Figure 3 - uploaded by John Cooper
Content may be subject to copyright.
2D diagram of Assembler poses

2D diagram of Assembler poses

Source publication
Preprint
Full-text available
An autonomous system is presented to solve the problem of in space assembly, which can be used to further the NASA goal of deep space exploration. Of particular interest is the assembly of large truss structures, which requires precise and dexterous movement in a changing environment. A prototype of an autonomous manipulator called "Assemblers" was...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... sample set of 10,000 data points was generated for a 4 platform Assembler. Fig. 3 shows an example of the Assembler poses that were examined. Each pose has the exact same end effector state, with ρ = 600 mm, z = 1000 mm, and θ = −1.57 rad in the ...
Context 2
... N , pose 1 , pose 2 , pose 3 , ϕ, σ t , σ θ for n from 1 to N do for all Platforms i do frame. All perturbations were performed with σ θ = 0.005 rad, σ t = 1 mm, unless otherwise stated. Fig. 4-Fig. 6 plot the perturbations from each sample taken with the poses in Fig. 3. The red line indicates the 95% confidence el- lipse. The first line of Table 1 shows the median distance the end effector moved, with the 95% confidence interval. In this case the optimal pose led to significantly less variance than the others. The optimization led to approximately 15% reduction in end effector ...
Context 3
... sample set of 10,000 data points was generated for a 4 platform Assembler. Fig. 3 shows an example of the Assembler poses that were examined. Each pose has the exact same end effector state, with ρ = 600 mm, z = 1000 mm, and θ = −1.57 rad in the ...
Context 4
... N , pose 1 , pose 2 , pose 3 , ϕ, σ t , σ θ for n from 1 to N do for all Platforms i do frame. All perturbations were performed with σ θ = 0.005 rad, σ t = 1 mm, unless otherwise stated. Fig. 4-Fig. 6 plot the perturbations from each sample taken with the poses in Fig. 3. The red line indicates the 95% confidence ellipse. The first line of Table 1 shows the median distance the end effector moved, with the 95% confidence interval. In this case the optimal pose led to significantly less variance than the others. The optimization led to approximately 15% reduction in end effector ...