SLAM

For localization and a map, the base carries two RPLIDAR A1 2D lidars, one at the front and one at the back. Bringing them up, with the team, was mostly fighting USB: the two units have identical USB IDs, so udev rules name each by the hub port it's plugged into, and they power up a few seconds apart so neither times out.

Mapping and Nav2 expect one scan, so I wrote a node that merges the two. The two scans never line up on their own: nothing guarantees the lidars spin at exactly the same rate or finish a revolution at the same moment, and each reaches the Thor with its own latency. So the node pairs scans by their timestamps (any two within 0.1 s), looks up each scan's transform into the robot's frame at that scan's own timestamp, resamples both to the finer of the two angular resolutions, and keeps the nearest return in each direction of one 360° scan, stamped halfway between the two and dropping hits on the robot itself. On top of it, I set up slam_toolbox and Nav2, which drove the robot point to point in simulation.

The sentry localizes with an Odin1, a lidar-inertial sensor that relocalizes into a prebuilt map. Before the team decided whether the whole localization system could rely on it alone, we wanted to know how accurate it is and where it is weak. So I built a test platform that measures it against the motion capture room, whose OptiTrack tracks the robot to a fraction of a millimeter. It starts and stops the sensor, records every run, guides whoever is driving with live mocap feedback, and can also drive the robot itself through the Jetson and the robot's controller, with a watchdog and speed caps. A campaign day runs a fixed protocol: calibration spins, a mapping drive, figure-8 laps at set speeds, ten-minute holds, back-and-forth motion to measure latency, cold starts, and outages where someone covers the sensor.

The question wasn't how accurate the Odin is but whether the sentry could rely on it alone, and one accuracy number can't answer that: the nav stack needs to know how the error behaves, whether it grows, and what happens when something goes wrong. So I designed the October 3 campaign around those questions (figure-8 laps, a long hold, repeated relocalizations and covered-sensor trials, all against mocap) and fit a small model to it: the true pose, plus an offset drawn each time the Odin relocalizes into its map, plus first-order Gauss-Markov noise: correlated over time, but decaying.

Splitting the error this way was the key decision. The offset from each relocalization turned out to be the largest term, which one overall noise figure would have blurred, and modelling the noise as decaying showed the error stays bounded instead of drifting. To check the model wasn't just describing the data it was fit to, I refit it without one session, simulated it many times along that session's real path (a Monte Carlo check), and asked whether the real error fell where the simulations said it would. It did: its real error there, 5.1 cm horizontal and under half a degree, matched the prediction on all six axes (roll came in just under its predicted range, still within the test). That made the recommendation clear: the Odin can be the sentry's only localization, kept on the turret major, where it swivels independently of the turret and the chassis. We tried it in several mount locations and found the occlusions made little difference. The nav stack only has to handle a rare wrong relocalization, and the output pausing while the sensor is covered.