FLL Innovation Project Archaeology Rover Mapping Concept
Add Photos Share
Innovation Project Overview

Safer Mapping for Fragile, Hard-to-Reach Archaeological Sites

Our team designed a rover concept that helps archaeologists document dark, unstable environments—like caves and ancient structures—without putting people or artifacts at risk. We combined field research, rapid prototyping, CAD iteration, and expert feedback to build a solution that feels ready for real-world testing.

Prototype Platforms: LEGO + CAD
CAD Tools: Tinkercad → Onshape
Fabrication: Bambu Lab P1S (planned)
Expert Input: Archaeologist Interview
Start the Story View the Evidence Prototype Gallery
  • Remote operation to reduce risk We designed for safer documentation when visibility is limited and terrain is unpredictable.
  • Modular components for field repairs Attachments and camera mounts can swap quickly to adapt to different spaces and mission goals.
  • Mapping-ready sensor placement We prioritized camera height and blind-spot reduction based on expert feedback.
Identify — Anthony

We started by learning what can go wrong in real archaeology.

Before building anything, we investigated the biggest challenges archaeologists face when documenting fragile history. We reviewed documentaries, read articles, studied artifacts at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and discussed how excavation and documentation can unintentionally damage objects.

We found that artifacts are extremely sensitive to environmental changes. Conservation guidance commonly emphasizes stable conditions and warns that higher humidity can increase the risk of mould growth in collections [2]. Professional conservation groups also recommend “middle range” humidity targets for mixed materials to reduce long-term deterioration [1].

One challenge stood out as both urgent and solvable: mapping dark, unstable, and hard-to-reach spaces such as caves and ancient structures. In robotics research, cave surveying is often described as a “total darkness” problem that requires specialized sensors and lighting [5]. That evidence helped us define our Innovation Project goal:

Safer exploration Better visibility Reduced artifact impact

Problem Statement

Archaeologists need a safer way to document and map dark, unstable, tight spaces—without increasing the risk to people or causing accidental damage to fragile cultural heritage.

Project Plan & Team Collaboration — Kyle

We planned like an engineering team—clear roles, fast brainstorming, tight organization.

We built a detailed project plan for a rover-based solution and brainstormed using IDEO-style rules: defer judgment, build on others’ ideas, stay visual, and go for quantity. We sketched multiple rover layouts, discussed tradeoffs, and tracked tasks in a shared spreadsheet so deadlines and responsibilities stayed visible.

Placeholder: Project Spreadsheet Screenshot /assets/plan/spreadsheet.png
Replace with a screenshot of your assignments + timeline. Add blurred student last names if needed.
Placeholder: Early Sketches / Ideation Wall /assets/plan/sketches.jpg
Upload photos of sketches, sticky notes, decision matrices, and “pros/cons” charts.

Team Roles

Mobility: stability for uneven terrain • Sensing: camera/sensor ideas for mapping • Durability & Safety: protective bumpers + repairability • Documentation: engineering notebook + media

Create — Julissa

We built multiple rover versions—physical + digital—to prove the idea is real.

We began with a cardboard model to lock in size, layout, and component placement quickly. Then we built LEGO prototypes to test stability, turning radius, and how the rover behaves on different “field-like” surfaces.

In parallel, we created CAD models—first in Tinkercad for fast revisions, then in Onshape for a more detailed, assembly-style layout. This let us experiment with camera placement and proportions before finalizing our concept.

Design Priorities

Compact & agile Camera + sensor integration Remote operation Modular attachments
Placeholder: Cardboard Form Model /assets/create/cardboard.jpg
Show top + side views with labeled components (camera, hub, motors, protective bumper).
Placeholder: LEGO Tracked Prototype /assets/create/tracks.jpg
Best photo is angled (3/4 view). Add a short caption: “loose terrain + stability test.”
Placeholder: LEGO Wheeled Prototype /assets/create/wheels.jpg
Capture tight turns and turning radius. Add a quick note: “smooth surface maneuvering.”
Placeholder: CAD Model Screenshot /assets/create/cad.png
Use an isometric view + an exploded view if you have one.
Iterate — Brian

We used feedback like professionals: collect → prioritize → update → re-test.

After our early prototypes and CAD models were ready, we shared them with other teams, mentors, family members, and two key reviewers: Grace Howe (archaeologist) and Rawlins (NYC event organizer). Grace recommended raising the camera to capture wall and ceiling detail, and Rawlins pushed for modularity so repairs would be easier in the field.

Based on that feedback, we improved terrain handling, reduced blind spots by repositioning sensors, and updated our CAD models so the design matched our real revisions.

Key Improvements

  • Adjusted wheel/track placement for stability on uneven terrain
  • Raised and repositioned camera to reduce blind spots
  • Improved modular attachments for faster swaps and repairs
  • Synced Tinkercad + Onshape models to match the newest version
Placeholder: “Before vs After” Comparison /assets/iterate/before-after.png
Put two images side-by-side: old camera height vs new camera height. Add arrows + 1–2 captions to show what changed.
Communicate — Jonathan

We explained the “why” and the “how,” not just the build.

We focused on telling a clear story: what problem we chose, what evidence supports it, how our rover works, and why our design choices reduce risk to people and artifacts. Our presentation included physical LEGO prototypes, CAD models from Tinkercad and Onshape, sketches, and drawings so reviewers could see our thinking at every step.

Placeholder: Presentation Slide Screenshot /assets/communicate/slides.png
Include the one slide that best summarizes your solution (problem → rover → impact).
Placeholder: Demo Photo / Video Thumbnail /assets/communicate/demo.jpg
Use a still frame from your best demo video (or embed a video link later).

Impact Summary

Our rover concept supports safer documentation by keeping people at a distance, improving visibility with deliberate camera placement, and enabling modular repairs so the work can continue without risky improvisation inside sensitive sites.

Evidence & Research

We anchored our design in conservation and robotics research.

Our project sits at the intersection of heritage preservation and robotic mapping. Conservation guidance commonly recommends mid-range humidity targets for many cultural materials [1], and warns that high humidity can increase the risk of mould growth [2]. That supports our emphasis on minimizing unnecessary exposure and handling.

On the robotics side, cave surveying research explicitly addresses mapping in “total darkness” using lights and sensors [5], and surveys of robotics in archaeology describe how tools like LiDAR and 3D modeling help reach inaccessible sites and improve documentation precision [3].

45–55% RH
A commonly recommended museum target range for many mixed cultural materials [1].
65%+ RH
Canadian conservation guidance notes mould growth is promoted in higher humidity ranges (e.g., 65–100%) [2].
Total darkness
Cave surveying research describes darkness as a core challenge requiring sensors + lighting [5].
Humidity Risk Bands (Illustrative from published guidance) Use this as a “why preservation matters” visual

Note: This chart visualizes guideline ranges, not a prediction model. Always follow the policies of the museum/site you work with.

References

Sources cited on this page

  1. International Institute for Conservation (IIC) & ICOM-CC. Environmental Guidelines (Declaration). Link
  2. Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI). Mould Growth on Textiles (notes that RH 65–100% promotes mould growth). Link
  3. Kyriakoulia, P. (2025). Survey on the Application of Robotics in Archaeology (Open Access, PMC). Link
  4. Klehm, C. et al. (2024). Remote, Rugged Field Scenarios for Archaeology and the Field Sciences (NSF-hosted PDF). Link
  5. Tabib, W. et al. (2020/2021). Autonomous Cave Surveying with an Aerial Robot (mapping in total darkness; arXiv/IEEE T-RO). Link

Tip: If you want, replace or add sources that match your exact research (museum conservation pages, peer-reviewed archaeology papers, etc.).