Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human-robot interface”

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.

29 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Advantages of Brahms for Specifying and Implementing a Multiagent Human-Robotic Exploration System

We have developed a model-based, distributed architecture that integrates diverse components in a system designed for lunar and planetary surface operations: an astronaut's space suit, cameras, all-terrain vehicles, robotic assistant, crew in a local habitat, and mission support team. Software processes ('agents') implemented in the Brahms language, run on multiple, mobile platforms. These mobile agents interpret and transform available data to help people and robotic systems coordinate their actions to make operations more safe and efficient. The Brahms-based mobile agent architecture (MAA) uses a novel combination of agent types so the software agents may understand and facilitate communications between people and between system components. A state-of-the-art spoken dialogue interface is integrated with Brahms models, supporting a speech-driven field observation record and rover command system. An important aspect of the methodology involves first simulating the entire system in Brahms, then configuring the agents into a runtime system Thus, Brahms provides a language, engine, and system builder's toolkit for specifying and implementing multiagent systems.

Clancey, William J.↗
NASA NTRS2003

A Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of Human Space Missions for the Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM)

The Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM) Project u7ill study and solve systems-level integration issues for exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), through the design and development of a ground-based facility for developing revolutionary integrated systems for joint human-robotic missions. This paper describes a Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) of human space missions that was developed to help define the direction and priorities for AIM. Risk analysis is required for all major NASA programs and has been used for shuttle, station, and Mars lander programs. It is a prescribed part of early planning and is necessary during concept definition, even before mission scenarios and system designs exist. PRA cm begin when little failure data are available, and be continually updated and refined as detail becomes available. PRA provides a basis for examining tradeoffs among safety, reliability, performance, and cost. The objective of AIM's PRA is to indicate how risk can be managed and future human space missions enabled by the AIM Project. Many critical events can cause injuries and fatalities to the crew without causing loss of vehicle or mission. Some critical systems are beyond AIM's scope, such as propulsion and guidance. Many failure-causing events can be mitigated by conducting operational tests in AIM, such as testing equipment and evaluating operational procedures, especially in the areas of communications and computers, autonomous operations, life support, thermal design, EVA and rover activities, physiological factors including habitation, medical equipment, and food, and multifunctional tools and repairable systems. AIM is well suited to test and demonstrate the habitat, life support, crew operations, and human interface. Because these account for significant crew, systems performance, and science risks, AIM will help reduce mission risk, and missions beyond LEO are far enough in the future that AIM can have significant impact.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Human-Robot Control Strategies for the NASA/DARPA Robonaut

The Robotic Systems Technology Branch at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is currently developing robot systems to reduce the Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) and planetary exploration burden on astronauts. One such system, Robonaut, is capable of interfacing with external Space Station systems that currently have only human interfaces. Robonaut is human scale, anthropomorphic, and designed to approach the dexterity of a space-suited astronaut. Robonaut can perform numerous human rated tasks, including actuating tether hooks, manipulating flexible materials, soldering wires, grasping handrails to move along space station mockups, and mating connectors. More recently, developments in autonomous control and perception for Robonaut have enabled dexterous, real-time man-machine interaction. Robonaut is now capable of acting as a practical autonomous assistant to the human, providing and accepting tools by reacting to body language. A versatile, vision-based algorithm for matching range silhouettes is used for monitoring human activity as well as estimating tool pose.

Diftler, M. A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Development and Deployment of Robonaut 2 to the International Space Station

The development of the Robonaut 2 (R2) system was a joint endeavor with NASA and General Motors, producing robots strong enough to do work, yet safe enough to be trusted to work near humans. To date two R2 units have been produced, designated as R2A and R2B. This follows more than a decade of work on the Robonaut 1 units that produced advances in dexterity, tele-presence, remote supervision across time delay, combining mobility with manipulation, human-robot interaction, force control and autonomous grasping. Design challenges for the R2 included higher speed, smaller packaging, more dexterous fingers, more sensitive perception, soft drivetrain design, and the overall implementation of a system software approach for human safety, At the time of this writing the R2B unit was poised for launch to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard STS-133. R2 will be the first humanoid robot in space, and is arguably the most sophisticated robot in the world, bringing NASA into the 21st century as the world's leader in this field. Joining the other robots already on ISS, the station is now an exciting lab for robot experiments and utilization. A particular challenge for this project has been the design and certification of the robot and its software for work near humans. The 3 layer software systems will be described, and the path to ISS certification will be reviewed. R2 will go through a series of ISS checkout tests during 2011. A taskboard was shipped with the robot that will be used to compare R2B's dexterous manipulation in zero gravity with the ground robot s ability to handle similar objects in Earth s gravity. R2's taskboard has panels with increasingly difficult tasks, starting with switches, progressing to connectors and eventually handling softgoods. The taskboard is modular, and new interfaces and experiments will be built up using equipment already on ISS. Since the objective is to test R2 performing tasks with human interfaces, hardware abounds on ISS and the crew will be involved to help select tasks that are dull, dirty or dangerous. Future plans for R2 include a series of upgrades, evolving from static IVA (Intravehicular Activity) operations, to mobile IVA, then EVA (Extravehicular Activity).

Ambrose, Robert O.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Evidence Report, Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration

The success of future exploration missions depends, even more than today, on effective integration of humans and technology (automation and robotics). This will not emerge by chance, but by design. Both crew and ground personnel will need to do more demanding tasks in more difficult conditions, amplifying the costs of poor design and the benefits of good design. This report has looked at the importance of good design and the risks from poor design from several perspectives: 1) If the relevant functions needed for a mission are not identified, then designs of technology and its use by humans are unlikely to be effective: critical functions will be missing and irrelevant functions will mislead or drain attention. 2) If functions are not distributed effectively among the (multiple) participating humans and automation/robotic systems, later design choices can do little to repair this: additional unnecessary coordination work may be introduced, workload may be redistributed to create problems, limited human attentional resources may be wasted, and the capabilities of both humans and technology underused. 3) If the design does not promote accurate understanding of the capabilities of the technology, the operators will not use the technology effectively: the system may be switched off in conditions where it would be effective, or used for tasks or in contexts where its effectiveness may be very limited. 4) If an ineffective interaction design is implemented and put into use, a wide range of problems can ensue. Many involve lack of transparency into the system: operators may be unable or find it very difficult to determine a) the current state and changes of state of the automation or robot, b) the current state and changes in state of the system being controlled or acted on, and c) what actions by human or by system had what effects. 5) If the human interfaces for operation and control of robotic agents are not designed to accommodate the unique points of view and operating environments of both the human and the robotic agent, then effective human-robot coordination cannot be achieved.

Zumbado, Jennifer Rochlis↗
NASA NTRS2013

Gesture-Based Robot Control with Variable Autonomy from the JPL Biosleeve

This paper presents a new gesture-based human interface for natural robot control. Detailed activity of the user's hand and arm is acquired via a novel device, called the BioSleeve, which packages dry-contact surface electromyography (EMG) and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) into a sleeve worn on the forearm. The BioSleeve's accompanying algorithms can reliably decode as many as sixteen discrete hand gestures and estimate the continuous orientation of the forearm. These gestures and positions are mapped to robot commands that, to varying degrees, integrate with the robot's perception of its environment and its ability to complete tasks autonomously. This flexible approach enables, for example, supervisory point-to-goal commands, virtual joystick for guarded teleoperation, and high degree of freedom mimicked manipulation, all from a single device. The BioSleeve is meant for portable field use; unlike other gesture recognition systems, use of the BioSleeve for robot control is invariant to lighting conditions, occlusions, and the human-robot spatial relationship and does not encumber the user's hands. The BioSleeve control approach has been implemented on three robot types, and we present proof-of-principle demonstrations with mobile ground robots, manipulation robots, and prosthetic hands.

BioSleeve↗
NASA NTRS2013

Robotic Technology Development at Ames: The Intelligent Robotics Group and Surface Telerobotics

Future human missions to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations offer many new opportunities for exploration. But, astronaut time will always be limited and some work will not be feasible for humans to do manually. Robots, however, can complement human explorers, performing work autonomously or under remote supervision from Earth. Since 2004, the Intelligent Robotics Group has been working to make human-robot interaction efficient and effective for space exploration. A central focus of our research has been to develop and field test robots that benefit human exploration. Our approach is inspired by lessons learned from the Mars Exploration Rovers, as well as human spaceflight programs, including Apollo, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station. We conduct applied research in computer vision, geospatial data systems, human-robot interaction, planetary mapping and robot software. In planning for future exploration missions, architecture and study teams have made numerous assumptions about how crew can be telepresent on a planetary surface by remotely operating surface robots from space (i.e. from a flight vehicle or deep space habitat). These assumptions include estimates of technology maturity, existing technology gaps, and likely operational and functional risks. These assumptions, however, are not grounded by actual experimental data. Moreover, no crew-controlled surface telerobotic system has yet been fully tested, or rigorously validated, through flight testing. During Summer 2013, we conducted a series of tests to examine how astronauts in the International Space Station (ISS) can remotely operate a planetary rover across short time delays. The tests simulated portions of a proposed human-robotic Lunar Waypoint mission, in which astronauts in lunar orbit remotely operate a planetary rover on the lunar Farside to deploy a radio telescope array. We used these tests to obtain baseline-engineering data.

robotics↗
NASA NTRS2016

Anthropomorphic Robot Design and User Interaction Associated with Motion

Though in its original concept a robot was conceived to have some human-like shape, most robots now in use have specific industrial purposes and do not closely resemble humans. Nevertheless, robots that resemble human form in some way have continued to be introduced. They are called anthropomorphic robots. The fact that the user interface to all robots is now highly mediated means that the form of the user interface is not necessarily connected to the robots form, human or otherwise. Consequently, the unique way the design of anthropomorphic robots affects their user interaction is through their general appearance and the way they move. These robots human-like appearance acts as a kind of generalized predictor that gives its operators, and those with whom they may directly work, the expectation that they will behave to some extent like a human. This expectation is especially prominent for interactions with social robots, which are built to enhance it. Often interaction with them may be mainly cognitive because they are not necessarily kinematically intricate enough for complex physical interaction. Their body movement, for example, may be limited to simple wheeled locomotion. An anthropomorphic robot with human form, however, can be kinematically complex and designed, for example, to reproduce the details of human limb, torso, and head movement. Because of the mediated nature of robot control, there remains in general no necessary connection between the specific form of user interface and the anthropomorphic form of the robot. But their anthropomorphic kinematics and dynamics imply that the impact of their design shows up in the way the robot moves. The central finding of this report is that the control of this motion is a basic design element through which the anthropomorphic form can affect user interaction. In particular, designers of anthropomorphic robots can take advantage of the inherent human-like movement to 1) improve the users direct manual control over robot limbs and body positions, 2) improve users ability to detect anomalous robot behavior which could signal malfunction, and 3) enable users to be better able to infer the intent of robot movement. These three benefits of anthropomorphic design are inherent implications of the anthropomorphic form but they need to be recognized by designers as part of anthropomorphic design and explicitly enhanced to maximize their beneficial impact. Examples of such enhancements are provided in this report. If implemented, these benefits of anthropomorphic design can help reduce the risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation Robotic Integration (HARI) associated with the HARI-01 gap by providing efficient and dexterous operator control over robots and by improving operator ability to detect malfunctions and understand the intention of robot movement.

automation/robotic integration↗
NASA NTRS2018

Human-Automation Allocations for Current Robotic Space Operations

Within the Human Research Program, one risk delineates the uncertainty surrounding crew working with automation and robotics in spaceflight. The Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI) is concerned with the detrimental effects on crew performance due to ineffective user interfaces, system designs and/or functional task allocation, potentially compromising mission success and safety. Risk arises because we have limited experience with complex automation and robotics. One key gap within HARI, is the gap related to functional allocation. The gap states: We need to evaluate, develop, and validate methods and guidelines for identifying human-automation/robot task information needs, function allocation, and team composition for future long duration, long distance space missions. Allocations determine the human-system performance as it identifies the functions and performance levels required by the automation/robotic system, and in turn, what work the crew is expected to perform and the necessary human performance requirements. Allocations must take into account each of the human, automation, and robotic systems capabilities and limitations. Some functions may be intuitively assigned to the human versus the robot, but to optimize efficiency and effectiveness, purposeful role assignments will be required. The role of automation and robotics will significantly change in future exploration missions, particularly as crew becomes more autonomous from ground controllers. Thus, we must understand the suitability of existing function allocation methods within NASA as well as the existing allocations established by the few robotic systems that are operational in spaceflight. In order to evaluate future methods of robotic allocations, we must first benchmark the allocations and allocation methods that have been used. We will present 1) documentation of human-automation-robotic allocations in existing, operational spaceflight systems; and 2) To gather existing lessons learned and best practices in these role assignments, from spaceflight operational experience of crew and ground teams that may be used to guide development for future systems. NASA and other space agencies have operational spaceflight experience with two key Human-Automation-Robotic (HAR) systems: heavy lift robotic arms and planetary robotic explorers. Additionally, NASA has invested in high-fidelity rover systems that can carry crew, building beyond Apollo's lunar rover. The heavy lift robotic arms reviewed are: Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS), and the European Robotic Arm (ERA, designed but not deployed in space). The robotic rover systems reviewed are: Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Science Laboratory rover, and the high-fidelity K10 rovers. Much of the design and operational feedback for these systems have been communicated to flight controllers and robotic design teams. As part of the mitigating the HARI risk for future human spaceflight operations, we must document function allocations between robots and humans that have worked well in practice.

robotic allocation↗