PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
2 ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL ARMY PROGRAMS
In recent years, the Army has used limited resources to
develop selected robotics and artificial intelligence (AI)
systems that would demonstrate performance in:
· improving soldier survivability,
· providing force multipliers,
· reducing operating and support costs, and
· enhancing training and education of personnel.
Army presentations to the committee indicated that the
most important of the funded programs include:
Teleoperated Mobile Anti-Armor Project (TMAP),
Field Material Handling Robot (FMR),
Soldier/Robot Interface Project (SRIP),
Robotic Combat Vehicles, manned and unmanned (RCV),
Advanced Ground Vehicle Technology (AGVT), ant
Hawk AI-based Maintenance Tutor (HAWK-~CH ITI).
In addition, the Army is supporting a small number of
basic research projects in AT, done primarily by key
university researchers, and a large number of expert
system developmental projects, done primarily in Army
laboratories and organizations.
While it was Impossible to assess each of these
programs in detail, the committee's consensus was that the
projects had been well conceived and, if successfully
completed, would significantly advance the introduction of
AI and robotics into Army operations. ~ mayor concern of
the committee, however, was that the planned present and
future funding would not enable most of these programs
(especially the robotic developments) to be translated
into effective field-worthy systems in less than 10 to 15
5
OCR for page 6
6
years. Sufficient financial support could reduce the lead
time to 5 years.
After hearing in October 1986 that large portions of
the robotics programs were unfunded for BY 1987, the
committee was pleases to learn that funds have been
redirected to these programs. The Axmy's three primary
robotics programs--the Teleoperated Mobile Anti-Armor
Project, the Field Material Mandling Robot, and Robotic
Combat Vehicles--are now funded at levels at or near the
amount requested. Those amounts are still modest, how-
ever, and more will be needed to develop the engineering
prototypes and specifications that necessarily precede
manufacturing.
The remainder of this chapter addresses each of the
mayor programs, plus a worthwhile program of legged
robots that the Army is not yet supporting. ~ summary
of technical issues and a chart of the status of Army
programs follows.
THE TE7FOPERATED MOBILE ANTI-ARMOR PROGRAM
Members of the committee observed the concept evalua-
tion program test of the Robotic Ranger conducted by the
U.S. Army Infantry Board at Ft. Benning on June 11-12,
1986. The Ranger, developed by Grumman for the Missile
Command, is the original demonstrator (two are now funded)
of the TMAP concept. It is a teleoperated mobile vehicle
equipped with weapon and reconnaissance systems.
The program is important not only because of the
Ranger's potential as an effective anti-tank weapon, but
also because the concept could be adapted for many other
teleoperated mobile robot applications. Successful
extensions of this technology could achieve large gains in
soldier survivability at relatively low cost and offer the
potential for significant force multiplication.
The value of developing ant implementing large numbers
of low-cost, expendable anti-armor (especially anti-tank)
robots cannot be overestimated. The availability of such
weapons to counterbalance the persistent numerical tank
advantage of the Soviet bloc could have a profound effect
on U.S. nuclear strategy. Moreover, the potential
vulnerability of tanks to relatively inexpensive anti-tank
robots could fundamentally affect Army tactics and weapons
requirements for the field.
~ major deficiency in the present THAP program is the
use of a fiber optic umbilical cord between the operator--
OCR for page 7
7
that is, the soldier--and the teleoperated vehicle. The
fiber optic cord provides an excellent means for communi-
cations. It is Sideband, does not require line of sight,
does not radiate, and is not subject to interception.
However, the cord has the serious problems of limited
range and possible entanglement or cutting by the user or
the enemy. This communication problem has received much
attention in the past with little success. Nonetheless,
because of the importance not only to the Army but to all
the services, the committee believes that a sustained
research and development effort should be undertaken
immediately to develop a better solution.
Technologies made available in the past few years could
be used in effecting secure communications without an
umbilical cord. Specifically, the Army should investigate
burst (i.e., non-continuous) communications, spread
spectrum systems (which code and recapture signals in
novel ways across wider bands), and other technologies for
short-range secure communications. The broad scope and
applicability of such research makes it an ideal candidate
for support by the services and, in particular, DARPA.
The Tech Base Enhancement for Autonomous Vehicles program,
which was too new for the committee to receive a detailed
briefing, plans to explore alternatives to to the fiber
optic link.
In keeping with the strategy of combining short-term
demonstrators with planned upgrades, it is appropriate
that the Army plans to add a much higher degree of
autonomy to the TMAP in the future. One promising
opportunity would be to incorporate more advanced sensors
for target acquisition, which would partially relieve the
system of the need for continuous communication service
with a human operator.
This program appears to be adequately funded to meet
the stated near-term objectives. Full-scale engineering
development, originally planned for early calendar year
1988, has--appropriately--been delayed until after a proof
of principle demonstration in October 1988 and a 2 to 3
year preproduction engineering project beginning in 1989.
Without intensive research to replace the umbilical cord,
however, the expanded version of the THAP is unlikely to
be ready for deployment on schedule.
ROBOTIC MATERS HANDLING EQUIPS
The Army's projects in robotics material handling are
the Field Material Handling Robot (FMR) and the Soldier/
OCR for page 8
8
Robot Interface ProJect (SRIP). Although the total amount
of funding by the Army for FOR can be termed modest, at
best, the establishment of individual projects on a Joint
basis with DARPA, plus exploitation of earlier NBS and
industry JR&D efforts, presents an opportunity for
successful transition to the 6.4 category of funding--
engineering development with intent to produce for field
use--by 1990.
Solaier/Robot Interface ProJect
~ promising development in the Army's robotic material
handling program is a very strong lightweight flexible
robot arm with a deflection-compensating control system.
The Army has gained leverage for its Investment by
involving Oak Ridge National Laboratories, with its
experience in teleoperation in hostile environments, as
a major participant. Odetics, Incorporated, is also a
participant through the Small Business Innovation Research
program.
Successful development would make possible many
material handling robot operations in the field where low
weight and high strength are of paramount importance;
these attributes are currently missing from state-of-the-
art industrial robots. The Army projects are exploring
the many applications in which both small and very large
versions of this principle would be most useful.
ROBOTIC COMBAT VEHICLES
The manned and unmanned Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV)
projects supported by DAREA, the Marines, and the Army are
commendable. They are, however, all at a very early stage
of development and will not be implemented until much
later. For fully autonomous operation of the unmanned
vehicle, the technical problems are severe. Automatic
target acquisition, driving, and loading remain formidable
problems, even for the manned tank with reduced manning.
Scheduled funding indicates some opportunities for
implementation, especially with the increase in F! 1987.
The Army is funding three RCV projects: Advanced
Ground Vehicle Technology (AGVT), Tech Base Enhancement
for Autonomous Machines (TE~M), and Robotic Command Center
(RCC). The committee was briefed primarily on the AGVT;
the other two are relatively new.
OCR for page 9
9
Advanced Ground Vehicle Technology
Committee members visited Martin Marietta in Denver on
August 26, 1986. The trip involved both a visit to the
Martin Marietta Autonomous Land Vehicle (ALV) laboratory
and a DARPA-sponsored demonstration of a teleoperated
Advanced Ground Vehicle built by FMC Corporation. The
committee was unable to see another version of the
Advanced Ground Vehicle Technology (AGVT), built by
General Dynamics, that was demonstrated subsequently.
The committee was pleased to note the leverage that the
AGVT gained by integrating the results of FEC Corpora-
tion's JR&D program with DARPA research on the ALV. The
demonstration of the teleoperated vehicle was encouraging
in that it will help set realistic requirements for
robotic systems capable of performing combat and combat
support missions.
The contrast between the terrain on which the ALV was
operating and that on which it will eventually have to
operate suggests that the ALV is a long-te~m solution that
will not have useful short-term applications. The ALV
was able to assist in developing the obstacle avoidance
algorithms while operating on a flat surface with hay
bales as obstacles; however, that is very different from
the extremely rugged terrain that the ALV would eventually
have to traverse to demonstrate its ability to operate
autonomously. Despite the Army's strong need for
autonomous vehicles, there are major problems ahead which
are unlikely to be solved soon. As with most areas of
research, the time to commercialize or achieve field use
is longer than desired.
Although the committee understands that DARPA intends
to devote its resources and efforts solely to autonomous
mobility, teleoperation still appears to be the answer for
the immediate future. That is, people will still be
needed to operate the system for some time to come. That
being the case, how do we make the operator (and the
system) safer and more efficient? Specific needs are:
· more concern about counter-countermeasures:
non-cable, non-line-of-sight, jam-resistant, highly
reliable and secure data links with low probability of
intercept;
· better stereoscopic or 3D vision to improve the
teleoperator's ability to identify ditches, boulders, and
other obstacles that could be obscured by vegetation or
smoke; and
OCR for page 10
10
· better and easier map reading systems as aids to
operators.
OR MAINTENANCE TuTOR
The development by the Army Research Institute (ARI) of
the Hawk Maintenance Tutor is highly commendable. This
system uses AT expert system technology for maintenance
training. It can satisfy the need for training highly
skilled technicians, who are in short supply now and for
the foreseeable future. Quality of training and consider-
ably reduced training time are impressive outcomes of
this program. Further, this system can serve as a model
for many other tutoring systems required for even more
sophisticated high-technology weapon systems.
In addition to the strong applications-based uses of
Al, such as for the Bawk Mach-III intelligent maintenance
tutor, ARI is making good use of AI and expert systems in
association with intelligent computer-aided instruction
(ICAI) and is sponsoring a coherent Army program of
research at some of the finest universities to help
develop the needed training aids.
LEGGED CHINES
The A=~, and DARPA have concentrated their support on
the development of mobile vehicles that are either wheeled
or tracked. DARPA is supporting several legged vehicle
programs at Carnegie-Mellon ant Ohio State Universities.
These programs, however, are still in the research stage,
far from use in practical situations. It appears that
compact legged (or composite wheeled and legged) vehicles
could have significant advantages in rough terrains.
About 5 years ago, Odetics Incorporated unveiled a
teleoperated "functionoid"--a sis-legged vehicle
controlled by a person with computer assistance. This
clever machine was creatively designed to be strong and
versatile. Bowever, it moved slowly and had no sensory
feedback to help control it autonomously. Since then, the
company has added a stabilizing sensory system to maintain
equilibrium and leg sensors to enable the machine to
maneuver over rough ground.
If a robot with multiple degrees of freedom (he.,
roll, pitch, and yaw, as well as movement along the a, y,
OCR for page 11
11
and z axes) were added to the multi-legged platform, it
court become a teleoperated aid to a soldier. Such a
system could carry loads, perform repetitive tasks, be a
stable mount for a sensor, rocket launcher, or other
weapon, handle hazardous or toxic materials, and perform
other tasks. The soldier-operator would control the
machine with an appropriate human-engineered interface,
either close by or remotely. The machine could have some
degree of autonomy in repetitive tasks which the operator
would train it to do. Such a system court be light (about
200 pounds) and strong (handle much more than its weight);
it could be equipped with a small gasoline-driven electric
recharger for a truck-sized battery to enable the system
to operate over a good part of a day.
Re recommend that the Axmg carefully assess the
potential of such a legged, teleoperated .soldier's
assistant.. It could multiply the effectiveness of the
armed forces--or reduce the number of soldiers needed--in
the near future. Further, this work is an example of the
advantages to the Army of monitoring technical develop-
ments in industry and adapting them to army needs.
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL AREAS
The review of selected Army programs and the site
visits brought out seven technical areas that the Army
should consider including in its robotics and AI programs:
Communication links for teleoperation,
Stereoscopic vision,
Map reading,
Sensors for target acquisition,
Deflection-compensated robot arms,
Stabilizing systems, and
Small, self-contained power sources.
The Army should carefully review the seven areas to answer
these questions:
Do programs in the Army or other service cover each
area properly?
· Is more research and development needed?
· What other programs could use these technologies?
OCR for page 12
12
1. Communication Links for Teleoperation
Two of the Axmy's three major robotic programs--the
Robotic Combat Vehicle and the Teleoperated Mobile Anti-
Axmor Program--need a broadband, Jam-resistant, secure,
and reliable data link. In particular, the TMAP's use of
a fiber optic cable seriously limits the environments in
which it can be used. The shielded cable by itself
provides an excellent non-radiating, broad bandwidth (with
three-dimensional capability) data link. Bowever, optical
cables and wires are not appropriate for field use. They
have limited range and can easily be destroyed by either
the enemy or the user. Increased research is needed to
find durable and secure communication links.
2. Stereoscopic Vision
Teleoperation by scope observation and feedback showed
the need for better three-dimensional or depth percep-
tion. This was confirmed by discussions with operators
who have had many hours of training. Because teleopera-
tion will be used for a long time, the Army should be
working to improve stereoscopic vision.
3. Map Reading
At the sites, the soldiers' difficulties in reading
were often mentioned as a fundamental problem. Proper map
reading for land navigation is basic to teleoperation.
Today's technologies should offer many ways to expedite
and improve map reading, possibly with operator-assist
systems and electronic storage and retrieval using optical
disks. The ability to read maps "interactively" could be
the technological solution to this continuing problem.
4. Sensors for Target Acquisition
Robotic sentries will be in positions where sensitive
target sensors for object detection, identification, and
location could add greatly to the robots' survival and
ability to react quickly. The work needed in this area
is to apply sensors--primarily imaging sensors--and to
improve algorithms for dealing with noisy signals. Good
OCR for page 13
13
sensors could give the robot ~ degree of autonomy without
requiring constant communications to the teleoperator.
They could also permit the robotic sentry to operate in
nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) contamination or to
warn of the presence of NBC contaminants.
5. Deflection-Compensated Robot Arms
Deflection compensation systems--including lasers,
mNlti-linkages, and perhaps others--are being developed
for robot arms. These devices could make commercial as
well as Arug-developed robot systems successful in areas
where deflections of the robot arms would have caused some
failures. People working in the application of robotics
should understand these compensating principles.
6. Stabilizing System
Teleoperated vehicles will be exposed to terrain that
challenges balance. It is important, therefore, to
understand stabilizing systems. ~ stabilizing system has
been developed for a multi-legged robot. This suggests
that the principle should be studied for possible
applications to teleoperated vehicles.
7. Small. Self-Contained Power Source
Teleoperated vehicles, especially small systems, have
relatively short power life. Small, self-contained power
sources could add greatly to the useful field time.
combination of intelligent sensors with teleoperation
could give the best timing for recharging.
OCR for page 14
14
TABLE 2 Status of Selected Army Projects in Robotics and
Artificial Intelligence, June 1987
. .. .. . __
, ~ ~ _
PROGRAM PROJECT PROGRESS SINCE 1983 ORGANIZATIONAL AND
IECBNICKL ISSUES
. .. .... .. .
_ _ l l
Teleoperated Robotic Short-ten. demonstrator ~ Optical cables not
Mobile Ranger tested for battlefield; acceptable in field; [
Anti-As~~r proof of principle need Approved ste-
Psogram planned October 1988 rooscopic vlaion and
advanced sensors for
target acquisition
. 1
Robotic Field Early development; Total program
Material Material transition to 6.4 by funtlng should be
Handling Bandling 1990 possible if work lncre.sed
Robot with PAPA & use of
NBS work succeed
Soldier/Robot Potential payoff of
Interface deflection-co~pensated
ProJect flexible robotic arm
. . _.
Robotic Advanced Demonstrator is func- Not A-~on~trably
Combat Ground tional; asp reading prepared for very
Vehicles Vehlele system ~ terrain finely- rugged terrain; need
Technology sis under development; better 3D vlelon;
full autonomy still tenuous c~m-~nica-
long-ter~ poselblllty; lion links are
teleoperation only vulnerable to
__ ~ ~ ~ · _ ~ _ loterception
Hawk Hawk Mach-III Arey-sponsored univer-
Maintenance Intelligent sity research is hell
Tutor Maintenance planned ant promising;
Tutor strong applications of
AI ~ expert systems
. A= i ~ .. ~
Representative terms from entire chapter:
advanced ground
