This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (33) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bares, J. E. Articles by Wettergreen, D. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Dante II: Technical Description, Results, and Lessons Learned

The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon Universitybares{at}cs.cmu.edu

David S. Wettergreen

Department of Systems Engineering, The Australia National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australiadsw{at}syseng.anu.edu.au

Dante II is a unique walking robot that provides important insight into high-mobility robotic locomotion and remote robotic exploration. Dante II’s uniqueness stems from its combined legged and rappelling mobility system, its scanning-laser rangefinder, and its multilevel control scheme. In 1994 Dante II was deployed and successfully tested in a remote Alaskan volcano, as a demonstration of the fieldworthiness of these technologies. For more than five days the robot explored alone in the volcano crater using a combination of supervised autonomous control and teleoperated control. Human operators were located 120 km distant during the mission. This article first describes in detail the robot, support systems, control techniques, and user interfaces. We then describe results from the battery of field tests leading up to and including the volcanic mission. Finally, we put forth important lessons which comprise the legacy of this project. We show that framewalkers are appropriate for rappelling in severe terrain, though tether systems have limitations. We also discuss the importance of future "autonomous" systems to realize when they require human support rather than relying on humans for constant oversight.

Key Words: rappelling • walking robot • supervised autonomy • behavior-based control • terrain visualization • volcano exploration

The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 18, No. 7, 621-649 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/02783649922066475


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Hauser, T. Bretl, J.-C. Latombe, K. Harada, and B. Wilcox Motion Planning for Legged Robots on Varied Terrain The International Journal of Robotics Research, November 1, 2008; 27(11-12): 1325 - 1349. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Balasubramanian, A. A. Rizzi, and M. T. Mason Legless Locomotion: A Novel Locomotion Technique for Legged Robots The International Journal of Robotics Research, May 1, 2008; 27(5): 575 - 594. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. F. Silva and J.A. Tenreiro Machado A Historical Perspective of Legged Robots Journal of Vibration and Control, September 1, 2007; 13(9-10): 1447 - 1486. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. J. Biesiadecki, P. C. Leger, and M. W. Maimone Tradeoffs Between Directed and Autonomous Driving on the Mars Exploration Rovers The International Journal of Robotics Research, January 1, 2007; 26(1): 91 - 104. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Wettergreen, P. Tompkins, C. Urmson, M. Wagner, and W. Whittaker Sun-Synchronous Robotic Exploration: Technical Description and Field Experimentation The International Journal of Robotics Research, January 1, 2005; 24(1): 3 - 30. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Burdick and P. Fiorini Minimalist Jumping Robots for Celestial Exploration The International Journal of Robotics Research, July 1, 2003; 22(7-8): 653 - 674. [Abstract] [PDF]