Wheel-terrain contact modeling in the ROAMS planetary rover simulation
This paper describes wheel-terrain contact modeling in the ROAMS physics-based simulator for planetary surface exploration rover vehicles.
SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This paper describes wheel-terrain contact modeling in the ROAMS physics-based simulator for planetary surface exploration rover vehicles.
Not Available
We report Electron–boson interaction (EBI) has an important role in the properties of materials. Electron–phonon interaction in good metals can give rise to superconductivity, where electrons flow without dissipation below a critical temperature. In ionic crystals such as organic semiconductors, the coupling of low-energy electrons (or holes) with the atomic vibrations can drive the formation of polarons — an electron dressed with a phonon cloud, with lower mobility and heavy effective mass. The same notion can be applied to strongly correlated electron systems. Electron–spin fluctuation coupling drives unconventional superconductivity in high-temperature cuprates, iron-based superconductors and heavy-fermion systems. Magnetic polarons can form around charged dopants in an otherwise antiferromagnetic background of a Mott insulator, while an electron–polaron is also possible, via electron–plasmon coupling, when a Kondo hole is introduced in a heavy-fermion material, similar to a plasmaron in doped graphene.
In this work we describe the design, implementation, and testing of the first neuromorphic robot capable of obstacle avoidance, grid coverage, and targeting controlled by the second generation Dynamic Adaptive Neural Network Array (DANNA2) digital spiking neuromorphic processor. The simplicity of the DANNA2 processor along with the TENNLab hardware/software co-design framework allows for compact spiking networks that can run efficiently on a small, resource-constrained, platform such as a Xilinx Artix-7 field-programmable gate array. Additionally, we present the dynamic reconfigurability of DANNA2 arrays as a method of realizing complex, multi-objective tasks on hardware that is restricted to relatively small networks.
Monitoring accelerators in operation is a well known challenge due to the radiation environment. However, there are significant benefits in being able to deploy particular sensors in specific locations of accelerator enclosures for monitoring or troubleshooting purposes. Learning from experience at other labs, we used Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) components and an open source robot control software framework (ROS) to build a remotely controlled robot platform including a standard suite of instruments such as cameras, LIDAR, and ultrasound, with the ability to incorporate other ad-hoc sensors for specific measurements, such as a Gamma radiation monitor. Special attention was given to the robot's ability to maintain safety in the high risk environment of an accelerator, with multiple failure contingencies in place to ensure collision free operation. Testing was performed to prove the platform's viability and showcase its capability for accelerator monitoring.
The application of the Doppler effect to track wild animals is discussed, with artificial satellites used to provide wide range coverage. The limitations of radiotelemetry for the purpose of tracking animals are presented. The advantages of the artificial satellite, with specific reference to the Nimbus satellite, are examined.
In this paper we describe the hardware design and the control and navigation system of our robotic wheelchair MAid (Mobility Aid for Elderly and Disabled People).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
During TRACER, three Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM) were used to collect aerosols for ice nucleation measurements in the Brooks laboratory at Texas A&M University. The three instruments were located at AMF1 in La Porte, Ancillary site in Guy (ANC), and onboard the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V). ROAM-V was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and one of the Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Each DRUM sampler was operated at a flow rate of 23 LPM. Each DRUM has four stages where the aerodynamic diameter size cuts are as follows: stage 1 larger than 3 μm, stage 2 from 3 to 1.2 μm, stage 3 from 1.2 to 0.34 μm, and stage 4 from 0.34 to 0.15 μm. Pretreated aluminum foil was used as a substrate on all stages. At AMF1 and ANC sites, the DRUMs were operated on the shared aerosol inlet, with generous support of the DOE ARM site staff. These instruments rotated 24 mm per day and only contained aluminum foil substrates. Substrates were changed weekly and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. The DRUM onboard ROAM-V was operated at a faster rotation rate of 150 mm per day to clearly separate the multiple deployment locations for ROAM-V. For the ROAM-V DRUM, substrates were changed every deployment and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. At Texas A&M, ice nucleation experiments were conducted to measure the ice nucleation temperature of the ambient aerosol samples collected from the three DRUMs using our previously established procedures (Alsante et al., 2023; Fornea et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2023). For ice nucleation, only samples collected on stage 3 were analyzed, given that these are the most relevant size (1.2 to 0.34 μm diameter) for potential ice nucleating particles. For the AMF1 and ANC sites, we cut and analyzed 2 mm (2-hour) samples. We analyzed the time periods of the AMF1 site instrument when the ROAM-V was deployed. A 72-hour period from July 11th at 23:49 through July 15th at 1:49 was analyzed from the ANC site instrument. For the ROAM-V instrument, we separated the daily samples by site location. Between 1- and 6-hour independent samples were analyzed at each location. We also cut the ROAM-V samples in half to allow for compositional analysis of the aerosol on the other half of the substrate. All viable samples from the ROAM-V were analyzed. Analysis was done using a custom-built ice nucleation apparatus, recently updated to include an array of 16 individual samples (Matthews et al., 2023). On our experimental setup, we used 100 μL of Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) water (Sigma Aldrich, >99.9% purity) to wash off the aerosol from the DRUM substrate. Then, we micropipetted 2 μL droplet samples into each of the 16 wells of the array, using hydrophobically coated microscope slides. Experiments would cycle 28 times from 10 C to -40C over a 20-hour period. During analysis of the TRACER samples, nine experiments were conducted with UHPLC water process blanks that followed an identical preparation procedure. The average freezing temperature and standard deviation for these process blanks is -27.7±2.4 C. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07023 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Alsante, A. N., Thornton, D. C., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Ice nucleation catalyzed by the photosynthesis enzyme RuBisCO and other abundant biomolecules. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 51. Fornea, A. P., Brooks, S. D., Dooley, J. B., & Saha, A. (2009). Heterogeneous freezing of ice on atmospheric aerosols containing ash, soot, and soil. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114(D13). DOI:10.1029/2009JD011958 Matthews, B. H., Alsante, A. N., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Pollen Emissions of Subpollen Particles and Ice Nucleating Particles. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry.
Simulating Operation of a Planetary Rover Rover Analysis, Modeling, and Simulations (ROAMS) is a computer program that simulates the operation of a robotic vehicle (rover) engaged in exploration of a remote planet. ROAMS is a roverspecific extension of the DARTS and Dshell programs, described in prior NASA Tech Briefs articles, which afford capabilities for mathematical modeling of the dynamics of a spacecraft as a whole and of its instruments, actuators, and other subsystems. ROAMS incorporates mathematical models of kinematics and dynamics of rover mechanical subsystems, sensors, interactions with terrain, solar panels and batteries, and onboard navigation and locomotion-control software. ROAMS provides a modular simulation framework that can be used for analysis, design, development, testing, and operation of rovers. ROAMS can be used alone for system performance and trade studies. Alternatively, ROAMS can be used in an operator-in-the-loop or flight-software closed-loop environment. ROAMS can also be embedded within other software for use in analysis and development of algorithms, or for Monte Carlo studies, using a variety of terrain models, to generate performance statistics. Moreover, taking advantage of realtime features of the underlying DARTS/Dshell simulation software, ROAMS can also be used for real-time simulations.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is supporting research to develop a prototype remote vehicle operations center at Langley Research Center to explore current and future advanced air mobility operations using small unmanned aerial systems vehicles as surrogates for future, larger-scale passenger carrying vehicles. The prototype facility known as the Remote Operations for Autonomous Missions (ROAM) Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations Center is being used to explore different roles and responsibilities of remote operators managing multiple autonomous vehicles, with the goal of exploring human-autonomy teaming concepts that enable m:N operations (i.e., m operators managing N vehicles). ROAM has developed into a world-class research, development, and technology (RD&T) environment that can support both the collection of human factors data and the command and control of remote vehicles in beyond visual line of sight conditions. ROAM provides a key capability to enable full end-to-end hardware- and human-in-the-loop simulation testing, connecting with simulated small-UAS and creating a seamless Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) environment. This report describes the development of the ROAM UAS Operations Center from concept through design, culminating in the current implementation at NASA’s Langley Research Center.
This campaign, Ice Nucleation Measurements during TRACER, was conducted during the TRacking Aerosol Convection Interactions ExpeRiment (TRACER) in Houston, Texas during June-September, 2022. Specifically, our ice nucleation campaign was designed to improve understanding of ice nucleating particles (INPs) and their role in deep convective clouds across the Houston region. Summertime deep convection in southeast Texas is regularly tied to the sea-breeze front (SBF) that pushes inland from the Gulf of Mexico across the region. During TRACER, three Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM) were used to collect aerosols for offline ice nucleation measurements in the Brooks laboratory at Texas A&M University. The three instruments were located at the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) first Mobile Facility (AMF1) in La Porte, at the ancillary site in Guy (ANC), and onboard the newly developed Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V). Aerosol at the main ARM TRACER site, ARM1, is expected to arise from local urban, industrial, and ship channel sources. In contrast, the ANC is isolated and rural, and can therefore provide a continental background aerosol population. On select days when convective development was forecast to be probable, ROAM-V commuted from College Station, Texas to Galveston, sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast, and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. Sampling from the ROAM-V allowed us to capture aerosol and meteorological differences between maritime and continental airmasses by strategically positioning the ROAM-V near the coast in the morning in the opposite airmass from the AMF1 site.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.3 LPM is directed to the CPC. To correct the data for particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate total particle loss through the inlet for every SMPS scan at a single deployment location. Second, the CPC data was corrected for particle losses using the average of the total losses per scan. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. An additional flatline correction of 14% was applied to all CPC data based on laboratory calibration prior to and after the campaign. In laboratory calibrations, we identified that for the same sample of air the field CPC (GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC) undercounted the total concentration of particles by 14% compared to the ground truth laboratory CPC (TSI Model 3750). This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow, 1.0 LPM, is directed through TSI's 0.071 cm impactor attached to the classifier of the SMPS setup. The SMPS’s DMA and CPC are connected through a 20.3 cm length of 0.48 cm diameter tubing. Measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate size-dependent particle losses for each SMPS scan. Particle losses from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949) and inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977) were included in the loss calculation. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977.
During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (mini-MPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. The mini-MPL deployed with ROAM-V is a 532 nm elastic and polarization lidar. The mini-MPL outputs normalized relative backscatter (NRB) derived from raw signal after after-pulse, overlap, and dead-time correction calibration. The depolarization ratio is calculated from the co-polarized and cross-polarized NRB (Flynna et al., 2007). The NRB and depolarization ratio data are resampled from the original data at 1-minute intervals. The vertical resolution of the mini-MPL data is 15 meters. The mini-MPL data can be used to determine the boundary layer, cloud top, and cloud bottom height and can be used to retrieve aerosol type and concentration profile. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu . Flynna, C. J., Mendozaa, A., Zhengb, Y., & Mathurb, S. (2007). Novel polarization-sensitive micropulse lidar measurement technique. Optics express, 15(6), 2785-2790.
The NASA Glenn Research Center, under a NASA Space Act Agreement with Cisco Systems, has been performing joint networking research to apply Internet-based technologies and protocols to space-based communications. As a result of this research, NASA performed stringent performance testing of the mobile router, including the interaction of routing and the transport-level protocol. In addition, Cisco Systems developed the mobile router for both commercial and Government markets. The code has become part of the Cisco Systems Internetworking Operating System (IOS) as of release 12.2 (4) T--which will make this capability available to the community at large. The mobile router is software code that resides in a network router and enables entire networks to roam while maintaining connectivity to the Internet. This router code is pertinent to a myriad of applications for both Government and commercial sectors, including the "wireless battlefield." NASA and the Department of Defense will utilize this technology for near-planetary observation and sensing spacecraft. It is also a key enabling technology for aviation-based information applications. Mobile routing will make it possible for information such as weather, air traffic control, voice, and video to be transmitted to aircraft using Internet-based protocols. This technology shows great promise in reducing congested airways and mitigating aviation disasters due to bad weather. The mobile router can also be incorporated into emergency vehicles (such as ambulances and life-flight aircraft) to provide real-time connectivity back to the hospital and health-care experts, enabling the timely application of emergency care. Commercial applications include entertainment services, Internet protocol (IP) telephone, and Internet connectivity for cruise ships, commercial shipping, tour buses, aircraft, and eventually cars. A mobile router, which is based on mobile IP, allows hosts (mobile nodes) to seamlessly "roam" among various IP subnetworks. This is essential in many wireless networks. A mobile router, unlike a mobile IP node, allows entire networks to roam. Hence, a device connected to the mobile router does not need to be a mobile node because the mobile router provides the roaming capabilities. There are three basic elements in the mobile IP: the home agent, the foreign agent, and the mobile node. The home agent is a router on a mobile node's home network that tunnels datagrams for delivery to the mobile node when it is away from home. The foreign agent is a router on a remote network that provides routing services to a registered mobile node. The mobile node is a host or router that changes its point of attachment from one network or subnetwork to another. In mobile routing, virtual communications are maintained by the home agent, which forwards all packets for the mobile networks to the foreign agent. The foreign agent passes the packets to the mobile router, which then forwards the packets to the devices on its networks. As the mobile router moves, it will register with its home agent on its whereabouts via the foreign agent to assure continuous connectivity.