|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 320
DISCUSSION: CCYUENT5 ON TEIEERE5ENCE AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL
Antal K. Bejc~y
Telepresence and supervisory control technologies, as Professor
Sheridan pointed it out, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
existing teleoperator technology capabilities.
. · .
represent advancements or refinements of
Both technologies are
strongly driven By and rely upon Increased ccmpu ~ r and computing
capabilities and are regarded ~= substantial contributors to evolving
space station capabilities On the sense of reducing EVA astronaut
involvement in assembly, servicing and maintenance operations.
Mbreover, both technologies carry the premise of substantial spin-off
for advancing capabilities of the U.S. production and service
industries.
Professor Sheridan and Professor Stark enumerated and elucidated
many specific topics and issues in sensing, controls and displays for
telepr-=ence and supervisory control which need research attention to
advance the state of the art in the two technologies.
In my discussion
and comments, I would like to focus attention on the same research
topics and issues from the following viewpoints: (a) In what sense and
to what extent can we expect the enhancement of human operator
capabilities through telepresence and supervisory control? (b) What
specific conditions and constraints are impose] by the space
application environment on the evolving telepresence and s ~ isory
control technologies? (c) - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ine muleldisclpllnary nature of the
required research effort since neither telepresence nor supervisory
control are ~ntrinsi~ly separate science or engineering disciplines.
A brief description of the basic objectives of telepresence and
supervisory control technologies may help illuminate the questions that
arise from the above three viewpoints.
The basic objective of telepr-=ence technology is to alleviate the
human operator's sense of remoteness in the control station by
providing sufficient information to the operator on the activities-= of
~~ ' ~ ' ~~ ~ the content of the last attribute
He form" heavily dopers on human capabilities uTxi~r given
conditions, on the capabilities arKicharacteristic~ of machines to tee
controlled, and on the rapture of tasks to be ac~lished. Also
implied In this technology is ache operator's enhanc ~ control response
ability to the perceived remote events. Briefly, telepresence
technology is aimed at providing--so to speak--a more intimate,
the remote machine in usable form.
320
OCR for page 321
321
sensitive and high fidelity input and output connection between
operator and remote machine.
The basic objective of supervisory control technology is to provide
sufficient capabilities for the human operator to tell the remote
machine what to do and, eventually, how to do it, without involving the
operator in continuous control coordination of a mwitibude of machine
actuators needed to execute a task (note that a dual-arm system
contains fourteen or more actuators). Thus, in supervisory mode of
control, the operator con ~ ols the tack instead of controlling the
individual degrees of freedom an] associated actuators of a
multi-degree-of-freedom complex machine. Implied in this technology
are two important technical capabilities: (a) flexible automation of
actions of a multi-degree-of-fr=4~om complex mechanical system, and (b)
flexible lar~uage-like or mer~u~type interface to, or interaction winch,
the automated mechanical actions of a remote machine.
Several notes should be added to the Objective descriptions of
teiepresence and supervisory control technologies.
_ First, none of then
elongates the he an op ~ ator from the operation, but both change the
Operator's function assignments and employ human capabilities in new
ways. Second, both technologies promise the performance of more tasks
with better results, but, in doing so, both technologies also make a
close reference to human capabilities of operators who will use
evolving new devices and techniques in the control station. Third,
both telepresence and supervisory control technologies mate reference
to evolving capabilities of other technologies like sensing, high
performance computer graphics, new electro-mechanical devices,
ccmputer-base] flexible automation, expert systems for Plann m a and
error recovery' and so on.
tied to rich multidisciplinary activities.
_ , ~ ~ , _ _ _ ~ _
Thus, the progress in both technologies are
_ ~ - Fourth, both technologies
require the evaluation and validation of their results relative to the
application environment. For space station scenarios, this implies the
effect of zero-g an human operators, restricted local resources (like
power, work volume, etc.) for a control station in Barth orbit, limited
communication bandwidth and some communication time delay between a
control station and remote machines, fragile and sensitive nature of
space systems a t=leoperator machine will be work mg on, changes in
visual conditions in Earth orbit relative to visual conditions on
Earth, and so on.
The above not==, together with the objective description of
telepresence and supervisory control technologies, motivate a few
important conclusions.
First, the high fidelity, human operator referenced, man-machine
coupling hardly worked on In t~lepresence technology--suggests we
revisit anthropomorphic machine technology. The pr ~ reason for the
revisit is not a declaration of some intrinsic optimality of
anthropomorphic machines, but a recognition of their potentially easy
and natural interface to human operators to physically extend the rich
human manipulative capabilities, emtcdied in the dexterity of the human
hand, to remote place=. One may visualize a back~rivable glove-˘ype
device on the operator's hand connected through bilateral control to a
controllable mechanical replica of the human hand equipped with same
OCR for page 322
322
sensing capabilities. This vision may not seen Coo singe Men
capabilities of component technologies needed for the develc~nment of
this anthr~rFihic machine are car~sider~.
,
Second, the performance of noncompetitive, sir=~r or un~
tee epperator tas ~ In space may benefit f The devel ~ nt of shared
manual and automatic computer control techniques whenever application
scenarios permit their use. -these techniques intend to combine the
best attributes of human operators and computer control under
restricted conditions.
Third, the operator is facing a very rich environment in the control
station in terms of decision, command, control and information
, ,
processing even with increased telepresence and supervisory control
capabilities. Due to the nature and tine scale of activities ~
telemanipulation, the cgerator's mental stable and readiness can be
compared to an airplane pilot's functional situation Curing take-off or
landing. thus, proliferation of control and Information hardware
the control station does not serve the best interest of the human
operator. m e more computer technology is employed at the control an]
information interface in the control station in a clever way, the
better off is the human operator to make control decisions efficiently.
Fourth, the RSD effort for advancing Presence and supervisory
control technologies should be acoompanled by systematic work on
developing a human factors data base and models for understanding and
utilizing the results of these evolving technologies. It is apparent
from the nature of the ~ evolving technologies that the Emits or
limitations rest not so much with the technologies themselves but with
the human capabilities to absorb and use these technologies.
Fifth, final evaluation and validation of Presence and
supervisory control technologies for space station naturally require
experiments and manifests in space whenever human perception, decision,
control and other activities are influenced by space conditions.
Simulations a ~ useful research and development tools, and they can
pave the way towards performance evaluation and validation. But a
comprehensive simulation of true space conditions on Earth for
developing a human factors data base and models in t-lepresence and
supervisory control technologies does not seem feasible.
Professor Stark make a strong case for N~SA-University research in
this arena. me benefits of ROSA—University connections in human
factors research in the field of t=1epresence and supervisory condom
can indeed be manifest through past and present examples.
Particularly appear are cases when graduate scents caky out the
experiments part of hear thesis research at NP~;A-su~rted, unique
laboratories like Per, I, JSC, and so on, or ken scents set same
working time at NOVA laboratories as Imperative scents or as
academic part-time employees working on topics relate to their
university sties.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
control technologies
