Standardized Field Testing of Assistant Robots in a Mars-Like Environment
Controlled testing on standard tasks and within standard environments can provide meaningful performance comparisons between robots of heterogeneous design. But because they must perform practical tasks in unstructured, and therefore non-standard, environments, the benefits of this approach have barely begun to accrue for field robots. This work describes a desert trial of six student prototypes of astronaut-support robots using a set of standardized engineering tests developed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), along with three operational tests in natural Mars-like terrain. The results suggest that standards developed for emergency response robots are also applicable to the astronaut support domain, yielding useful insights into the differences in capabilities between robots and real design improvements. The exercise shows the value of combining repeatable engineering tests with task-specific application-testing in the field.
KeywordsTest methods Field testing Astronaut assistant robots
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Jacoff, A., Downs, A., Huang, H., Messina, E., Saidi, K., Sheh, R., Virts, A.: Standard Test Methods for Response Robots. ASTM International Committee on Homeland Security Applications: Operational Equipment; Robots (E54.08.01). NIST (2014)Google Scholar
- 4.Jacoff, A., Huang, H., Virts, A., Downs, A., Sheh, R.: Emergency response robot evaluation exercise. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems, pp. 145–154. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
- 5.Pirondini, F., Fernandez, A.J.: A new approach to the design of navigation constellations around mars: the marco polo evolutionary system. In: AIAA 57th International Astronautical Congress, vol. 7, pp. 4692–4700. IAC (2006)Google Scholar
- 6.Matsuoka, M., Rock, S.M., Bualat, M.G.: Autonomous deployment of a self-calibrating pseudolite array for mars rover navigation. In: Position Location and Navigation Symposium, PLANS 2004, pp. 733–739. IEEE Press (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Carle, P.J.F., Furgale, P.T., Barfoot, T.D.: Long Range Rover Localization by Matching LIDAR Scans to Orbital Elevation Maps. J. of Field Robotics 27(3), 344–370 (2010)Google Scholar
- 8.Fong, T., Kunz, C., Hiatt, L.M., Bugajska, M.: The human-robot interaction operating system. In: Proc. of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 41–48. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
- 9.Akin, D.L., Bowden, M.L., Saripalli, S., Hodges, K.: Developing technologies and techniques for robot-augmented human surface science. In: AIAA Space 2010 Conf. and Exhibition. AIAA, Anaheim (2010)Google Scholar
- 12.Mann, G.A., Baumik, A.: A hexapodal robot for maintenance operations at a future mars base. In: 11th Australian Mars Exploration Conf. MSA, Perth (2011)Google Scholar
- 13.Lai, J.S., Ford, J.J., Mejias, L., Wainwright, A.L., O’Shea, P.J., Walker, R.A.: Field-of-view, detection range, and false alarm trade-offs in vision-based aircraft detection. In: Int. Cong. of the Aeronautical Sciences. ICAS, Brisbane (2012)Google Scholar
- 14.Barten, P.G.J.: Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and its Effects on Image Quality, vol. 72. SPIE Press (1999)Google Scholar
- 15.Hughes, S., Manojlovich, S., Lewis, M., Gennari, J.: Control and decoupled motion for teleoperation. In: International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 2003, vol. 2, pp. 1339–1344. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
- 16.Young, L.A., Aiken, E., Lee, P., Briggs, G.: Mars rotorcraft: possibilities, limitations, and implications for human/robotic exploration. In: Aerospace Conf. 2005, pp. 300–318. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar