Component Control System for a Vehicle

A vehicle includes a chassis, a modular component, and a central operating system. The modular component is supported by the chassis. The central operating system includes a component control system, a primary master controller, and a secondary master controller. The component control system is configured for controlling the modular component. The primary and secondary master controllers are in operative communication with the component control system. The primary and secondary master controllers are configured to simultaneously transmit commands to the component control system. The component control system is configured to accept commands from the secondary master controller only when a fault occurs in the primary master controller

Multi-functional Electric Module for a Vehicle

A multi-functional electric module (eModule) is provided for a vehicle having a chassis, a master controller, and a drive wheel having a propulsion-braking module. The eModule includes a steering control assembly, mounting bracket, propulsion control assembly, brake controller, housing, and control arm. The steering control assembly includes a steering motor controlled by steering controllers in response to control signals from the master controller. A mounting feature of the bracket connects to the chassis. The propulsion control assembly and brake controller are in communication with the propulsion-braking module. The control arm connects to the lower portion and contains elements of a suspension system, with the control arm being connectable to the drive wheel via a wheel input/output block. The controllers are responsive to the master controller to control a respective steering, propulsion, and braking function. The steering motor may have a dual-wound stator with windings controlled via the respective steering controllers

Surface Operations: Two Case Studies of Simulated Lunar Operations

In September 2007, a team of scientists and engineers from several NASA centers participated in a field exercise at Meteor Crater, Arizona. The tests in this field exercise utilized recently developed robots of varying scales and capabilities and humans in pressurized space suits. Two examples of operations performed in the field are presented: a surface operations scenario involving suited crew supported by a number of mobile robots and setup operations for accessing a crater. The surface operations scenario simulated the end of a crew sortie and involved the following agents: 1) Suit subjects from Johnson Space Center s (JSC) advanced spacesuit laboratory 2) JSC's unpressurized crewed rover testbed, SCOUT 3) The Jet Propulsion Laboratory s (JPL) rough terrain, payload carrying robot, ATHLETE 4) JSC's Astronaut assist robot, Robonaut 5) Ames Research Center's (ARC) inspection robot, K-10. Operations began with ATHLETE positioning a pressurized rover compartment (PRC) as two crew members drove the SCOUT unpressurized rover from the field. The crew dismounted SCOUT, walked to the PRC for recharging. Robonaut then removed a sample box from the SCOUT equipment tray. K-10 then performed a drive around inspection of SCOUT, assembling a mosaic image. Lastly, the SCOUT vehicle was remotely driven to the next site. The setup operations for crater access scenario involved ATHLETE and Robonaut. This scenario began with Robonaut approaching ATHLETE and extracting a tether line. ATHLETE then extracted a drill and drilled an anchor into the surface. Robonaut then reconnected the tether to the anchor and backed away. ATHLETE is then ready to descend into the crater. This descending into the crater step is currently in the planning phase

Robonaut Task Learning through Teleoperation

This paper addresses the problem of automatic skill acquisition by a robot. It reports that six trials of a reach-grasp-release-retract skill are sufficient for learning a canonical description of the task under the following circumstances: The robot is Robonaut, NASA's space-capable, dexterous humanoid. Robonaut was teleoperated by a person using full immersion Virtual Reality technology that transforms the operator's arm and hand motions into those of the robot. The operator 's sole source of real-time feedback was visual. During the six trials all of the Robot's sensory inputs and motor control parameters were recorded as time-series. Later the time-series from each trial was partitioned into the same number of episodes as a function of changes in the motor parameter sequence. The episodes were time normalized and averaged across trials The resultant motor parameter sequence and sensor signals were used to control the robot without the teleoperator. The robot was able to perform the task autonomously with robot starting positions and object locations both similar to, and different from the original trials

Rural-urban differences in meeting physical activity recommendations and health status in cancer survivors in central Pennsylvania

Purpose: This study explored rural-urban differences in meeting physical activity (PA) recommendations and health status in cancer survivors in central Pennsylvania and associations between PA and health status. Methods: Cancer survivors (N = 2463) were identified through a state cancer registry and mailed questionnaires assessing PA and health status. Rural-urban residence was based on county of residence at diagnosis. Participants self-reported frequency and duration of leisure-time PA and were classified as meeting: (1) aerobic recommendations (≥ 150 min/week), (2) muscle-strengthening recommendations (≥ 2 times/week), (3) both aerobic and muscle-strengthening recommendations, or (4) neither recommendation. Logistic regression models examined associations between rural-urban residence and meeting PA recommendations and associations between PA and health status, adjusting for age, cancer type, gender, and income. Results: Nearly 600 (N = 591, 24.0%) cancer survivors returned completed questionnaires (rural 9.5%, urban 90.5%). Half (50.0%) of rural cancer survivors reported no leisure-time PA compared to 35.2% of urban cancer survivors (p = 0.020), and urban cancer survivors were 2.6 times more likely to meet aerobic PA recommendations (95% CI 1.1–6.4). Odds of reporting good physical and mental health were 2.3 times higher among survivors who reported meeting aerobic recommendations compared to those who did not meet PA recommendations (95% CI 1.1–4.5), adjusting for rurality and covariates. Conclusions: Results demonstrate persistent rural-urban differences in meeting PA recommendations in cancer survivors and its association with self-reported health. Implications for cancer survivors: Findings underscore the need for interventions to increase PA in rural cancer survivors in an effort to improve health status and reduce cancer health disparities.</p