🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <139060@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes:
}In article <9934@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
}>... those things which we do well were DESIGNED such that we can
}>do them well.  The same applies to robots.  A succesfull design
}>for a space station, etc, will be one which will allow robots
}>to assemble/repair it.
}
}Fair enough, care to postulate some new designs that are easier for
}robots. ...

My current project is to get a robot to emulate a human being operating an
automatic teller machine (ATM).  Since ATMs aren't built to be used by
robots, I've been gaining some useful insights into the problems involved.

One of the first things I noticed was that parts of the ATM aren't well
designed for people, let alone robots.  Not surprisingly, those are the
parts that are giving the robot the most trouble. (In particular,
inserting envelopes in the depository is turning into a nightmare.  People
often have to try two or three times to get it right.  The robot only gets
one try).

The one part that was designed specifically to be easy for people (the
touchscreen) is the part that gives the robot the least trouble.

Conclusion:  If we designed things to be easy for _both_ people and
robots, both would benefit.

As for designing space stations for robot assembly, I'd look at what
robots do best and plan accordingly.  Robots are good at relatively
simple, repetitive tasks.  The space structure should be built up from
outwardly similar modules that all attach in the same way with the same
fasteners.  They should also be designed to pack neatly and efficiently so
the robot doesn't have to worry as much about bin picking problems.

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)
Citicorp(+)TTI                                    Illegitimis non
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, x2483       Carborundum
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombe