Joshua Dijamco, Christopher Gheorghiu, Caitlin Gibbons, Allan Ko, and Alex

Manasa

To read and evaluate both the James Web Space Telescope (JWST) Sunshield design challenge and the Robonaut 2 (R2) challenge.

To watch the provided movie clips about the JWST and the R2 and discuss each project’s cutting edge aspects.

To record what we have learned that may help with each design challenge and to keep a list of other questions we have about the challenge.

To decide which challenge we would like to solve based upon our discussion.

Robonaut 2 can use EVA tools and is capable of speeds 4 times that of R1.

R2 is more compact and dexterous and includes more ranges of sensing than R1.

R2 uses elastic joint technology, 6-axis load cells, ultra-high speed controllers, and has more powerful sensing capabilities than R1 (see #2 below).

R2’s new features allows it to use the same tools astronauts use and removes the necessity for new, robot-specific tools.

R2 can detect the world around it through 3 primary methods: ◦ high-resolution cameras that provide a visual view◦ infrared cameras that allow him to “see” heat

signatures◦ touch sensors in order for it to “feel” the world

around itself It has force sensors even on its finger tips,

allowing the operator to literally feel when R2 is touching or handling something with its hand.

Joshua Dijamco, Christopher Gheorghiu, Caitlin Gibbons, Allan Ko, and Alex Manasa

To read and discuss the criteria and constraints that our zero-g boot design must satisfy.

Secure attachment - The zero-g foot must keep R2 securely attached to the space station at all times, so that there is no risk that it floats away during a spacewalk.

Engage existing interfaces - It must attach to structural interfaces that are already on the outside of the Space Station for use by human astronauts during spacewalks.

Stabilizing - It must stabilize R2 for any action taken by the legs, upper torso, or arms. This includes balancing any forces that may be exerted by tools used by R2 during a spacewalk.

Safety - It must not least any sharps or burrs on the interfaces that could damage an astronaut’s glove and cause an emergency loss of pressure in a spacesuit.

Less than 1.5 kilograms - The zero-g foot must be lightweight, less than 1.5 kilograms (3.3 lbs), so that it does not compromise the effectiveness of the motors and sensors built into the R2 legs.

In your opinion, which criteria will be the most difficult to meet? Why?◦ We believe that the need to stabilize the foot

against all of R2's motion will be the most difficult criteria to meet because without enough normal force exerted by the station, other parts of the robot might slide due to lack of friction.  Additionally, we will be designing the foot for jobs and tasks that have yet to be determined, and designing for unknown missions requires that the foot is adaptable to any future tasks.

What are some other constraints and criteria to consider? Develop a more complete list of criteria BEFORE you begin to design your solution.

1. Cost Effectiveness2. Durability3. Simplicity4. Able to withstand space environment5. Agility6. Symmetry

Joshua Dijamco, Christopher Gheorghiu, Caitlin Gibbons, Allan Ko, and Alex Manasa

To generate and sketch your own designs using the Brainstorming Graphic Organizer.To discuss, sort, and combine the common ideas into a final design concept that incorporates the best features of each design.

To produce at least two or three final design concepts and record these final designs in our notebook.

To discuss the pros and cons of each remaining final design until you can come to an agreement and choose one design.

To create a realistic drawing of the chosen design using Google SketchUp or some other 3D design software.

Key features:◦ Disk-shaped “ankle” lies flush against WIF to

prevent wobbling and add stability◦ Foot is short and flat to prevent wobbling◦ The “ankle” is larger than WIF to prevent

wobbling

Note: In the side view, the foot and R2 are not hollow. It is an outline representation.

What makes the design your team has chosen the best? Justify your choice of design by listing the reasons that you selected this design.◦ It is the most stable and sturdy of the three

designs◦ It has back up support legs off the foot for a more

secure attachment◦ It will be light weight and cost effective

What challenges might you face creating the model of this design?◦ How do we properly conduct testing on our

model?◦ How do we know this model will satisfy weight

requirements?◦ What substitutes are possible for the materials -

carbon fiber/titanium?

Joshua Dijamco, Christopher Gheorghiu, Caitlin Gibbons, Allan Ko, and Alex Manasa

To see how the R2 prototype evolved by looking at examples of earlier versions of Robonaut.

To create a model of your chosen design constructed out of common household items.

To sketch and describe our model in our project notebook. Label the dimensions and include information about your model’s scale. Then consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of our model.

To analyze the other models through a gallery walk.

To refine and modify your model choosing materials that help simulate the purpose of the design.

To evaluate your prototype by completing the experiments and recording the test results. Then modify and refine our design based upon these experiments.

To respond to the reflection questions.

Joshua Dijamco, Christopher Gheorghiu, Caitlin Gibbons, Allan Ko, and Alex

Manasa

We placed it in an underwater bath to simulate zero-g/ low gravity and the support legs were still able to move at all the joints. They were also able to hook and hold around a pencil (a scaled down version of a handrail). The legs were be to bend up, out of the way when the WIF connector (the red cylinder) was needed to fit into a another small plastic cylinder (a simulated WIF).

How has your model changed and improved as a result of peer feedback? ◦ We will coat the carbon fiber support legs in

mecko, a gecko-mussel simulating polymer adhesive that will work in zero-g and in extreme space weather. We also lengthened the support legs and added a joint ¾ away down so that the foot could also attach to handrails without the WIF connector interfering.

What are the strengths of your final design? (Reflect on at least two strengths.) 1. Our final R2 foot design is able to  attach to both of

the two main interfaces found on the exterior of the International Space Station, the WIF and the handrails. This gives R2 superior mobility and flexibility, allowing R2 to anchor down in a variety of locations and thus work effectively in many different circumstances.

2. This foot design is made of durable and lightweight materials, such as titanium and carbon fiber, that won’t require replacements up on the ISS because they will withstand the conditions of space without exceeding the weight requirement of 1.5 kg.

What are the weaknesses of your final design? (Reflect on at least two weaknesses.) 1. Our foot design requires a three-leg support for

the main foot. Should one of the legs break, the entire support structure would be compromised and would leave R2 immobilized until an astronaut could retrieve the robot or repair the damage.

2. The use of multiple joints increases the complexity of our design, and therefore decreasing easy mobility and use of the foot.

Joshua Dijamco, Christopher Gheorghiu, Caitlin Gibbons, Allan Ko, and Alex Manasa

The design challenge was to research and create a “zero-g foot” for R2 that will provide support and stability during EVA missions. Our zero-g foot design is a very sturdy because it has a back up system, if attaching to a WIF, support legs will lower down in a triangular shape from the foot and grip the ISS with high friction neoprene pads. The support legs, covered in mecko, will double as a sticky adhesive covered clamps when it need to attach to the handhold bars that are also used during EVAs. Our design is compatible with both forms of interfaces used while completing space walks and they both have back up system built in to ensure that the design will lend support and stability to the R2.

It was scaled down to accommodate the resources that are available to the everyday person, but it was primarily the same work and challenges that all engineers and scientists encounter on the job.  We used the same design process that engineers used to identify and solve a problem. We all worked a a team to research and create the best solution to our assigned task that we could, similar to how engineers work. We also shared our design with a panel of other students just like engineers and scientists publish their work so that other can give suggestions for improvement, or affirm the work they produced. During this project we were engineers and scientists, doing the same work all engineers and scientists do.

The engineering design process provides a systematic way to analyze R2 and the Webb telescope. This systematic analysis is essential for finding flaws or weak parts of the design and then generating a better design that fixes these flaws. The design process,  continually encourages  the engineers to build and test their prototype in order to figure out its  weaknesses and  strengths.  Then the engineers will share their design and its testing results with other scientists and engineers to gain  valuable critiques on for to refine their design. Through the design process the R2 and the Webb telescope are consistently being updated until their design is completely satisfactory for their intended purpose.

Throughout the project, our team discovered that we did not follow the timetable we initially set out at the beginning of the project. Instead, we found that we had large gaps between each of our meetings. We also learned that since the team was spread out across time zones, we had to adjust our schedule so that the meetings were at practical times for everyone in our group. After the first few weeks of working on the project we started to pick consistent meeting times (i.e. Friday nights at 7:30) to ensure that everyone would be able to participate and contribute to the project.

If we were to start over on this challenge, we would have spent more time doing research and emailing R2 engineers who would be be able to give us extra information about R2 and the available interfaces on the ISS. We had a lot of trouble finding detailed information about the WIF and the handlebars that R2 needed to attach to, and didn’t think to contact any professionals early enough in the competition to get very extensive information, such as WIF operation and dimensions. We would also have done more research on materials to find suitable substances to make our R2 foot in a way that would survive in space conditions.

Science and technology drive today's new innovations in every aspect of daily life.  The exponentially increasing discoveries fuel popular demand for smarter, smaller, and faster tools (i.e. cell phones, iPod equipment, laptops, etc.).  Modern electronics open up a myriad of avenues for innovation, and the speed at which new inventions work is mainly due to extensively researched and tested technology. For example, the transistor led to an innovation of the integrated circuit (small transistors on silicon), it combined both advances in science and technology to create most devices we use today. The speed of modern microelectronics made possible controls and equipment that was not conceivable centuries before us.

Bibby, Joe, and Ryan Necessary. "Mobility Concepts." Robonaut 1. NASA, 13 Mar. 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. <http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/R1/sub/mobility.asp>.

Bibby, Joe, and Necessary, Ryan. "Telepresence." Robonaut 1. NASA, 13 Mar. 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2012.

<http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/R1/sub/telepresence.asp>.

Fellman, Megan. "Synthetic Adhesive Mimics Sticking Powers of Gecko and Mussel : Northwestern University Newscenter." Northwestern

University. Northwestern University, 18 July 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.

<http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/07/messersmith.html>.

Kaufman, Rachel. "Historic Handshake." Pictures: Five Forerunners of NASA's Robot Astronaut. National Geographic, 24 Feb. 2011.

Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/photogalleri es/110224-space-shuttle-discovery-launch-nasa-robonaut- pictures/>.

Lombardi, Candace. "Robonaut 2 Ready for International Space Station." Technology News - CNET News. CBS Interactive, 14 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-

20002479-72.html>

Minsky, Marvin. "Telepresence: A Manifesto." IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. IEEE Spectrum, Sept. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-

intelligence/telepresence-a-manifesto/0>.

Myers, Courtney B. "NASA Ready to Send Humanoid Robot to Space." IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. IEEE

Spectrum, 3 Sept. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/nasa-ready-to-send-humanoid-robot-to-space>.

Rose, Rhonda. "HARDWARE AND EQUIPMENT." Man-Systems Integration Standards. NASA, 7 May 2008. Web. 13 Jan. 2012.

<http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section11.htm>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g3qzOZLs6s&feature=watch_response_rev

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBXbevD2Szk