Proceeding of the 6th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics & Automation in Space: i-SAIRAS 2001, Canadian Space Agency, St-Hubert, Quebec, Canada, June 18-22, 2001.

RMS OPERATIONS SUPPORT: FROM THE SPACE SHUTTLE TO THE SPACE STATION

Phung K. Nguyen and Michael Hiltz

MacDonald Dettwiler Space and Advanced Robotics Ltd. 9445 Airport Road, Brampton, Ontario L6S 4J3 [email protected] , [email protected]

Keywords: Canadarm, Canadarm2, RMS, of external sections of the ISS, servicing payloads, space shuttle, space station, operations, support, moving equipment and supplies to different flight data, database, trending, maintenance, flight locations on the Station, retrieving satellites and hardware upgrade, software upgrade. payloads, as well as supporting astronauts during EVA. Together, the Canadarm and Canadarm2 will Abstract be the first two RMS’s servicing the ISS; other RMS’s such as the European Robotic Arm (ERA) Like many other technologies, space robotics has and the JEM (Japanese Experiment Module) RMS evolved significantly over the past twenty years. will join the ISS arm fleet in future assembly Canada in general, and MD Robotics in particular, missions for other payload handling operations. All have contributed a great deal to these advances. these arms will be commonly referred to as RMS’s This contribution is highlighted by the development in what follows. and operations support of MD Robotics’ Canadarm and the second-generation space manipulator, Although they will be attached to different 2 locations - one on the Space Shuttle, and the other Canadarm . In this paper, we will highlight the 2 experience and expertise gained while supporting on the ISS - Canadarm and Canadarm share certain the operation of Canadarm and illustrate how it has common tasks. Despite differences in their influenced both the design and planned operation of respective designs and base locations, similarities in Canadarm2. It is shown that the lessons learned their intended function and modes of operation from this experience are sufficiently general that dictate that they require similar operations support. they can be applied to future space manipulators such as the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator, RMS operations support requires broad multi- as well as the Japanese and the European Remote disciplinary technical expertise to perform a variety Manipulators. of tasks ranging from planning, testing, through to execution. Underlying this effort is the common goal of ensuring efficiency, safety and success in 1 Introduction orbit. It also requires coordination and communication between various organizations in different countries using English as the common Over the past twenty years, the Canadarm (also language. known as the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System, or SRMS- Fig. 1) has flown more than sixty times, In this paper, we will highlight the similarities and demonstrating flawless performance while differences between Canadarm and Canadarm2, deploying, maneuvering, and/or retrieving more describe the experiences in supporting the than seventy payloads in support of NASA Space operations of the Canadarm, the planned operations Transportation System (STS) program. Currently, support for Canadarm2 and the hand-over NASA is planning to utilize the Canadarm in the operations that involve both arms. same role for the next twenty years. MD Robotics has spent a significant effort on astronaut training, 2 designing and verifying mission operations, 2 Canadarm and Canadarm telemetry data analysis, hardware and software To appreciate the similarities and differences in the maintenance and upgrades, as well as simulation 2 capability improvements. operations of Canadarm and Canadarm , it is important to highlight the differences in their The Canadarm2 (also known as the Space Station respective designs and capabilities. Remote Manipulator System, or SSRMS- Fig. 2) Canadarm is similar to Canadarm2 in the following was launched and deployed in Flight STS-100 (or * Flight 6A in the International Space Station respects : assembly sequence) in April 2001. Together with other components of the Mobile Servicing System * (MSS) its role includes ISS assembly, maintenance The first bracketed item refers to Canadarm, the second for Canadarm2.

a) length (50 ft vs. 57.7 ft); d) gear ratio (1842/1260/738 vs. 1845 b) end effector (standard vs. latching ); /1845/1845 for Shoulder, Elbow and c) working space (6 dimensioned space for Wrist); both arms); e) payload handling capability (up to 586,000 d) stopping distance requirement (2 ft for lbs. payload vs. 205,000 lbs.); both arms); f) mass ( 930 lbs. vs. 3530 lbs.); e) computer-supported modes of operation g) unloaded speed (2 ft/s vs. 1.21 ft/s); (plus non-computer supported modes vs. h) self –collision (N/A vs. possible collision redundant string capability); which is prevented by control software); f) joint controller (digital implementation, i) cameras/lights (1+1 vs. 2+2 for elbow and parameter settable in Canadarm2); tip); g) singularity avoidance; j) force-moment accommodation (N/A vs. h) joint reach limit detection. optional); k) power budget (2050 W vs. 2000 W); l) keep-alive power (N/A vs. 1360 W); m) payload interface (mechanical/electrical only vs. mechanical/electrical/video/data); n) nominal bus voltage (28V vs. 120 V); o) reliability (fail-safe vs. fail-operational); p) maintenance and service (ground-based vs. on-orbit replacement), etc.

The above similarities and differences are discussed in full detail in Ref. [1]. Operationally the two arms share many common tasks, such as payload grappling, maneuvering, berthing/ unberthing and EVA astronaut support. In terms of safety, they also share common practices for flight operations procedures (techniques) and flight rules, which is not surprising since the experiences in mission Fig.1 Canadarm and Hubble Space Telescope planning, astronaut training and strategies for controlling the manipulator have been passed on from the Canadarm program to the Canadarm2 program. The experience and lessons learned from the Canadarm and how they have been passed to the Canadarm2 is the inspiration for this paper.

3 Canadarm Operations Support

For the purposes of this paper, operations support is defined as those activities before, during, and after mission which are required to ensure and/or improve arm performance following its delivery to NASA. As such, operations support covers simulations, analyses, hardware redesign and tests, hardware maintenance, software maintenance and arm upgrades.

2 Before the Canadarm was commissioned for use on Fig. 2 Canadarm in Flight 6A orbit, it underwent a series of on-orbit verification tests beginning with STS-2 in 1981 and ending with Some key differences between Canadarm and 2 STS-8 in 1983. The tests were designed to verify Canadarm are listed below: the arm performance through a series of tests in the following order: (open-loop) motor control in a) base location (fixed vs. mobile); Direct Drive mode, (closed-loop) joint control in b) number of joints ( 2+1+3 vs. 3+1+3 for Single Drive mode, coordinated operation of all Shoulder, Elbow and Wrist joints in Manual Augmented mode and Automatic clusters/assemblies); mode. A series of Orbiter Primary Reaction c) joint configuration (in-line versus offset Control System (PRCS) tests were also conducted joints); to determine the Canadarm response to externally

Page 2

applied loads (from the Orbiter thruster firing). The Mission-specific operations support falls into three payloads handled during this testing are “No- categories: pre, real-time, and post mission payload” (i.e. unloaded arm), Plasma Diagnostics activities. Package (PDP, 344 lbs.), Induced Environment Positive Direction Average Contamination Monitor (IECM, 816 lbs.), Shuttle Steady State Rate

Pallet Satellite 01 (SPAS-01, 3172 lbs.), and 27 26 Payload Flight Test Article (PFTA, 7460 lbs.). The WR + PFTA was a “dummy” payload especially designed 25 WY + 24 WP + to simulate the moments of inertia that the 23 EP + Canadarm would experience when handling a 22 SP + 32,000 lb. payload. 21 SY +

Average Rate (rad/s) 20 19 The above-mentioned tests were carefully selected 18

to ensure that the arm behavior would be within its STS-41 STS-39 STS-48 STS-52 STS-62 STS-74 STS-77 STS-82 STS-85 STS-87 STS-92 STS-51I STS-103 STS-41D STS-51D STS-31R design range, ensuring that operation did not occur STS-51A STS-51G near a reach limit or arm singularity and loads were Fig. 3 Average Steady-state Motor Rates in kept below “Flight Planning Load Limits”. The Direct Drive down-linked telemetry data also had to be sampled Apart from the essential activities by the Kennedy fast enough to ensure meaningful analyses. This Space Center (KSC) team to install and checkout activity was supported by a number of NASA the Canadarm and payloads in the Shuttle cargo subcontractors such as Rockwell Space Operations bay, there are a number of other activities involving Co., McDonnell Douglas Space Services Co., the Johnson Space Center (JSC) team and NASA TRW, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co., the contractors. For example, based on the mission Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, as well as the objective and plan, the MOD (Mission Operations design authority, MD Robotics Ltd. (formerly, Spar Directorate) team at NASA JSC designs the SRMS Aerospace Ltd.) in Toronto, Canada. Before operations checklist that details crew’s procedures missions, the tests were verified via simulations. and Canadarm displays. At the L-24 mark (i.e. 24 After missions, the flight test data was used for months before launch), the preliminary version of simulation validation and simulation model update, the list is published, which is normally in addition to data analysis to support arm accompanied by a list of concerns on viewing performance verification. It should also be noted adequacy, compliance with dynamic clearance that for these missions, the Canadarm was envelope of the cargo bay, etc. The preliminary list instrumented with strain gauges to measure on-orbit is based on kinematics simulations of the Canadarm loads at its Wrist, Elbow and Shoulder. From time and its payloads. The intended maneuvers are to time, the arm was also tested according to further analyzed using (flexible) dynamics Detailed Test Objectives (DTO), each of which was simulations to verify compliance to loads and flight designed specifically to test a particular rules. Complementing this are real-time human-in- performance characteristic of the arm (e.g. motor the-loop simulations which are used to identify brake slippage in response to PRCS firing while the operability issues and to refine flight techniques. arm was parked overnight with brakes-on). The simulations are performed using nominal, as well as off-nominal parameters, considering both In each Shuttle flight a checkout procedure is normal and contingency operation scenarios. performed to ensure that the arm is ready for its planned mission. As part of this checkout, each of Based on the above analyses, the operations the Canadarm joints is driven in both positive and checklist is refined and re-issued at the L-18, L-12, negative directions in an open-loop control L-6 as a draft, basic, and final version respectively. mode(Direct Drive), starting with the Shoulder Sometimes the “final” checklist and flight Yaw joint and ending with the Wrist Roll joint. techniques are updated just days before launch to The arm is unloaded during these tests. accommodate resolution to those problems that Comparison of steady-state motor rates with surface just before launch. In between releases, expected value can indicate whether the joint motor necessary modifications to control software, data performance is nominal. In addition, trending and/or hardware are identified and implemented analysis has been carried out using flight test data accordingly. from different flights and from each of the four Canadarm flight units. An example of such Normally, operations checklists cover both nominal analysis results on Checkout tests is shown in Fig. and contingency operations. The contingency 3. operations are needed when the nominal modes of operation are not available; e.g. Single Drive mode can be used to drive the SRMS on a joint-by-joint basis if the control of the arm via hand-controllers

Page 3

is no longer available on orbit. In the early days of Room) monitor the performance of various Shuttle Canadarm missions, particular attention was made subsystems via real-time telemetry, video & audio to analyse and simulate the arm performance when links; and provide appropriate advice to handle various malfunctions occur. This was to ensure that unpredicted events that might occur during the Canadarm control software and its BITE (Built missions. The Canadarm operations and In Test Equipment) could detect such anomalies engineering support teams in these rooms consist of and “safe” the arm accordingly. Generic MOD staff and MD Robotics personnel who in turn malfunction procedures have been developed for receive remote technical support from their the Shuttle missions, of which a chapter is colleagues in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. During dedicated to the Canadarm operations, see Ref. [2] mission operations the health of the arm at the for example. system and unit level is monitored via real-time telemetry. To assess the performance and health of The Canadarm operators, often called “mission the arm, current and past mission data as well as all specialists”, train extensively in many Shuttle ground test data is available to the support team. mockups and simulators to become familiar with Such data is stored in the Mass Data System the various Shuttle systems and operations. In the (MDS), an MD-Robotics’ developed database. To early 1980’s, during the initial years of Canadarm populate this database, the Canadarm flight data is operation, mission specialists used SIMFAC first saved in the ODRC (Orbiter Data Reduction (Simulation Facility), a human-in-the-loop real- Complex) at JSC, and then routed to MDS. Fig. 5 time simulator developed by CAE Ltd. and Spar illustrates a GUI within MDS. Aerospace Ltd. to provide Canadarm-operations training. This was supplemented by crew training in the Shuttle Engineering Simulator (SES) at JSC (Fig. 4). Computer-simulation training such as in SES is combined with “hardware-in-the loop” training. For example, the MDF (Manipulator Development Facility) and the NBL (Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory) provides life-like views and a space-like feel while operating a mechanical mockup of the Canadarm. The NBL is normally used to train EVA-related operations. Through the above training, the mission specialists get familiarized with the tasks to be performed on orbit; operation procedures are updated and refined Fig. 5 Mass Data System GUI to eliminate any difficulties or problems encountered during training. For crew training, see MDS includes a number of engineering utilities that Ref. [3]. can be used to plot / overplot user defined parameters and to compute various arm performance parameters that are not directly available from flight downlist or test data, e.g. instantaneous position of a given point of interest on the payload. MDS automatically generates an RMS specific event log (which is also augmented with notes taken by console personnel) to allow quick and easy identification of time segments for analysis. MDS also contains all post mission reports and hardware history which makes it easier to locate any previous relevant on-orbit issues.

MDS is a very useful tool in assessing arm performance and troubleshooting on-orbit anomalies. As an example, during STS-72 RMS checkout it was observed that the wrist roll motor Fig. 4 Shuttle Engineering Simulator at JSC rate signature during the servo open-loop test showed a lower than expected average rate with Real-time Shuttle mission support is provided higher than expected steady-state rate perturbations principally by the Mission Control Center in (see Fig. 6). Using MDS, the performance of the Houston (MCC-H) at JSC as pictorially depicted by joint was quickly analyzed and compared to the shaded blocks in Fig. 8. Mission controllers previous tests including results from other wrist roll and support staff in the MER (Mission Evaluation joints. MDS was used to facilitate statistical and

Page 4

fourier analysis on the rate wrist roll rate data. This payload and arm configuration dependent. helped isolate the cause of the anomaly to the Extensive simulation runs have been performed to joint’s motor module which was subsequently cover both normal and contingency operations, replaced. considering various initial misalignment errors between the payload and its station interface. Arm 303: + WR Direct Drive for STS-72 Anomaly Investigation 26 Payload capture is nominally done with the arm in Test Mode (with limped joints to allow the arm to 24 STS-61B self-configure in response to the latching force from STS-37 STS-49 the capture mechanism). In contingency capture, 22 STS-57 STS-61 the arm is considered to have brakes on because the STS-69 computer-supported modes have been lost. The 20 STS-72.1 STS-72.2 STS-72.3 concern of high loads normally arises only in STS-72.4 Motor Rate (rad/s) 18 contingency operations with worst-case STS-72 Runs: Lower Rates STS-72.5 & Higher Peak-to-Peaks STS-72.6 misalignment, for which alternative operations are STS-72.7 16 STS-72.8 sought prior to launch.

14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Description of other Canadarm support activities Time (sec) can be found in Ref. [4]. These activities range Fig. 6 STS-72 Wrist Roll Direct Drive Anomaly from developing hardware and software upgrades to enhance or provide new RMS capabilities, In addition to the above mission support activities, routine hardware maintenance and performing MDS flight data is also used to refine Canadarm extensive analysis to ensure success and safety simulation models and to trend a variety of RMS during Canadarm missions. life-cycle and performance parameters. Some examples of trending and life-cycle parameters 4 Canadarm2 Operations Support include: joint travel in each arm, display and control panel switch cycles, joint motor current and In terms of its operation on orbit, Canadarm2 differs arm temperature profiles, End Effector motor from Canadarm in two important respects: its current draw, etc… Fig. 7 shows a simple example initial deployment and the fact that is remains of typically compiled RMS cycle data; positive and permanently on-orbit. Unlike the installation of the negative Single/Direct Drive switch throws on the Canadarm before launch on the Shuttle Orbiter, the display and control panel for various flights. Life- Canadarm2 during Flight 6A was launched in a cycle data like this is maintained to ensure arm special cradle that was initially berthed to the ISS component life is not exceeded. by the Canadarm. Its deployment via EVA support was performed via a series of intricate Latching

Digital Flights Total Switch Throws End Effector and Single Joint maneuvers, planned in such a way to avoid collisions between the arm 350

Switches Positive and its cradle in this confined workspace. The Switches Negative 300 deployment scenario was simulated and studied in fine detail before launch, in a similar manner to the 250 Canadarm operations support described previously.

200 While the Canadarm2 is still young and new, 150 compared to the Canadarm, it is logical to project

100 that much of its operations support is similar to that Number of Switch Cycles of the Canadarm, plus additional support for its 50 special characteristics. As a matter of fact, the first 2 0 Canadarm checkout tests in flight 6A were STS91 STS95 STS96 STS103 STS88 sts101 Flights designed using the same philosophy as in the Fig. 7 Number of Throws of Single/Direct Switch Canadarm program. In addition to the types of initial tests described for the Canadarm, additional It is worth noting that recently the Canadarm has tests were required for unique capabilities of been increasingly utilized to perform payload Canadarm2. Three such tests performed on Flight berthing/deberthing as part of the Space Station 6A were an Arm Pitch Plane Change manoeuvre construction. Two issues have been raised: a) can (which allows re-configuration of the arm without the Canadarm provide sufficient force to trigger affecting its tip position and orientation), Force RTL (Ready To Latch) indicators of berthing Moment Sensor calibration to study thermal drift on during capture? and b) can the arm withstand loads orbit and a Line Tracking manoeuvre to evaluate during payload capture? These issues have been the capability of the Canadarm2 to track an ideal analyzed on mission-specific basis because they are trajectory in Auto mode.

Page 5

From an organizational point-of-view, Canadarm2 the MCC-C provides control software and data file differs from the original Canadarm in that the CSA updates within 24 hours in the event that such (Canadian Space Agency) plays a major role in the changes are required to successfully complete the Mission Operations planning and on-orbit support Canadarm2 planned operation as a remedy to of this new system. Since the Canadarm2 is part of problem encountered on orbit. the Canadian contribution to the ISS program, the CSA takes an active role in its operations support. In terms of mission planning, CSA and NASA This can be clearly seen in Fig. 8, showing the MSS jointly develop Canadarm2 operation procedures. operations support hierarchy. The “live mission” In addition, CSA and MD Robotics are responsible support now has a slightly different meaning for the development and verification of Canadarm2 because of the permanent presence of the control parameters to ensure its safe and successful Canadarm2 on the ISS. During missions that operation, and for providing all necessary MSS involve both arms, there are two teams at JSC, each control software executables and associated data of which is dedicated to support a particular arm as files to NASA for uplinking to the ISS. shown by the shaded (Canadarm) and non-shaded (Canadarm2) blocks in Fig. 8. After the departure The permanent operation of the Canadarm2 on the of the Orbiter from the ISS, operations support is ISS poses a different problem for its maintenance. still required for the Canadarm2’s “keep-alive” Similar trending performance analysis of its mode of operation and/or its operations prior to the components based on telemetry data can still be next Shuttle mission. The “keep alive” level of performed; but its hardware replacement must be support is generally much less. done on orbit, which dictates that EVA astronauts must be extensively trained to perform such tasks. Mission Control Center - Houston (MCC-H) Mission Operations Integration In support of this activity, all MSS elements are Room Manager (MOIR Manager) designed as ORU’s (Orbit Replacement Unit). The Space Shuttle Mission MD Robotics Evaluation Room SRMS Office maintenance of MSS software is also to be handled (SSP MER) Brampton in a different manner conforming to the ISS Space Shuttle Flight Space Shuttle Robotics Space Shuttle Control Room Multi-Purpose Support PRogram (SSP) (SSP FCR) Room (MPSR) software maintenance procedures and standards. Following the joint CSA/MD Robotics verification of a particular software update performed using

International Space Station Flight Space Station Mission ground equipment, NASA performs end-to-end Space Station Control Room Evaluation Room (ISS) (SS FCR) (SS MER) software integration testing to the ISS to ensure

Space Station Robotics compatibility with the current on-board software. Multi-Purpose Support Room (MPSR) Finally, the software update is uploaded to the ISS.

Mission Control Center - Canada (MCC-C)

MD-Robotics - Brampton Unlike the Canadarm where monitoring of the arm Remote Multi-Purpose Engineering Support Support Room MSS Sustaining Center (ESC) (RMPSR) Engineering Facility status on the ground is limited to the period during (MSEF) each shuttle flight, monitoring of the Canadarm2 (SOSC) status is necessary on a continuous basis. The Fig. 8 MSS Operations Support Hierarchy requirements on safety are such that monitoring on the ground is still needed even though the arm’s The structure of operations-support at the MCC-H BITE and malfunction detection software have for Canadarm and Canadarm2 operations is been designed and verified and the malfunction practically the same. However, the Canadarm2 operation procedures have been developed. This support in Canada is a recent development. The dictates that the telemetry data is downlinked MCC-C (Mission Control Center - Canada) in St. continuously, 24 hours a day, leading to the vast Hubert, Quebec, has audio, video and data links amount of data to analyze and to maintain. This in with the MCC-H to allow monitoring of MSS on- turn requires automation support. orbit operations, with the capability to provide 2 necessary updates to the MSS software and data The mobility of the Canadarm along the ISS poses files and to provide solutions to MSS on-orbit a new problem when supporting its operations in problems if they arise. The RMPSR (Remote comparison with the Canadarm. When the 2 Multi-Purpose Support Room) plays a similar role Canadarm ’s base is mounted on the MBS (MSS as the MPSR in the MCC-H in monitoring Base System), a combination of optimal location of Canadarm2 activities. The ESC (Engineering the MT (Mobile Transporter) and the PDGF (Power Support Center) is responsible for providing Data Grapple Fixture) on the MBS is desired to necessary hardware and software maintenance and maintain the arm’s joints close to their mid-range updates to maintain Canadarm2 operations, with values throughout the operations. Such planning is assistance from the MSEF (MSS Sustaining accomplished using RAMPS (Robotics Analysis Engineering Facility) in Brampton, Ontario, as and Mission Planning System), a generic graphics required. As per NASA-CSA bilateral agreements, and kinematic simulation tool developed by MD

Page 6

Robotics. RAMPS is also capable of performing forward and inverse kinematics and providing high- resolution animation of the arm trajectory as viewed by user’s selected cameras.

Designed for assembly work on the ISS, the Canadarm2 will be busy performing payload berthing and deberthing to the ISS, that is similar to the tasks performed by the Canadarm in recent missions. The same issues faced by the Canadarm program such as tip force capability, induced loads due to misalignments with limped joints or with brakes on will need to be addressed; the solutions 2 may be the same or may be slightly different Fig. 10 Canadarm Unberthing HTV EP because of the differences in the arm design. However, the experience gained from the 5 Combined Canadarm and 2 Canadarm operations can certainly be passed on to Canadarm Operations Support the Canadarm2 support team, as part of the evolution of space manipulator operations. There are a number of instances during the assembly of the ISS that payloads will be handed- The Canadarm2 operations support becomes more off from the Canadarm to the Canadarm2 or vice international when the arm is used to capture, berth versa. Payload handoff operations require the and deploy the Japanese HTV (H-II Transfer payload to possess two separate grapple fixtures to Vehicle) to and from Node 2 after Flight 2J/A, see allow simultaneous grappling by the two arms. The Fig. 9. grapple fixtures must be located such that they will not interfere with the berthing of the payload, and allow berthing by the secondary arm in case of malfunction in the primary arm.

The SLP (Space Lab Pallet) hand-over between the two Canadian arms in Flight 6A was the first dual arm operation in space, see Fig. 11.

Fig. 9 Canadarm2 Berthing HTV

In operations planning thus far, NASA, NASDA and CSA have been working on the HTV capture envelope, analyzing the Canadarm2 dynamics during berthing and considering the effect of various initial misalignments between the HTV PCBM (Passive Common Berthing Mechanism) and the Node 2 ACBM (Active CBM), as well as Fig. 11 SLP Hand-over in Flight 6A the arm’s response to the ACBM’s latching force. The key simulation tool used in such analysis is the Viewing of the payload at the hand-over location MD Robotics-developed MDSF (Manipulator and the choice of mode of operation for each arm Development Simulation Facility) and the CDT during the hand-over were two important issues to (Contact Dynamics Toolkit), both of which are be addressed so that the operation could be fully generic dynamics (and control) simulation software monitored and to ensure that the two manipulator that can be configured to simulate specific systems. systems did not “compete” during the maneuver. In addition, CSA and MD Robotics have been The latter concern, requires coordination between working with NASDA to refine the design of the the two operators controlling the respective arms. HTV Exposed Pallet in support of its As usual, the mission planners consider both berthing/deberthing from/to the HTV as shown in nominal and contingency operations. In nominal Fig. 10. operations, the “giving” arm has brakes on and the “receiving arm” is limped while grappling the

Page 7

payload. Upon completion of payload capture, the recommended that the two Canadarm and “receiving” arm is rigidized and the “giving” arm is Canadarm2 programs share common tools, limped, prior to being rigidized and releasing the experience and expertise. This recommendation payload. can be extended to the SPDM, the JEM RMS and the European Remote Manipulators as well. In the future, the Canadarm2 will perform more and more payload hand-over operations with the Together with other elements in the Space Shuttle Canadarm, starting from flight 9A.1. For further and the ISS, we keep our space dream alive details, the readers can visit the Web site shown in (Ref.[6]). Ref. [5]. Possible hand-over operations between the Canadarm2 and the JEM RMS (Japanese Experiment Module Remote Manipulator System) References are being considered in support of the installation of the JEM ES (Exposed Section) to the JEM EF 2 [1] “Teleoperation: From the Space Shuttle to (Exposed Facility). The Canadarm is presently the the Space Station”, P. K. Nguyen, P. C. primary arm to perform the installation. The JEM Hughes, Teleoperation and Robotics in RMS is also capable of performing the same task. Space, edited by S. B. Skaar and C. F. As such, one arm can be the other’s back-up for Ruoff, Vol. 161 of Progress in various JEM payload berthing tasks. Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1994.

[2] “Malfunction Procedures”, NASA JSC- 6 Concluding Remarks 48027, Rev D January 30, 1996 and subsequent PIRN’s. The success of Flight 6A marks an important milestone in the history of the Canadian space [3] “Crew Training”, Web site http:// robotics technology. Within the context of www.phoenix.net/~shuttle/trng.htm#ses. operations support covered in this paper, significant aspects of Canadarm, Canadarm2 and dual-arm [4] “Canadarm: 20 Years Of Mission Success operations took place in the same flight for the first Through Adaptation”, M. Hiltz, C. Rice, time. Although certain aspects of the pre-mission K. Boyle, R. Allison, 2001 i-SAIRAS, and on-orbit mission support differ for the two June 2001,CSA, St. Hubert, Quebec, systems, they both share the following common Canada. features: a) dependence on reliable manipulators, b) thorough mission planning and analysis, c) [5] “DAC 8 Results” , Web site sufficient crew training, and d) appropriate ground http:// tommy.jsc.nasa.gov/er/er3/magik/ support. dac/JSC-39458/DAC_8_Results.htm

In certain respects, the Canadarm2 represents a [6] “The Dream Is Alive, Space Flight and more sophisticated system compared with the Operations In Earth Orbit”, Ernest W. Canadarm. However, the basic principles of space Maurer, Geosync Publications, 1991. robotic operations remain the same, specifically the process and tools required for the planning and on- orbit support Many Canadarm operations support Acknowledgements activities will likely be repeated for the Canadarm2. This re-use will result in a significant cost and The authors wish to thank MD Robotics for schedule saving as well as an increased confidence permission to publish this paper, Dr. Cameron in the technical solution. New operational Ower, Gerald D. Burns and Keith Boyle for their approaches will undoubtedly arise to support helpful comments. unique features of the Canadarm2, the SPDM (Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator) and/or the ISS environment. Insight gained from developing processes and tools for such problems will likely benefit the Canadarm program to come. With the Canadarm expected to be operated for at least another 20 years, operation of the Canadarm2 only just beginning and SPDMs first operation two years away, there is ample opportunity to continue to refine concepts for space manipulator operation for a long time to come. In order to continue the operations support cost-effectively, it is

Page 8