Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Automation and 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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Resource Management for Real-Time Adaptive Agents

Increased autonomy and automation in onboard flight systems offer numerous potential benefits, including cost reduction and greater flexibility. The existence of generic mechanisms for automation is critical for handling unanticipated science events and anomalies where limitations in traditional control software with fixed, predetermined algorithms can mean loss of science data and missed opportunities for observing important terrestrial events. We have developed such a mechanism by adding a Hierarchical Agent-based ReaLTime technology (HART) extension to our Dynamic Resource Management (DRM) middleware. Traditional DRM provides mechanisms to monitor the realtime performance of distributed applications and to move applications among processors to improve real-time performance. In the HART project we have designed and implemented a performance adaptation mechanism to improve reaktime performance. To use this mechanism, applications are developed that can run at various levels of quality. The DRM can choose a setting for the quality level of an application dynamically at run-time in order to manage satellite resource usage more effectively. A groundbased prototype of a satellite system that captures and processes images has also been developed as part of this project to be used as a benchmark for evaluating the resource management framework A significant enhancement of this generic mission-independent framework allows scientists to specify the utility, or "scientific benefit," of science observations under various conditions like cloud cover and compression method. The resource manager then uses these benefit tables to determine in redtime how to set the quality levels for applications to maximize overall system utility as defined by the scientists running the mission. We also show how maintenance functions llke health and safety data can be integrated into the utility framework. Once thls framework has been certified for missions and successfully flight tested it can be reused with little development overhead for other missions. In contrast, current space missions llke Swift manage similar types of resource trade -off completely with the scientific application code itself, and such code must be re-certified and tested for each mission even if a large portion of the code base is shared. This final report discusses some of the major issues motivating this research effort, provides a literature review of the related work, discusses the resource management framework and ground-based satellite system prototype that has been developed, indicates what work is yet to be performed, and provides a list of publications resulting from this work.

Welch, Lonnie↗
NASA NTRS2004

Simulation-Based Verification of Autonomous Controllers via Livingstone PathFinder

AI software is often used as a means for providing greater autonomy to automated systems, capable of coping with harsh and unpredictable environments. Due in part to the enormous space of possible situations that they aim to addrs, autonomous systems pose a serious challenge to traditional test-based verification approaches. Efficient verification approaches need to be perfected before these systems can reliably control critical applications. This publication describes Livingstone PathFinder (LPF), a verification tool for autonomous control software. LPF applies state space exploration algorithms to an instrumented testbed, consisting of the controller embedded in a simulated operating environment. Although LPF has focused on NASA s Livingstone model-based diagnosis system applications, the architecture is modular and adaptable to other systems. This article presents different facets of LPF and experimental results from applying the software to a Livingstone model of the main propulsion feed subsystem for a prototype space vehicle.

Lindsey, A. E.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Mitchell, J.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, (AR&D).) The crewed versions of the spacecraft may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Howard, Richard T.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Integrated Docking Simulation and Testing with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree of Freedom Dynamic Test System

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Constellation Program; this is carried as one of the CEV Project top risks. The Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation. One of the project activities is a series of "pathfinder" testing and simulation activities to integrate relative navigation sensors with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree-of-Freedom Test System (SDTS). The SDTS will be the primary testing location for the Orion spacecraft s Low Impact Docking System (LIDS). Project team members have integrated the Orion simulation with the SDTS computer system so that real-time closed loop testing can be performed with relative navigation sensors and the docking system in the loop during docking and undocking scenarios. Two relative navigation sensors are being used as part of a "pathfinder" activity in order to pave the way for future testing with the actual Orion sensors. This paper describes the test configuration and test results.

Mitchell, Jennifer D.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-loop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of"pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS. The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (1) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multi-sensor series of trajectories.

Brewster, L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Lab

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success ofthe Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-Ioop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of "pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS.' The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (l) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multisensor series oftrajectories

Brewster, Linda L.↗
NASA NTRS2005

NASA/GSFC Onboard Autonomy For The Swift Mission

This viewgraph presentation reviews the work that NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is currently doing and has been involved in in developing onboard autonomy and automation. Emphasis is given to the work being done for the Swift observatory

Ong, John↗
NASA NTRS2013

Introduction to Space Resource Mining

There are vast amounts of resources in the solar system that will be useful to humans in space and possibly on Earth. None of these resources can be exploited without the first necessary step of extra-terrestrial mining. The necessary technologies for tele-robotic and autonomous mining have not matured sufficiently yet. The current state of technology was assessed for terrestrial and extraterrestrial mining and a taxonomy of robotic space mining mechanisms was presented which was based on current existing prototypes. Terrestrial and extra-terrestrial mining methods and technologies are on the cusp of massive changes towards automation and autonomy for economic and safety reasons. It is highly likely that these industries will benefit from mutual cooperation and technology transfer.

Mueller, Robert P.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Software Engineering for Human Spaceflight

The Spacecraft Software Engineering Branch of NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) provides world‐class products, leadership, and technical expertise in software engineering, processes, technology, and systems management for human spaceflight. The branch contributes to major NASA programs (e.g. ISS, MPCV/Orion) with in‐house software development and prime contractor oversight, and maintains the JSC Engineering Directorate CMMI rating for flight software development. Software engineering teams work with hardware developers, mission planners, and system operators to integrate flight vehicles, habitats, robotics, and other spacecraft elements. They seek to infuse automation and autonomy into missions, and apply new technologies to flight processor and computational architectures. This presentation will provide an overview of key software‐related projects, software methodologies and tools, and technology pursuits of interest to the JSC Spacecraft Software Engineering Branch.

Fredrickson, Steven E.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Human Performance Contributions to Safety in Commercial Aviation

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

Null, Cynthia H.↗
NASA NTRS1998

V & V of A Spacecrafts Autonomous Planner Through Extended Automation

We have introduced and used significant automation during the verification and validation (V & V) of a spacecraft's autonomous planner. This paper describes the problem we faced, the solution we employed, and the applicability of our approach in a general V & V setting.

planning↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Base Construction Overview

Previous lunar missions and campaigns have been restricted to using robotic landers and lunar orbiting satellites as well as sortie type of operations using astronaut crews (NASA Apollo program). The next phase of lunar exploration has begun under NASA’s Artemis program and there has been an international response where other nations such as China, Russia, India, Canada, Japan and the European Union of nations, have all expressed interest in either collaborating or competing with NASA on the Moon. This next phase has an over arching goal of achieving a permanent human presence on the Moon via sustainable methods. A lunar base with human occupancy will require infrastructure to provide shelter, utilities, landing/launch pads, roads, communications, power and all the other necessities to sustain human life and protect equipment. Since human biology is not well suited for surviving in the lunar environment, there will be many forms of automated equipment, autonomy and robotic helpers that will minimize the amount of Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) required by the crew. This will mean that the radiation dosage received by the crew will stay within acceptable and safe career doses. The required infrastructure must be constructed, but the mass and logistics of bringing all the construction materials from Earth are prohibitive, which makes the necessary construction difficult to achieve. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) aims to solve this challenge by sourcing construction materials locally or “in-situ”. This means that their transportation can be completely eliminated, resulting in large cost savings by avoiding the launch out of Earth’s deep gravity well and subsequent trans lunar injection, lunar orbit capture and landing. This paper will give an overview of the required construction tasks and related equipment that will be required to robotically build a lunar base using in-situ resources. It will also organize these tasks into logical groupings so that technology development and implementation can be pursued within a framework that can be referenced by all involved.

Construction↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Surface Systems Capability Gaps for Enabling NASA’s Sustainable Lunar Operations

This paper discusses the NASA Ground, Test, and Surface Systems Taxonomy (TX-13) related capability gaps, including details of architecture, technology, engineering, and policy gaps for enabling sustainable lunar surface operations and subsequent Mars missions. Architecture gaps include standardized architectures and interfaces, multi-element systems engineering and integration, design for supportability, and nuclear payload processing and launch approach. Technology gaps, primarily focused on uncrewed surface operations, include automated/autonomous cryogenic loading, transfer, servicing, and storage of commodities; health determination and fault management; automated/autonomous planning and scheduling; automated/autonomous inspection, maintenance and repair; logistics management and reliability; launch and landing site preparation; commodity management; and advanced umbilicals and dust tolerant interfaces. Engineering gaps include high-purity propellant production for ground and surface applications and large-scale xenon servicing capabilities. The policy gap includes nuclear propulsion acceptance testing and qualification approach. Strategically identifying human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle is essential for achieving the mission objectives for a sustainable human lunar presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations costs and reliance on humans to perform tasks, and accommodating ground communication delays.

Surface Systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Base Construction Overview

Previous lunar missions and campaigns have been restricted to using robotic landers and lunar orbiting satellites as well as sortie type of operations using astronaut crews (NASA Apollo program). Now, the next phase of lunar exploration has begun under NASA’s Artemis program and there has been an international response where other nations such as China, Russia, India, Canada, Japan and the European Union of nations, have all expressed interest in either collaborating or competing with NASA on the Moon. This next phase has an over arching goal of achieving a permanent human presence on the Moon via sustainable methods. A lunar base with human occupancy will require infrastructure to provide shelter, utilities, landing/launch pads, roads, communications, power and all the other necessities to sustain human life and protect equipment. Since human biology is not well suited for surviving in the lunar environment, there will be many forms of automated equipment, autonomy and robotic helpers that will minimize the amount of Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) required by the crew. This will mean that the radiation dosage received by the crew will stay within acceptable and safe career doses. Radiation shielding via the use of regolith can also mitigate radiation dangers. The required infrastructure must be constructed, but the mass and logistics of bringing all the construction materials from Earth are prohibitive, which makes the necessary construction difficult to achieve. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) aims to solve this challenge by sourcing construction materials locally or “in-situ”. This means that their transportation can be completely eliminated, resulting in large cost savings by avoiding the launch out of Earth’s deep gravity well and subsequent trans lunar injection, lunar orbit capture and landing. This paper will give an overview of the required construction tasks and related equipment that will be required to robotically build a lunar base using in-situ resources. It will also organize these tasks into logical groupings so that technology development and implementation can be pursued within a framework that can be referenced by all involved.

Lunar Base↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Base Construction Planning

Previous lunar missions and campaigns have been restricted to using robotic landers and lunar orbiting satellites as well as sortie type of operations using astronaut crews(NASA Apollo program).Now, the next phase of lunar exploration has begun under NASA’s Artemis program and there has been an international response where other nations such as China, Russia, India, Canada, Japan and theEuropean Union of nations, have all expressed interest in either collaborating or competing with NASA on theMoon. This next phase has an overarching goal of achieving a permanent human presence on theMoon via sustainable methods. A lunar base with human occupancy will require infrastructure to provide shelter, utilities, landing/launch pads, roads, communications, power and all the other necessities to sustain human life and protect equipment.Since human biology is not well suited for surviving in the lunar environment, there will be many forms of automated equipment, autonomy and robotic helpers that will minimize the amount of Extra-Vehicular Activity(EVA) required by the crew. This will mean that the radiation dosage received by the crew will stay within acceptable and safe career doses. Radiation shielding via the use of regolith can also mitigate radiation dangers.The required infrastructure must be constructed, but the mass and logistics of bringing all the construction materials from Earth are prohibitive, which makes the necessary construction difficult to achieve.In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) aims to solve this challenge by sourcing construction materials locally or “in-situ”. This means that their transportation can be completely eliminated, resulting in large cost savings by avoiding the launch out of Earth’s deep gravity well and subsequent trans lunar injection, lunar orbit capture and landing. This paper will give ahistorical review and current status of lunar construction planning and a high level introduction to the required infrastructure and construction equipment that will be required to robotically build a lunar base using in-situ resources.It will also organize these tasks into logical groupings so that technology development and implementation can be pursued within a framework that can be referenced by all involved.

Lunar↗