Space Telerobotics

Abstract

In this chapter, we survey the current state of the art in space telerobots. We begin by defining relevant terms and describing applications. We then examine the design issues for space telerobotics, including common requirements, operational constraints, and design elements. A discussion follows of the reasons space telerobotics presents unique challenges beyond terrestrial systems. We then present case studies of several different space telerobots, examining key aspects of design and human-robot interaction. Next, we describe telerobots and concepts of operations for future space exploration missions. Finally, we discuss the various ways in which space telerobots can be evaluated in order to characterize and improve performance. INTRoDUCTIoN Context and Motivation Future space missions in Earth orbit, to the moon, and to other distant destinations offer many new opportunities for exploration. However, astronaut time is always limited and some work is not feasible or efficient for humans to perform. Robots, however, can complement human explorers, performing work under remote control from Earth, orbit, or nearby habitats. A central challenge, therefore, is to understand how humans and robots can work efficiently and effectively together in order to maximize performance, improve scientific return, and increase mission success. Telerobots can take various forms and do a variety of work to increase the productivity of space exploration. They are well suited to performing tasks (surveys, routine maintenance, etc.) that are tedious, highly repetitive, dangerous or long duration, such as advance scouting, site preparation, and habitat construction that help prepare for future human activity. Telerobots can also assist humans side by side during activities and perform follow-up work, completing tasks started by humans or executing tasks that complement and supplement prior human work.

Embodiment, Presence, and Their Intersections

“…Early teleoperators were solely mechanical and used to manipulate dangerous products over a safe distance [22]. Recent use cases comprise robotic systems in medicine, space applications, and remote maintenance as well as humanoid robots [32,38]. During teleoperation, the user is presented with artificially rendered cues based on sensors in the remote environment, e.g., visual cues, tactile and proprioceptive cues, auditory cues, and vestibular cues, which are rendered by display devices and integrated into a virtual reality.…”

Editorial: On-Orbit Servicing and Active Debris Removal: Enabling a Paradigm Shift in Spaceflight

“…Furthermore, a debris object or a satellite in safe mode after a malfunction will not be in a stable attitude but will be tumbling, which makes the difficult task of characterizing its motion, identifying suitable capture features, approaching it, grasping it, stabilizing it and finally executing servicing operations a daunting challenge. Therefore, on-orbit servicing and active debris removal require substantial advances in the fields of sensing, relative navigation, path planning, controls, modeling of dynamic systems, robotics, communications and operations (Moosavian and Papadopoulos, 2007;Fong et al, 2013;Flores-Abbad et al, 2014;Shan et al, 2016;Wilde et al, 2019).…”

Communication of Hazards in Mixed-Reality Telerobotic Systems: The Usage of Naturalistic Avoidance Cues in Driving Tasks

“…Telerobotic technology offers a means to reduce potential risk factors for humans when navigating through hazardous environments and aid in the completion of demanding tasks including surgical procedures (Hannaford et al, 2013); handling materials in radioactive environments (Hashem et al, 2018; Sheridan, 2016); and operating a vehicle in potentially hazardous environments such as during planetary exploration (Fong et al, 2013; Leshin et al, 2013), nuclear decommissioning (Nagatani et al, 2013), search and rescue (Casper & Murphy, 2003; Krotkov et al, 2018), and undersea inspections (Lin & Kuo, 1997; Yuh, 2000). But still, a large degree of error can occur both from the human and on the side of the robot, in the case of automated responses (Chen et al, 2007).…”