Tag Archives: change

#435733 Robot Squid and Robot Scallop Showcase ...

Posted on September 18, 2019 by Android

Most underwater robots use one of two ways of getting around. Way one is with propellers, and way two is with fins. But animals have shown us that there are many more kinds of underwater locomotion, potentially offering unique benefits to robots. We’ll take a look at two papers from ICRA this year that showed bioinspired underwater robots moving in creative new ways: A jet-powered squid robot that can leap out of the water, plus a robotic scallop that moves just like the real thing.

Image: Beihang University

Prototype of the squid robot in (a) open and (b) folded states. The soft fins and arms are controlled by pneumatic actuators.

This “squid-like aquatic-aerial vehicle” from Beihang University in China is modeled after flying squids. Real squids, in addition to being tasty, propel themselves using water jets, and these jets are powerful enough that some squids can not only jump out of the water, but actually achieve controlled flight for a brief period by continuing to jet while in the air. The flight phase is extended through the use of fins as arms and wings to generate a little bit of lift. Real squids use this multimodal propulsion to escape predators, and it’s also much faster—a squid can double its normal swimming speed while in the air, flying at up to 50 body lengths per second.

The squid robot is powered primarily by compressed air, which it stores in a cylinder in its nose (do squids have noses?). The fins and arms are controlled by pneumatic actuators. When the robot wants to move through the water, it opens a value to release a modest amount of compressed air; releasing the air all at once generates enough thrust to fire the robot squid completely out of the water.

The jumping that you see at the end of the video is preliminary work; we’re told that the robot squid can travel between 10 and 20 meters by jumping, whereas using its jet underwater will take it just 10 meters. At the moment, the squid can only fire its jet once, but the researchers plan to replace the compressed air with something a bit denser, like liquid CO2, which will allow for extended operation and multiple jumps. There’s also plenty of work to do with using the fins for dynamic control, which the researchers say will “reveal the superiority of the natural flying squid movement.”

“Design and Experiments of a Squid-like Aquatic-aerial Vehicle With Soft Morphing Fins and Arms,” by Taogang Hou, Xingbang Yang, Haohong Su, Buhui Jiang, Lingkun Chen, Tianmiao Wang, and Jianhong Liang from Beihang University in China, was presented at ICRA 2019 in Montreal.

Image: EPFL

The EPFL researchers studied the morphology and function of a real scallop (a) to design their robot scallop (b), which consists of two shells connected at a hinge and enclosed by a flexible elastic membrane. The robot and animal both swim by rapidly, cyclicly opening and closing their shells to generate water jets for propulsion. When the robot shells open, water is drawn into the body through rear openings near the hinge. When the shells close rapidly, the water is forced out, propelling the robot forward (c).

RoboScallop, a “bivalve inspired swimming robot,” comes from EPFL’s Reconfigurable Robotics Laboratory, headed by Jamie Paik. Real scallops, in addition to being tasty, propel themselves by opening and closing their shells to generate jets of water out of their backsides. By repetitively opening their shells slowly and then closing quickly, scallops can generate forward thrust in a way that’s completely internal to their bodies. Relative to things like fins or spinning propellers, a scallop is simple and robust, especially as you scale down or start looking at large swarms of robots. The EPFL researchers describe their robotic scallop as representing “a unique combination of robust to hazards or sustained use, safe in delicate environments, and simple by design.”

And here’s how the real thing looks:

As you can see from the video, RoboScallop is safe to handle even while it’s operating, although a gentle nibbling is possible if you get too handsy with it. Since the robot sucks water in and then jets it out immediately, the design is resistant to fouling, which can be a significant problem in marine environments. The RoboScallop prototype weighs 65 grams, and tops out at a brisk 16 centimeters per second, while clapping (that’s the actual technical) at just over 2.5 Hz. While RoboScallop doesn’t yet steer, real scallops can change direction by jetting out more water on one side than the other, and RoboScallop should be able to do this as well. The researchers also suggest that RoboScallop itself could even double as a gripper, which as far as I know, is not something that real scallops can do.

“RoboScallop: A Bivalve-Inspired Swimming Robot,” by Matthew A. Robertson, Filip Efremov, and Jamie Paik, was presented at ICRA 2019 in Montreal. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#435726 This Is the Most Powerful Robot Arm Ever ...

Posted on September 18, 2019 by Android

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

#435634 Robot Made of Clay Can Sculpt Its Own ...

Posted on September 14, 2019 by Android

We’re very familiar with a wide variety of transforming robots—whether for submarines or drones, transformation is a way of making a single robot adaptable to different environments or tasks. Usually, these robots are restricted to a discrete number of configurations—perhaps two or three different forms—because of the constraints imposed by the rigid structures that robots are typically made of.

Soft robotics has the potential to change all this, with robots that don’t have fixed forms but instead can transform themselves into whatever shape will enable them to do what they need to do. At ICRA in Montreal earlier this year, researchers from Yale University demonstrated a creative approach toward a transforming robot powered by string and air, with a body made primarily out of clay.

Photo: Evan Ackerman

The robot is actuated by two different kinds of “skin,” one layered on top of another. There’s a locomotion skin, made of a pattern of pneumatic bladders that can roll the robot forward or backward when the bladders are inflated sequentially. On top of that is the morphing skin, which is cable-driven, and can sculpt the underlying material into a variety of shapes, including spheres, cylinders, and dumbbells. The robot itself consists of both of those skins wrapped around a chunk of clay, with the actuators driven by offboard power and control. Here it is in action:

The Yale researchers have been experimenting with morphing robots that use foams and tensegrity structures for their bodies, but that stuff provides a “restoring force,” springing back into its original shape once the actuation stops. Clay is different because it holds whatever shape it’s formed into, making the robot more energy efficient. And if the dumbbell shape stops being useful, the morphing layer can just squeeze it back into a cylinder or a sphere.

While this robot, and the sample transformation shown in the video, are relatively simplistic, the researchers suggest some ways in which a more complex version could be used in the future:

Photo: IEEE Xplore

This robot’s morphing skin sculpts its clay body into different shapes.

Applications where morphing and locomotion might serve as complementary functions are abundant. For the example skins presented in this work, a search-and-rescue operation could use the clay as a medium to hold a payload such as sensors or transmitters. More broadly, applications include resource-limited conditions where supply chains for materiel are sparse. For example, the morphing sequence shown in Fig. 4 [above] could be used to transform from a rolling sphere to a pseudo-jointed robotic arm. With such a morphing system, it would be possible to robotically morph matter into different forms to perform different functions.

Read this article for free on IEEE Xplore until 5 September 2019

Morphing Robots Using Robotic Skins That Sculpt Clay, by Dylan S. Shah, Michelle C. Yuen, Liana G. Tilton, Ellen J. Yang, and Rebecca Kramer-Bottiglio from Yale University, was presented at ICRA 2019 in Montreal.

[ Yale Faboratory ]

< Back to IEEE Journal Watch Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#435616 Video Friday: AlienGo Quadruped Robot ...

Posted on September 12, 2019 by Android

Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your Automaton bloggers. We’ll also be posting a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months; here’s what we have so far (send us your events!):

CLAWAR 2019 – August 26-28, 2019 – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
IEEE Africon 2019 – September 25-27, 2019 – Accra, Ghana
ISRR 2019 – October 6-10, 2019 – Hanoi, Vietnam
Ro-Man 2019 – October 14-18, 2019 – New Delhi, India
Humanoids 2019 – October 15-17, 2019 – Toronto, Canada
ARSO 2019 – October 31-1, 2019 – Beijing, China
ROSCon 2019 – October 31-1, 2019 – Macau
IROS 2019 – November 4-8, 2019 – Macau
Let us know if you have suggestions for next week, and enjoy today’s videos.

I know you’ve all been closely following our DARPA Subterranean Challenge coverage here and on Twitter, but here are short recap videos of each day just in case you missed something.

[ DARPA SubT ]

After Laikago, Unitree Robotics is now introducing AlienGo, which is looking mighty spry:

We’ve seen MIT’s Mini Cheetah doing backflips earlier this year, but apparently AlienGo is now the largest and heaviest quadruped to perform the maneuver.

[ Unitree ]

The majority of soft robots today rely on external power and control, keeping them tethered to off-board systems or rigged with hard components. Now, researchers from the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Caltech have developed soft robotic systems, inspired by origami, that can move and change shape in response to external stimuli, paving the way for fully untethered soft robots.

The Rollbot begins as a flat sheet, about 8 centimeters long and 4 centimeters wide. When placed on a hot surface, about 200°C, one set of hinges folds and the robot curls into a pentagonal wheel.

Another set of hinges is embedded on each of the five sides of the wheel. A hinge folds when in contact with the hot surface, propelling the wheel to turn to the next side, where the next hinge folds. As they roll off the hot surface, the hinges unfold and are ready for the next cycle.

[ Harvard SEAS ]

A new research effort at Caltech aims to help people walk again by combining exoskeletons with spinal stimulation. This initiative, dubbed RoAM (Robotic Assisted Mobility), combines the research of two Caltech roboticists: Aaron Ames, who creates the algorithms that enable walking by bipedal robots and translates these to govern the motion of exoskeletons and prostheses; and Joel Burdick, whose transcutaneous spinal implants have already helped paraplegics in clinical trials to recover some leg function and, crucially, torso control.

[ Caltech ]

Once ExoMars lands, it’s going to have to get itself off of the descent stage and onto the surface, which could be tricky. But practice makes perfect, or as near as you can get on Earth.

That wheel walking technique is pretty cool, and it looks like ExoMars will be able to handle terrain that would scare NASA’s Mars rovers away.

[ ExoMars ]

I am honestly not sure whether this would make the game of golf more or less fun to watch:

[ Nissan ]

Finally, a really exciting use case for Misty!

It can pick up those balls too, right?

[ Misty ]

You know you’re an actual robot if this video doesn’t make you crave Peeps.

[ Soft Robotics ]

COMANOID investigates the deployment of robotic solutions in well-identified Airbus airliner assembly operations that are tedious for human workers and for which access is impossible for wheeled or rail-ported robotic platforms. This video presents a demonstration of autonomous placement of a part inside the aircraft fuselage. The task is performed by TORO, the torque-controlled humanoid robot developed at DLR.

[ COMANOID ]

It’s a little hard to see in this video, but this is a cable-suspended robot arm that has little tiny robot arms that it waves around to help damp down vibrations.

[ CoGiRo ]

This week in Robots in Depth, Per speaks with author Cristina Andersson.

In 2013 she organized events in Finland during European robotics week and found that many people was very interested but that there was also a big lack of knowledge.

She also talks about introducing robotics in society in a way that makes it easy for everyone to understand the benefits as this will make the process much easier. When people see the clear benefits in one field or situation they will be much more interested in bringing robotics in to their private or professional lives.

[ Robots in Depth ] Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#435605 All of the Winners in the DARPA ...

Posted on September 12, 2019 by Android

The first competitive event in the DARPA Subterranean Challenge concluded last week—hopefully you were able to follow along on the livestream, on Twitter, or with some of the articles that we’ve posted about the event. We’ll have plenty more to say about how things went for the SubT teams, but while they take a bit of a (well earned) rest, we can take a look at the winning teams as well as who won DARPA’s special superlative awards for the competition.

First Place: Team Explorer (25/40 artifacts found)
With their rugged, reliable robots featuring giant wheels and the ability to drop communications nodes, Team Explorer was in the lead from day 1, scoring in double digits on every single run.

Second Place: Team CoSTAR (11/40 artifacts found)
Team CoSTAR had one of the more diverse lineups of robots, and they switched up which robots they decided to send into the mine as they learned more about the course.

Third Place: Team CTU-CRAS (10/40 artifacts found)
While many teams came to SubT with DARPA funding, Team CTU-CRAS was self-funded, making them eligible for a special $200,000 Tunnel Circuit prize.

DARPA also awarded a bunch of “superlative awards” after SubT:

Most Accurate Artifact: Team Explorer

To score a point, teams had to submit the location of an artifact that was correct to within 5 meters of the artifact itself. However, DARPA was tracking the artifact locations with much higher precision—for example, the “zero” point on the backpack artifact was the center of the label on the front, which DARPA tracked to the millimeter. Team Explorer managed to return the location of a backpack with an error of just 0.18 meter, which is kind of amazing.

Down to the Wire: Team CSIRO Data61

With just an hour to find as many artifacts as possible, teams had to find the right balance between sending robots off to explore and bringing them back into communication range to download artifact locations. Team CSIRO Data61 cut their last point pretty close, sliding their final point in with a mere 22 seconds to spare.

Most Distinctive Robots: Team Robotika

Team Robotika had some of the quirkiest and most recognizable robots, which DARPA recognized with the “Most Distinctive” award. Robotika told us that part of the reason for that distinctiveness was practical—having a robot that was effectively in two parts meant that they could disassemble it so that it would fit in the baggage compartment of an airplane, very important for a team based in the Czech Republic.

Most Robots Per Person: Team Coordinated Robotics

Kevin Knoedler, who won NASA’s Space Robotics Challenge entirely by himself, brought his own personal swarm of drones to SubT. With a ratio of seven robots to one human, Kevin was almost certainly the hardest working single human at the challenge.

Fan Favorite: Team NCTU

Photo: Evan Ackerman/IEEE Spectrum

The Fan Favorite award went to the team that was most popular on Twitter (with the #SubTChallenge hashtag), and it may or may not be the case that I personally tweeted enough about Team NCTU’s blimp to win them this award. It’s also true that whenever we asked anyone on other teams what their favorite robot was (besides their own, of course), the blimp was overwhelmingly popular. So either way, the award is well deserved.

DARPA shared this little behind-the-scenes clip of the blimp in action (sort of), showing what happened to the poor thing when the mine ventilation system was turned on between runs and DARPA staff had to chase it down and rescue it:

The thing to keep in mind about the results of the Tunnel Circuit is that unlike past DARPA robotics challenges (like the DRC), they don’t necessarily indicate how things are going to go for the Urban or Cave circuits because of how different things are going to be. Explorer did a great job with a team of rugged wheeled vehicles, which turned out to be ideal for navigating through mines, but they’re likely going to need to change things up substantially for the rest of the challenges, where the terrain will be much more complex.

DARPA hasn’t provided any details on the location of the Urban Circuit yet; all we know is that it’ll be sometime in February 2020. This gives teams just six months to take all the lessons that they learned from the Tunnel Circuit and update their hardware, software, and strategies. What were those lessons, and what do teams plan to do differently next year? Check back next week, and we’ll tell you.

[ DARPA SubT ] Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots