Mechanical & system design
Designing a humanoid-class system is not “more servos” — it is load paths, vibration, thermal headroom, wiring serviceability, and failure modes. This module frames how mechanical choices lock hands with software and operations.
Learning outcomes
- Trade off stiffness, mass, and thermal paths for one subsystem.
- Explain why service access changes total cost of ownership.
- Link mechanical choices to integration risk in a pilot.
Learn
Loads, materials, power/thermal, human factors for service.
Practice
Red-team a CAD or photo: list three service nightmares.
Challenge
One-page design review memo; post summary on the Forum.
Facilitation: Use real robot photos — students mark fasteners and cable strain points.
Self-check
Arms vs legs — what differs?
Repeatable contact vs impact tolerance; different failure signatures.
What is “integration debt”?
Shortcuts in cabling, cooling, or access that slow every future change.
STEM alignment: engineering design process, constraints & trade studies, communication of design intent.
Design lenses
- Stiffness vs mass: arms need repeatable contact; legs need impact tolerance — often opposing goals.
- Power & cooling: sustained walking + manipulation draws real watts; budget thermals early.
- Service loops: can a field tech replace a joint in < 30 minutes? If not, downtime dominates.
- Integration points: align CAD, electrical pinout, and software frame IDs — one naming scheme end-to-end.
- Humanoids specifically: coordinate G1/H1-class constraints with morphology tradeoffs.
SVRC angle: We see many teams succeed faster when they treat integration as a product discipline — the same mindset behind our Approach and Data Services engagements.