******************************* LUNAR ROVER CONFIGURATION 94-95 ******************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Oct 94 11:26:34 EDT From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: lunatics@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: revised version of ART program plan---comments please /* * Short description of Autonomous Rover Technologies task. */ The purpose of the Autonomous Rover Technologies task is to develop innovative perception, rover configuration, planning, and task-level control technologies that enable mobile robots to operate under control modes ranging from safeguarded teloperation to full autonomy. The aim is to enable rovers to operate reliably, over long durations in rugged, natural, unstructured environments. Further, technology development will feed into and respond to the Lunar Rover Demonstration focused research program. Focus and Directions: 95 Develop technologies for off-board safeguarded teloperation control from a remote operator station. Demonstrate technologies in 10 km test with existing rover in natural terrain. Primary mode of fault recovery will be operator intervention (such as via direct teleoperation control). 96 Develop technologies for on-board safeguarded teleoperation control and participatory multimedia interactions with novice users. Demonstrate technologies in 10 km test with self-contained rover in lunar mare-like terrain. Primary mode of fault recovery will be supervised intervention (such as downloading new paths). 97 Develop technologies for long-duration, on-board autonomous control. Demonstrate technologies in 10 km test of autonomous operation, with self-contained rover with a 1 kilometer mean distance between operator interventions. Demonstrate rover-requested intervention (such as recharging batteries or resetting comm link). 98 Develop technologies for mixed mode control blending safeguarded teleoperation and autonomous control. Demonstrate technologies in 100 km test in lunar highland-like terrain with participatory interactions from remote audience. 99 Develop technologies for highly-tolerant mixed mode control. Demonstrate technologies in 100 km test of autonomous operation in mixture of mare and highland terrains, with self-contained rover and a 1 day mean time between operator intervention. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Fri Oct 21 11:27:05 1994 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 94 11:27:02 EDT From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: lunatics@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: revised LRD program plan---comments please /* * Short description of Lunar Rover Demonstration task. */ The purpose of the Lunar Rover Demonstration task is to develop and demonstrate a convincing, comprehensive mobile robot mission capability required for a Lunar Rover Flight Mission. The project will demonstrate rover technologies suitable for lunar missions, and provide those technologies to NASA and commercial interests for scientific and private enterprise on the Moon. Focus and Directions: 95 Conduct Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for rover and its role in a lunar mission. Scope of rover review to include locomotion, communication, imagery, computing and electronics, software, power, and thermal control systems. Additional scope to include ground stations, visualization, failure analysis, fault recovery, and transition modes (rover transition from "observer" to "explorer", ground station transition from site to site). 96 Build lunar-relevant prototype rover, including all subsystems except power and thermal control, and demonstrate motion control. 96 Conduct Critical Design Review (CDR) for rover and its role in a lunar mission. Scope of CDR to be the same as for PDR, and to include review of results from two detailed testing programs: (1) testing of lunar-relevant rover; and (2) component testing of actuators, sensors, and processors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Lalitesh K. Katragadda" To: reids@cs.cmu.edu, epk@MAILBOX.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU, da1v@ri.cmu.edu Cc: murph@ri.cmu.edu Subject: Planning the retreat Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 12:45:23 -0400 Sender: Lalitesh_Katragadda@GS107.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Hi Reid, i am staying away from planning this retreat as i will be taking off thursday evening to Sunday eve and would not be effective in closing off the agenda. Dimi & Murph will lead the planning from the focussed group's side. Murph & Dimi wrote the proposal with me and are intimate with the objectives of the program and the focussed program. Both of them have also been through Coverdale & CBI - they understand the process very well. We concluded personal focus and agenda planning today; only details remain. Dimi (& Murph tomorrow) will meet with you as necessary to chart the day. If i understand it right, we have three rooms, pointing to intent for three activities - similar to the FRC retreat, I will be in touch with Dimi and volunteer upfront for any role needed by me - i will be ready Monday, regards, lalit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: da1v@FRC2.FRC.RI.CMU.EDU, lalitesh.katragadda@CS.CMU.EDU, murph@RI.CMU.EDU, reids@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU, wlw@FRC2.FRC.RI.CMU.EDU Subject: retreat planning Hi Folks, Reid and I discussed what kind of retreat day organization made sense, and converged on an approximate like this: 8:00 charter for the day 8:10 lunaquest overview 8:30 plans for software group 8:50 plans for configuration group 9:10 plans for navigation group 9:30 break 9:45 subgroups discuss mission concept and group plans 11:00 subgroups unite, present findings to whole group, discuss 12:00 lunch 1:00 subgroups discuss selected technologies (for example, safeguarding, communications, visualization, etc) 2:00 subgroups unite, present findings, discuss 3:00 project logistics: meetings, mailing lists, unity 4:00 adjourn for trick or treat This is pretty similar to the way we have done these retreats before. Neither Reid nor I have done Coverdale or TQM stuff. Maybe one of you enlightened ones can present a better model than the above---if so, power to you, and let's hear it! I expect some kind of reply from either Dimi or Murph, in lieu of Lalit. EK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < LUNAR ROVER CONFIGURATION MEETING OCT.25, 1994 > From lri-config-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Tue Oct 25 15:22:22 1994 To: lri-config@ri.cmu.edu Subject: Meeting Tuesday- Oct 25, 94 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 15:20:21 -0400 Hi All, Here are the minutes of today's meeting. Also I couldn't get the copies of my presentation. They are lying in /usr/deepak/MOON/Pointing/doc/presentations/102594slides4.ps I will bring the hardcopies to the Friday meeting. Date: Oct 25, 94 Tuesday Time: 9:00 - 10:30 Venue: FRc 100 Participants: Red, Dimi, Andy, Jack, Yasu, Guillermo, Lalit, Deepak. ==================================================================== Lalit Started by putting objectives for the year. A person was identified for eash task. The objectives listed are: --------------------------------------------------- Yearly Objectives Key Person --------------------------------------------------- Overall Deisgn Andy, Deepak Rover Simulation Lalit Mission Simulation Murph Quarterly Reports Dimi TRIWG Presentation Dimi Follow on Proposal Dimi ---------------------------------------------------- Other Objectives Key Person ---------------------------------------------------- Enable Comercial Funding Red Proposal (Long Traverse) Lalit ----------------------------------------------------- Logistics Key Person ----------------------------------------------------- Space, Phone, Keys Yasu Library Deepak Computers Terry, Murph ==================================================================== Proposal for "Major Traverse" ----------------------------- * Possibility of funding (next year) on "Major Traverse" * should we submit a proposal ot not? + We have time to work this out? + Is this necessary to go to the moon? + There is an anticipation of more money. + Chance to verify novice driving. + Chance to verify display technologies. - distraction from MOON * We will do this only if it is Lunar buggy. * White paper on proposal- 1 week before TRIWG Lalit Volunteered (and Red pointed out that we should stop Lalit from volunteering so much). ==================================================================== Other: - Presentation: Deepak on Communication Systems (what as been done, what need to be done, approach, etc.) - Jack presented a report on Physical model. - Next week Presentation on Visualization. After that presentations in the order of topics in the report. - Need to get somebody for thermal design- may be a student from MechE. Deepak Will find about this. Friday Agenda: - Presentation: Murph on Visualization - Haloween Retreat Thanks Deepak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Tue Oct 25 19:09:01 1994 To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu, dsw@FRC2.FRC.RI.CMU.EDU Cc: dot@FRC2.FRC.RI.CMU.EDU Subject: Retreat Information (Lunar Initiative) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 19:08:34 -0400 To: Retreat participants From: Red Whittaker, Robotics/FRC Subject: LRI Retreat 31 October 1994 We have been in the planetary exploration research business for seven years. We've initiated technologies, built a powerful team and put some great robots into the world, But none to space. Our scenario for an entertainment excursion on the moon is a focus for our current research. We will meet this Monday to consider the fulfillment of our initiative. We will have brief presentations on our project. The remaining time will be spent considering the future. After discussing our own vision, we will form three working groups whose purpose is to identify key issues and formulate responses. Each group will be chartered to take a unique perspective. What are the key actions needed to fulfill the Lunaar initiative? What must be done now to succeed? (Lalit Katragaddda) What are we doing right to achieve the Lunar initiative and how do we reinforce the strength? (Eric Krotkov) What are barriers or deficiencies to fulfilling the Lunar initiative and how do we overcome them? (Reid Simmons) The teams will prepare a written statement identifying ---- key issues and proposed actions to deal with them. We begin at 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday, 31 October 1994, SEI Building, Room 4000. Each participant is expected to read RI Technical Report "LunaQuest Mission Concept", proposal "Lunar Rover Demonstration", and proposal "Autonomous Rover Technologies" before this meeting. Participation in this meeting is a pre-requisite to salary support from this project for FY'95. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Thu Oct 27 10:21:35 1994 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:19:54 EDT From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: lri-general@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: LRD program plan submitted to NASA /* * Short description of Lunar Rover Demonstration task. */ The purpose of the Lunar Rover Demonstration task is to develop and demonstrate a convincing, comprehensive mobile robot mission capability required for a Lunar Rover Flight Mission. The project will demonstrate rover technologies suitable for lunar missions, and provide those technologies to NASA and commercial interests for scientific and private enterprise on the Moon. Focus and Directions: 95 Conduct Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for rover and its role in a lunar mission. Scope of rover review to include locomotion, communication, imagery, computing and electronics, software, power, and thermal control systems. Additional scope to include ground stations, visualization, failure analysis, fault recovery, and transition modes (rover transition from "observer" to "explorer", ground station transition from site to site). 96 Build lunar-relevant prototype rover, including all subsystems except power and thermal control, and demonstrate motion control. 96 Conduct Critical Design Review (CDR) for rover and its role in a lunar mission. Scope of CDR to be the same as for PDR, and to include review of results from two detailed testing programs: (1) testing of lunar-relevant rover; and (2) component testing of actuators, sensors, and processors. /* * Detailed description of Lunar Rover Demonstration task. */ Technical Objectives: The objective of the Lunar Rover Demonstration task is to develop and demonstrate a convincing, comprehensive mobile robot mission capability required for a Lunar Rover Flight Mission. The project will demonstrate rover technologies suitable for lunar missions, and provide those technologies to NASA and commercial interests for scientific and private enterprise on the Moon. Approach: To achieve the mobile robot lunar mission capabaility, the task will focus its efforts on two fronts: development of a lunar-relevant prototype rover, and mission analysis and simulation. 1) Lunar-Relevant Rover Development. The rover will consist of a number of subsystems, including locomotion, communication, imagery, computing, electronics, software, power, and thermal control. The development cycle applied to each of these subsystems will include configuration, design, component design, fabrication, assembly, and test. Simultaneously, we will perform detailed simulations to quantify performance and increase confidence in the design. 2) Mission Analysis and Simulation. In one promising scenario being considered, a rover traverses a thousand kilometers over two years. Throughout, scientists and commercial sponsors share time commanding the rover, while the public participates in the mission through interactive theme parks or television. We will perform end-to-end mission simulations to evaluate operations. Simulation will include teleoperation, ground stations, visualization, inter-rover communication, and transition modes (rover transition from "observer" to "explorer", ground station transition from site to site). In addition, we will perform failure mode analysis and develop fault recover methods. The project will leverage the insights and practical tools developed under the Autonomous Rover Technologies task. Specifically, it will transfer results of the basic research in perception, rover configuration, and task-level control and apply them in system design, development, and demonstration. Planned Milestones: Dec 94 Conduct Configuration Design Review based on design document entitled "Lunaquest Mission Concept." Mar 95 Demonstrate functional simulation of rover operating on synthetic terrain. Jun 95 Produce design documents for locomotion, pointing, and visualization subsystems. Sep 95 Conduct Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for rover and its role in a lunar mission. Scope of rover review to include locomotion, communication, imagery, computing, electronics, software, power, and thermal control systems. Additional scope to include ground stations, visualization, failure analysis, fault recovery, and transition modes (rover transition from "observer" to "explorer", ground station transition from site to site). Dec 95 Emulate failure modes and reliability measures. Apr 96 Complete ground station mockup, including communication links and devices for audience visualization and participatory interaction. Jul 96 Fabricate lunar-relevant prototype rover. Aug 96 Demonstrate motion control of lunar-relevant prototype rover, including all subsystems except power and thermal control. Sep 96 Conduct Critical Design Review (CDR) for rover and its role in a lunar mission. Scope of CDR to be the same as for PDR, and to include review of results from two detailed testing programs: (1) testing of lunar-relevant rover; and (2) component testing of actuators, sensors, and processors. Point of Contact: Red Whittaker (412) 268-6559 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Thu Oct 27 10:23:22 1994 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:20:36 EDT From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: lri-general@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: ART program plan submitted to NASA /* * Short description of Autonomous Rover Technologies task. */ The purpose of the Autonomous Rover Technologies task is to develop innovative perception, rover configuration, planning, and task-level control technologies that enable mobile robots to operate under control modes ranging from safeguarded teloperation to full autonomy. The aim is to enable rovers to operate reliably, over long durations in rugged, natural, unstructured environments. Further, technology development will feed into and respond to the Lunar Rover Demonstration focused research program. Focus and Directions: 95 Develop technologies for off-board safeguarded teloperation control from a remote operator station. Demonstrate technologies in 10 km test with existing rover in natural terrain. Primary mode of fault recovery will be operator intervention (such as via direct teleoperation control). 96 Develop technologies for on-board safeguarded teleoperation control and participatory multimedia interactions with novice users. Demonstrate technologies in 10 km test with self-contained rover in lunar mare-like terrain. Primary mode of fault recovery will be supervised intervention (such as downloading new paths). 97 Develop technologies for long-duration, on-board autonomous control. Demonstrate technologies in 10 km test of autonomous operation, with self-contained rover with a 1 kilometer mean distance between operator interventions. Demonstrate rover-requested intervention (such as recharging batteries or resetting comm link). 98 Develop technologies for mixed mode control blending safeguarded teleoperation and autonomous control. Demonstrate technologies in 100 km test in lunar highland-like terrain with participatory interactions from remote audience. 99 Develop technologies for highly-tolerant mixed mode control. Demonstrate technologies in 100 km test of autonomous operation in mixture of mare and highland terrains, with self-contained rover and a 1 day mean time between operator intervention. /* * Detailed description of Autonomous Rover Technologies task. */ Technical Objectives: The objective of the Autonomous Rover Technologies task is to develop innovative perception, rover configuration, planning, and task-level control technologies that enable mobile robots to operate under control modes ranging from safeguarded teloperation to full autonomy. The aim is to enable rovers to operate reliably, over long durations in rugged, natural, unstructured environments. Approach: The technology development will focus on the key areas of perception, planning, task-level control, and integrated systems. 1) Perception. Technologies that will be developed include (a) mapping local surface geometry using stereo vision, using weak calibration methods, (b) estimating rover position, using multiple sensor fusion, map registration, and visual landmarks, and (c) mapping large-scale surface geometry, using topographic analysis. 2) Planning. The focus will be on planning for obstacle avoidance, using stereo, in rough, previously unknown terrain. Extension to current planning techniques will enable the robot to handle noisier sensor and stereo data, and more varied terrain. Techniques to be investigated include planning under uncertainty and risk, and more sophisticated merging of multiple stereo datasets. 3) Task-level Control. The development of task-level control technologies will focus on reliable operation: Strategies for monitoring execution of plans and behaviors for reacting to exceptional situations will be developed and integrated into the existing robot system. In addition, tools will be developed to aid in the specification and analysis of distributed, concurrent robotic systems. 4) Integrated Systems. The perception, planning, and task-level control technologies will be tested in an integrated, real-world navigation system. Initially, the locomotion platform will be the Ratler, and when available it will be a lunar-worthy rover. As the Lunar Rover Demonstration task develops components, such as computing platforms and telemetry systems, they will be integrated and tested with the navigation system. Planned Milestones: The following are the Level One milestones for the task. 95 Demonstrate off-board safeguarded teloperation control technologies in 10 km test with existing rover in natural terrain. Primary mode of fault recovery will be operator intervention (such as via direct teleoperation control). 96 Demonstrate on-board safeguarded teleoperation control technologies in 10 km test with self-contained rover in lunar mare-like terrain. Primary mode of fault recovery will be supervised intervention (such as downloading new paths). 97 Demonstrate long-duration, on-board autonomous control technologies in 10 km test of autonomous operation, with self-contained rover with a 1 kilometer mean distance between operator interventions. Demonstrate rover-requested intervention (such as recharging batteries or resetting comm link). 98 Demonstrate mixed mode control blending safeguarded teleoperation and autonomous control technologies in 100 km test in lunar highland-like terrain with participatory interactions from remote audience. 99 Demonstrate highly-tolerant mixed mode control technologies in 100 km test of autonomous operation in mixture of mare and highland terrains, with self-contained rover and a 1 day mean time between operator intervention. Point of Contact: Eric Krotkov (412) 268-3058 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Thu Oct 27 10:44:54 1994 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:43:06 EDT From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: lri-general@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: retreat advances (tentative agenda) Lunar Rover Initiative Retreat ============================== Monday, October 31 Software Engineering Institute 8:00 Red charter for the day 8:10 Lalit lunaquest overview 8:30 Andrew plans for configuration group 8:50 Ken plans for software group 9:10 Eric plans for navigation group 9:30 break 9:45 Vols. 3 subgroups discuss group plans: configuration, software, navigation 11:00 Vols. 3 subgroups unite, present findings, discuss 12:00 lunch 1:00 Vols. 3 subgroups discuss programmatically: what doing right, what not doing well, what near-term "proactions" to take 2:30 Vols. 3 subgroups unite, present findings, discuss 3:30 project logistics: meetings, mailing lists, unity 3:50 All public declarations (30 seconds) of where we line up 4:00 adjourn Note 1: The "Vols." entry means that volunteers are needed. Be ready! The volunteer will serve as a discussion monitor, and also as a spokesperson to present findings. Note 2: For the 9:45 subgroups, we want to have an equal mixing of participants addresing the different themes. For example, in the configuration session, 1/3 of the configuration group, 1/3 of the software group, and 1/3 of the navigation group should participate. Think about what group you want to be in. Note 3: Continental breakfast will be available. No afternoon break. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------F From lri-config-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Mon Oct 31 23:07:56 1994 To: lri-config@GS164.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Minutes for 10/28/94 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 23:08:04 EST From: Deepak_Bapna@GS164.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Meeting: Lunar Rover Configuration Date: Friday Oct 28, 94 Time: 11:30 - 1:00 pm Venue: FRC 100 Present: Red, Jack, Yasu, Dimi, Guillermo, Murph, Deepak Absent: Terry (sick), Lalit (out of town), Andrew (out of town) Red had to leave early (about noon) ======================================================================= * Red started by going through the minutes of the last meeting. Proposed some changes (Deepak). Add "technical assigments". * Red explained functions of 4 TRIWG meetings (Dec., Feb., Summer, Sept.) and their imporatnce for us. - TRIWG Summer '95 is going to be difficult for us as we have no new Robots to show (unlike last year DanteII, Terregator, etc.). Lots depends on our initiative. * Murph will present "plans for the configuration group" at the retreat. A discussion on the format of the presentation was done. * Group decided to put together a document of "statement of purpose" after the retreat. This will consist of the plan of the group and individual's plan for the calendar year. * Yasu presented status on the physical model. Need 200$ for shafts and coupleing. Who will assign that? * Yasu talked on the space available. Two options: - 2 rooms + big room shared by oz and us. - 3 small rooms The group decided to go with three rooms option. - Yasu will talk to Jim Martin about phone conenctions (how much extra it costs to have separate lines in all three rooms?). * Technical Presentation: Murph - Image Warping/Morphing techniques: - Image Processing: Automatic Exposure ======================================================================= Agenda for Tuesday: Nov 1, 1994 (following is min. action items) - (Jack) Why not cameras at the bottom of the rover? - Presentation: Lalit on design tools - "Finance"- it is very inefficient to look for Red for 200$. What can be done? - New plans (if needed) based on retreat discussion. ======================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Mon Oct 31 23:26:05 1994 To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Configuration Group Assignments Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 23:25:33 EST From: Deepak_Bapna@GS164.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Configuration Group Assignments ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Component Objectives Key Person(s) --------------------------------------------------- Design Tools Lalit Imagery Murph Locomotion Dimi Teleoperation Guillermo Fault Tolerance/Relaibility Jack Safe Guarding Terry Tribology Yasu Communication System Deepak Physical Model Yasu, Jack,Eric --------------------------------------------------- Yearly Objectives Key Person(s) --------------------------------------------------- Overall Design Andy, Deepak Rover Simulation Lalit Mission Simulation Murph Quarterly Reports Dimi TRIWG Presentation Dimi Follow on Proposal Dimi ---------------------------------------------------- Other Objectives Key Person(s) ---------------------------------------------------- Enable Comercial Funding Red Proposal (Long Traverse) Lalit ----------------------------------------------------- Logistics Key Person(s) ----------------------------------------------------- Space, Phone, Keys Yasu Library Deepak Computers Terry, Murph ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Tue Nov 1 07:05:27 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 07:04:37 EST From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: lri-general@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: navigation group assignments Rover Technologies FY95 ======================= Electro-Mechanisms Jesse Yosh motor upgrade proximity sensor new stereo cage treads On-Board Controller Gita, Jay Yosh self-kill Off-Board Controller Rich RCP acknowledgments revise kitchen sink Dead Reckoning Eric Fabio, Lonnie, Guillermo, Yasu slag tests filters on-board recalibration IMU Safeguarding Reid Rich proximity Jay Stereo Martial Eric, Jay, Yosh 4-camera setup armor-plate cameras digital video link port on-board robustify Ranger Reid logging/replay User Interface Sven incorporate visualization unification of all interfaces Task Control Reid timing analysis Arbiter Sven Management Eric scope & schedule personnel facilities (REC?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Tue Nov 1 16:35:52 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 16:32:39 EST From: Eric.Krotkov@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: lri-general@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU Navigation Meeting Minutes ========================== Meeting 11/1, 11:00-12:00 Present: Eric (reporting), Rich, Reid, Fabio, Yasu, Martial, Jay Absent: Gita, Lonnie, Sven, Jesse 1/ Status reports Eric described problems in initializing cortex framegrabber boards. Sometimes the image codes are written, sometimes not. SOmetimes the images appear to be in reverse video, sometimes normal video. Eric, Lonnie, Fabio, and Guillermo are working on an IROS position estimation paper. Rich discussed possible implications of change from gcc 2.58 to gcc 2.60. Reid studied alternative formulations of the local navigation problem that avoid map merging, which appears to be the biggest unresolved issue with current ranger implementation. Yasu presented power consumption data for new actuators. Martial reported that stereo results using image data transmitted over microwave link were not as good as earlier reported: accuracy is fine, but density is low. Jay presented proximity sensor analysis of lookahead distance, crater depth, and crater diameter. 2/ Plans for Week Ahead Eric: solve cortex board initialization problems Rich: get RCP acknowledgements to work (so no ignored messages) Reid: write ISE paper on 1 km traverse Reid: modify ranger based on inputs from Al Kelly Fabio: dead reckoning data acquisition on Friday Yasu: test new controller handling of watson box data (with encoder data) Yasu: compare old/new actuator power consumption Martial: port stereo mods from humvee to ratler Martial: add "black box" data logging to stereo Martial: perform data collection for map merging analysis Jay: analyze proxmity sensor requirements for rolling terrain Jay: search for proximity and contact sensor products Jay: analyze requirements for R3000 Jay: help Gita with self-kill problem 3/ Plans for Month Ahead Eric: order all video and computing equipment Rich: provide CTR capabilities for time delay teleoperation Reid: perform system timing analysis including stereo and entire system Reid: solve map merging problems in ranger Fabio: definitive dead reckoning performance analysis Fabio: release cleaned-up deadstubs (no outlier detection, sensible defaults, help messages, consistent numbering, etc) Yasu: implement and test watson box position estimation Martial: test stereo on wireless and 4-camera imagery 4/ Meeting time Confusion reigns. Is there a Thursday meeting? Probably not, but maybe. 5/ Actions to be taken (above and beyond the plans above) Eric: draft definitions of "safeguarding" and "autonomy" Eric: identify equipment needed to introduce video delays Eric: schedule weekly meetings (and send unambiguous messages!) Rich: post to group on header file changes required for frc, learning, and ius environments Lonnie: move outlier detection from deadstubs to kitchen sink handler Jesse: design battery monitor Jesse: noise room facility improvements Jesse: new batteries with higher density Gita, Lonnie, Sven, Jesse: provide week/month milestones to Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Thu Nov 3 17:03:07 1994 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 16:54:28 EST From: "John R. Murphy" To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu Subject: LRI executive group minutes 11-3-94 MINUTES FOR LRI EXECUTIVE MEETING FY95.1 FRC 100 9:00am-10:30am Thursday, Nov. 3 1994 Participants: Red, Reid, Murph, Eric, Lalit, Lonnie Proposed Agenda: Formulation of Executive group Retreat follow-on Scheduling of LRI Meetings Formulation of Executive group -Eric: Meeting times should be fixed to include software representation -Red: Several high-level pro-actions should be determined and stated as tasks for the Executive group. Examples: Defining the roles of each group, especially help software. Expanding resources and handling proposals. Nailing down specifications and requirements ("what we are up to") Tracking budgets and milestones. -Reid: Executive group must succeed in disseminating information in order to prevent groups being "blind-sided" by changes. -Eric: Upcoming events to be watched are configuration review, TRIWG, ISE workshop, Ratler upgrade, Time-delay teleop on Ratler. Retreat follow-on -Red: Proposed using a LRI meeting for retreat feedback. -Red: Declared that he would make sure that retreat summaries were given to the software and config groups. -Red: Comments on the summaries should be mailed to colella@frc. -Eric: Asked about the feeling of unity achieved by the retreat Replies: Cosmetically was OK, realistically not much change. General sense of Unity and warm-fuzzy feeling about project. People first attitude is pleasing, but wont get to the moon. Feeling of uncertainty about overall LRI purpose still exists. Scheduling of LRI meetings -Eric: Proposed two in 1994, which was agreed to. -Eric: Volunteered to organize the first on November 17th. The main topics are to include: retreat feedback and TRIWG/other proposals. -Red: Suggested combining the second with the LRI-config review in december. -Red: Andy Mor assigned to organize the meeting before winter holidays (around 15th december). Specifics of time, date, etc. up to him. Agenda for next meeting: Currently nothing. Actions -All: Review retreat summary and post suggestions to Nick. -Eric: Organize first LRI meeting on Nov 17th. (retreat feedback, proposals) -Andy: Organize the Mid-December LRI meeting around the Config-Review. -Murph: Collate minutes and post to mailing lists. -Murph: Find suitable times for Ken to participate and find meeting slot. -Eric: Will track the upcoming LRI events and the LRI-nav group progress. -Red: Will handle the summary and feedback from the retreat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Thu Nov 3 17:17:05 1994 To: lri-general@GS164.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Minutes for Configuration Group Meeting- Nov 1, 1994 Date: Thu, 03 Nov 94 17:16:17 EST From: Deepak_Bapna@GS164.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Meeting: Lunar Rover Configuration Date: Tuesday Nov 1, 94 Time: 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. Venue: FRC 200 Present: Andy, Murph, Yasu, Dimi, Jack, Deepak, Guillermo, Lalit Absent: Red, Terry ======================================================================= * Yasu: # of phones in CBI Space The group decided that we need phones in all the three rooms, but taking cost into account (20$/month rent and 7cents/call), it is going to be a single line. * Jack led the discussion on whether we should have cameras at the bottom of the rover. - This will help in Emergency situations - Murph - may help in visualization - can see boulder formation - tracing lunokhod trail - terrain would seem moving faster from closeup- more interesting. So the group decided that it is a good idea. Murph will find about 180 deg cameras and incorporate in the document. * Presentation: Lalit on design tools. * Lalit got information on "Conformable Phased Array Antennas" and gave it to the group. * Finances: The discussion on account numbers to order small imp stuff was postponed till next time when Red is here. * Andy: Asked everybody to send him cost/mass/power budget. Also for Friday everybody should read the locomotion section and we will have a technical discussion. * In the retreat it was decided that it is better to have one 2 hrs meeting. Murph will fix new meeting schedule. ======================================================================= Agenda for Friday Nov 4, 1994 (11:30 - 1:00 p.m.) * Finances: Red * Dimi: Presentation on Locomotion * technical Discussion: Locomotion * Murph- New meeting time - other !!! ======================================================================= Thanks Deepak location: /usr/deepak/moon/meetings/minutes/config-110194.txt From lri-config-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Fri Nov 4 13:30:55 1994 Sender: Terry Fong Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 13:30:25 EST From: terry@cmu.edu Reply-To: Terry Fong To: lri-config@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: subsystems matrix Content-Length: 1807 Status: RO X-Lines: 54 Hi all, Just to reiterate Nick's comments from the retreat, I think it is extremely important that the configuration group clearly identify subsystems and the people working on those subsystems. Specifically, we have to identify a lead person in each area and if an area has no lead, act appropriately to fill it. So, here is a strawman breakdown. Note that this departs from the "key subsystems" that Lalit presented at the review. That list was focused on research areas, the following is a more traditional space systems physical subsystem breakdown. Since Andy is leading the document and configuration design, I'd recommend sending comments to him. I've only listed leads for those areas where I feel there are clearly people who have subsystem responsibility. Others (e.g., Lalit) are working on so many things that it is not clear if there is a specific subsystem that they have responsibility. -Terry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LRI Subsystems Breakdown ======================== Subsystem Lead -------------------------- ---------------------------- Thermal ** none ** Communications Deepak (hardware, compression) Power ** none ** (stored, charging) Locomotion Dimi (structure, mechanism, motion) Data Management System ** none ** (computing & data bus) Sensors Murph (imaging, perception) Ground station ** none ** (hardware, systems) Guidance & Navigation ** none ** Systems Integration Andy _______________________________________________________________________________ When I come home to you, San Francisco, Terry Fong your golden sun will shine on me... Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon -- "I Left My Heart in S.F." Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-1416 From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Sun Nov 6 14:16:23 1994 Date: Sun, 6 Nov 94 14:13:34 EST From: "John R. Murphy" To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Minutes for Friday 11-5-94 config meeting Content-Length: 5573 Status: RO X-Lines: 165 Configuration Group Minutes FRC 100 11:30-1:00pm Friday, Nov 4, 1994 Participants: Murph, Red, Dimi, Ken, Eric, Guillermo, Yasu, Andy, Lalit Excused/Absent: Jesse, Deepak Late: Jack, Terry Agenda: 30min Locomotion presentation 20min Discussion of Software group task assignment 5min Report on Fred Herold visit 10min SGI-purchase / money 5min Logistics of space 5min Configuration review 5min ISE / TRIWG presentations 5min New Meeting times Handouts: Locomotion presentation (1page) Software WBS/task assignment (7pages) Previous meeting minutes (1page) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Locomotion presentation: Led by Dimi. Red- What is state of current analysis tools. Guillermo- Mathematica code, needs to be cleaned up. Red- Eric should be contacted about the swapping of motors. Dimi- Hopeful assumption is 2-3 weeks before ratler wants motors, and then old motors can go to physical model. Lalit- Obtaining terrain analysis from site data is potential risk. Red- Check out LunaCorp CD-rom, contact Jim Dunston, and Clementine. Red- Thermal properties of wheels/chassis must be examined. Dimi- Have paper discussing LRV and Lunokhod together. Locomotion to date: 1. Scoped issue 2. Considered options 3. Initially based on Lunokhod (4wheel skid steer) 4. Tried to keep a simplistic structure 5. Increased capability of system (6wheel skid steer) 6. First analysis lacking loading or turning no duty-cycle evaluation of turn vs straight. 7. Guillermo showed skid-steer has flaws in power/force Learned lander had more volume and could increase dimensions 8. Changed to rear wheel explicit steer Current design clearances prohibited all corner steer 9. Have pursued paper analysis and physical model (for quasi-static) 10. Still no look at lubrication, gear stress, wheel design, sensors and algorithms, or easy to read prioritized requirements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Software group task assignments: Led by Ken, Red Ken- Purpose is to coordinate software effort and align all workers. Goals and textual accompaniment to gant chart to come later Red- Asked everyone to to determine what they were doing and where it fits in to the overall effort and sign up. Lalit- Will work on restructuring 1.2 (Rover simulation) Murph- Likewise for 1.1 (Lunar simulation) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Herold visit: Led by Lalit Lalit- Coming Thursday to present his phased-array comm system. Andy- Volunteered to organize the Visit. Red- Suggested participants of Andy, Deepak, Nick, Terry, Red. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SGI's / Money: Led by Red Red- Current yearly resources for group is in two parts: 30k open for anything, 20k earmarked for desktop workstations Lalit- Proposal is purchase of R3000 board: ~20k and 3 SGI-indy's ~30k Red- Extra money may evolve over time, resource is useless if not used, and so group is green to purchase if approved. Terry- Eric may share cost of R3000 with Ratler, need to find out more Lalit- Will have proposal at next meeting to carry to Exec group. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Logistics: Led by Murph Murph- Phone and Keys are underway, need to give Jim Martin list of the desired equipment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Configuration Review: Led by Red Red- Andy is in charge of event, date is mid/early december. Andy- Wants more detail for document, especially in costing. Jack- Can pursue technical writer to help with document revision Andy- Will choose date for review and content freeze. Anyone knowing reviewers, etc should contact Andy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISE / TRIWG presentations: Led by Red Red- Group has four presentations at ISE which must be done in 7 days. Murph->overall config, Lalit->ratler traverse Andy->lunar mining, Deepak->precision pointing Red- November 17th is date for next full LRI group meeting. Discussion of retreat feedback and TRIWG proposals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- New meeting times: Led by Murph Murph- One 2 hour meeting a week was desired, from peoples schedules, the result is possible for wednesday afternoon. Everyone- No objections, or at least acquiesance. Murph- New meeting time is Wednesday 4:30pm to 6:30pm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION ITEMS: 1. Comment on Retreat summary and send ideas/thoughts to colella@frc. 2. Determine what software you plan to be writing and where in the gant-chart/work-breakdown-structure it fits, mail to lalit or murph. 3. Contact Andy if you are interested in visiting with Fred Herold. 4. Determine what concepts in your area should be tested in simulation and prototype and mail them to murph or courtney@cs. 5. If you have things you wish to purchase, or will need money during the year, contact Lalit so he can come up with costing proposal. From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Wed Nov 9 01:35:01 1994 Sender: Terry Fong Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 1:34:42 EST From: terry@cmu.edu Reply-To: Terry Fong To: lri-general@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: U-Md Space Systems Lab trip report Content-Length: 3707 Status: RO X-Lines: 70 Hi all, The Space Systems Laboratory (SSL), University of Maryland/College Park, has been pursuing an evolutionary telerobotic development program since 1982. The focus of this program is the development of telerobotic platforms for performing satellite servicing tasks using methods developed by the SSL. The most recent telerobot developed by the SSL is the Ranger NB. The Ranger NB is an underwater vehicle intended for telerobotic servicing simulations in neutral buoyancy. It is based upon previous SSL systems and is designed for studying teleoperated flight modes, gathering of human factors data, and for systematically evaluating satellite servicing techniques. As of October 1994, the main Ranger NB hardware systems have been assembled or are undergoing final assembly. Control software, both on-board and operator station, are in on-going development and testing. A telerobotic flight experiment has been planned as a direct follow on to the Ranger NB. This experiment will involve the development of a space vehicle, the Ranger TFX, to be launched via a Delta class booster. The Ranger TFX will be used to demonstrate telerobotic servicing methods with line-of-sight communications from the University of Maryland. Ranger TFX is scheduled for launch to low-earth orbit in early 1997 and will be operational for 45-60 days. The total cost for development of both Ranger NB and TFX is budgeted at less than $6M. Last week I spent two days at SSL and attended the public "roll-out" ceremony of Ranger NB. The roll-out signifies the transition of the vehicle from development to operations. The system is largely complete with two 7-DOF dexterous manipulators installed (a grapling arm and a camera arm are still in final design). During the next year, SSL will be conducting extensive neutral-buoyancy tests with Ranger NB to characterize the vehicle and to evaluate prototype subsystems and methods for Ranger TFX. With the transition of Ranger NB to operational status, SSL is turning its resources towards detailed analysis and final design of the Ranger TFX system. An internal design review is scheduled for January 1995 which will focus on key subsystems including electrical, thermal, attitude control, communications, and data management (flight computing). In addition, SSL has formed a number of organizational partnerships that will directly support the flight mission including: - NASA Ames Research Center Virtual Environment Vehicle Interface - NASA Wallops Flight Facility TOTS ground station - K2T TCX communications - Veda Systems Flight communications components - STI, Inc. Flight software engineering Two weeks ago, I met with Joe Parrish (the Ranger program manager) while he was at CMU presenting a RI seminar talk on Ranger. Parrish agreed to allow a LRI group to visit SSL in early 1995 (late January or early February) and spend a day discussing Ranger TFX design and flight systems. This presents an ideal opportunity for the LRI effort to acquire knowledge and insight into a space robotic system. In particular, SSL is approximately 18 months ahead of the LRI in a number of areas: communications, flight computing, and thermal design. We should keep this opportunity in mind as we head for the December configuration review. If there are any questions or comments, please send me email or drop by my office. -Terry _______________________________________________________________________________ When I come home to you, San Francisco, Terry Fong your golden sun will shine on me... Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon -- "I Left My Heart in S.F." Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-1416 From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Thu Nov 10 12:14:47 1994 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 12:11:34 EST From: "John R. Murphy" To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu Subject: exec minutes from 11-10-94 Content-Length: 3266 Status: RO X-Lines: 101 MINUTES FOR LRI EXECUTIVE MEETING FY95.1 FRC 100 9:00am-10:30am Thursday, Nov. 10 1994 Participants: Red, Reid, Murph, Eric, Lalit, Terry Next exec meeting: Nov 23, 2-3pm FRC 200 Proposed Agenda: Tracking of LRI / TRIWG events Lunar initiative requirements Goddard contact Navigation issues Purchase of computing Exec group status review ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracking of LRI / TRIWG events -Eric: Will shepherd the tracking of TRIWG. This implies that the Nov 17th meeting must be used to shape the preproposals. By keeping aware, LRI should be able to stay months ahead and avoid last minute rushes to deadlines. -Eric: Nov 17th meeting will be either morning or evening based on vote. Eric will take vote of LRI and set time. Agenda is retreat summary (moderated by Kevin Dowling) and TRIWG. -Murph: Configuration review is either Dec 12, or 9 and will be set by Andy. Reviewers will be decided by Andy with Red. A strawman agenda has been established -Red: ISE presentations are early next week. Main focus of visit is to coordinate with ISE and LunaCorp. Meetings for that purpose will be set later as ISE is busy with organization currently. Lunar initiative requirements -Red: Checked out QFD (quality function deployment) at the recommendation of Walter Lamia (SEI). This is a procedure or tool for assisting with requirement definition in emergent/developing programs. -Red: A 2 day meeting with commercial partners and LRI to work on these requirements would be valuable. -Lalit: Suggest including LunaCorp, ISE, ThemePark, Science people. Goddard contact -Red: Keep communication open regarding the science payloads. -Red: Interest in SmallSat program seems to justify a day trip to Goddard in the near future for some people. Navigation issues -Eric: The main technical issues are ratler upgrade/uptime and identifying lunar relevant proximity sensing for safeguarding. -Reid: Given the new motors for Ratler draw 4x more power, the operational uptime will drop from 2 hours to <1 hour -Eric: Is aware of the situation, has plans for dealing with issue. Purchase of computing -Lalit: Proposal is to use approx. 30k to purchase three (3) SGI Indy workstations. 2 with 24bit graphics for display purposes, 1 with 8bit graphics and higher power for simulation and number crunching. -Terry: Not sure if there is any hard justification for 3 vs 2, but waiting to find out means that the third machine is not available until early march probably. -Lalit: Software/Config groups promise simulation work and so not having workstations will hamper deliverables. -Red: Delay of the decision is a definite loss. Using money now is gambling on future needs. -Reid: Purchase is ok, as long as we have do obtain the incremental resource. Decision: Yes. purchase the three machines. Exec group status review -Red: Hardcopies of previous weeks meetings should be brought to the exec meetings --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next week's meeting will be subsumed by the Nov17th LRI group meeting. Currently the Nov23 agenda is empty. From lri-design-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Mon Nov 14 00:08:54 1994 Sender: Terry Fong Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 0:09:00 EST From: terry@cmu.edu Reply-To: Terry Fong To: lri-design@CS.CMU.EDU Subject: RTG's Content-Length: 3326 Status: RO X-Lines: 65 Hi all, At last week's software group meeting, the topic of RTG's and associated risk came up. So, I dug up the following article from the NASA Ames space archive. I'd be interested to know if anyone in the project has researched (or has) any of the references listed in the article. Hope this helps. -terry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RISKS OF NUCLEAR (RTG) POWER SOURCES FOR SPACE PROBES There has been extensive discussion on this topic sparked by attempts to block the Galileo and Ulysses launches on grounds of the plutonium thermal sources being dangerous. Numerous studies claim that even in worst-case scenarios (shuttle explosion during launch, or accidental reentry at interplanetary velocities), the risks are extremely small. Two interesting data points are (1) The May 1968 loss of two SNAP 19B2 RTGs, which landed intact in the Pacific Ocean after a Nimbus B weather satellite failed to reach orbit. The fuel was recovered after 5 months with no release of plutonium. (2) In April 1970, the Apollo 13 lunar module reentered the atmosphere and its SNAP 27 RTG heat source, which was jettisoned, fell intact into the 20,000 feet deep Tonga Trench in the Pacific Ocean. The corrosion resistant materials of the RTG are expected to prevent release of the fuel for a period of time equal to 10 half-lives of the Pu-238 fuel or about 870 years [DOE 1980]. To make your own informed judgement, some references you may wish to pursue are: A good review of the technical facts and issues is given by Daniel Salisbury in "Radiation Risk and Planetary Exploration-- The RTG Controversy," *Planetary Report*, May-June 1987, pages 3-7. Another good article, which also reviews the events preceding Galileo's launch, "Showdown at Pad 39-B," by Robert G. Nichols, appeared in the November 1989 issue of *Ad Astra*. (Both magazines are published by pro-space organizations, the Planetary Society and the National Space Society respectively.) Gordon L Chipman, Jr., "Advanced Space Nuclear Systems" (AAS 82-261), in *Developing the Space Frontier*, edited by Albert Naumann and Grover Alexander, Univelt, 1983, p. 193-213. "Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity", by Bernard L. Cohen, Health Physics, Vol 32 (may) 1977, page 359-379. NUS Corporation, Safety Status Report for the Ulysses Mission: Risk Analysis (Book 1). Document number is NUS 5235; there is no GPO #; published Jan 31, 1990. NASA Office of Space Science and Applications, *Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)*, (no serial number or GPO number, but probably available from NTIS or NASA) June 1990. [DOE 1980] U.S. Department of Energy, *Transuranic Elements in the Environment*, Wayne C. Hanson, editor; DOE Document No. DOE/TIC-22800; Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, April 1980.) _______________________________________________________________________________ "Nothing in the world is accomplished Terry Fong without passion." Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon -- anon. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-1416 From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Mon Nov 14 15:41:18 1994 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 12:35:47 EST From: Conrado.Maher@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Meeting Minutes Content-Length: 11412 Status: RO X-Lines: 320 Minutes of the LRI Software Group Meeting Date: November 10, 1994 Time: 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM Location: FRC 100 Participants Red Whittaker Terry Fong Ken Courtney Mary Courtney Lalit Katragadda John Murphy Conrad Maher (Scribe) (occasionally appearing as "CMM" in these minutes - apologies to software process people) Agenda 1. Review Action Items Time Allocated 10 min 2. Script Development Time Allocated 15 min 3. Simulation Philosophy Time Allocated 5 min 4. Simulation Implementation Time Allocated 30 min 5. MSE End of Semester Presentation Time Allocated 5 min A report on the phased-array technology by Lalit was added to the agenda. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is the regularly scheduled meeting of the LRI Software Group. 1. Review Action Items * Terry was to obtain info on Mars Sample Return Mission. Terry was not present when this was brought up. It is believed that he has and is working on this. --> Status: Unknown. * Mary was to coordinate effort to develop Rover Scripts. --> Status: Done. * Murph was to schedule Team Leads meeting. The meetings are scheduled for Wednesdays 2-3 PM starting on Nov. 23. --> Status: Done. * Ken was to publish his ideas on the simulation environment for the LRI. Ken brought a copy to the meeting for review and comment. Additional input from Murph is expected so that a better definition is conveyed to the LRI groups on what is meant by "simulation" and what its use might be. --> Status: Ongoing. Expected to be completed early next week. * Murph was to obtain and publish a list of configuration group needs in the area of simulation. This was bumped by higher priority work (preparation for the December 12 review). --> Status: Not Done. Completion date undetermined. * The Nav Group was requested to describe how they would use an R3000 board if they had one Terry obtained the following response: The R3000 board would be used to move the perception computations that are currently done off-board Ratler on-board. The R3000 would not replace the current 386/486 processor boards. At the present time funding is not available to obtain an R3000 board for the Nav group. The Nav group will have to wait for/find alternate incremental funding for the R3000 board. Status --> Done. * Red was to hold a discussion on spending with the configuration group. Status --> Done. * Murph was to take an initial cut at putting together code for simulation Status --> Not done. This should be done by next week. * Terry was to get all on the LRI software group accounts on the Iris. This was done. Some reconfiguration will be done to store data on the FRC Sun (NFS) filesystem. Some changes may be required for those who alaready have accounts (i.e., changes to environment variables). Terry will take the lead on administering FRC SGI machines unless and until someone else can be found to do this. Terry will pursue getting root/superuser access to the Sun filesystem to allow his to do system administration work if necessary. * Murph was populate project office area with furniture This is being taken care of. Status --> Done. * The group will maintain a Top Ten list of perceived risks. All members need to occasionally look over the list. The group will periodically review this list (two week intervals initially). (CMM Commentary --> Should we not also try to identify contingency plans to deal with risks? Or is this implied?) 1.1 Report on Phased Array (PA) Technology (Lalit) Lalit gave a report based on the presentation given earlier in the afternoon on the use of a phased array for communicating from Rover to Earth. Some highlights: On the Rover: PA would use S-band not Ku-band. Approximately the same size as current HGA concept. Some of the PA elements are for trasmission, some for reception. PA solution is a distributed solution. There only a few single points of failure. These might be handled with redundant parts. The PA concept for the LRI would be a 15x15 array. We do not expect to lose any elements in service. We think that the concept can be built (possible vendors are Westinghouse Baltimore and Loral). Weight is 25 kg including electronics. PA can stay outside at night. This is an advantage. This makes the mission software less complex. Analog circuitry is used on the PA vs. digital on HGA. Prior to this afternoon's presentation the preconceptions were that: for the phased-array concept efficiency would be low power requirements would be high mass would be high cost would be high maturity would be weak currently it is believed that efficiency would be higher (than HGA) power requirements would be about the same Redundancy is a plus for this concept. A few elements can be out of order and the PA will still function. Does the use of PA reinstate the single Rover concept? No. There were other issues that led to the 2-Rover concept - the antenna pointing problem is just one. For instance, Rover could not both move and charge. Having a PA system does reduce the dependency between two Rovers and may solve some problems in the Sleep mode. --------------------------------------------------- Some thermal issues were discussed; a white paper on a Thermal Study for the Rover is expected. 1.2 Development of Requirements Document (Red) A two-day workshop coached by Walter Lamia will be held. Walt will lead a group through the application of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to the development of LRI products. This working meeting and follow up work is intended to lead to the development of requirements. Afterward, monthly meetings will be held with Walter to keep abreast of the development of the customer and product requirements. Red is giving serious consideration of including the requirements document that is developed from the initial meeting(s) in the December 12 review. The list of participants for this meeting is being developed. It is currently expected to include: Walter Lamia Red ISE representative Lunacorp representative Representatives from the three LRI groups (~2 per group) Red will provide a report on the dates and the participant list for this meeting. (Action Item) 2. Script Development Mary submitted a set of forms containing the format for scripts with one of the scripts more filled out than others. The group is requested to look over these scripts in preparation for a working meeting to develop them in more detail. So far, work on these scripts has led to the identification and better understanding of mission risks. For example, the last discussion (last Thursday's meeting) identified some risks of relying on batteries of unproven technology. This led to a discussion of the use of more RHUs and of RTGs in the design. As it stands, there is significant risk in the present design of losing the batteries if the thermal seal is broken during the Lunar night. Additional discussion on Risks: * Thermal modeling is not qualified. Terry expressed concerns that no one is currently reponsible for Thermal and Power design and analysis. Some of the thermal and power concerns with the current design are that the operating procedures are becoming complex in order to deal with thermal and power issues. * We should look at alternative scenarios (i.e., with a different design feature) to see if we can come up with less complex operation * The use of RTGs may add to increased Rad-tolerance/Rad-hardening of the on-board computing system. The group will meet this coming Tuesday at 6 PM to work on script development. In preparation for this, the group should review, fill out and modify the scripts that Mary handed out. (Action Item) 5. MSE Presentation (Ken) -- out of order The MSE students will make a presentation on the LRI software work on Decembber 8 at the normal meeting time of the LRI software group. This presentation will focus on technical issues. Ken would appreciate the group's contribution to this presentation. Mary would like to have one well-detailed scenario worked out for this presentation. 3. Simulation Philosophy Ken introduced a documented that he intends to distribute to all LRI groups on the philosophy behind simulation. A review of the document at the meeting noted that it is not clear what is meant by simulation. For example, a simulation for the LRI group might contain a model of the moon a model of the rover sensors (that gets data from the model of the moon) a model of the rover body that can be driven on the moonscape with models of user displays available for interacting with the simulation What should be included in a first-order simulation? Visual output. Models that address risks. 4. Simulation Implementation Murph will provide his initial cut at simulation code to Ken during the next two days. (Action Item). Murph and Lalit will present their concept of the structure of simulation in next Thursday's meeting. Murph will present his simulation code. (Action Item) 6. New Topic: Software Architecture and Computing Conrad, Terry, Lalit, and Francois have met a few times over the last four weeks to discuss primarily software architecture and some computing issues. The working definition that we are using for "Software Architecture" is ... "The framework for how everything (software) in the system is going to work together." We are now (Terry and Conrad) starting to deal with flight computing issues. Terry expressed his concern that there is no person working on this full time. The need exists to research the issues and to start defining an implementation of the on-board computing system. For example: How much RAM, processing power can we realistically expect to be available? Do we need someone dedicated to dealing with the computing issues? - Can we find someone inside the community? - Lalit and Nick Colella are the only ones who have done legitimate work on computing to this point Related info: Red will be visiting Harris Corp in Florida on December 11. (CMM Commentary --> needless to say, this is an opportunity to obtain more information) Question: Should we continue to pursue work on Software Architecture right now? The consensus was that the development of requirements is more important right now and may shed some light on issues related to requirements on the software architecture and on computing. At this point in time we should continue to do information gathering relevant to both computing and software architecture, but not devote a lot of time to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: 1. Red will provide a report on the dates and the participant list for the working meeting devoted to the development of requirements. 2. The group will meet this coming Tuesday at 6 PM to work on script development. In preparation for this, the group should review, fill out and modify the scripts that Mary handed out. 3. Murph will provide his initial cut at simulation code to Ken during the next two days. 4. Murph and Lalit will present their concept of the structure of simulation in next Thursday's meeting. Murph will present his simulation code. 5. Ken will post his ideas on what simulation is and how it is to be used to the lri-general mailing list early next week. The meeting concluded at 7:05 PM. From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Fri Nov 18 18:40:23 1994 To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Minutes of Monthly Meeting- Nov 17, 94 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 18:39:31 EST From: Deepak_Bapna@GS164.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Content-Length: 5879 Status: RO X-Lines: 181 ==================================================================== LRI General Meeting Date: Thursday, Nov 17, 94 Time: 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. Venue: FRC 100 Participants: Red, Eric, Reid, Deepak, Andy, Lalit, Ken, Murph, Yasu, Jesse, Sven, Martial, Guillermo, Gita, Dimi, Fabio, Jack, Terry, Jay, Rich, Kevin. ==================================================================== Agenda: 1. Report on San Diego Conference: Red 2. Retreat Follow-up: Kevin 3. Preproposal Concepts: Eric ==================================================================== 1. Report on "International Lunar Exploration Conference"- Red 9:05 - 9:20 a.m. - 8 points in the scale of 10 (successful conference for CMU). - 7 Presentations (CMU + LunaCorp) - Group came out well. - Depending on how discovery proposal goes, other may be in game or not. - We should know of funding in Jan/Feb. - Model of the rover: very useful. - Phyllips team with their hardware- lander + MIT Rover and video of full experiment: more real than CMU. - Bob Cataldo (NASA Lewis): $40,000 for cooperative work between CMU and NASA Lewis. - Short meeting with ISE: better understanding of the lander. - Discovery proposals: MacDonnell Douglas and University of Wisconsin. Wisconsin did best for articulating science agenda. - Need to get the two discovery proposals. Bottomline: Very effective CMU presentation. ==================================================================== 2. Retreat Follow-up: Kevin Dowling 9:20 - 10:30 a.m. Observations (Kevin's) ---------------------- - Process has improved. More information. - Four main things go into a project. * People, $$$, Ideas, Time * Materials, Machines, know-how, space * Task Skills * Process Skills We are limited on all these 4 factors. - Just be aware that the process is not progress. Self-Dillusion. Safe-guarding Vs Autonomy (Eric) --------------------------------- (Terry) Things which rover would do without human intervention. Eric will incorporate this into the definition. Role of each Group ------------------ Navigation: Safe-guarding Configuration: Analysis, Simulation, Testing Software: - strongly aligned with configuration - scripting proposals to LRI - scope of software for entire mission, prioritising, architecture, mission simulation. - coordination and management of software. Software group needs assurance od alignment from navigation. Overlap between groups ---------------------- - group meetings are helpful. - minutes are helpful. - if meetings time can change, Reid will attend software meetings. Configuration Changing all the times (Reid) ------------------------------------------- Red: + Freedom - Paralysis What does the group wants to get out of monthly meetings? ---------------------------------------------------------- - Status report - Decision making - Way of improving understanding between groups. Meeting Process: ---------------- - suggestion at retreat has been adapted (1 meeting instead of 2 + an executive meeting). - people comfortable with new setup. - should have prior agenda for each meeting. Use standard format for agenda so that other people can follow. Ken would provide the format for agenda. How to handle transitions of continuing knowledge? -------------------------------------------------- - Person leaving should let group leaders/Red know about 3 months in advance, so that replacement can be made such that there is overlap between leaving person and new person. - Establish communication channel with "leaving person". Action Items: ------------- (i) Big Picture Statements - Navigation - Software - Configuration Position Papers from each group. (ii) Personell Overlap Ex: Red, Jesse, Yasu (iii) Information flow (iv) Venn Diagram (v) Sensing mode issue (vi) Executive meeting: generate 2-D matrix of tasks vs people - meeting is open to everybody. (vii) # of Rovers - Assume 2 rovers for now. - need impact analysis of # of rovers - 1 person works on "n rovers". Who is this person? ==================================================================== 3. Preproposal Concepts: Eric Krotkov 10:30 - 11:00 a.m. Outline: - Review FY 94 Concepts - Brainstorm FY 95 Concepts - Agree on process Process: -------- November- Brainstorm, TRIWG, guidelines December- Draft, review, revise January- Submit preproposals (1/10) February- Submit proposals (2/14) On-going ideas in NASA: ------------------------ Shuttle Mars Ranger Station Commercialization Advance Concepts Space-craft autonomy (self diagnosis/ self repair) Proposals should support these. NASA briefing about these in 2 weeks (28/29 Nov.) when they tells what they want. Following proposals were suggested by the group: ------------------------------------------------ Advanced Communication and Architecture Proximity Sensors (including light strippers) User Interface for teleoperation Interactive media Reliable rover s/w (long duration) Control for getting off rocks, etc. Tele operation in driving rovers Design tools High-bandwidth communication/ Precision pointing Secure communication Educational Products (edutainment) Thermal Solar Fisheye Stereo Power Management Space Manipulation Multi-rover networking/ Cooperative traverse Landing Space Electronic Test Keep generating the ideas ==================================================================== From lri-general-Request@N3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Wed Nov 23 17:24:07 1994 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 94 17:21:02 EST From: "John R. Murphy" To: lri-general@cs.cmu.edu Subject: exec minutes Content-Length: 2848 Status: RO X-Lines: 90 MINUTES FOR LRI EXECUTIVE MEETING FY95.3 FRC 100 2:00pm-3:15pm Thursday, Nov. 23 1994 Participants: Red, Murph, Eric, Ken Next exec meeting: Nov 30, 2-3pm FRC 100 Proposed Agenda: Review of Nav/Config/Soft weekly minutes Review of Requirements workshop Discuss needs of LRI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Review of Weekly minutes -Eric: Navigation highlights: 1. the actuator upgrade has been put on hold. reasons are: new ones need more power = less operating time. other problems have been solved, which should make the old ones usable. Klarer is realistic about upgrade in 6 months -Solutions to duration include: solar, change/add batteries or install generator. But no current resource for now. Red will look for 24volt small generator. 2. teleop experiments next week. goal is to determine if safeguarding is truly safer and to learn what safeguarding techniques are valuable 3. /usr/apex disk is full, is being backed up, and will have some free space again once config/software disk arrives. -Murph: Configuration highlights: 1. Dec 12 review is progressing along nicely reviewers still need to be set, Red will help with that. 2. Lurgi space should become furnished next week. -With emphasis on dec 12 review, is the technical and personal agenda still happening. Need to review promises & status. -Ken: Software highlights: 1. reviewed risk list, decided that the exec group should handle mission risk. 2. scripting was reduced to most basic case of 1 rover. -The n-rover question should be brought up at the config group for real discussion from top-bottom. Review of Requirements workshop -Red: Found method to be excellent, and LunaCorp got much from it. Saw the process, elucidated the high-level goals, worked through an example for the theme park customer Event itself was short of addressing the technical agenda. -after dec 12, get people together to apply the technique to the basic technical issues and for CMU / research as the customer. Others: Thought the method was good, no clear goal or objective yielded a lack of clear result, interaction with lunacorp and bonding was valuable. Discuss needs of LRI Others Efforts are being made to obtain incremental resource. Group should take a more active role, rather than being driven by customer needs, but work to own beliefs and agenda. Project manager is still desired, and will be considered as resource is obtained ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Future agenda: 2D matrix of task vs people Technical requirements meeting Decide on top risks of mission Instantiate the system for minutes review