SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Autonomous Thinking Systems”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

31 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2019

Supporting Crew Autonomy in Deep Space Exploration: Preliminary Onboard Capability Requirements and Proposed Research Questions. Technical Report of the Autonomous Crew Operations Technical Interchange Meeting

Communication delays are a critical challenge posed by long duration deep space exploration. Space missions historically have relied on an ever-present Mission Control Center (MCC) to direct operations in near real-time. As unanticipated anomalies that defeat fault detection and resolution systems do arise, the lack of real-time communication will significantly weaken what the MCC support represents: a reliable safety net for the flight crew through its deep and diverse areas of expertise and investigative resources. As a consequence, future space vehicles and habitats need to be equipped with capabilities to support the flight crew to operate with little or no ground support. Considerations must be given to vehicle and mission designs that will fortify the traditionally ground-centered safety net and forge new support systems, when communication delays exist. In August 2018, NASA’s Human Research Program, through its Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element, convened a Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) on Autonomous Crew Operations at NASA Ames Research Center. The goal of the meeting was to gather input from NASA centers, industry, academia, and branches of the Department of Defense (DoD) to address how intelligent technologies can be applied to augment onboard capabilities to support crew anomaly response. The TIM featured 24 presentations by 29 speakers and hosted a total of 59 attendees, including 43 from 5 NASA centers (Ames, Johnson, Langley, Marshall, and Jet Propulsion Lab) and 4 from the DoD (3 from Army Research Lab and 1 from Naval Postgraduate School), with remaining attendees from academia (e.g., UC Davis, CMU) and industry (e.g., IBM, Siemens). Discussions were centered around three themes: standards and guidelines, lessons learned in analog environments, and technologies. To help provide a framework for discussion, a concept matrix describing anomaly response processes was created prior to the TIM (Figure 1, page 6). The matrix captures the steps involved (monitoring and detection, diagnosis, solution development and evaluation, solution implementation and verification, resolution documentation) as well as the resources and capabilities required to support these steps (data, knowledge, analysis, synthesis, resource management). A wallpaper size printout of the matrix was utilized at the TIM to solicit attendee inputs along the three themes; the activity garnered 108 submissions of ideas. Overall, what emerged from TIM discussions was a picture of mismatch between crew anomaly response needs and support that can be provided by existing intelligent technologies. The needs are broad, spanning multiple steps and processes/resources, with many of which lacking support from existing technologies, such as knowledge management throughout the steps of problem solving (especially in resolution documentation) and manpower management. The solutions provided by existing intelligent technologies are specific to the steps/processes that they are designed to support and constrained to solving only problems similar to those that have occurred before. What is lacking from technologies is typically made up by humans, specifically their complex critical thinking, creative problem solving, and domain expertise. In the end, the TIM highlighted the pressing need to support responses to onboard anomalies during autonomous crew operations, particularly those that have eluded the system tests, inspection, and other assurance processes. Such anomalies can potentially threaten crew and vehicle safety, as well as significantly impact overall operations with additional workload. These fairly rare events are difficult to anticipate and prepare for, given the state-of-the-art in intelligent technologies. This is true even for anomalies that stem from “unknown knowns”—cases in which there is sufficient external information to characterize the problem but the overall pattern fails to be recognized by the problem solver, or in which the internal knowledge needed to solve a problem is held tacitly and potentially accessible by the problem solver but not articulated. It follows that the ability to tackle anomalies lies not only with the availability of relevant information and knowledge but also their accessibility in times of need. To that end, we propose research questions along the following three broad themes: • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information available? • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information accessible? • How intelligent technologies can help support the crew operating as a team in anomaly response processes?

autonomous crew operations↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling Advanced Air Mobility Operations through Appropriate Trust in Human-Autonomy Teaming: Foundational Research Approaches and Applications

Emerging Advanced Air Mobility(AAM)operations will be enabled by increasingly autonomous systems, requiring technologies to take on more responsibilities and fundamentally altering traditional human-automation interaction paradigms. The growing reliance on higher levels of automation will necessitate research to identify capabilities and principles that facilitate humans and machines working and thinking better together, i.e., human-autonomy teaming (HAT). Trust is an inherent requirement in effective teams because when members work interdependently, those agents (human, automation) must be willing to accept a level of risk to rely upon each other to reach goals and contribute to team tasks. This work provides an initial approach to enabling AAM operations through appropriate trust within HAT. The main contributions of this approach resides in connecting the construct of trust to mental models. Using the outlined mental model approach, we propose novel HAT strategies, such as Adaptive Trust Calibration, and preview planned research activities derived from this approach. Additionally, we propose several practical applications that can currently be employed by AAM development communities.

Eric T Chancey↗

NASA NTRS2003

Working and Learning with Knowledge in the Lobes of a Humanoid's Mind

Humanoid class robots must have sufficient dexterity to assist people and work in an environment designed for human comfort and productivity. This dexterity, in particular the ability to use tools, requires a cognitive understanding of self and the world that exceeds contemporary robotics. Our hypothesis is that the sense-think-act paradigm that has proven so successful for autonomous robots is missing one or more key elements that will be needed for humanoids to meet their full potential as autonomous human assistants. This key ingredient is knowledge. The presented work includes experiments conducted on the Robonaut system, a NASA and the Defense Advanced research Projects Agency (DARPA) joint project, and includes collaborative efforts with a DARPA Mobile Autonomous Robot Software technical program team of researchers at NASA, MIT, USC, NRL, UMass and Vanderbilt. The paper reports on results in the areas of human-robot interaction (human tracking, gesture recognition, natural language, supervised control), perception (stereo vision, object identification, object pose estimation), autonomous grasping (tactile sensing, grasp reflex, grasp stability) and learning (human instruction, task level sequences, and sensorimotor association).

Ambrose, Robert↗

NASA NTRS2000

Intelligence Applied to Air Vehicles

The exponential growth in information technology has provided the potential for air vehicle capabilities that were previously unavailable to mission and vehicle designers. The increasing capabilities of computer hardware and software, including new developments such as neural networks, provide a new balance of work between humans and machines. This paper will describe several NASA projects, and review results and conclusions from ground and flight investigations where vehicle intelligence was developed and applied to aeronautical and space systems. In the first example, flight results from a neural network flight control demonstration will be reviewed. Using, a highly-modified F-15 aircraft, a NASA/Dryden experimental flight test program has demonstrated how the neural network software can correctly identify and respond to changes in aircraft stability and control characteristics. Using its on-line learning capability, the neural net software would identify that something in the vehicle has changed, then reconfigure the flight control computer system to adapt to those changes. The results of the Remote Agent software project will be presented. This capability will reduce the cost of future spacecraft operations as computers become "thinking" partners along with humans. In addition, the paper will describe the objectives and plans for the autonomous airplane program and the autonomous rotorcraft project. Technologies will also be developed.

Rosen, Robert↗

NASA NTRS2002

Systems Architecture for Fully Autonomous Space Missions

The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is working to develop a revolutionary new system architecture concept in support of fully autonomous missions. As part of GSFC's contribution to the New Millenium Program (NMP) Space Technology 7 Autonomy and on-Board Processing (ST7-A) Concept Definition Study, the system incorporates the latest commercial Internet and software development ideas and extends them into NASA ground and space segment architectures. The unique challenges facing the exploration of remote and inaccessible locales and the need to incorporate corresponding autonomy technologies within reasonable cost necessitate the re-thinking of traditional mission architectures. A measure of the resiliency of this architecture in its application to a broad range of future autonomy missions will depend on its effectiveness in leveraging from commercial tools developed for the personal computer and Internet markets. Specialized test stations and supporting software come to past as spacecraft take advantage of the extensive tools and research investments of billion-dollar commercial ventures. The projected improvements of the Internet and supporting infrastructure go hand-in-hand with market pressures that provide continuity in research. By taking advantage of consumer-oriented methods and processes, space-flight missions will continue to leverage on investments tailored to provide better services at reduced cost. The application of ground and space segment architectures each based on Local Area Networks (LAN), the use of personal computer-based operating systems, and the execution of activities and operations through a Wide Area Network (Internet) enable a revolution in spacecraft mission formulation, implementation, and flight operations. Hardware and software design, development, integration, test, and flight operations are all tied-in closely to a common thread that enables the smooth transitioning between program phases. The application of commercial software development techniques lays the foundation for delivery of product-oriented flight software modules and models. Software can then be readily applied to support the on-board autonomy required for mission self-management. An on-board intelligent system, based on advanced scripting languages, facilitates the mission autonomy required to offload ground system resources, and enables the spacecraft to manage itself safely through an efficient and effective process of reactive planning, science data acquisition, synthesis, and transmission to the ground. Autonomous ground systems in turn coordinate and support schedule contact times with the spacecraft. Specific autonomy software modules on-board include mission and science planners, instrument and subsystem control, and fault tolerance response software, all residing within a distributed computing environment supported through the flight LAN. Autonomy also requires the minimization of human intervention between users on the ground and the spacecraft, and hence calls for the elimination of the traditional operations control center as a funnel for data manipulation. Basic goal-oriented commands are sent directly from the user to the spacecraft through a distributed internet-based payload operations "center". The ensuing architecture calls for the use of spacecraft as point extensions on the Internet. This paper will detail the system architecture implementation chosen to enable cost-effective autonomous missions with applicability to a broad range of conditions. It will define the structure needed for implementation of such missions, including software and hardware infrastructures. The overall architecture is then laid out as a common thread in the mission life cycle from formulation through implementation and flight operations.

Esper, Jamie↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Transformation -- Localizing the Remote and Connecting the Isolated

In motivating the Space Transformation theme for this year’s 4S symposium, the organizers provided the following context, “Transformation of economies are driven by a change in values and accelerated by new technologies.” These words rang particularly true when I read them at the beginning of the holiday season. Like so many others, I was in the early phases of my Christmas shopping procrastination campaign, and I’d just been reflecting on how Amazon Prime was the transformational tool I’d been waiting for. Basic limiting principles of time and space, supply and demand, were all but erased by the Amazon Prime phenomenon. Coupled with emerging 3D printing and other adaptive manufacturing technologies, a transformation from deliberate planning to “think it … have it” had occurred, empowering me to procrastinate longer than I’d ever dreamed possible. The organizers went on to ponder, “Will space transformation also affect society?”, just as our team at the Air Force Research Lab’s (AFRL) Center for Rapid Innovation (CRI) were working alongside partners within our larger Integrated Capabilities Directorate, NASA’s Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology programs, and DARPA’s Luna-10 program to develop technologies and execute demonstration missions that leverage the space domain to genuinely connect even the most remote and austere domains on the timeline of need. Picking apart the miracle that is Amazon prime, where does the model fail, and why? More relevantly to the theme of this year’s symposium, how can the space domain be used to overcome its limitations and minimize its weaknesses? Perhaps it is best assessed in the context of Use Cases. What are the Amazon delivery cost, schedule, and cargo limiters to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Research Station, or the Lunar South Pole Research Station? This paper will explore enabling infrastructure that allows Amazon prime to thrive and assess the transformational enabling technologies that would be necessary to extend that miracle to the truly remote or the truly austere. Localizing the Remote • First, it will evaluate the ability of the on-going AFRL Rocket Cargo and Space Initiatives Ringside Seats systems, coupled with Astrobotic’s Xodiak and Xogdor capabilities, developed to support the NASA Flight Opportunities Program (FOP), to supply orbital/suborbital delivery to both improved and austere sites on the Earth and Moon. • Then, it will add the surface terminal distribution leg, with an examination of Lunar Outpost’s Mobile Autonomous Prospecting Platform (MAPP), equipped with Mobile Autonomous Robotic Swarm (MARS) software, and Intuitive Machine’s Hopper, developed with support of AFRL and NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. Connecting the Isolated From there, it will focus on the destination, asking what implied destination services are required to support highly assured autonomous delivery. • Specifically, it will highlight Astrobotic’s Skymage mesh-networked publish and subscribe communication and navigation service, as well as AFRL’s on-going developments of radioisotope and reactor nuclear-sourced thermoelectric power generation and distribution systems under development under the Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-orbit Nuclear Power (JETSON) program by Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, Intuitive Machines, and Zeno Power, to provide the power service to locations well off the grid. • Finally, the paper will connect to the “human machine”. What connects the remote or in-situ human consumer to the remote domain? What connects the diverse international government and commercial services to each other? The former will focus on AFRL’s OraCloud feeding their Space Defense Control and Characterization System (SDCCS) and Lunar Station’s MoonHacker systems, while the latter will focus on the BlueHalo/Tensor LunX Technology Platform for the Cislunar Commodity Marketplace. In 1984, Krafft Ehricke famously remarked that, “If God wanted man to become a spacefaring species, He would have given man a Moon.” This paper is not about the Moon, but is about humans as a spacefaring species, shedding the pesky land/air limitations of the Amazon Prime model … so that we can all live a procrastinator’s “think it … have it” existence.

Charles Finley↗

NASA NTRS2017

Autonomy Operating System for UAVs: Pilot-in-a-Box

The Autonomy Operating System (AOS) is an open flight software platform with Artificial Intelligence for smart UAVs. It is built to be extendable with new apps, similar to smartphones, to enable an expanding set of missions and capabilities. AOS has as its foundations NASAs core flight executive and core flight software (cFEcFS). Pilot-in-a-Box (PIB) is an expanding collection of interacting AOS apps that provide the knowledge and intelligence onboard a UAV to safely and autonomously fly in the National Air Space, eventually without a remote human ground crew. Longer-term, the goal of PIB is to provide the capability for pilotless air vehicles such as air taxis that will be key for new transportation concepts such as mobility-on-demand. PIB provides the procedural knowledge, situational awareness, and anticipatory planning (thinking ahead of the plane) that comprises pilot competencies. These competencies together with a natural language interface will enable Pilot-in-a-Box to dialogue directly with Air Traffic Management from takeoff through landing. This paper describes the overall AOS architecture, Artificial Intelligence reasoning engines, Pilot-in-a-box competencies, and selected experimental flight tests to date.

Lowry, Michael↗

NASA NTRS2020

Airspace Operations: Vision for 2045 and Beyond

We are seeing interesting changes in airspace operations. We are experiencing growth in global aviation for passenger and cargo travel. At the same time, drones of all sizes, urban air mobility, electric aircraft, commercial space transportation, supersonics, hypersonics, and increasingly autonomous vehicles will continue to mature. These operations along with current aviation will require access to airspace operations. Such access and scalability needs will only continue to increase in the future. Given that systems and procedures that will enable and support the future density and diversity takes a considerable amount of time to build and harmonize across the globe, it is appropriate that research efforts to enable 2045 operations begin now. A perfect storm is brewing as a number of factors are coming together, including: anticipated growth in diversity and density; limitations of our current system to support the growth and diversity; lack of utilization of latest technologies in an increasingly digitized world to support air traffic management; and a long lead time to conduct research, develop requirements, and built and deploy air traffic management systems. All these factors indicate that now is the time to start thinking about the needs of 2045 and beyond. In a limited manner, Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) has shown that new thinking and implementation paths for airspace operations is possible. The current system as it exists is based on many assumptions and limitations of technologies (e.g., radar, human-centered voice communications) which may not be true moving forward given the technologies around us are changing. The panel will discuss the following and related topics: 1. Expected growth in density, diversity, and needed scalability, 2. Likely requirements of air traffic management system to enable and support 2045 and beyond operations, 3. Assumptions related to air traffic management and operations that need to reevaluated based on technology trends, 4. Identification of research priorities and harmonization of research across the globe, and 5. Transition approaches from current air traffic operations to new vision 2045. The panel discussion will be useful for global air traffic management researchers, managers, strategists, airspace users, air traffic management system developers and integrators, and academic researchers.

Kopardekar, Parimal H.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Software for Partly Automated Recognition of Targets

The Feature Analyst is a computer program for assisted (partially automated) recognition of targets in images. This program was developed to accelerate the processing of high-resolution satellite image data for incorporation into geographic information systems (GIS). This program creates an advanced user interface that embeds proprietary machine-learning algorithms in commercial image-processing and GIS software. A human analyst provides samples of target features from multiple sets of data, then the software develops a data-fusion model that automatically extracts the remaining features from selected sets of data. The program thus leverages the natural ability of humans to recognize objects in complex scenes, without requiring the user to explain the human visual recognition process by means of lengthy software. Two major subprograms are the reactive agent and the thinking agent. The reactive agent strives to quickly learn the user's tendencies while the user is selecting targets and to increase the user's productivity by immediately suggesting the next set of pixels that the user may wish to select. The thinking agent utilizes all available resources, taking as much time as needed, to produce the most accurate autonomous feature-extraction model possible.

Opitz, David↗

NASA NTRS2003

Software for Partly Automated Recognition of Targets

The Feature Analyst is a computer program for assisted (partially automated) recognition of targets in images. This program was developed to accelerate the processing of high-resolution satellite image data for incorporation into geographic information systems (GIS). This program creates an advanced user interface that embeds proprietary machine-learning algorithms in commercial image-processing and GIS software. A human analyst provides samples of target features from multiple sets of data, then the software develops a data-fusion model that automatically extracts the remaining features from selected sets of data. The program thus leverages the natural ability of humans to recognize objects in complex scenes, without requiring the user to explain the human visual recognition process by means of lengthy software. Two major subprograms are the reactive agent and the thinking agent. The reactive agent strives to quickly learn the user s tendencies while the user is selecting targets and to increase the user s productivity by immediately suggesting the next set of pixels that the user may wish to select. The thinking agent utilizes all available resources, taking as much time as needed, to produce the most accurate autonomous feature-extraction model possible.

Opitz, David↗

NASA NTRS2019

Human Performance Contributions to Safety in Commercial Aviation

Every day in aviation, pilots, air traffic controllers, and other front-line personnel perform countless correct judgments and actions in a variety of operational environments. These judgments and actions are often the difference between an accident and a non-event. Ironically, data on these behaviors are rarely collected or analyzed. Data-driven decisions about safety management and design of safety-critical systems are limited by the available data, which influence how decision makers characterize problems and identify solutions. Large volumes of data are collected on the failures and errors that result in infrequent incidents and accidents, but in the absence of data on behaviors that result in routine successful outcomes, safety management and system design decisions are based on a small sample of nonrepresentative safety data. This assessment aimed to find and document “safety successes” made possible by human operators. With many Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) Programs and Projects focusing on increased automation and autonomy and decreased human involvement, failure to fully consider the human contributions to successful system performance in civil aviation represents a significant risk — a risk that has not been recognized to date. Without understanding how humans contribute to safety, any estimate of predicted safety of autonomous capabilities is incomplete and inherently suspect. Furthermore, understanding the ways in which humans contribute to safety can promote strategic interactions among safety technologies, functions, procedures and the people using them. Without this understanding, the full benefits of an integrated, optimized human/technology or autonomous system will not be realized. Historically, safety has been consistently defined in terms of the occurrence of accidents or recognized risks (i.e., in terms of things that go wrong). These adverse outcomes are explained by identifying their causes, and safety is restored by eliminating or mitigating these causes. An alternative to this approach is to focus on what goes right and identify how to replicate that process. Focusing on the rare cases of failures attributed to “human error” provides little information about why human performance routinely prevents adverse events. Hollnagel has proposed that things go right because people continuously adjust their work to match their operating conditions. These adjustments become increasingly important as systems continue to grow in complexity. Thus, the definition of safety should reflect not only “avoiding things that go wrong” but “ensuring that things go right.” The basis for safety management requires developing an understanding of everyday activities. However, few mechanisms to monitor everyday work exist in the aviation domain, which limits opportunities to learn how designs function in reality. This concept of safety thinking and safety management is reflected in the emerging field of resilience engineering. According to Hollnagel, a system is resilient if it can sustain required operations under expected and unexpected conditions by adjusting its functioning prior to, during, or following changes, disturbances, and opportunities. To explore “positive” behaviors that contribute to resilient performance in commercial aviation, the assessment team examined a range of existing sources of data about pilot and air traffic control (ATC) tower controller performance, including subjective interviews with domain experts and objective aircraft flight data records. These data were used to identify strategies that support resilient performance, methods for exploring and refining those strategies in existing data, and proposed methods for capturing and analyzing new data.

Null, Cynthia H.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evidence Report: Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies

Substantial evidence supports the claim that inadequate training leads to performance errors. Barshi and Loukopoulos (2012) demonstrate that even a task as carefully developed and refined over many years as operating an aircraft can be significantly improved by a systematic analysis, followed by improved procedures and improved training (see also Loukopoulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009a). Unfortunately, such a systematic analysis of training needs rarely occurs during the preliminary design phase, when modifications are most feasible. Training is often seen as a way to compensate for deficiencies in task and system design, which in turn increases the training load. As a result, task performance often suffers, and with it, the operators suffer and so does the mission. On the other hand, effective training can indeed compensate for such design deficiencies, and can even go beyond to compensate for failures of our imagination to anticipate all that might be needed when we send our crew members to go where no one else has gone before. Much of the research literature on training is motivated by current training practices aimed at current training needs. Although there is some experience with operations in extreme environments on Earth, there is no experience with long-duration space missions where crews must practice semi-autonomous operations, where ground support must accommodate significant communication delays, and where so little is known about the environment. Thus, we must develop robust methodologies and tools to prepare our crews for the unknown. The research necessary to support such an endeavor does not currently exist, but existing research does reveal general challenges that are relevant to long-duration, high-autonomy missions. The evidence presented here describes issues related to the risk of performance errors due to training deficiencies. Contributing factors regarding training deficiencies may pertain to organizational process and training programs for spaceflight, such as when training programs are inadequate or unavailable. Furthermore, failure to match between tasks on the one hand, and learning and memory abilities on the other hand is a contributing factor, especially when individuals' relative efficiency with which new information is acquired, and adjustments made in behavior or thinking, are inconsistent with mission demands. Thus, if training deficiencies are present, the likelihood of errors or of the inability to successfully complete a task increases. What's more, the overall risk to the crew, the vehicle, and the mission increases.

Barshi, Immanuel↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Dust Tolerant Mechanisms for a Sustained Exploration of the Moon

Introduction: “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can overcome other physio-logical or physical or mechanical problems except dust.”– Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Technical Debrief The Apollo missions revealed the impact of lu-nar dust on mechanisms. Lunar dust particles are jagged and electrostatically charged, giving them the ability to bind or damage mechanisms and alter thermal properties. Reports documented clogged equipment and jammed mechanisms in every mission, regardless of surface duration, as well as clogged mechanisms in the Extravehicular Mobility Suit (EMS), including zippers, wrist and hose locks, faceplates, and sunshades [1-2]. Several astronauts remarked they could not have sustained surface activity much longer because clogged joints would have frozen up completely [2]. Effective dust mitigation strategies are need-ed to support longer duration stays on the lunar surface [3-4]. State of the Art: Technology for mechanisms able to operate in dusty enviroments is advancing rapidly due to the needs of both Mars rovers and the Artemis program. Vacuum-tight connectors are essential for spacesuits and habitats, and their performance can be dependent on cleaning technologies, which have proven difficult on the lunar surface. Several TRL 3-5 technologies are undergoing tests with the expectation to reach TRL 6 within 1-2 years. Some mechanisms will be infused and tested on the VIPER (Volatiles Inves-tigating Polar Exploration Rover) mission planned for mid-2020s. NASA Funded Efforts: NASA has recognized the need for dust tolerant mechanisms, and has partnered with industry to advance the state-of-the-art. At NASA GRC, KSC, and JSC, the Dust Tolerant Mechanisms Project is working to devel-op advanced actuator seals for rotary joints and rotary bearing technologies for long-term sus-tained operation in lunar dust environments. An-other NASA project at NASA GRC, partnered with GSFC, JPL, and KSC is Motors for Dusty & Ex-treme Cold Environments (MDECE). MDECE is developing an unheated magnetically-geared mo-tor that can operate continuously for a long dura-tion at an ambient temperature of -243 ºC (33 K). NASA GRC has the capability to characterize the effects of dust on seals, mechanisms, and other mating surfaces and components under lunar conditions [5]. Through the SBIR/STTR program, NASA has funded several companies to advance dust toler-ant mechanisms via the Dust Tolerant Mecha-nisms sub-topic with applications in surface mobil-ity, spacesuits, connectors, joints, and more. LSIC and Community Efforts: The Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) Dust Miti-gation focus group has fostered collaborations across NASA, industry, and academia to develop solutions that minimizes the impact of lunar dust on robotic and human systems. Community ef-forts have included topical meetings on dust tol-erant mechanisms, featured technology presenta-tions, and feedback to NASA on potential gaps and needs. Testing: In 2021, NASA released NASA-STD-1008 [6]. This NASA Technical Standard estab-lishes minimum requirements and provides guid-ance for testing systems and hardware to be ex-posed to dust in planetary environments. The standard has specific sections dedicated to Mechanisms Testing (e.g. bearings, gears) as well as Seals and Mating Surfaces Testing (e.g. hatches, docking systems). Gaps and Needs: NASA is tracking dust tol-erant mechanisms as a gap in a cross-directorate analysis of capability areas needed to enable fu-ture human space-flight architectures. Two high-priority gap areas include additional facilities for testing mechanisms in lunar-surface conditions, and a better understanding of vulnerabilities to the smallest, nanometer-scale dust particles. Conclusion: Understanding and mitigating lu-nar dust is critical to successful, sustained opera-tions on the lunar surface – whether autonomous or otherwise. This presentation will discuss both the state-of-the-art and open needs in lunar dust tolerant mechanisms, technology impacts, mitiga-tion approaches, testing, LSIC community efforts, and more. References: [1] Gaier, J. R. (2020). The Im-pact of Dust on Lunar Surface Equipment During Apollo. Lunar Dust 2020. [2] GRC, & Gaier, J. R. (2005). The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Sys-tems During the Apollo Missions. [3] Johansen, M. R. (2020). An Update on NASA’s Lunar Dust Mitigation Strategy. Lunar Dust 2020. [4] ASI, CSA, ESA, JAXA, & NASA. (2016). Dust Mitiga-tion Gap Assessment Report. [5] Jimenez, N. et al (2022), LPSC Abstract 2572. [6] NASA-STD-1008, 2021.

J I Nunez↗