1 of 54

Co-Robotics for Safe, Economical Space Operations

Alain Chau

altrchau@gmail.com

ASTE 527

December 18, 2012

;

SARA: Surrogate Astronaut Robotic Avatar

2 of 54

2

DARPA Avatar Program

& Grand Challenge

(2012-2013)

Semi-Autonomous Bipedal Robotic Surrogates for Soldiers
For “room clearing, sentry control and recovering combat casualties”
Disabled Veterans Able to Serve Again
Minimizing Injuries or Deaths

TELESAR V Robot Avatar

(2012)

Prof. Sasumu Tachi, Keio University
Hazardous Environments Scouting & Operation

Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Disaster

Casual/Social Telepresence

Technology Evolves

Avatars

Motivated by Human Safety

Working in

Hostile, Dangerous or Remote Environments

Applications:

Military

Industrial

Crisis

Social

Space

Alain Chau

altrchau@gmail.com

Interest In Humanoid Robotic Avatars

3 of 54

3

Source: MGM, WB

Source: NASA

Working In Space

Space Environment is Dangerous, High-Risk

Human Astronauts Increase Mission Expense, Constraints & Complexity

Large-Scale Future Space Ops Will Be More Complex, Generate More Problems & Risks

Human Interaction Needed to Troubleshoot & Adapt to the:

Unpredictable
Unbounded
Poorly-Defined

Alternative Needed w/o Compromising Safety, Cost & Human Advantages

Manned Space Operations: Dangerous Costly Complex

Humans Face Many Dangers During EVA

Human Astronauts Increase Mission Expense & Complexity

High Financial & Political Costs
Limited Crew Maintainable
Loss of Dexterity from Space Suit
Mission Constraints Imposed

Reliance on Automated Robotic Systems Leads to Complexity and Potential Mission-Killing Malfunctions

Human astronauts needed for their troubleshooting and adaptability

Robots are needed to reduce costs and improve human safety in space

Manned Space Has Been Government Space

Human Expansion into Space has Been Stunted by Safety Concerns and High Costs of Operation

Governments Bore the Responsibility & Costs

Putting People into Hazardous Environments For Non-Profit, Scientific Research Missions

Significant Turn-off for Non-Government Firms

High Costs and Low Return of Investment in Sending People into Space
A Single Failure or Loss of Life Would Spell Disaster for Any Private Enterprise
Little Incentive to Engage in Such High Risk Operations

4 of 54

4

Humanoid Robotics Offers the Ability to Tackle Poorly Defined Tasks and Accomplish Complex Operations

NASA-GM Robonaut 2

DLR (ESA) Justin Humanoid

RSA SAR-400

Humanoid Robotics in Space

Coupled with High Fidelity Telepresence, Widespread Use of Humanoid Robotic Avatars Can Change How We Operate in and Perceive Space

Source: NASA

Source: DLR

Source: RSA

5 of 54

5

SARA: An Astronaut’s Second Body

Creating a Medium Through Which Human Agencies Can Work in Space

Better Safety
Economical
Reliability & Redundancy
Increase Frequency of Access
Practical, Adaptable Design

Relieves Constraints of Human Safety & its Inherent Costs from Mission Design

Provides Private Enterprise With Inexpensive Access to ‘Manned’ Space Activities

Potentially Mass-Produced for Routine Deployment

Employ Avatar Technology for

Cheaper, Safer Access to Space for Government and Private Industry

;

SARA: Surrogate Astronaut Robotic Avatars

By advancing the concept of co-robotics, our relationship with robots can evolve into more than just a partnership: a symbiosis, or unification.

By bringing the latest in teleoperation and humanoid robotic technologies into space, we can achieve a near-perfect virtual transportation of ourselves into the space environment. Surrogate Astronaut Robotic Avatars, or SARAs, would allow us to operate freely in any number of complex and unpredictable tasks in an inhospitable space, without concern for our mortal bodies. We would retain our cognizance, and our physical adaptability, unconstrained by pressurized vessels or suits, and we would also obtain the durability and dexterity of mechanized systems.

Humanoid Robotic Avatars (Proposal)

‘Extending Human Cognitive and Dexterous Ability’ through Telepresence
All of the Advantages of the Human Body and Mind and More, with Fewer Risks
Rapidly Deployable, Easily controllable

On-site troubleshooting
General exploration and research in the space environment

Eliminating the Gap Between Man and Machine

Not simply a tool to assist astronauts, but a means of extending human cognitive and physical presence

Will not completely supplant personal human exploration in space, but will act as a less risky alternative or supplement

Applying the latest and emerging technologies in Telerobotics to allow exploration and operation in space like never before

6 of 54

Multi-Camera Wide Angle High Definition Stereo Vision

Visible and Invisible Light Spectrums
Stereo Audio for Atmospheric Environments

Estimated Specifications:

Height: 1.5m (5’-6’)

Width: 0.6m (2’)

Mass: 150-250 kg

Degrees of Freedom: +60

Upper Body: 19 /hand

7 /arm

7 in Head

3 in Torso

Legs/Lower Body: 3 in Hips

4 /foot

4 /Leg

Grip Force: 5-6 lbs

Lifting Capacity: ~20lbs/arm

The Basics of SARA: Humanoid Robotics

Light-Weight Material Construction:

Aluminum, Carbon Fiber, Composites, Non-Metallic Materials
Fabric Outer ‘Skin’ with Padding
Electromagnetic Shielding

Modular Design for Easy Limb Replacement & Construction

Torso Houses ‘Brain’

Multiple High Radiation Tolerance Computer Processors
Digital Status Display (Name of Operator, On/Off, Battery Status)

Two Arms of Equal Length

~2-foot reach per arm
Compliant for Safety

Robust Dexterous Hands

19 Degrees of Freedom Per Hand
Capable of using Human Tools
Complex Finger Manipulation

Power Supply Backpack:

Batteries, Fuel Cells, etc.
Power Conversion System

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

Heat Sinks for Internal Heat Dissipation

Antenna to Receive User Input Data Wirelessly

7 of 54

7

Adaptability

Over

Specialization

Taking the Human Form into Space Unhindered

Ergonomics: Relationship With System Tools, Workspace & Environment

Familiarity of Form

Convenient & Pleasant

;

Why Does SARA Need a Human Form?

Source: Boston Dynamics

8 of 54

8

Natural Action, Reaction, & Interaction

Does Whatever a Human Can in Dangerous or Non-Ideal Environments

Use the Same Tools, Vehicles, Methods

No Need for Specialized Equipment

Robot?

;

Intuitive & Immersive Telepresence

Natural Motion 🡪 Flexibility in Operations

Source: NASA

9 of 54

9

	Suited Astronaut (Apollo A7LB Spacesuit)	SARA
Mass	Suit ~96 kg+ Human ~60kg = ~156 kg	150-250 kg (depends on task)
Protections to User	Temperature Extremes, Space Vacuum, Radiation, Micro-Meteoroids	Full-Body Protection, User is Not At Task Site Durable Robotic Body Designed for Extremes
Dexterity	Pressurization of Suit (25.5 kPa) = Rigidity in Limbs and Fingers/Gloves	Only as Limited as the Robot’s Emulation of Human Physique: Total Freedom of Motion Possible
EVA Duration	~7 hours Life Support (+30 minute backup)	On Battery: A Few Hours (TBD) Tethered to Station: Potentially Limitless
Limitations	Heavy Life Support Backpack can Unbalance Astronaut in Partial-g Environments Limited Deployment at a Time Risks to Health & Life Limits Tasks Astronaut Fatigue After Extended Periods	Potential Latency Issues in Control Robotic Part Malfunctions May Need Extensive Cleaning Post-Terrestrial Op Control May Depend on Line of Sight with Operator
Other Advantages & Notes	Direct Human Presence & Eyes on the Task Liquid Cooling System Under External Suit	Users can be Interchanged Easily Many Can Be Deployed at a Time High Risk Activities Possible

;

SARA vs. Suited Astronaut

Source: NASA

Apollo A7LB Spacesuit Specs

Name: Apollo A7LB Spacesuit

Manufacturer: International Latex Corporation (ILC) Dover and Hamilton Standard (primary life support systems)

Missions: Apollo 15-17

Function: Intra-vehicular activity (IVA), orbital Extra-vehicular activity and terrestrial Extra-vehicular activity (EVA)

Operating Pressure: 3.7 psi (25.5 kPa)

IVA Suit Weight: 64.6 lb (29.3 kg)

EVA Suit Weight: 78 lb (35.4 kg)

Total EVA Suit Weight 212 lb (96.2 kg)

Primary Life Support: 7 hours (420 minutes)

Backup Life Support: 30 minutes

Point of Comparison as suit was used for Human EVA on another terrestrial body, where SARAs may one day operate.

Baseline Extravehicular Mobility Unit Spacesuit

Manufacturer: International Latex Corporation (ILC) Dover and Hamilton Standard (primary life support systems)^[1]

Missions: STS-6 (1983) to STS-110 (2002)

Function: orbital extra-vehicular activity

Operating Pressure: 4.3 psi (29.6 kPa)

EVA Suit Weight: 109 lb (49.4 kg)

Total Shuttle EVA Suit Weight 254 lb (115 kg)

Primary Life Support: 8 hours (480 minutes)

Backup Life Support: 30 minutes

Enhanced Extravehicular Mobility Unit Spacesuit

Manufacturer: International Latex Corporation (ILC) Dover, Hamilton Standard (primary life support systems) and NASA (SAFER)^[1]

Missions: 1998 to present^[1]

Function: orbital extra-vehicular activity^[1]

Operating Pressure: 4.3 psi (29.6 kPa)^[1]

EVA Suit Weight: 122 lb (55.3 kg)^[1]

Total Shuttle EVA Suit Weight 275 lb (124.7 kg)^[1]

Total ISS EVA Suit Weight 319 lb (145 kg)^[1]

Primary Life Support: 8 hours (480 minutes)^[1]

Backup Life Support: 30 minutes^[1]

10 of 54

10

Dexterous Hands Advantage For Remote Ergonomic Tasks

🡨 The Shadow Robot Company’s Shadow Hand

Industrial Robot Hand Grasping Battery

Teleoperated Dexterous Humanoid Hand:

Grasping Battery in Different Ways

Teleoperated Dexterous Humanoid Hand: Tool Manipulation

Source: JPL

Dexterous Robotic Hands Can Be As Nimble As An Ungloved Human’s

Fingertip Sensors Can Relay Sensory Information from Environment

Astronaut’s Bulky Gloved Fingers

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

Dexterous Limitations in Astronaut Gloves: Pressurization Requirement

Robotic fingers don’t have to fight the pressure & material of Astronaut gloves

Adaptable End-Effector Uses Same Tools as an Astronaut
Multiple Fingers Allow Different Handling Configurations
No Need for Specialized Fixtures for Different Operations
Ergonomically Complex Tasks Possible

Haptic Technology (Japan: TELESAR V)

“The TELESAR V’s hands and fingers are equipped with a number of sensors to capture and relay tactile information to its operator through special gloves. The primary sensor inside each fingertip is a vision-based force sensor which is comprised of a wide-angle camera that looks through a gel-layer mixed with thermochromic ink. When the gel compresses, the thermochromic ink becomes denser, which the camera interprets as force information.

Microphones underneath the robot’s fingertips convert low to mid level vibrations; when pouring marbles from one cup to another (as the robot), the operator feels the tactile sensation from doing so. Furthermore, the operator is able to sense changes in temperature at the robot’s fingertips, thanks to thermoelectric peltier devices which reproduce warm and cold temperature inside the operator’s gloves. Now even an object’s texture can be relayed to the operator.”

Telesar V: 16 DOF per hand vs Robonaut 2’s 12

EVA Mobility: EMU, Grapples (hooks & cords)

Power (Operating Period?)& Communications(Status of robot displayable)

Why humanoid 🡪 own slide, alternative shapes

11 of 54

11

Robot Mobility Advantage: Bipedal

Bipedal Locomotion for Terrestrial Mobility

Maintain Human Ergonomic Form and Function
Highest Fidelity Virtual Presence
Various Stances For Situational Adaptation

Negate Limitations of Pressurized Suits

BD PETMAN

kneels

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

Pressurization Turns the Suits into “Stiff Balloons that Make Movement Difficult and Tiring”

-Prof. Dava Newman (MIT)

Source: NASA

Source: Boston Dynamics

12 of 54

12

Wheeled System

Quadruped

Swappable Lower Torso Systems for Adaptable Mission Requirements

Quadruped Systems: Unstable Terrain Transportation
Wheeled Systems: Flat Terrain Rapid Deployment

Space EVA Mobility

No Legs Required

Tethered to Station (Hook & Line)
Attached to Station Robot Arm (Power Dependence)
Astronaut Propulsion Unit (APU): Space Independence

SAFER

(APU)

SARA Utilizes Existing & Emerging Technologies:

Using Private and Government Program Developments

Alternative Mobility Options : Non-Bipedal

Station Arm Attachment

Source: NASA

Source: Boston Dynamics

13 of 54

13

Human Operator Control Devices: Exoskeleton Interface

Source: ESA

X1

Source: NASA

Source: DLR

Telepresence Exoskeleton Gear

With Sensory Feedback

Full-Body Strength Augmenting Exoskeleton

Full-Body Telepresence Exoskeleton Control Interface

X-Arm

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

14 of 54

14

Full-Body Force Feedback System

Transmits Forces Felt By Robot Limbs/Body to User Exoskeleton

Intuitive Interaction with Surroundings

Haptic Control Devices: Exoskeleton Interface

Body Grounded Exoskeleton Suit for Operator Control in μG Environments

Body Grounded Suit

Operator Maintains Stationary ‘Floating’ Position for μG & Full Body Operations
User Attached to End of a Robotic ‘Arm’
Force Feedback From the Suit Itself
Freedom to Move Legs

Without Ground Interference

Zero Floor Contact

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

15 of 54

15

Head Mounted Display and Sensory Feedback

1280 x 800 pixel Head Mounted Display

TELESAR V (Tachi Laboratory, Keio University)

You’ve Got the Touch:

Force Sensor: Gel Layer Thermochromic Ink with Interpretive Camera

Vibration & Tactile Sensor: Microphones Beneath Fingertips

Temperature Sensor: Peltier Devices Reproduce Warm/Cold

Force Vector Sensors: Shape of Objects & Surface Evenness

Robot-to-Human Data Would Require Substantially High Data Rates and High Bandwidth

To Maintain Real-Time Sensory Link:

Visuals
Audio (if applicable)
Haptic Feedback
Collision Detection
Individual Finger Sensory Data

User Feels What the Avatar Feels, Sees What It Sees, Hears What It Hears

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

16 of 54

16

ESA’s METERON ‘Space Internet’ Communications

Experiment for Space Robotics Architectures

Multi-Purpose End-To-End Robotic Operation Network

Image Sources: ESA

Possible Data Rates

Uplink: 256kbps

Downlink: 4Mbps

High Data Rate,

High Bandwidth,

Real-Time Telecommunications

Currently Being Developed and Tested by the METERON Project

Latency Issues Will Be A Limiting Factor in Operations

Minimal Round Trip Delay: 100ms Max

Real-Time Link

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

End-to-End Communications Network for Real-Time Teleoperations

Communications Network will be handled by Government resources

In two to three years (2013,2014), the experimental robot Justin on Earth will faithfully mimic the movements of an astronaut on the Space Station.

Distant robots can be controlled...

By wearing an exoskeleton wearable robot – a combination of arm and glove with electronic aids to reproduce the sensations a human hand would feel – a distant operator can work as though he were there. (ESA, 2011)

Recently Tested Nov 2012: Astronaut Sunita Williams, commander of the International Space Station's current Expedition 33 mission, used NASA's experimental Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocol to drive a small LEGO robot at the European Space Operations Center in Germany late last month.

At its core is something called the Bundle Protocol (BP), which is similar to the Internet Protocol, or IP, that serves as the heart of the Internet here on Earth.

The big difference between the two is that IP assumes a seamless end-to-end data path, while BP is built to account for errors and disconnections — glitches that commonly plague deep-space communications.

17 of 54

Short-Range/Local Operations: Microwave Transmission Link

Point-to-Point/Line of Sight
Common in Satellite and Space Communications
Useful in Terrestrial Operations

17

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

End-to-End Communications Network for Real-Time Teleoperations

Long-Range: Free-Space Optical (Laser) Communications

High Bandwidth, High Data Rate Applications
Requires Accurate Line-of-Sight
100s of Mbit/s to Gbits/s Range Possible

Methods of Communicating Data Between Operator and SARA Will Vary Based on Proximity and Tasks, and Will Require Further Development as Communications Technology Improves

Source: NASA

18 of 54

Ni-MH Battery

Boston-Power Li-Ion Cells

Potential Independent

Power Systems:

High Energy Density Batteries

Robonaut 2:

Lithium Ion Battery-Pack

(Boston-Power Swing Battery)

2.5kWh Energy Storage System

Extended Cycle and Calendar Life

Wide Operating Temperature Range

Lithium-Air Batteries

Light-Weight, High Energy

High Power Rechargeable Batteries

HRP-family, ASIMO, Hybrid-Electric Vehicles:

Nickel-Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) Battery

Fuel Cells

Shared Power From

External Source

Battery Energy Density Trends

Lithium-Ion vs. Ni-MH vs. Ni-Cd

Source: Panasonic (2006)

Energy Density Nearly Doubled in a Decade

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

Goal: Provide Power for 5-10 Continuous Hours of Independent Operation

19 of 54

Comparatively Low Financial Cost Per Unit

19

Cost of One Space Suit (EMU): ~$12M	Cost of Robonaut 2: ~$2.5M	Honda ASIMO: < $1.0M	HRP-4: ~$320K	HRP-4C $200K	SARA Cost <$1.0M?

~10-15 SARAs

~30+

SARAs

Manufacture and Evolution by Private Enterprise Following a Proof of Concept by the Government Could Decrease Costs While Improving Performance Over Time

Orbital Teleoperation Advantage

Operating from an Orbital base in Lieu of a Manned Landing on Another Planet Could Reduce Costs by a Factor of 10

;

The Cost of SARAs

Launch More Workers Into Space For Less Money

20 of 54

Consider a Mission to Repair a Satellite in LEO:

6 Human Crew Members vs. 2 Human Crew Members and +4 SARAs vs. 6 SARAs

Assuming $200M in Mission Related Items and Development Costs

Utilizing Government and Private Launch Systems

Project M (2010, NASA)

Rob Ambrose, Director, JSC
Project head Stephen J. Altemus, Project Manager Matt Ondler
Send bipedal Robonaut 2 to Moon for <$200M in 1000 days (+$250M for a Launch Vehicle),
Modern Apollo Program cost is roughly $109B (2010), averaging $18B per landing, or $9.9B per piloted mission

Assuming a Value Per Astronaut of $50M, which Includes Their Intrinsic Worth and Training for Space Ops.

(Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and of the Mars Society, author Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must )

2 Soyuz Launches

Crewed Dragon

Space Shuttle

Soyuz + Soyuz Cargo

Crewed Dragon

Soyuz + Falcon 9

Soyuz Cargo

Dragon Cargo

Falcon 9 + Adapter

;

Potential Mission Cost Comparisons

21 of 54

The Multi-Purpose Robot

Human EVA Buddy/Surrogate
In-Space Assembly Projects
In-Space Inspection and Repairs
Scientific Research Platform/Explorer
Infrastructure Planning and Development
Supervisory Roles in Other Co-Robotic Activities
Remote Team Interactions
Any Task a Human Can Do & More

21

SARAs Retain Human Adaptability, and Can Be Used for:

Robonaut 2 on the ISS

Recently Accomplished Routine Maintenance Task

Measured Air Flow Velocity of Station Ventilation System

Simple Tasks Can Rely on Automation

SARAs Have a Bigger Purpose

;

SARAs: Multi-Purpose Avatar

Source: NASA

22 of 54

22

Validation Aboard ISS

Utilizing ISS as Testing Grounds for Avatar Operations

Evolved from METERON & Robonaut Projects

Showcase Co-Robotic Potential, Teleoperated EVA Capacities

Fulfilling Supporting Roles Aboard Station Akin to R2

Teleoperated Co-Robotic Interaction

EVA Deployment

;

Applying SARA Near-Term: International Space Station

Before Unleashing SARA across Government and Private Space, its Capabilities Must First be Tested and Determined

Utilizing the ISS as a Test Bed for SARA and Avatar Operations

Evolved from METERON & Robonaut Projects
Validate Co-Robotic Potential, Teleoperated EVA Capacities, While Fulfilling Supporting Roles Aboard Station

Significant Volume Necessary to Gauge Capacity of SARA Space Independence

Dedicated ISS Extension Module for SARA Teleoperation Activities, Experiments and Maintenance

The numerous possible applications of SARAs are one of the concept’s many strengths. Extravehicular activities for instance could be performed quicker and more frequently. Without the need of a pre-breathe period, SARAs would be ideal in emergency situations aboard crewed space stations, allowing swift response to external damage and on the spot trouble-shooting. With avatar deployment in orbit being relatively cheap compared to crewed operations, satellite maintenance and large construction projects could become possible and highly practical.

Applications

Extra-Vehicular Activities

Station and Satellite Maintenance/Repairs
Virtual Spacewalk

Visitation Through Telepresence

Remote Specialist Presence

Telesurgery in Space
Technicians, Diplomats, Family

Telepresence Research Co-operation Between Ground and Space Teams
Virtual Tourism

Environmental Scouting/Exploration

Beyond LEO Exploration: Moon, NEO, Accessible Bodies
Hazardous Environments Exploration
Construction Project Scouting
Virtual Human Presence – Pre-colonization Establishment

23 of 54

23

Simultaneously Adding Habitable Volume to the ISS for the Crew

Complete In-Space Testbed for Orbital Applications

Expandable Multi-Module Lab with Teleoperation Suite
Based on Bigelow Aerospace TransHab & BA Module Design Elements

SARA Airlock for Astronaut EVA Co-Robotics

SARA Spare Part Storage

SARA Teleoperations Module

External SARA Pods

SARA Exposed Task-boards & Experiments

SARA Repair/Workshop

;

Applying SARA Near-Term: ISS SARA Module

24 of 54

24

As SARA EVAs Becomes More Reliable, The Module Can be Expanded Further to Test Large Scale Orbital Construction Projects Capabilities

Use SARAs to Build And Test Space Stations & Habitats

Humanoid Form = Human Ergonomic Equivalent

;

Prospects of ISS Validation

25 of 54

25

After the ISS, Send SARA Equipped People to the Moon

;

Next Phase: Lunar Lander

26 of 54

Following ISS Validation of SARA Orbital Capabilities
Demonstrate Applicability and Practicality of Using SARAs for Large-Scale, Crewed Spacecraft:

Cis-Lunar Vehicles
Lunar/Planetary Landers
Surface Habitats
Surface Colony Infrastructure

Showcase Terrestrial Capabilities

Lunar Crew Teleoperated SARAs for EVA
Lunar Co-Robotic Infrastructure Development Testing
Lunar Exploration/ Reconnaissance
Geological Survey/Sampling
Scientific Experimentation

26

Testing SARA Capabilities for Interplanetary Exploration

;

SARA Lunar Mission

27 of 54

27

Using the model of the ISS Module, create a large volume crewed landing vessel with a Teleoperation Suite for Multiple SARA extra-vehicle ops

Lunar and Extra-Planetary Surface Operations

Vehicle Cockpit

Teleoperations Suite C-TOPS

Crew Quarters

Laboratory, Storage

Cleaning Room, Workbench,

Storage

Elevator Airlock

Communications Array

“SARA Cleaning Room”

EVA Elevator & Airlock

Engine (x4)

;

SARA Lunar Mission

Height: 23 m

Diameter: 10 m

Maintenance: SARA cleaned after EVA

Crewed activities with robots EVA

Building off of ISS SARA Module as a Testbed for Independent Operations

Develop a Lunar Lander Vehicle for SARA Operations in Deep Space or Planetary Body Surface

A Crewed SARA Lunar Mission

Using the model of the ISS Module, create a large volume crewed landing vessel with a Teleoperation Suite for Multiple SARA extra-vehicle ops
Ideal for precursory construction projects:

Supervisory Role, or Direct Involvement

Utilizing SARAs terrestrial adaptability, using them for surface operations on lunar and extra-planetary operations could be the next best thing to actually being there. Since the human operator’s life is not necessarily in any danger, the avatars could engage in much riskier treks across alien worlds, either alone or alongside human explorers, performing the ‘dirty work’ for them. SARAs could also be useful in supervisory roles in other co-robotic projects, such as colony infrastructure development performed by automated robotic systems.

Applications

Extra-Vehicular Activities

Station and Satellite Maintenance/Repairs
Virtual Spacewalk

Visitation Through Telepresence

Remote Specialist Presence

Telesurgery in Space
Technicians, Diplomats, Family

Telepresence Research Co-operation Between Ground and Space Teams
Virtual Tourism

Environmental Scouting/Exploration

Beyond LEO Exploration: Moon, NEO, Accessible Bodies
Hazardous Environments Exploration
Construction Project Scouting
Virtual Human Presence – Pre-colonization Establishment

28 of 54

28

EVA Co-Robotics

Astronauts Assist SARAs Outside Vehicle Only When Necessary

Rely Entirely on SARAs for EVA

Increasing Possible Virtual Personnel Outside
SARAs Can Operate Independently in Lieu of Direct Human Partner, But Are Still Fully Controlled By Humans

Humans Servicing SARAs

Extensive Cleaning and Decontamination Post-EVA
SARAs Require Thorough Cleaning in Order to Maintain Fully Functional

Dust and Small Particles Can Wear and Obstruct Robotic Joints

SARAs are Machines, and Machines Can Malfunction

Humans or Other SARAs can Repair in Vehicle or On-Site

;

Testing the Limits: SARA-Human Co-Dependence

29 of 54

29

What Could SARA Do for the Future of Humans in Space?

Should SARAs Pass the Proof of Concept Projects:

Limits of Human Access to Space May be Lifted

Private Space Will Have a Safe, Economical Means of Operating In Orbit & Beyond

Longer, More Intuitive Interactions in the Space Environment

SARAs Working Alongside Human Astronauts to Achieve Complex System Architectures

Massive Orbital Infrastructure Development & Maintenance

;

Prospects of SARAs

Source: NASA

30 of 54

30

Lunar Infrastructure Construction and Development

Space Station Construction, Validation and Virtual Population

;

Prospects of SARAs

The Technology Exists to Make SARAs Reliable Surrogates for Humans in Space

SARAs Can Be the Tool By Which Humans Expand Beyond Earth, By Sending Our Minds To Build & Explore Before Our Bodies Inhabit

Source: NASA

31 of 54

Thank You

Comments or Questions?

31

32 of 54

References

Kiana Dolat, Behnaz Farahi,Golnar Iranpour , et al. “Architectural Concepts Employing Co-Robot Strategy and Contour Crafting Technologies for Lunar Settlement Infrastructure Development”. AIAA Space 2012 Conference, Pasadena, CA., Space Colonization Session, COL-1 – AIAA 1351369
Lafleur, Claude. ‘Costs of US piloted programs’ The Space Review. March 8, 2010 . http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1
Lester, Dan. “The Next Best Thing”. The Space Review. September 4, 2012

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2150/1

National Robotics Initiative. http://www.nasa.gov/robotics/
Ondler, Matt. “Robonaut: Project M”. July 6 2010. http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/future/HistoryandPhilosophy/
Piejko, Pawel. “Robotic avatar transmits real-time sensations of remote environment”

http://www.gizmag.com/telesar-v-telexistence-robot-avatar/20423/

“Outer space close enough to touch – DLR telepresence research”. 3 September 2010 http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-6215/10210_read-26483/10210_page-2/
‘Robonaut 2: NASA Fact Sheet’. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/464887main_Robonaut2FactSheet.pdf
Shadow Robot Company. http://www.shadowrobot.com/
Thomson, Helen.“Robot avatar body controlled by thought alone”. July 2012

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528725.900-robot-avatar-body-controlled-by-thought-alone.html?full=true

32

33 of 54

References

Dillow, Clay. ‘A Robot With a Human Skeleton’. PopSci. March 4, 2012. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/video-can-worlds-most-human-robotic-body-help-crack-code-human-robot-intelligence
Japanese Science and Technology Agency. http://www.jst.go.jp/EN/
Landis, Geoffrey A. ‘LET'S ORBIT MARS: A PROPOSAL TO EXPLORE MARS NOW’. NASA, 2005. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050198875_2005199183.pdf
M. A. Diftler, C. J. Culbert, et al. ‘Evolution of the NASA/DARPA Robonaut Control System’. NASA/DARPA. 2003
Scudellari, Megan ‘Missing Touch’. The Scientist, September 2012.

http://the-scientist.com/2012/09/01/missing-touch/

Tachni Labs, Virtual Reality and Telexistence. http://tachnilabs.org
‘Telesar V Avatar Transfers Touch, Vibration, Temperature’. http://www.plasticpals.com/?p=32904
Uri Kartoun, Helman Stern, Yael Edan. ‘Virtual Reality Telerobotic System’ . Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Adam Hadhazy, ‘NASA’s Experimental Laser Communication System’ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/how-it-works-nasas-experimental-laser-communication-system
“Driving a Robot from the Space Station”. 29 June 2011� http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering/Driving_a_robot_from_Space_Station
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

33

34 of 54

34

29 June 2011�

References

Marc Carter, “Declining Lithium-Ion Battery Costs Could Knock Thousands Off the Price of Electric Cars”. 07/12/12 http://inhabitat.com/declining-lithium-ion-battery-costs-could-knock-thousands-off-the-cost-of-electric-cars/
Jon Fingas, “NASA and IHMC building X1 exoskeleton to give us a lift, keep us fit in space and on Earth” Oct 12th, 2012. http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/12/nasa-and-ihmc-building-x1-exoskeleton-to-give-us-a-lift-in-space/
ERICO GUIZZO. “Building a Super Robust Robot Hand”. JANUARY 25, 2011
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/dlr-super-robust-robot-hand
ADAM MANN. “Almost Being There: Why the Future of Space Exploration Is Not What You Think”. 11.12.12. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/11/telerobotic-exploration/all/
Dr. André Schiele. “METERON and related technologies at ESA Telerobotics & Haptics Lab” ESA Telerobotics & Haptics Laboratory, (D-TEC Directorate), METERON Robotics PI Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Colloquium, June 11^th 2012. http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Schiele_7-11-12/Schiele_7-11-12.pdf
“Boston-Power’s Swing Battery Selected for NASA’s Humanoid Robot Project”. Aug 23, 2010. http://www.roboticstrends.com/design_development/article/boston_powers_swing_battery_selected_for_nasas_humanoid_robot_project
KATIE DRUMMOND. “Pentagon’s Project ‘Avatar’: Same as the Movie, but With Robots Instead of Aliens” 02.16.12. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/darpa-sci-fi/
TeleroboticsLab. “Controlling Robonaut R2A in ROS with Exoskeleton”. Nov 30, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmSjYffasfk
Skyler Frink. “Communicating at the speed of light: laser technology enables high-bandwidth communication and imagery” June 6, 2012 http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/06/laser-communications-feature.html

35 of 54

Robert Zubrin. “How Much Is an Astronaut’s Life Worth? NASA’s irrational approach to risk undermines its mission and costs thousands of lives” February 2012 http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/26/how-much-is-an-astronauts-life-worth
Dava Newman. “Building the Future Spacesuit” http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/ask/issues/45/45s_building_future_spacesuit.html
http://www.space.com/3057-nasa-mission-service-hubble-2008-cost-900-million.html
Wikipedia contributors. "Apollo/Skylab A7L." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Sep. 2012. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
Wikipedia contributors. "Extravehicular Mobility Unit." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
Wikipedia contributors. "STS-125." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
Wikipedia contributors. "Humanoid Robotics Project." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Dec. 2011. Web. 18 Dec. 2012.
“Space Communications with Mars”. http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/qsl-mars-communication3.htm
“Robot Field Testing - Terry Fong (SETI Talks)” . Jun 4, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVzIKA3HbRA

35

References

36 of 54

Back-up Slides

36

37 of 54

CONTEXT: �Overcoming Hazards, Costs and Complexity

Limitations on Human Space Activities

Human Safety & Health
High Deployment & maintenance Costs

Serious Turn-Off/Hindrance for Private Space Enterprises

Source: NASA

Incentive for Private Manned Flight is Low

Little Return of Investment
Costs May Outweigh Benefits
Single Mission Failure & Loss of Human Life 🡪 Company Reputation Ruined

Government Space Bore the Costs & Failures

For Non-Profit, Scientific Missions

Show the complexity of space operations to hint at how SARAs can help

Human Presence in Space Limited By Safety and Cost Concerns

Manned Space Operations Are Largely a Government Realm

For Non-Profit or Scientific Objectives
Dangerous Environment Still Limits The Amount of People Being Sent Up

High Launch and Maintenance Costs

Little Incentive for Private Industry to Send Humans into Orbit or Beyond

Little Return of Investment

Cost to Send & Maintain A Person into Space Outweighs the Benefits

A Single Mission Failure With Astronaut Loss Would Devastate a Private Company

Increased Human Activities in Space Could Change the Way Missions are Performed, Infrastructure is Developed, and How Space Itself is Perceived

A Safer, Cheaper Means of Extending Human Presence into Space is Needed

RATIONALE

The Need for an Alternative (Problem/Background)

Environmental Hazards in Space and Foreign Bodies

Vacuum
Extreme Pressures and Temperatures
Cosmic Rays
Space Debris
Zero-Gravity
Substantial training and preparation required for any EVA

Space Suit Limitations on Human Dexterity and Operation Period

Current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU): requires at least four hours of preparations before EVA (aboard ISS)
Dexterous limitations in suit gloves and limbs
Spatial Awareness Suffers
Costs ~$12M each!

High Costs and Low Financial Return of Investment

Human Safety Factors
Personnel Maintenance Once in Orbit
Space Environment Hazards on any EVA

38 of 54

38

Dependency on Human EVA

Why We Need ‘The Human Factor’

From Section 14.1.2.1.2 of NASA Man-Systems Integration Standards, Volume 1:

“The advantages of EVA include:

Task flexibility at the worksite: the EVA crewmember can perform a very wide range of tasks.
Dexterous manipulation and one-handed or two-handed manipulation at the task site.
High-resolution visual interpretation of the task site.
Human cognitive and interpretive capability at the task site.
Decision-maker and effector are at the task site.
Crewmember at task site is capable of implementing real-time alternative and unique approaches to a problem.”

Nothing can compare to the immediate cognitive awareness, interpretive and adaptive capabilities of a human being at the task site

A machine cannot truly make decisions or judgments on its own (yet)

Humans are adaptive, most machines can only accomplish what they were designed to accomplish

Co-Robotics will employ robotic assistants alongside humans, helping relieve some of the limitations that crewmembers face during EVAs

Source: NASA

Astronaut Scott Parazynski Repairing Damaged ISS Solar Panel

39 of 54

Future Space Ops will Get More Complex
System Simplification, Safety Improvements, and Situational Adaptability Needed For Mission Success

39

Dealing with Unknown Circumstances:

Unpredictable Events
Unbounded Parameters
Poorly Defined Tasks or Goals

Human Astronauts Needed to Troubleshoot the Issues, Adapt

Safety/Mortality Factor Comes Up Again

An Alternative is Needed Without Compromising Safety, Cost & Human Advantages

Manned Space Operations: Dangerous Costly Complex

STS-125

40 of 54

40

SPACE TELEROBOTICS

Telerobotics:

Remote Operation of Robots

Apart from Apollo, Shuttle and Space Station missions, most activities in space have been accomplished via autonomous or teleoperated robotic systems

Encompasses a Wide Range of Devices, Designed for Specific Tasks and Goals

Source: NASA JSC

Our Ambassadors in a Dangerous Space

41 of 54

41

Telerobotics & Co-Robotics

Increasing the safety of space exploration and operations while reducing costs

Telerobotics: Remote Operated Robots

Usually Designed with Specific Functions or Missions in Mind

Co-Robotics: Robotic Assistants or Surrogates

Designed to Supplement and Assist Human Astronauts at a Task Site

CONTEXT: Limited Human Access into Space:�The Contribution of Robotics

Utilizing Progress of NASA’s Robonaut, DLR’s Justin, the Humanoid Robotics Project (HRP) and Other Telepresence Robots Around the World

Allow intuitive telepresence operations in space without sacrificing dexterity or other human advantages

42 of 54

CO-ROBOTICS IN SPACE:�HUMAN-ROBOT COOPERATION

42

The Cooperative Human-Robot Relationship in Space is Currently Being Explored and Developed

National Robotics Initiative
‘Human Robotic Systems’ program

Capabilities of ‘Robotic Helpers’

Executing Complex Tasks with Humans
Performing Routine Tasks: ‘Housekeeping’ Operations

Deployment in Extraterrestrial or Hostile Environments
Human Supervision and Top Level Control Over Automated/Teleoperated Systems

Co-Robots Help Us Compensate for Our Physical Limitations Within the Space Environment

Source: NASA

Robonaut 2 and Astronaut: Evolving Co-Robotic Relations

Our Partners,

A Helping Hand

Though at first they may be little more than elaborate tools built to perform specific functions alone or alongside of our human astronauts, the concept of co-robotics (or human-robot cooperative activities) hopes to turn them into something more: partners, co-workers, co-inhabitants we can depend on in a universe filled with challenges and hazards. Co-Robotic activities allow us to retain some degree of control in a complex task while utilizing the durability and precision of machines that can operate freely in space. Work on this space-based partnership has already begun, with NASA and GM’s Robonaut 2 currently being tested aboard the ISS. While these co-robots serve to compensate for our weaknesses by working alongside or in lieu of us, they could also become more than just our partners.

Co-Robotics Already Encompass Many Areas of Modern Life
National Robotics Initiative

(OSTP, NSF, NASA, NIH, DOD, USDA)

The Cooperative Human-Robot Relationship in Space is Currently Being Explored and Developed

Capabilities

Executing Complex Tasks Together

Robots Built with Specific Purposes in Mind Can Execute Tasks Efficiently & Precisely
Partially Automated Systems with Human Supervision and Top Level Control

Full Automation is Risky, and Human Involvement is Necessary to Ensure Proper Goal Execution
Robotics Most Effective when Tasks and Conditions Can Be Reliably Predicted

Performing Routine Tasks

‘Housekeeping’ Operations

Deployment in Extraterrestrial or Hostile Environments

43 of 54

43

Benefits to Astronauts

Provides an Extra Set of Hands for Human Crew

“Outsourcing” Routine or Mundane Tasks to Far-Away Remote Operators on the Ground
Robotic Buddy System

(1 Astronaut, 1+ SARA vs. 2 Astronauts)

Reduces Required Manpower in EVA

Rapid Deployment in Hazardous EVA

Astronauts Require Lengthy Pre-breathe Period

EVAs Become a Routine Task

More Opportunities to Work on Station Exteriors

Allows Natural Interaction Between Space & Ground Crew

Cheaper, Safer Access to Space:

SURROGATE ASTRONAUT ROBOTIC AVATARS (SARAs)

Robot?

Human

44 of 54

44

Applying Current Technology and Innovations

Emulating Human Dexterity, Motion, and Balance

ECCE Robot

Anthropomimetic

Robot:

Source: University of Sussex (UK)

HRP-4C Humanoid Robot

Source: AIST (Japan)

Source: Boston Dynamics (USA)

Boston Dynamics: PETMAN

Natural, Agile Movement

Source: Shadow Robot Company (UK)

Pneumatic Artificial (Air) Muscles:

Shadow Dexterous Hand

Maintaining Human Adaptability and Control Though a Surrogate Body

Complete Hand Dexterity

Bipedal Locomotion offers ‘the highest fidelity virtual presence’ (Landis)

SARCOS Robot:

With Push Recovery

Source: Robotics Institute at

Carnegie Mellon University

Robonaut 1 Tying a Knot

Source: NASA DARPA

The technology behind SARA exists in various forms all around the world today. In order to provide the most reliable virtual presence, the avatar must be able to accurately emulate our bodies’ natural motions. This could mean anything from the movements of our individual fingers, to the sway of our walk. A fully humanoid robot capable of moving as we do would take advantage of millions of years of human evolution, and allow us to take those advantages unrestrained to an alien environment.

Robotic Tech – Advances in Robotics, Remote and Artificial Sensation (Feasibility)

Precision of Robotic Telepresence: Telesurgery

Shows precise control of machines over extremely far distances is possible

Artificial Muscles:

Shadow Dexterous Hand: Pneumatic Artificial Muscles

Simulation of muscle groups in machines to emulate human dexterity

ECCE Robot (ekay robot)

Anthropomimetic Robot: Artificial Analogs of Human Internal Structures
Built for hopeful AI integration, but concept could lend well to Telerobotic Avatars

Humanoid Robotics Project (HRP) (Japan)

Project to develop domestic co-robots

Balance and Movement: Boston Dynamics’ PetMan

Simulation of Human Biology in Mechanical Form

Self-Balance, Self-Reorientation Orientation
Moves like an actual person

Capable of walking, jumping, crawling
Agile motion is key to its purpose, and would be useful for Avatar applications

Real-Time Sensations of Remote Environment:

Sight, Hearing, and Touch

3-Dimensional Virtual Display

Haptic Technology (Japan: TELESAR V)

Virtual Interactive Environment Workstation (VIEW)

Sense of Touch: BioTacs & Robotic Touch Sensors

Application of Advances in Prosthetics Technology and Robotics

Robonaut 2

MEMS phalange sensing

Miniature Robotics (Japan: MH-2 Miniature Humanoid Virtual Presence)

Why limit the avatar to the size of a human?

45 of 54

45

Applying Current Technology and Innovations

Source: JST KeioUni.GSMD

Sensory Feedback Systems Built into User’s Gloves

Innovative Immersive Controls and Sensation Feedback

Tactile Discrimination

Relays Sensations Measured by the Robot to the User

Force & Vibrations
Surface Textures
Temperature

TELESAR V:

Telexistence Robot

Source: JST KeioUni.GSMD

Similar to VR Interface

Relaying Control Input and Sensory Data Between Robot to Human Operator (HO)

Intuitive Real-Time Transfer of Motion

Source: DLR

DLR’s Space Justin:

Satellite Servicing Robot

Source: JST KeioUni.GSMD

TELESAR V:

User-Robot Interface

An avatar that can move like us would mean little if we could not transfer our own motions to it, and receive sensory and tactile feedback from its environment. Utilizing a Virtual Reality-like interface, a human operator can maneuver their avatar through an environment as if they were there themselves. Advances in sensory feedback in telepresence robots would even allow the operator to experience the surface textures, weight and even temperatures of objects handled by their robotic counterparts. This real-time exchange of control input and sensory feedback is key to establishing a successful virtual presence, completing our cognitive transportation.

Robotic Tech – Advances in Robotics, Remote and Artificial Sensation (Feasibility)

Precision of Robotic Telepresence: Telesurgery
Pneumatic Artificial Muscles: Shadow Dexterous Hand
Balance and Movement: Boston Dynamics’ PetMan

Simulation of Human Biology in Mechanical Form

Self-Balance, Self-Reorientation Orientation

Real-Time Sensations of Remote Environment:

Sight, Sound, and Touch

3-Dimensional Virtual Display
Stereo Sound

Haptic Technology (Japan: TELESAR V)

“The TELESAR V’s hands and fingers are equipped with a number of sensors to capture and relay tactile information to its operator through special gloves. The primary sensor inside each fingertip is a vision-based force sensor which is comprised of a wide-angle camera that looks through a gel-layer mixed with thermochromic ink. When the gel compresses, the thermochromic ink becomes denser, which the camera interprets as force information.

Microphones underneath the robot’s fingertips convert low to mid level vibrations; when pouring marbles from one cup to another (as the robot), the operator feels the tactile sensation from doing so. Furthermore, the operator is able to sense changes in temperature at the robot’s fingertips, thanks to thermoelectric peltier devices which reproduce warm and cold temperature inside the operator’s gloves. Now even an object’s texture can be relayed to the operator.”

Telesar V: 16 DOF per hand vs Robonaut 2’s 12

Control using only the mind (

Student in Israel controlled a small humanoid robot at the Béziers Technology Institute in France using only his mind
First mind controlled robot surrogate: ~1250 miles away

Sense of Touch: BioTacs

Application of Advances in Prosthetics Technology
Technical University Munich (TUM) Bioloid Robot

Hexagonal Sensors: Touch, and Temperature Sensativity (and accelerometers)
Giving Robots a Sensative Skin for Environmental Awareness

Miniature Robotics (Japan: MH-2 Miniature Humanoid Virtual Presence)

Why limit the avatar to the size of a human?

46 of 54

46

Experiencing Beyond Human Senses:

Full Control of Sight, Sound and Touch

1280 x 800 pixel Head Mounted Display

Adjustable Sensory Feedback

Toggle/Regulate Environmental Audio

Toggle Between Visible Light, Infrared, Night Vision, and Other Spectrums

Switching & Adjusting Modes in Real-Time

Night Vision

Telescopic Vision

Infrared Thermography

;

Utilizing Existing and Emerging Technologies

Private and Government Sector Developments

47 of 54

Support Systems for SARA

47

EVA Deployment

Orbital

Attached to exterior of stations for Rapid Deployment
Launched in small spacecraft that houses telecomm systems, power systems, tools and task materials
Could remain in orbit near task site or reenter atmosphere upon mission completion

Terrestrial

Deployed in Small Atmospheric Reentry ‘Pods’

‘Drop pods’ from orbit to planetary surfaces
Small landing craft also viable

Similar to Mars Rover deployment methods

48 of 54

48

System Architecture For Orbital Operations:

Use of Existing Resources

Direct Station to Task Site Control

For Crewmember Avatar Deployment

Data Relay Satellite

TDRS Network in GEO Relays Input Signal From Earth to ISS or Task Site

To Maintain Continuous Link to Avatar

Relays Sensation Information from Robot to User

LEO Task Site

HO & Input Control Interface at Operating Site

SARA at Task Site

LEO Task Site

NASA

White Sands Complex

Control Input

Sensory Feedback

49 of 54

49

Surface Colony: Crew Could Operate Avatars from Inside Established Habitats, Useful for Operations in Hazardous Environments or Dangerous Activities

Latency Issues Between Earth and Moon Transmissions Could Make Avatar Control Less Intuitive at These Distances

Effectors Controlled from Earth Would Require Less Complexity, Sacrificing Dexterity, Cognitive Input and Sensory Feedback

Crewmembers in Orbiting Stations Could Control Ground-Based Avatars in Real-Time from Space with Less Risks

System Architecture For

Lunar/Planetary Operations

Source: NASA

Solar Arrays Used to Provide Colony Power Could Collect and Store Energy in Batteries to Recharge Avatars After Operating Periods

High Fidelity,

High Bandwidth Connection

50 of 54

To Determine if SARAs Can Perform Such Tasks Reliably, A Demonstration of their Capabilities Is Required

To Entice Private Enterprise
To Assist Government Space Program
To Push the Limits of Manned Space Operations

50

;

SARAs: Multi-Purpose Robots

51 of 54

51

Multi-Module ISS Add-On

Beginnings of an Independent SARA Spacecraft or Station

Significant Volume Necessary to Gauge Capacity of SARA Space Independence

Dedicated ISS Extension Module for SARA Teleoperation Activities, Experiments and Maintenance

What Could SARA Do for the ISS?

Routine Maintenance Tasks
EVA Astronaut Assistance

Buddy System

Remote Experiment Participation
Construction, Station Upgrades, Emergency Repairs

No Automation = No Programming of Tasks Required

A Human at the Other End of the System

Source: NASA

;

Applying SARA Near-Term: International Space Station

52 of 54

52

Applying SARA in Space Operations

Allowing Ground Crew to

Perform Activities in Space

Collaboration
Independent Projects
Ground to Space Construction, Experimentation

Simplifying Control Input Interface Systems Could Allow Anyone to Operate a SARA

Ground and Space Collaboration Becomes More Personal

Visitation and Collaboration Via Telepresence

Source: NASA

With simplistic control systems, a SARA could be operated by anyone, thus allowing for more intuitive communications between ground and space teams here on earth. An avatar that serves as a physician aboard a space station one day could become the surrogate body of a student the next, there to observe or even take part in an experiment he or she designed. This could naturally open up space to virtual tourism or even industrial operations.

Applications

Extra-Vehicular Activities

Station and Satellite Maintenance/Repairs
Virtual Spacewalk

Visitation Through Telepresence

Remote Specialist Presence

Telesurgery in Space
Technicians, Diplomats, Family

Telepresence Research Co-operation Between Ground and Space Teams
Virtual Tourism

Environmental Scouting/Exploration

Beyond LEO Exploration: Moon, NEO, Accessible Bodies
Hazardous Environments Exploration
Construction Project Scouting
Virtual Human Presence – Pre-colonization Establishment

53 of 54

53

Latency Issues	Lifting and Load Capacity Strength of Most Artificial Robotic Limbs Are Not Yet As Strong as a Real Human’s
Operating Period Limits Battery Life Limitations	Material Limitations in Space Environment Long-Term Effects of Space Environment on Robot Operation and Materials Effects of Alien Dust or Atmosphere on Machine Components

Problems and Limitations to Be Solved

Source: NASA

Ni-MH Battery Pack

Source: NASA

54 of 54

Interesting Developments

54

Fully Thought Controlled Avatars

Student in Israel Controlled a Robot Over 1200 miles away in France using only his thoughts via fMRI readings
Avatar Control via Brain Scans could Further Unify Human and Robot

Source: Béziers Technology Institute, France

Miniaturized Co-Robotic Avatars

Varying the Size of the Avatar

Potentially Exploring Other Worlds or Performing Space Operations in a Different Sized Body
Supervisory Telepresence Miniaturized

Source: Yamagata University, Japan

Human Facial Projection

Human Operator’s Face is Displayed on the Avatar’s Head

For Personalization and Aesthetics
Precursor to Individualized Avatars

Source: KeioUni, Tachni Labs