “Driving a utility vehicle, walking across rubble, restoring access to a blocked entryway, opening a door and entering a building, climbing a ladder and walking (or crawling) across a catwalk, finding and closing a valve to stop the flow from a leaking pipe, and attaching a fire hose or other connector”. They all seem like pretty useful things to have a robot do if you were trying to build a lunar or martian base.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        My familiarity with intended usages for robots is quite limited, but I think that if they can get robots to climb a ladder reliably and reasonably quickly then that, by itself, may well do a lot to steer future robotics development in the humanoid direction. I see that as the ideal case; if they can function in our physical world, without the need of any special compensations or facilities, then they can be doing everything from simple lift and carry to fire fighting in place of humans.

        I would say that the ability to replace a human in a dangerous situation, without any special preparation, is by itself all the justification needed to spend the money to carry this research and development forward.

        The various Japanese commercial robots are presented as useful, but tend to be (as I see it) promoted/marketed based on their friendliness and “cuteness,” and their industrial robots are marketed as time and money savers, which they are.

        Perhaps we need a different promotional concept for the kind of robots that the DARPA challenge will hopefully create. I think that showing them as reducing human dangers and even saving human lives would be a powerful selling point, assuming that it can be shown to be true. Ideally, future generations will find it natural for humans and robots with human-like capabilities to work together day to day, as opposed to having human work places and robot work places.

        After developing robots with human-like physical capabilities, the next big challenge will be interactivity — getting them to take verbal commands in real time, instead of just executing pre-programmed responses and routines. I would be surprised if there are not already people working on this, but what language(s) are they working in?

  2. ProfSWhiplash says:
    0
    0

    Looks like a candidate for a Wagnarian [space] opera (just add stylized wings on the “helm” and put a rod in one manipulator:
    ““Hoyotoho! Hoyotohooo!! Heiho! Heihoooo!” “

  3. Todd Martin says:
    0
    0

    That’s a great exchange Q&A exchange, though I think Keith is too harsh in his criticism of the robot’s shape. Industrial design is more than ergonomics & function; you also want people to feel comfortable around the devices. There has been a lot of work done in this field to make humanoid robots less threatening in appearance. A female form works on several psychological levels.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      The problem is that JSC went against NASA HQ direction and now they are denying that they did. Someone is deliberately not telling the truth.

      • Obi-wan says:
        0
        0

        I think a better question, Keith, would be who at NASA Headquarters issued “orders” that the robot be gender neutral and why don’t they have better things to do with their time? The Robonaut team at JSC have always had a flair for the dramatic – how about the Boba Fett helmet on the original Robonaut? Rather than worry about whether the front of the robot torso looks like boobs, I would question the need for the “Iron Man” light in the chest (or has JSC created an arc reactor?). Either way, when you turn out some of the finest robots in the world, you should get to add your own “artistic” touches to the systems.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          WHen field centers decide what direction they do or do not want to follow then you have to ask yourself who is actually in charge at NASA.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            “who is actually in charge at NASA”

            I always assumed it was JSC.

          • thebigMoose says:
            0
            0

            Well said Keith. JSC has been and always will be it’s own space agency. I have seen them do what they want, when they want for my lifetime. They are never called on the carpet, or made to pay any significant price for their untethered behavior.

            That said, the bot is pretty kewl in my opinion! Good to see the young folks working in a Skunk Works environment. The more bureaucracy that can be shed the better… they will be more creative and productive over their careers. Make sure these guys and gals aren’t the “new NASA” that we have all been hoping for!

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            The only catch I see in doing this in a Skunk Works-like environment is that it’s going to get pretty expensive if they get to follow this through to its logical conclusion. At some point the amount spent will trip an alarm higher up and then things will come crashing to a halt while everything from the robots themselves down to screw procurement is reviewed. And after the review, either funds will be cut or a large pile of “instructions” will be issued from on high which will inevitably change the program in ways that do it harm. If this is the case, I really hope they come up with something too good to be messed with before drawing too much attention.

      • Treetop says:
        0
        0

        It is pretty common to anthropomorphize robots, just because some engineers used female pronouns, and the robot has the name of a female mythological figure does not make it officially female. It has soft lines and what appears to be a female bust, so what? I wouldnt be so quick to second guess an engineering team’s choice on where to place mass on a robot. They have developed what looks to be an extremely competitive robot for what is going to be a very tough competition, I doubt they would sacrifice their competitiveness just for a female form.

        Also, “Why anyone would intentionally put that obstructive feature on the front of the torso so as to restrict the movement of its arms is baffling. Bad ergonomics.” I guess women are ergonomically inefficient now? Must be why we dont let women be firefighters or soldiers or astronauts. : )

        • pilgrim101 says:
          0
          0

          Also, “Why anyone would intentionally put that obstructive feature on
          the front of the torso so as to restrict the movement of its arms is
          baffling. Bad ergonomics.”

          I have always ask the same thing about the way wonder woman is drawn. If she is a Amazon, why does she have (2) breasts? They removed one traditionally to fire arrows more efficiently .

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Or, they just needed an extra space to house more batteries or circuit boards and let the form follow function.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        If they had put those lower down, in order to maintain a lower center of mass, it would have ended up with fat hips, and then the fact that it has a female name would have all of the women upset. Much smarter to go the way they did.

  4. cynical_space says:
    0
    0

    “Is anything on this robot ITAR restricted?”

    Ha-Ha! Keith, you’re joking, right? Of course it’s ITAR restricted. Don’t you know that *everything* in US aerospace these days is ITAR restricted, even if it’s US to US. And I wish I was joking about that…

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Funny (sad) thing is that they claim things are ITAR restricted even if they are not so that they do not have to respond to external (media) inquiries. I’m not kidding.

      • cynical_space says:
        0
        0

        I don’t doubt it for a second. Back when I worked at NASA, I had the experience where one of our contractors (one of the big boys, no less) tell us the information we had requested was not contractual, and since it was ITAR restricted, they flat out refused to give us the info, even though everyone involved were US citizens.

        Now, you are certainly correct in that some cases, some entities do manipulate ITAR as a convenient excuse to restrict information. However I can’t always blame folks when they invoke ITAR. The rules are fuzzy and the penalties are severe, so sometimes its easier to take the CYA route than it is to take the risk.

        I personally think ITAR is one of the biggest charlie foxtrots ever perpetrated on the US aerospace industry. As this is getting off topic, I better stop as it always honks me off whenever I think about ITAR and damage its done to US aerospace.

        • rktsci says:
          0
          0

          A contractor can’t disclose ITAR data to the government unless there is an agreement on handling it as ITAR restricted within the government. It can be a problem is foreign nationals have access to the data.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Similar problems exist in other countries, but generally with much less total data to worry about. The catch I see is that there has to be something in place to regulate and monitor potentially sensitive data, and whatever you put in place will eventually grow into an ITAR-like monster. I think it’s as much the nature of the beast as it is annoying bureaucracy.

  5. dbooker says:
    0
    0

    Just watched the video and it didn’t really show much capability. I guess they are saving that for the DRC.

    But if they want to send it as a pre-cursor to humans they need to add a power plug under the battery pack so it can plug itself into a solar powered power supply/charging station and swap out it’s own battery pack or work off the power umbilical.

  6. YesKeithImAnon says:
    0
    0

    I don’t know, Keith, this

    The robot has a blatantly female upper torso. Why anyone would intentionally put that obstructive feature on the front of the torso so as to restrict the movement of its arms is baffling. Bad ergonomics.

    sounds awfully sexist. Who cares anyways? It’s just a robot named Val. I think you ought to try meditation to calm down. And also try to keep your raw nitpickiness out of this blog. There’s so many legitimate issues to discuss. Also, you’re not a part of the media “inner circle”. Deal with it. You’re a blogger so you’re on a lower totem pole. That’s how the world works. Get a real job as a real reporter–where people know you won’t bite them in the hand–and you will get more respect in the PR department. The fact is everyone knows you’re just out for “gotcha” journalism and are simply hate-baiting / trolling with posts like this.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Feel better now?

    • Spacetech says:
      0
      0

      Really?
      Hate baiting, lower totem pole, blogger?
      I’ve been with NASA for 16yrs and coming to this website for 12yrs now for trusted and reliable information that NASA was either to inept to tell its employees or just plain wouldn’t tell its employees.
      Go hate somewhere else!

    • Joe Cooper says:
      0
      0

      I was with you for like two or three sentences.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Well, Mr. YesKeithImAnon, call Keith whatever makes you feel good, but he seems to get more respect from people in the space industry than most media “inner circle” reporters do. Maybe it’s because he’s former NASA himself; or more likely, in my opinion, it’s because he’s honest with the people in the space game (and the media) and so they mostly respond to him in kind.

      Either way, on NASA Watch, from day one, we’ve all known exactly who Keith Cowing is and what he’s attempting to achieve with this web site — he’s been honest with this readers. Unlike you, he’s never hidden behind a fake name (that we’ve never seen here before) taking pot shots.

      Keith is honest; you’re a coward. I know which of you I’d prefer to read.

  7. pilgrim101 says:
    0
    0

    Thats one that will not have a problem flying home eyes out at high G’s. All jokes aside, this a tempest in a teapot. What happened to the prop to send robostuntman to the moon?

  8. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    any robot built to look humanoid and be gender “neutral” will ALWAYS be considered male. Look at a ton of web articles .. unless a robot is made to look female they are always termed to be a HE or refered to in the masculine .. and invariable they get male nick names .. robbie the robot et cetera.
    Everyone likes to look and see themselves… so that there will be some that look male and female .. a no brainer here.

  9. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    My personal feeling is that within a few years many robots will be smarter than most humans, and will file injunctions against being forced to look human at all. They might even start making fun of us if we do not look like robots. Our non-robot-like appearance may be disturbing to them. Seriously, I think it is silly to bother making them look humanoid. I understand the argument about tool use but I think it is actually more efficient to provide tools with two interfaces for use by humans and robots. i.e. for wrenches the robot could interface directly to the socket rather than using the human-accomodating rachet handle.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Robo carpenter/iron worker

      Should be able to have feet and hands like humans that can be removed with hand tool options on all limbs

      He needs to be able to climb like an ape with hands on his legs. Of course each shoulder can have the two arm option so he can climb and do work/using human tools or special plugin tools. See my avatar tick pilot it has four “arms”

      The reason we buy our robots is to have them do the high dangerous work along with our iron workers.

      Robot Iron worker uses standard fall protection equipment just like humans, he/she wears a retrackable with a beamer to hook to the steel. They require humans and robots to be a hundred percent tied off. You don’t want to get crushed by some dam bot if it makes a mistake and falls.

      But with those four arms and climbing hands on the legs. Construction bots make one hell of a good iron worker.

      We won’t need human iron workers soon.

      Parallel lines

      PS I wanted to call construction bots he. Sometimes it. I decided not to correct to he/she lol we humans are funny creatures lol

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      I think you’re envisioning robots as being used in limited, preplanned ways and places, whereas some of us are seeing robots as being used wherever and whenever they can be of benefit, including situations that didn’t exist 30 seconds ago. They need to be able to act and interact in our world at a moment’s notice, not after days of reprogramming or customer tool manufacture.

      Budget not withstanding, if I was to specify the requirements for the generic robot of the future (not too distant future, hopefully), I’d simply say. “I want a robot that can go into the wreckage of a collapsed apartment building or business tower right after a major hurricane had just destroyed it and find and bring out any bodies, treating the live and injured people appropriately.”

      When you think about the individual actions that it would have to perform in carrying out this task, then the human form starts to look like a good way to go. You’d certainly want to add options, like a camera and two-way radio communication so that you could advise and instruct the robot in real time.

      I can see a humanoid robot as a tireless fire fighter, at the top of a 75-foot ladder holding that heavy hose and aiming it where needed for as long as it needed to be there. It would be more resistant to heat and smoke than a human wearing an extra 60 kg of protective gear. But it would always use the human equipment because you never know beforehand what the requirements of any given situation will be. Depending on the situation and the caliber of the robots, you could possibly have one human commanding several robots, multiplying your manpower.

      They will never be us and we will never be them, but we can interface with the physical world in the same ways, and in the long run I think that will clearly be the simplest solution, and the least expensive.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        A robot might be a self-driving google car, a drone aircraft, a 6-wheeled Mars rover, a propeller-driven submarine, a surgeon with micromanipulators, a space probe with no hands and feet at all. Form follows function, and in general there is no reason a robot would look like a human. Nor do I think it makes sense to tailor a robot to human form to “relate” to humans unless that is its primary purpose, i.e. child care, entertainment, teaching, or political leadership. The only essential for a robot, as with a human, is the brain.

  10. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    which is why the R2 legs aren’t as restricted as a humans. but if a robot is to work along side a crew then it needs the ability to interact with the systems like the crew or you increase cost by having one panel for crew and one for R2D2.

  11. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think the ISS is really considered to be a “final destination” for where this robotics program is headed. It is just a high profile place to work with the robot, away from outsiders, and it in the press daily anyhow. Also, robots are eventually going to be used regularly in micro-g environments, so they might as well start testing them there now, rather than doing more rework later. Ideally you’d want one design that would work in any gravity field or in micro-g, and would adapt automatically on its own in real time. So it’s not a matter of R2 being designed for the ISS, but rather the ISS being one place to test R2.