Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Automating”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Configuring the Orion Guidance, Navigation, and Control Flight Software for Automated Sequencing

The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is being designed with greater automation capabilities than any other crewed spacecraft in NASA s history. The Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) flight software architecture is designed to provide a flexible and evolvable framework that accommodates increasing levels of automation over time. Within the GN&C flight software, a data-driven approach is used to configure software. This approach allows data reconfiguration and updates to automated sequences without requiring recompilation of the software. Because of the great dependency of the automation and the flight software on the configuration data, the data management is a vital component of the processes for software certification, mission design, and flight operations. To enable the automated sequencing and data configuration of the GN&C subsystem on Orion, a desktop database configuration tool has been developed. The database tool allows the specification of the GN&C activity sequences, the automated transitions in the software, and the corresponding parameter reconfigurations. These aspects of the GN&C automation on Orion are all coordinated via data management, and the database tool provides the ability to test the automation capabilities during the development of the GN&C software. In addition to providing the infrastructure to manage the GN&C automation, the database tool has been designed with capabilities to import and export artifacts for simulation analysis and documentation purposes. Furthermore, the database configuration tool, currently used to manage simulation data, is envisioned to evolve into a mission planning tool for generating and testing GN&C software sequences and configurations. A key enabler of the GN&C automation design, the database tool allows both the creation and maintenance of the data artifacts, as well as serving the critical role of helping to manage, visualize, and understand the data-driven parameters both during software development and throughout the life of the Orion project.

Odegard, Ryan G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MOC Automation with GMSEC and the Generic Extendable Message Utility (GEMU)

Automation has become critical for ground systems, improving efficiency and reliability while reducing costs across mission operations. The Goddard Mission Services Evolution Center (GMSEC) software suite has played a significant role in enabling this automation, leveraging its publish/subscribe paradigm through a message bus architecture to facilitate seamless communication and data flow. Historically, the GMSEC suite, through components like Criteria Action Table (CAT) has been pivotal in automating ground system capabilities. However, as technology advances, limitations in automation with CAT have emerged, creating an opportunity to enhance ground system automation through the introduction of GEMU. This new GMSEC component brings new capabilities and addresses specific automation constraints that CAT could not overcome, allowing for more sophisticated, flexible, and efficient message processing. GEMU, at its core, is designed to accelerate the development of custom GMSEC-compliant applications. It enables users to construct automated message processing pipelines quickly, supporting both drag-and-drop web-based configuration and scripting through a simple domain-specific language. This advancement not only simplifies the process but also reduces the time needed for implementing automated solutions. This presentation will outline GEMU’s potential value in improving mission operations automation. It will highlight the benefits of transitioning from CAT to GEMU and offer insights into how GEMU can drive operational efficiencies. We will also provide an overview of the automation capabilities of GEMU and its potential impact on mission operations centers (MOCs).

GMSEC↗
NASA NTRS2023

A Meta-Analytic Approach to Investigating the Relationship Between Human-Automation Trust and Attention Allocation

Trust and attention allocation are pivotal determinants in human-automation interaction. However, there are scarce empirical findings regarding the relationship between trust and attention allocation. Observations from our previous work suggested there may be a negative correlation between trust in automation and eye movement towards automation, though no formal analysis of these data had been conducted to quantify this relationship. The present meta-analysis examined the relationship between three dimensions of trust in automation (performance, process, and purpose) and visual attention allocation to the automation. Specifically, we applied Cumming’s (2014) meta-analysis technique to combine evidence across three experiments. Results indicated a negative correlation between trust in automation and visual sampling of the automated system monitoring task for performance-based trust, but not for process- or purpose-based trust. These findings suggest that operators scanned the automation’s behavior less frequently when indicating higher performance-based trust towards the automation.

Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT)↗
NASA NTRS1997

Team play with a powerful and independent agent: operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A-320

Research and operational experience have shown that one of the major problems with pilot-automation interaction is a lack of mode awareness (i.e., the current and future status and behavior of the automation). As a result, pilots sometimes experience so-called automation surprises when the automation takes an unexpected action or fails to behave as anticipated. A lack of mode awareness and automation surprises can he viewed as symptoms of a mismatch between human and machine properties and capabilities. Changes in automation design can therefore he expected to affect the likelihood and nature of problems encountered by pilots. Previous studies have focused exclusively on early generation "glass cockpit" aircraft that were designed based on a similar automation philosophy. To find out whether similar difficulties with maintaining mode awareness are encountered on more advanced aircraft, a corpus of automation surprises was gathered from pilots of the Airbus A-320, an aircraft characterized by high levels of autonomy, authority, and complexity. To understand the underlying reasons for reported breakdowns in human-automation coordination, we also asked pilots about their monitoring strategies and their experiences with and attitude toward the unique design of flight controls on this aircraft.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗
NASA NTRS2010

A Comparison Between Orion Automated and Space Shuttle Rendezvous Techniques

The Orion spacecraft will replace the space shuttle and will be the first human spacecraft since the Apollo program to leave low earth orbit. This vehicle will serve as the cornerstone of a complete space transportation system with a myriad of mission requirements necessitating rendezvous to multiple vehicles in earth orbit, around the moon and eventually beyond . These goals will require a complex and robust vehicle that is, significantly different from both the space shuttle and the command module of the Apollo program. Historically, orbit operations have been accomplished with heavy reliance on ground support and manual crew reconfiguration and monitoring. One major difference with Orion is that automation will be incorporated as a key element of the man-vehicle system. The automated system will consist of software devoted to transitioning between events based on a master timeline. This effectively adds a layer of high level sequencing that moves control of the vehicle from one phase to the next. This type of automated control is not entirely new to spacecraft since the shuttle uses a version of this during ascent and entry operations. During shuttle orbit operations however many of the software modes and hardware switches must be manually configured through the use of printed procedures and instructions voiced from the ground. The goal of the automation scheme on Orion is to extend high level automation to all flight phases. The move towards automation represents a large shift from current space shuttle operations, and so these new systems will be adopted gradually via various safeguards. These include features such as authority-to-proceed, manual down modes, and functional inhibits. This paper describes the contrast between the manual and ground approach of the space shuttle and the proposed automation of the Orion vehicle. I will introduce typical orbit operations that are common to all rendezvous missions and go on to describe the current Orion automation architecture and contrast it with shuttle rendezvous techniques and circumstances. The shuttle rendezvous profile is timed to take approximately 3 days from orbit insertion to docking at the International Space Station (ISS). This process can be divided into 3 phases: far-field, mid-field and proximity operations. The far-field stage is characterized as the most quiescent phase. The spacecraft is usually too far to navigate using relative sensors and uses the Inertial Measurement Units (IMU s) to numerically solve for its position. The maneuvers are infrequent, roughly twice per day, and are larger than other burns in the profile. The shuttle uses this opportunity to take extensive ground based radar updates and keep high fidelity orbit states on the ground. This state is then periodically uplinked to the shuttle computers. The targeting solutions for burn maneuvers are also computed on the ground and uplinked. During the burn the crew is responsible for setting the shuttle attitude and configuring the propulsion system for ignition. Again this entire process is manually driven by both crew and ground activity. The only automatic processes that occur are associated with the real-time execution of the burn. The Orion automated functionality will seek to relieve the workload of both the crew and ground during this phase

Ruiz, Jose O,↗
NASA NTRS2013

Transitioning Resolution Responsibility between the Controller and Automation Team in Simulated NextGen Separation Assurance

As part of an ongoing research effort on separation assurance and functional allocation in NextGen, a controller- in-the-loop study with ground-based automation was conducted at NASA Ames' Airspace Operations Laboratory in August 2012 to investigate the potential impact of introducing self-separating aircraft in progressively advanced NextGen timeframes. From this larger study, the current exploratory analysis of controller-automation interaction styles focuses on the last and most far-term time frame. Measurements were recorded that firstly verified the continued operational validity of this iteration of the ground-based functional allocation automation concept in forecast traffic densities up to 2x that of current day high altitude en-route sectors. Additionally, with greater levels of fully automated conflict detection and resolution as well as the introduction of intervention functionality, objective and subjective analyses showed a range of passive to active controller- automation interaction styles between the participants. Not only did the controllers work with the automation to meet their safety and capacity goals in the simulated future NextGen timeframe, they did so in different ways and with different attitudes of trust/use of the automation. Taken as a whole, the results showed that the prototyped controller-automation functional allocation framework was very flexible and successful overall.

NextGen↗
NASA NTRS2017

Autonomy and Automation

A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms autonomy and automation. Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present definitions of automation, pilot in the loop, pilot on the loop and pilot out of the loop. We further propose that in future, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) RPAS Panel avoids the use of the terms autonomy and autonomous when referring to automated systems on board RPA. Work Group 7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of Levels of Automation for RPAS.

rometly piloted aircraft↗
NASA NTRS1990

Evolution paths for advanced automation

As Space Station Freedom (SSF) evolves, increased automation and autonomy will be required to meet Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP) objectives. As a precursor to the use of advanced automation within the SSFP, especially if it is to be used on SSF (e.g., to automate the operation of the flight systems), the underlying technologies will need to be elevated to a high level of readiness to ensure safe and effective operations. Ground facilities supporting the development of these flight systems -- from research and development laboratories through formal hardware and software development environments -- will be responsible for achieving these levels of technology readiness. These facilities will need to evolve support the general evolution of the SSFP. This evolution will include support for increasing the use of advanced automation. The SSF Advanced Development Program has funded a study to define evolution paths for advanced automaton within the SSFP's ground-based facilities which will enable, promote, and accelerate the appropriate use of advanced automation on-board SSF. The current capability of the test beds and facilities, such as the Software Support Environment, with regard to advanced automation, has been assessed and their desired evolutionary capabilities have been defined. Plans and guidelines for achieving this necessary capability have been constructed. The approach taken has combined indepth interviews of test beds personnel at all SSF Work Package centers with awareness of relevant state-of-the-art technology and technology insertion methodologies. Key recommendations from the study include advocating a NASA-wide task force for advanced automation, and the creation of software prototype transition environments to facilitate the incorporation of advanced automation in the SSFP.

Healey, Kathleen J.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Automation Bias: Decision Making and Performance in High-Tech Cockpits

Automated aids and decision support tools are rapidly becoming indispensible tools in high-technology cockpits, and are assuming increasing control of "cognitive" flight tasks, such as calculating fuel-efficient routes, navigating, or detecting and diagnosing system malfunctions and abnormalities. This study was designed to investigate "automation bias," a recently documented factor in the use of automated aids and decision support systems. The term refers to omission and commission errors resulting from the use of automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Glass-cockpit pilots flew flight scenarios involving automation "events," or opportunities for automation-related omission and commission errors. Pilots who perceived themselves as "accountable" for their performance and strategies of interaction with the automation were more likely to double-check automated functioning against other cues, and less likely to commit errors. Pilots were also likely to erroneously "remember" the presence of expected cues when describing their decision-making processes.

Mosier, Kathleen L.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Three Experiments Examining the Use of Electroencephalogram,Event-Related Potentials, and Heart-Rate Variability for Real-Time Human-Centered Adaptive Automation Design

Adaptive automation represents an advanced form of human-centered automation design. The approach to automation provides for real-time and model-based assessments of human-automation interaction, determines whether the human has entered into a hazardous state of awareness and then modulates the task environment to keep the operator in-the-loop , while maintaining an optimal state of task engagement and mental alertness. Because adaptive automation has not matured, numerous challenges remain, including what the criteria are, for determining when adaptive aiding and adaptive function allocation should take place. Human factors experts in the area have suggested a number of measures including the use of psychophysiology. This NASA Technical Paper reports on three experiments that examined the psychophysiological measures of event-related potentials, electroencephalogram, and heart-rate variability for real-time adaptive automation. The results of the experiments confirm the efficacy of these measures for use in both a developmental and operational role for adaptive automation design. The implications of these results and future directions for psychophysiology and human-centered automation design are discussed.

Prinzel, Lawrence J., III↗
NASA NTRS2007

Physiological Self-Regulation and Adaptive Automation

Adaptive automation has been proposed as a solution to current problems of human-automation interaction. Past research has shown the potential of this advanced form of automation to enhance pilot engagement and lower cognitive workload. However, there have been concerns voiced regarding issues, such as automation surprises, associated with the use of adaptive automation. This study examined the use of psychophysiological self-regulation training with adaptive automation that may help pilots deal with these problems through the enhancement of cognitive resource management skills. Eighteen participants were assigned to 3 groups (self-regulation training, false feedback, and control) and performed resource management, monitoring, and tracking tasks from the Multiple Attribute Task Battery. The tracking task was cycled between 3 levels of task difficulty (automatic, adaptive aiding, manual) on the basis of the electroencephalogram-derived engagement index. The other two tasks remained in automatic mode that had a single automation failure. Those participants who had received self-regulation training performed significantly better and reported lower National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index scores than participants in the false feedback and control groups. The theoretical and practical implications of these results for adaptive automation are discussed.

Prinzell, Lawrence J.↗
NASA NTRS2014

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

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

Whitlow, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2013

Aviation Safety: Modeling and Analyzing Complex Interactions between Humans and Automated Systems

The on-going transformation from the current US Air Traffic System (ATS) to the Next Generation Air Traffic System (NextGen) will force the introduction of new automated systems and most likely will cause automation to migrate from ground to air. This will yield new function allocations between humans and automation and therefore change the roles and responsibilities in the ATS. Yet, safety in NextGen is required to be at least as good as in the current system. We therefore need techniques to evaluate the safety of the interactions between humans and automation. We think that current human factor studies and simulation-based techniques will fall short in front of the ATS complexity, and that we need to add more automated techniques to simulations, such as model checking, which offers exhaustive coverage of the non-deterministic behaviors in nominal and off-nominal scenarios. In this work, we present a verification approach based both on simulations and on model checking for evaluating the roles and responsibilities of humans and automation. Models are created using Brahms (a multi-agent framework) and we show that the traditional Brahms simulations can be integrated with automated exploration techniques based on model checking, thus offering a complete exploration of the behavioral space of the scenario. Our formal analysis supports the notion of beliefs and probabilities to reason about human behavior. We demonstrate the technique with the Ueberligen accident since it exemplifies authority problems when receiving conflicting advices from human and automated systems.

Muti-agent System↗
NASA NTRS2014

Human Factors of Automation in the Airline Cockpit

The introduction of automation to the automobile is following an approach similar to that used to bring automation to the airline cockpit. As technologies incrementally became available to automate portions of the flying task, pilots were left to perform those portions of the task for which engineers were still working towards automating. A number of problems have resulted from this process of gradual takeover of a job once performed entirely by humans. Pilots struggle to maintain awareness of a task with which they are no longer intimately involved and of complex technologies that they do not fully understand. Particularly difficult problems arise when increasingly reliable automated systems reach the limits of their capabilities and require pilots to suddenly exercise manual control and reasoning skills that have slipped away as a result of disuse. We argue that car automation will face these problems and more. Aviation enjoys a broad system of redundancies and safety nets, and, high in the sky, more time to address any problems that arise. We review the literature describing problems that were observed as automation was introduced to the airline cockpit and invite car automation designers to consider how they might play out as technology is gradually introduced to cars and drivers.

Casner, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2014

Some Challenges in the Design of Human-Automation Interaction for Safety-Critical Systems

Increasing amounts of automation are being introduced to safety-critical domains. While the introduction of automation has led to an overall increase in reliability and improved safety, it has also introduced a class of failure modes, and new challenges in risk assessment for the new systems, particularly in the assessment of rare events resulting from complex inter-related factors. Designing successful human-automation systems is challenging, and the challenges go beyond good interface development (e.g., Roth, Malin, & Schreckenghost 1997; Christoffersen & Woods, 2002). Human-automation design is particularly challenging when the underlying automation technology generates behavior that is difficult for the user to anticipate or understand. These challenges have been recognized in several safety-critical domains, and have resulted in increased efforts to develop training, procedures, regulations and guidance material (CAST, 2008, IAEA, 2001, FAA, 2013, ICAO, 2012). This paper points to the continuing need for new methods to describe and characterize the operational environment within which new automation concepts are being presented. We will describe challenges to the successful development and evaluation of human-automation systems in safety-critical domains, and describe some approaches that could be used to address these challenges. We will draw from experience with the aviation, spaceflight and nuclear power domains.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS2017

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Panel (RPASP) Working Paper: Autonomy and Automation

A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms "autonomy" and "automation". Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that RPAS automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present a definition of "automation". We recommend that autonomy and autonomous operations are out of the scope of the RPAS panel. WG7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of "Levels of Automation" for RPAS.

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRS1980

Flight-deck automation - Promises and problems

The paper analyzes the role of human factors in flight-deck automation, identifies problem areas, and suggests design guidelines. Flight-deck automation using microprocessor technology and display systems improves performance and safety while leading to a decrease in size, cost, and power consumption. On the other hand negative factors such as failure of automatic equipment, automation-induced error compounded by crew error, crew error in equipment set-up, failure to heed automatic alarms, and loss of proficiency must also be taken into account. Among the problem areas discussed are automation of control tasks, monitoring of complex systems, psychosocial aspects of automation, and alerting and warning systems. Guidelines are suggested for designing, utilising, and improving control and monitoring systems. Investigation into flight-deck automation systems is important as the knowledge gained can be applied to other systems such as air traffic control and nuclear power generation, but the many problems encountered with automated systems need to be analyzed and overcome in future research.

Wiener, E. L.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Understanding and avoiding potential problems in implementing automation

Technology-driven efforts to implement automation often encounter problems due to lack of acceptance or begrudging acceptance by the personnel involved. It is argued in this paper that the level of automation perceived by an individual heavily influences whether or not the automation is accepted by that individual. The factors that appear to affect perceived level of automation are discussed. Issues considered include the impact of automation on the system and the individual, correlates of acceptance, problems and risks of automation, and factors influencing alienation. Based on an understanding of these issues, a set of eight guidelines is proposed as a possible means of avoiding problems in implementing automation.

Rouse, W. B.↗