I disagree that this is the same age-old problem. Automation in construction has failed more often than not in scenarios that require a high-level of engineering and/or exhibit complex tasking on-site. Your second listed article provides a good rationale for the failure of automation to infiltrate construction: mechanization. Many of the on-site build requirements for construction application are much more complicated and intricate than some of the motions required for agricultural automation. Furthermore, process design in construction is human-centric with a wide gap to transition to automation-centric design. This is well-outlined in your third article e.g. setup/tear-down costs, robot unfriendly environments, start-stop processes.
However, Charge Robotics has a problem that is generally free of much of the above hindrances and is employing a modular approach. Modular construction can lend itself very well to automation. See the modular housing boom that employs automation quite heavily.
One of the more complex construction portions of the build is handled by a portable factory:
"First, a portable robotic factory placed on-site assembles sections of racking hardware and solar modules. This factory fits inside a shipping container. Robotic arms pick up solar modules from a stack and fasten them to a long metal tube (the "torque tube")."
This process could also employ human labor as well. The rest of the build process requires a more simple transfer of these pre-built components with a final assembly:
"Second, autonomous delivery vehicles distribute these assembled sections into the field and fasten them in place onto target destination piles."
The locations of operation are large open fields with minimal occlusion (which often makes robots in many construction settings infeasible) and reuses prior equipment (bankability and minimizes setup/tear down costs).
I don't think this is an easy problem as there are significant technical engineering requirements, but if each modular process can be proven effective, then the external factors that prohibit automation adoption in construction outlined above are fairly minimal.
Thanks for putting this together! This is basically what we would've written. There are many aspects of solar construction that make it a much more robot-friendly environment to operate in than that of a generic construction site (detailed engineering drawings with GPS locations of piles, graded terrain, low number of obstacles). And as you mentioned, we're eliminating a lot of variables by bringing a portable factory onto the site.
However, Charge Robotics has a problem that is generally free of much of the above hindrances and is employing a modular approach. Modular construction can lend itself very well to automation. See the modular housing boom that employs automation quite heavily.
One of the more complex construction portions of the build is handled by a portable factory:
"First, a portable robotic factory placed on-site assembles sections of racking hardware and solar modules. This factory fits inside a shipping container. Robotic arms pick up solar modules from a stack and fasten them to a long metal tube (the "torque tube")."
This process could also employ human labor as well. The rest of the build process requires a more simple transfer of these pre-built components with a final assembly:
"Second, autonomous delivery vehicles distribute these assembled sections into the field and fasten them in place onto target destination piles."
The locations of operation are large open fields with minimal occlusion (which often makes robots in many construction settings infeasible) and reuses prior equipment (bankability and minimizes setup/tear down costs).
I don't think this is an easy problem as there are significant technical engineering requirements, but if each modular process can be proven effective, then the external factors that prohibit automation adoption in construction outlined above are fairly minimal.