Future "rover" architecture?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

radarredux

Guest
Check out this robot on YouTube. One benefit of this design is that, because it doesn't use wheels, you can wrap it in a "skin" to protect the moving parts from dust. I wonder if any future Mars or Lunar rovers will borrow from this design?<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aRhRNeSpUg<br /><br />
 
C

corbarrad

Guest
The problem I see with this thing used as a rover is the amount of energy it consumes. I've seen a video of it that had sound and it seems it's powered by a lawnmower or chainsaw motor.<br />As far as i know this thing is being developed as a packmule for the military. Guess they have some way to go, still, if only soundproofing.<br />
 
A

acid_frost

Guest
Awesome find, though i doubt it when it comes to anything that is practical going to the red planet or getting us past LEO.<br /><br />Acid
 
J

j05h

Guest
> The problem I see with this thing used as a rover is the amount of energy it consumes. I've seen a video of it that had sound and it seems it's powered by a lawnmower or chainsaw motor.<br /><br />BigDog is gas powered. They claim it's the most advanced quadruped robot in the world. It's pretty cool. Yes, the current plan seems to be for BigDogs to carry a squad's gear into combat. You might be able to use them as mules on Mars, using silane engines or fuel cells. (silane burns in Mars atmosphere)<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
A

acid_frost

Guest
Josh,<br /><br />I work in the Defense Industry and i see alot of things that are just remarkable everyday and i love seeing things like this that are public. <br /><br />Who cares if it is used for what you say or for the military and from the looks of it, it seems to be rather well designed from the video. Though need to get rid of the gas powered and go solar.<br /><br />I just love seeing things in the public when i see everything that is classifield everyday. Its just nice to see such great things that could have endless possiblities.<br /><br />Acid
 
M

mako71

Guest
About possbile walking "rovers", have you seen this?<br /><br />Timberjack's walking forest machine<br /><br />It's not a new one (IIRC it has been there for years), and AFAIK it hasn't been a big commercial success story, but anyways IMO walking machines could be viable alternatives in not-so-far future. That "walking forest machine" is intended to do cleaning in forests, which soil doesn't allow using regular wheeled machines (e.g. the forest is protected or something like that) and where you normally do it "manually" (a guy with a chainsaw) .<br /><br />---<br />EDIT: This site contains a video showing the machine walking:<br /><br />John Deere's walking tractor<br /><br />...And here's a video from YouTube:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2V8GFqk_Y<br /><br />EDIT2: YouTube search for videos about this walking tractor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>
 
C

corbarrad

Guest
I admit this thing is doing pretty well for a robot, being kicked and all.<br /><br />What I find most interesting, though is what is not shown in the video, or any other video I've seen of it on the web:<br />-navigating an incline or steps<br />-getting up after falling over<br />-autonomous following or collision evasion bahaviour<br /><br />While this is a "military vehicle" and some of its features might be classified I don't think things like that would be.<br /><br />All in all I haven't seen Big Dog do anything that a wheeled vehicle like, say, an ATV couldn't do (except translating sideways, maybe). An ATV would even have a few additional benefits, currently.<br /><br />I'm as much a fan of robotics as anyone on these Forums and I like to see the development of autonomous machines going forward, but this thing still has a lot of going forward to do. If you know of any more videos, maybe some demonstrating the abilities it lacks so far I'd be more than interested.
 
D

docm

Guest
That looks like an Uchikoma/Tachikoma in training <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">All in all I haven't seen Big Dog do anything that a wheeled vehicle like, say, an ATV couldn't</font>/i><br /><br />Many of today's legged robots do not have very efficient gates, but there is a lot of work going on in that direction. For example, the human gate has a pendulum gate, an arch, and an Achilles tendon that all help reduce energy needs or capture and release energy, and I have seen a few systems that take advantage of these features. There is even a subgroup that focuses on walking architectures that have no power source (other than potential energy) and walk down a slight incline. Think of it as a 2-legged slinky. It is really strange to watch.<br /><br />Still, your point is a good one. What can a "walking" robot do better than a "wheeled" robot?</i>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> Still, your point is a good one. What can a "walking" robot do better than a "wheeled" robot?</i><br /><br />A quadruped walker, compared to a wheeled unit, can function as a small crane, lower itself to the ground for load/offload, translate sideways, climb steep grades, right itself (not BigDog, but future unit) and probably other features that my tired brain can't think of. Downsides include much more maintenance, higher ground contact pressure, rougher ride and generally lower payload.<br /><br />I think walkers have lots of potential, imagine a "cheetah" scout bot, "rhino" cargo bot and "spider" explorer. Also in this category would be power-armor/exoskeletons. The future sure looks bright.<br /><br />There's a Dutch artist that makes wind-powered walking wooden dinosaurs.<br /><br /> Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
How a robotic rover moves will be less important than what it is capable of doing. For most jobs, wheels will be more efficient, leaving more energy for work. IMO, it will take something the size of an SUV and a lot of equipment to do any real good on Mars, especially for the initial rovers. The toys they send up now are hardly worth the freight to get them there. We need something that can move across open ground at 40mph, take core samples from 10 meters down, and transmit straight back to Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Still, your point is a good one. What can a "walking" robot do better than a "wheeled" robot?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Sigh. Get up the stairs ? Get up after falling over ? Navigate spaces built for humans ?<br />Being generally a more robust method of locomotion in varying environments.
 
D

docm

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Still, your point is a good one. What can a "walking" robot do better than a "wheeled" robot?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Turn that a bit and see if it makes sense;<br /><br />What could a wheeled insect do that a legged one can't do better?<br /><br />Mother Nature chose multiple legs for a reason: stability in widely varying terrains. We should learn her lessons. <br /><br />Seems NASA is at least exploring the idea;<br /><br />http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/16/nasas-spidernaut-robot-arachnid/<br /><br />http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/spider/index.html<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow">Still, your point is a good one. What can a "walking" robot do better than a "wheeled" robot?</font><br /><br />Oooooh. Pick me, pick me! I know! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />It's a portable Bridge Crane<br /><br />Mission?<br /><br />Removal of the upper portion, the payload, of a lunar or martian lander. Go into maximum ground clearance mode, scooch over the lander and lift in a line with the walker's center of mass, then walk away with the goodies. Very difficult to implement on a wheeled or tracked vehicle.<br /><br />This in turn makes the lander design much easier. Without such a helper facility, the lander somehow needs to detach the payload module from itself and put it on the ground. And you tend to want the engines underneath the payload. It's not a trivial problem, come up with alternatives if you can. <br /><br />What's more the lander just needs to get within the walkers range, away from other facilities.<br /><br />Oooh, oooh I have another one!<br /><br />The legs could double as landing gear. IOW the walker could be a lander and a hopper too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
<font color="yellow"> Sigh. Get up the stairs ? </font><br /><br />They have wheelchairs that can go up and down stairs.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Get up after falling over ? </font><br /><br />A simple hydraulic arm can right a wheeled vehicle.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Navigate spaces built for humans ? </font><br /><br />That won’t be a problem on Mars.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Being generally a more robust method of locomotion in varying environments. </font><br /><br />Articulated arms would never be more robust than wheels. Pound for pound, wheels and axles would not only be more robust, but require less energy for the same locomotion in almost every case. In addition, a wheeled vehicle could travel much faster, much more easily across open ground. For the few instances where an articulated leg robot would be better, it would not be worth the downside.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
OK fellas, and gals. how about a compromise? A wheeled main rover. and a smaller scout (think size of house cat or something) leged walker. When the wheeled rover was unable to go into a small or difficult for wheels terrain the scout would be deployed to the ground via whatever means deemed the most efficent and it could go do sampling in a more "remote area" it could carry limited telemetry with only enough power to relay back to the rover thus saving power and weight. Make it only battary operated and rechargeable from the rover. Rover having solar panels or RTG for power generation.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Mother Nature chose multiple legs for a reason: stability in widely varying terrains. We should learn her lessons.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, I think "wheels" are pretty much impossible for nature (although you can simulate them). For example, try routing nerves and blood vessels into a wheeled structure. Or try to wrap a skin around a wheel and have it rotate.<br /><br />Although, this leads me back to one of my original positions for "legs" over "wheels" -- you can wrap legs in a skin and protect everything from the external environment (e.g., abrasive dust) that can get between the moving parts.</i>
 
D

docm

Guest
Yup, and wrapping the locomotive parts would be of great benefit on the Moon where dust gets into <i>everything</i>. Asteroids, comets and many parts of Mars likely the same.<br /><br />Very few examples of animals that use wheel-like locomotion including;<br /><br />Nannosquilla decemspinosa (shrimp like crustacean)<br /><br />Pleurotya ruralis (caterpillar of the Mother of Pearl moth)<br /><br />When necessary both use the wheel principle for locomotion by curling up and rolling, frequently backwards. Nannosquilla decemspinosa does it when on land while Pleurotya ruralis uses it when threatened. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
wheels are notoriously bad for climbing. Do a google search and you will see that very few of climbing robot developers attempt to do it with wheels. Especially when we talk about climbing into craters and tunnels.<br />For instance, see RLEP2 current simulations<br /><br />http://www.digitalspace.com/projects/dss/rlep-v2/index.html<br /><br />They are attempting to model on how to get into shadowed craters to look for the ice with conventional six-wheeled robots. I must say, it looks tricky in simulation, it will look worse in real life ( if the attempt is ever made, but thats another topic )<br />Whereas with spidery-like robot, you could pretty much run anywhere into the crater and out of it with no sweat.<br /><br />There have been experiments and current ongoing research at JPL on such crawler robots, but all that is moving rather slowly probably because different set of priorities.<br />http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/systemImages.cfm?System=5<br /> <br />http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=5<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To extract the full science potential from planetary-surface operations, robots must be able to access the entire surface of the planetary body, not just the relatively level areas.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />So please go tell these guys that they are wasting their time, because wheels are good enough.
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
<font color="yellow"> So please go tell these guys that they are wasting their time, because wheels are good enough. </font><br /><br />The real question here has yet to be addressed. That is, what would be the purpose of a rover on Mars? <br /><br />What information do we need at the present time in order to prepare for manned missions and viable self-sufficient colonies on Mars? IMO, we don’t need to <i> extract the full science potential from planetary-surface operations</i> at this time. That can be done at a time when we have established a permanent presence on Mars and can actually do something about that level of information. Right now, the information we need can be gathered by wheeled robots. We need basic information from many different locations, and a from a wide area around each of those locations. Some of the data required would be:<br />* Comprehensive Soil analysis from the top few inches.<br />* Comprehensive Soil analysis from the top 2 feet.<br />* Comprehensive surface and core analysis of small and large rocks and boulders.<br />* Comprehensive Core analysis from up to 10-15 meters down.<br />* Precise terrain imaging and mapping over wide areas.<br />* Seismic information from a wide area around each location.<br /><br />All of this can be done best with large SUV sized rovers (like Big Al) capable of high travel speeds across open ground. It is unlikely that we will need any information for the preparation of manned and colonial missions, that will require small walking robots. Once the basic surveying has been done by Big Al, and the colonists arrive, Big Al can be used to help construct the base. Cargo and habitat modules will probably be landed in the general area, but will need to be towed or carried to the base site. Big Al can also be used as a bulldozer to cover modules with regolith for protection against radiation and meteorites.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>All of this can be done best with large SUV sized rovers (like Big Al) capable of high travel speeds across open ground. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />If you want to travel fast, you dont stay on the ground. <br /><br />Why did Mars enter the discussion, BTW ?
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
<font color="yellow"> If you want to travel fast, you dont stay on the ground. </font><br /><br />At 6% of the density of Earth’s atmosphere, the Martian atmosphere does not support flying vehicles very well. In addition, flying requires a great deal of energy, much more precise real-time control, and passes over relatively large amounts of surface. The Moon has no atmosphere, so moving “off the ground” would be difficult and energy inefficient (even at 1/6th gravity)<br /><br />The advantage of Big Al is the ability to travel relatively fast (perhaps 40mph), but able to stop anywhere to take samples. Also, it would be big enough to have a lot of sophisticated equipment and enough power to run it all.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Why did Mars enter the discussion, BTW ? </font><br /><br />From the first post: <i>”I wonder if any future Mars or Lunar rovers will borrow from this design?”</i><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
cmon, every approach has its tradeoffs. Martian flying options are seriously studied and lunar hopper-style landers as well.<br />Confining the whole exploration effort to wheeled vehicles is definitely not the most efficient solution in every aspect. Your 40mph rover will just have very limited applications, the entire mars is not flatlands by far, moon even less so.<br /><br />If you want mapping/surveillance of wide area, flying or orbiting vehicle makes most sense. If you want to explore a mixture of terrains close up, legged vehicle will win. <br />If you want to drive around fast on _just_ the flat surfaces, wheels make sense.<br /><br />Btw, heres how a humanoid robot will have better energy efficiency than a four or six-wheeler <br />http://www.murataboy.com/en/<br />http://robots.net/article/1656.html<br />( this is tonque in cheek, but do watch the videos .. )
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
Granted, every design has its drawbacks. If the goal was to study Mars remotely in great detail before ever setting foot there, I would agree that other types of rovers would be useful. However, that is a particularly wasteful agenda in both time and resources. Such detailed study would be of no practical use to us if we are not there to take advantage of it. In the meantime, limited funds and resources would be diverted away from manned exploration of Mars, and manned missions would be delayed unnecessarily, perhaps for decades. Again, there is nothing that Big Al could not find that would be of any significance to the building of the first colonies on Mars. Once the colonists are there and able to make use of the fine details these agile little rovers would discover is the time to send them out exploring. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Your 40mph rover will just have very limited applications, the entire mars is not flatlands by far, moon even less so. </font><br /><br />For that very reason, it would not be practical to establish a base where wheeled vehicles could not travel freely. For ordinary utilitarian use around the base and surrounding area, wheeled vehicles would be the standard. Therefore, using wheeled vehicles to scout the area would be reasonable and practical.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> If you want mapping/surveillance of wide area, flying or orbiting vehicle makes most sense. </font><br /><br />For wide area, yes. Our best orbiting cameras do not seem to be able to get high enough resolution to provide any useful detail. As for flying, do you realize the extreme limitations imposed by the Martian environment? With 6% atmospheric density and .38 gravity, aircraft on Mars would have to have wings which are 6.3 times larger to lift the same mass (which includes the mass of the wings).<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> If you want to explore a mixture of terrains close up, legged vehicle will win. </font><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts