The Sakura, resembling a small tank, is designed to assess damage at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear reactor buildings, especially the basement areas. A key ability will be climbing stairs with changing slopes. (Source: Chiba Institute of Technology's Future Robotics Technology Center)
TJ, don't you just love those names? Lots of people have wondered if they're on purpose. I had the same question about the use of existing rad-hard technology for space and military apps back when I heard about the first people and robots going into the plant post-disaster. One would think they're taking advantage of those!
I am inclined to agree that the robot in the picture does look a bit like an older tank model. I am much more wondering why it has taken so very long to come up with such a creation. It does not look like there is an "breakthrough" design features, nor any wonderful new concepts. Of course the assurance of all of the materials being able to survive the possibly intense radiation may have taken some time.
Do we know what effects radiation has on components such as rechargeable batteries? That may be a potential show stopper, since the alternative is to have the robot pay out a cable as it travels, and then some how recover the cable as it returns. That sort of feature would add weight and possibly reduce maneuverability, but it could extend mission times a whole lot. So robot power does become a show-changer, but not a show-stopping issue.
OF course, it may have taken that long to come up with the neat names.
William, rad-hard design techniques and materials research have been around a long time in the US military, including for electronic components, and much of it is usable in robotics design. Regarding this robot and how much of the technology and design it uses is new, the main thing seems to be handling those slopes and slope changes.
Of course there has been research and development of Rad-hard materials and components, but it seems like it is not quite an ongoing process. But it may just be a topic that gets really poor coverage in the media. After all, people may start to ask as to exactly WHY do we need to develop such materials. And if the media start asking questions there may be quite a fuss made.
But my point is that different materials that may be quite desireable fr a design may not have any information available about their suitability for service in a radioactive environment. Radiation effects on one polymer may not be an adequate indication of how a different polymer would be affected.
I should add that rad-hard design techniques and materials research are also a long-term subject of R&D by NASA for space applications, as well as DARPA's military apps and, presumably, various researchers for the nuclear energy industry.
I agree with you and the others, Ann, that it's great to see this kind of work being done. This is exactly the point of creating robots that can go places or perform tasks that are dangerous for humans. It's nice to see it being put to use in a real-world example, as a lot of this stuff is still in the concept phase.
Elizabeth. Right you are. Wherever it is difficult or dangerous for people, our robots can step in. They are exploring Mars, the depths of the ocean even (gasp) the dust bunnies under the couch. All kidding aside, let's hope that search and rescue bots are not far behind.
An in-depth survey of 700 current and future users of 3D printing holds few surprises, but results emphasize some major trends already in progress. Two standouts are the big growth in end-use parts and metal additive manufacturing (AM) most respondents expect.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.