Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Space Station Remote Manipulator System”

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

Human-Automation Allocations for Current Robotic Space Operations

Within the Human Research Program, one risk delineates the uncertainty surrounding crew working with automation and robotics in spaceflight. The Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI) is concerned with the detrimental effects on crew performance due to ineffective user interfaces, system designs and/or functional task allocation, potentially compromising mission success and safety. Risk arises because we have limited experience with complex automation and robotics. One key gap within HARI, is the gap related to functional allocation. The gap states: We need to evaluate, develop, and validate methods and guidelines for identifying human-automation/robot task information needs, function allocation, and team composition for future long duration, long distance space missions. Allocations determine the human-system performance as it identifies the functions and performance levels required by the automation/robotic system, and in turn, what work the crew is expected to perform and the necessary human performance requirements. Allocations must take into account each of the human, automation, and robotic systems capabilities and limitations. Some functions may be intuitively assigned to the human versus the robot, but to optimize efficiency and effectiveness, purposeful role assignments will be required. The role of automation and robotics will significantly change in future exploration missions, particularly as crew becomes more autonomous from ground controllers. Thus, we must understand the suitability of existing function allocation methods within NASA as well as the existing allocations established by the few robotic systems that are operational in spaceflight. In order to evaluate future methods of robotic allocations, we must first benchmark the allocations and allocation methods that have been used. We will present 1) documentation of human-automation-robotic allocations in existing, operational spaceflight systems; and 2) To gather existing lessons learned and best practices in these role assignments, from spaceflight operational experience of crew and ground teams that may be used to guide development for future systems. NASA and other space agencies have operational spaceflight experience with two key Human-Automation-Robotic (HAR) systems: heavy lift robotic arms and planetary robotic explorers. Additionally, NASA has invested in high-fidelity rover systems that can carry crew, building beyond Apollo's lunar rover. The heavy lift robotic arms reviewed are: Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS), and the European Robotic Arm (ERA, designed but not deployed in space). The robotic rover systems reviewed are: Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Science Laboratory rover, and the high-fidelity K10 rovers. Much of the design and operational feedback for these systems have been communicated to flight controllers and robotic design teams. As part of the mitigating the HARI risk for future human spaceflight operations, we must document function allocations between robots and humans that have worked well in practice.

robotic allocation↗

Cumulative Measurement Errors for Dynamic Testing of Space Flight Hardware

Located at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX, the Six-Degree-of-Freedom Dynamic Test System (SDTS) is a real-time, six degree-of-freedom, short range motion base simulator originally designed to simulate the relative dynamics of two bodies in space mating together (i.e., docking or berthing). The SDTS has the capability to test full scale docking and berthing systems utilizing a two body dynamic docking simulation for docking operations and a Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) simulation for berthing operations. The SDTS can also be used for nonmating applications such as sensors and instruments evaluations requiring proximity or short range motion operations. The motion base is a hydraulic powered Stewart platform, capable of supporting a 3,500 lb payload with a positional accuracy of 0.03 inches. The SDTS is currently being used for the NASA Docking System testing and has been also used by other government agencies. The SDTS is also under consideration for use by commercial companies. Examples of tests include the verification of on-orbit robotic inspection systems, space vehicle assembly procedures and docking/berthing systems. The facility integrates a dynamic simulation of on-orbit spacecraft mating or de-mating using flight-like mechanical interface hardware. A force moment sensor is used for input during the contact phase, thus simulating the contact dynamics. While the verification of flight hardware presents unique challenges, one particular area of interest involves the use of external measurement systems to ensure accurate feedback of dynamic contact. The measurement systems for the test facility have two separate functions. The first is to take static measurements of facility and test hardware to determine both the static and moving frames used in the simulation and control system. The test hardware must be measured after each configuration change to determine both sets of reference frames. The second function is to take dynamic measurements during hardware motion and contact. While performing dynamic testing of an active docking system, researchers found that the data from the motion platform, test hardware and two external measurement systems exhibited frame offsets and rotational errors. While the errors were relatively small when considering the motion scale overall, they substantially exceeded the individual accuracies for each component. After evaluating both the static and dynamic measurements, researchers found that the static measurements introduced significantly more error into the system than the dynamic measurements even though, in theory, the static measurement errors should be smaller than the dynamic. In several cases, the magnitude of the errors varied widely for the static measurements. Upon further investigation, researchers found the larger errors to be a consequence of hardware alignment issues, frame location and measurement technique whereas the smaller errors were dependent on the number of measurement points. This paper details and quantifies the individual and cumulative errors of the docking system and describes methods for reducing the overall measurement error. The overall quality of the dynamic docking tests for flight hardware verification was improved by implementing these error reductions.

Winnitoy, Susan↗

Charter for Systems Engineer Working Group

This charter establishes the International Space Station Program (ISSP) Mobile Servicing System (MSS) Systems Engineering Working Group (SEWG). The MSS SEWG is established to provide a mechanism for Systems Engineering for the end-to-end MSS function. The MSS end-to-end function includes the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), the Mobile Remote Servicer (MRS) Base System (MBS), Robotic Work Station (RWS), Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM), Video Signal Converters (VSC), and Operations Control Software (OCS), the Mobile Transporter (MT), and by interfaces between and among these elements, and United States On-Orbit Segment (USOS) distributed systems, and other International Space Station Elements and Payloads, (including the Power Data Grapple Fixtures (PDGFs), MSS Capture Attach System (MCAS) and the Mobile Transporter Capture Latch (MTCL)). This end-to-end function will be supported by the ISS and MSS ground segment facilities. This charter defines the scope and limits of the program authority and document control that is delegated to the SEWG and it also identifies the panel core membership and specific operating policies.

Suffredini, Michael T.↗

Dexterous Operations on ISS and Future Applications

The Mobile Servicing System (MSS) is a complex robotics system used extensively in the assembly, inspection and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS). Its external components are comprised of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), the Mobile Base System (MBS), and the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM or "Dextre"). Dexterous robotic maintenance operations on the ISS are now enabled with the launch and deployment of "Dextre" in March 2008 and the recently completed commissioning to support nominal operations. These operations include allowing for maintenance of the MSS capability to be executed uniquely via robotic means. Examples are detailed inspection and the removal and replacement of On-orbit Replaceable Units (ORUs) located outside the pressurized volume of the ISS, alleviating astronauts from performing numerous risky and time-consuming extra-vehicular activities (EVAs). In light of the proposed extension of the ISS to 2020 and beyond, "Dextre" can also be seen as a resource for the support and conduct of external ISS experiments. "Dextre" can be utilized to move experiments around ISS, as test bed for more elaborate experiments outside the original design intent, and as a unique platform for external experiments. This paper summarizes the status of "Dextre", its planned use, and future potential for dexterous operations on the ISS. Lessons learned from the planning and execution of SPDM commissioning are first introduced, and significant differences between "Dextre" and SSRMS operations are discussed. The use of ground control as the predominant method for operating "Dextre" is highlighted, along with the benefits and challenges that this poses. Finally, the latest plans for dexterous operations on ISS are summarized including visiting vehicle unloading, nominal maintenance, and operations of a more experimental flavor.

Keenan, P. Andrew↗

Innovative Robot Archetypes for In-Space Construction and Maintenance

The space environment presents unique challenges and opportunities in the assembly, inspection and maintenance of orbital and transit spaceflight systems. While conventional Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) technology, out of necessity, addresses each of the challenges, relatively few of the opportunities have been exploited due to crew safety and reliability considerations. Extra-Vehicular Robotics (EVR) is one of the least-explored design spaces but offers many exciting innovations transcending the crane-like Space Shuttle and International Space Station Remote Manipulator System (RMS) robots used for berthing, coarse positioning and stabilization. Microgravity environments can support new robotic archetypes with locomotion and manipulation capabilities analogous to undersea creatures. Such diversification could enable the next generation of space science platforms and vehicles that are too large and fragile to launch and deploy as self-contained payloads. Sinuous manipulators for minimally invasive inspection and repair in confined spaces, soft-stepping climbers with expansive leg reach envelopes and free-flying nanosatellite cameras can access EVA worksites generally not accessible to humans in spacesuits. These and other novel robotic archetypes are presented along with functionality concepts

Rehnmark, Fredrik↗

The Situational Awareness Sensor Suite for the ISS (SASSI): A Mission Concept to Investigate ISS Charging and Wake Effects

The complex interaction between the International Space Station (ISS) and the surrounding plasma environment often generates unpredictable environmental situations that affect operations. Examples of affected systems include extravehicular activity (EVA) safety, solar panel efficiency, and scientific instrument integrity. Models and heuristically‐derived best practices are well‐suited for routine operations, but when it comes to unusual or anomalous events or situations, especially those driven by space weather, there is no substitute for real‐time monitoring. Space environment data collected in real‐time (or near‐real time) can be used operationally for both real‐time alarms and data sources in assimilative models to predict environmental conditions important for operational planning. Fixed space weather instruments mounted to the ISS can be used for monitoring the ambient space environment, but knowing whether or not (or to what extent) the ISS affects the measurements themselves requires adequate space situational awareness (SSA) local to the ISS. This paper presents a mission concept to use a suite of plasma instruments mounted at the end of the ISS robotic arm to systematically explore the interaction between the Space Station structure and its surrounding environment. The Situational Awareness Sensor Suite for the ISS (SASSI) would be deployed and operated on the ISS Express Logistics Carrier (ELC) for long‐term "survey mode" observations and the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) for short‐term "campaign mode" observations. Specific areas of investigation include: 1) ISS frame and surface charging during perturbations of the local ISS space environment, 2) calibration of the ISS Floating Point Measurement Unit (FPMU), 3) long baseline measurements of ambient ionospheric electric potential structures, 4) electromotive force-induced currents within large structures moving through a magnetized plasma, and 5) wake‐induced ion waves in both electrostatic (i.e. particles) and electromagnetic modes. SASSI will advance the understanding of plasma‐boundary interaction phenomena, demonstrate a suite a sensors acting in concert to provide effective SSA, and validate and/or calibrate existing ISS space environment instruments and models.

Krause, L. Habash↗

Investigating the Response and Expansion of Plasma Plumes in a Mesosonic Plasma Using the Situational Awareness Sensor Suite for the ISS (SASSI)

To study the complex interactions between the space environment surrounding the International Space Station (ISS) and the ISS space vehicle, we are exploring a specialized suite of plasma sensors, manipulated by the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) to probe the near‐ISS mesosonic plasma ionosphere moving past the ISS. It is proposed that SASSI consists of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC's) Thermal Ion Capped Hemispherical Spectrometer (TICHS), Thermal Electron Capped Hemispherical Spectrometer (TECHS), Charge Analyzer Responsive to Local Oscillations (CARLO), the Collimated PhotoElectron Gun (CPEG), and the University of Michigan Advanced Langmuir Probe (ALP). There are multiple expected applications for SASSI. Here, we will discuss the study of fundamental plasma physics questions associated with how an emitted plasma plume (such as from the ISS Plasma Contactor Unit (PCU)) responds and expands in a mesosonic magnetoplasma as well as emit and collect current. The ISS PCU Xe plasma plume drifts through the ionosphere and across the Earth's magnetic field, resulting in complex dynamics. This is of practical and theoretical interest pertaining to contamination concerns (e.g. energetic ion scattering) and the ability to collect and emit current between the spacecraft and the ambient plasma ionosphere. This impacts, for example, predictions of electrodynamic tether current performance using plasma contactors as well as decisions about placing high‐energy electric propulsion thrusters on ISS. We will discuss the required measurements and connection to proposed instruments for this study.

Gilchrist, Brian E.↗

Clearance Analysis of Node 3 Aft CBM to the Stowed FGB Solar Array

In early 2011, the ISS Vehicle Configuration Office began considering the relocation of the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) to the aft facing Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) on Node 3 to open a berthing location for visiting vehicles on the Node 1 nadir CBM. In this position, computer-aided design (CAD) models indicated that the aft end of the PMM would be only a few inches from the stowed Functional Cargo Block (FGB) port solar array. To validate the CAD model clearance analysis, in the late summer of 2011 the Image Science and Analysis Group (ISAG) was asked to determine the true geometric relationship between the on-orbit aft facing Node 3 CBM and the FGB port solar array. The desired measurements could be computed easily by photogrammetric analysis if current imagery of the ISS hardware were obtained. Beginning in the fall of 2011, ISAG used the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) program to design a way to acquire imagery of the aft face of Node 3, the aft end-cone of Node 1, the port side of pressurized mating adapter 1 (PMA1), and the port side of the FGB out to the tip of the port solar array using cameras on the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). This was complicated by the need to thread the SSRMS under the truss, past Node 3 and the Cupola, and into the space between the aft side of Node 3 and the FGB solar array to acquire more than 100 images from multiple positions. To minimize the number of SSRMS movements, the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) would be attached to the SSRMS. This would make it possible to park the SPDM in one position and acquire multiple images by changing the viewing orientation of the SPDM body cameras using the pan/tilt units on which the cameras are mounted. Using this implementation concept, ISAG identified four SSRMS/SPDM positions from which all of the needed imagery could be acquired. Based on a photogrammetric simulation, it was estimated that the location of the FGB solar array could be measured within an accuracy of about 1 in. in each axis relative to the ISS Analysis Coordinate System (ISSACS). In October 2011, a proposed image-acquisition plan was drafted by ISAG and released for review. The ISS Robotics flight control team (ROBO) proposed minor changes to SPDM positions 1 and 4 to meet ISS proximity requirements. The updated image acquisition plan and draft chit were presented to and approved by the Systems Working Group (SWG) November 18 and were sent to the Vehicle Configuration Board (VCB) in early December 2011. Working with ROBO on 3 successive days (February 21, 22, and 23), ISAG collected 161 images of the ISS. Approximately 40 images were collected from each of the four different SSRMS/SPDM positions, with each set mapping the region from the Node 3 end cone, across Node 1, along the forward port side portion of the FGB, and out the port side FGB solar arrays. From this imagery, the best 80 images were selected for use in the analysis. The images were radiometrically enhanced to improve color and contrast and loaded into the FotoG analysis software along with the camera parameters and control data, which consisted of the coordinates for 54 handrail attachment bolts on the aft face of Node 3, in the ISSACS coordinate system. The results of this analysis produced the measured coordinates of 116 points distributed across the face of the FGB solar array panels (see figure 3) along with propagated uncertainty estimates in each coordinate axis. These results were sent to the ISS Vehicle Configuration Office, which sent them to the Configuration Analysis Modeling and Mass Properties (CAMMP) team for comparison with the Russian-provided CAD model for the retracted FGB solar arrays. The CAMMP analysis unexpectedly showed that the measured location of the port FGB solar array was up to 41-in. further outboard than the design and was slightly twisted about its rotational axis. The unexpected comparison results produced some initial concern regarding the accuracy of the photogrammetric measurements. To verify the measured results, ISAG personnel conducted a second analysis using just the imagery of the solar arrays in an arbitrary coordinate system defined by the three corner points of the inboard-most panel, with the design distance between points A1 and A10 as the only scale. The new measurements agreed with the original results to within less than 1 in. RMS in each axis, confirming the original solar array measurements. ISAG produced a final report for the ISS Vehicle Configuration Office documenting an apparent anomaly in the retracted configuration of the port FGB solar arrays. A copy of the measurement report was translated and sent to the Russian Space Agency. During a Vehicle Integrated Performance and Resources (VIPeR) teleconference September 24, 2012, the Russians acknowledged receipt of a translated copy of the ISAG report. The Russian representative stated that the head of the solar array design team claimed that the measured configuration was impossible unless the structure was physically broken. The Russians acknowledged that they had no expertise in photogrammetry, so the analysis technique employed was a "black box" to them, and they did not know how to use the ISAG results. They asked for a single image in which the overextension of the port solar array could be obviously seen. On November 10, 2012, during a face-to-face meeting with their Russian counterparts at JSC, ISAG presented nadir-view imagery of the FGB acquired during Space Shuttle rendezvous. Using the known width of the pressurized portion of the FGB as a scale, this analysis clearly showed that the port FGB solar array was extended outboard further than the Russian design for the retracted solar array.

Liddle, Donn↗

Soyuz/ACRV accommodation study

Included is a set of viewgraphs that present the results of a study conducted at the LaRC Space Station Freedom Office at the request of the Space Station Freedom Level 1 Program Office and the JSC ACRV Project Office to determine the implications of accommodating two Soyuz TM spacecraft as Assured Crew Return Vehicles (ACRV) on the Space Station Freedom (SSF) at the Permanently Crewed Capability (PCC) stage. The study examined operational as well as system issues associated with the accommodation of the Soyuz for several potential configuration options. Operational issues considered include physical hardware clearances, worst case Soyuz departure paths, and impacts to baseline operations such as Pressurized Logistics Module (PLM) exchange, Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) attachment, Extravehicular Activity (EVA), and automatic rendezvous and docking (AR&D). Systems impact analysis included determining differences between Soyuz interface requirements and SSF capabilities for the Electrical Power System (EPS), Thermal Control System (TCS), Communications and Tracking (C&T), Audio-Video Subsystem (A/V), Data Management System (DMS), and Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS). Significant findings of this study have indicated that the current AV capability of the Soyuz will need to be increased to provide adequate departure clearances for a worst case escape from an uncontrolled SSF and that an interface element will be required to mate the Soyuz vehicles to station, provide for AR&D structural loads, and to house Soyuz-to-SSF system interfaces.

Cruz, Jonathan↗

Launch Deployment Assembly Human Engineering Analysis

This report documents the human engineering analysis performed by the Systems Branch in support of the 6A cargo element design. The human engineering analysis is limited to the extra vehicular activities (EVA) which are involved in removal of various cargo items from the LDA and specific activities concerning deployment of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS).

Loughead, T.↗

STS-114 Flight Day 3 Highlights

Video coverage of Day 3 includes highlights of STS-114 during the approach and docking of Discovery with the International Space Station (ISS). The Return to Flight continues with space shuttle crew members (Commander Eileen Collins, Pilot James Kelly, Mission Specialists Soichi Noguchi, Stephen Robinson, Andrew Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, and Charles Camarda) seen in onboard activities on the fore and aft portions of the flight deck during the orbiter's approach. Camarda sends a greeting to his family, and Collins maneuvers Discovery as the ISS appears steadily closer in sequential still video from the centerline camera of the Orbiter Docking System. The approach includes video of Discovery from the ISS during the orbiter's Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver, giving the ISS a clear view of the thermal protection systems underneath the orbiter. Discovery docks with the Destiny Laboratory of the ISS, and the shuttle crew greets the Expedition 11 crew (Commander Sergei Krikalev and NASA ISS Science Officer and Flight Engineer John Phillips) of the ISS onboard the station. Finally, the Space Station Remote Manipulator System hands the Orbiter Boom Sensor System to its counterpart, the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System.

Source record↗

STS-112/Atlantis/ISS 9A Pre-Launch - Launch On-Orbit - Landing - Crew Egress

The video starts with an introduction of the crew of Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-112 at their customary pre-flight meal. The crew consists of Commander Jeffrey Ashby, Pilot Pam Melroy, and Mission Specialists David Wolf, Sandra Magnus, Piers Sellers, and Fyodor Yurchikhin. The crew is then shown during suit-up, while exiting the Operations and Checkout Building to board the Astrovan, and during ingress and seating. Launch views include: Beach Tracker, VAB, PAD-B, Tower-1, DLTR-3, Grandstand, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, Playalinda DOAMS, UCS-23, OTV-170, OTV-171, and External Tank Camera. On-orbit footage includes the Atlantis orbiter docking with the ISS (International Space Station). The video shows clips of extravehicluar activities (EVAs), and some of the tasks performed during the mission. Footage included shows the installation of the S1 Truss onto the ISS with the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (Canadarm 2), Canadarm 2 carrying the Ammonia Tank Assembly prior to connection, the checkout of the Thermal Radiator Rotary Joint, the soft docking of an S-Band antenna, and the deployment of the S1 Radiator. An onboard repair of the ISS humidity separator is also shown. Landing views include: VAB, Tower 1, Mid-Field, Runway South End, Runway North End, Tower-2, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, and PPOV. Kennedy Space Center managers greet the crew upon arrival, and Commander Ashby gives a brief speech while standing with his crew members.

Source record↗

Clearance Analysis of CTC2 (on ELC4) to S-TRRJ HRS Radiator Rotation Envelope

In response to the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle Program, International Space Station (ISS) management began stockpiling spare parts on the ISS. Many of the larger orbital replacement units were stored on the Expedite the Processing of Experiments to Space Station (EXPRESS) Logistics Carriers (ELCs) mounted on the end of the S3 and P3 truss segments, immediately outboard of the Thermal Radiator Rotary Joints (TRRJs) and their attached radiators. In an August 2009 computer-aided design (CAD) assessment, it was determined that mounting the Cargo Transport Container (CTC) 2 on the inboard face of ELC4 as planned would create insufficient clearance between the CTC2 and the rotational envelope of the radiators when the TRRJs were rotated to a gamma angle of 35.0 degrees. The true clearance would depend on how the Unpressurized Cargo Carrier Attachment System (UCCAS) was mounted to the S3 truss and how the ELC4 was attached to it. If the plane of the UCCAS attachment points were tilted even slightly inboard, it would significantly change the clearance between CTC2 and the Starboard TRRJ (S-TRRJ) radiators. Additionally, since CTC2 would be covered in multilayer insulation (MLI), the true outer profile of CTC2 was not captured in the CAD models used for the clearance assessment. It was possible that, even if the S-TRRJ radiators cleared CTC2, they could snag the MLI covering. In the fall of 2010, the Image Science and Analysis Group (ISAG) was asked to perform an on-orbit clearance analysis to determine the location of CTC2 on ELC4 and the S-TRRJ radiators at the angle of closest approach so that a positive clearance could be assured. To provide the measurements as quickly as possible to aid in the assessment, it was decided that the clearance analysis would be broken into two phases. Phase I: The location and orientation of the UCCAS fittings, which support and hold the ELC4 in place, would be measured relative to the ISS Analytical Coordinate System (ISSACS) as defined by nine preexisting Space Vision System (SVS) targets affixed to the forward/zenith side of the S1 and S3 truss segments. The location of the outboard edge of the S-TRRJ radiator would also be measured when positioned at the angle of closest approach to CTC2 (gamma = 35.0 degrees). This data would allow the Digital Pre-Assembly Group to predict how the ELC4 would sit on the UCCAS and how that would translate into the clearance between CTC2 and the S-TRRJ radiators. Phase II: After the ELC4 was delivered and installed into the UCCAS, the position of the CTC2 mounting plate on the inboard face of ELC4, would be measured in the ISSACS coordinate system relative to the SVS control points used in Phase I. Although CTC2 would not yet be mounted on ELC4, the working envelope of CTC2 could be mathematically added to the measured position of ELC4 to produce a best estimate for CTC2's mounted location. Comparing CTC2's best estimated location to the S-TRRJ radiator (measured in Phase I); relative to the ISSACS coordinate system, would provide a direct measurement of the expected clearance. Due to the impending delivery of ELC4 (scheduled for January 2011), planning for the Phase I clearance analysis began immediately. Using the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) program, ISAG designed a way to acquire images of the SVS control points on truss segments S1 and S3, the aft facing edge of the S-TRRJ Heat Rejection Subsystem (HRS) radiator, and the three UCCAS latch mechanisms mounted on the zenith face of the S3 truss using the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). To minimize the number of SSRMS movements, the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) would be attached to the SSRMS. This would make it possible to park the SPDM in one position and acquire multiple images by changing the viewing orientation of the SPDM body cameras using the pan/tilt units on which they are mounted. Using this implementation concept, ISAG identified four SSRMS/SPDM positions from which the majority of the needed imagery could be acquired. Five additional images would be acquired using the CP-3 external ISS camera mounted on the S1 truss immediately inboard of ELC4. Based on a photogrammetric simulation, it was estimated that the measured location of the HRS radiator and UCCAS latch points would be accurate to about 0.3 in. in each of the three axes relative to ISSACS. Working with ROBO, ISAG collected 78 images of the ISS December 29, 2010. From this imagery, the best 40 were selected for use in the analysis process. The images were radiometrically enhanced to improve color and contrast and loaded into the FotoG analysis software along with the camera parameters and control data, which consisted of the coordinates for the nine SVS targets on the S1 and S3 trusses in the ISSACS coordinate system.

Liddle, Donn↗

ISS Operations for the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) Experiences from the Robotic Systems Evaluation Laboratory (RSEL)

The International Space Station (ISS) will present a new era of telerobotic operations on-orbit. Operating the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) in its tasks of maintaining the multitude of Space Station Orbital Replaceable Units (ORUs) creates numerous operational considerations not seen in the existing Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) or the future Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). The differences between the large arms and the dexterous arm greatly affect the interconnection of man, robot, and task. This paper presents some of the issues arising from this new breed of on-orbit robotics as garnered from over three years of ORU testing experience within the Robotic Systems Evaluation Laboratory (RSEL) at NASA Johnson Space Center. The effects of new robotic features on operations, the issues surrounding targets and visual cues, the differences in operating with Force Moment Accommodation (FMA), the effects of changes in task complexity and scale, the lack of supporting flight information, and the changes in procedures required by the dexterous task will be discussed.

Spinler, Anthony B.↗

EVA Planning: Using Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Training to Predict in-Flight Energy Expenditure

Metabolic rate (“met rate”) is the amount of energy expended over a period of time and is influenced by many factors including body composition, level of physical activity, resting metabolic rate, sex, age, and food intake. Met rate is measured during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during in-flight EVAs through indirect calorimetry, calculating energy expenditure from respiratory measurements of O 2 consumption and/or CO 2 production. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA) planning, metabolic cost is important to consider and is used to inform EVA duration based on spacesuit consumables associated with life support systems. Currently, NBL and previous ISS EVA met rate data for specified crewmembers are utilized to predict in-flight EVA metabolic costs based on a proposed EVA timeline. Timeline data collected during training is used to relate met rates to specific EVA activities, which are in turn assigned to more generalized EVA task categories, categorizing by both task type and restraint type. EVA task categories include EVA Setup/Cleanup, Worksite Setup/Cleanup, Cable Routing, Bolts, Fluid Connectors, Electrical Connectors, R&R Work, Miscellaneous Work, Incapacitated Crew Rescue (being rescued or performing), Assisted Crew Rescue (being assisted or performing), and Translation. Restraint types consist of Free-Float, Body Restraint Tether (BRT), Articulating Portable Foot Restraint (APFR), and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). From a crewmember’s historical data, individualized 10th, 50th and 90th percentile met rate estimates are generated for each task category and used to estimate the proposed EVA timeline metabolic cost. In-flight metabolic data (“As-Executed”) from recent ISS US EVAs 85-88 (totaling eight EVA crewmember met rates) was compared with their predicted metabolic cost (“As-Planned”) to evaluate the accuracy of the current met rate estimation method. Across the four EVAs, As-Executed Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 5893.78 BTU, SD = 816.60) was not significantly different compared to As-Planned Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 6106.60 BTU, SD = 826.62; t(7) = 0.751 , p = .477). Though not a significant difference, generally, As-Planned total estimates were slightly higher than As-Executed total metabolic cost. Relative Error for Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost ranged from -33% to 14.7%, depending on the crewmember and EVA. When comparing As-Planned to A-Executed EVA task categories for Bolts, Electrical Connectors, EVA Cleanup, EVA Setup, Miscellaneous Work, Translation, Worksite Cleanup, and Worksite Setup during these EVAs, no significant differences were observed, however, there was a significant difference in As-Planned (M = 783.71 BTU, SD = 408.88) compared to As-Executed (M = 608.87 BTU, SD = 425.29) metabolic cost for the task category of Repair-and-Replace (R&R) Work (t(17) = 3.21 , p = .005). Looking closer within the R&R Work task category, As-Executed R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M = 706.17 BTU, SD = 352.18) was significantly less than As-Planned R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M= 887.96 BTU, SD = 381.42; t(12) = 2.59, p < .024). As-Executed R&R Work with SSRMS Restraint type (M = 355.89 BTU, SD = 534.65) was not significantly different from As-Planned values (M = 512.69 BTU, SD = 383.34; t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.132). These findings suggest that the energy expended performing R&R Work (Free-Float) is lower in flight than predicted. Accurate predictions of the metabolic cost of EVA are essential for planning and executing successful ISS EVAs. Overall, the current met rate prediction method is similar to actual in-flight values, slightly erring on the side of overestimation. Future work includes analysis of more historical in-flight EVA data to increase the power of the analysis, evaluating the NBL-ISS met rate conversion factor between NBL and ISS tasks, as well as exploring methods of substitution when crewmembers are missing prior task category data.

Lauren Cox↗

Operations with the special purpose dextrous manipulator on Space Station Freedom

SPAR Canada is actively participating in the Space Station Freedom Program by contributing the Mobile Servicing System (MSS) which will be involved in assembly, maintenance and servicing of both the Space Station and the MSS itself. Part of the MSS is the Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator (SPDM), a two armed dextrous robot with advanced vision and manipulative capabilities. In addition to Space Station and payload servicing activities the SPDM will be designed to perform self maintenance on the MSS itself. The majority of Space Station equipment will be on orbit for the anticipated 30 year lifespan and the maintenance philosophy will be to repair by the exchange of Orbit Replacement Units or ORUs. The present concept, configuration, and operation of the SPDM and the detailed simulations associated with the maintenance of part of the MSS are described. The Design Reference Mission is the replacement of a Joint Drive Module on the Canadian large payload manipulator, the Space Station Remote Manipulator System. Other Design Reference Missions that were investigated are briefly described, and future operations activity to support the definition of SPDM requirements are discussed.

Cox, B.↗

Model evaluation, recommendation and prioritizing of future work for the manipulator emulator testbed

The Manipulator Emulator Testbed (MET) is to provide a facility capable of hosting the simulation of various manipulator configurations to support concept studies, evaluation, and other engineering development activities. Specifically, the testbed is intended to support development of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) and related systems. The objective of this study is to evaluate the math models developed for the MET simulation of a manipulator's rigid body dynamics and the servo systems for each of the driven manipulator joints. Specifically, the math models are examined with regard to their amenability to pipeline and parallel processing. Based on this evaluation and the project objectives, a set of prioritized recommendations are offered for future work.

Kelly, Frederick A.↗

Proceedings of the 2nd NASA Ada User's Symposium

Several presentations, mostly in viewgraph form, on various topics relating to Ada applications are given. Topics covered include the use of Ada in NASA, Ada and the Space Station, the software support environment, Ada in the Software Engineering Laboratory, Ada at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Flight Telerobotic Servicer, and lessons learned in prototyping the Space Station Remote Manipulator System control.

Source record↗