Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T18:39:50.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inverse kinematics of free-floating space robots with minimum dynamic disturbance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Fengfeng Xi
Fengfeng Xi
Affiliation:
Institute for Sensor and Control Technology, National Research Council Canada, 3250 East Mall, Vancouver B. C. (Canada) V6T1W5
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper a new method is presented for solving the inverse kinematics of free-floating space manipulators. The idea behind the method is to move the space manipulator along a path with minimum dynamic disturbance. The method is proposed to use the manipulator Jacobian instead of the generalized Jacobian of the spacecraft-manipulator system. This is based on the simple fact that, if the space manipulator moves along the so-called Zero Disturbance Path (ZDP), the spacecraft is immovable. As a result, the space manipulator can in this case be treated as a terrestrial fixed-based manipulator. Hence, the motion mapping between the joints and the end-effector can be described directly by the manipulator Jacobian. In the case that the ZDP does not exist, it can be shown that the solutions obtained by the proposed method provide a path with minimum dynamic disturbance.

Keywords

Space robotsInverse kinematicsZero disturbance pathsManipulator Jacobian
Type
Research Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 667 - 675
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Fernandex, C., Gurvits, L. and Li, Z.X., “Foundations of nonholonomic motion planning” Technical Report, TR 577 (Courant Institute of Mathematical Science, 1991).Google Scholar
2.Longman, R.W., Lindberg, R.E. and Zedd, M.F., “Satellitemounted robot manipulators-new kinematics and reaction moment compensation” Int. J. Robotics Research 6, No. 3, 884–889 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Mack, B., McClure, S. and Ravindran, R., “A ground testbed for evaluating concepts for the special purpose dextrous manipulator” Proc. 1991 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation(1991) pp. 884–889.Google Scholar
4.Nenchev, U., Yoshida, K. and Umetani, Y., “Analysis, design and control of free-flying space robots using fixed-attitude-restricted Jacobian matrix” Proc. the Fifth Int. Sym. on Robotics Research(1989) pp. 441–472.Google Scholar
5.Papadopoulos, E. and Dubowsky, S., “On the nature of control algorithms for free-floating space manipulators” IEEE Trans, on Robotics and Automation 7, No. 6, 750–758 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Papadopoulos, E., “Path planning for space manipulators exhibiting nonholonomic behavior” Proc. Int. Conf. on. Intelligent Robots and Systems(July, 1992) pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
7.Umetani, Y. and Yoshida, K., “Continuous path control of space manipulators mounted on OMV” Acta Astronautics 15, No. 12, 981–986 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Umetani, Y. and Yoshida, K., “Resolved motion rate control of space manipulators with generalized Jacobian matrix” IEEE Trans, on Robotics and Automation, 5, No. 3, 303–314 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Vafa, Z. and Dubowsky, S., “The kinematics and dynamics of space manipulators: the virtual manipulator approach” Int. J. Robotics Research 9, No. 4, 3–21 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Vafa, Z., “Space manipulator motion with no satellite attitude disturbances” Proc. 1990 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation,(1990) pp. 1770–1775.Google Scholar
11.Dubowsky, S. and Torres, M.A., “Path planning for space manipulators to minimize spacecraft attitude disturbances” Proc. 1991 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation(1991) pp. 2522–2528.Google Scholar
12.Paul, R., Robot Manipulators (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar
13.Featherstone, R., “Position and velocity transformations between robot end-effector coordinates and joint angles” Int. J. Robotics Research 2, No. 2, 35–45 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Himmelblau, D.M., Applied Nonlinear Programming (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1972).Google Scholar
15.Wang, L.C.T. and Chen, C.C., “A combined optimization method for solving the inverse kinematics problem of mechanical manipulators” IEEE Trans, on Robotics and Automation 7, No. 4, 489–498 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar