Breaking the Lab Walls: Why Your Next Robotics Project Belongs in the Wild

For over a decade, roboticist Erin Kennedy has been pushing the boundaries of what small-scale machines can achieve. While the traditional robotics hobbyist often finds comfort in the climate-controlled, static environment of a workbench, Kennedy has spent her career dragging her creations into the messy, unpredictable, and often hostile real world. Her recent presentation at Hackaday Europe 2026 served as a manifesto for this movement: it is time to move our projects out of the lab and into the park, the beach, and the sky.

However, as any seasoned engineer knows, the "real world" is the ultimate adversary for precision electronics. Kennedy’s talk was not merely a call to action; it was a masterclass in survival engineering. By documenting her journey—from beach-cleaning bots to Mars-inspired rovers—she provided a roadmap for builders who want to bridge the gap between hobbyist prototyping and true environmental resilience.

Main Facts: The Challenge of Unstructured Environments

The core premise of Kennedy’s philosophy is that the outdoor environment is not an obstacle to be avoided, but the ultimate testing ground for engineering ingenuity. Whether a robot is designed for social interaction in a public park or for hazardous waste remediation on a shoreline, the transition from lab to field exposes fundamental design flaws that a controlled environment simply cannot reveal.

The primary hurdle for outdoor robotics is the sheer lack of structure. In a lab, floors are flat, light levels are constant, and the air is free of debris. In the wild, Kennedy notes, you are dealing with moisture, particulate matter, unpredictable wind currents, and the chaotic nature of public spaces. A bot that functions perfectly on a hardwood floor may grind to a halt within seconds on sand or fail to navigate under the uneven lighting of an overcast sky. Kennedy’s work underscores a shift in mindset: building for the outdoors requires prioritizing mechanical robustness and material science just as much as code efficiency.

Chronology: A Decade of Iterative Development

Kennedy’s approach to robotics has been defined by a decade of "learn by breaking." Her trajectory into outdoor robotics did not begin with massive funding or institutional support, but with small, iterative experiments that slowly scaled in complexity.

• Early Years (The BEAM Influence): Kennedy credits much of her early inspiration to the BEAM (Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, and Mechanics) robotics movement. This school of thought emphasizes simple, robust, solar-powered robots that mimic natural survival instincts. These early, low-cost projects taught her the necessity of simple, reliable mechanics over complex, fragile software.
• Mid-Career (Environmental Interaction): Moving into the 2020s, Kennedy shifted focus toward "utility" bots. This era saw the development of her beach-cleaning robots. It was here that she encountered the "sand problem"—the realization that microscopic particles are the natural enemy of gearboxes and motor bearings. This led to her development of "shedding" designs, where robot bodies are specifically engineered with channels and holes to prevent sand accumulation.
• The Underwater Frontier (2024–2025): The development of Otter Force One, designed to capture invasive sea urchins, marked a significant pivot. Moving from sand to water introduced the complexities of hydrostatic pressure and the degradation of seals. This phase of her career necessitated a deep dive into marine engineering techniques, such as the use of marine-grade epoxies and double-o-ring cable glands.
• The Aerial and Planetary Phase (2026): Her most recent work involves "air-inspired" bots. Moving from simple wind-powered sails to the Atmosphinder—a planetary rover concept—Kennedy is currently focusing on how machines can harness natural energy sources like wind for long-distance exploration, a project that mirrors the challenges faced by NASA’s Mars exploration programs.

Supporting Data: Engineering for Survival

Kennedy’s presentation provided a wealth of technical "lessons learned" that serve as a blueprint for any builder looking to move their projects outside.

Designing for Sand and Particulate

The most common point of failure for outdoor robots is the ingress of dust and grit. Kennedy’s strategies are surprisingly low-tech and highly effective:

• Motor Elevation: Keeping motors as high as possible from the ground plane.
• Open-Body Architecture: Instead of trying to seal a robot perfectly—which often traps debris inside—she advocates for "shedding" designs. By creating bodies full of calculated holes, the robot allows sand to pass through rather than grinding into the internals.
• Slow-Speed Torque: High-speed rotation in a dusty environment is a recipe for heat and friction-induced failure. Kennedy argues for high-torque, low-speed motor profiles that are less prone to catastrophic jamming.

The Underwater Imperative

Underwater robotics represents the most punishing environment for electronics. Kennedy’s design documentation for Otter Force One highlights:

• Cable Glands: Using double-o-ring setups, often potted in marine epoxy to ensure a hermetic seal against pressure changes.
• The "Nalgene-on-a-String" Method: For recovery, she highlights the importance of redundancy. A simple buoyant container housing a radio transmitter is often more reliable than complex, high-tech GPS tracking systems, which frequently struggle with signal attenuation in water.
• Visual Contrast: Underwater environments are often low-visibility. She stresses the use of high-visibility, neon-colored chassis components to ensure that a lost bot can be spotted by human eyes.

Wind and Atmospheric Management

Perhaps her most ambitious designs are her "wind-propelled" rovers. The primary lesson here is the paradox of control: "You can turn off a motor, but you cannot turn off the wind."

• Staking Systems: Kennedy advises that any autonomous wind-based rover must have a "parking" or "staking" mechanism to secure the device when the mission is complete, preventing it from becoming an unintentional projectile.
• Material Choice: The use of "magic toboggans"—durable, flexible plastic sheets—serves as an excellent, low-cost material for high-durability sails.

Official Responses and Public Engagement

One of the most profound aspects of Kennedy’s work is the social dimension. When a robot is taken into a public park, it ceases to be a piece of equipment and becomes a social actor.

"The public response is often as unpredictable as the weather," Kennedy noted. She recounted instances where birds utilized the shade of her robots or where curious bystanders halted her tests to ask questions. This, she argues, is not a distraction—it is a feature. By making robots "friendly" and aesthetically pleasing, builders can normalize the presence of technology in public spaces.

The "normalization of hacking" is a core tenet of the community surrounding Hackaday. When a robot is designed to be visually appealing, it transforms from a "creepy" surveillance-style machine into a point of wonder. Kennedy encourages builders to move away from the "industrial-black-box" aesthetic and toward designs that feel organic or whimsical, noting that a butterfly-shaped bot receives a vastly warmer reception from the public than an aggressive-looking crawler.

Implications: The Future of Hobbyist Robotics

The implications of Kennedy’s work are significant. As 3D printing becomes more ubiquitous and geared motors become cheaper, the barrier to entry for building a robust, outdoor-capable robot is lower than ever. We are moving toward a future where "Mars rover" style technology is not the sole domain of government space agencies, but an accessible hobby for anyone with a laptop and a weekend of free time.

The shift towards outdoor robotics also signals a change in how we perceive the role of the roboticist. By forcing engineers to confront the realities of mud, wind, and salt water, we are fostering a more grounded, pragmatic generation of designers. These builders are learning to prioritize modularity, repairability, and environmental awareness.

Ultimately, Erin Kennedy’s message is one of optimism. The laboratory is safe, but it is limited. The real world is difficult, but it is where the most meaningful innovation occurs. By taking our robots outside, we aren’t just testing our code; we are testing our ability to adapt, to survive, and to share our passion for technology with the rest of the world. Whether it’s a tiny bot cleaning a beach or a rolling sail-craft searching for the horizon, the message is clear: pack your spare batteries, grab some hydration, and get out there. The outdoors is waiting.