NASA backs development of Apptronik’s humanoid robot Apollo

On Aug. 23, 2023, nasa.gov reported, “NASA backs development of Apptronik’s humanoid robot Apollo.” We have not been able to verify the primary source, so please consult the original for details.

NASA’s involvement in the design of a commercial humanoid through an SBIR contract can be viewed as an example of research institutions’ expertise directly shaping the specifications of private-sector products. The listed applications for Apollo include logistics, manufacturing, delivery and patient care, making it necessary to address design requirements spanning multiple terrestrial settings and space applications.

What is new in this announcement is the connection between NASA’s expertise in developing robots for human spaceflight and Apptronik’s commercial humanoid robot, Apollo. However, the announcement did not provide details about the robot’s market launch or sales terms. Its main focus was less a product launch than how NASA’s experience was reflected in the design of a commercial robot. In other words, the emphasis is not on the hardware alone, but on an effort to adapt space robotics requirements for a general-purpose humanoid intended for use on Earth. We have no previous coverage of this topic, so the continuity lies in the technology-transfer framework originating at NASA itself. One point to watch is that NASA has explicitly raised the possibility of applying commercial general-purpose robots to space, rather than relying solely on its own platforms such as Valkyrie. This points to an approach to design and deployment based on commercial robots, rather than an extension of research and development machines. For commercial companies, it is important that terrestrial applications such as logistics, manufacturing, delivery and patient care appear alongside support tasks on the Moon and Mars as design requirements for the same robot. The implications for the industry are that modularity and safety are becoming differentiating factors for humanoid robots. Apollo is described as being designed so that its dexterity, autonomy and tool use can be adapted for different tasks, while NASA contributed expertise in mobility and software safety. This suggests that competition will center not only on improving walking performance, but also on operational design that includes reconfiguration for different worksites, working alongside people and remote operation. The inclusion of potential lunar and Martian applications may also mean that durability and operating systems will be assessed against standards different from those for typical factory robots. Open questions include Apollo’s specific capabilities, production plans, commercial availability and how it compares with other robots. NASA mentioned potential applications on the Moon and Mars, but did not specify the scope or timing of testing for operational use. Going forward, the focus will be on which requirements for terrestrial and space applications take priority, and how well modularity works in actual deployment settings.