SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “robots”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2002

Robosphere1: Building A Self-Sustaining Robotic Ecology for Mars Exploration

Robotic exploration of Mars has been a "one shot" approach where each surface mission is planned typically with a rover that will perform a series of experiments for a few weeks or months, until the robot becomes unable to operate in the harsh Mars conditions and simply "dies". It would clearly be desirable to have robots on Mars that can last for much longer periods of time, I propose that there is an approach to sustained robotic exploration that can also pave the way to future human presence. The idea is to continue building a robotic infrastructure with every mission we send. The approach is to built a team of modular robots that could repair individual members when they break down. We could "seed" areas of interest with sturdy power stations (solar, chemical) that teams of robots could use to recharge themselves. We could also seed parts and modules the robots could access for self-repair. No mission could really "fail" if we simply keep adding to and maintaining the existing infrastructure. Simply landing a package of parts will be a success. In time we create a loose infrastructure that can be controlled and augmented from earth on a continuing basis, and which could eventually pave the way for human exploration. I propose that we could begin to build this infrastructure from relatively simple modular robots. Imagine 2 "spider-like" robots built out of small modular snap-in pieces, a bin of these pieces and a bin of snap-in end effectors. One of the spiders breaks down, i.e. one of its modules needs to be replaced. The second spider comes to the rescue and helps the first one replace the broken module. Assuming the input of fresh modules, this process can continue indefinetly. Now start separating robotic explorers from robotic "mechanics", start adding, a category of mechanics that are able to fix at least some of the broken modules (and which in turn can be fixed by the original mechanics), The need for a fresh influx of modules is thus reduced. I submit that we could bootstrap a robotic ecology until it needs very little material from earth and can rely mostly on in-situ resources., We can experiment with this concept in an earthbound facility that can also simulate Mars conditions. I propose that we call this facility Robosphere1.

Colombano, Silvano P.↗

NASA NTRS2002

The Summer Robotic Autonomy Course

We offered a first Robotic Autonomy course this summer, located at NASA/Ames' new NASA Research Park, for approximately 30 high school students. In this 7-week course, students worked in ten teams to build then program advanced autonomous robots capable of visual processing and high-speed wireless communication. The course made use of challenge-based curricula, culminating each week with a Wednesday Challenge Day and a Friday Exhibition and Contest Day. Robotic Autonomy provided a comprehensive grounding in elementary robotics, including basic electronics, electronics evaluation, microprocessor programming, real-time control, and robot mechanics and kinematics. Our course then continued the educational process by introducing higher-level perception, action and autonomy topics, including teleoperation, visual servoing, intelligent scheduling and planning and cooperative problem-solving. We were able to deliver such a comprehensive, high-level education in robotic autonomy for two reasons. First, the content resulted from close collaboration between the CMU Robotics Institute and researchers in the Information Sciences and Technology Directorate and various education program/project managers at NASA/Ames. This collaboration produced not only educational content, but will also be focal to the conduct of formative and summative evaluations of the course for further refinement. Second, CMU rapid prototyping skills as well as the PI's low-overhead perception and locomotion research projects enabled design and delivery of affordable robot kits with unprecedented sensory- locomotory capability. Each Trikebot robot was capable of both indoor locomotion and high-speed outdoor motion and was equipped with a high-speed vision system coupled to a low-cost pan/tilt head. As planned, follow the completion of Robotic Autonomy, each student took home an autonomous, competent robot. This robot is the student's to keep, as she explores robotics with an extremely capable tool in the midst of a new community for roboticists. CMU provided undergraduate course credit for this official course, 16-162U, for 13 students, with all other students receiving course credit from National Hispanic University.

Nourbakhsh, Illah R.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Human-Robot Interaction Directed Research Project

Human-robot interaction (HRI) is a discipline investigating the factors affecting the interactions between humans and robots. It is important to evaluate how the design of interfaces and command modalities affect the human's ability to perform tasks accurately, efficiently, and effectively when working with a robot. By understanding the effects of interface design on human performance, workload, and situation awareness, interfaces can be developed to appropriately support the human in performing tasks with minimal errors and with appropriate interaction time and effort. Thus, the results of research on human-robot interfaces have direct implications for the design of robotic systems. This DRP concentrates on three areas associated with interfaces and command modalities in HRI which are applicable to NASA robot systems: 1) Video Overlays, 2) Camera Views, and 3) Command Modalities. The first study focused on video overlays that investigated how Augmented Reality (AR) symbology can be added to the human-robot interface to improve teleoperation performance. Three types of AR symbology were explored in this study, command guidance (CG), situation guidance (SG), and both (SCG). CG symbology gives operators explicit instructions on what commands to input, whereas SG symbology gives operators implicit cues so that operators can infer the input commands. The combination of CG and SG provided operators with explicit and implicit cues allowing the operator to choose which symbology to utilize. The objective of the study was to understand how AR symbology affects the human operator's ability to align a robot arm to a target using a flight stick and the ability to allocate attention between the symbology and external views of the world. The study evaluated the effects type of symbology (CG and SG) has on operator tasks performance and attention allocation during teleoperation of a robot arm. The second study expanded on the first study by evaluating the effects of the type of navigational guidance (CG and SG) on operator task performance and attention allocation during teleoperation of a robot arm through uplinked commands. Although this study complements the first study on navigational guidance with hand controllers, it is a separate investigation due to the distinction in intended operators (i.e., crewmembers versus ground-operators). A third study looked at superimposed and integrated overlays for teleoperation of a mobile robot using a hand controller. When AR is superimposed on the external world, it appears to be fixed onto the display and internal to the operators' workstation. Unlike superimposed overlays, integrated overlays often appear as three-dimensional objects and move as if part of the external world. Studies conducted in the aviation domain show that integrated overlays can improve situation awareness and reduce the amount of deviation from the optimal path. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether these results apply to HRI tasks, such as navigation with a mobile robot. HRP GAPS This HRI research contributes to closure of HRP gaps by providing information on how display and control characteristics - those related to guidance, feedback, and command modalities - affect operator performance. The overarching goals are to improve interface usability, reduce operator error, and develop candidate guidelines to design effective human-robot interfaces.

Sandor, Aniko↗

NASA NTRS2017

Robotic Technology Efforts at the NASA/Johnson Space Center

The NASA/Johnson Space Center has been developing robotic systems in support of space exploration for more than two decades. The goal of the Center's Robotic Systems Technology Branch is to design and build hardware and software to assist astronauts in performing their mission. These systems include: rovers, humanoid robots, inspection devices and wearable robotics. Inspection systems provide external views of space vehicles to search for surface damage and also maneuver inside restricted areas to verify proper connections. New concepts in human and robotic rovers offer solutions for navigating difficult terrain expected in future planetary missions. An important objective for humanoid robots is to relieve the crew of "dull, dirty or dangerous" tasks allowing them more time to perform their important science and exploration missions. Wearable robotics one of the Center's newest development areas can provide crew with low mass exercise capability and also augment an astronaut's strength while wearing a space suit. This presentation will describe the robotic technology and prototypes developed at the Johnson Space Center that are the basis for future flight systems. An overview of inspection robots will show their operation on the ground and in-orbit. Rovers with independent wheel modules, crab steering, and active suspension are able to climb over large obstacles, and nimbly maneuver around others. Humanoid robots, including the First Humanoid Robot in Space: Robonaut 2, demonstrate capabilities that will lead to robotic caretakers for human habitats in space, and on Mars. The Center's Wearable Robotics Lab supports work in assistive and sensing devices, including exoskeletons, force measuring shoes, and grasp assist gloves.

Diftler, Ron↗

NASA NTRS2017

Robotic Technology Efforts at the NASA/Johnson Space Center

The NASA/Johnson Space Center has been developing robotic systems in support of space exploration for more than two decades. The goal of the Center’s Robotic Systems Technology Branch is to design and build hardware and software to assist astronauts in performing their mission. These systems include: rovers, humanoid robots, inspection devices and wearable robotics. Inspection systems provide external views of space vehicles to search for surface damage and also maneuver inside restricted areas to verify proper connections. New concepts in human and robotic rovers offer solutions for navigating difficult terrain expected in future planetary missions. An important objective for humanoid robots is to relieve the crew of “dull, dirty or dangerous” tasks allowing them more time to perform their important science and exploration missions. Wearable robotics one of the Center’s newest development areas can provide crew with low mass exercise capability and also augment an astronaut’s strength while wearing a space suit.This presentation will describe the robotic technology and prototypes developed at the Johnson Space Center that are the basis for future flight systems. An overview of inspection robots will show their operation on the ground and in-orbit. Rovers with independent wheel modules, crab steering, and active suspension are able to climb over large obstacles, and nimbly maneuver around others. Humanoid robots, including the First Humanoid Robot in Space: Robonaut 2, demonstrate capabilities that will lead to robotic caretakers for human habitats in space, and on Mars. The Center’s Wearable Robotics Lab supports work in assistive and sensing devices, including exoskeletons, force measuring shoes, and grasp assist gloves.

Diftler, Ron↗

NASA NTRS1988

A graphical, rule based robotic interface system

The ability of a human to take control of a robotic system is essential in any use of robots in space in order to handle unforeseen changes in the robot's work environment or scheduled tasks. But in cases in which the work environment is known, a human controlling a robot's every move by remote control is both time consuming and frustrating. A system is needed in which the user can give the robotic system commands to perform tasks but need not tell the system how. To be useful, this system should be able to plan and perform the tasks faster than a telerobotic system. The interface between the user and the robot system must be natural and meaningful to the user. A high level user interface program under development at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, is described. A graphical interface is proposed in which the user selects objects to be manipulated by selecting representations of the object on projections of a 3-D model of the work environment. The user may move in the work environment by changing the viewpoint of the projections. The interface uses a rule based program to transform user selection of items on a graphics display of the robot's work environment into commands for the robot. The program first determines if the desired task is possible given the abilities of the robot and any constraints on the object. If the task is possible, the program determines what movements the robot needs to make to perform the task. The movements are transformed into commands for the robot. The information defining the robot, the work environment, and how objects may be moved is stored in a set of data bases accessible to the program and displayable to the user.

Mckee, James W.↗

NASA NTRS1991

KC-135 materials handling robotics

Robot dynamics and control will become an important issue for implementing productive platforms in space. Robotic operations will become necessary for man-tended stations and for efficient performance of routine operations in a manned platform. The current constraints on the use of robotic devices in a microgravity environment appears to be due to an anticipated increase in acceleration levels due to manipulator motion and for safety concerns. The objective of this study will be to provide baseline data to meet that need. Most texts and papers dealing with the kinematics and dynamics of robots assume that the manipulator is composed of joints separated by rigid links. However, in recent years several groups have begun to study the dynamics of flexible manipulators, primarily for applying robots in space and for improving the efficiency and precision of robotic systems. Robotic systems which are being planned for implementation in space have a number of constraints to overcome. Additional concepts which have to be worked out in any robotic implementation for a space platform include teleoperation and degree of autonomous control. Some significant results in developing a robotic workcell for performing robotics research on the KC-135 aircraft in preperation for space-based robotics applications in the future were generated. In addition, it was shown that TREETOPS can be used to simulate the dynamics of robot manipulators for both space and ground-based applications.

Workman, Gary L.↗

NASA NTRS1995

Coordinated Control Of Mobile Robotic Manipulators

Computationally efficient scheme developed for on-line coordinated control of both manipulation and mobility of robots that include manipulator arms mounted on mobile bases. Applicable to variety of mobile robotic manipulators, including robots that move along tracks (typically, painting and welding robots), robots mounted on gantries and capable of moving in all three dimensions, wheeled robots, and compound robots (consisting of robots mounted on other robots). Theoretical basis discussed in several prior articles in NASA Tech Briefs, including "Increasing the Dexterity of Redundant Robots" (NPO-17801), "Redundant Robot Can Avoid Obstacles" (NPO-17852), "Configuration-Control Scheme Copes With Singularities" (NPO-18556), "More Uses for Configuration Control of Robots" (NPO-18607/NPO-18608).

Seraji, Homayoun↗

NASA NTRS2006

Intelligence for Human-Assistant Planetary Surface Robots

The central premise in developing effective human-assistant planetary surface robots is that robotic intelligence is needed. The exact type, method, forms and/or quantity of intelligence is an open issue being explored on the ERA project, as well as others. In addition to field testing, theoretical research into this area can help provide answers on how to design future planetary robots. Many fundamental intelligence issues are discussed by Murphy [2], including (a) learning, (b) planning, (c) reasoning, (d) problem solving, (e) knowledge representation, and (f) computer vision (stereo tracking, gestures). The new "social interaction/emotional" form of intelligence that some consider critical to Human Robot Interaction (HRI) can also be addressed by human assistant planetary surface robots, as human operators feel more comfortable working with a robot when the robot is verbally (or even physically) interacting with them. Arkin [3] and Murphy are both proponents of the hybrid deliberative-reasoning/reactive-execution architecture as the best general architecture for fully realizing robot potential, and the robots discussed herein implement a design continuously progressing toward this hybrid philosophy. The remainder of this chapter will describe the challenges associated with robotic assistance to astronauts, our general research approach, the intelligence incorporated into our robots, and the results and lessons learned from over six years of testing human-assistant mobile robots in field settings relevant to planetary exploration. The chapter concludes with some key considerations for future work in this area.

Hirsh, Robert↗

NASA NTRS2014

Human-Robot Interaction Directed Research Project

Sandor, Aniko↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Firmware Architecture of the ARMADAS Bolting Robot

The Automated Reconfigurable Mission Adaptive Digital Assembly Systems (ARMADAS) project, under development at NASA Ames Research Center, has demonstrated on-ground autonomous robotic assembly of extensive digital structures, and it is now moving forward towards in-space demonstration. The ARMADAS system comprises of the operation software, the operation user interface (opsUI), and a swarm of robots. The robotic system consists of a multitude of collaborative agents specifically designed to transport, place and bolt the building blocks, called voxels (volumetric pixels). This paper focuses on the bolting robot, referred to as Mobile Metamaterial Internal Co-Integrator (MMIC-I). MMIC-I is a battery-powered crawling robot. It navigates the structure through extension, contraction and gripping. Two distinct controller boards operate the robot's two symmetric modules, referred to as module A and B. Board A is the master board: it coordinates motion planning and motion primitives execution, hosts the WiFi client, performs periodic self-assessment and system idle check and triggers faults if anomalies are detected. Board B periodically sends a heartbeat to board A, through a wired communication channel that uses the Serial protocol. Additionally, board A's WiFi client receives heartbeat packet requests or motion/bolting commands from a dedicated server board, and acknowledges reception sending back a response heartbeat packet containing information about the overall robot status, e. g. electrical current and voltage values, target and actual angles, operating mode, fault status. Whenever a motion command is sent, the motion planning section of the firmware determines the current robot configuration, using Inertial Measurement Unit readings and the motors Pulse Width Modulation values. Afterwards, it calculates the list of primitives needed to reach the target state, and controls their execution in the proper order. MMIC-I can receive and execute motion and bolting commands only when it is in operational mode. MMIC-I has three operating modes: standby, operational and safed. Standby mode is automatically entered upon startup. While in standby mode, all motors are powered off, and the only accepted commands are the ones relative to a change of mode and heartbeat packet request. Fault detection causes the robot to automatically enter safed or standby mode. Whenever the detected fault occurs within a motion and requires immediate intervention, e. g. an over-current situation, the robot enters safed mode. Safed mode powers off all motors except for the locomotion module, thus preventing the robot from collapsing. Conversely, when the detected fault doesn't require immediate intervention (low battery warning, for instance), the robot enters standby mode after completing the ongoing motion. This paper provides a detailed discussion of MMIC-I's firmware architecture. It accurately describes the implementation approach for each module: sensor data reading, motor control and actuation, WiFi server-client communication, intra-boards Serial communication, operating modes and autonomous fault detection, motion planning, coordination and execution, etc. Moreover, in support of the software description, this paper includes a thorough characterization of MMIC-I's hardware and avionics.

In-space assembly↗

NASA NTRS1986

Theoretical three-and four-axis gimbal robot wrists

In high-performance flight simulations, a four-axis gimbal system allows all possible rotations with acceptable gimbal angle rates while it avoids the so-callled 'gimbal lock' that occurs when gimbal rotational axes are colinear. In this paper, pertinent equations (including quaternions) are assembled for a hypothetical robot wrist, functionally equivalent to this four-axis gimbal system, and also for a true three-axis gimbal robot wrist. These equations are used to simulate the rotation of a robot hand by the robot wrist in response to operator rotational velocity commands to the robot hand. Near gimbal lock (wrist singularity), excessive rotational rates occur. Scaling the rates, which is necessary for the three-gimbal robot wrist to prevent rate limiting, introduces an undesirable time delay in the robot hand rotation with respect to the commanded rotation. However, the merit of the four-gimbal robot wrist is that the fourth gimbal angle keeps the robot wrist away from the singularity so that the robot hand moves exactly as commanded. It appears that in a 'worst-type' maneuver of the robot hand, the fourth gimbal angle can be defined so that none of the gimbal angle rates exceed about twice the commanded rates.

Barker, L. K.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Control of free-flying space robot manipulator systems

Control techniques for self-contained, autonomous free-flying space robots are being tested and developed. Free-flying space robots are envisioned as a key element of any successful long term presence in space. These robots must be capable of performing the assembly, maintenance, and inspection, and repair tasks that currently require astronaut extra-vehicular activity (EVA). Use of robots will provide economic savings as well as improved astronaut safety by reducing and in many cases, eliminating the need for human EVA. The focus of the work is to develop and carry out a set of research projects using laboratory models of satellite robots. These devices use air-cushion-vehicle (ACV) technology to simulate in two dimensions the drag-free, zero-g conditions of space. Current work is divided into six major projects or research areas. Fixed-base cooperative manipulation work represents our initial entry into multiple arm cooperation and high-level control with a sophisticated user interface. The floating-base cooperative manipulation project strives to transfer some of the technologies developed in the fixed-base work onto a floating base. The global control and navigation experiment seeks to demonstrate simultaneous control of the robot manipulators and the robot base position so that tasks can be accomplished while the base is undergoing a controlled motion. The multiple-vehicle cooperation project's goal is to demonstrate multiple free-floating robots working in teams to carry out tasks too difficult or complex for a single robot to perform. The Location Enhancement Arm Push-off (LEAP) activity's goal is to provide a viable alternative to expendable gas thrusters for vehicle propulsion wherein the robot uses its manipulators to throw itself from place to place. Because the successful execution of the LEAP technique requires an accurate model of the robot and payload mass properties, it was deemed an attractive testbed for adaptive control technology.

Cannon, Robert H., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Motion coordination and programmable teleoperation between two industrial robots

Tasks for two coordinated industrial robots always bring the robots in contact with a same object. The motion coordination among the robots and the object must be maintained all the time. To plan the coordinated tasks, only one robot's motion is planned according to the required motion of the object. The motion of the second robot is to follow the first one as specified by a set of holonomic equality constraints at every time instant. If any modification of the object's motion is needed in real-time, only the first robot's motion has to be modified accordingly in real-time. The modification for the second robot is done implicitly through the constraint conditions. Thus the operation is simplified. If the object is physically removed, the second robot still continually follows the first one through the constraint conditions. If the first robot is maneuvered through either the teach pendant or the keyboard, the second one moves accordingly to form the teleoperation which is linked through the software programming. Obviously, the second robot does not need to duplicate the first robot's motion. The programming of the constraints specifies their relative motions.

Luh, J. Y. S.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Effect of motor dynamics on nonlinear feedback robot arm control

A nonlinear feedback robot controller that incorporates the robot manipulator dynamics and the robot joint motor dynamics is proposed. The manipulator dynamics and the motor dynamics are coupled to obtain a third-order-dynamic model, and differential geometric control theory is applied to produce a linearized and decoupled robot controller. The derived robot controller operates in the robot task space, thus eliminating the need for decomposition of motion commands into robot joint space commands. Computer simulations are performed to verify the feasibility of the proposed robot controller. The controller is further experimentally evaluated on the PUMA 560 robot arm. The experiments show that the proposed controller produces good trajectory tracking performances and is robust in the presence of model inaccuracies. Compared with a nonlinear feedback robot controller based on the manipulator dynamics only, the proposed robot controller yields conspicuously improved performance.

Tarn, Tzyh-Jong↗

NASA NTRS1992

Cooperative intelligent robotics in space III; Proceedings of the Meeting, Boston, MA, Nov. 16-18, 1992

The present volume on cooperative intelligent robotics in space discusses sensing and perception, Space Station Freedom robotics, cooperative human/intelligent robot teams, and intelligent space robotics. Attention is given to space robotics reasoning and control, ground-based space applications, intelligent space robotics architectures, free-flying orbital space robotics, and cooperative intelligent robotics in space exploration. Topics addressed include proportional proximity sensing for telerobots using coherent lasar radar, ground operation of the mobile servicing system on Space Station Freedom, teleprogramming a cooperative space robotic workcell for space stations, and knowledge-based task planning for the special-purpose dextrous manipulator. Also discussed are dimensions of complexity in learning from interactive instruction, an overview of the dynamic predictive architecture for robotic assistants, recent developments at the Goddard engineering testbed, and parallel fault-tolerant robot control.

Erickson, Jon D.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Meeting the challenges of installing a mobile robotic system

The challenges of integrating a mobile robotic system into an application environment are many. Most problems inherent to installing the mobile robotic system fall into one of three categories: (1) the physical environment - location(s) where, and conditions under which, the mobile robotic system will work; (2) the technological environment - external equipment with which the mobile robotic system will interact; and (3) the human environment - personnel who will operate and interact with the mobile robotic system. The successful integration of a mobile robotic system into these three types of application environment requires more than a good pair of pliers. The tools for this job include: careful planning, accurate measurement data (as-built drawings), complete technical data of systems to be interfaced, sufficient time and attention of key personnel for training on how to operate and program the robot, on-site access during installation, and a thorough understanding and appreciation - by all concerned - of the mobile robotic system's role in the security mission at the site, as well as the machine's capabilities and limitations. Patience, luck, and a sense of humor are also useful tools to keep handy during a mobile robotic system installation. This paper will discuss some specific examples of problems in each of three categories, and explore approaches to solving these problems. The discussion will draw from the author's experience with on-site installations of mobile robotic systems in various applications. Most of the information discussed in this paper has come directly from knowledge learned during installations of Cybermotion's SR2 security robots. A large part of the discussion will apply to any vehicle with a drive system, collision avoidance, and navigation sensors, which is, of course, what makes a vehicle autonomous. And it is with these sensors and a drive system that the installer must become familiar in order to foresee potential trouble areas in the physical, technical, and human environment.

Decorte, Celeste↗

NASA NTRS1995

Hazardous materials emergency response mobile robot

A simple or unsophisticated robot incapable of effecting straight-line motion at the end of its arm is presented. This robot inserts a key held in its end effector or hand into a door lock with nearly straight-line motion by gently thrusting its back heels downwardly so that it pivots forwardly on its front toes while holding its arm stationary. The relatively slight arc traveled by the robot's hand is compensated by a complaint tool with which the robot hand grips the door key. A visible beam is projected through the axis of the hand or gripper on the robot arm end at an angle to the general direction in which the robot thrusts the gripper forward. As the robot hand approaches a target surface, a video camera on the robot wrist watches the beam spot on the target surface fall from a height proportional to the distance between the robot hand and the target surface until the beam spot is nearly aligned with the top of the robot hand. Holes in the front face of the hand are connected through internal passages inside the arm to an on-board chemical sensor. Full rotation of the hand or gripper about the robot arm's wrist is made possible by slip rings in the wrist which permit passage of the gases taken in through the nose holes in the front of the hand through the wrist regardless of the rotational orientation of the wrist.

Stone, Henry W.↗