Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “robot safety”

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.

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

At least 127 records · Page 7

Artificial Neural Networks and AI in high Assurance Applications: Gaps and Techniques

In recent years, capabilties of Deep Neural Networks (DNN) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have grown tremendously. They are now applied in many areas ranging from game playing, social media, science, to robotics, automotive, and aerospace applications.Based upon requirements for safety of DNN and AI in high assurance automotive and aerospace applications, I will discuss the necessity to ensure that AI technqiues for the analysis of Earth observation data and reasoning are working correctly and reliably.In this talk I will present modern techniques for the verification and validation (V&V) of DNN and other AI components as well as approaches for interpretable AI. I will discuss how these techniques can help to ensure quality of the AI results, improve confidence in their application, and facilitate human-AI interaction and collaboration.

Johann Schumann↗

Astrobee: The International Space Station Robotic Freeflyer

The Astrobees are free-flying robots that operate inside the International Space Station (ISS) and were launched to the ISS in 2019. Designed as a mobile camera, an astronaut assistant, and a research platform, they have successfully performed hundreds of activities in space supporting dozens of research projects. The robots were designed to overcome multiple challenges unique to the ISS environment, including safety, upgradeability and maintainability, limited mass and computation, and unique localization challenges from lack of gravity and a constantly changing environment. Robots such as Astrobee, have the capacity to become caretakers for future spacecraft, working to monitor and keep systems operating smoothly while crew are away. This talk will give an overview of the Astrobee robots, with an emphasis on Astrobee’s development, robotic software, and its successful use on the ISS.

robotics↗

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗

Modeling and Design of an Electro-Rheological Fluid Based Haptic System for Tele-Operation of Space Robots

For many years, the robotic community sought to develop robots that can eventually operate autonomously and eliminate the need for human operators. However, there is an increasing realization that there are some tasks that human can perform significantly better but, due to associated hazards, distance, physical limitations and other causes, only robot can be employed to perform these tasks. Remotely performing these types of tasks requires operating robots as human surrogates. While current "hand master" haptic systems are able to reproduce the feeling of rigid objects, they present great difficulties in emulating the feeling of remote/virtual stiffness. In addition, they tend to be heavy, cumbersome and usually they only allow limited operator workspace. In this paper a novel haptic interface is presented to enable human-operators to "feel" and intuitively mirror the stiffness/forces at remote/virtual sites enabling control of robots as human-surrogates. This haptic interface is intended to provide human operators intuitive feeling of the stiffness and forces at remote or virtual sites in support of space robots performing dexterous manipulation tasks (such as operating a wrench or a drill). Remote applications are referred to the control of actual robots whereas virtual applications are referred to simulated operations. The developed haptic interface will be applicable to IVA operated robotic EVA tasks to enhance human performance, extend crew capability and assure crew safety. The electrically controlled stiffness is obtained using constrained ElectroRheological Fluids (ERF), which changes its viscosity under electrical stimulation. Forces applied at the robot end-effector due to a compliant environment will be reflected to the user using this ERF device where a change in the system viscosity will occur proportionally to the force to be transmitted. In this paper, we will present the results of our modeling, simulation, and initial testing of such an electrorheological fluid (ERF) based haptic device.

Mavroidis, Constantinos↗

Human-Automation Allocations for Current Robotic Space Operations: Space Station Remote Manipulator System

NASA’s Human Research Program’s Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI) delineates the uncertainty surrounding crew work with automation and robotics in spaceflight. HARI is concerned with detrimental effects of ineffective user interfaces, system designs and/or functional task allocation on crew performance, potentially compromising mission success and safety. This risk arises because of limited experience with complex automation and robotics in spaceflight. One key knowledge gap within the HARI risk is related to function allocation.

Chang, Mai Lee↗

Integrated Human-Robotic Missions to the Moon and Mars: Mission Operations Design Implications

For most of the history of space exploration, human and robotic programs have been independent, and have responded to distinct requirements. The NASA Vision for Space Exploration calls for the return of humans to the Moon, and the eventual human exploration of Mars; the complexity of this range of missions will require an unprecedented use of automation and robotics in support of human crews. The challenges of human Mars missions, including roundtrip communications time delays of 6 to 40 minutes, interplanetary transit times of many months, and the need to manage lifecycle costs, will require the evolution of a new mission operations paradigm far less dependent on real-time monitoring and response by an Earthbound operations team. Robotic systems and automation will augment human capability, increase human safety by providing means to perform many tasks without requiring immediate human presence, and enable the transfer of traditional mission control tasks from the ground to crews. Developing and validating the new paradigm and its associated infrastructure may place requirements on operations design for nearer-term lunar missions. The authors, representing both the human and robotic mission operations communities, assess human lunar and Mars mission challenges, and consider how human-robot operations may be integrated to enable efficient joint operations, with the eventual emergence of a unified exploration operations culture.

Korth, David↗

Integrated Human-Robotic Missions to the Moon and Mars: Mission Operations Design Implications

For most of the history of space exploration, human and robotic programs have been independent, and have responded to distinct requirements. The NASA Vision for Space Exploration calls for the return of humans to the Moon, and the eventual human exploration of Mars; the complexity of this range of missions will require an unprecedented use of automation and robotics in support of human crews. The challenges of human Mars missions, including roundtrip communications time delays of 6 to 40 minutes, interplanetary transit times of many months, and the need to manage lifecycle costs, will require the evolution of a new mission operations paradigm far less dependent on real-time monitoring and response by an Earthbound operations team. Robotic systems and automation will augment human capability, increase human safety by providing means to perform many tasks without requiring immediate human presence, and enable the transfer of traditional mission control tasks from the ground to crews. Developing and validating the new paradigm and its associated infrastructure may place requirements on operations design for nearer-term lunar missions. The authors, representing both the human and robotic mission operations communities, assess human lunar and Mars mission challenges, and consider how human-robot operations may be integrated to enable efficient joint operations, with the eventual emergence of a unified exploration operations culture.

human robotic missions↗

Integrated human-robotic missions to the Moon and Mars : mission operations design implications

For most of the history of space exploration, human and robotic programs have been independent, and have responded to distinct requirements. The NASA Vision for Space Exploration calls for the return of humans to the Moon, and the eventual human exploration of Mars; the complexity of this range of missions will require an unprecedented use of automation and robotics in support of human crews. The challenges of human Mars missions, including roundtrip communications time delays of 6 to 40 minutes, interplanetary transit times of many months, and the need to manage lifecycle costs, will require the evolution of a new mission operations paradigm far less dependent on real-time monitoring and response by an Earthbound operations team. Robotic systems and automation will augment human capability, increase human safety by providing means to perform many tasks without requiring immediate human presence, and enable the transfer of traditional mission control tasks from the ground to crews. Developing and validating the new paradigm and its associated infrastructure may place requirements on operations design for nearer-term lunar missions. The authors, representing both the human and robotic mission operations communities, assess human lunar and Mars mission challenges, and consider how human-robot operations may be integrated to enable efficient joint operations, with the eventual emergence of a unified exploration operations culture.

Lee, Young↗

Visualization Methods for Viability Studies of Inspection Modules for the Space Shuttle

An effective simulation of an object, process, or task must be similar to that object, process, or task. A simulation could consist of a physical device, a set of mathematical equations, a computer program, a person, or some combination of these. There are many reasons for the use of simulators. Although some of the reasons are unique to a specific situation, there are many general reasons and purposes for using simulators. Some are listed but not limited to (1) Safety, (2) Scarce resources, (3) Teaching/education, (4) Additional capabilities, (5) Flexibility and (6) Cost. Robot simulators are in use for all of these reasons. Virtual environments such as simulators will eliminate physical contact with humans and hence will increase the safety of work environment. Corporations with limited funding and resources may utilize simulators to accomplish their goals while saving manpower and money. A computer simulation is safer than working with a real robot. Robots are typically a scarce resource. Schools typically don t have a large number of robots, if any. Factories don t want the robots not performing useful work unless absolutely necessary. Robot simulators are useful in teaching robotics. A simulator gives a student hands-on experience, if only with a simulator. The simulator is more flexible. A user can quickly change the robot configuration, workcell, or even replace the robot with a different one altogether. In order to be useful, a robot simulator must create a model that accurately performs like the real robot. A powerful simulator is usually thought of as a combination of a CAD package with simulation capabilities. Computer Aided Design (CAD) techniques are used extensively by engineers in virtually all areas of engineering. Parts are designed interactively aided by the graphical display of both wireframe and more realistic shaded renderings. Once a part s dimensions have been specified to the CAD package, designers can view the part from any direction to examine how it will look and perform in relation to other parts. If changes are deemed necessary, the designer can easily make the changes and view the results graphically. However, a complex process of moving parts intended for operation in a complex environment can only be fully understood through the process of animated graphical simulation. A CAD package with simulation capabilities allows the designer to develop geometrical models of the process being designed, as well as the environment in which the process will be used, and then test the process in graphical animation much as the actual physical system would be run . By being able to operate the system of moving and stationary parts, the designer is able to see in simulation how the system will perform under a wide variety of conditions. If, for example, undesired collisions occur between parts of the system, design changes can be easily made without the expense or potential danger of testing the physical system.

Mobasher, Amir A.↗

Cost‐benefit assessment framework for robotics‐driven inspection of floating offshore wind farms

Abstract Operations and maintenance (O&M) of floating offshore wind farms (FOWFs) poses various challenges in terms of greater distances from the shore, harsher weather conditions, and restricted mobility options. Robotic systems have the potential to automate some parts of the O&M leading to continuous feature‐rich data acquisition, operational efficiency, along with health and safety improvements. There remains a gap in assessing the techno‐economic feasibility of robotics in the FOWF sector. This paper investigates the costs and benefits of incorporating robotics into the O&M of a FOWF. A bottom‐up cost model is used to estimate the costs for a proposed multi‐robot platform (MRP). The MRP houses unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to conduct the inspection of specific FOWF components. Emphasis is laid on the most conducive O&M activities for robotization and the associated technical and cost aspects. The simulation is conducted in Windfarm Operations and Maintenance cost‐Benefit Analysis Tool (WOMBAT), where the metrics of incurred operational expenditure (OPEX) and the inspection time are calculated and compared with those of a baseline case consisting of crew transfer vessels, rope‐access technicians, and divers. Results show that the MRP can reduce the inspection time incurred, but this reduction has dependency on the efficacy of the robotic system and the associated parameterization e.g., cost elements and the inspection rates. Conversely, the increased MRP day rate results in a higher annualized OPEX. Residual risk is calculated to assess the net benefit of incorporating the MRP. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis is conducted to find the key parameters influencing the OPEX and the inspection time variation. A key output of this work is a robust and realistic framework which can be used for the cost‐benefit assessment of future MRP systems for specific FOWF activities.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Advanced operator/system interface concepts for the Space Station

Concepts and data developed as part of the Preliminary Space Station Automation and Robotics Plan are reviewed as well as candidate selection criteria, technology assessments, and preliminary candidate recommendations. A need for development of advanced operator/systems interface (OSI) concepts to support future Space Station automation and robotics applications is identified. Four candidate applications, illustrating the potential benefits of an advanced OSI, are described. These include: (1) a conversational OSI system, (2) a laboratory experiment manipulator system, (3) a module safety advisor, and (4) an integrated maintenance/training system. These specific automation and robotics applications are expected to occur relatively early in the growth of the Space Station and to provide significant commercial and station benefits throughout the life of the station.

Case, C. M.↗

The Charlotte (TM) intra-vehicular robot

NASA has identified telerobotics and telescience as essential technologies to reduce the crew extra-vehicular activity (EVA) and intra-vehicular activity (IVA) workloads. Under this project, we are developing and flight testing a novel IVA robot to relieve the crew of tedious and routine tasks. Through ground telerobotic control of this robot, we will enable ground researchers to routinely interact with experiments in space. Our approach is to develop an IVA robot system incrementally by employing a series of flight tests with increasing complexity. This approach has the advantages of providing an early IVA capability that can assist the crew, demonstrate capabilities that ground researchers can be confident of in planning for future experiments, and allow incremental refinement of system capabilities and insertion of new technology. In parallel with this approach to flight testing, we seek to establish ground test beds, in which the requirements of payload experimenters can be further investigated. In 1993 we reviewed manifested SpaceHab experiments and defined IVA robot requirements to assist in their operation. We also examined previous IVA robot designs and assessed them against flight requirements. We rejected previous design concepts on the basis of threat to crew safety, operability, and maintainability. Based on this insight, we developed an entirely new concept for IVA robotics, the CHARLOTTE robot system. Ground based testing of a prototype version of the system has already proven its ability to perform most common tasks demanded of the crew, including operation of switches, buttons, knobs, dials, and performing video surveys of experiments and switch panels.

Swaim, Patrick L.↗

Inspecta Technical Report

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is in the process of creating Inspecta (International Nuclear Safeguards Personal Examination and Containment Tracking Assistant), an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered smart digital assistant (SDA) with robotic capabilities, aimed at enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of international nuclear safeguards inspections. This innovative tool is designed to assist inspectors on-site by supporting or automating tasks that are typically mundane, hazardous, or susceptible to errors. In 2021, the development team established the specifications for Inspecta by analyzing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documents and consulting with former IAEA inspectors and subject matter experts. This process involved aligning in-field inspection tasks with existing commercial or open-source technologies to outline a roadmap for the initial prototype of Inspecta, while also identifying areas needing further research and development. From 2022 – 2024, the focus has shifted to integrating a critical inspection activity, the examination of seals, into an early version of Inspecta. This has involved developing both the software and hardware capabilities necessary for this task. This report outlines the ongoing advancements in Inspecta's functionalities, specifically those supporting the seal examination process.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Technology transfer and evaluation for Space Station telerobotics

The international space station (SS) must take advantage of advanced telerobotics in order to maximize productivity and safety and to reduce maintenance costs. The Automation and Robotics Division at the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) has designed, developed, and constructed the Automated Robotics Maintenance of Space Station (ARMSS) facility for the purpose of transferring and evaluating robotic technology that will reduce SS operation costs. Additionally, JSC had developed a process for expediting the transfer of technology from NASA research centers and evaluating these technologies in SS applications. Software and hardware system developed at the research centers and NASA sponsored universities are currently being transferred to JSC and integrated into the ARMSS for flight crew personnel testing. These technologies will be assessed relative to the SS baseline, and, after refinements, those technologies that provide significant performance improvements will be recommended as upgrades to the SS. Proximity sensors, vision algorithms, and manipulator controllers are among the systems scheduled for evaluation.

Price, Charles R.↗

Mapping the ISS with the Autonomous Free-Flying Astrobee Robots

Space intra-vehicular robots (IVR) can provide coverage survey and targeted close-up inspection imagery capabilities that improve ground operator situation awareness. We report on a series of activities using the autonomous Astrobee robotic free-flyers that mapped the interior of three ISS modules, generating a panoramic tour of the ISS interior without astronaut manual photography. For the ISS, these capabilities can complement or replace time-consuming crew inspection tasks, providing panoramic data products that are easier to navigate than the baseline crew safety videos. For future exploration vehicles with extended uncrewed mission phases, robotic inspection will play a more critical role of providing the primary “eyes in the sky” for vehicle operators.

robotics↗

Robot Rescue

Tests with robots and the high-fidelity Hubble Space Telescope mockup astronauts use to train for servicing missions have convinced NASA managers it may be possible to maintain and upgrade the orbiting observatory without sending a space shuttle to do the job. In a formal request last week, the agency gave bidders until July 16 to sub-mit proposals for a robotic mission to the space telescope before the end of 2007. At a minimum, the mission would attach a rocket motor to deorbit the telescope safely when its service life ends. In the best case, it would use state-of-the- art robotics to prolong its life on orbit and install new instruments. With the space shuttle off-limits for the job under strict post-Columbia safety policies set by Administrator Sean O'Keefe, NASA has designed a "straw- man" robotic mission that would use an Atlas V or Delta N to launch a 20,ooO-lb. "Hubble Robotic Vehicle" to service the telescope. There, a robotic arm would grapple it, much as the shuttle does.

Morring, Frank, Jr.↗

Human-Automation Allocations for Current Robotic Space Operations

Within the Human Research Program, one risk delineates the uncertainty surrounding crew working with automation and robotics in spaceflight. The Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI) is concerned with the detrimental effects on crew performance due to ineffective user interfaces, system designs and/or functional task allocation, potentially compromising mission success and safety. Risk arises because we have limited experience with complex automation and robotics. One key gap within HARI, is the gap related to functional allocation. The gap states: We need to evaluate, develop, and validate methods and guidelines for identifying human-automation/robot task information needs, function allocation, and team composition for future long duration, long distance space missions. Allocations determine the human-system performance as it identifies the functions and performance levels required by the automation/robotic system, and in turn, what work the crew is expected to perform and the necessary human performance requirements. Allocations must take into account each of the human, automation, and robotic systems capabilities and limitations. Some functions may be intuitively assigned to the human versus the robot, but to optimize efficiency and effectiveness, purposeful role assignments will be required. The role of automation and robotics will significantly change in future exploration missions, particularly as crew becomes more autonomous from ground controllers. Thus, we must understand the suitability of existing function allocation methods within NASA as well as the existing allocations established by the few robotic systems that are operational in spaceflight. In order to evaluate future methods of robotic allocations, we must first benchmark the allocations and allocation methods that have been used. We will present 1) documentation of human-automation-robotic allocations in existing, operational spaceflight systems; and 2) To gather existing lessons learned and best practices in these role assignments, from spaceflight operational experience of crew and ground teams that may be used to guide development for future systems. NASA and other space agencies have operational spaceflight experience with two key Human-Automation-Robotic (HAR) systems: heavy lift robotic arms and planetary robotic explorers. Additionally, NASA has invested in high-fidelity rover systems that can carry crew, building beyond Apollo's lunar rover. The heavy lift robotic arms reviewed are: Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS), and the European Robotic Arm (ERA, designed but not deployed in space). The robotic rover systems reviewed are: Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Science Laboratory rover, and the high-fidelity K10 rovers. Much of the design and operational feedback for these systems have been communicated to flight controllers and robotic design teams. As part of the mitigating the HARI risk for future human spaceflight operations, we must document function allocations between robots and humans that have worked well in practice.

robotic allocation↗

An MBSE Approach for Developing an Autonomous Rover Platform

The proliferation of increasingly autonomous systems calls for new ways to address how safety is assured. As these systems become more advanced and complex, it becomes more important to model and prototype autonomous functions at the systems level and the functions that assure they are operating safely and as expected. To that effect, researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 's Robust Software Engineering (RSE) group are working on prototyping a Research Autonomous Vehicle, commonly referred to as R-RAV. The R-RAV is an autonomous rover platform designed to act as a case study for assured autonomy research. Moreover, an overarching goal is for the R-RAV to serve as a training ground for other mission projects. In this paper, we will detail how we have used a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to model a prototype of the R-RAV and test and verify its different functionalities.

MBSE↗