Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$119.00



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 280


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 279
TEL==RATION, TEIEEFF5ENCE, AND I~O=llCS: RESEARCH NEEDS FOR SPACE Thamas B. Sheridan l~WOllON The Need and the Dile One of the dramatic dhall~es ~ by E pace is versatile inspection ark] manipulation rankly Spent by man. Same people within art outside NA5A wed like to automate everything but c~ot--beca~e so many tasks are unpredictable arm therefore not doable by ~3ial-pur~se or prepr=3ra=able marines, or are one~f-a-ki~ such that Medical automatic deviC--c to do them awe too costly ~ weight and dollars. So human perception, plarming are, contra are required. But to place man Physically there is consJcra bed by hazard and high cost of life support. Remote inspection and manipulation by man, on the other hand, poses s ~ icus problems of her getting sufficient sensory information an] controlling with sufficient dexterity. Artificial sensing, intelligence and control can help. Unfortunately we have hardly begun to understand how to integrate human and artificial brands of sensing, cognition and actuation. One t is clear, however: to cast the problem in terms of humans versus robots is simplistic, unprc~uctive and self-defeating. We should be concerned with how they can cooperate. Definitions Telecperation is extension of a person's sensing and manipulating capability to a location remote fr all him. A t~leoperator includes at the munimNm artificial sensors, arms and hands, a vehicle for carrying these, and communication channels to and from the human cgerator. Telepresence is the ideal of sensing sufficient information about the teleoperator and task, and communicating this to the human cFerator in a sufficiently natural way that she feels herself to be physically present at the remote site. A more restrictive definition requires, in addition, that the teleoperator's dexterity match that of the bare-handed human cooperator. 279

OCR for page 279
280 Robotics is the science and art of perfonnirP;, by mans of an autistic apparatus or device, functions ordinarily ascribed to human beings, or operating with what appears; to be almost human intelligence (adapted from W~bster's 3rd Al. Dictionary). Telerobotics is a form of teleoperation In Rich a human c~pera~r acts as a su~risor, ~runicating to a ~u~r information abut task goals, constraints, plans, contingencies, assumptions, suggestions and orders;, getting back information about ac~arrplis~nts, difficulties, concerns, and, as requested, raw sensory data- while the subordinate telec~perator executer the tack based on information received from the human operator plus its awn artificial sensing and intelligence. A~nying the human supervisor is a ~u~' which can c~mn~nim~te, mt~te, assess, predict, ark arise ~n human-fri~y teens; at the site of the ~lerobot is a ~u~r which can c~nicate with the human-~-eractive computer and effect control using the artificial sensors and effecters In the most efficient way. One human~7utPr Remand station can sunrise many t:elerobots. Supervisory control in the present context is mostly synonymous with teler~tics, referring to the analogy of a human supervisor directing and x~nitorir~ He activities of a human suborn. Su~risory control does not necessitate that He subordinate person or machine be rate. ~;`rly History Prior to 1945 there were crude tPle~rators for earth moving, constnlction and relate task;. About that time the first moment mastPr-slave teleoperators were develop by Goertz at Argonne National Labs. These were mechanical pantograph mechanisms by which radioactive materials in a "hot cell" card be manipulated by an operator outside the cell. Electrical and hydraulic servomechanisms soon replaced the Direct Micas tape and cable linkages (Goertz, 1954), and closed circuit television was introduced, so that now the operator cculd be an arbitrary distance away. Soon tPlemanipulators were being attached to sub marines by the Navy and used commercially by offshore oil extraction and m~hle-laying firms to replace human divers, especially as cremations got deeper. By the mid 50s technological developments in "telepresence" (they didn't call it that at the time) were being demonstrated (Mouths, 1964; Johnsen and Corliss, 1967; Heer, 1973~. Among these were: force reflection simultaneously in all six degrees of freedom; hands with multi-jo~nt^~ fingers; coordinated two-arm telecperators; and head-mounted displays which drove the remote camera position and thereby produced remarkable visual telepresence. By 1965 experiments in academic research laboratories had already revealed the problems of teleman~pu~ation and vehicle control through time delay (Ferrell, 1965), and the early lunar teleoperator Surveyor demonstrated the problems vividly On an actual space mission. Touch sensing and display research was already underway (Strickler, 1966) though there was little Interest in teletoubh at that time. Soon thereafter supervisory control was shawn to offer a way around the time e

OCR for page 279
281 delay problem, and also to have advantages even without time delay in the communication channel, where, in order to avoid collision or dropping grasped objects, quicker teleoperator reaction time was needed than the distant human operator could provide (Ferrell and Sheridan, 1967). though the NASA nuclear rocket project mounted a major effort in teJeoperator development in the 3960s, after that program was canoelled and throughout the 1970s there was little support for space teleoperation or telerobotics. By 1970, however, industrial robotics was coming into full swing, for Unimation, GE and a handful of other American, Japanese and Scandinavian manufacturers had begun using relatively simple assembly-line robots, mostly for spot welding and pa mt spraying. By 1980 industrial robots had become graced by wrist force sensing and primitive computer vision, and puch-button "teach pendant" control boxes were being used for relatively simple programming from the shop floor. Overview of Current Status To outward appearances sex-degree-of-freedom, force-reflecting, serial-link electrical or hydraulic mast~r-slave manipulators have changed little in forty years. There are a few new and promising mechanical configurations of arms and mwiti-fingered hands in laboratories, but as yet they are unproven On practical application. Video, driven by a demanding marketplace, is now of high quality and miniaturized, and digitization and simple recognition processing of video images is fast and inexpensive. We have a variety of touch (surface contact and pressure array) sensors available in the laboratory, but as yet little under standing of how to use these sensors. On Operation depth perception remains a serious problem, but there is promising research on several fronts. We still have not achieved fine, dexterous t~lemanipulation with high fidelity feedback as implied by the term presence". As yet there is no satisfactory control theory of manipulation as an integrated sensory-in ator control activity, but new theories have been develcged for manipulation task-analysis from an AI perspective, for kinematic-4ynamic control of complex linkages, and for force-displacement hard-en vironmant impedance. We still think of controlling manipulator arms and the vehicles which carry them as separate activities; we haven't learned to combine the two (though infants do it with eased. We have demonstrated simple human-supervised, comput~r-aided Operation in a number of ways, but our understanding of human-comput~r cooperation is very primitive, hardly commensurate with the label "~1erobot" we employ with such abandon.

OCR for page 279
282 SPECIFIC AREAS IN WHICH NEW RESEARCH IS NEEDED Research needs are discussed in four categories: (1) (2) teleactuatinq, (3) ccm~uter-aidina in sucervi50rY t=1~, control, and (4) meta-analysis of human/co mputPr/telecperator/~.~k interaction. Some recent an] current research is cited. Tel~nsing My colleague, Dr. Stork, who is an MD an] more sense-able than I, will deal more extensively with this category, particularly with vision, the most Important human sense, and with the needy= and possibilities in virtual displays and controls, depth perception, and other significant needs in teleoperator research. I would like to comment about resolved force, touch, kinesthesis, proprioception, and proximity- five critical teleoperator sensing needs which must be recognized as being different Fran one another. These five, together with vision, are essential to achieve the ideal of "telepresense". For each it is important to urxierstand how the human normally functions, and then to urxierstand how the appropriate signals can be measured by artificial transducers and then displayed to the human Operator arx3/or use by artificial tntelliger~ce ~ a way helpful to ache human operator. Resolved force sensing is hat the humanbody's joint, muscle and tendon receptors do to determine be net force and torque acting on the hand, i.e., the vector resultant of all the component forces and torques operating on the environment. In force reflecting master-slave systems this is measured either by: (1) strain gage bridges in the wrist (so-called wrist-force sensors); (2) position sensors in both master and slave, which, when compared, indicate the relative deflection in six DOF (which in the static case corresponds to force) (3) electrical motor current or hydraulic actuator pressure differentials. Display of fP=~hack to the operator can be straightforward in principal; in force-reflecting mast~r-slave systems the measured force signals drive actors on the master arm which push back on the hand of the operator with the same forces and torques with which the slave pushes on the environment. This might work perfectly In an ideal world where such slave-back-tc-~aster force serving is perfect, and the master and slave arms impose no mass, compliance, viscosity or static friction characteristics of the Or own. Unhappily, not only does reality not conform to this dream; it can also be said that we hardly understand what are the deleterious effects of these mechanical properties in masking the sensory information that is sought by the operator In E~f~mi~ telemanipulation, or how to minimize these effects. At 1~t, Shard to ~u~r coordinate transformation, it has been shown ~t master arKi slave need not have the same kinematics (Corker ark Bejczy, 1985~. Force reflection can also be applied to a rate-con~crol jc~rstic~k (Lynch, 1972) but it is less clear what the advantages are. ;

OCR for page 279
283 Tough is the hem use sloppily to refer to various forms of force sensing, but more precisely to refer to differential pressure sense of the skin, i.e., tile ability of the Skin to detect force patterns, with re ~ to displac ~ nt both tangential and normal to the skin surface, and to time. The skin is a poor sensor of absolute magnitude of force normal to the surface and it adapts quickly. There are now a few instruments for artificial teletouch; most of these have much coarser spatial resolution than the skin, though a few of the newer ones utilizing optic have the potential for high resolution (Harmon, 1982; Schneiter and Sheridan, 1984~. A major research problem for teletouch is how artificially sensed pressure patterns should be displayed to the human operator. One would like to display such information to the skin on the same hand that is operating the joystick or master arm which guides the remote manipulator. m is has not been achieved successfully, and most success has been with displaying remote tactile information to the eyes using a compuber-graphic display, or to skin at some other location. . Kinesthesis and proprioception are terms often used together, at least ~ part because the same receptors On the human body's muscles and tendons mediate both. Kinesthesis literally is the sense of motion and proprioception is awareness of where in space one's limbs are. Telekinesthesis and t=1eproprioception are particularly critical because, as telemanipu~ation experience has shown, it is very easy for the operator to lose track of the relative position and orientation of the remote arms and hands and how fast they are moving in what dir ~ ion. This is particularly agg~-ava1:ed by his having to ~ erve the remote manipulation through video without peripheral vision or very good depth perception, or by not having master-slave position correspondence, i.e., when a joystick is used. Potential remedies are: m ~ tiple view ; wide field of view from a vantage point which includes the arm base; and computer-generate] images of various kinds (the latter will be din further below). Providing better sense of depth is critical to t~lemanipulation in space. Proximity sensing IS not someth mg humans normally do except by vision, but cats do it by whiskers or olfaction (smell), and bats and blind persons do it by sound cues or vibrations felt on the face. Sonar, of course, will not work in space. Electrc magnetic and optimal systems can be used for measuring proximity (close- ~ rang Meg) to avoid obstacles or decide when to slow down in approaching an abject to be man~pula~ (Bejczy et al.980~. Such auxiliary information can be displayed to the eyes bar means of a ~u~r graphic display, or, if the eyes are considered overloaded, by scars patterns, especially ter~generated Seth. We need ~ unders~cand how best ~ use such information In space. TELEACTUNIING It was stated In the previous section that we know relatively little about certain types of rate sensing, i.e. , both artificial sensing arm display to the human operator controlling We tele~ator (this in spite of gnawing a gnat d-~1 abaft human sensing per se). Rate

OCR for page 279
284 ac~tion (in which ~ we include control In the conventions sees=) poses an even larger prdblen, since it combines motor ac~tion with sensor and decision-raking, and it can be said we Maw even less about this, except for the practiced knowledge we have from Operating the kinds of t=le~rators that have been art for a number of year;, By ~ clear hot-laboratories and for undersea oil operations. Again, Ants are offer In a ~ of specific categoric= where some research is ongoing but Ah more nets to be done. The conch prcble~ns in this category, where Aural-=' interaction per se is not the pr~cip~1 issue, apply to both dint ant supervisory control. Multi - =ree~f-fre~c~m ~~ffectors seem a most obvious need, as evidenced by our ~ human harts, but the sad fact is Cat these have not been develops beyond a for laboratory prototypes. Dial manipulators ted to have simple parallel-jaw grippers, art a few have claws, magnetic or at suction gripping mechanisms, or special pur~se atta~nt device= for welding, paint spraying or other sE>ecial-purpose tools. Though parallel-jaw griper s ~ ; the most obvious function for a one DOF end-effecLor, it is not yet clear what a second DOF right be for, or a third, etc. Mh~ti-fingered devices such as those by Salisbury (1986) or Jacobson (1987) will help us answer these questions. At the moment fear of losing objects in space seems to militate against general purpose grippers; that could change in the future. Modern computer-graphic workstations begin to offer the hope of studying problems like these by computer simulation without having to build expensive hardware for every configuration and geometric relationship to be tested. Two-arm interaction is a necessity for much human manipulation (it has become standard for nuclear hot-lab manipulators), but we rarely see it ~ industrial or undersea teleoperators. Part of this problem is to get the most out a given number of degrees-of-freed=~. For example, instead of having a single s =-axis arm operating on one body relative to a second body for base), one ~ got acccmplish the same by having a three DOF "grabber arm" position the body so that a second, say, three DOF arm can work an coordinated fashion to perform same assembly task. Industrial robot experience shows that two three DOF arms are likely to be simpler and cheaper that one s~x-DOF arm. This has not been implemented in space applications; the problem needs regear=. Redundant DOF Hand-arm-vehicle coordination is a serious problem, and actually a need for any kinematic linkage of more than Six DOF which must be controlled in a coordinated way. This is largely an unsolved theoretic problem, at le=t In part because the number of configurations which satisfy given end-point position/orientation constraints Is infinite. One tries to select five amoral scheme solutions to minimize energy or time or to avoid ~ Stain a ~ olute positions of the joints, or to prevent singularities, etc., but the mathematics is formid~hie. One arm of three and one of four DOF make for such redundancy, but perhaps even more important, so does a vehicle thrusting in six DOF with an attached arm of even one DOF. We humans coordinate movements of our own legs, arms, and bodies (many redundant

OCR for page 279
285 DOF) without difficulty, but just how we do it is still a relatively wel1-k_pt secret of nature. `~-i-person cooperative control is one way to control a complex mulci-30F teleoperator--where each of several Operators is responsible for maneuvering a single arm or vehicle ~ relation to others. Is this best or is it better to have a single operator control all DOF of both vehicle and arm? lie really don't Bylaw. Results fray simple tracking experiments suggest Off control of multiple independent tasks is very cliff cult for one person. Men the Ins of freedom of a task are closely coupled arbor ~st be coordinated to achieve the task Objectives, ~t can be relatively refly provided proper control Beans are pr~rided--but up to how many DOF? It is surprising how little research is available in this area. Adiust~hle impedance of issuer arc/or slave is a P~miSi~ way of kid a m~ster-slave teleoperator more ~ Battle than 1~- the compliance-viscosity- Instance parameters remained fixed (Raju, 1986). A carpenter may carry and use within one bask several different hammers, and a golfer many clubs, because each provides an impedance characteristic appropriate for particular tasks which are expected. Carrying many teleoperators into space may be avoided by making the impedance between slave and task and/or between human and master be adjustable. We have hardly begun to understand this problem, and have much to learn. Interchangeable end-effector tools is another way to accomplish versatility and of course is Precisely what carpenters, surgeons or other craftsmen use. Future space Operators may have a great variety of special tools for both modifying and measuring the environment. It is not clear how to make the trade between special and general purpose end-effectors. Task-resolved manipulation means performing standard or preprogrammed cgerations (e.g., cleaning, inspecting, indexing a tool) relative to the surface of an environmental object (Yoerger, 1986~. This means sensing that surface in the process of manipulating and cont~nu~ly performing coordinate transformations to update the axes with respect to which the operations are being done. This is an extension of point resolution" ability to cc~mr~ the finger to move ~ a desired trajectory blithe having to worry about hear to mere all the joints in between. Force-fe~back with time delay has been show both theoretical By and experimentally not to work if the force is fed back continuously to the same hand as is cgerating the control, for the delayed feedback simply forms an inst~hili~ on the process which the operator might otherwise avoid by a mave-and-wait strategy or by supervisory control (Ferre1l, 1966~. Yet it sums that forces sully encountered or greater than a preset magnitude might be fed back to that ha m for a brief period, provided the forward gain were reduced or cut off during that same brief period, and the master then repositioned to where it was at the start of the event with no forcerfeedback.

OCR for page 279
286 ~ut~aidir~ ~ S~risory Control C~uters may be use for relatively "la~r-level" Stations In many of the telesensing/display and Actuation modes describe abc~v~. There are a .-nm~er of other tel~peration ~ problems in Rich the b^=nan~uter interaction is He i~r~cant part. These include c~uter simulation, ~uter-bas~ pla~/decision-aidir~, arm c~put~r-aided ~~mmni~ation~control ~ various mixes. All of these are pare of supervisory control by a huran operator of a telenil30t. Off-~ne, real-time, human~rable ("flyable") simulation of ieleoperation for research, er~n~'ingortrainir~has barely Pronto be viable e This Is because of the c~nplexity of simulating and displaying the vehicle plus the arm and hard plus the manipulated object plus the er~viromnent, having all degrees of freedman cooperate, with removal of hidden lines, arm so on. Even namin~ly high~ality cc ~ use r graphics machines have trouble with generation of such complex displays in real time. We can come close today, but since computer power is the one thing that is bound to improve dramatically over the course of the coming few years, we ~ ght pay attention to the many possibilities for using computers as a substitute for building expensive hardware to perform man-machine experiments and evaluate new design configurations. me are serious problems to simulate the full dynamics of Anti DOF arms and harts. There He problems to be solved to man simulated tel~rators grasp and manipulate si~at~ objects. m ere are many problems to get high ~ lity pictures (in terms of resolution, frame rate, gr~y-scale, color, etc.) Telepresence is an ides in simulators just as it is in actuality. In fact, to enable the human operator to feel he is ltherell when lltheretl exists nowhere other than in the computer poses a particularly interesting challenge. On-Line ~n-sibu Banning simulators might be used "in the heat of batt1et' to try out maneuvers just before they are committed for real action (and real expenditure of precious rescurce5 in space). In this case commands WoNid be sent to the co~puter-based model of the vehicle and/or manipulator and th ~ would be observed by the operator prospectively, i.e., before further commands are given (as compared to the retrospective state estimation case to be described below). Ccc=ands (supervisory or direct) would be given to the simulation model but not to the actual process, the model results would be ck served, and the process could be ~ ~ ~ until the cooperator is satisfied that he knows what ccr=an~s are best to commit to the actual process. there are possibilities for having the simulator "tract" the movement of the actual process so that any on-lLne bests could start frog automatically updated initial conditions. The problem of what to control manually and what to have the computer execute by following supervisory instruction is something that cannot he solved in general but probably ~ st be decided In each near context: the on-~ne nlanni ~ simulator might be a way to make this happen. On-line simulation for time-delay compensation is appropriate only to direct control, and is not necessary for supervisory control. Here . _

OCR for page 279
287 the ~ are set to the new arm ache actual System at the same time. Ire It's prediction (e.g., in ~ fond of a stick figure arm or vehicle) can be ~ on top of the actual video picture delayed in its return from space. we rare can conserve the results freon we ~1 i~iat~ly (before the tone delay runs its course), thereby be much Ire confident in his move before stopping for f~dk, and! thus save several '~v~an1 wait" Cycles. These technics have been Astral for As of we manipu~a~r arm (Names and Sheridan, 1984) / but not yet for the manipulator and and controlled vehicle in c~b~naticn. ~nthe~tion of vehicles or other objects not under we c~erator's cc~trol can be predict, e.g., by the curator indicatir~ an each or sever successive frames were Sin referrers nts are, these Jews can be awed to the predictor display. With any of these pla Hi ~ pr Diction aids, the display can be presented four any pa It of view relative to the manip~1ator/vehicic- a feat which ~ not possible with the actual video Bra. state measorement/estimation/disolav has potential where all information about what is going an "right non' is not available in convenient form, or where measurements are subject to bias or noise, or tiple nets may conflict. He pi ~ to provide a best estimate of the current situa~cion or "state" (values of key variables which indicate where the telemanipulator end effecter is relative to referent coordinate" or-to Vital objects of interest, what are the joint arches are joint angle ~ocitiee;, what is the level of energy or other critical ~es, and so oath arm display this to the human curator ~ a way which is It and Tahoe by him for purl of Trot. this may arson ccz~bining information from Tip e easurm~t or ds~ca-base sautes, then Biasing this information to the extent Cat can be done (in light of available calibration delta), and factoring in prediction of that the state Child be based on h~awledge of that rent iris were and that are the likely system rinses to these items. A Crete state estimation yields a "best' prefabs ity density distribution corer all system states. Math theory is available on state estimation but there has been a ~ t no application to space +~lecQeratian. Some research has shown that human operators are unable to assimilate state information that is too complex, and tend to simplify it for themselves by estimating averages and throwing away the full distribution, or at least by using some simple index of dispersicn, or in the case of joint distributions over two or more variables; by coring only the marginal distributions, or even s~nplifyir~ to point estimates an the ir~ent variables (P~130~h, 1986~. Remark i~ net on how to pride the ~tor all that can be got fmn state esthetic ark how ~ display this in a anirqfu1 way. Supervisory command languages must be developed especially for space telecperators. We have a good start from industrial robot command languages (Paul, 1981) and from the few experimental supervisory command languages which have been develcged ~ the laboratory (Brooks, 1979; Yoerger, 1982~. We must ur~crstan] better the relative roles of analogic instruction (positioning a control device in space, pointing,

OCR for page 279
288 demonstrating a movement) and symbolic instruction (entering strings of alphanumeric symbols in more or less natural language to convey logic, description, contingencies, etch. Clearly in everyday discourse we use both analogic and symbolic coring in ccmmuni~=ting with one another, especially ~ teaching craft ski1 Is, which seem to relate closely to what telec~peration is. Bosch Fornication modes oust be based In c~ni~ating with a t=ler~t. the trot usually starts with little or no "context" about the world, which objects are which and Here they are In space. For this reason, it is necessary to tough objects with a designated reference port on the telec~ator, to point faith a laser Con or otherwise to identify objects (perhaps ~ncur~ntly with giving nays or reference information sy~li~ally) , and to ~pecif~r~eference points on those c~jects. R ~ nt pa ~ ress in computer linguistics can contribute much to supervisory command language. Voice control and f-P~h~k for all the tamps it has keen sucaesbed as an interesting telemanipulation research topic in recent years, has seen very little systematic research. Voice command probably has the most promise for giving "symbolic" commands to the computer (m contrast to the normal "analogic" or geometric isomorphic commands which the master-slave or joystick provides). Vocal symbolic cc=mands might be used to reset certain automatic or supervisory loops such as grasp force, or to set control gain, master slave amplitude or force ratio, or to guide the pan, tilt and zoos of the video cameras (Bejczy et al., 1980~. Aids for failure detection/identification/emergenc~, response are particularly important since in a complex system the human Orator may have great difficult kicking when same component has begun to fail. This can be because He current isn't being cperated and hence there is no abnormal variable indicated. Alternatively, if it is being operated, the variables being presented as abnormal could have resulted from an abnormality well upstream. Finally, the operator can simply be averioaded. Many new failure detection/diagnosis techniques have been developed in recent years, some of them involving Bayesian and other statistical inference, some involving multiple cc mparisons of measure signals to on-line models of what normal response should look like, and so on. Failure de~ionJ~iagnos~s is a critical part of supervisory control, where the operator depends on help from the cc mputer, but himself plays ultimate judge. This may be a prime candidate for the use of expert systems. Mbta-analysis of Hhman/Computer/Teleoperator/Task interaction Abstract theory of manipulation and mechanical "sol-using has been surprisingly lacking. Control eng veering, as it developed through the 1940-60 period, never really coped with the complex sequential dependencies of coordinating sensory and motor activities to perform mechanical multi-DOF manipulation tasks. Only when industrial robot engineers began to face up to how little they knew about how to do assembly did the need for a theory of manipulation become evident.

OCR for page 279
289 Shadow it seems reasonable that We syntax of manipulation is analogous to that of natural Garage (i.e., tool-action-object corresponds to subject-verWobject, with appropriate modifiers for each term), since both are primitive human behaviors. It then sea a smut step to apply computational linguistics to manipulation. But little of this has been done ~s yet. Performance measures and assessment techniques nope to he developed for Operation. At the moment there are essentially no accepted standards for asserting that one telemanipulator system (of hard or software or both) is better or worse than some other. Of course to some extent finis is context dependent, an] the success will defend upon 8 _ e ~ spell: :1C mlSSlOn ~lltemeIltS. ~ ^ But there have got to be some generic arm ccamr~nly accept irxlices of performance Ever which could be used to profile the capabilities of a teleoperator vehicle/manipulator system, Including factors of physical size, strength, speed accuracy, repeatability, versatility, reliability, etc. One worries beeper even terms such as accuracy, repeatability, 1 Brevity, and so on are used in a common way within the community. No one is asking for rigid standardization, but some commonality across Buts and measure= appears necessary to avoid great waste and bureaucratic chaos. Direct experimental comparisons between astronauts performing hands-on An End and teleoperator_` perform mg either in direct or su~ervisorv-controlleJ fashion But be done on a much more extensive and scientifically controlled scale, making use of both the manipulation theory and the generic performance measures to be develcpe5. These experiments should be performed first on the y~vand in laboratories or neutral buoyances tanks, much as Akin (1987) Han begun, then in space on shuttle flights (e.g., EASE experiments), and eventually on the spare station itself. CON~rlSIONS A Ember of research topics have been propose, all seen as critical for the devel~nt of needed tele~rator/~1er~botic capability for future space station arxi relate missions. These have been presented ~ e areas of: - (1) Sensing (with the low ~ n goal of t~lepresence); (2) actuation (with the long term goals or versatility and dexterity); (3) comput=~-aiding ~ supervisory control (with the long term Goals of providing better simulation, planning and failure detection tools, and ted erobots which are reliable and efficient in time and energy); (4, m eta-theory of manipulation twith the long-term , _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ goals of understanding/ evaluation/ and best relative use of both human and machine resources) l~lerdboticsr as much as arm other resort area for the space , , ~ station, has dirt rest transferability to the non~over~nt sector for use in manufacturing, construction, mint, agriculture, Porcine and other areas With can improve our nation's pr~ctivi~r.

OCR for page 279
290 kt;~i~ Akin, D. 1987 Ongoing ~ at Mid. Bejczy, A. K., Brawn, J. W. and Lewis, J. L. 1980 Evaluation of "smart" sensor display:; for mllltidi~sional precision control of Apace Thee rate manipulator. Fires of the 16th Conference on Mortal Conch. HIT, ~ridge, M\, May 5-7. Bejczy, A. K., Dotson, R. S. arc Me or, F. P. 1980 Mdn-mac~ine s ~ interaction In a t=1 ~ rator environment. Proceedings of the Symposium on Voice - Interactive Systems. DOD Human Factors Group, Dallas, TX, Any 11-13. Brooks, T. L. 1970 SUPERMAN: Study of Human-Comowber Interactions. MA: Mar. a Svstem for supervisory ~~niPNlation and the EM thesis, Cambridge, Corker/ K. and Bejczy, A. K. 1985 Recent advances in Presence technology development. Proceedings of the 22nd Space Congress. Center, FL, April 22-25 Ferrell, W. R. 1965 1966 ~dy Space Remote manipulation with trans=Jssion delay. a::: Transactions, Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-6, 1. Delayed force f"C~h~ck. October. pp. 449-455 in Human Factors. Ferrell, W. R. and Sheridan, T. B. 1967 Supervisory control of remote manipulation. 4(10):81-88. Goertz, R. C. and Thompson, R. C. 1954 Electronira1 ly controlled manipulator. Nucleom cs. 1 P:~:~: Pp. 46-47 in Harmon, L. D. 1982 Automated Tactile sensing. International Journal of Robotics Research 1(2):3-32. H"=r/ E.' ed. 1973 Remotely Manned Systems. Institute of Technology. Pasadena, of: California

OCR for page 279
291 Jacobson, S. 1987 Or~goir~ research at the Ur~versi~ of Utah. Jo, E. G. and Corliss, W. R. 1967 Teleooerators and Moan Augmentation. MESA S - 5047. Lynch, P. 1972 A Force Reflecting Joystick. ~st~r's Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Her. Most, R. S. 1964 Mistrial manipulators. Scientific American 211(4):88-96. Names, M. art Sheridan, T. B. 1984 A novel predictor for telemanipulation through a time delay. Feedings of the Army Conference on annual Control. Mbffett Field, CA: NOVA Is R~r=h Center. Paul, R. P. 1981 Robot~nipulators: Pr~a~ni~and Control. Cambridge, MA: ~ Press. Raju, J. G. 1986 An experiments master slave manipulator system to stuffer the fe=~ibilit~r of pperator-adjustable impedance in rate manipulation. ~n-~6hine Systems Laboratory Memo 86-1, Err. P=seborough, J. B. and Sheridan, T. B. 1986 Aiding human Operators with state Estonia. ~n-~c~hme Systems Iaboratory Report. MIT, July. Salinity, J. K. 1986 ongoing r~r~ at the Mar AI I~boratory. Schneider, J. and Sheridan, T. B. 1984 Art Optical Tactile Sensor for Manipulator, Robotics and ~uter-Integrated Manufacturing 1~1~:65-74. Stric~kler, T. G. 1966 Design of an Opting Mush Sensing System for a Renote Manipulator. EM thesis, Cambridge, Ha: MIT. Yoerger, D. 1982 Supervisory Control of Underwater lblemanipulators: Design and Experiment. END thesis, cartridge, MA: FIT. Yoerg~r, D. Personal Fornication.