Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “R2)”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Robonaut 2 (R2) Overview

This slide presentation reviews the development and uses of the second robot designed to work in space. The presentation reviews the motivation for developing Robonaut, the cooperative commercial relationship with General Motors, the evolution design of Robonaut Robonaut 2 improvements over the first robonaut (R1), Robonaut 2's hand dexterity, finger impedance control, tactile system, finger haptics, arm control, strength, neck movement and head sensors, human interaction, and the controller. Also the plans for use on board the International Space Station are reviewed. The patent for the Phalange Tactile Load Cell is included.

Diftler, Myron↗
NASA NTRS1993

Magnetic Field Structure in Monoceros R2

For some time now it has been suspected that magnetic fields play a major role in determining the mass spectrum of stars formed in molecular clouds. Theoretical models of protostellar evolution in a quiescent environment invoke magnetic fields as one form of cloud support and one which has a decisive effect on the minimum stellar mass formed (cf. Shu, Adams and Lizano 1987; Shu et al. 1988). The magnetic field also might act as an angular momentum dampening mechanism---a vital requirement for gravitational collapse and subsequent star formation (Gillis, Mestel and Paris 1974; Mouschovias 1978). Empirical evidence of the contribution of magnetic fields to the total energetics of molecular clouds comes from analysis of Zeeman splitting of OH absorption and thermal emission lines originating from dense (n greater than 10^4 cm^(-3)) cloud cores (Myers and Goodman 1988; Heiles et al. 1991, and references therein)...

Goldsmith, P.F.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗
NASA NTRS2013

Robonaut 2 - Preparing for Intra-Vehicular Mobility on the International Space Station

Robonaut 2 (R2) has been undergoing experimental trials on board the International Space Station (ISS) for more than a year. This upper-body anthropomorphic robotic system shown in Figure 1 has been making steady progress after completing its initial checkout. R2 demonstrated free space motion, physically interacted with its human crew mates, manipulated interfaces on its task board and has even used its first tool. This steady growth in capability will lead R2 to its next watershed milestone. Developers are currently testing prototype robotic climbing appendages and a battery backpack in preparation of sending flight versions of both subsystems to the ISS in late 2013. Upon integration of its new components, R2 will be able to go mobile inside the space station with a twofold agenda. First, R2 will learn to maneuver in microgravity in the best possible laboratory for such a task. Second, it will start providing early payback to the ISS program by helping with intra-vehicular (IVA) maintenance tasks. The experience gained inside the ISS will be invaluable in reducing risk when R2 moves to its next stage and is deployed as an extra-vehicular (EVA) tool. Even on its current fixed base stanchion, R2 has already shown its capability of performing several maintenance tasks on the ISS. It has measured the air flow through one of the stations vents and provided previously unavailable real time flow data to ground operators. R2 has cleaned its first handrail, exciting some crew members that perhaps Saturday morning housekeeping on the station may someday become a task they can hand off to their robotic colleague. Other tasks, including using radio frequency identification (RFID) tools for inventory tasks or vacuuming air filters, have also been suggested and will be explored. Once mobile, R2 will take on these tasks and more to free up crew time for more important science and exploration pursuits. In addition to task exploration, research and testing is happening on orbit to prepare for R2 mobility operations. The current vision system in R2 s head is being used to identify and localize IVA handrails throughout the US Lab and ground control software is being updated and integrated in advance of supporting mobility operations.

Badger, Julia↗
NASA NTRS2013

Robonaut 2 on the International Space Station: Status Update and Preparations for IVA Mobility

Robotics engineers, ground controllers and International Space Station (ISS) crew have been running successful experiments using Robonaut 2 (R2) on-board the ISS for more than a year. This humanoid upper body robot continues to expand its list of achievements and its capabilities to safely demonstrate maintenance and servicing tasks while working alongside human crewmembers. The next phase of the ISS R2 project will transition from a stationary Intra Vehicular Activity (IVA) upper body using a power/data umbilical, to an IVA mobile system with legs for repositioning, a battery backpack power supply, and wireless communications. These upgrades will enable the R2 team to evaluate hardware performance and to develop additional control algorithms and control verification techniques with R2 inside the ISS in preparation for the Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) phase of R2 operations. As R2 becomes more capable in assisting with maintenance tasks, with minimal supervision, including repositioning itself to different work sites, the ISS crew will be burdened with fewer maintenance chores, leaving them more time to conduct other activities. R2's developers at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) are preparing the R2 IVA mobility hardware and software upgrades for delivery to the ISS in late 2013. This paper summarizes R2 ISS achievements to date, briefly describes the R2 IVA mobility upgrades, and discusses the R2 IVA mobility objectives and plans.

Ahlstrom, Thomas D.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Development and Deployment of Robonaut 2 to the International Space Station

The development of the Robonaut 2 (R2) system was a joint endeavor with NASA and General Motors, producing robots strong enough to do work, yet safe enough to be trusted to work near humans. To date two R2 units have been produced, designated as R2A and R2B. This follows more than a decade of work on the Robonaut 1 units that produced advances in dexterity, tele-presence, remote supervision across time delay, combining mobility with manipulation, human-robot interaction, force control and autonomous grasping. Design challenges for the R2 included higher speed, smaller packaging, more dexterous fingers, more sensitive perception, soft drivetrain design, and the overall implementation of a system software approach for human safety, At the time of this writing the R2B unit was poised for launch to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard STS-133. R2 will be the first humanoid robot in space, and is arguably the most sophisticated robot in the world, bringing NASA into the 21st century as the world's leader in this field. Joining the other robots already on ISS, the station is now an exciting lab for robot experiments and utilization. A particular challenge for this project has been the design and certification of the robot and its software for work near humans. The 3 layer software systems will be described, and the path to ISS certification will be reviewed. R2 will go through a series of ISS checkout tests during 2011. A taskboard was shipped with the robot that will be used to compare R2B's dexterous manipulation in zero gravity with the ground robot s ability to handle similar objects in Earth s gravity. R2's taskboard has panels with increasingly difficult tasks, starting with switches, progressing to connectors and eventually handling softgoods. The taskboard is modular, and new interfaces and experiments will be built up using equipment already on ISS. Since the objective is to test R2 performing tasks with human interfaces, hardware abounds on ISS and the crew will be involved to help select tasks that are dull, dirty or dangerous. Future plans for R2 include a series of upgrades, evolving from static IVA (Intravehicular Activity) operations, to mobile IVA, then EVA (Extravehicular Activity).

Ambrose, Robert O.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Variability of collagen crosslinks: impact of sample collection period

Because of the variability of collagen crosslinks, their use as markers for bone resorption is often criticized. We hypothesized that the variability could be reduced by collecting urine for 24 hours (or longer) instead of using single voids, and by not normalizing to creatinine. Urine samples were collected from 22 healthy subjects during two or more 24-hour periods. Each 24-hour pool and each 2nd void of the day were analyzed for N-telopeptide (NTX), pyridinium (PYD), and deoxypyridinoline (DPD) crosslinks. Data were analyzed by using linear regression. For NTX, R2 for the two, 2nd-void samples (n = 38) was 0.55, whereas R2 for the two 24-hour pools was 0.51 or 0.52, expressed per day or per creatinine. For PYD and DPD, R2 for the 2nd-void samples was 0.26 and 0.18, R2 for the 24-hour pools expressed per day was 0.58 and 0.74, and R2 for the 24-hour pools expressed per creatinine was 0.65 and 0.76, respectively. Regression of the 2nd void and the corresponding 24-hour pool, expressed per day, yielded R2 = 0.19, 0.19, and 0.08, for NTX, PYD, and DPD, respectively (n = 76 each). For the 2nd-void sample and its corresponding 24-hour pool, expressed per creatinine, R2 = 0.24, 0.33, and 0.08, respectively. In a separate study, the coefficient of variation for NTX was reduced (P < 0.05) when data from more than one 24-hour collection were combined. Thus, the variability inherent in crosslink determinations can be reduced by collecting urine for longer periods. In research studies, the high variability of single-void collections, compounded by creatinine normalization, may alter or obscure findings.

Specimen Handling/methods↗
NASA NTRS2013

Kinect Engineering with Learning (KEWL)

According to a Nielsen survey at the time of this reporting, 41% of all households have a game console. This is one market in which NASA has been absent from education and outreach efforts. Kinect Engineering with Learning (KEWL) is made to enter into that market and bring NASA education and outreach to a very familiar venue. KEWL creates an education and outreach experience that is more participatory, both in a school and museum environment. KEWL is a set of applications that runs on an Xbox 360 using the Kinect controller used for education and outreach. These applications currently include: Train R2, a visual simulation of Robonaut 2 that allows students to control a virtual R2 in a game environment; Drive R2, an interface using the Xbox 360 and Kinect controller that allows students to control the real R2 using the methods they learned playing Train R2; ISS experience, a visual tour of the interior of the International Space Station where students use their body to fly through the virtual ISS; Gravity Ball, a simulation of throwing balls in the gravity of different planets; Solar Array repair, a simulation of the simplified STS-121 solar array repair mission; and PlaySpace, a Mars/Moon application that allows students to experience different aspects of Mars/Moon. Users can "fly through" the ISS using their body, allowing an experience similar to what an astronaut would have on orbit. In PlaySpace, users can fly over the surface of Mars and view surface data obtained by Mars rovers. Users of Train R2 and Drive R2 can experience what it is like to control a robot over a distance with a time delay, simulating the time delay that would occur between ground control and an on-orbit robot. The initial ISS experiences were built using parts of code from the NASA Enigma software. The models used in these experiences were also from the Integrated Graphics Operations and Analysis Lab model database. The PlaySpace experience incorporates surface data obtained from NASA rovers and satellites and was built by NASA JPL.

Goza, Sharon↗
NASA NTRS2010

High-Resolution Subtropical Summer Precipitation Derived from Dynamical Downscaling of the NCEP-DOE Reanalysis: How Much Small-Scale Information Is Added by a Regional Model?

This study assesses the regional-scale summer precipitation produced by the dynamical downscaling of analyzed large-scale fields. The main goal of this study is to investigate how much the regional model adds smaller scale precipitation information that the large-scale fields do not resolve. The modeling region for this study covers the southeastern United States (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, and North Carolina) where the summer climate is subtropical in nature, with a heavy influence of regional-scale convection. The coarse resolution (2.5deg latitude/longitude) large-scale atmospheric variables from the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/DOE reanalysis (R2) are downscaled using the NCEP Environmental Climate Prediction Center regional spectral model (RSM) to produce precipitation at 20 km resolution for 16 summer seasons (19902005). The RSM produces realistic details in the regional summer precipitation at 20 km resolution. Compared to R2, the RSM-produced monthly precipitation shows better agreement with observations. There is a reduced wet bias and a more realistic spatial pattern of the precipitation climatology compared with the interpolated R2 values. The root mean square errors of the monthly R2 precipitation are reduced over 93 (1,697) of all the grid points in the five states (1,821). The temporal correlation also improves over 92 (1,675) of all grid points such that the domain-averaged correlation increases from 0.38 (R2) to 0.55 (RSM). The RSM accurately reproduces the first two observed eigenmodes, compared with the R2 product for which the second mode is not properly reproduced. The spatial patterns for wet versus dry summer years are also successfully simulated in RSM. For shorter time scales, the RSM resolves heavy rainfall events and their frequency better than R2. Correlation and categorical classification (above/near/below average) for the monthly frequency of heavy precipitation days is also significantly improved by the RSM.

NARR↗
NASA NTRS2022

Boulder County Disasters: Mapping Forest Carbon Stocks to Understand Carbon Implications of Treatment and Wildfire

In recent years, record-breaking wildfire activities in the western US illustrate the need for fire mitigation efforts, such as forest fuels reduction treatments. Forests serve as crucial carbon sinks that combat the increasing effects of climate change while fuels reduction treatments may remove carbon from forested systems. As a result, forest managers need to find a balance between fire mitigation and carbon preservation. This project partnered with Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) and the University of Colorado, Denver to investigate the 2020 Cal-Wood fire in Boulder County, Colorado. Using remote sensing data from Landsat 8 OLI, SRTM, Sentinel-2 MSI, and LiDAR, we mapped post-fire forest carbon pools and compared these values with values derived from measurements from plots on the ground. Results indicate that the correlations are R2=0.76 for aboveground live carbon, R2=0.44 for standing carbon, and R2=0.43 for aboveground dead carbon (R2=0.43), and R2=0.35 for total carbon (R2=0.35). Additionally, 38.5% of total carbon was stored in dead carbon and 14.4% was stored in live carbon. We next compared the post-fire pools between treated and untreated areas. Our analysis suggests fuels reduction treatments did not reduce carbon loss in the presence of wildfire enough to clearly distinguish the post-fire carbon in the treated and untreated areas. However, our final carbon maps still provide BCPOS and researchers with an opportunity to explore carbon estimation models based on remotely sensed data as well as a framework to evaluate fuels reduction treatment effectiveness and impact on forest carbon stocks for future wildfire events.

Sarah Hettema↗
NASA NTRS2025

Measuring Unique Contextual Factors: Group Living Skills

BACKGROUND The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures used to assess behavioral health and performance risks related to future exploration-class space missions. During the HFBP-EM suite development, the importance of assessing unique contextual factors to understand the drivers of team dynamics was identified. Group living skills are a unique workplace skill which applies to those coworkers who live and work together. As mission lengths become longer, the line between work and non-work life may blur. Extreme living conditions such as spaceflight can result in increased stress over time, negatively impact mood and well-being, decrease team cohesion and increase conflict, deteriorate task performance, and potentially reduce mission success [1]. With no breaks in their isolated and confined environment possible, living with a messy, inconsiderate crewmember can add to the stress. Alternatively, crews with good group living skills may support one another, mitigating the negative effects of the extreme environment. There was no direct measure of group living skills. This work sought to fill this measurement gap and collect data related to group living in isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments. METHODS Group living skills as an astronaut competency area were developed with the input of experts familiar with ICE environments. Distinct aspects of this competency were reviewed and discussed by a NASA-invited group of spaceflight experts in 2015 to identify individual and team behavioral health and performance measures for operational environments. This work resulted in a 5-item measure focused on group living experiences with each crewmember (or the crew as a whole). A 6th item asks whether an individual would go on another mission with a particular crewmember or crew as a measure of future-oriented group living, or team viability. The measure was deployed in 24 teams living and working together in isolated and confined environments (e.g., International Space Station, space mission simulation analogs). RESULTS & DISCUSSION In this presentation, we will summarize results which indicate the Group Living Skills (GLS) Survey is a reliable, valid, and operationally feasible measure. Reliability was evaluated in several ways. Two-way multilevel mixed models revealed strong repeated measures reliability (ICC2 = .902, Omega between = .954). Reliability of change within teams was strong (Rc = .81). Factor analysis showed a consistent two-factor structure when individuals rated either the whole crew, all individuals, just peers, or a focal roommate. The latter used a sociometric approach to rating the GLS of the roommates. The two factors were tidiness and being considerate of others. We assessed the criterion-related validity of GLS, by examining GLS operationalized as the team-level aggregated GLS Survey scores as a predictor of team viability, team cohesion, and team performance. We used generalized mixed models to account for the repeated measures and longitudinal data. The marginal R2 change was used to determine the extent to which GLS were related to the team outcomes while controlling for mission day and campaign. Results suggested GLS was strongly related to team viability (marginal R2 change = .40), team cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.28), social cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.25), and moderately related to task cohesion (marginal R2 change = 0.18). GLS scores had a small relationship with team performance (marginal R2 change = .08). Results support GLS as a measure that can be used to capture group living skills of crews who live and work together in ICE. Because the items were written to be broadly applicable, less extreme environments with teams living and working together for some length of time also benefit from this measure (e.g., college roommates, camps). See Landon et al. (2024) for full results [2]. SUMMARY We report reliability and validity evidence for a new measure that assesses the Group Living Skills for teams that live and work in operational environments such as spaceflight.

J C W Miller↗
NASA NTRS2011

Towards Autonomous Operation of Robonaut 2

The Robonaut 2 (R2) platform, as shown in Figure 1, was designed through a collaboration between NASA and General Motors to be a capable robotic assistant with the dexterity similar to a suited astronaut [1]. An R2 robot was sent to the International Space Station (ISS) in February 2011 and, in doing so, became the first humanoid robot in space. Its capabilities are presently being tested and expanded to increase its usefulness to the crew. Current work on R2 includes the addition of a mobility platform to allow the robot to complete tasks (such as cleaning, maintenance, or simple construction activities) both inside and outside of the ISS. To support these new activities, R2's software architecture is being developed to provide efficient ways of programming robust and autonomous behavior. In particular, a multi-tiered software architecture is proposed that combines principles of low-level feedback control with higher-level planners that accomplish behavioral goals at the task level given the run-time context, user constraints, the health of the system, and so on. The proposed architecture is shown in Figure 2. At the lowest-level, the resource level, there exists the various sensory and motor signals available to the system. The sensory signals for a robot such as R2 include multiple channels of force/torque data, joint or Cartesian positions calculated through the robot's proprioception, and signals derived from objects observable by its cameras.

Badger, Julia M.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Advancing Robotic Control for Space Exploration Using Robonaut 2

Robonaut 2, or R2, arrived on the International Space Station (ISS) in February 2011 and is currently being tested in preparation for its role initially as an Intra-Vehicular Activity (IVA) tool and eventually as a robot that performs Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA). Robonaut 2, is a state of the art dexterous anthropomorphic robotic torso designed for assisting astronauts. R2 features increased force sensing, greater range of motion, higher bandwidth, and improved dexterity over its predecessor. Robonaut 2 is unique in its ability to safely allow humans in its workspace and to perform significant tasks in a workspace designed for humans. The current operational paradigm involves either the crew or the ground control team running semi-autonomous scripts on the robot as both the astronaut and the ground team monitor R2 and the data it produces. While this is appropriate for the check-out phase of operations, the future plans for R2 will stress the current operational framework. The approach described here will outline a suite of operational modes that will be developed for Robonaut 2. These operational modes include teleoperation, shared control, directed autonomy, and supervised autonomy, and they cover a spectrum of human involvement in controlling R2.

Badger, Julia↗
NASA NTRS2014

Estimation of Crop Gross Primary Production (GPP): I. Impact of MODIS Observation Footprint and Impact of Vegetation BRDF Characteristics

Accurate estimation of gross primary production (GPP) is essential for carbon cycle and climate change studies. Three AmeriFlux crop sites of maize and soybean were selected for this study. Two of the sites were irrigated and the other one was rainfed. The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), the enhanced vegetation index (EVI), the green band chlorophyll index (CIgreen), and the green band wide dynamic range vegetation index (WDRVIgreen) were computed from the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) surface reflectance data. We examined the impacts of the MODIS observation footprint and the vegetation bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) on crop daily GPP estimation with the four spectral vegetation indices (VIs - NDVI, EVI, WDRVIgreen and CIgreen) where GPP was predicted with two linear models, with and without offset: GPP = a × VI × PAR and GPP = a × VI × PAR + b. Model performance was evaluated with coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and coefficient of variation (CV). The MODIS data were filtered into four categories and four experiments were conducted to assess the impacts. The first experiment included all observations. The second experiment only included observations with view zenith angle (VZA) ≤ 35◦ to constrain growth of the footprint size,which achieved a better grid cell match with the agricultural fields. The third experiment included only forward scatter observations with VZA ≤ 35◦. The fourth experiment included only backscatter observations with VZA ≤ 35◦. Overall, the EVI yielded the most consistently strong relationships to daily GPP under all examined conditions. The model GPP = a × VI × PAR + b had better performance than the model GPP = a × VI × PAR, and the offset was significant for most cases. Better performance was obtained for the irrigated field than its counterpart rainfed field. Comparison of experiment 2 vs. experiment 1 was used to examine the observation footprint impact whereas comparison of experiment 4 vs. experiment 3 was used to examine the BRDF impact. Changes in R2, RMSE,CV and changes in model coefficients "a" and "b" (experiment 2 vs. experiment 1; and experiment 4 vs. experiment 3) were indicators of the impacts. The second experiment produced better performance than the first experiment, increasing R2 (↑0.13) and reducing RMSE (↓0.68 g C m−2 d−1) and CV (↓9%). For each VI, the slope of GPP = a × VI × PAR in the second experiment for each crop type changed little while the slope and intercept of GPP = a × VI × PAR + b varied field by field. The CIgreen was least affected by the MODIS observation footprint in estimating crop daily GPP (R2, ↑0.08; RMSE, ↓0.42 g C m−2 d−1; and CV, ↓7%). Footprint most affected the NDVI (R2, ↑0.15; CV, ↓10%) and the EVI (RMSE, ↓0.84 g C m−2 d−1). The vegetation BRDF impact also caused variation of model performance and change of model coefficients. Significantly different slopes were obtained for forward vs. backscatter observations, especially for the CIgreen and the NDVI. Both the footprint impact and the BRDF impact varied with crop types, irrigation options, model options and VI options.

Chlorophyll↗
NASA NTRS2015

Robonaut 2 - Building a Robot on the International Space Station

In 2010, the Robonaut Project embarked on a multi‐phase mission to perform technology demonstrations on‐board the International Space Station (ISS), showcasing state of the art robotics technologies through the use of Robonaut 2 (R2). This phased approach implements a strategy that allows for the use of ISS as a test bed during early development to both demonstrate capability and test technology while still making advancements in the earth based laboratories for future testing and operations in space. While R2 was performing experimental trials onboard the ISS during the first phase, engineers were actively designing for Phase 2, Intra‐Vehicular Activity (IVA) Mobility, that utilizes a set of zero‐g climbing legs outfitted with grippers to grasp handrails and seat tracks. In addition to affixing the new climbing legs to the existing R2 torso, it became clear that upgrades to the torso to both physically accommodate the climbing legs and to expand processing power and capabilities of the robot were required. In addition to these upgrades, a new safety architecture was also implemented in order to account for the expanded capabilities of the robot. The IVA climbing legs not only needed to attach structurally to the R2 torso on ISS, but also required power and data connections that did not exist in the upper body. The climbing legs were outfitted with a blind mate adapter and coarse alignment guides for easy installation, but the upper body required extensive rewiring to accommodate the power and data connections. This was achieved by mounting a custom adapter plate to the torso and routing the additional wiring through the waist joint to connect to the new set of processors. In addition to the power and data channels, the integrated unit also required updated electronics boards, additional sensors and updated processors to accommodate a new operating system, software platform, and custom control system. In order to perform the unprecedented task of building a robot in space, extensive practice sessions and meticulous procedures were required. Since crew training time is at a premium, the R2 team took a skills‐based training approach to ensure the astronauts were proficient with a basic skill set while refining the detailed procedures over several practice sessions and simulations. In addition to the crew activities, meticulous ground procedures were required in order to upgrade firmware on the upper body motor drivers. The new firmware for the IVA mobility unit needed to be deployed using the old software system. This also provided an opportunity to upgrade the upper body joints with new software and allowed for limited insight into the success of the updates. Complete verification that the updated firmware was successfully loaded was not confirmed until the rewiring of the upper body torso was complete.

Diftler, Myron↗
NASA NTRS2003

Using Remote Sensing Platforms to Estimate Near-Surface Soil Properties

Evaluation of near-surface soil properties via remote sensing (RS) could facilitate soil survey mapping, erosion prediction, fertilization regimes, and allocation of agrochemicals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between soil spectral signature and near surface soil properties in conventionally managed row crop systems. High resolution RS data were acquired over bare fields in the Coastal Plain, Appalachian Plateau, and Ridge and Valley provinces of Alabama using the Airborne Terrestrial Applications Sensor (ATLAS) multispectral scanner. Soils ranged from sandy Kandiudults to fine textured Rhodudults. Surface soil samples (0-1 cm) were collected from 163 sampling points for soil water content, soil organic carbon (SOC), particle size distribution (PSD), and citrate dithionite extractable iron (Fed) content. Surface roughness, soil water content, and crusting were also measured at sampling. Results showed RS data acquired from lands with less than 4 % surface soil water content best approximated near-surface soil properties at the Coastal Plain site where loamy sand textured surfaces were predominant. Utilizing a combination of band ratios in stepwise regression, Fed (r2 = 0.61), SOC (r2 = 0.36), sand (r2 = 0.52), and clay (r2 = 0.76) were related to RS data at the Coastal Plain site. In contrast, the more clayey Ridge and Valley soils had r-squares of 0.50, 0.36, 0.17, and 0.57. for Fed, SOC, sand and clay, respectively. Use of estimated eEmissivity did not generally improve estimates of near-surface soil attributes.

Sullivan, D. G.↗