Tag Archives: full
#435757 Robotic Animal Agility
An off-shore wind power platform, somewhere in the North Sea, on a freezing cold night, with howling winds and waves crashing against the impressive structure. An imperturbable ANYmal is quietly conducting its inspection.
ANYmal, a medium sized dog-like quadruped robot, walks down the stairs, lifts a “paw” to open doors or to call the elevator and trots along corridors. Darkness is no problem: it knows the place perfectly, having 3D-mapped it. Its laser sensors keep it informed about its precise path, location and potential obstacles. It conducts its inspection across several rooms. Its cameras zoom in on counters, recording the measurements displayed. Its thermal sensors record the temperature of machines and equipment and its ultrasound microphone checks for potential gas leaks. The robot also inspects lever positions as well as the correct positioning of regulatory fire extinguishers. As the electronic buzz of its engines resumes, it carries on working tirelessly.
After a little over two hours of inspection, the robot returns to its docking station for recharging. It will soon head back out to conduct its next solitary patrol. ANYmal played alongside Mulder and Scully in the “X-Files” TV series*, but it is in no way a Hollywood robot. It genuinely exists and surveillance missions are part of its very near future.
Off-shore oil platforms, the first test fields and probably the first actual application of ANYmal. ©ANYbotics
This quadruped robot was designed by ANYbotics, a spinoff of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich). Made of carbon fibre and aluminium, it weighs about thirty kilos. It is fully ruggedised, water- and dust-proof (IP-67). A kevlar belly protects its main body, carrying its powerful brain, batteries, network device, power management system and navigational systems.
ANYmal was designed for all types of terrain, including rubble, sand or snow. It has been field tested on industrial sites and is at ease with new obstacles to overcome (and it can even get up after a fall). Depending on its mission, its batteries last 2 to 4 hours.
On its jointed legs, protected by rubber pads, it can walk (at the speed of human steps), trot, climb, curl upon itself to crawl, carry a load or even jump and dance. It is the need to move on all surfaces that has driven its designers to choose a quadruped. “Biped robots are not easy to stabilise, especially on irregular terrain” explains Dr Péter Fankhauser, co-founder and chief business development officer of ANYbotics. “Wheeled or tracked robots can carry heavy loads, but they are bulky and less agile. Flying drones are highly mobile, but cannot carry load, handle objects or operate in bad weather conditions. We believe that quadrupeds combine the optimal characteristics, both in terms of mobility and versatility.”
What served as a source of inspiration for the team behind the project, the Robotic Systems Lab of the ETH Zurich, is a champion of agility on rugged terrain: the mountain goat. “We are of course still a long way” says Fankhauser. “However, it remains our objective on the longer term.
The first prototype, ALoF, was designed already back in 2009. It was still rather slow, very rigid and clumsy – more of a proof of concept than a robot ready for application. In 2012, StarlETH, fitted with spring joints, could hop, jump and climb. It was with this robot that the team started participating in 2014 in ARGOS, a full-scale challenge, launched by the Total oil group. The idea was to present a robot capable of inspecting an off-shore drilling station autonomously.
Up against dozens of competitors, the ETH Zurich team was the only team to enter the competition with such a quadrupedal robot. They didn’t win, but the multiple field tests were growing evermore convincing. Especially because, during the challenge, the team designed new joints with elastic actuators made in-house. These joints, inspired by tendons and muscles, are compact, sealed and include their own custom control electronics. They can regulate joint torque, position and impedance directly. Thanks to this innovation, the team could enter the same competition with a new version of its robot, ANYmal, fitted with three joints on each leg.
The ARGOS experience confirms the relevance of the selected means of locomotion. “Our robot is lighter, takes up less space on site and it is less noisy” says Fankhauser. “It also overcomes bigger obstacles than larger wheeled or tracked robots!” As ANYmal generated public interest and its transformation into a genuine product seemed more than possible, the startup ANYbotics was launched in 2016. It sold not only its robot, but also its revolutionary joints, called ANYdrive.
Today, ANYmal is not yet ready for sale to companies. However, ANYbotics has a growing number of partnerships with several industries, testing the robot for a few days or several weeks, for all types of tasks. Last October, for example, ANYmal navigated its way through the dark sewage system of the city of Zurich in order to test its capacity to help workers in similar difficult, repetitive and even dangerous tasks.
Why such an early interest among companies? “Because many companies want to integrate robots into their maintenance tasks” answers Fankhauser. “With ANYmal, they can actually evaluate its feasibility and plan their strategy. Eventually, both the architecture and the equipment of buildings could be rethought to be adapted to these maintenance robots”.
ANYmal requires ruggedised, sealed and extremely reliable interconnection solutions, such as LEMO. ©ANYbotics
Through field demonstrations and testing, ANYbotics can gather masses of information (up to 50,000 measurements are recorded every second during each test!) “It helps us to shape the product.” In due time, the startup will be ready to deliver a commercial product which really caters for companies’ needs.
Inspection and surveillance tasks on industrial sites are not the only applications considered. The startup is also thinking of agricultural inspections – with its onboard sensors, ANYmal is capable of mapping its environment, measuring bio mass and even taking soil samples. In the longer term, it could also be used for search and rescue operations. By the way, the robot can already be switched to “remote control” mode at any time and can be easily tele-operated. It is also capable of live audio and video transmission.
The transition from the prototype to the marketed product stage will involve a number of further developments. These include increasing ANYmal’s agility and speed, extending its capacity to map large-scale environments, improving safety, security, user handling and integrating the system with the customer’s data management software. It will also be necessary to enhance the robot’s reliability “so that it can work for days, weeks, or even months without human supervision.” All required certifications will have to be obtained. The locomotion system, which had triggered the whole business, is only one of a number of considerations of ANYbotics.
Designed for extreme environments, for ANYmal smoke is not a problem and it can walk in the snow, through rubble or in water. ©ANYbotics
The startup is not all alone. In fact, it has sold ANYmal robots to a dozen major universities who use them to develop their know-how in robotics. The startup has also founded ANYmal Research, a community including members such as Toyota Research Institute, the German Aerospace Center and the computer company Nvidia. Members have full access to ANYmal’s control software, simulations and documentation. Sharing has boosted both software and hardware ideas and developments (built on ROS, the open-source Robot Operating System). In particular, payload variations, providing for expandability and scalability. For instance, one of the universities uses a robotic arm which enables ANYmal to grasp or handle objects and open doors.
Among possible applications, ANYbotics mentions entertainment. It is not only about playing in more films or TV series, but rather about participating in various attractions (trade shows, museums, etc.). “ANYmal is so novel that it attracts a great amount of interest” confirms Fankhauser with a smile. “Whenever we present it somewhere, people gather around.”
Videos of these events show a fascinated and sometimes slightly fearful audience, when ANYmal gets too close to them. Is it fear of the “bad robot”? “This fear exists indeed and we are happy to be able to use ANYmal also to promote public awareness towards robotics and robots.” Reminiscent of a young dog, ANYmal is truly adapted for the purpose.
However, Péter Fankhauser softens the image of humans and sophisticated robots living together. “These coming years, robots will continue to work in the background, like they have for a long time in factories. Then, they will be used in public places in a selective and targeted way, for instance for dangerous missions. We will need to wait another ten years before animal-like robots, such as ANYmal will share our everyday lives!”
At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas in January, Continental, the German automotive manufacturing company, used robots to demonstrate a last-mile delivery. It showed ANYmal getting out of an autonomous vehicle with a parcel, climbing onto the front porch, lifting a paw to ring the doorbell, depositing the parcel before getting back into the vehicle. This futuristic image seems very close indeed.
*X-Files, season 11, episode 7, aired in February 2018 Continue reading →
Posted in Human Robots
#435752 T-RHex Is a Hexapod Robot With ...
In Aaron Johnson’s “Robot Design & Experimentation” class at CMU, teams of students have a semester to design and build an experimental robotic system based on a theme. For spring 2019, that theme was “Bioinspired Robotics,” which is definitely one of our favorite kinds of robotics—animals can do all kinds of crazy things, and it’s always a lot of fun watching robots try to match them. They almost never succeed, of course, but even basic imitation can lead to robots with some unique capabilities.
One of the projects from this year’s course, from Team ScienceParrot, is a new version of RHex called T-RHex (pronounced T-Rex, like the dinosaur). T-RHex comes with a tail, but more importantly, it has tiny tapered toes, which help it grip onto rough surfaces like bricks, wood, and concrete. It’s able to climb its way up very steep slopes, and hang from them, relying on its toes to keep itself from falling off.
T-RHex’s toes are called microspines, and we’ve seen them in all kinds of robots. The most famous of these is probably JPL’s LEMUR IIB (which wins on sheer microspine volume), although the concept goes back at least 15 years to Stanford’s SpinyBot. Robots that use microspines to climb tend to be fairly methodical at it, since the microspines have to be engaged and disengaged with care, limiting their non-climbing mobility.
T-RHex manages to perform many of the same sorts of climbing and hanging maneuvers without losing RHex’s ability for quick, efficient wheel-leg (wheg) locomotion.
If you look closely at T-RHex walking in the video, you’ll notice that in its normal forward gait, it’s sort of walking on its ankles, rather than its toes. This means that the microspines aren’t engaged most of the time, so that the robot can use its regular wheg motion to get around. To engage the microspines, the robot moves its whegs backwards, meaning that its tail is arguably coming out of its head. But since all of T-RHex’s capability is mechanical in nature and it has no active sensors, it doesn’t really need a head, so that’s fine.
The highest climbable slope that T-RHex could manage was 55 degrees, meaning that it can’t, yet, conquer vertical walls. The researchers were most surprised by the robot’s ability to cling to surfaces, where it was perfectly happy to hang out on a slope of 135 degrees, which is a 45 degree overhang (!). I have no idea how it would ever reach that kind of position on its own, but it’s nice to know that if it ever does, its spines will keep doing their job.
Photo: CMU
T-RHex uses laser-cut acrylic legs, with the microspines embedded into 3D-printed toes. The tail is needed to prevent the robot from tipping backward.
For more details about the project, we spoke with Team ScienceParrot member (and CMU PhD student) Catherine Pavlov via email.
IEEE Spectrum: We’re used to seeing RHex with compliant, springy legs—how do the new legs affect T-RHex’s mobility?
Catherine Pavlov: There’s some compliance in the legs, though not as much as RHex—this is driven by the use of acrylic, which was chosen for budget/manufacturing reasons. Matching the compliance of RHex with acrylic would have made the tines too weak (since often only a few hold the load of the robot during climbing). It definitely means you can’t use energy storage in the legs the way RHex does, for example when pronking. T-RHex is probably more limited by motor speed in terms of mobility though. We were using some borrowed Dynamixels that didn’t allow for good positioning at high speeds.
How did you design the climbing gait? Why not use the middle legs, and why is the tail necessary?
The gait was a lot of hand-tuning and trial-and-error. We wanted a left/right symmetric gait to enable load sharing among more spines and prevent out-of-plane twisting of the legs. When using all three pairs, you have to have very accurate angular positioning or one leg pair gets pushed off the wall. Since two legs should be able to hold the full robot gait, using the middle legs was hurting more than it was helping, with the middle legs sometimes pushing the rear ones off of the wall.
The tail is needed to prevent the robot from tipping backward and “sitting” on the wall. During static testing we saw the robot tip backward, disengaging the front legs, at around 35 degrees incline. The tail allows us to load the front legs, even when they’re at a shallow angle to the surface. The climbing gait we designed uses the tail to allow the rear legs to fully recirculate without the robot tipping backward.
Photo: CMU
Team ScienceParrot with T-RHex.
What prevents T-RHex from climbing even steeper surfaces?
There are a few limiting factors. One is that the tines of the legs break pretty easily. I think we also need a lighter platform to get fully vertical—we’re going to look at MiniRHex for future work. We’re also not convinced our gait is the best it can be, we can probably get marginal improvements with more tuning, which might be enough.
Can the microspines assist with more dynamic maneuvers?
Dynamic climbing maneuvers? I think that would only be possible on surfaces with very good surface adhesion and very good surface strength, but it’s certainly theoretically possible. The current instance of T-RHex would definitely break if you tried to wall jump though.
What are you working on next?
Our main target is exploring the space of materials for leg fabrication, such as fiberglass, PLA, urethanes, and maybe metallic glass. We think there’s a lot of room for improvement in the leg material and geometry. We’d also like to see MiniRHex equipped with microspines, which will require legs about half the scale of what we built for T-RHex. Longer-term improvements would be the addition of sensors e.g. for wall detection, and a reliable floor-to-wall transition and dynamic gait transitions.
[ T-RHex ] Continue reading →
Posted in Human Robots
#435742 This ‘Useless’ Social Robot ...
The recent high profile failures of some home social robots (and the companies behind them) have made it even more challenging than it was before to develop robots in that space. And it was challenging enough to begin with—making a robot that can autonomous interact with random humans in their homes over a long period of time for a price that people can afford is extraordinarily difficult. However, the massive amount of initial interest in robots like Jibo, Kuri, Vector, and Buddy prove that people do want these things, or at least think they do, and while that’s the case, there’s incentive for other companies to give social home robots a try.
One of those companies is Zoetic, founded in 2107 by Mita Yun and Jitu Das, both ex-Googlers. Their robot, Kiki, is more or less exactly what you’d expect from a social home robot: It’s cute, white, roundish, has big eyes, promises that it will be your “robot sidekick,” and is not cheap: It’s on Kicksterter for $800. Kiki is among what appears to be a sort of tentative second wave of social home robots, where designers have (presumably) had a chance to take everything that they learned from the social home robot pioneers and use it to make things better this time around.
Kiki’s Kickstarter video is, again, more or less exactly what you’d expect from a social home robot crowdfunding campaign:
We won’t get into all of the details on Kiki in this article (the Kickstarter page has tons of information), but a few distinguishing features:
Each Kiki will develop its own personality over time through its daily interactions with its owner, other people, and other Kikis.
Interacting with Kiki is more abstract than with most robots—it can understand some specific words and phrases, and will occasionally use a few specific words or two, but otherwise it’s mostly listening to your tone of voice and responding with sounds rather than speech.
Kiki doesn’t move on its own, but it can operate for up to two hours away from its charging dock.
Depending on how your treat Kiki, it can get depressed or neurotic. It also needs to be fed, which you can do by drawing different kinds of food in the app.
Everything Kiki does runs on-board the robot. It has Wi-Fi connectivity for updates, but doesn’t rely on the cloud for anything in real-time, meaning that your data stays on the robot and that the robot will continue to function even if its remote service shuts down.
It’s hard to say whether features like these are unique enough to help Kiki be successful where other social home robots haven’t been, so we spoke with Zoetic co-founder Mita Yun and asked her why she believes that Kiki is going to be the social home robot that makes it.
IEEE Spectrum: What’s your background?
Mita Yun: I was an only child growing up, and so I always wanted something like Doraemon or Totoro. Something that when you come home it’s there to greet you, not just because it’s programmed to do that but because it’s actually actively happy to see you, and only you. I was so interested in this that I went to study robotics at CMU and then after I graduated I joined Google and worked there for five years. I tended to go for the more risky and more fun projects, but they always got cancelled—the first project I joined was called Android at Home, and then I joined Google Glass, and then I joined a team called Robots for Kids. That project was building educational robots, and then I just realized that when we’re adding technology to something, to a product, we’re actually taking the life away somehow, and the kids were more connected with stuffed animals compared to the educational robots we were building. That project was also cancelled, and in 2017, I left with a coworker of mine (Jitu Das) to bring this dream into reality. And now we’re building Kiki.
“Jibo was Alexa plus cuteness equals $800, and I feel like that equation doesn’t work for most people, and that eventually killed the company. So, for Kiki, we are actually building something very different. We’re building something that’s completely useless”
—Mita Yun, Zoetic
You started working on Kiki in 2017, when things were already getting challenging for Jibo—why did you decide to start developing a social home robot at that point?
I thought Jibo was great. It had a special magical way of moving, and it was such a new idea that you could have this robot with embodiment and it can actually be your assistant. The problem with Jibo, in my opinion, was that it took too long to fulfill the orders. It took them three to four years to actually manufacture, because it was a very complex piece of hardware, and then during that period of time Alexa and Google Home came out, and they started selling these voice systems for $30 and then you have Jibo for $800. Jibo was Alexa plus cuteness equals $800, and I feel like that equation doesn’t work for most people, and that eventually killed the company. So, for Kiki, we are actually building something very different. We’re building something that’s completely useless.
Can you elaborate on “completely useless?”
I feel like people are initially connected with robots because they remind them of a character. And it’s the closest we can get to a character other than an organic character like an animal. So we’re connected to a character like when we have a robot in a mall that’s roaming around, even if it looks really ugly, like if it doesn’t have eyes, people still take selfies with it. Why? Because they think it’s a character. And humans are just hardwired to love characters and love stories. With Kiki, we just wanted to build a character that’s alive, we don’t want to have a character do anything super useful.
I understand why other robotics companies are adding Alexa integration to their robots, and I think that’s great. But the dream I had, and the understanding I have about robotics technology, is that for a consumer robot especially, it is very very difficult for the robot to justify its price through usefulness. And then there’s also research showing that the more useless something is, the easier it is to have an emotional connection, so that’s why we want to keep Kiki very useless.
What kind of character are you creating with Kiki?
The whole design principle around Kiki is we want to make it a very vulnerable character. In terms of its status at home, it’s not going to be higher or equal status as the owner, but slightly lower status than the human, and it’s vulnerable and needs you to take care of it in order to grow up into a good personality robot.
We don’t let Kiki speak full English sentences, because whenever it does that, people are going to think it’s at least as intelligent as a baby, which is impossible for robots at this point. And we also don’t let it move around, because when you have it move around, people are going to think “I’m going to call Kiki’s name, and then Kiki is will come to me.” But that is actually very difficult to build. And then also we don’t have any voice integration so it doesn’t tell you about the stock market price and so on.
Photo: Zoetic
Kiki is designed to be “vulnerable,” and it needs you to take care of it so it can “grow up into a good personality robot,” according to its creators.
That sounds similar to what Mayfield did with Kuri, emphasizing an emotional connection rather than specific functionality.
It is very similar, but one of the key differences from Kuri, I think, is that Kuri started with a Kobuki base, and then it’s wrapped into a cute shell, and they added sounds. So Kuri started with utility in mind—navigation is an important part of Kuri, so they started with that challenge. For Kiki, we started with the eyes. The entire thing started with the character itself.
How will you be able to convince your customers to spend $800 on a robot that you’ve described as “useless” in some ways?
Because it’s useless, it’s actually easier to convince people, because it provides you with an emotional connection. I think Kiki is not a utility-driven product, so the adoption cycle is different. For a functional product, it’s very easy to pick up, because you can justify it by saying “I’m going to pay this much and then my life can become this much more efficient.” But it’s also very easy to be replaced and forgotten. For an emotional-driven product, it’s slower to pick up, but once people actually pick it up, they’re going to be hooked—they get be connected with it, and they’re willing to invest more into taking care of the robot so it will grow up to be smarter.
Maintaining value over time has been another challenge for social home robots. How will you make sure that people don’t get bored with Kiki after a few weeks?
Of course Kiki has limits in what it can do. We can combine the eyes, the facial expression, the motors, and lights and sounds, but is it going to be constantly entertaining? So we think of this as, imagine if a human is actually puppeteering Kiki—can Kiki stay interesting if a human is puppeteering it and interacting with the owner? So I think what makes a robot interesting is not just in the physical expressions, but the part in between that and the robot conveying its intentions and emotions.
For example, if you come into the room and then Kiki decides it will turn the other direction, ignore you, and then you feel like, huh, why did the robot do that to me? Did I do something wrong? And then maybe you will come up to it and you will try to figure out why it did that. So, even though Kiki can only express in four different dimensions, it can still make things very interesting, and then when its strategies change, it makes it feel like a new experience.
There’s also an explore and exploit process going on. Kiki wants to make you smile, and it will try different things. It could try to chase its tail, and if you smile, Kiki learns that this works and will exploit it. But maybe after doing it three times, you no longer find it funny, because you’re bored of it, and then Kiki will observe your reactions and be motivated to explore a new strategy.
Photo: Zoetic
Kiki’s creators are hoping that, with an emotionally engaging robot, it will be easier for people to get attached to it and willing to spend time taking care of it.
A particular risk with crowdfunding a robot like this is setting expectations unreasonably high. The emphasis on personality and emotional engagement with Kiki seems like it may be very difficult for the robot to live up to in practice.
I think we invested more than most robotics companies into really building out Kiki’s personality, because that is the single most important thing to us. For Jibo a lot of the focus was in the assistant, and for Kuri, it’s more in the movement. For Kiki, it’s very much in the personality.
I feel like when most people talk about personality, they’re mainly talking about expression. With Kiki, it’s not just in the expression itself, not just in the voice or the eyes or the output layer, it’s in the layer in between—when Kiki receives input, how will it make decisions about what to do? We actually don’t think the personality of Kiki is categorizable, which is why I feel like Kiki has a deeper implementation of how personalities should work. And you’re right, Kiki doesn’t really understand why you’re feeling a certain way, it just reads your facial expressions. It’s maybe not your best friend, but maybe closer to your little guinea pig robot.
Photo: Zoetic
The team behind Kiki paid particular attention to its eyes, and designed the robot to always face the person that it is interacting with.
Is that where you’d put Kiki on the scale of human to pet?
Kiki is definitely not human, we want to keep it very far away from human. And it’s also not a dog or cat. When we were designing Kiki, we took inspiration from mammals because humans are deeply connected to mammals since we’re mammals ourselves. And specifically we’re connected to predator animals. With prey animals, their eyes are usually on the sides of their heads, because they need to see different angles. A predator animal needs to hunt, they need to focus. Cats and dogs are predator animals. So with Kiki, that’s why we made sure the eyes are on one side of the face and the head can actuate independently from the body and the body can turn so it’s always facing the person that it’s paying attention to.
I feel like Kiki is probably does more than a plant. It does more than a fish, because a fish doesn’t look you in the eyes. It’s not as smart as a cat or a dog, so I would just put it in this guinea pig kind of category.
What have you found so far when running user studies with Kiki?
When we were first designing Kiki we went through a whole series of prototypes. One of the earlier prototypes of Kiki looked like a CRT, like a very old monitor, and when we were testing that with people they didn’t even want to touch it. Kiki’s design inspiration actually came from an airplane, with a very angular, futuristic look, but based on user feedback we made it more round and more friendly to the touch. The lights were another feature request from the users, which adds another layer of expressivity to Kiki, and they wanted to see multiple Kikis working together with different personalities. Users also wanted different looks for Kiki, to make it look like a deer or a unicorn, for example, and we actually did take that into consideration because it doesn’t look like any particular mammal. In the future, you’ll be able to have different ears to make it look like completely different animals.
There has been a lot of user feedback that we didn’t implement—I believe we should observe the users reactions and feedback but not listen to their advice. The users shouldn’t be our product designers, because if you test Kiki with 10 users, eight of them will tell you they want Alexa in it. But we’re never going to add Alexa integration to Kiki because that’s not what it’s meant to do.
While it’s far too early to tell whether Kiki will be a long-term success, the Kickstarter campaign is currently over 95 percent funded with 8 days to go, and 34 robots are still available for a May 2020 delivery.
[ Kickstarter ] Continue reading →
Posted in Human Robots
#435726 This Is the Most Powerful Robot Arm Ever ...
Last month, engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory wrapped up the installation of the Mars 2020 rover’s 2.1-meter-long robot arm. This is the most powerful arm ever installed on a Mars rover. Even though the Mars 2020 rover shares much of its design with Curiosity, the new arm was redesigned to be able to do much more complex science, drilling into rocks to collect samples that can be stored for later recovery.
JPL is well known for developing robots that do amazing work in incredibly distant and hostile environments. The Opportunity Mars rover, to name just one example, had a 90-day planned mission but remained operational for 5,498 days in a robot unfriendly place full of dust and wild temperature swings where even the most basic maintenance or repair is utterly impossible. (Its twin rover, Spirit, operated for 2,269 days.)
To learn more about the process behind designing robotic systems that are capable of feats like these, we talked with Matt Robinson, one of the engineers who designed the Mars 2020 rover’s new robot arm.
The Mars 2020 rover (which will be officially named through a public contest which opens this fall) is scheduled to launch in July of 2020, landing in Jezero Crater on February 18, 2021. The overall design is similar to the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover, named Curiosity, which has been exploring Gale Crater on Mars since August 2012, except Mars 2020 will be a bit bigger and capable of doing even more amazing science. It will outweigh Curiosity by about 150 kilograms, but it’s otherwise about the same size, and uses the same type of radioisotope thermoelectric generator for power. Upgraded aluminum wheels will be more durable than Curiosity’s wheels, which have suffered significant wear. Mars 2020 will land on Mars in the same way that Curiosity did, with a mildly insane descent to the surface from a rocket-powered hovering “skycrane.”
Photo: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Last month, engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory install the main robotic arm on the Mars 2020 rover. Measuring 2.1 meters long, the arm will allow the rover to work as a human geologist would: by holding and using science tools with its turret.
Mars 2020 really steps it up when it comes to science. The most interesting new capability (besides serving as the base station for a highly experimental autonomous helicopter) is that the rover will be able to take surface samples of rock and soil, put them into tubes, seal the tubes up, and then cache the tubes on the surface for later retrieval (and potentially return to Earth for analysis). Collecting the samples is the job of a drill on the end of the robot arm that can be equipped with a variety of interchangeable bits, but the arm holds a number of other instruments as well. A “turret” can swap between the drill, a mineral identification sensor suite called SHERLOC, and an X-ray spectrometer and camera called PIXL. Fundamentally, most of Mars 2020’s science work is going to depend on the arm and the hardware that it carries, both in terms of close-up surface investigations and collecting samples for caching.
Matt Robinson is the Deputy Delivery Manager for the Sample Caching System on the Mars 2020 rover, which covers the robotic arm itself, the drill at the end of the arm, and the sample caching system within the body of the rover that manages the samples. Robinson has been at JPL since 2001, and he’s worked on the Mars Phoenix Lander mission as the robotic arm flight software developer and robotic arm test and operations engineer, as well as on Curiosity as the robotic arm test and operations lead engineer.
We spoke with Robinson about how the Mars 2020 arm was designed, and what it’s like to be building robots for exploring other planets.
IEEE Spectrum: How’d you end up working on robots at JPL?
Matt Robinson: When I was a grad student, my focus was on vision-based robotics research, so the kinds of things they do at JPL, or that we do at JPL now, were right within my wheelhouse. One of my advisors in grad school had a former student who was out here at JPL, so that’s how I made the contact. But I was very excited to come to JPL—as a young grad student working in robotics, space robotics was where it’s at.
For a robotics engineer, working in space is kind of the gold standard. You’re working in a challenging environment and you have to be prepared for any time of eventuality that may occur. And when you send your robot out to space, there’s no getting it back.
Once the rover arrives on Mars and you receive pictures back from it operating, there’s no greater feeling. You’ve built something that is now working 200+ million miles away. It’s an awesome experience! I have to pinch myself sometimes with the job I do. Working at JPL on space robotics is the holy grail for a roboticist.
What’s different about designing an arm for a rover that will operate on Mars?
We spent over five years designing, manufacturing, assembling, and testing the arm. Scientists have defined the high-level goals for what the mission has to do—acquire core samples and process them for return, carry science instruments on the arm to help determine what rocks to sample, and so on. We, as engineers, define the next level of requirements that support those goals.
When you’re building a robotic arm for another planet, you want to design something that is robust to the environment as well as robust from fault-protection standpoint. On Mars, we’re talking about an environment where the temperature can vary 100 degrees Celsius over the course of the day, so it’s very challenging thermally. With force sensing for instance, that’s a major problem. Force sensors aren’t typically designed to operate or even survive in temperature ranges that we’re talking about. So a lot of effort has to go into force sensor design and testing.
And then there’s a do-no-harm aspect—you’re sending this piece of hardware 200 million miles away, and you can’t get it back, so you want to make sure your hardware and software are robust and cannot do any harm to the system. It’s definitely a change in mindset from a terrestrial robot, where if you make a mistake, you can repair it.
“Once the rover arrives on Mars and you receive pictures back from it, there’s no greater feeling . . . I have to pinch myself sometimes with the job I do.”
—Matt Robinson, NASA JPL
How do you decide how much redundancy is enough?
That’s always a big question. It comes down to a couple of things, typically: mass and volume. You have a certain amount of mass that’s allocated to the robotic arm and we have a volume that it has to fit within, so those are often the drivers of the amount of redundancy that you can fit. We also have a lot of experience with sending arms to other planets, and at the beginning of projects, we establish a number of requirements that the design has to meet, and that’s where the redundancy is captured.
How much is the design of the arm driven by this need for redundancy, as opposed to trying to pack in all of the instrumentation that you want to have on there to do as much science as possible?
The requirements were driven by a couple of things. We knew roughly how big the instruments on the end of the arm were going to be, so the arm design is partially driven by that, because as the instruments get bigger and heavier, the arm has to get bigger and stronger. We have our coring drill at the end of the arm, and coring requires a certain level of force, so the arm has to be strong enough to do that. Those all became requirements that drove the design of the arm. On top of that, there was also that this arm also has to operate within the Martian environment, so you have things like the temperature changes and thermal expansion—you have to design for that as well. It’s a combination of both, really.
You were a test engineer for the arm used on the MSL rover. What did you learn from Spirit and Opportunity that informed the design of the arm on Curiosity?
Spirit and Opportunity did not have any force-sensing on the robotic arm. We had contact sensors that were good enough. Spirit and Opportunity’s arms were used to place instruments, that’s all it had to do, primarily. When you’re talking about actually acquiring samples, it’s not a matter of just placing the tool—you also have to apply forces to the environment. And once you start doing that, you really need a force sensor to protect you, and also to determine how much load to apply. So that was a big theme, a big difference between MSL and Spirit and Opportunity.
The size grew a lot too. If you look at Spirit and Opportunity, they’re the size of a riding lawnmower. Curiosity and the Mars 2020 rovers are the size of a small car. The Spirit and Opportunity arm was under a meter long, and the 2020 arm is twice that, and it has to apply forces that are much higher than the Spirit and Opportunity arm. From Curiosity to 2020, the payload of the arm grew by 50 percent, but the mass of the arm did not grow a whole lot, because our mass budget was kind of tight. We had to design an arm that was stronger, that had more capability, without adding more mass. That was a big challenge. We were fairly efficient on Curiosity, but on 2020, we sharpened the pencil even more.
Photo: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Three generations of Mars rovers developed at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Front and center: Sojourner rover, which landed on Mars in 1997 as part of the Mars Pathfinder Project. Left: Mars Exploration Rover Project rover (Spirit and Opportunity), which landed on Mars in 2004. Right: Mars Science Laboratory rover (Curiosity), which landed on Mars in August 2012.
MSL used its arm to drill into rocks like Mars 2020 will—how has the experience of operating MSL on Mars changed your thinking on how to make that work?
On MSL, the force sensor was used primarily for fault protection, just to protect the arm from being overloaded. [When drilling] we used a stiffness model of the arm to apply the force. The force sensor was only used in case you overloaded, and that’s very different from doing active force control, where you’re actually using the force sensor in a control loop.
On Mars 2020, we’re taking it to the next step, using the force sensor to actually actively control the level of force, both for pushing on the ground and for doing bit exchange. That’s a key point because fault protection to prevent damage usually has larger error bars. When you’re trying to actually push on the environment to apply force, and you’re doing active force control, the force sensor has to be significantly more accurate.
So a big thing that we learned on MSL—it was the first time we’d actually flown a force sensor, and we learned a lot about how to design and test force sensors to be used on the surface of Mars.
How do you effectively test the Mars 2020 arm on Earth?
That’s a good question. The arm was designed to operate on either Earth or Mars. It’s strong enough to do both. We also have a stiffness model of the arm which includes allows us to compensate for differences in gravity. For testing, we make two copies of the robotic arm. We have our copy that we’re going to fly to Mars, which is what we call our flight model, and we have our engineering model. They’re effectively duplicates of each other. The engineering arm stays on earth, so even once we’ve sent the flight model to Mars, we can continue to test. And if something were to happen, if say a drill bit got stuck in the ground on Mars, we could try to replicate those conditions on Earth with our engineering model arm, and use that to test out different scenarios to overcome the problem.
How much autonomy will the arm have?
We have different models of autonomy. We have pretty high levels flight software and, for instance, we have a command that just says “dock,” that moves the arm does all the force control to the dock the arm with the carousel. For surface interaction, we have stereo cameras on the rover, and those cameras allow us to generate 3D terrain models. Using those 3D terrain models, scientists can select a target on that surface, and then we can position the arm on the target.
Scientists like to select the particular sample targets, because they have very specific types of rocks they’re looking for to sample from. On 2020, we’re providing the ability for the next level of autonomy for the rover to drive up to an area and at least do the initial surveying of that area, so the scientists can select the specific target. So the way that that would happen is, if there’s an area off in the distance that the scientists find potentially interesting, the rover will autonomously drive up to it, and deploy the arm and take all the pictures so that we can generate those 3D terrain models and then the next day the scientists can pick the specific target they want. It’s really cool.
JPL is famous for making robots that operate for far longer than NASA necessarily plans for. What’s it like designing hardware and software for a system that will (hopefully) become part of that legacy?
The way that I look at it is, when you’re building an arm that’s going to go to another planet, all the things that could go wrong… You have to build something that’s robust and that can survive all that. It’s not that we’re trying to overdesign arms so that they’ll end up lasting much, much longer, it’s that, given all the things that you can encounter within a fairly unknown environment, and the level of robustness of the design you have to apply, it just so happens we end up with designs that end up lasting a lot longer than they do. Which is great, but we’re not held to that, although we’re very excited when we see them last that long. Without any calibration, without any maintenance, exactly, it’s amazing. They show their wear over time, but they still operate, it’s super exciting, it’s very inspirational to see.
[ Mars 2020 Rover ] Continue reading →
Posted in Human Robots
#435714 Universal Robots Introduces Its ...
Universal Robots, already the dominant force in collaborative robots, is flexing its muscles in an effort to further expand its reach in the cobots market. The Danish company is introducing today the UR16e, its strongest robotic arm yet, with a payload capability of 16 kilograms (35.3 lbs), reach of 900 millimeters, and repeatability of +/- 0.05 mm.
Universal says the new “heavy duty payload cobot” will allow customers to automate a broader range of processes, including packaging and palletizing, nut and screw driving, and high-payload and CNC machine tending.
In early 2015, Universal introduced the UR3, its smallest robot, which joined the UR5 and the flagship UR10, offering a payload capability of 3, 5, and 10 kg, respectively. Now the company is going in the other direction, announcing a bigger, stronger arm.
“With Universal joining its competitors in extending the reach and payload capacity of its cobots, a new standard of capability is forming,” Rian Whitton, a senior analyst at ABI Research, in London, tweeted.
Like its predecessors, the UR16e is part of Universal’s e-Series platform, which features 6 degrees of freedom and force/torque sensing on the tool flange. The UR family of cobots have stood out from the competition by being versatile in a variety of applications and, most important, easy to deploy and program. Universal didn’t release UR16e’s price, saying only that it is about 10 percent higher than that of the UR10e, which is about $50,000, depending on the configuration.
Jürgen von Hollen, president of Universal Robots, says the company decided to launch the UR16e after studying the market and talking to customers about their needs. “What came out of that process is we understood payload was a true barrier for a lot of customers,” he tells IEEE Spectrum. The 16 kg payload will be particularly useful for applications that require mounting specialized tools on the arm to perform tasks like screw driving and machine tending, he explains. Customers that could benefit from such applications include manufacturing, material handling, and automotive companies.
“We’ve added the payload, and that will open up that market for us,” von Hollen says.
The difference between Universal and Rethink
Universal has grown by leaps and bounds since its founding in 2008. By 2015, it had sold more than 5,000 robots; that number was close to 40,000 as of last year. During the same period, revenue more than doubled from about $100 million to $234 million. At a time when a string of robot makers have shuttered, including most notably Rethink Robotics, a cobots pioneer and Universal’s biggest rival, Universal finds itself in an enviable position, having amassed a commanding market share, estimated at between 50 to 60 percent.
About Rethink, von Hollen says the Boston-based company was a “good competitor,” helping disseminate the advantages and possibilities of cobots. “When Rethink basically ended it was more of a negative than a positive, from my perspective,” he says. In his view, a major difference between the two companies is that Rethink focused on delivering full-fledged applications to customers, whereas Universal focused on delivering a product to the market and letting the system integrators and sales partners deploy the robots to the customer base.
“We’ve always been very focused on delivering the product, whereas I think Rethink was much more focused on applications, very early on, and they added a level of complexity to their company that made it become very de-focused,” he says.
The collaborative robots market: massive growth
And yet, despite its success, Universal is still tiny when you compare it to the giants of industrial automation, which include companies like ABB, Fanuc, Yaskawa, and Kuka, with revenue in the billions of dollars. Although some of these companies have added cobots to their product portfolios—ABB’s YuMi, for example—that market represents a drop in the bucket when you consider global robot sales: The size of the cobots market was estimated at $700 million in 2018, whereas the global market for industrial robot systems (including software, peripherals, and system engineering) is close to $50 billion.
Von Hollen notes that cobots are expected to go through an impressive growth curve—nearly 50 percent year after year until 2025, when sales will reach between $9 to $12 billion. If Universal can maintain its dominance and capture a big slice of that market, it’ll add up to a nice sum. To get there, Universal is not alone: It is backed by U.S. electronics testing equipment maker Teradyne, which acquired Universal in 2015 for $285 million.
“The amount of resources we invest year over year matches the growth we had on sales,” von Hollen says. Universal currently has more than 650 employees, most based at its headquarters in Odense, Denmark, and the rest scattered in 27 offices in 18 countries. “No other company [in the cobots segment] is so focused on one product.”
[ Universal Robots ] Continue reading →
Posted in Human Robots