Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human autonomy”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Assessing V and V Processes for Automation with Respect to Vulnerabilities to Loss of Airplane State Awareness

Automation has contributed substantially to the sustained improvement of aviation safety by minimizing the physical workload of the pilot and increasing operational efficiency. Nevertheless, in complex and highly automated aircraft, automation also has unintended consequences. As systems become more complex and the authority and autonomy (A&A) of the automation increases, human operators become relegated to the role of a system supervisor or administrator, a passive role not conducive to maintaining engagement and airplane state awareness (ASA). The consequence is that flight crews can often come to over rely on the automation, become less engaged in the human-machine interaction, and lose awareness of the automation mode under which the aircraft is operating. Likewise, the complexity of the system and automation modes may lead to poor understanding of the interaction between a mode of automation and a particular system configuration or phase of flight. These and other examples of mode confusion often lead to mismanaging the aircraftâ€"TM"s energy state or the aircraft deviating from the intended flight path. This report examines methods for assessing whether, and how, operational constructs properly assign authority and autonomy in a safe and coordinated manner, with particular emphasis on assuring adequate airplane state awareness by the flight crew and air traffic controllers in off-nominal and/or complex situations.

Whitlow, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2018

Trusted Communication: Utilizing Speech Communication to Enhance Human-Machine Teaming Success

An area of increasing interest for the next generation of aircraft is autonomy and the integration of increasingly autonomous systems into the national airspace. Such an integration requires humans to work closely with autonomous systems, forming teams. Our hypothesis is that a team composed of both humans and autonomous systems will operate better than either entity alone. We have existing procedures for certifying pilots to operate in the national airspace and are currently working on methods for validating the function of autonomous systems, however we have no method in place for assessing the interaction of these two disparate systems. Communication is one avenue. This paper will examine the use of language as a metric for ascertaining human-machine teaming effectiveness. A proof-of-concept of the application of two communication-based analysis techniques, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), for the prediction of success in human/chatbot teaming was conducted. By running these analyses over data from the 2014 and 2015 Loebner Prize competitions of human/chatbot teaming, numerical scores were obtained that can be associated with scores provided by human judges during the competition. Correlating their LIWC and LSA data with the scores provided by the judges, and using linear regression over this correlation, formulae were obtained that predict the score of human/chatbot interaction. These formulae were tested over the 2013 Loebner Prize transcripts, determining that, though there was strong correlation between predicted and actual scores, the predictive success of this method was not strong. However, with specialized topic spaces and lexica, as well as larger data sets, the predictive power of these metrics will improve. Given the importance of providing metrics for human-machine system team success and given the promise shown by the communication-basedLIWCand LSAmethods, continuing research in this area is necessary. After examining the potential for using communication and spoken language as a metric for the success of human/autonomous system teaming, this paper then examines aspects inherent to communication systems that may contribute to unreliability and reduced trust. Modern natural language processing tools rely on deep learning algorithms to create language rules that produce accurate results, but these rules are uninterpretable. The resulting blackbox system lacks transparency necessary for full validation and complete trust. Additionally, speech-based interfaces pose other difficulties to developing coordinated teamwork between humans and autonomous systems. Human communication is infrequently limited to speech only, instead usually relying on a combination of verbal, gestural, and general body language communication. Reducing an analysis of team effectiveness to a study of spoken language alone is problematic as it leaves these other equally important forms of communication out. This paper will examine these problems and the general deficiencies in speech-based metrics for human-machine teaming.

E L Meszaros↗
NASA NTRS1995

Intermediate Levels of Autonomy within the SSM/PMAD Breadboard

The Space Station Module Power Management and Distribution (SSM/PMAD) bread-board is a test bed for the development of advanced power system control and automation. Software control in the SSM/PMAD breadboard is through co-operating systems, called Autonomous Agents. Agents can be a mixture of algorithmic software and expert systems. The early SSM/PMAD system was envisioned as being completely autonomous. It soon became apparent, though, that there would always be a need for human intervention, at least as long as a human interacts with the system in any way. In a system designed only for autonomous operation, manual intervention meant taking full control of the whole system, and loosing whatever expertise was in the system. Several methods for allowing humans to interact at an appropriate level of control were developed. This paper examines some of these intermediate modes of autonomy. The least humanly intrusive mode is simple monitoring. The ability to modify future behavior by altering a schedule involves high-level interaction. Modification of operating activities comes next. The coarsest mode of control is individual, unplanned operation of individual Power System components. Each of these levels is integrated into the SSM/PMAD breadboard, with support for the user (such as warnings of the consequences of control decisions) at every level.

Dugal-Whitehead, Norma R.↗
NASA NTRS2015

AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station

NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Activation and deactivation of this facility is time consuming and operationally intensive, requiring coordination of three flight control positions, 47 nominal steps, 57 commands, 276 telemetry checks, and coordination of multiple ISS systems (both core and payload). Utilization of Draper Laboratory's Timeliner software, deployed on-board the ISS within the Command and Control (C&C) computers and the Payload computers, allowed development of the automated procedures specific to ISS without having to certify and employ novel software for procedure development and execution. The procedures contained the ground procedure logic and actions as possible to include fault detection and recovery capabilities.

Stetson, Howard K.↗
NASA NTRS2015

AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station

NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Activation and deactivation of this facility is time consuming and operationally intensive, requiring coordination of three flight control positions, 47 nominal steps, 57 commands, 276 telemetry checks, and coordination of multiple ISS systems (both core and payload). Utilization of Draper Laboratory's Timeliner software, deployed on-board the ISS within the Command and Control (C&C) computers and the Payload computers, allowed development of the automated procedures specific to ISS without having to certify and employ novel software for procedure development and execution. The procedures contained the ground procedure logic and actions as possible to include fault detection and recovery capabilities. The autonomous operations concept includes a reduction of the amount of data a crew operator is required to verify during activation or de-activation, as well as integration of procedure execution status and relevant data in a single integrated display. During execution, the auto-procedures (via Timerliner) provide a step-by-step messaging paradigm and a high-level status upon termination. This messaging and high-level status is the only data generated for operator display. To enhance situational awareness of the operator, the Web-based Procedure Display (WebPD) provides a novel approach to the issues of procedure display and execution tracking. WebPD is a web based application that serves as the user interface for electronic procedure execution. It incorporates several aspects of the HTML5 standard. Procedures are written in a dialect of XML called Procedure Representation Language (PRL). WebPD tracks execution status in the procedure or procedures being displayed. WebPD aggregates and simplifies the auto-sequence execution status information, and formatted to be easily followed and understood by an operator who is not dedicated to actively monitoring the task. WebPD also provides an integrated data and control interface to pause or halt the execution in order to provide a check point of operation and to examine progress before starting the next sequence of activities. For this demonstration, the procedure was initiated and monitored from the ground. As the Timeliner sequences executed, their high-level execution status was written to PLMDM memory. This memory is read and downlinked via Ku-Band at a 1 Hz rate. The data containing the high-level execution status is de-commutated on the ground, and rebroadcast for WebPD consumption. A future demonstration will be performed onboard, with ISS astronauts initiating the operations instead of ground controllers. The AMO EXPRESS experiment demonstrated activation and de-activation of EXPRESS rack 7, providing the capability of future single button activations and deactivations of facility class racks. The experiment achieved numerous technical and operations 'firsts' for the ISS

Stetson, Howard K.↗
NASA NTRS2015

AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station

NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions.NASAs Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS).

Autonomous Mission Operations↗
DOE OSTI2025

New Era Towards Autonomous Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Recent Trends and Future Perspectives

Abstract The Additive Manufacturing (AM) landscape has significantly transformed in alignment with Industry 4.0 principles, primarily driven by the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Digital Twin (DT). However, current Intelligent Additive Manufacturing (IAM) systems face limitations such as fragmented AI tool usage and suboptimal human-machine interaction (HMI). This paper reviews existing IAM solutions, emphasizing control, monitoring, process autonomy, and end-to-end integration, and identifies key limitations, such as the absence of a high-level controller for global decision-making. To address these gaps, we propose a transition from IAM to Autonomous Additive Manufacturing (AAM), featuring a hierarchical framework with four integrated layers: knowledge, generative solution, operational, and cognitive. In the cognitive layer, AI agents notably enable machines to independently observe, analyze, plan, and execute operations that traditionally require human intervention. These capabilities streamline production processes and expand the possibilities for innovation, particularly in sectors like in-space manufacturing (ISM). Additionally, this paper discusses the role of AI in self-optimization and lifelong learning, positing that the future of AM will be characterized by a symbiotic relationship between human expertise and advanced autonomy, fostering a more adaptive, resilient manufacturing ecosystem.

Fan, Haolin↗
NASA NTRS1988

Design of a simulation environment for laboratory management by robot organizations

This paper describes the basic concepts needed for a simulation environment capable of supporting the design of robot organizations for managing chemical, or similar, laboratories on the planned U.S. Space Station. The environment should facilitate a thorough study of the problems to be encountered in assigning the responsibility of managing a non-life-critical, but mission valuable, process to an organized group of robots. In the first phase of the work, we seek to employ the simulation environment to develop robot cognitive systems and strategies for effective multi-robot management of chemical experiments. Later phases will explore human-robot interaction and development of robot autonomy.

Zeigler, Bernard P.↗
NASA NTRS1990

United States planetary rover status: 1989

A spectrum of concepts for planetary rovers and rover missions, is covered. Rovers studied range from tiny micro rovers to large and highly automated vehicles capable of traveling hundreds of kilometers and performing complex tasks. Rover concepts are addressed both for the Moon and Mars, including a Lunar/Mars common rover capable of supporting either program with relatively small modifications. Mission requirements considered include both Science and Human Exploration. Studies include a range of autonomy in rovers, from interactive teleoperated systems to those requiring and onboard System Executive making very high level decisions. Both high and low technology rover options are addressed. Subsystems are described for a representative selection of these rovers, including: Mobility, Sample Acquisition, Science, Vehicle Control, Thermal Control, Local Navigation, Computation and Communications. System descriptions of rover concepts include diagrams, technology levels, system characteristics, and performance measurement in terms of distance covered, samples collected, and area surveyed for specific representative missions. Rover development schedules and costs are addressed for Lunar and Mars exploration initiatives.

Pivirotto, Donna L. S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRS2008

The Telesupervised Adaptive Ocean Sensor Fleet (TAOSF) Architecture: Coordination of Multiple Oceanic Robot Boats

Earth science research must bridge the gap between the atmosphere and the ocean to foster understanding of Earth s climate and ecology. Ocean sensing is typically done with satellites, buoys, and crewed research ships. The limitations of these systems include the fact that satellites are often blocked by cloud cover, and buoys and ships have spatial coverage limitations. This paper describes a multi-robot science exploration software architecture and system called the Telesupervised Adaptive Ocean Sensor Fleet (TAOSF). TAOSF supervises and coordinates a group of robotic boats, the OASIS platforms, to enable in-situ study of phenomena in the ocean/atmosphere interface, as well as on the ocean surface and sub-surface. The OASIS platforms are extended deployment autonomous ocean surface vehicles, whose development is funded separately by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). TAOSF allows a human operator to effectively supervise and coordinate multiple robotic assets using a sliding autonomy control architecture, where the operating mode of the vessels ranges from autonomous control to teleoperated human control. TAOSF increases data-gathering effectiveness and science return while reducing demands on scientists for robotic asset tasking, control, and monitoring. The first field application chosen for TAOSF is the characterization of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). We discuss the overall TAOSF architecture, describe field tests conducted under controlled conditions using rhodamine dye as a HAB simulant, present initial results from these tests, and outline the next steps in the development of TAOSF.

sensor web↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Thinking System and Thinking Autonomy

There are many definitions of what a “Thinking System” (TS) is. The literature primarily addresses what is called “Systems Thinking.” Dr. Marie Morganelli from Southern New Hampshire University states that “Systems thinking is a holistic way to investigate factors and interactions that could contribute to a possible outcome. A mindset more than a prescribed practice, systems thinking provides an understanding of how individuals can work together in different types of teams and through that understanding, create the best possible processes to accomplish just about anything.” So, a TS is a system that is capable of “systems thinking,” as it should be able to “ … create [utilize] the best possible processes [and intelligence] to accomplish just about anything.” To achieve this capability, human-like thinking is required. A truly autonomous system must be one that is capable of human-like thinking. This paper will address “Thinking Autonomy” (TA) enabled by a “Thinking System.” It will describe an architecture with the elements required to achieve the “thinking” behavior: understanding, intellect, reason, decision, will. The paper will further describe the contents and functionality of these elements and how to implement them, including software capabilities needed. Finally, the paper will provide details of a software platform that enables TA, the NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS), and describe implementations of thinking systems. Thinking systems will enable a fundamental change how AI and autonomy are implemented. It will change from a “brute force” approach that results in one-time implementations that are minimally intelligent or autonomous to a “thinking” approach where implementations evolve continuously and enable powerful intelligence and autonomy on systems of high complexity as well as on systems-of-systems.

Thinking systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extreme Problem Solving: The New Challenges of Deep Space Exploration

On the International Space Station today, the crew has the near real-time support of a large group of system experts on the ground when dealing with problems on-board. For exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit, however, intermittent and delayed communication with ground will force small crews to take the lead in responding to vehicle anomalies. Enabling a flight crew of roughly four astronauts to perform the job that has traditionally been done by a ground crew of over 80 experts will require a fundamental rethinking of human-systems integration. Through observations of anomaly resolution processes, interviews with system experts and astronauts, and analyses of problem-solving models, we have identified the capabilities that are not currently available on-board but will be needed to enable safe exploration further away from Earth. These include increased data access, just-in-time training tools and technologies, and troubleshooting decision support. Important questions remain on how these technologies can be designed and implemented for increased crew autonomy. We present this critical challenge for deep space exploration to the human-computer interaction research community to reflect on the areas identified by our needs analysis and contemplate how they might be manifested as solutions.

autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2026

Multi-Agent Swarm State of the Art Report

The Next-Generation Multi-Agent Swarm (NGS) Study conducted by NASA’s Ames Research Center for NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) will develop a comprehensive understanding of emerging multi-agent swarm capabilities. The study aims to identify existing swarm capabilities and asses their potential for persistent lunar space situational awareness, surface monitoring, and distributed autonomy demonstrations. A key objective is to inform the design of a next-generation multi-agent swarm that can perform autonomous distributed remote sensing, position, navigation, and timing (PNT) services, automated deployment that leverages autonomy, edge computing, and interoperable networking to enable cooperative operations without the need for immediate human operation. This study will address specific shortfalls identified by STMD, including intelligent multi-agent constellations, autonomy, edge computation, position, navigation, and timing for small spacecraft, small spacecraft propulsion, and space situational awareness (1625, 1438, 1433, 1557, 1431, 1430, 1589). The NASA Ames Mission Design Center (MDC) will provide subject matter expertise to support systems engineering trades, while experts in autonomy and spacecraft swarms in NASA’s Intelligent Systems Division will lead the study and focus on identifying emerging next-generation swarm capabilities. The study objectives include: capturing the current state-of-the-art for multi-agent swarm capabilities, evaluating technologies and creating technology roadmaps, and developing at least one new technology demonstration mission concept. This initial NGS study report surveys the current state of the art in technology areas relevant for the next-generation multi-agent swarm design. Our primary focus is on surveying relevant deployed space systems1, supplemented with selective analysis of relevant proposed missions and technology developments that have yet to fly.

agent↗
NASA NTRS1992

A method for planning collision free trajectories for two cooperating robots

Robotic systems designed specifically for space applications often exhibit a high level of autonomy to reduce the costs associated with having humans in space. This paper presents a method for autonomously planning collision free paths for two cooperating robots in a static environment. The method performs selective mapping of configuration space while attempting to locate a safe path. The method is based around an algorithm aimed at transversing a space of arbitrary dimension which contains both safe and unsafe regions. While the procedure cannot guarantee finding a solution even if one may exist, it is intended to find a solution to many practical path planning problems within a reasonable amount of time. Results are presented for applying the procedure to two cooperating six degree of freedom manipulators (Puma 560s).

Weaver, Jonathan M.↗
NASA NTRS1991

On operator strategic behavior

Deeper and more detailed knowledge as to how human operators such as pilots respond, singly and in groups, to demands on their performance which arise from technical systems will support the manipulation of such systems' design in order to accommodate the foibles of human behavior. Efforts to understand how self-autonomy impacts strategic behavior and such related issues as error generation/recognition/correction are still in their infancy. The present treatment offers both general and aviation-specific definitions of strategic behavior as precursors of prospective investigations.

Hancock, P. A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Remote systems development

Potential space missions of the nineties and the next century require that we look at the broad category of remote systems as an important means to achieve cost-effective operations, exploration and colonization objectives. This paper addresses such missions, which can use remote systems technology as the basis for identifying required capabilities which must be provided. The relationship of the space-based tasks to similar tasks required for terrestrial applications is discussed. The development status of the required technology is assessed and major issues which must be addressed to meet future requirements are identified. This includes the proper mix of humans and machines, from pure teleoperation to full autonomy; the degree of worksite compatibility for a robotic system; and the required design parameters, such as degrees-of-freedom. Methods for resolution are discussed including analysis, graphical simulation and the use of laboratory test beds. Grumman experience in the application of these techniques to a variety of design issues are presented utilizing the Telerobotics Development Laboratory which includes a 17-DOF robot system, a variety of sensing elements, Deneb/IRIS graphics workstations and control stations. The use of task/worksite mockups, remote system development test beds and graphical analysis are discussed with examples of typical results such as estimates of task times, task feasibility and resulting recommendations for design changes. The relationship of this experience and lessons-learned to future development of remote systems is also discussed.

Olsen, R.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Experimental Evaluation of Verification and Validation Tools on Martian Rover Software

To achieve its science objectives in deep space exploration, NASA has a need for science platform vehicles to autonomously make control decisions in a time frame that excludes intervention from Earth-based controllers. Round-trip light-time is one significant factor motivating autonomy capability, another factor is the need to reduce ground support operations cost. An unsolved problem potentially impeding the adoption of autonomy capability is the verification and validation of such software systems, which exhibit far more behaviors (and hence distinct execution paths in the software) than is typical in current deepspace platforms. Hence the need for a study to benchmark advanced Verification and Validation (V&V) tools on representative autonomy software. The objective of the study was to access the maturity of different technologies, to provide data indicative of potential synergies between them, and to identify gaps in the technologies with respect to the challenge of autonomy V&V. The study consisted of two parts: first, a set of relatively independent case studies of different tools on the same autonomy code, second a carefully controlled experiment with human participants on a subset of these technologies. This paper describes the second part of the study. Overall, nearly four hundred hours of data on human use of three different advanced V&V tools were accumulated, with a control group that used conventional testing methods. The experiment simulated four independent V&V teams debugging three successive versions of an executive controller for a Martian Rover. Defects were carefully seeded into the three versions based on a profile of defects from CVS logs that occurred in the actual development of the executive controller. The rest of the document is structured a s follows. In section 2 and 3, we respectively describe the tools used in the study and the rover software that was analyzed. In section 4 the methodology for the experiment is described; this includes the code preparation, seeding of defects, participant training and experimental setup. Next we give a qualitative overview of how the experiment went from the point of view of each technology; model checking (section 5), static analysis (section 6), runtime analysis (section 7) and testing (section 8). The find section gives some preliminary quantitative results on how the tools compared.

Brat, Guillaume↗