For $150 billion, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration could have sent astronauts back to the Moon. The Obama administration judged that too expensive, and in September, Congress agreed to cancel the program.
For a fraction of that — less than $200 million, along with about $250 million for a rocket — NASA engineers at the Johnson Space Center in Houston say they can safely send a humanoid robot to the Moon. And they say they could accomplish that in a thousand days.
The idea, known as Project M, is almost a guerrilla effort within NASA, cooked up a year ago by Stephen J. Altemus, the chief engineer at Johnson. He tapped into discretionary money,
pulled in engineers to work on it part time, and horse-traded with companies and other NASA units to undertake preliminary planning and tests. “We’re doing impossible things with really very little, if any, money whatsoever,” Mr. Altemus said.
A humanoid dextrous robot — at least the top half — already exists: Robonaut 2, developed by NASA and General Motors, is packed on the shuttle Discovery, scheduled for liftoff on Wednesday.
Bound for the International Space Station, it will be the first humanoid robot in space. It is to help with housekeeping chores at the space station as NASA learns how astronauts and robots can work together. Eventually, an upgraded Robonaut is to take part in spacewalks.
Project M also draws on other NASA projects that were already under way, 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.
Integrating the technologies into working prototypes sped up development. “That’s the magic,” Mr. Altemus said. “A lot of times technologies end up in the lab cooking, and then there’s this valley of death where they never get to maturation or to flight.”
Project M’s planners say that 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.
“I think that’s going to light a few candles,” said Neil Milburn, vice president of Armadillo Aerospace, a tiny Texas company working on Project M.
But as NASA’s attention turns away from the Moon — “We’ve been there before,” President Obama declared in April — the prospects for sending a robot there are at best uncertain.
The quandary over Project M encapsulates many of the continuing debates over the future of the space agency: What should NASA be told to do when there is not enough money to do everything? What is the best way to spur advances in space technologies? And given the costs and dangers, how important is it to send people into space at all?
“The tricky part is whether it fits in the agency’s framework for exploration,” Mr. Altemus said.
Last year, a blue-ribbon panel was reviewing NASA’s human spaceflight program, in particular an ambitious project called Constellation to send astronauts back to the Moon. Although NASA has spent $10 billion on Constellation, most of the program is to be canceled when Congress finishes work on the 2011 budget.
Mr. Altemus, for one, was frustrated by criticism of NASA that emerged during the Constellation debate and elsewhere. “I always felt like our organization was a Ferrari, and we were never allowed to drive with our foot on the gas,” he said. “We were kind of at idle speed all the time.”
Talking to his son at his kitchen table, Mr. Altemus wanted something that was exciting but not so big that it would require years of deliberation. The idea popped into his head: a walking robot on the Moon, one that could send back live video, in a thousand days.
Mr. Altemus took it to his staff the next day, telling them, “Let’s do something amazing.”
He recalled: “I said, ‘Will you get behind me if I put this into the organization? I don’t know if we can do it. I don’t know if we’ll get the money for it or will get approved — let’s try.’ And so we just started, and it caught like wildfire.”
Sending a robot to the Moon is far easier than sending a person. For one, a robot does not need air or food. And there is no return trip.
No comments:
Post a Comment