Advertisement

The Downsizing of a Free-Flying Space Robot

  • Lucy JacksonEmail author
  • Chakravarthini M. SaajEmail author
  • Asma SeddaouiEmail author
  • Calem WhitingEmail author
  • Steve EckersleyEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11650)

Abstract

Robotic technologies have been long-serving in space, and are still an active and ever-growing field of research. Satellite mounted manipulators allow more ambitious tasks to be carried out in a safer and more timely manner, by limiting the need for astronaut intervention during task execution. Downsizing these free-flying space robots will expand their potential by increasing their versatility, allowing task sharing between multiple systems, as well as further lowering mission costs and timescales. Limited research has been done in assessing the practical challenges involved in downsizing a space robot and its consequences on overall performance. This paper presents a system level analysis into deciding the optimum dimensions for a manipulator mounted on a small free-flying spacecraft. Simulation results show the effect of downsizing on the efficiency of the manipulator and the overall system.

Keywords

Space robot Small satellites Free-flying mode Robot arm 

References

  1. 1.
    Oda, M.: Space robot experiments on NASDA’s ETS-VII satellite - preliminary overview of the experiment results. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1–4, pp. 1390–1395 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friend, R.B.: Orbital express program summary and mission overview. In: Sensors and Systems for Space Applications II, vol. 6958 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forshaw, J.L., et al.: RemoveDEBRIS: an in-orbit active debris removal demonstration mission. Acta Astronaut. 127, 448–463 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reed, B.B., Smith, R.C., Naasz, B.J., Pellegrino, J.F., Bacon, C.E.: The restore-l servicing mission. In: AIAA Space, Long Beach, California (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Underwood, C., Pellegrino, S., Lappas, V.J., Bridges, C.P., Baker, J.: Using cubesat/micro-satellite technology to demonstrate the autonomous assembly of a reconfigurable space telescope (AAReST). Acta Astronaut. 114, 112–122 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eckersley, S., et al.: In-orbit assembly of large spacecraft using small spacecraft and innovative technologies. In: 69th International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, October 2018Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saunders, C., Lobb, D., Sweeting, M., Gao, Y.: Building large telescopes in orbit using small satellites. Acta Astronaut. 141, 183–195 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doggett, W.R., Dorsey, J.T., Jones, T.C., King, B.: Development of a tendon-actuated lightweight in-space MANipulator (TALISMAN). In: 42nd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, vol. 405. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, May 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roa, M., Nottensteiner, K., Wedler, A., Grunwald, G.: Robotic technologies for in-space assembly operations. In: Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, June 2017Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson, L., Saaj, C., Seddaoui, A., Whiting, C., Eckersley, S., Ferris, M.: Design of a small space robot for on-orbit assembly missions. In: 5th International Conference on Mechatronics and Robotics Engineering, Rome, Italy, February 2019Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surrey Space CenterUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd.GuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations