Showing posts with label ROBOT DEFENSE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ROBOT DEFENSE. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

Study Programe Robot

Why learn the basics of programming using robots instead of more traditional method? For the last 50 years mainstream computer science has centered on the manipulation of abstract digital information. Programming for devices that interact with the physical world has always been an area of specialization for individuals that have already run the gauntlet of abstract information based computer science. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of processing devices that collect and manage information from their real time environments via some physical interface component{among them, anti-lock brakes, Mars rovers, tele-surgery, arti cial limbs, and even iPods. As these devices become ubiquitous, a liberally educated person should have some familiarity with the ways in which such devices work{their capabilities and limitations.


Much of computer science lies at the interface between hardware and software. Hardware is electronic equipment that is controlled by a set of abstract instructions called software. Both categories have a variety of subcategories.




Hardware
Computer hardware is typically electronic equipment that responds in well-de ned ways to speci c commands. Over the years, a collection of useful kinds of hardware has developed:



1. Central processing unit (CPU) - a specialized integrated circuit that accepts certain electronic inputs and, through a series of logic circuits, produces measurable compu-tational outputs.
 

2. Random access memory (RAM) - stores information in integrated circuits that reset if power is lost. The CPU has fast access to this information and uses it for\short-term" memory during computation.
 

3. Hard disk drive (HDD) - stores information on magnetized platters that spin rapidly. Information is stored and retrieved by a collection of arms that swing back and forth across the surfaces of the platters touching down periodically to read from or write to the platters. These devices fall into the category of \secondary storage" because the CPU does not have direct access to the information. Typically, information from the HDD must be loaded into RAM before being processed by the CPU. Reading and writing information from HDD's is slower than RAM.
 

4. Other kinds of secondary storage - optical disks like CD's or DVD's where light (lasers) are used to read information from disks;  ash memory where information is stored in integrated circuits that, unlike RAM, do not reset if power is lost; all of these are slower than HDD's or RAM.
 

5. Video card - is a specialized collection of CPU's and RAM tailored for rendering images to a video display.


6. Motherboard - a collection of interconnected slots that integrates and facilitates the passing of information between other standardized pieces of hardware. The channels of communication between the CPU and the RAM lie in the motherboard. The rate at which information can travel between di erent hardware elements is not only deter mined by the hardware elements themselves, but by the speed of the interconnections provided by the motherboard.
 

7. Interfaces - include the equipment humans use to receive information from or provide information to a computing device. For example, we receive information through the video display, printer, and the sound card. We provide information through the keyboard, mouse, microphone, or touchscreen.


In robotics, some of these terms take on expanded meanings. The most signi cant being the de nition of interface. Robots are designed to interface with some aspect of the physical world other than humans (motors, sensors).


SoftwareSoftware is a collection of abstract (intangible) information that represents instructions for a particular collection of hardware to accomplish a speci c task. Writing such instructions relies on knowing the capabilities of the hardware, the speci c commands necessary to elicit those capabilities, and a method of delivering those commands to the hardware. For example, we know that one of a HDD's capabilities is to store information. If we wish to write a set of instructions to store information, we must learn the speci c commands required to spin up the platters, locate an empty place to write the information to be stored, move the read/write arms to the correct location, lower the arm to touch the platter etc. Finally, we must convey our instructions to the HDD.
 

Generally, software instructions may be written at three di erent levels:
 

1. Machine language - not human readable and matches exactly what the CPU expects in order to elicit a particular capability{think 0's and 1's.
 

2. Assembly language - human readable representations of CPU instructions. While assembly language is human readable, its command set, like the CPU's, is primitive. Even the simplest instructions, like those required to multiply two numbers, can be quite tedious to write. Most modern CPU's and/or motherboards have interpreters that translate assembly language to machine language before feeding instructions to the CPU.
 

3. High level language human readable and usually has a much richer set of com mands available (though those commands necessarily can only be combinations of assembly commands). Translating the high-level language to machine language is too complicated for the CPU's built in interpreter so a separate piece of software called a compiler is required. A compiler translates the high level instructions to assembly or machine instructions which are then fed to the CPU for execution.
 

Examples of high-level languages are: C, C++, Fortran, or RobotC to name a few.

Study Robot For Human

The International Space Station (ISS), currently under construction in Earth orbit, will have several robots to help astronauts complete their tasks in space. Five of the ISS international partner nations are developing robotic systems for the station. Japan is developing the JEM Remote Manipulator System. The European Space Agency and the Russian Space Agency are developing the European Robotic Arm. Canada and the United States are developing the Mobile Servicing System (MSS). Detailed information on each of these systems can be obtained at the website listed below.


Mobile Servicing SystemThe most complex robotic system on the ISS is the MSS. It consists of the Space Station Remote
Manipulator System (SSRMS), the Mobile Remote Servicer Base System (MBS), the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM), and the Mobile Transporter (MT). The MSS will be controlled by an astronaut working at one of two Robotics Work Stations inside the ISS.



The primary functions of the MSS robotic system on the ISS are to:
• assist in the assembly of the main elements of the station (e.g. aligning newly delivered modules to the structure)
• handle large payloads
• replace orbital replacement units (plug-in equipment designed to be periodically replaced with newer units)
• support astronauts during extravehicular activities
• assist in station maintenance
• provide transportation around the station



The main component of the MSS is the 17-meterlong SSRMS robot arm. It is similar to the Shuttle RMS but will ride from one end of the station to the other on the mobile transporter, which will glide along the giant truss beam. After arriving at a worksite, the arm will grasp payloads, modules, or other structures with its wire snare end effector. If a work location is too distant for the arm to reach while still attached to the transporter, the arm can connect to an intermediate grapple fixture. Electrical power will be rerouted through that fixture. The SSRMS will then release its other end and “inchworm” itself through successive fixtures until it reaches the desired site. The SSRMS is also able to pick up and connect to the SPDM. This unit consists of a pair of 3.5-meter, 7-joint arms connected to a single joint base. The SPDM can pick up small tools for repair or servicing activities or effect delicate manipulations of smaller objects than the SSRMS can handle.


The Future
Advanced robotic systems are under development for use on the ISS. The ISS provides an exceptional laboratory for testing new robots such as NASA’s Robonaut. Robonaut will feature end effectors based on the human hand and will be capable of handling detailed and complex tasks. It will interface with the MSS and serve as a spacewalker’s assistant or surrogate for tasks too dangerous for humans. When astronauts return to Earth’s Moon and set foot on Mars, they will not be alone. Robots will be there as assistants and partners in the exploration of space. Robotic research and application on the ISS will lead the way for the advanced intelligent robotic systems of the future.



Objectives:
• Students will learn how the end effectors for the robotic arms used on the Space Shuttle and the
International Space Station work.
• Students will design and construct a grapple fixture that will enable the end effector to pick up an object.



National Standards:
Science Content
• Abilities of technological design



Technology Education Content
8. Students will develop an understanding of the attributes of design
9. Students will develop an understanding of engineering design
10. Students will develop an understanding of the role of troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation in problem solving
11. Students will develop abilities to apply the design process



Teaching Plan:
In this activity, students can work singly or in small groups of two or three. Have students use a sawing motion to cut through the cups. It is easier to cut through the outer cup first and then the inner cup.The important part about cutting the two cups is that their cut-off ends lie flushwith each other when the cups are nested. Use the knives as scrapers to smooth the cut edges.



Upon completing the end effector, have your students design a grapple fixture. The idea here is to design something that the end effector can grab onto without slipping off. After grapple fixtures are completed, tell students to compare their fixture to those created by two other students or groups. Ask them to create a table or a chart comparing the strong and weak points of the fixtures they evaluated. They should summarize their results with a statement about how they can improve the fixture they designed.

Education Robot

Following the remarkable successes of the Apollo Moon landings and the Skylab space station program, many space experts began reconsidering the role of humans in space exploration. In a healthy debate on exploration strategies, some experts concluded the goals of the future would be best served by robotic spacecraft. Human space travelers require extensive life support systems. With current propulsive technologies, it would just take too long to reach any destination beyond the Moon. 

Robots could survive long space voyages and accomplish exploration goals just as well as humans. Other space experts disagreed. Humans have an important place in space exploration, they contended. Robots and humans are not interchangeable. Humans are far more adaptable than robots and can react better to the unexpected. When things go wrong, humans can make repairs. This, they pointed out, was demonstrated conclusively during Skylab, when spacewalkers made repairs that saved the mission.


Today, new exploration strategies are at work. The goal is no longer humans or robots. It is humans and robots working together. Each bring important complimentary capabilities to the exploration of space. This has been demonstrated time and again with the Space Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (RMS) robot arm. The arm, also called Canadarm because it was designed and constructed by Canada, has been instrumental to the success of numerous space missions. The 15-meter-long arm is mounted near the forward end of the port side of the orbiter’s payload bay. It has seven degrees of freedom (DOF).

In robot terms, this means that the arm can bend and rotate in seven different directions to accomplish its tasks. Like a human arm, it has a shoulder joint that can move in two directions (2 DOF); an elbow joint (1 DOF); a wrist joint that can roll, pitch, and yaw (3 DOF); and a gripping device (1 DOF). The gripping device is called an end effector. That means it is located at the end of the arm and it has an effect (such as grasping) on objects within its reach. The RMS’s end effector is a snare device that closes around special posts, called grapple fixtures. The grapple fixtures are attached to the objects the RMS is trying to grasp.

On several occasions, the RMS was used to grasp the Hubble Space Telescope and bring the spacecraft into the orbiter’s payload bay. After the spacecraft was locked into position, the RMS helped spacewalking astronauts repair the telescope and replace some of its instruments. During operations, the RMS is controlled by an astronaut inside the orbiter. The RMS actually becomes an extension of the operator’s own arm. Television cameras spaced along the RMS permit the operator to see what the arm is doing and precisely target its end effector. At times, during the Hubble servicing, one of the spacewalkers hitched a ride on the end effector to gain access to parts of the telescope that were difficult to reach. The arm became a space version of the terrestrial cherry picker.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Robotic Combat Lewiatan ZS Polish Unmanned Assault-Reconnaissance Vehicle

Lewiatan ZS

Cooperation between WB Electronics, Hydromega and Military Technical University has led to creation
of remotely controlled vehicle - Lewiatan ZS in reconnaissance (ZS-R) and armed (ZS-U) version. Lewiatan ZS has big ability for moving in different terrain type and its big loading allow for installing necessary components and modules. This vehicle is able to drive on asphalt roads as well as off-road. Driving
platform has 2200 kg weight, max speed of 55 kph, 1500 kg payload and is able to tow up to 2200 kg trailer.

This small vehicle (length 3500 mm, width 2000 mm, height 1950 mm) has 4 cylinder, 2800 ccm petrol
engine with 92kW at 3600 tpm. Lewiatan base version is a 6 wheel platform, which construction allows for overcoming trunks, trenches and swamps. Wide, low pressure tires allows for low pressure on the ground (approx 20 kPa). Thanks to it, the vehicle is able to drive in boggy or muddy terrain. Driving platform of Lewiatan has many advanced systems.


Steering, control and data transmission concept of Lewiatan ZS system was split into two systems:
placed on a vehicle and on the base station. Information transmitted between vehicle and base station are using Harris military data link. This radioline secures range up to 50km in open terrain and up to 1 km in urban terrain (depending on building density). For observation and for steering Lewiatan is equipped with several CCD cameras, thermal cameras, GPS receiver and sensors such as e.g. laser scanners. For combat purposes, as a specialist device, 12,7mm machine gun and smoke grenade launcher were installed. Due to the fact that driving platform has 1500 kg payload it is possible to adapt other sensors or devices (it is also facilitated by the module communication system of the vehicle).

Robotic Tank
Up till now Lewiatan ZS is adapted to being remotely controlled by operator (or operators) from the base
station basing on information coming from vehicle sensors. It is planned that further work will go into direction
of creating vehicle being able to conduct mission fully autonomous.

High School Using Robotics Engenering Educations Programs

The US leads the world in graduate engineering education. Many engineering undergraduate programs have adopted robotics as a teaching tool. And high schools are using robotics as a lure to STEM education, with tens of thousands of high school students from all socio‐economic levels taking part in the FIRST robotics competitions. The US has an enviable supply of students trained in and excited by robotics. To accelerate the field, research in a number of key areas needs to be undertaken. It ranges from fundamental long‐term research to practical ready‐to‐deploy developments, as enumerated in that order below:


Visual object recognition: Our robots today are not very aware of their surroundings, as we do not have general‐purpose vision algorithms that can recognize particular objects never seen before as an instance of a known class. (A two‐year‐old child can instantly recognize most chairs as chairs even if they haven’t seen one that looks exactly the same before.)
 
Manipulation: Our robots today are not very dexterous as we have hardly had any multifingered hands to work with. When mobile robot platforms started becoming available to researchers in the 80’s and 90’s the field of intelligent robot navigation exploded. We need to develop widely deployable robot hands so that hundreds of researchers can experiment with manipulation.

New sensors: Some sensors that robots need have been made incredibly inexpensive by other market pulls, e.g., digital cameras continue to have their price driven down by the cell phone market. But dense touch sensors, 3‐D range sensors, and exotic RF and capacitance sensors are still very hard to come by. Direct investment in new sensor modalities for robots will lead to new algorithms that can exploit them and make robots more aware of their surroundings, and hence able to act more intelligently.

Materials science: Materials science is producing radically new materials with sometimes hard‐to‐believe properties. At the moment, robotics sits on the sidelines and uses these new materials as they might be applicable. A focused program on materials science and robotics would couple researchers in the two fields together to ensure that new materials that specifically benefit robotics are investigated and invented.

Distributed and networked robots: Technology allows us to decompose tasks in ways that humans are incapable. New architectures for robotic components that can self‐assemble, whether physically or virtually, will enable new approaches to many application areas.

Awareness of people: Most future applications of robots will require that they work in close proximity to humans (unlike today’s manufacturing robots that are so dangerous that people must be kept away). To do so safely, we need both perceptual awareness of people, and actuators and robots that are intrinsically safe for humans to physically contact. Social interaction: If ordinary people are to work with robots they must be able to interact with them in cognitively easy ways. Our robots can make this possible if they both pick up
on social cues from humans (who naturally give such cues to robots, to the surprise of many engineers) and give social signals about their own intentions that a person can easily interpret.

In the 20th century the US led the world in four great waves of technological advancement: electrification, automobiles, airplanes, and computers. The first large technological wave of the 21st century is shaping up to be robotics. There are many competitors but with appropriate research investments the US is well placed to lead once again.

Military Robotic And Ground Robots To Combat Forces

The recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq saw the first large‐scale deployments of ground robots to combat the IED threat, and the US Army has a large scale robotics component of its new Future Combat System to increase the war‐fighting productivity of its ground forces. Unmanned air vehicles have also come into their own in the last decade, but historical insistence on having a “pilot” fly them, even from Nevada, is at odds with the needs of increasing military personnel productivity. The Navy, the Marines, the Army, and the Air Force all will require robots with significantly greater autonomous capability over the next decades if they are to maintain US superiority. The US currently leads the world in military robotics, and with further encouragement, manpower and casualty costs can be held in check and reduced through investment in greater autonomous capabilities for robots.


The US currently leads the world in deployed service robots but is in fierce competition with Japan and Korea to maintain that edge. Both those countries, along with Taiwan, have made domination of the service robotics industry key national goals. The European Union is also investing heavily through its “seventh framework.” There is no comparable national program in the US. Robotics research has largely been funded in fits and starts by the Department of Defense and NASA. The former is now more focused on military
applications and the latter has little room for extramural research as it struggles to fund a Shuttle replacement. While US floor cleaning robots are relatively well known, there are significant new markets for robotics emerging in healthcare (prostheses, surgery, and hospital operations), fulfillment centers, and agriculture.

Despite the impression from the popular press, US manufacturing remains strong, is the largest manufacturing sector in the world, and has had sustained productivity increases over the last fifty years at a rate even higher than that of the IT industry. At the same time, as a percentage of GDP it has roughly halved, as labor‐intensive manufacturing has gone off‐shore. Labor‐intensive manufacturing would seem to be a high impact target for
robotics, but it has not been due to the sorts of successes robotics had early on, casting the die for the direction it would take, effectively restricting manufacturing robots to structured environments. Robotics in high‐value areas such as automobile manufacturing has had a fifty‐year history in the US, though no domestic manufacturers of such robots have significant US or world market shares any longer (those that were successful were bought up by foreign companies).

Today’s industrial robots follow the practices set out in the 1950’s, though they are cheaper and more accurate. But they have not fully embraced the IT revolution and have very little in the way of flexible computation, perception, or realtime planning. This makes the systems integration overhead of setting up robotic lines, turning factories into structured environments, for “Wal‐Mart‐class” manufacturing prohibitively expensive, and so such manufacturing has migrated to relatively low labor cost countries such as China. That pool of low‐cost labor will not be around indefinitely, and until the recent hiccup in the world economy signs of difficulty were already becoming apparent in China. As we move forward, the US will need to invest in more intelligent industrial robots if it is to retain its manufacturing base, and be able to compete broadly in
that arena.

History Robot Technology For Military And Civil

Robots are programmable physical machines that have sensors and actuators, and are given goals for what they should achieve in the world. Perception algorithms process the sensor inputs, a control program decides how the robot should behave given its goals and current circumstances, and commands are sent to the motors to make the robot act in the world. Some robots are mobile, but others are rooted to a fixed location.

Robots in plays and movies (a 1920 Czech play was where the word “robot” originated) have generally been much more capable that actual contemporary robots. The first deployed robots were in structured environments such as automobile assembly lines in the 1950’s. At that time, computation and sensors were both very expensive, so the environments for robots were specially constructed so that robots could effectively operate with little sensing or computation. Today’s manufacturing robots still follow this approach and so manufacturing robots are only used in industries where the overhead of building the necessary special environments can be absorbed. This restricts them to factories that produce very expensive objects such as automobiles or silicon wafers, or very high volumes of unchanging products over many years, such as disposable medical devices.

Since the 1970’s, most research in robotics has been targeted at extending robot capabilities to unstructured environments environments not prepared specially for them. Early attempts concentrated on navigation, both indoors and outdoors, and the 1997 Mars rover Sojourner was the first major deployed success. Ground robots have, since 2002, become common in the US military, tackling the problems of forward scouting and IED remediation in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Great further progress has been made with the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge where several robot vehicles autonomously drove 200 kilometers across a desert, and in the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge where a number of vehicles autonomously drove in traffic in a town for six hours. Concurrently, the first service robots have become common, with several million autonomous cleaning robots deployed in ordinary US households. But there is a lot more that robots are capable of, and many more research challenges beyond navigation that will enable these new capabilities.

Why we need robots
Demographic trends in the US and worldwide demand the increased utilization of robots. These trends point not only to the problem of who will fund social security as the ratio of older and largely retired people to younger working people increases, but worse, those social security dollars will be competing for the service labor of relatively fewer people. Other countries will be competing for immigrants to fill labor pools (the tip of the iceberg is the current world‐wide competition for emigrating medical professionals from the Philippines). The US will face profound challenges in populating its military, in providing construction labor, in nursing and elder‐care, in fire fighting and emergency services, in all aspects of service industries, and in manufacturing. Robots will be a key technology to greatly increase the productivity of individual humans.

Friday, January 7, 2011

The Modeling of Robots Operating on Ships To Civilian and Military

There has been a great deal of effort devoted towards modeling ship motion due to wave loadings. However, the primary focus had been directed towards ship design. Our motivation for understanding ship motion is to quantify the expected magnitude and frequency of disturbance loads for a motion and/or force controlled manipulation system. Subsequently, this section will provide an abbreviated explanation of one of the techniques presently used to model ship motion.

The motion of the ship is defined by six displacements (surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw) at the ship’s longitudinal center of gravity, from which motions at all other locations on the ship can be developed. While there are a number of techniques to simulate ship motion, the strip theory of Salvensen et al. is one of the
more popular approaches to modeling the 6-DOF response for a ship advancing at a constant forward speed with arbitrary heading in regular sinusoidal waves. In its simplest form, a ship acts as a set of filters, called the Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs), that transforms wave motion into the six degrees of motion (surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw).

Each motion has its own characteristic RAO. As illustrated in the previous section, there is ample information for characterizing the frequency content of the waves. The challenge is to design accurate models of the ship that faithfully characterizes the behavior of the ship. Strip theory is able to provide reliable estimates of sea keeping performance for a wide range of hull forms and sea conditions. Calculations are made in the frequency domain with the warping of the excitation frequency accounting for forward speed and heading, Equation.

There are three main stages to computing the motion response of the ship. First, divide the
ship into a number of transverse sections (or strips), generally from 10 to 40, and compute the two dimensional hydrodynamic coefficients such as added mass, damping, wave excitation, and restoring force. Next, integrate these values along the length of the vessel to obtain global coefficients for the coupled motion of the vessel. Finally, the equations of motion for the ship can be solved to give the amplitudes and phases of the heave, surge, sway, yaw, pitch and roll motions.

Clearly, the motion of a ship is a complex phenomenon and the above description is merely a simplified explanation of one method used for modeling ship motion. The above description is intended to only provide insight into the problem of ship motion simulation. The interested reader is referred to the following list of articles and text for a deeper understanding of ship motion simulation. Fortunately, there are a number of commercial software packages available for the analysis and simulation of marine vessels. The level of
sophistication, as well as magnitude of cost, varies dramatically. The package used for the analysis in the paper is the Simulation Time History (STH) and Access Time History (ACTH) programs developed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Bethesda Maryland and are available through the National Technical Information Service.

Autonomous Robotics Technology Biochemical Weapons and Guarding Borders

Imagine the face of warfare with autonomous robotics: Instead of our soldiers returning home in flag-draped caskets to heartbroken families, autonomous robots—mobile machines that can make decisions, such as to fire upon a target, without human intervention can replace the human soldier in an increasing range of dangerous missions: from tunneling through dark caves in search of terrorists, to securing urban streets rife with sniper fire, to patrolling the skies and waterways where there is little cover from attacks, to clearing roads and seas of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), to surveying damage from biochemical weapons, to guarding borders and buildings, to controlling potentially-hostile crowds, and even as the infantry frontlines.

 These robots would be ‘smart’ enough to make decisions that only humans now can; and as conflicts increase in tempo and require much quicker information processing and responses, robots have a distinct advantage over the limited and fallible cognitive capabilities that we Homo sapiens have. Not only would robots expand the battlespace over difficult, larger areas of terrain, but they also represent a significant force-multiplier each effectively doing the work of many human soldiers, while immune to sleep deprivation, fatigue, low morale, perceptual and communication challenges in the ‘fog of war’, and other performance-hindering conditions.

But the presumptive case for deploying robots on the battlefield is more than about saving human lives or superior efficiency and effectiveness, though saving lives and clearheaded action during frenetic conflicts are significant issues. Robots, further, would be unaffected by the emotions, adrenaline, and stress that cause soldiers to overreact or deliberately overstep the Rules of Engagement and commit atrocities, that is to say, war crimes. We would no longer read (as many) news reports about our own soldiers brutalizing enemy combatants or foreign civilians to avenge the deaths of their brothers in arms unlawful actions that carry a significant political cost. Indeed, robots may act as objective, unblinking observers on the battlefield, reporting any unethical behavior back to command; their mere presence as such would discourage all-too-human atrocities in the first place.


Technology, however, is a double-edge sword with both benefits and risks, critics and advocates; and autonomous military robotics is no exception, no matter how compelling the case may be to pursue such research. The worries include: where responsibility would fall in cases of unintended or unlawful harm, which could range from the manufacturer to the field commander to even the machine itself; the possibility of serious malfunction and robots gone wild; capturing and hacking of military robots that are then unleashed against us; lowering the threshold for entering conflicts and wars, since fewer US military lives would then be at stake; the effect of such robots on squad cohesion, e.g., if robots recorded and reported back the soldier’s every action; refusing an otherwise-legitimate order; and other possible harms.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Air Robots and Mobile Robot Systems Distance University of Hagen

Air Robots FernUniversität in Hagen

The FernUniversität in Hagen is a university of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. As the only distance teaching university in Germany, it offers undergraduate and graduate degree programmes for professionals.
Their research groups in “Control Systems Engineering” (Prof. Dr.-Ing. Helmut Hoyer) and in “Mechatronics Systems“ (Prof. Dr.-Ing. Michael Gerke) work closely together within systems engineering. Joint research in mechatronics and robotics is being conducted here.

Their research focus is in the area of stationary and mobile robot systems. Omnidirectional robot vehicles for heavy-duty transport and for assistive technology applications have been successfully developed in numerous projects. Not only innovations in vehicle technology, but also the principle of multi-sensor integration and increasing system autonomy are at the fore of the research work here.


The range of applications of distributed and heterogeneous robots has been extended recently, through mobile flight systems, to safety regulation requirements and catastrophe scenarios. A co-operation between terrestrial
and airborne robots is intended to automate challenging operations (security and rescue). For example, teleoperated or partly autonomous mobile robot systems allow targeted and continuous ‘monitoring’ (observation and measurement) in critical areas of application. A minuscule airship is currently being developed into a semi-autonomous sensor platform, which is distinguished by an extremely high dwell time and a stationary operation close to the ground.

This flight system can be used for the early identification of hazardous situations, for reconnaissance and data acquisition (“view from above”) and as a communication relay. Co-operation with terrestrial mini-robots or
sensor technology dispersed over the ground enables a powerful communication network to be created with the flight system. To implement the described innovative robotic applications, the two research groups are contributing to national and international research projects. Distance University of Hagen Air Robots.


Ground Robots BASE TEN SYSTEMS Electronics

Ground Robots About BASE10
Thirty years ago BASE10 pioneered the implementation of civil market microprocessor technology into military equipment. Today, BASE10 as a system house and main contractor to the German MOD creates RoboScout, an Unmanned Ground Vehicle helping our soldiers to protect us. BASE10 a small company pioneering great ideas.


Company Focus
BASE10 is a project focused company. Our home is the defence market within NATO. Since our formation we have undertaken over 100 military projects. Typically, these projects incorporate systems engineering, multi-disciplined teams, system integration, system qualifi cation, manufacturing and long term support.

Core Skills
System Design BASE10 system designers are experts in selecting appropriate trade offs between COTS and
bespoke Hardware, Software and physical design to meet demanding total system requirements.

Hardware Design
BASE10 hardware designers make use of the latest computer aided tools to produce high performance and high availability hardware that will operate in the harshest, often safety critical environments.

Software Design
BASE10 software engineers work closely within integrated teams to produce both embedded and standalone software applications.

Mechanical Design
In order to meet demanding environmental, thermal, shock, vibration and EMC performance requirements BASE10, as part of a multi disciplinary approach, often employs in house specialist mechanical design skills
Qualifi cation
BASE10 qualifi es its products, where requested, to the required military and customer standards. The generation of qualifi cation records and test results, often in form of a Declaration of Design and Performance, enable the customer to apply for fl ight clearance

Ground Robots Allen Vanguard Chemical-Biological Agents and Decontaminants

Ground Robots Allen Vanguard

Allen Vanguard™ is a global leader in developing and providing equipment, services and training to protect against hazardous threats, including Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), Radio Controlled IEDs (RCIEDs), Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear threats, and the effects of heat on military personnel and combat vehicle electronics. Its products and services are trusted by elite military and police forces in over 120 countries worldwide.

The company operates in close collaboration with end users and program managers to develop and field solutions for sustainable capability against these evolving threats. Its product development efforts are founded on aggressive research engineering programs, and the deep front line experience of its industry-specific experts. This team includes world-leading subject matter experts, trainers and decorated practitioners in Counter IED and many related fields. Their experience has been earned from many years of front line operations in combat theaters involving thousands of hazardous devices and a deep understanding of threats and tactics.

The company’s research and analysis, engineering and technical staff include experts in blast mitigation, Radio Frequency exploitation, robotics, chemical-biological agents and decontaminants, and thermal management as
well as other disciplines such as materials and human physiology. These are further supported by the company’s rapid prototyping capabilities in support of continuous product development programs.


Allen Vanguard™ provides its customers with industry leading equipment such as its Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) platforms to prevent the detonation of RCIEDs, the MedEng bomb suit, the Defender and Vanguard® bomb disposal robot systems, CASCAD™ blast suppression and decontamination foam, and vehicle survivability systems comprising customized cooling systems and blast protection seats.

The company has Sales and Manufacturing facilities in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, with staff and facilities cleared for classified programs.

AirRobot AR100-B High Technology Cameras and Sensor Sysytem For Special Operations and Intelligence

Airrobot AR100-B Made German

Airrobot AR100-B is a German manufacturer for unmanned aerial systems with unique technology. The current system, the AirRobot AR100-B is a micro unmanned aerial vehicle with vertical take off and landing. Due to its advanced technology with extensive autonomous flight management and stabilization, operation is easy to learn and does not require prior flight experience. When the aircraft does not receive a command, it immediately initiates auto positioning, autonomously maintaining altitude, absolute position and heading. The operator can fully focus on his or her mission.

The modular payload concept enables the user of the AirRobot to swap the available cameras and sensors within seconds in order to respond quickly and effectively to changes in mission requirements like a change from day to night operations. Video and data are displayed and saved in real time on the ground control station. Currently available payloads include daylight color, b/w low light imager, IR thermal image as well as high resolution still cameras. Sensors for gas detection can be integrated into the payload as well. The AirRobot provides a valuable asset for applications in Law Enforcement, Armed Forces and Defense, Border Security, Fire Brigades / Disaster Relief, Search and Rescue, Special Operations and Intelligence. It substantially enhances situational awareness by providing crucial real time information during operations,
resulting in improved public safety and the protection of those, working for it.


Especially in Defense and Counter Terrorism, Micro UAS Systems (MAS) like the AirRobot will be essential instruments for unmanned ISR (Intelligence, Reconnaissance, Surveillance) operations in the near future. As partner of the German Armed Forces under the program name MIKADO, Airrobot will take a key role in formulating the future of Micro UAS within the future force structure.

The development of multiple new technologies, both to enhance safety and reliability, as well as to extend operational capabilities is constantly pursuit. Two milestones will be the completion of auto collision avoidance, and the introduction of a larger system, AR150 with a new propulsion system increasing efficiency in early 2010.

In addition AirRobot GmbH & Co. KG is a partner in several active EU projects. The AirRobot flight platform is an integral part of developments focusing on relevant security applications, specifically mine detection, early fire detection and perimeter security.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Robotic Systronic Russian Wiesel 2 Digital Carries a Lightweight

The German company has since given Armada a live demonstration of the system’s capabilities. The Systronic is a bit like a Russian doll: the Wiesel 2 carries a lightweight, four-propeller drone called the Air Vehicle on its bonnet and a small ‘garage’ attached to the back, on the right of the rear access door. A small lift enables the remotely controlled land robot called the “Telemax” to descend to the ground, unfold its tracks and be on its way. Controlling the Telemax and monitoring what it sees is performed from within the armoured vehicle. However, should the Telemax run into trouble, and the Air Vehicle be impossible to operate for one reason or another, the two-man crew can dismount and remotely control it around the corner of the street to see what is happening, the Wiesel also being equipped with three nose-mounted cameras and a rear mastmounted
camera.

iRobot’s Packbot series

The smallest platform in the US Army’s Future Combat System family will be the man-portable Small
Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) capable of operating in urban terrain tunnels, sewers and caves to conduct reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition missions. The vehicle is being developing by iRobot under a $ 51.4 million contract. It will be a smaller, lighter successor to iRobot’s Packbot series, consisting of the Explorer, Scout and EOD models. More than 850 have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are an important component of the Future Combat System programme.

The target weight for the SUGV is less than 13.6 kg, half the weight of the Packbot, with a modular ‘plug-and-play’ payload of up to 2.72 kg. It is intended to have an endurance of six hours and operate reliably up to 1000 metres from the operator above ground and up to 200 metres away in tunnels. Under present plans the army would like to field the SUGV as part to the second ‘spinout’ to the present force in 2012, four years before the first FCS brigade combat team is due to be formed.

The US Army Research Laboratory is evaluating the maturity of the design to determine if it can be brought forward to the first spinout in 2008 so that it can be used for missions in buildings, caves and other confined spaces.The primary factor that will influence this decision, which could be made as soon as midyear,
is whether semi-autonomous navigation can be programmed into the SUGV. Engineers are optimistic that,
given the comparatively short range over which the SUGV is expected to operate, this can be achieved.

Rheinmetall’s Systronic Demonstrator Wiesel 2 Digital (left) is currently being developed as a demonstrator. Remotely controllable itself, this Wiesel 2 lowers a small remote control tracked vehicle to the ground.


The Roboscout is being Developed By the German Company

Germany Made Roboscout

Already mentioned above, the Singapore Technology Fantail pursues the same goal as the French Odin, in that it is also being considered to be part of the Singaporean Army’s soldier modernisation programme.As with the Mav, however, it is powered by a thermal engine.

Unlike drones, which have the ability to conduct a mission and return home on their own, ground unmanned vehicles need to cope with a number of obstacles that the drones do not have. They thus permanently need to be remotely controlled, via radio or a cable (tether). The ultimate goal in land robotics is to obtain a vehicle that is able to sense the terrain, recognise obstacles and avoid them. This necessitates not only a vast number of sensors, but also a great deal of artificial intelligence.

Indeed, how can a robot that ‘sees’ a vast expanse ahead of it through its sensors interpret this as a viable field when it might be a lake? Some of the most advanced autonomous land robots are probably the Israeli AvantGuard and Guardium respectively developed by Elbit and IAI, but even then, these are intended to conduct patrol missions along a well-planned, pre-determined route. A number of competitions have been
taking place in recent years, including those conducted under the auspices of Darpa. In fact the agency will highlight two of its nine strategic research thrusts Urban Area Operations and Advanced Manned and Unmanned Systems at its third Grand Challenge competition on 3 November 2007.


Darpa Director Dr Tony Tether told the House Armed Services Committee, Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, on 21 March, the next big leap will be an autonomous vehicle that can navigate and operate in traffic, a far more complex challenge for a 'robotic'driver. For the Darpa Urban Challenge competing teams will have to demonstrate the ability of their unmanned ground vehicles to conduct simulated military supply missions in a mock urban area. Darpa officials will select competing teams following an analysis of 53 site visits conducted in June and will announce the location for the Urban Challenge on 10 August.

Marines Operating a Honeywell MAV

Micro Air Vehicle (MAV)

Small drones that can be easily carried by troops on patrol and launched to meet an immediate tactical need will thus play a growing role in urban operations. A number of such systems have entered service, or are about to do so. One example is the Darpa-funded MAV Wasp micro air vehicle, a small, quiet, portable and rugged unmanned air platform designed for front-line reconnaissance and surveillance over land or sea.

 The lithium-ion battery-powered Wasp is capable of flying in excess of one hour (it has demonstrated endurances of 107 minutes), with a speed range of 30 to 50 km/h (20 to 40 mph), and provides realtime
imagery from relatively low altitudes. With only a 40.6-cm wingspan, weighing about 340 grams and fitting in a backpack, the Wasp serves as a reconnaissance platform for the company level and below by virtue of its extremely small size and quiet propulsion system. Wasp prototypes are currently under extended evaluation in-theatre by the US Marine Corps and the US Navy.

Another is the Mav seen in the title picture which is a vertical take-off and landing, shrouded drone developed by Honeywell. A number of these have already been deployed but the system is in constant evolution, particularly regarding its powerplant and sensors. A recent interview with a programme official revealed that the Mav is being looked at as a serious solution to detect the presence of buried booby traps. The downwash of its rotor could indeed be put to good use to blow dust off a dirt track to help its sensors to more easily detect the presence of hidden objects.

The Mav currently uses a two-stroke engine, made by 3W, which produces four horsepower, sufficient to lift the 7.7-kg device (including its 450-gram payload). Measuring only 40 33 cm, it fits into a purposemade
rucksack. Honeywell is now looking into the possibility of developing a micro-turbine version.
The vertically flying shrouded drone is becoming increasingly fashionable for urban environments. In France and after having considered Singapore Technology’s Fantail, Sagem has finally reverted to a Bertin design the Hovereye2 to use as a basis for its Odin (envisaged as an added element to the French Army’s Félin suite currently being fielded). Unlike the Mav and the Fantail the Odin is electrically powered. Designed to see what is happening in the next street or building the Odin has a hovering endurance of 36 minutes and an urban datalink range of about one km,although it is capable of dash speeds of 100 km/h.