SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Negotiation”

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.

At least 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2002

Demonstration of a Spoken Dialogue Interface for Planning Activities of a Semi-autonomous Robot

Planning and scheduling in the face of uncertainty and change pushes the capabilities of both planning and dialogue technologies by requiring complex negotiation to arrive at a workable plan. Planning for use of semi-autonomous robots involves negotiation among multiple participants with competing scientific and engineering goals to co-construct a complex plan. In NASA applications this plan construction is done under severe time pressure so having a dialogue interface to the plan construction tools can aid rapid completion of the process. But, this will put significant demands on spoken dialogue technology, particularly in the areas of dialogue management and generation. The dialogue interface will need to be able to handle the complex dialogue strategies that occur in negotiation dialogues, including hypotheticals and revisions, and the generation component will require an ability to summarize complex plans. This demonstration will describe a work in progress towards building a spoken dialogue interface to the EUROPA planner for the purposes of planning and scheduling the activities of a semi-autonomous robot. A prototype interface has been built for planning the schedule of the Personal Satellite Assistant (PSA), a mobile robot designed for micro-gravity environments that is intended for use on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. The spoken dialogue interface gives the user the capability to ask for a description of the plan, ask specific questions about the plan, and update or modify the plan. We anticipate that a spoken dialogue interface to the planner will provide a natural augmentation or alternative to the visualization interface, in situations in which the user needs very targeted information about the plan, in situations where natural language can express complex ideas more concisely than GUI actions, or in situations in which a graphical user interface is not appropriate.

Dowding, John↗

NASA NTRS2008

The Costs of Knowledge

Acquiring knowledge-genuinely learning something new-requires the consent and commitment of the person you're trying to learn from. In contrast to information, which can usually be effectively transmitted in a document or diagram, knowledge comes from explaining, clarifying, questioning, and sometimes actually working together. Getting this kind of attention and commitment often involves some form of negotiation, since even the most generous person's time and energy are limited. Few experts sit around waiting to share their knowledge with strangers or casual acquaintances. In reasonably collaborative enterprises- I think NASA is one-this sort of negotiation isn't too onerous. People want to help each other and share what they know, so the "cost" of acquiring knowledge is relatively low. In many organizations (and many communities and countries), however, there are considerable costs associated with this activity, and many situations in which negotiations fail. The greatest knowledge cost is in and adopting knowledge to one's own use. Sometimes this means formally organizing what one learns in writing. Sometimes it means just taking time to reflect on someone else's thoughts and experiences-thinking about knowledge that is not exactly what you need but can lead you to develop ideas that will be useful. A long, discursive conversation, with all the back-and-forth that defines conversation, can be a mechanism of knowledge exchange. I have seen many participants at NASA APPEL Masters Forums talking, reflecting, and thinking-adapting what they are hearing to their own needs. Knowledge transfer is not a simple proposition. An enormous amount of information flows through the world every day, but knowledge is local, contextual, and "stickyn-that is, it takes real effort to move it from one place to another. There is no way around this. To really learn a subject, you have to work at it, you have to pay your "knowledge dues." So while, thanks to advances in technology, almost infinite amounts of information are instantly available, it still takes the same amount of time and work to learn French as it did in the year 1800-or to master physics or philosophy.

Prusak, Laurence↗

NASA NTRS2012

One Engine Inoperative (OEI) and Autorotation For Heavy Lift Rotorcraft Systems

Federal Aviation Administration will certainly require the Heavy Lift Rotorcraft to be operated under Category A performance and operations requirements. Because of the weight, no operation will be allowed except Category A according to FAA Part 29.1(c). This means that any where along the flight path, the aircraft must be able to land safely following an engine failure or continue flight. A repeatable flight profile must be developed and executed to ensure that the aircraft can be safely landed or flown away depending on its location on the flight profile. This means that there will be no Height-Velocity testing required as is currently required for Part 29 Category B. Since all the configurations shown to date are different than existing rotorcraft, each type would have to develop their individual requirements under existing special conditions FAA Part 21.17(b). This means the FAA will take the opportunity to negotiate additional requirements or change requirements to ensure safety. For example, since the tiltrotor did not fit normal rotorcraft category, new rules were negotiated between the applicant and the FAA. As a result of this negotiation, performance requirements for Category A were increased. The rules were written in terms of guaranteed performance instead of Category A requirements. Detailed discussion will follow later. The proposed tiltrotor would likely follow along with the current tiltrotor rules with the possibility of increase Category A performance requirements. Compounding with addition of wing and auxiliary thrust to both the tandem and coaxial rotor would result in new special condition aircraft. To my knowledge, no compound tandem or compound coaxial rotor has ever been certified by FAA.

Wood, Tom↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A 3D Simulation Platform for Decentralized Decision-Making in Advanced Air Mobility

This paper presents a general purpose, plug-and-play simulation platform for the use of future aviation stakeholders, such as urban airspace planners, air vehicle operators, ground operation managers, air traffic controllers and aviation researchers. The presented simulator platform is envisioned to serve as a toolkit to visualize, evaluate, and configure future advanced air mobility (AAM) operations. Highlighting features of this toolkit include a modular architecture that allows multiple smart unmanned aerial systems (UASs) to remotely connect to the simulation server and participate in decentralized decision-making scenario simulations. As an example of the decentralized decision-making scenario, an inter-agent negotiation-based conflict resolution use case is considered in this paper, where the UASs leverage the on-board/on-the-edge artificial intelligence (AI) capability to continually build situational awareness, and use this information to predict future conflicts and resolve them through machine-to-machine negotiation. As such operations are non-existent at scale currently, the presented simulation platform offers a viable and cost-effective alternative for assessing the efficacy of AAM research outcomes and challenges in future shared airspace usage. The simulation platform allows plug-n-play connectivity with AI and non-AI compute modules representing individual UAS’s flight control. Each module can interact with the simulation platform independently to communicate current and desired future states, situational awareness, and conflict resolution utilization costs for inter-agent negotiation. The simulation environment orchestrates realistic operational scenarios with spatiotemporal details, dynamic events, tactical conflict-resolution methods, interfaces for customizing air traffic control parameters, and information exchange uncertainties. In the future, this can serve as a community focused cloud simulation platform, incorporating multi-stakeholder airspace constraints from regulatory, government, city, and local agencies.

Aditya N Das↗

NASA NTRS2022

A 3D Simulation Platform for Decentralized Decision-Making in Advanced Air Mobility

Aditya Das↗

NASA NTRS1978

Approach to Spacelab Payload mission management

The nucleus of the approach to Spacelab Payload mission management is the establishment of a single point of authority for the entire payload on a given mission. This single point mission manager will serve as a 'broker' between the individual experiments and the STS, negotiating agreements by two-part interaction. The payload mission manager, along with a small support team, will represent the users in negotiating use of STS accommodations. He will provide the support needed by each individual experimenter to meet the scientific, technological, and applications objectives of the mission with minimum cost and maximum efficiency. The investigator will assume complete responsibility for his experiment hardware definition and development and will take an active role in the integration and operation of his experiment.

Craft, H. G.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Space law and its applications for the future

The paper outlines space law as it currently stands and sets forth the arena in which such law has been negotiated. Note is taken of the flexibility set forth in these negotiated treaties and the fact that the treaties provide the necessary framework for the development of cooperative space activities in the future.

Kupperman, Helen S.↗

NASA NTRS1993

New mission requirements methodologies for services provided by the Office of Space Communications

The Office of Space Communications, NASA Headquarters, has recently revised its methodology for receiving, accepting and responding to customer requests for use of that office's tracking and communications capabilities. This revision is the result of a process which has become over-burdened by the size of the currently active and proposed missions set, requirements reviews that focus on single missions rather than on mission sets, and negotiations most often not completed early enough to effect needed additions to capacity or capability prior to launch. The requirements-coverage methodology described is more responsive to project/program needs and provides integrated input into the NASA budget process early enough to effect change, and describes the mechanisms and tools in place to insure a value-added process which will benefit both NASA and its customers. Key features of the requirements methodology include the establishment of a mechanism for early identification of and systems trades with new customers, and delegates the review and approval of requirements documents to NASA centers in lieu of Headquarters, thus empowering the system design teams to establish and negotiate the detailed requirements with the user. A Mission Requirements Request (MRR) is introduced to facilitate early customer interaction. The expected result is that the time to achieve an approved set of implementation requirements which meet the customer's needs can be greatly reduced. Finally, by increasing the discipline in requirements management, through the use of base lining procedures, a tighter coupling between customer requirements and the budget is provided. A twice-yearly projection of customer requirements accommodation, designated as the Capacity Projection Plan (CPP), provides customer feedback allowing the entire mission set to be serviced.

Holmes, Dwight P.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Multiple Hub Network Choice in the Liberalized European Market

A key question that so far has received relatively little attention in the germane literature is that of the changes at various airports as a result of the EU liberalization policies. That is, presently, most major European airports still benefit from the so-called home-carrier phenomenon where the country's publicly or semi-publicly owned carrier uses the country's main airport as its gateway hub and, consequently, the home-carrier is also the principal user of this airport (in terms of proportion of total aircraft movements, number of passengers transported, connections, slots ownership, etc.). The country's main airport has substantially benefited from these monopoly conditions of airline captivity, strongly determined by the bilateral system of international air transport regulation. Therefore, European major airports were used to operate in essentially different markets, compared to the increasingly competitive markets of their home based carriers. This partly explains relative stability of transport volumes and financial results of European major airports compared to the relatively volatile financial results of most European national airlines. However, the liberalization of European aviation is likely to change this situation. Market access is open now to all community carriers, i.e. carriers with majority ownership and effective control in the hands of EU citizens. Ticket prices are free, governments can only intervene in case of dumping or excessive pricing. A community airline can choose its seat in any of the 15 member states. Licensing procedures are harmonized between member states. In the last few months community carriers have had unrestricted route access within the EU. Most probably this development will be extended to countries inside and outside Europe. Last year the European Commission got the mandate to start negotiations with 10 other European countries. In the meantime the EC has also started negotiations with the USA on so-called soft rights. In the meantime, open skies agreements have been concluded between the USA and most of the EU member states to facilitate strategic alliances between airlines of the states involved. As a result of this on-going liberalization the model of the single 'national' carrier using the national home base as its single hub for the designated third, fourth and sixth freedom operations will stepwise disappear. Within the EU the concept of the national carrier has already been replaced by that of the community carrier. State ownership in more and more European carriers is reduced. On the longer run mergers or even bankruptcy will further undermine the "single national carrier - single national hub" model in Europe. In the meantime, strategic alliances between national carriers in Europe will already reduce the airlines' loyalty to a single airport. Profit maximization and accountability to share holders will supersede the loyalty of these newly emerging alliances, probably looking for the opportunities of a multiple hub network to adequately cover the whole European market. As a consequence, some European airports might see a substantial decline in arriving, departing and transfer traffic, thus in revenues and financial solvency, as well as in their connection to other inter-continental and intra-European destinations. At the same time, other airports might realize a significant increase in traffic as they will be sought after by the profit maximizing airlines as their major gateway hubs. Which will be the losing airports and which will be the winning ones? Can airports anticipate the actions of airlines in deregulated markets and utilize policies which will improve their relative position? If so, what should be these anticipatory policies? These questions become the more urgent, since an increasing number of major European airports will be privatized in the near future. Although increasing airport congestion in Europe will also be reflected in a growing demand pressure for airport slots, this is not a guarantee for a stable transport volume growth of individual airports. The more volatile the market is, the more vulnerable privatized airports become. Therefore, the main issue of this study is the analysis of the opportunities of major European airports to become a central hub as a result of the network choices made by the new European airlines in a completely liberalized market. In a previous study (Berechman and de Wit, 1996), we already explored the potential of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol of becoming the major West-European hub, once European aviation markets are deregulated. A major hindrance of that study was the use of a single hub-and-spoke network. For example that model could not analyze the viability of different combinations of European hubs within a multiple hub network of alternative airline alliances. In this study, we have formulated the model of a multi-hub network where two West-European airports are used for inter-continental and intra-European travel to enable a more realistic analysis of hub choice. Like the previous one also this multi-hub model is primarily used to assess the potential ability of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol for becoming a major West-European hub. Thus, in particular, the policy tests focus on this airport in a double hub network.

Berechman, Joseph↗

NASA NTRS1998

Monographs in Aerospace History Series No. 11. Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Participation in the Space Station

This essay is a history and analysis of the steps leading to the origins of the space station partnership between the United States and its closest allies. It traces the process that led to the decision to invite other countries to participate in the project and their reasons for accepting that invitation. Not covered in this account are the difficult negotiations during the 1984-1988 period that led first to an initial set of agreements that allowed the prospective partners to work together during the early stages of the space station program and then to the final set of agreements creating the original space station partnership. Also, the 1993 invitation to the Russian Federation to join the original partners is not discussed, nor are the subsequent negotiations to revise the 1988 agreements.

Logsdon, John M.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Bargaining for Open Skies

In this paper we analyze the bargaining problem between countries when negotiating bilateral air service agreements. To do so, we use the methods of bargaining and game theory. We give special attention to the case where a liberal minded country is trying to convince a less liberal country to agree to bilateral open skies, and the liberal country might also unilaterally open up its market. The following analysis is positive in the sense that the results help explain and predict the outcome of negotiations under different payoffs and structures of the bargaining process. They are normative in the sense that adequate manipulation of the bargaining conditions can ensure a desired outcome.

Wojahn, Oliver W.↗

NASA NTRS2001

National Environmental Change Information System Case Study

The Global Hydrology and Climate Center and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a fact-finding case study for the Data Management Working Group (DMWG), now referred to as the Data and Information Working Group (DIWG), of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to determine the feasibility of an interagency National Environmental Change Information System (NECIS). In order to better understand the data and information needs of policy and decision makers at the national, state, and local level, the DIWG asked the case study team to choose a regional water resources issue in the southeastern United States that had an impact on a diverse group of stakeholders. The southeastern United States was also of interest because the region experiences interannual climatic variations and impacts due to El Nino and La Nina. Jointly, with input from the DIWG, a focus on future water resources planning in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River basins of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida was selected. A tristate compact and water allocation formula is currently being negotiated between the states and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) that will affect the availability of water among competing uses within the ACF River basin. All major reservoirs on the ACF are federally owned and operated by the U.S. Army COE. A similar two-state negotiation is ongoing that addresses the water allocations in the adjacent Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River basin, which extends from northwest Georgia to Mobile Bay. The ACF and ACT basins are the subject of a comprehensive river basin study involving many stakeholders. The key objectives of this case study were to identify specific data and information needs of key stakeholders in the ACF region, determine what capabilities are needed to provide the most practical response to these user requests, and to identify any limitations in the use of federal data and information. The NECIS case study followed the terms of reference developed by the interagency DIWG. The case study "lessons learned" and "key findings" offer guidelines and considerations to the DMWG for the development and implementation of a NECIS that would support the data and information needs of policy and decision makers at the national, state, and local level.

Goodman, S. J.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Free Flight and Self-Separation from the Flight Deck Perspective

The concept of "free flight", while still being developed, is intended to emphasize more, flexibility for operators in the National Airspace System (NAS) by providing more separation responsibility to pilots, New technologies, procedures, and concepts have been suggested by the aviation community to enable this task; however, much work needs to be accomplished to help define and evaluate the concept feasibility. The purpose of this simulation was to begin examining some of the communication and procedural issues associated with self-separation in the enroute environment. A simulation demonstration was conducted in the Boeing 747-400 simulator at NASA Ames Research Center. Commercial pilots (from a U.S. domestic carrier) current on the B747-400 aircraft were the participants. Ten flight crews (10 captains, 10 first officers) flew in the Denver enroute airspace environment. A new alerting logic designed to allow for airborne self-separation was created for this demonstration. This logic assumes automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) capability and represented aircraft up to 120 nautical miles on the display. The new flight deck display features were designed and incorporated on the existing navigational display in the simulator to allow for increased traffic and maneuvering information to the flight crew. New tools were also provided to allow the crews to assess conflicts and potential maneuvers before implementing them. Each of the flight crews flew eight different scenarios in the Denver enroute airspace. The scenarios included eight to ten other aircraft, and each scenario was created with the intent of having one of the other aircraft become an operational conflict for our simulator aircraft. Different types of conflict geometries were represented across the eight scenarios. Also, some scenarios allowed for more time to detect a potential clearance, while others allowed for less time for'detection. Additionally, the crews were asked to a ply the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) right of way rules when determining who should maneuver in a conflict situation; therefore, the scenarios were designed to test different applications of those recommendations, Data analyses include an evaluation of crew procedures and communication. The application of the VFR right-of-way rules are being explored. Timing variables are being examined to determine potential efficiency differences between scenarios and conflict types. Proximity of aircraft will be assessed as one indication of the operational safety. The intent of these evaluations is to help provide definitions and guidelines of negotiation procedures in a self-separation environment assuming automated data link technology (ADS-B). Also, definitions of likely flight crew maneuvers and application to current VFR right-of-way rules may be obtained, along with guidelines for negotiation procedures between flight crews.

Lozito, Sandra↗

NASA NTRS1998

Rovers for Mars Polar Exploration

Mobility is a generic capability needed for Mars exploration. Requirements for mobility range from those to get observations of individual rocks all the way to getting high resolution observations of regional areas. Table 1 shows the required-range of mobility to achieve various tasks. The Pathfinder mission and field experiments simulating rover missions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] provide guidance as to rover capabilities that can reasonably be expected in the next decade. Rover mobility can be accomplished in a variety of ways, the most common being wheels or tracks and legged-walkers. Wheeled vehicles can traverse over rocks smaller than 1/2 wheel diameter, and with path planning to avoid larger rocks, can traverse terrains comparable to those seen on Mars in the Viking and Pathfinder landing sites. Slopes of 45 deg can be easily negotiated by wheeled rovers. Walking vehicles can negotiate even more complex terrain but requires computation capability to select each leg placement. Extremely complex terrain was traversed by the Nomad II walker which descended into (and most of the way out of) an active volcanic caldera (Mount Spur, AK) in 1995, although a slope failure eventually resulted in broken legs. The traverse range of a rover is limited by its science objectives, performance capabilities, and operational lifetime. The speed of rover traverse is a relative minor factor. With a different communication system, and no stops for science experiments, Sojourner could probably have traveled a kilometer. But, achieving land speed records is not a major objective of a science mission. Achieving science objectives requires targeting particular objects and studying them in detail, and the associated operational requirements will likely limit rover traverse range significantly. Traversing from target to target requires relatively few command cycles provided the traverse is over a short enough distance that it can be adequately planned. An operational goal of 100 m traverse per command cycle, arriving at a predetermined target, seems achievable. Investigating science targets requiring manipulator or instrument placement and sample collection will likely take several command cycles per target. Mission simulations [6] have demonstrated that traverse dI stances of 100-300 m, with detailed investigation of 5-10 targets take 50-100 command cycles, not unlike the Pathfinder experience in spite of the use of larger, faster, more capable rovers. Significant advances in rover autonomy will be needed to improve this Situation and it is not clear how much improvement will be brought to flight programs in the next decade. Dust accumulation on solar panels degrades power over time and, without dust removal, rover operational lifetimes may be limited to 90 sols.

Stoker, Carol↗

NASA NTRS2002

Simplify and Succeed

In the early 70's the management at the American Stock Exchange wanted a set of automated displays installed on the trading floor. The purpose of the displays was to announce to the public all changes related to the trading of equities. I had exactly three months to get the work done. Because of local building codes, I was told that the displays that met the specifications would not be available until nine months after the order was placed. This was not acceptable to the Exchange's management. The project team was in a quandary. I called a meeting to discuss the situation and develop a report explaining why we needed more time. Jokingly, I suggested, 'Why not use picket signs?' The Exchange had just gone through some painful labor negotiations. To anyone who had been involved in those negotiations, the thought of a picket sign should have sounded, I thought, like gallows humor. This was not acceptable to the Exchange's management. To my surprise, the rest of the project team took the idea seriously.

Levine, Art↗

NASA NTRS2002

The Mars Exploration Rover/Collaborative Information Portal

Astrology has long argued that the alignment of the planets governs human affairs. Science usually scoffs at this. There is, however, an important exception: sending spacecraft for planetary exploration. In late May and early June, 2003, Mars will be in position for Earth launch. Two Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) will rocket towards the red planet. The rovers will perform a series of geological and meteorological experiments, seeking to examine geological evidence for water and conditions once favorable for life. Back on earth, a small army of surface operations staff will work to keep the rovers running, sending directions for each day's operations and receiving the files encoding the outputs of the Rover's six instruments. (Mars is twenty light minutes from Earth. The rovers must be robots.) The fundamental purpose of the project is, after all, Science. Scientists have experiments they want to run. Ideally, scientists want to be immediately notified when the data products of their experiments have been received, so that they can examine their data and (collaboratively) deduce results. Mars is an unpredictable environment. We may issue commands to the rovers but there is considerable uncertainty in how the commands will be executed and whether what the rovers sense will be worthy of further pursuit. The steps of what is, to a scientist, conceptually an individual experiment may be scattered over a large number of activities. While the scientific staff has an overall strategic idea of what it would like to accomplish, activities are planned daily. The data and surprises of the previous day need to be integrated into the negotiations for the next day's activities, all synchronized to a schedule of transmission windows . Negotiations is the operative term, as different scientists want the resources to run possibly incompatible experiments. Many meetings plan each day's activities.

Walton, Joan↗

NASA NTRS2004

Argumentation for coordinating shared activities

an increasing need for space missions to be able to collaboratively (and competitively) develop plans both within and across missions. In addition, interacting spacecraft that interleave onboard planning and execution must reach consensus on their commitments to each other prior to execution. In domains where missions have varying degrees of interaction and different constraints on communication and computation, the missions will require different coordination protocols in order to efficiently reach consensus with in their imposed deadlines. We describe a Shared Activity Coordination (SHAC) framework that provides a decentralized algorithm for negotiating the scheduling of shared activities over the lifetimes of multiple agents and a foundation for customizing protocols for negotiating planner interactions. We investigate variations of a few simple protocols based on argumentation and distributed constraints satisfaction techniques and evaluate their abilities to reach consistent solutions according to computation, time, and communication costs in an abstract domain where spacecraft propose joint measurements.

Mars↗

NASA NTRS2003

Continual coordination through shared activities

Interacting agents that interleave planning and execution must reach consensus on their commitments to each other. In domains where agents have varying degrees of interaction and different constraints on communication and computation, agents will require different coordination protocols in order to efficiently reach consensus in real time. We briefly describe a largely unexplored class of realtime, distributed planning problems (inspired by interacting spacecraft missions), new challenges they pose, and a general approach to solving the problems. These problems involve self-interested agents that have infrequent communication but collaborate on joint activities. We describe a Shared Activity Coordination (SHAC) framework that provides a decentralized algorithm for negotiating the scheduling of shared activities over the lifetimes of separate missions, a soft, real-time approach to reaching consensus during execution with limited communication, and a foundation for customizing protocols for negotiating planner interactions. We apply SHAC to a realistic simulation of interacting Mars missions and illustrate the simplicity of protocol development.

planning↗