Robotics manufacturing in the US will be getting federal support to match business or startup investments via the new Advanced Robotics Manufacturing (ARM) Institute. Perhaps more importantly, the ARM Institute can act as a conduit to connect and amplify robotics innovations between regions of the USA. As the global robotics ecosystem becomes flooded with interest, and investors, any technological lead the USA currently has is rapidly disappearing.

The ARM Institute is now one of 14 Manufacturing USA institutes and the 8th funded by the DOD. Each Manufacturing USA Institute focuses on a technology area critical to future competitiveness – such as additive manufacturing, integrated photonics, or smart sensors.  The federal government has committed over $1 billion, matched by over $2 billion in non-federal investment, across the Manufacturing USA network.

At the time of the launch, the ARM Institute had attracted 267 industry and academic partners, with a commitment of $173 million to be added to the $80 million DOD investment. Of course, this level of funding is not very much when compared to European and Asian investments into advanced manufacturing.

The European SPARC program is the largest research and innovation initiative in civilian robotics in the world. It was launched in 2014 by the joint public-private partnership between the European Commission and the robotics industry and academia. Investments under this joint initiative are expected to reach 2.8 billion euro with 700 million euro in financial investments coming from the European Commission under Horizon 2020 over 7 years.

Image via UK-RAS Network

In 2015, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for a “robotics revolution”, a five-year plan to increase the use of intelligent machines and boost sales. Abe urged companies to “spread the use of robotics from large-scale factories to every corner of our economy and society”, increasing the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction, and health care, while expanding robotics sales from 600 billion yen ($6.4 billion) annually to 2.4 trillion yen by 2020. The 2020 Olympics being hosted in Tokyo is also pushing innovation forward rapidly, with plans for Tokyo to have self-driving vehicles, and robots in as many places as possible.

The Korean government is also planning to invest 500 billion won into robotics manufacturing, between 2016 and 2020, in over 80 pilot projects and corporate research centers for robotics manufacturing. After growing at a compound rate of 17 per cent a year, the robot market will be worth $135bn by 2019, according to IDC, a tech research firm, with Asia now accounting for the majority of all robot spending. In 2014, President Xi Jinping of China called for a “robot revolution” that would transform first China, and then the world. “Our country will be the biggest market for robots,” he said in a speech to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, “but can our technology and manufacturing capacity cope with the competition? Not only do we need to upgrade our robots, we also need to capture markets in many places.”

China is now the world’s largest purchaser of industrial robots from overseas, but is now creating Chinese robot manufacturing companies. China is also now the leader in global robotics patent filing. The ARM Institute in the USA will need to use their comparatively small amount of federal grant money with very clear focus in order to maintain competitiveness in the global environment.

“Robotics are increasingly necessary to achieve the level of precision required for defense and other industrial manufacturing needs, “according to the Department of Defense (DOD), “but the capital cost and complexity of use often limits small to mid-size manufacturers from utilizing the technology. The ARM Institute’s mission therefore is to create and then deploy robotic technology by integrating the diverse collection of industry practices and institutional knowledge across many disciplines – sensor technologies, end-effector development, software and artificial intelligence, materials science, human and machine behavior modeling, and quality assurance – to realize the promises of a robust manufacturing innovation ecosystem.”

On June 15, the ARM Institute held an Informational and Technology Review Meeting in Los Angeles for ecosystem partners from all over the US. As one of the industry partners, Silicon Valley Robotics was represented and I’m providing a summary of my notes on the event and presentations. Speakers were; SK Gupta, USC; Howie Choset, ARM Institute; Lisa Masciantonio, ARM Institute; Suzy Teele, ARM Institute; Elena Messina, NIST; Valerie Patrick, Boston Consulting Group; followed by breakout sessions for specific technological areas.

The meeting really had two purposes. The first was to let us know how rapidly the ARM Institute was taking shape in terms of organization, staff and membership structure. While staying faithful to the original mission documents in the proposal of 2016, the Institute is able to start taking formal memberships not just letters of intent. They are still seeking staff for the position of CEO and other vacancies, although some interim positions are simply in the more stringent process of vetting.

And to inform members and potential members of the ARM Institute of the membership process and project application process. It should be noted that the DOD has said that there will also be money assigned to projects outside of the ARM Institute funding, where the company or startup might receive an extension of ARM funding or a completely separate commission.

The other was to align the ARM Institute with the most up-to-date industry challenges. The intention is to develop regional councils and hold regular meetings in order to remain at the forefront of the rapid change in robotics manufacturing innovation and to deliver meaningful assistance. Silicon Valley Robotics members can contact me for a full copy of my notes.

Helium balloons are being used to carry people, experiments and satellite launchers into near space. Image courtesy of Zero2Infinity

Space will soon be within the grasp of everyday people, small countries, researchers or start-up companies thanks to a fleet of low-cost launch vehicles under development across Europe.

From remote control drones that can fire rockets into orbit from the edge of space, to giant helium balloons that could carry tourists, science experiments or satellite launchers into the stratosphere, small-scale start-ups are stepping into the control room and embarking on a new low-cost space race.

It represents an exciting new wave of space travel, following in the vapour trails of private companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX or Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic.

The Issue

The EU is aiming to encourage private companies to develop low-cost launch systems as part of its Space Strategy for Europe announced in October this year.

The objective of EU funding for research into space technologies is to enable Europe to access space independently and affordably, and strengthen the capability of European scientists and engineers.

Between 2014 and 2020, it plans to spend over EUR 12 billion on three space programmes – satellite navigation, earth observation and space research.

Where once only global superpowers with vast budgets could go, Europe’s entrepreneurs and innovators will soon be travelling for a fraction of the cost.

One of these innovators is Zero 2 Infinity, a Spanish start-up working on helium balloon-borne spacecraft.

‘It’s the cheaper way because it’s more efficient, you need fewer engineers to build it,’ explained Jose Mariano Lopez-Urdiales, chief executive.

Near space

The idea is that the balloon would carry a passenger pod into what is known as near space, somewhere between 20 km and 100 km above the earth’s surface, or carry its small rocket-powered Bloostar spacecraft which it could then launch much higher into low-earth orbit.

Zero 2 Infinity customers are already balloon launching satellites for short periods of high-altitude testing, and the company has EUR 140 million in expressions of interest for full satellite launches.

It was the leader of the EU-backed HELIUM project, which developed the concept for a near-space European laboratory that allows orbiting research at 36 km, and the life support system for the two pilots in the initial six-hour flights.

Although space tourists could soon be using the balloon launch system to take selfies in near space, the first passengers are likely to be scientists, according to Lopez-Urdiales.

Aiming higher than the balloon satellite launcher’s range of 600 km, Europe’s ALTAIR project is readying the blueprints for a remote-controlled aircraft which would use a rocket launch module to blast sub-200 kilogramme satellite payloads into orbit and take off in 2020 at the earliest.

Runway

ALTAIR’s launch system — similar to Virgin Galactic’s piloted White Knight 2 space tourism aircraft in appearance and general function — would take off from a runway, before ferrying satellites up to an altitude of 12-15 km and igniting its rocket payload.

But the similarities end there. ALTAIR project manager Nicolas Bérend says the project is focused on affordable, remote-controlled launches, calling on the experience of French space centres CNES and Onera, creators of the Eole automated launch aircraft demonstrator which is the project’s precursor.

By the end of the EU-funded program in 2018, the six-country collaboration will have a final concept for the unmanned aircraft, its hybrid propulsion engine rocket launcher and ground operations, and will demonstrate its launch technology by doing suborbital tests using a scale model.

By removing the human pilot and designing a facility geared towards a high launch frequency and minimal staffing, they hope to bring down the costs enough to make the project economically viable.

‘It is essential to the project’s success to restrict launch costs to around EUR 4 million, a price the team’s market analysts consider to be a competitive launch price,’ said Bérend.

That should give them access to a growing market for small satellite launches, often in the form of so-called CubeSats, nanosatellites normally no more than 10 centimetres wide, a market where Europe is lagging behind at the moment.

Even though Europe covers large-to-medium launches with its Ariane 6 and Vega rockets, and suborbital rockets from the Andøya launch site in Norway, it has no small-satellite solution.

‘The small satellites are all launched outside of Europe with Russian or Indian launchers,’ said Bertil Oving, of the Netherlands Aerospace Centre. ‘There is a small-satellite market, it’s booming and if Europe does not take the chance now, then we may lose this possibility.’

He is the coordinator of SMILE, an EU-funded project designing a small-scale launcher for satellites of up to 50 kg.

SMILE will design and start component testing of a standard-format rocket, along with the necessary upgrades to the Andøya facility, by 2019, keeping costs below EUR 50 000 per kilogramme launched, and hopefully cutting the expensive wait for satellites to be able to piggyback on one of the larger rockets.

3D printing

Larger rockets benefit from an economy of scale, and SMILE’s competitiveness would come from advances in reusable components, automated composite manufacturing, 3D printing and also high-volume production.

‘The payload versus the total mass becomes smaller when the launcher is smaller, so it’s a cost aspect challenge,’ said Oving.

He said SMILE is pushing advances in reusable liquid-fuelled engines and its automated manufacturing advances would have automotive and aviation industry uses, but he thinks the biggest implications of low-cost, low-orbit access will be for consumers.

‘The idea for small satellites like CubeSats is to approach them like FedEx & DHL,’ he said. ‘We will simply bring it to where you want to have it.’

European organisations may soon make it easier to get equipment into near space and low-earth orbit.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also want to read these Horizon related articles:

• EU’s Horizon 2020 has funded $179 million in robotics PPPs
• Keeping a robotic eye on pollution
• Protecting European wine: Vinbot rover optimises harvest and quality
• A helping hand for high-tech firms

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

After laughing uncomfortably at the headline from The Moscow Times reporting about the recent Skolkovo Robotics Conference, I parsed through the wording and found the intended meaning. But that process … from shock and incongruity, to amusement, through multiple second thoughts and a bit of research, to an understanding of the headline … is the same process I went through as I participated in and spoke at the conference.

My interpretation of that headline – removing any sense of political rhetoric¹ – is that robots are getting cheaper and becoming more available to average consumers. This was one facet of the conference and exhibition, but not the main goal.

I’ve been to Russia four times on political consulting and speaking trips but have never seen or participated in anything like the Skolkovo Robotics Conference.

The host for the conference was the Skolkovo Technology Innovation Foundation, a partner in a newly chartered campus of buildings and people challenged with providing education, structure and inspiration for the incubation of Russian start-ups and spin-offs of all types and from all sources. It is government funded through 2020. MIT is collaborating with Skoltech for their Institute of Science and Technology, a private graduate research university. All are located in Skolkovo, a suburb of Moscow.

The campus at present consists of the building in which the conference was held, named the Hypercube, another under construction, and a third laid out to be constructed. The grounds are massive – perhaps 3/4 mile long by 1/2 mile wide. Even during the winter weekend of the conference, tractors, cranes and earth movers were at work moving materials, rocks and dirt from place to place.

Albert Efimov is in charge of all Skolkovo robotic activities which includes the recent weekend robotics conference. His other activities include attempting to inspire and educate Russian politicians, academics, business people, investors and prospective entrepreneurs about what the various Skolkovo entities are offering. Also he is charged with educating about how robotics offers the prospect for significant competitive change for Russian businesses and profits to their investors and entrepreneurs.

The event, as epitomized by The Moscow Times headline, contained all the confusion and mystery of Russia with some even more confusing facts: Russia doesn’t really have or use that many robots.

• The International Federation of Robotics (IFR) tabulated 232 robots were sold into Russia in 2010, down 13% from 2009.
• Of the 232, half were used for welding in the automotive and metalworking industries.
• When added to existing robots, the overall total stock of robots as of the end of 2010 in Russia was just 1,058.
• Very few service robots were produced in Russia and 100% of them were for the military, defense, rescue or space agencies.
• Russia is the 3rd lowest in robot density globally. The bottom five are Croatia, Iran, Russia, India and Ukraine.
• For reference purposes, the top five are Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The US is 7th.

Russia doesn’t presently have an academic system that supports and encourages entrepreneurship – which is why the Skolkovo project is so important.

• Academics don’t push for the publishing of papers.
• Nor do they encourage patenting or spin-offs.
• One story I was told was about a professor who, when shown a new American robotic invention, said that his group had invented that 10 years ago. But when asked why he neither published it or spun it off as a commercial enterprise he said, “Why? We’re academics!”
• In the March 1st Moscow Times, in an interview with the owner of a large farming conglomerate, the owner was quoted as saying that he has a hard time finding qualified agricultural college graduates because many Russian universities lower their entrance qualifications to be able to fill quotas and get government funding. Consequently their graduates are under-educated and unqualified for technical positions.

When reviewing these facts, my first thought went to a memorable quote by a University of North Carolina associate professor, Terry Sullivan:

“When the only sure thing is change, The only real hope is imagination.”

Albert is charged with inspiring Russians to imagine a future with robots and join with him at the Skolkovo Institute to make it happen. His official foundation title of Project Director of the Information Technology Cluster doesn’t include his unofficial function as Chief Robot Technician.

Albert has his work cut out for him. I think he learned from this conference, as did I, that his next event needs a different set of presenters. His audiences need to meet and talk with successful robotic start-up CEO’s and CTO’s. Winners inspire others to be like them – to win.

***

[1] The conference was completely apolitical except for the absence of a few military participants – users of unmanned aerial vehicles and rescue operations. Other than that, there was no mention of the Ukraine situation.

Sunday afternoon I went for a walk from my hotel to the Kremlin. A couple of exhibitors from the conference (they were from St. Petersburg) caught up with me and we walked together up to the ring road around the Kremlin. We saw a lot of busses and soldiers and crowds of what appeared to be peaceful protesters being cuffed and placed in the busses. We didn’t need to see the Kremlin anyway so we continued our walk in other directions. The next day the Moscow Times said that the government, in anticipation of a large demonstration, attempted to thwart it by setting up a perimeter far outside the Kremlin walls… this was what we walked into and away from.

Later on Monday, as I was leaving Moscow, it began to snow. My taxi driver, a young wide-faced nice looking guy, said not to worry. We’d get to the airport with lots of time to spare. His English was poor but better than my Russian so it became silent in the car.

After a little while he asked if I wanted to use the car’s wifi and I said sure. He gave me the password and I was live and working. Then he asked what I thought about the news about Ukraine. That morning’s The Moscow Times said that Russian troops had entered Crimea, a small portion of Ukraine.

I said that I thought that occupying with armed forces was never a good solution; rather, diplomacy was always the best way to solve problems. We began to have problems understanding each other’s words so he took down his tablet from acting as his map and guidance systems and switched it to be able to speak, read and translate. And the rest of our conversation was done that way, in the snow, looking at the tablet, and, in my case, checking the traffic to make sure we didn’t get killed.

He said that he had uncles and other relatives living in Crimea and that they have been harassed and persecuted in many ways for many years. Recently they were told they could no longer speak Russian – and I thought what if we said Hispanics couldn’t speak Spanish?

I responded that, be that as it may, Putin was coming across in the media as almost Facist. He said that it was Yanukovych, the recently dethroned leader, who was the facist and that Putin was just protecting the rights of Russians in Crimea.

I said that I wasn’t aware of the harassment of Russians but I had heard that Muslims were suffering.

He said that our news was incomplete but that their news was particularly harsh about Obama and his military threats.

When we arrived at the airport, he got out, shook my hand and said that he appreciated the conversation and thanked me profusely. I too very much appreciated the conversation. Even though it was augmented by technology, it was very personal and straightforward. Certainly it stimulated me to read more.  Two sources of up-to-date info about the Crimean Crisis:

Wikipedia article on the Crimean Crisis and Russian Military Intervention
The Moscow Times

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Russia looks inward and outward at Moscow’s 2013 Open Innovations Forum
• Russian robotics companies
• Dmitry Grishin on evaluating robotic investment opportunities
• Robotics Expo in Moscow

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Posting on the Slate blog Future Tense, James Bessen takes issue with the notion that technology causes unemployment, illustrating his point by debunking a pair of frequently cited examples, textile workers in the early nineteenth century and telephone operators during the mid-twentieth century.

In a response titled “Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs” on TechDirt’s Innovation blog, Bessen’s thesis is roundly applauded, but he is taken to task for failure to make the connection between the process which prevents net job destruction (the creation of new jobs) and reasonable access to intellectual property, currently endangered by nonpracticing patent owners (a.k.a. “patent trolls”).