DOCSLIB.ORG

Cubesat Docking Simulator Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cubesat Docking Simulator Final Report FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND DESIGN IMEE FINAL YEAR BEng PROJECT REPORT CubeSat Docking Simulator William Easdown May 10th 2019 “I certify that I have read and understood the entry on Plagiarism, duplication of one’s own work and Cheating on the Quality Assurance Code of Practice QA53 and in my Departmental Student Handbook. All material in this assignment is my own work, except where I have indicated with appropriate references. I agree that, in line with Regulation 15.3(e), if requested I will submit an electronic copy of this work for submission to a Plagiarism Detection Service for quality assurance purposes.” Author’s signature: …………………………. Supervisor: Dr Rob Wortham Assessor: Dr Pejman Iravani CUBESAT DOCKING SIMULATOR FINAL REPORT AUTHOR: WILLIAM EASDOWN SUPERVISOR: DR ROB WORTHAM ASSESSOR: DR PEJMAN IRAVANI Figure 1 - Render of the CubeSat Docking Simulator final CAD model i Abstract This document presents a CubeSat Docking Simulator that has been designed and manufactured for the author’s Bachelor of Engineering (BEng) Final Year Project (FYP) at the University of Bath. Air tables, air bearings and robot arms are currently used widely in the space sector for modelling of satellite motion, but this report presents a Mecanum-wheeled system as an alternative. The Simulator system consists of a robot and controller, with the robot using stepper motor-driven Mecanum wheels for omnidirectional motion across the plane of a floor. The robot and controller both use Raspberry Pi computers to control their electronics and for communication between the two devices. They are both powered by lithium polymer batteries. Code for both devices is written in Python. Design and manufacture used a range of techniques, such as computer aided design, 3D printing and the use of traditional tools such as drills and mills. Testing of the system was broken into subsections. The controller worked fully as intended, but robot propulsion could not be achieved. It is suspected by the author that this was due to a software issue, which will be investigated in future work. However, the system still met the majority of its requirements. Design decisions taken during the project included manufacturing printed circuit boards at home and changing the model of Raspberry Pi computer that was used in the controller. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr Rob Wortham for his excellent support as my supervisor during the project, including very useful technical assistance. Feedback from Dr Pejman Iravani has been extremely helpful in my design and documentation process. Zoë Babb has also given me fantastic support throughout the project. ii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Current Methods of Docking Simulation ................................................................................ 1 2.1.1 Air Tables and Air Bearings ............................................................................................. 1 2.1.2 Robot Arms ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.1.3 Omni-Directional Robots................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Mecanum Wheels ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Similar Systems ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 Robots ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.3.2 Controllers ....................................................................................................................... 3 3 Design, Manufacture and Testing ................................................................................................... 4 3.1 System Overview..................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Robot ............................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1.1 Power .......................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1.2 Propulsion ................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1.3 Control ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.1.1.4 Software ...................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.1.4.1 Function Definitions .............................................................................................. 9 3.1.1.4.1.1 motor_speeds(motor1_speed, motor2_speed, motor3_speed, motor4_speed, dms) ........................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1.4.1.2 pulse(xPin) ..................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1.4.1.3 stop(allpins) ................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1.4.1.4 shutdown(allpins) .......................................................................................... 9 3.1.1.4.1.5 stepper_drive(allpins, speeds) ....................................................................... 9 3.1.1.4.2 Initialisation ........................................................................................................ 10 3.1.1.4.2.1 Libraries and Functions ................................................................................ 10 3.1.1.4.2.2 Variables ...................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1.4.2.3 Motors ......................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1.4.2.4 Buttons ......................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1.4.3 Main Loop ........................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Controller ...................................................................................................................... 12 iii 3.1.2.1 Case ........................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2.2 Control ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2.3 Power ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.2.4 User Interface............................................................................................................ 14 3.1.2.5 Software .................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Design and Manufacture Methods ....................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Overall System .............................................................................................................. 15 3.2.2 Robot ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.2.3 Controller ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.3.1 Case ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.3.2 Electronics ................................................................................................................. 17 3.3 Safety .................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Testing ................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4.1 Controller ...................................................................................................................... 18 3.4.1.1 Screen .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AI, Robots, and Swarms: Issues, Questions, and Recommended Studies
    AI, Robots, and Swarms Issues, Questions, and Recommended Studies Andrew Ilachinski January 2017 Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. This document contains the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsor. Distribution Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N00014-11-D-0323. Copies of this document can be obtained through the Defense Technical Information Center at www.dtic.mil or contact CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Photography Credits: http://www.darpa.mil/DDM_Gallery/Small_Gremlins_Web.jpg; http://4810-presscdn-0-38.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ Robotics.jpg; http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-edia/image/upload/18kxb5jw3e01ujpg.jpg Approved by: January 2017 Dr. David A. Broyles Special Activities and Innovation Operations Evaluation Group Copyright © 2017 CNA Abstract The military is on the cusp of a major technological revolution, in which warfare is conducted by unmanned and increasingly autonomous weapon systems. However, unlike the last “sea change,” during the Cold War, when advanced technologies were developed primarily by the Department of Defense (DoD), the key technology enablers today are being developed mostly in the commercial world. This study looks at the state-of-the-art of AI, machine-learning, and robot technologies, and their potential future military implications for autonomous (and semi-autonomous) weapon systems. While no one can predict how AI will evolve or predict its impact on the development of military autonomous systems, it is possible to anticipate many of the conceptual, technical, and operational challenges that DoD will face as it increasingly turns to AI-based technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Advanced Medical Telerobots
    applied sciences Review Review of Advanced Medical Telerobots Sarmad Mehrdad 1,†, Fei Liu 2,† , Minh Tu Pham 3 , Arnaud Lelevé 3,* and S. Farokh Atashzar 1,4,5 1 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, New York University (NYU), Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA; [email protected] (S.M.); [email protected] (S.F.A.) 2 Advanced Robotics and Controls Lab, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA 92110, USA; [email protected] 3 Ampère, INSA Lyon, CNRS (UMR5005), F69621 Villeurbanne, France; [email protected] 4 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, New York University (NYU), Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA 5 NYU WIRELESS, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33-0472-436035 † Mehrdad and Liu contributed equally to this work and share the first authorship. Abstract: The advent of telerobotic systems has revolutionized various aspects of the industry and human life. This technology is designed to augment human sensorimotor capabilities to extend them beyond natural competence. Classic examples are space and underwater applications when distance and access are the two major physical barriers to be combated with this technology. In modern examples, telerobotic systems have been used in several clinical applications, including teleoperated surgery and telerehabilitation. In this regard, there has been a significant amount of research and development due to the major benefits in terms of medical outcomes. Recently telerobotic systems are combined with advanced artificial intelligence modules to better share the agency with the operator and open new doors of medical automation. In this review paper, we have provided a comprehensive analysis of the literature considering various topologies of telerobotic systems in the medical domain while shedding light on different levels of autonomy for this technology, starting from direct control, going up to command-tracking autonomous telerobots.
    [Show full text]
  • Multisensory Real-Time Space Telerobotics
    MULTISENSORY REAL-TIME SPACE TELEROBOTICS. DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF REAL-TIME TELEROBOTICS SYSTEMS FOR SPACE EXPLORATION 1 3 Marta Ferraz , Edmundo Ferreira2, Thomas Krueger 1European Space Agency, Human-Robot Interaction Lab, Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected] 2European Space Agency, Human-Robot Interaction Lab, Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected] 3European Space Agency, Human-Robot Interaction Lab, Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected] space environments. The rationale in support of this ABSTRACT later argument is the difficulties in achieving human We introduce a research project whose goal is the exploration - due to current technical limitations on development and analysis of real-time telerobotic spacecraft and EVA technology (i.e., spacesuits) [31]. control setups for space exploration in stationary orbit Another key goal of space telerobotics has been and from deep-space habitats. We suggest a new preparing direct human space exploration - approach to real-time space telerobotics - Multisensory terraforming planetary bodies in order to support Real-time Space Telerobotics - in order to improve human expedition and, ultimately, Earth-like life [34]. perceptual functions in operators and surpass sensorimotor perturbations caused by altered gravity Lately, there has been a strong investment on the conditions. We submit that telerobotic operations, in preparation of Crew Surface Telerobotics (CST) such conditions, can be improved by offering enhanced missions for space exploration - the crew remotely sources of sensory information to the operator: operates surface robots from a spacecraft or deep-space combined visual, auditory, chemical and habitats [10]. These missions include Moon, Mars and somatosensory stimuli. We will characterize and Near-Earth Asteroid exploration [4, 16, 34].
    [Show full text]
  • The Meteron Supvis-Justin Telerobotic Experiment and the Solex Proving Ground
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/277268674 SIMULATING AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT FOR ROBOTIC SPACE EXPLORATION: THE METERON SUPVIS-JUSTIN TELEROBOTIC EXPERIMENT AND THE SOLEX PROVING GROUND CONFERENCE PAPER · MAY 2015 READS 16 8 AUTHORS, INCLUDING: Neal Y. Lii Daniel Leidner German Aerospace Center (DLR) German Aerospace Center (DLR) 20 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Benedikt Pleintinger German Aerospace Center (DLR) 9 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Neal Y. Lii Retrieved on: 24 September 2015 SIMULATING AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT FOR ROBOTIC SPACE EXPLORATION: THE METERON SUPVIS-JUSTIN TELEROBOTIC EXPERIMENT AND THE SOLEX PROVING GROUND Neal Y. Lii1, Daniel Leidner1, Andre´ Schiele2, Peter Birkenkampf1, Ralph Bayer1, Benedikt Pleintinger1, Andreas Meissner1, and Andreas Balzer1 1Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, German Aerospace Center (DLR), 82234 Wessling, Germany, Email: [email protected], [email protected] 2Telerobotics and Haptics Laboratory, ESA, 2201 AZ Noordwijk, The Netherlands, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents the on-going development for the Supvis-Justin experiment lead by DLR, together with ESA, planned for 2016. It is part of the ESA initiated Me- teron telerobotics experiment suite aimed to study differ- ent forms of telerobotics solutions for space applications. Supvis-Justin studies the user interface design, and super- vised autonomy aspects of telerobotics, as well as tele- operated tasks for a humanoid robot by teleoperating a dexterous robot on earth (located at DLR) from the Inter- national Space Station (ISS) with the use of a tablet PC. Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Potential Applications of Automation and Robotics Technology in Construction, Maintenance and Operation of Highway Systems: a Final Report
    A Study of Potential Applications of Automation and Robotics Technology in Construction, Maintenance and Operation of Highway Systems: A Final Report Ernest Kent Intelligent Systems Division U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology Bldg. 220 Rm. B124 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 QC 100 .U56 NIST NO. 5667 1995 V.1 A Study of Potential Applications of Automation and Robotics Technology in Construction, Maintenance and Operation of Highway Systems: A Final Report Ernest Kent Intelligent Systems Division U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Technoiogy Administration Nationai Institute of Standards and Technology Bldg. 220 Rm. B124 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 June 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Ronaid H. Brown, Secretary TECHNOLOGY ADMiNISTRATION Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Techrwlogy NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY Arati Prabhakar, Director FINAL REPORT VOLUME: 1 To: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Prepared by: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY Dr. Ernest Kent ' Vi \1 ;i ;4i V’jI’4 vP '’'. ^'^' .^. '-i'^- :'ii: ji I^.v • </ V; y :j 1,-'^ TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume: 1 ***This Volume*** Section Acknowledgments 1 Executive Summary 2 Overview of the Study 3 Summary of Results and Recommendations 4 White Papers on Selected Topics 5 Bibliographic Study 6 Volume: 2 Technology Proposals Submitted for Evaluation 7 CERF Cost/Benefits Analysis of Technology Proposals Measures of Merit 8 Volume: 3 1st Workshop Report: Industry Views and Requirements 9 2nd Workshop Report: Technical State of the Art 1 0 Volume: 4 Final Proposals for Potential Research Efforts 11 Abstract. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, at the request of the Federal Highway Administration, has conducted a study of potential appli- cations of automation and robotics technology in construction, maintenance, and operation of highway systems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ranger Telerobotic Shuttle Experiment: an On-Orbit Satellite Servicer
    THE RANGER TELEROBOTIC SHUTTLE EXPERIMENT: AN ON-ORBIT SATELLITE SERVICER Joseph C. Parrish NASA Headquarters Office of Space Science, Advanced Technologies & Mission Studies Division Mail Code SM, Washington, DC, 20546-0001, U.S.A. phone: +1 301 405 0291, fax: +1 209 391 9785, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract 1 Introduction As space operations enter the 21st century, the role The Ranger Telerobotic Shuttle Experiment (RTSX) of robotic satellite servicing systems will increase dra- is a Space Shuttle-based flight experiment to demon- matically. Several such systems are currently in de- strate key telerobotic technologies for servicing as- velopment for use on the International Space Sta- sets in Earth orbit. The flight system will be tele- tion, including the Canadian Mobile Servicing Sys- operated from onboard the Space Shuttle and from a tem (MSS)[2] and the Japanese Experiment Module ground control station at the NASA Johnson Space Remote Manipulator System (JEM-RMS). Another Center. The robot, along with supporting equipment Japanese system, the Experimental Test System VII and task elements, will be located in the Shuttle pay- (ETS-VII) [I],has already demonstrated the ability for load bay. A number of relevant servicing operations rendezvous and docking, followed by ORU manipula- will be performed-including extravehicular activity tion under supervisory control. Under development by (EVA) worksite setup, orbit replaceable unit (ORU) the United States, the Ranger Telerobotic Shuttle Ex- exchange, and other dexterous tasks. The program periment (RTSX)[3] is progressing toward its mission is underway toward an anticipated launch date in on the NASA Space Shuttle to demonstrate telerobotic CY2001, and the hardware and software for the flight servicing of orbital assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Telepresence Enclosure: VR, Remote Work, and the Privatization of Presence in a Shrinking Japan
    Telepresence Enclosure: VR, Remote Work, and the Privatization of Presence in a Shrinking Japan The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Roquet, Paul. "Telepresence Enclosure: VR, Remote Work, and the Privatization of Presence in a Shrinking Japan." Media Theory 4, 1 (November 2020): 33-62. As Published https://journalcontent.mediatheoryjournal.org/index.php/mt/article/ view/109 Publisher Pubilc Knowledge Project Version Final published version Citable link https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/130241 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Article Telepresence Enclosure: Media Theory Vol. 4 | No. 1 | 33-62 © The Author(s) 2020 VR, Remote Work, and the CC-BY-NC-ND http://mediatheoryjournal.org/ Privatization of Presence in a Shrinking Japan PAUL ROQUET Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA Abstract Virtual reality proponents often promise the technology will allow a more fully embodied sense of presence at a distance, or what researchers have called ‗telepresence.‘ Departing from telepresence‘s original focus on providing access to dangerous environments, VR and robotics researchers in Japan now promote everyday service and factory work via telerobots as a solution to the country‘s rapidly shrinking workforce. Telepresence becomes a way to access the physical labor of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and foreign workers, while at the same time keeping them fixed in place at home or behind closed borders. This essay theorizes the perceptual segregation imposed by these immersive labor platforms as a form of telepresence enclosure: the mediated privatization of presence itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Robotic Art and Cultural Imagination
    http://dx.doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVAC18.48 Robotic Art and Cultural Imagination Bojana Romic School of Arts and Communication Nordenskiöldsgatan 1, 211 19 Malmö, Sweden [email protected] In this article, I aim to accentuate the importance of the cultural imagination about robots, observing it 'as a mixed register of fantasy and an actual practice' (Kakoudaki 2007, 165). I emphasise the field of robotic art, which, I argue, is in a fluid state of exchange with other areas of robotic research, equally benefiting from the larger context of the cultural imagination about robots. Furthermore, I discuss artworks that offer a valuable commentary on robots even though they are not defined as robotic art in a narrow sense (Penny 2013), given that they feature only the representation of robots or robot-like characters. Nevertheless, these artworks contribute to the circulation of symbolic registers that revolve around the multifaceted figure of a robot. Robot. Robotic Art. Cultural imagination. Cultural robotics. 1. INTRODUCTION imagination: I do not probe deeper into ideological, religious and societal reasons for imaginaries that In recent years, there has been an ongoing debate are characteristic of particular societies (e.g. about the notion and (possible) function of robotic Japanese, US, Korean, etc.). Instead, I focus on culture. With the development of the new generation phenomenological aspects of cultural imagination in of drones, as well as the advancement in social and robotic art in general. health robotics, questions about the robot culture seem to open a variety of discussions (Kim & Kim 2013, Samani et al. 2013, Šabanović et al.
    [Show full text]
  • April 21, 2016 April 2016 the Autodesk Gallery 1 Market Street, Floor 2 in Color at Our Web Site: San Francisco, CA 94105
    LOCATIONS The Explorers Club Note venues and dates with care In San Francisco, CA. Northern California Chapter Thursday, April 21, 2016 April 2016 The AutoDesk Gallery 1 Market Street, Floor 2 In color at our web site: http://www.explorersnorca.org San Francisco, CA 94105 NEW TECHNOLOGY IN EXPLORATION A very special evening at The Autodesk Gallery One Market Street, Floor 2, San Francisco 94105 DEADLIINE FOR RESERVATIONS - APRIL 15, 2016. Our meeting will take place at software maker Autodesk’s corporate headquarters in San Francisco, in the Autodesk Gallery, an excit- ing showcase for innovation. Named a top destination by Wired magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle, the gallery features exhib- its including original works by Lego, Mercedes-Benz, Nike, and more. Enjoy drinks of your choice from an open hosted bar and lavish platters of abundant appetizers. During this time, we will be free to explore the fascinating displays in the Autodesk Gallery that celebrate the creative process and demonstrate how people are using new technology to imagine, design, and create a better world. And of particular interest to us, develop new methodologies to explore our world ― about which we’ll hear from those doing just this during our program. O Our program for the evening has been organized for us by Chapter member Jonathan Knowles, an employee of Autodesk, who serves as Autodesk’s “Explorer in Residence.” We will hear from Jonathan, Eric Stackpole, and Jason Dunn about how new technology is being used to explore, respectively, the surface of the earth, the oceans, and space. The Chapter appreciates being able to use the Autodesk facility for our regular meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Exploration Telerobotics Project: Objectives, Approach, and Testing
    The Human Exploration Telerobotics Project: Objectives, Approach, and Testing Terrence Fong Myron Diftler David Mittman Chris Provencher Reginald Berka Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mark Micire Bill Bluethmann California Institute of Technology NASA Ames Research Center NASA Johnson Space Center 4800 Oak Grove Drive Mail Stop 269-3 Mail Code ER 4 Pasadena, CA 91109 Moffett Field, CA 94035 Houston, TX 77058 818-393-0037 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—In this paper, we present an overview of the beyond human capability, such as operating in dangerous NASA Human Exploration Telerobotics (HET) project. environments and performing tasks that require great force. The purpose of HET is to demonstrate and assess how Robots can perform work ahead of humans, such as telerobotics can improve the efficiency, effectiveness, scouting, that help prepare for future manned activity and and productivity of human exploration missions. To do missions. Robots can also perform “follow-up” work after this, we are developing and testing advanced robots humans leave, completing tasks started by humans, or remotely operated by ground controllers on Earth and conducting supplementary tasks designated by humans. by crew on the International Space Station. The outcome of these tests will provide insight into the requirements, The remote operation of many International Space Station benefits, limitations, costs and risks of integrating (ISS) systems by ground control has become an accepted advanced telerobotics into future human missions. In practice for certain tasks during the past decade. For robots, addition, the engineering data acquired during these however, these tasks have been limited to positioning tests will inform the design of future telerobotic systems.
    [Show full text]
  • VR-Based Teleoperation of a Mobile Robotic Assistant: Progress Report
    DEMO 2000/13 VR-based Teleoperation of a Mobile Robotic Assistant: Progress Report Costas S. Tzafestas, Dimitris Valatsos ¤ Technical Report DEMO 2000/13 Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications National Center for Scienti¯c Research \Demokritos", 15310 Aghia Paraskevi Athens, Greece E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +301-6503153, Fax: +301-6532175 November 2000 Abstract This report presents work in progress within the framework of a research project aim- ing at the development of a mobile robotic system to perform assistive tasks in a hospital environment. This robotic assistant will consist of a mobile robot platform equipped with a variety of on-board sensing and processing equipment as well as a small manipulator for performing simple fetch-and-carry operations. In this report, we focus on the design of the teleoperation system integrating virtual reality techniques and Web-based capabilities in the human operator interface. Relative work found in the literature in the ¯eld of intervention and service telerobotics is reviewed, and an overview of the methodologies that will be fol- lowed is presented. Some speci¯c issues requiring particular attention for the design of a teleoperation system for the mobile robotic assistant are investigated and include: (a) the speci¯cation of the teleoperation modes supported by the system, integrating various au- tomatic computer assistance and shared-autonomy behaviour-based control modes, (b) the design of the user interface, built on Java technology to enable web-operation and support various multimodal VR-based functionalities, and (c) the integration with the other sub- systems and control modules of the mobile robotic assistant, in the framework of a general teleoperation/telemanipulation control architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Virtual Environment Vehicle Interface: a Dynamic, Distributed and Flexible Virtual Environment
    The Virtual Environment Vehicle Interface: a dynamic, distributed and flexible virtual environment Laurent Piguet 1 Butler Hine, Philipp Hontalas, Terrence Fong 1, Erik Nygren 2 Intelligent Mechanisms Group NASA Ames Research Center MS 269-3 Moffett Field, CA 94035 1 Recom Technologies, Inc. 2 Caelum Research Corporation http://img.arc.nasa.gov/ Abstract Distributed environment The Virtual Environment Vehicle Interface (VEVI) The principal focus of a planetary mission is the is a software environment developed for the control ability to obtain good science data, and it is necessary and visualization of remotely located robotic to allow multiple users to share real-time mission vehicles. The design and implementation of this data. Control of the different science payloads can be interface were driven by experience with several delegated to one particular participant, where others field missions which have defined key areas to be can only observe results and implications of this addressed. particular element. Participants can be distributed across the world and include passive observers, like This paper describes three of these concepts and schools or individuals. demonstrates the approach with examples from recent missions. Flexible environment Dynamic environment Since mission targets and vehicle configuration define each instance of the environment, it was VEVI is a dynamic environment and the validity of necessary to create a flexible framework which would the interface is in part defined by its ability to allow easy modification of the environment represent generic dynamic data. Applications often characteristics as well as integration of new require data generated at rates that can vary by capabilities. The concept of distributed nodes that can several order of magnitude.
    [Show full text]