See the interfaces among data, control, hardware and people.
Robotics technology stack · Layer 04
Locomotion and whole-body control
How navigation, balance, contact planning and force-aware control coordinate wheels, legs, torso and arms across terrain and payload changes.
Evidence statusDeployed for bounded mobility; broad whole-body autonomy remains developmentalLast reviewed: 11 August 2026
04
FUURAA thesis
Mobility should be judged by mission completion and recoverability across the site—not by peak speed or one spectacular terrain demonstration.
Reading method
Turn a technology label into an engineering chain, testable claims and explicit boundaries.
Translate capability into task, latency, failure and recovery.
Separate standards, independent measurement, research and first-party claims.
State what cannot be inferred from a demo, benchmark or interface.
System breakdown
Four interdependent layers determine whether the technology can enter real work.
Each layer shows its role and the failure signal most worth watching.
Localisation and terrain
Maps, odometry and terrain estimates determine feasible motion and confidence.
Contact and balance
Foot, wheel and body contacts must maintain stability under disturbances and payload shifts.
Whole-body coordination
Motion priorities resolve conflicts among balance, reach, collision avoidance and task forces.
Recovery and safe stop
Replanning, bracing, controlled descent and remote assistance limit the consequences of failure.
Engineering evaluation
Five checks turn abstract capability into reviewable system evidence.
Record normal performance, failure, recovery and human cost—not only the best-looking result.
- 01
Build a terrain matrix
Test slope, steps, gaps, debris, friction, surface compliance and transitions relevant to the mission.
- 02
Vary payload and centre of mass
Score motion with realistic tools, carried objects and asymmetric load cases.
- 03
Measure endurance as work
Report completed mission cycles, charging, thermal limits and battery ageing—not unloaded runtime.
- 04
Test disturbances
Introduce pushes, moving obstacles, localization loss and degraded actuators within safe test controls.
- 05
Record recovery cost
Track falls, immobilization, remote assistance, extraction equipment and time to resume.
Scope boundaries
State what the evidence supports—and what it does not.
- 01
A terrain demonstration does not establish reliability across weather, wear or repeated shifts.
- 02
Dynamic capability may require exclusion zones and operating procedures that reduce usable throughput.
- 03
Fall behavior, payload hazards and rescue procedures are part of the system safety case.
Sources and evidence status
Keep the source, date, evidence identity and reading boundary visible.
This page prioritises standards bodies, public measurement programmes, official project documentation and original research disclosures.
01
NIST · reviewed 2026-07-08
↗02Performance of Emergency Response Robots
Decomposes missions into repeatable tests spanning mobility, sensing, endurance, communications, reliability and operator proficiency.
NIST / DHS · reviewed 2026-08-11
↗Response Robot Performance Standards
Covers test methods for mobility, manipulation, sensing, energy, communications, logistics and safety.