Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Integrated System Health Management (ISHM) and Autonomy

Systems capabilities on ISHM (Integrated System Health Management) and autonomy have traditionally been addressed separately. This means that ISHM functions, such as anomaly detection, diagnostics, prognostics, and comprehensive system awareness have not been considered traditionally in the context of autonomy functions such as planning, scheduling, and mission execution. One key reason is that although they address systems capabilities, both ISHM and autonomy have traditionally individually been approached as independent strategies and models for analysis. Additionally, to some degree, a unified paradigm for ISHM and autonomy has been difficult to implement due to limitations of hardware and software. This paper explores a unified treatment of ISHM and autonomy in the context of distributed hierarchical autonomous operations.

Figueroa, Fernando↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Designing for Advanced Aerial Mobility: Human-Autonomy Teaming and In-Time System-Wide Safety Assurance

The continued growth of aviation shall require new innovative technologies and operational concepts to meet the ever-increasing demands on air transportation. The NASA Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) project focuses on emerging aviation markets, such as Urban Air Mobility (UAM). UAM is defined as “...a safe and efficient system for air passenger and cargo transportation within an urban area. It is inclusive of small package delivery and other urban unmanned aerial system services and supports a mix of onboard/ground-piloted and increasingly autonomous operations” ([1]). The AAM project emphasizes technology development and validating system-level concepts and solutions in coordination with other NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) projects to enable UAM metro- and micro-plex vertiport and airspace concepts of operations. The NASA AAM research portfolio includes the concepts of Remote Supervisor-in-Command (RSC) and Fleet and Airspace Manager (FAM) as possible human roles for consumer fleet providers. NASA research in RSC is focused on development of guidelines and standards for remote pilots/operators passively and actively controlling a large fleet of autonomous aircraft. For FAM, flight and ground system concepts and technologies to enable high density homogeneous operations at increased scale from vertiport(s), and coordination with other humans in the systems (e.g., UAM urban airspace manager, Air Traffic Control) are key research areas. The envisioned UAM operations are posited to require autonomous systems to enable functions ranging from fleet and resource management to vehicle control. Although automation has become increasingly sophisticated and ubiquitous in civil aviation, autonomy represents a significant evolution in automation, which has generally been limited in functional scope and capability. As autonomy takes on increasing responsibilities, humans and machines will be required to work together in new and different ways [2], rather than traditional design approaches focused on how machines (i.e., autonomy) can do the work of people. The emerging field of human-autonomy teaming (HAT) represents a comprehensive and prioritized research-driven approach to enable the success of future emerging aviation market applications through capabilities and principles that facilitate humans and machine working and thinking better together. The NASA Transformational Tools and Technologies (TTT) Autonomous System (AS) Sub-project was created to assist with the transition into higher levels of autonomy to enable new modes of air transportation, such as UAM. TTT-AS has identified HAT as a key research need to enable UAM while maintaining today’s ultra-safe aviation system safety levels. The latter challenge has been taken up by the NASA System-Wide Safety (SWS) Project, which recognizes that aviation safety, as it evolves, shall require new ways of thinking about safety to include integration of a wide-range of existing and new safety systems and practices, enhanced tools and technologies, increased access to data and data fusion, improved data analysis capabilities, enhanced in-time risk monitoring and detection, hazard prioritization and mitigation, safety assurance decision-support, and in-time integrated system analytics [3].The operational concept of UAM represents a variety of work that has been termed, “work-as-imagined” to characterize the idea that how people think that work is done and how work is actually done are often not the same [4]. To ensure design success and system safety, looking at “work-as-done” provides a comparative approach toward UAM concept and technology design through examination of corresponding analogs found today in aviation (e.g., on-demand operations) and other transportation domains (e.g., port operations). The paper shall discuss various alternative applications with specific focus on airline operation center (AOC) operations, and unmanned aerial system (UAS) command-and-control to inform scaled-versions of FAM and RSC, respectively, and with consideration of the national airspace system contextual environment. The tenets and principles of the HAT field and current NASA research efforts under the TTT-AS sub-project shall also be described. Finally, the SWS sub-project efforts to develop In-Time System-Wide Safety Assurance (ISSA) and In-Time Safety Management Systems (IASMS) are discussed in terms of how “in-time” safety assurance may be conceptualized for the on-demand mobility air taxi “work-as-imagined” operational concept [5]. As part of this effort, concepts from the emerging field of resilience engineering, are being studied. Traditional approaches to aviation safety have focused on what can go wrong and how to prevent it. Another approach to thinking about system safety should reflect not only “avoiding things that go wrong” (protective safety) but also “ensuring that things go right” (productive safety), that enables a system to exhibit the resilient performance [6] necessary for the success of the future aviation system emerging concepts of operations. The paper shall describe efforts focused on how productive safety and resilience may enable a more complete approach to system safety thinking and design of ISSA and IASMS for UAM. Future directions and research needs shall also be discussed.

resilience↗
NASA NTRS2017

CARACaS multi-agent maritime autonomy for unmanned surface vehicles in the Swarm II harbor patrol demonstration

This paper describes new autonomy technology that enabled a team of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) to execute cooperative behaviors in the USV Swarm II harbor patrol demonstration and provides a description of autonomy performance in the event. The new developments extend the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s CARACaS (Control Architecture for Robotic Agent Command and Sensing) autonomy architecture, which pro- vides foundational software infrastructure, core executive functions, and several default robotic technology mod- ules. In Swarm II, CARACaS demonstrated higher levels of autonomy and more complex cooperation than previous on-water exercises, using full-sized vehicles and real-world sensing and communication. The core au- tonomous behaviors to support the harbor patrol scenario included Patrol, Track, Inspect, and Trail, providing the capability of finding all vessels entering the patrol area, keeping track of them, inspecting them to infer intent, and trailing suspect vessels. Significantly, CARACaS assumed responsibility for not only executing tasks safely and efficiently but also recognizing what tasks needed to be accomplished, given the current state of the world. Since the heterogeneous USV teams shared world model that evolved, such as due to (dis)appearance of vessels in the area or a change in health or availability of a USV, CARACaS replanned to generate and reallocate the new task list. Thus, human intervention was never required in the loop to task USVs during mission execution, though a supervisory role was supported in the autonomy system for mission monitoring and exception handling. Finally, CARACaS also ensured the USVs avoided hazards and obeyed the applicable rules of the road, using its local motion planning modules.

Sandoval, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2021

Demonstrations of System-Level Autonomy for Spacecraft

System-level autonomy refers to autonomously meeting the crosscutting needs of a system through awareness and coordinated control spanning the system's breadth of capabilities. In contrast to function-level autonomy, which focuses on capabilities required to achieve a specific function such as surface navigation or image recognition, system-level autonomy addresses the needs to coordinate and manage activities and resources, and estimate the state, across subsystems. This paper describes demonstrations that were conducted on a spacecraft workstation testbed. The autonomy was provided by system-level planning and execution integrated with system-level estimators of orbit knowledge and spacecraft hardware health. These components are embedded in a system-level framework defining how goals are formed and executed, which elements exist, and how control authority is distributed among components. The planning and execution system at the heart of the framework has the capability to schedule, execute and monitor completion of tasks, as well as plan around unexpected events including new science opportunities and anomalies. The planning and scheduling system is the Multi-mission EXECutive (MEXEC), supported by the system-level health state estimator Model-Based Off-Nominal State Identification and Detection (MONSID), and Autonomous Navigation (AutoNav) algorithms, which determine the orbital system state based on optical observation of other targets. These components are applicable to many kinds of missions on different platforms. These demonstrations were elaborations of earlier experiments conducted on the ASTERIA (Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research In Astrophysics) CubeSat, described in a companion submission [1]. The spacecraft’s extended mission served as an in-flight test platform, during which some individual autonomous capabilities were flown successfully. The autonomy experiments described here were performed on the ASTERIA workstation testbed.

Prather, Maurice↗
NASA NTRS2021

Autonomy for Deep Space Communications and Navigation

In more than 50 years of deep space exploration, the number and complexity of the world’s space missions have continued to increase. This has placed increasing demands on deep space communication and navigation. However, these demands have been met in spite of an essentially level overall budget. One of the reasons for this this has been the continual application of autonomy in various forms. The NASA Deep Space Network’s implementation of “Fol-low the Sun Operations” is a recent example – but certainly not the only one. During this same period, the end-to-end information system has been increasingly automated through the application of packet telemetry and virtual channels. Fully autonomous spacecraft navigation has been demonstrated, and more limited autonomy has been applied to the operational navigation process. This paper will show how autonomy and automation capabilities have been infused into operational deep space mission communication and navigation in both flight and ground systems as appropriate. It will further discuss ongoing work aimed at increasing the level of autonomy in the future, leverag-ing recent research and application of autonomy in everyday life.

Chang, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2023

Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels

Technology Readiness Levels are a mainstay for organizations that fund, develop, test, acquire, or use technologies. Technology Readiness Levels provide a standardized assessment of a technology’s maturity and enable consistent comparison among technologies. They inform decisions throughout a technology’s development life cycle, from concept, through development, to use. A variety of alternative Readiness Levels have been developed, including Algorithm Readiness Levels, manufacturing Readiness Levels, Human Readiness Levels, Commercialization Readiness Levels, Machine Learning Readiness Levels, and Technology Commitment Levels. However, while Technology Readiness Levels have been increasingly applied to emerging disciplines, there are unique challenges to assessing the rapidly developing capabilities of autonomy. This paper adopts the moniker of Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels to identify a two-dimensional scale of readiness and trust appropriate for the special challenges of assessing autonomy technologies that seek space use. It draws inspiration from other readiness levels’ definitions, and from the rich field of trust and trustworthiness. The Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels were developed by a collaborative Space Trusted Autonomy subgroup, which was created from The Space Science and Technology Partnership Forum between the United States Space Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Reconnaissance Office.

Kerianne L Hobbs↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementing Artificial Thinking Autonomy with Model-Based System Engineering

Complex autonomous systems capable of successfully operating independently under ‘known unknowns’ and harsh conditions require paradigm innovation in modern development strategies. In the field of autonomy, developing a system-of-systems which can ostensibly think for itself in the face of ‘unknown unknowns’ is still a field of ongoing research. Maturing the systems architecting and modeling methodologies for developing henceforth named Thinking Autonomous Systems, which are verified with digital mission simulation, can potentially usher in the next generation of artificial intelligence for space exploration. The concept presented in this paper incorporates multiple Model-Based Systems Engineering and simulation methodologies combined as a new paradigm to design a novel, biomimetic thinking autonomy strategy. Anachronistic concepts from classical Kantian philosophy will be leveraged to inspire architectural designs that could be used for complex distributed systems in deep space. To accomplish this, digital transformation of a document-based implementation plan for Thinking Autonomous Systems, generated by experienced NASA software engineers, is implemented for NASA’s Platform for Autonomous Systems by creating descriptive and executable software models in SysML to prototype real-time operating capabilities. This conceptual implementation has been developed by incorporating model-based digital simulations to theorize how a cyberphysical thinking system would achieve specific strategies without crew reliance, while simultaneously being resilient to all operating conditions and remaining functional when devoid of ground communication. Additionally, ensuring that an autonomous system framework is an ethical Artificial Intelligence requires careful consideration of system behavior and accountability, human factors for teaming with a thinking autonomous system, and comparison to other modern approaches used for implementing true autonomy. This paper presents the first steps in formalizing the metacognition required for instantiating a truly Thinking Autonomous System; the approach described symphonizes autonomy characteristics from classical philosophical into a unified software architecture describing human thought. In the future, the foundational models described in this paper can be further leveraged to help advance research into thinking autonomy requirements for future deep space missions as well as for current near-term applications, i.e., living aboard crewed spacecraft like a NASA Gateway cislunar habitat.

Artificial Thought↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Promoting Astronaut Autonomy in Human Spaceflight Missions

Mission operations will have to adapt for long duration, long distance human spaceflight missions. This change is driven mainly by the significantly different communication availability between Earth and space. As astronauts travel farther from Earth, the one-way communication latency increases; the amount of bandwidth will be limited; and there will be period of long and/or no communication. Currently, ground flight controllers collaborate and cooperate with astronauts in space to accomplish essential operational functions. Astronaut autonomy, i.e., the crew’s ability to work more independently from mission control, will be a key enabler in future exploration missions. Over the last several years, the NASA Ames Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Group has investigated various ways to promote and support astronaut autonomy in human spaceflight missions. Software prototypes are researched, designed, implemented, and assessed for their ability to enable astronaut autonomy. From integrated Internet of Thing for Space, advanced procedures interfaces, comm-delayed chats, and self-scheduling tools, the HCI Group has explored different aspects of astronaut autonomy. Specifically, the self-scheduling tool Playbook has been evaluated in analog extreme environments and onboard the International Space Station, successfully paving the way for future autonomous astronauts.

crew autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2014

Needs-Driven (Rationalistic) Autonomy

This presentation discusses rationalistic autonomy context, various autonomy scenarios of interest, and the technical challenges associated with autonomy.

Autonomy Challenges↗
NASA NTRS1975

SEPS guidance and navigation autonomy selection via mission analysis

A systematic rationale for selecting a cost-effective guidance and navigation (G & N) autonomy level for the solar electric propulsion stage (SEPS) vehicle is developed. After a definition of autonomy levels, a mission analysis is performed for representative SEPS missions using realistic G & N sensor hardware. Cost data for fabricating, integrating and refurbishing onboard avionics hardware and the ground costs corresponding to each autonomy level are generated. Results are presented that indicate performance of various G & N sensor hardware sets and the dominating factors which influence G & N autonomy level selection.

Causey, W.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Space station autonomy requirements

Several concepts of autonomy have emerged from space station technology and mission studies. Unifying these concepts is important to enabling the needs for and requirements of autonomous systems for a space station to be explored. One purpose of autonomy related to a space station is to offload routine, demonstrated, precisely specifiable tasks and functions from humans to machines in order to increase habitability, increase human-machine system productivity, or to decrease operational costs. Defining incremental roles, functions, and technical capabilities for autonomy leads to identification of computing systems technologies needed to enable various degrees of autonomy.

Anderson, J. L.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Progressive autonomy

The present investigation is concerned with the evolution of a space station in terms of the progression of autonomy, as systems perspectives and architectural concepts permit. The distinction between automation and autonomy is considered along with the evolution of autonomy, and the evolution of automation in station operations. Attention is given to the startup of a complex technological system, aspects of station control, questions of crew operational support, factors regarding the habitability of a space station, system design philosophy for autonomy, evolvability, latent capability, stage commonality, and multiple modularity. It is concluded that an evolutionary space station operating over a period of 10-20 years with a great increase in capability over that time will require a design philosophy which is more flexible and open-ended than for previous space systems.

Anderson, J. L.↗
NASA NTRS2002

A Facility and Architecture for Autonomy Research

Autonomy is a key enabling factor in the advancement of the remote robotic exploration. There is currently a large gap between autonomy software at the research level and software that is ready for insertion into near-term space missions. The Mission Simulation Facility (MST) will bridge this gap by providing a simulation framework and suite of simulation tools to support research in autonomy for remote exploration. This system will allow developers of autonomy software to test their models in a high-fidelity simulation and evaluate their system's performance against a set of integrated, standardized simulations. The Mission Simulation ToolKit (MST) uses a distributed architecture with a communication layer that is built on top of the standardized High Level Architecture (HLA). This architecture enables the use of existing high fidelity models, allows mixing simulation components from various computing platforms and enforces the use of a standardized high-level interface among components. The components needed to achieve a realistic simulation can be grouped into four categories: environment generation (terrain, environmental features), robotic platform behavior (robot dynamics), instrument models (camera/spectrometer/etc.), and data analysis. The MST will provide basic components in these areas but allows users to plug-in easily any refined model by means of a communication protocol. Finally, a description file defines the robot and environment parameters for easy configuration and ensures that all the simulation models share the same information.

Pisanich, Greg↗
NASA NTRS2004

Demonstrating Robotic Autonomy in NASA's Intelligent Systems Project

This paper will provide an overview of NASA's investments in autonomy during the past five years within the Intelligent Systems Project, with particular attention paid to investments that have resulted in mission infusion of autonomy technology, in particular, into the recent Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission. The content of the paper will be divided into two primary topic areas: a technical overview of the component technologies developed under the program, and a programmatic overview of the history and organization of the NASA IS project itself, with a focus on describing the program elements related to autonomy and intelligent robotics. The paper will also provide an overview of the September 2004 autonomy demonstrations, including a discussion of objectives, organization, and preliminary results (to the extent they are available before the submission deadline).

Morris, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2006

System Analysis Applied to Autonomy: Application to Human-Rated Lunar/Mars Landers

System analysis is an essential technical discipline for the modern design of spacecraft and their associated missions. Specifically, system analysis is a powerful aid in identifying and prioritizing the required technologies needed for mission and/or vehicle development efforts. Maturation of intelligent systems technologies, and their incorporation into spacecraft systems, are dictating the development of new analysis tools, and incorporation of such tools into existing system analysis methodologies, in order to fully capture the trade-offs of autonomy on vehicle and mission success. A "system analysis of autonomy" methodology will be outlined and applied to a set of notional human-rated lunar/Mars lander missions toward answering these questions: 1. what is the optimum level of vehicle autonomy and intelligence required? and 2. what are the specific attributes of an autonomous system implementation essential for a given surface lander mission/application in order to maximize mission success? Future human-rated lunar/Mars landers, though nominally under the control of their crew, will, nonetheless, be highly automated systems. These automated systems will range from mission/flight control functions, to vehicle health monitoring and prognostication, to life-support and other "housekeeping" functions. The optimum degree of autonomy afforded to these spacecraft systems/functions has profound implications from an exploration system architecture standpoint.

Young, Larry A.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Aeronautics Autonomy Testbed Capability (AATC) Team Developed Concepts

In 2015, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formed a multi-center, interdisciplinary team of engineers from three different aeronautics research centers who were tasked with improving NASA autonomy research capabilities. This group was subsequently named the Aeronautics Autonomy Testbed Capability (AATC) team. To aid in confronting the autonomy research directive, NASA contracted IDEO, a design firm, to provide consultants and guides to educate NASA engineers through the practice of design thinking, which is an unconventional method for aerospace design processes. The team then began learning about autonomy research challenges by conducting interviews with a diverse group of researchers and pilots, military personnel and civilians, experts and amateurs. Part of this design thinking process involved developing ideas for products or programs known as concepts that could enable real world fulfillment of the most important latent needs identified through analysis of the interviews. The concepts are intended to be sacrificial, intermediate steps in the design thinking process and are presented in this report to record the efforts of the AATC group. Descriptions are provided in present tense to allow for further ideation and imagining the concept as reality as was attempted during the teams discussions and interviews. This does not indicate that the concepts are actually in practice within NASA though there may be similar existing programs independent of AATC. These concepts were primarily created at two distinct stages during the design thinking process. After the initial interviews, there was a workshop for concept development and the resulting ideas are shown in this work as from the First Round. As part of succeeding interviews, the team members presented the First Round concepts to refine the understanding of existing research needs. This knowledge was then used to generate an additional set of concepts denoted as the Second Round. Some concepts were created by a single person in a few minutes while others were refined by the entire team over several weeks. Thus, certain ideas are more detailed than others but those from the second round are not necessarily more comprehensive than the first round concepts. Primarily, as reported here in the Second Round section, the designs serve to encompass more of the high level end user research needs which were not necessarily known to the team during the prior workshop. In the figures provided throughout this report, illustrations are often provided to represent a concept. Nearly all of the images are informal sketches or renderings and this casualness should, hopefully, not be held to negate the potential insights available within the concepts.

Smith, Phillip J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Design Considerations for a Variable Autonomy Executive for UAS in the NAS

This paper describes research targeted towards an autonomy executive (AOS) for UAS in the National Air Space (NAS). The project goal is to incrementally provide the knowledge and intelligence onboard a UAS to safely fly in the National Air Space, eventually autonomous from remote human ground crews and communicating directly with air traffic control. Longer-term, the goal is to provide the capability for pilotless air vehicles such as air taxis that will be key for new transportation concepts such as air mobility-on-demand. For both of these targeted applications, AOS is incorporating artificial intelligence capabilities that operationally meet human pilot competencies. Even when autonomy is achieved from a remote human ground crew, AOS will have variable degrees of autonomy with respect to air traffic control (ATC), just as human pilots do now. AOS has the capability of interacting in natural language with ATC, as well as through data link protocols. AOS can adapt to varying levels of autonomy and control directed by ATC in standard and relaxed FAA phraseology- from being vectored moment by moment, to accepting broad directives such as following a specified aircraft or sighting and avoiding traffic. AOS can autonomously manage contingencies such as vehicle systems degradations and failures. It incorporates a decision maker that takes information from multiple diagnostic reasoners, disambiguates (if needed) sensor results to specific failures using active mode changes, then projects forward the impact of the degradation on the nominal plan. If the nominal plan is no longer viable, then alternative plans are formulated, and subsequently selected and executed, including abort options.

Lowry, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2022

Formal Methods for Trusted Space Autonomy, Boon or Bane?

Trusted Space Autonomy is challenging in that space systems are complex artifacts deployed in a high stakes environment with complicated operational settings. Thus far these challenges have been met using the full arsenal of tools: formal methods, informal methods, testing, runtime techniques, and operations processes. Using examples from previous deployments of autonomy to the Remote Agent on DS-1, Autonomous Sciencecraft on EO-1, WATCH on MER, IPEX, AEGIS on MER, MSL, and M2020, and the M2020 Onboard planner, we discuss how each of these approaches have been used to enable successful deployment of autonomy. We next focus on relatively limited use of formal methods (both prior to deployment and runtime methods). From the needs perspective, formal methods represent the best chance for reliable autonomy as testing, informal methods, and operations accommodations do not scale well with increasing complexity of the autonomous system. However from the practice perspective, formal methods have been limited in their application due to difficulty in eliciting formal specifications and challenges in representing complex constraints such as metric time and resources. We discuss some of these challenges as well as the opportunity to extend formal and informal methods into runtime validation systems.

Chien, Steve↗