terms of developing prototype platforms that we can demonstrate, and then I think for all of these platforms from then it’s going to take at least five years to commercialize them. Even if I went to a lab tomorrow and demonstrated the ideal first responder platform, and I found a defense contractor that would be willing to commercialize it, it’s five years down the road.
Q:
How would you assess the current state of military ground robotics?
A: They’re still almost entirely teleoperated. I think the big difference that we’re seeing — and one of the advantages we’re seeing in the U.S. — is because we’ve done such extensive testing in Iraq and other places, we’ve developed this into a very mature technology, whereas in Japan they’ve been developing some very impressive technology, but they’ve never had the opportunity to test it. The reason we’re seeing so much success from the U.S. robotics is they’ve been able to deploy close to 10,000 robots around the world and test them over and over again. I think that’s also the difference between [police] EOD robots. We might have 400 of them out there, but they’re not getting used every day, they’re not getting beaten up every day. One of the challenges with military robots is sometimes there’s too little feedback coming back from the field to the companies and the universities. That’s partly from security concerns, and it’s understandable, but if we could get more information back … I think we could develop even better robots. It’s very difficult to get access all the way out to the front guy.
Q:
What ongoing research, both at Georgia Tech and outside it, has you most interested these days?
A: The thing that’s most interesting is to get semi-autonomy for these systems. It’s getting the systems to a level where they can do real simple things, like go through a doorway, pass through a doorway, go up to a target. By giving these really small, welldefined sub-missions to a system, it’s possible for the operator to get a five-second
break, and by getting a five-second break, he can look up and look around and get a sense of what’s going on around him. It reduces the stress that an operator has, and he’s going to be much more comfortable. This is a gradual move in the direction of having more autonomy. None of these are going to have full autonomy. We know we are close. If we want to go down that slope, build in these relatively simple things and through this they’re going to feel much more comfortable in using this autonomy. Overall, that will move us in the direction of getting to the kind of autonomy we’re seeing on aerial vehicles.
Q:
Is there any pushback from professional users against these systems? What can be done to allay any concerns the police/firefighters might have? A: I don’t think there is a technology pushback; they want these. If you can take them away from the immediate danger, they would want to have these technologies tomorrow. The main pushback is in terms of price or priorities. If a fire chief says, I can either buy a new fancy robot or put new tires on these trucks, that’s an easy decision, he’s going to put new tires on these trucks. We need to bring it down so it’s as much utility as the price of putting new tires on the trucks. Most new technology is still expensive and they are not widely used enough. They [first responders] want it, there’s no doubt, but they’re worried about the price.
Q:
As you develop technologies for first responder robots, such as teaming behaviors, how much of that could transition to home robotics as well? A: There’s no doubt that eventually it’s going to get deployed. In some sense, iRobot is the poster child: You develop navigation systems, getting advanced technology, and then once you know what the technology is, you can transition it into consumer products and manufacture it in very large volumes. If you look at the MAST technologies, those kinds of mapping technologies can go into a vacuum cleaner, and by
Henrik Christensen
doing this we can build vacuum cleaners that can be much more efficient in cleaning rooms. If you go in for a search and rescue robot to identify people, that technology is going to be crucial to monitor people in their homes … as part of health care and still maintain security and privacy. You don’t want to send all this information away without having the right kind of security. As an example, we have a project at Georgia Tech, what we call the intelligent frame. My parents live in Denmark; I can’t pop by every day and say hi, how are you doing. We have a picture frame where there is sort of an icon. … The size of the icon is proportional to the amount of activity going on in the other person’s home. If I see the icon is really small, I will call and say, “ Are you OK?” If it’s a big icon, I will call and say, “Was that a really good party last night?”
Q:
What’s the most fun part of what you do?
A: I think the most fun part is that we’re developing tech that has a huge impact. I’ve been involved in the effort that was the first time that we developed autonomous vacuum cleaners for the home. I’ve been working for the police, I’ve been working for the military; we’re developing technology that changes people’s lives. Mission Critical
•
Summer 2011
27