Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “subject matter experts”

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

Modeling to Improve the Risk Reduction Process for Command File Errors

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has learned that even innocuous errors in the spacecraft command process can have significantly detrimental effects on a space mission. Consequently, such Command File Errors (CFE), regardless of their effect on the spacecraft, are treated as significant events for which a root cause is identified and corrected. A CFE during space mission operations is often the symptom of imbalance or inadequacy within the system that encompasses the hardware and software used for command generation as well as the human experts and processes involved in this endeavor. As we move into an era of increased collaboration with other NASA centers and commercial partners, these systems become more and more complex. Consequently, the ability to thoroughly model and analyze CFEs formally in order to reduce the risk they pose is increasingly important. In this paper, we summarize the results of applying modeling techniques previously developed to the DAWN flight project. The original models were built with the input of subject matter experts from several flight projects. We have now customized these models to address specific questions for the DAWN flight project and formulating use cases to address their unique mission needs. The goal of this effort is to enhance the project's ability to meet commanding reliability requirements for operations and to assist them in managing their Command File Errors.

spacecraft↗

Expanding NeMO-Net Machine Learning Capabilities for Citizen Science

NASA NeMO-Net, the neural multi-modal observation and training network for global coral reef assessment, is an open-source deep convolutional neural network and interactive active learning training software aiming to accurately assess the present and past dynamics of coral reef ecosystems through determination of percent living cover and morphology as well as mapping of spatial distribution. We present an interactive citizen science video game, released this April, for desktop and iOS devices where users interactively label morphology classifications over mm-scale 3D coral reef imagery captured using diver photomosaic imagery, the UAV enabled NASA FluidCam instrument, and satellite datasets. To date, the application has had over 40,000 downloads and over 60,000 unique coral reef classifications, each filtered through a user-based rating and expert evaluation system. We also present results from NeMO-Net’s convolutional neural network (CNN) models used to semantically segment 2D satellite imagery as well as projections of 3D coral reconstructions using user input data as training datasets. Fusing datasets using machine learning from multiple remote sensing platforms presents novel methodologies for assessing the health of coral ecosystems, which are critically endangered by a changing climate. In partnering with Mission Blue, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Living Oceans Foundation (LOF), NeMO-Net leverages an international consortium of subject matter experts to provide both proper training for citizen scientists and the generation of a labeled datasets to ingest into machine learning algorithms for global coral reef identification.

NeMO-Net↗

Expanding NeMO-Net Machine Learning Capabilities for Citizen Science

NASA NeMO-Net, the neural multi-modal observation and training network for global coral reef assessment, is an open-source deep convolutional neural network and interactive active learning training software aiming to accurately assess the present and past dynamics of coral reef ecosystems through determination of percent living cover and morphology as well as mapping of spatial distribution. We present an interactive citizen science video game, released this April, for desktop and iOS devices where users interactively label morphology classifications over mm-scale 3D coral reef imagery captured using diver photomosaic imagery, the UAV enabled NASA FluidCam instrument, and satellite datasets. To date, the application has had over 40,000 downloads and over60,000 unique coral reef classifications, each filtered through a user-based rating and expert evaluation system. We also present results from NeMO-Net’s convolutional neural network (CNN) models used to semantically segment 2D satellite imagery as well as projections of 3D coral reconstructions using user input data as training datasets. Fusing datasets using machine learning from multiple remote sensing platforms presents novel methodologies for assessing the health of coral ecosystems, which are critically endangered by a changing climate. In partnering with Mission Blue, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Living Oceans Foundation (LOF), NeMO-Net leverages an international consortium of subject matter experts to provide both proper training for citizen scientists and the generation of a labeled datasets to ingest into machine learning algorithms for global coral reef identification.

NeMO-Net↗

TARGET: Rapid Capture of Process Knowledge

TARGET (Task Analysis/Rule Generation Tool) represents a new breed of tool that blends graphical process flow modeling capabilities with the function of a top-down reporting facility. Since NASA personnel frequently perform tasks that are primarily procedural in nature, TARGET models mission or task procedures and generates hierarchical reports as part of the process capture and analysis effort. Historically, capturing knowledge has proven to be one of the greatest barriers to the development of intelligent systems. Current practice generally requires lengthy interactions between the expert whose knowledge is to be captured and the knowledge engineer whose responsibility is to acquire and represent the expert's knowledge in a useful form. Although much research has been devoted to the development of methodologies and computer software to aid in the capture and representation of some types of knowledge, procedural knowledge has received relatively little attention. In essence, TARGET is one of the first tools of its kind, commercial or institutional, that is designed to support this type of knowledge capture undertaking. This paper will describe the design and development of TARGET for the acquisition and representation of procedural knowledge. The strategies employed by TARGET to support use by knowledge engineers, subject matter experts, programmers and managers will be discussed. This discussion includes the method by which the tool employs its graphical user interface to generate a task hierarchy report. Next, the approach to generate production rules for incorporation in and development of a CLIPS based expert system will be elaborated. TARGET also permits experts to visually describe procedural tasks as a common medium for knowledge refinement by the expert community and knowledge engineer making knowledge consensus possible. The paper briefly touches on the verification and validation issues facing the CLIPS rule generation aspects of TARGET. A description of efforts to support TARGET's interoperability issues on PCs, Macintoshes and UNIX workstations concludes the paper.

Ortiz, C. J.↗

Interface Consistency: Phase I Results & Phase II Status

Future exploration missions will rely on designing and developing vehicles and complex systems from within NASA and through multiple external commercial partners to meet mission goals. Despite existing consistency-related agency requirements, NASA’s approach to commercial spaceflight development encourages providers’ flexibility and innovation. This strategy is resulting in significant design diversity across Artemis vehicles. Design best practices and guidelines champion interface consistency to promote mental model development and knowledge transfer. However, research investigating the benefits of consistency is mixed, and little is known about its role in complex systems. Determining the level of risk that system diversity presents is difficult, as there is no established method for quantifying the degree of consistency within and across interfaces, nor is there information about the differential impacts of different types of inconsistency. Phase I of this project (Characterization and Measurement) served as a starting point to better understand the construct of consistency, its application, and the range of studies and methods for measuring it. The project team created a taxonomy of consistency to apply to interfaces as a framework to guide the development of tools to assess intersystem consistency. Checklist and cognitive walkthrough methods were developed for use by human factors (HF) and human-computer interaction (HCI) experts. The Intersystem Consistency Scale (ICS) was developed for interface evaluations with crew. A pilot study evaluated the methods’ ability to distinguish differences between Artemis-like prototype pairs exhibiting either high or low design consistency. In addition, click errors and time on task were collected within the ICS (crew-like) group. Results from our exploratory analysis and lessons learned from the pilot study will be discussed. The project team will also present the status of Phase II (Risk Assessment, Standards and Guidelines). This includes incorporating feedback to redesign the assessment tools, and inputs from displays and training Subject Matter Experts to update tasks and prototype designs. The team will present the risk assessment study design to identify the types and levels of inconsistency that pose the greatest risk to performance. Plans to apply these results toward agency standards and guideline recommendations will also be discussed.

Human-Computer Interaction↗

Evaluation of Multiple Flow Constrained Area Capacity Setting Methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program

The purpose of this study was to compare flow constrained area (FCA) capacity setting methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) as they pertain to the Integrated Demand Management (IDM) concept. IDM uses flow balancing to manage air traffic across multiple FCAs with a common downstream constraint, as well as constraints at the respective FCA locations. FCA capacity rates can be set manually, but generating capacities for multiple, interdependent FCAs could potentially over-burden a user. A new enhancement to CTOP called the FCA Balance Algorithm (FBA) was developed at NASA Ames Research Center to improve the process of allocating capacity across multiple flow constrained segments in the airspace. The FBA evaluates the predicted demand and capacity across multiple FCAs and dynamically generates capacity settings for the FCAs that best meet capacity limits for all identified constraints. In a human-in-the-loop simulation study, both manual and automated capacity setting methods were evaluated in terms of their overall feasibility using measures of system performance, human performance, and qualitative feedback. Subject matter experts were asked to use three different methods to allocate capacity to three FCAs, either (1) by manually setting capacity for every 60-minute time window, (2) by manually setting capacity for every 15-minute time window, or (3) by using the FBA capability to automatically generate capacity settings. Results showed no significant differences in terms of overall system performance, indicated by similar ground delay and airport throughput numbers between methods. However, differences in individual strategies afforded by the manual methods allowed some participants to achieve system-wide delay that was much lower than the average. The FBA was the fastest method of capacity setting, and it received the lowest subjective rating scores on physical task load, mental task load, task difficulty and task complexity out of the three methods. Finally, participants explained through qualitative feedback that there were many benefits to using the FBA, such as ease of use, accuracy, and low risk of human input error. Participants did not experience the same limitations with the FBA that they did with the manual methods, such as reduced accuracy in the 60-minute manual condition, or high complexity in the 15-minute/manual condition. These results suggest that the FBA automation enhancement to CTOP maintains system performance while improving human performance. Therefore, the FBA could be introduced as a way to mitigate operator workload while planning a CTOP.

NextGen↗

Evaluation of Multiple Flow Constrained Area Capacity Setting Methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program

The purpose of this study was to compare flow constrained area (FCA) capacity setting methods for Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) as they pertain to the Integrated Demand Management (IDM) concept. IDM uses flow balancing to manage air traffic across multiple FCAs with a common downstream constraint, as well as constraints at the respective FCA locations. FCA capacity rates can be set manually, but generating capacities for multiple, interdependent FCAs could potentially over-burden a user. A new enhancement to CTOP called the FCA Balance Algorithm (FBA) was developed at NASA Ames Research Center to improve the process of allocating capacity across multiple flow constrained segments in the airspace. The FBA evaluates the predicted demand and capacity across multiple FCAs and dynamically generates capacity settings for the FCAs that best meet capacity limits for all identified constraints. In a human-in-the-loop simulation study, both manual and automated capacity setting methods were evaluated in terms of their overall feasibility using measures of system performance, human performance, and qualitative feedback. Subject matter experts were asked to use three different methods to allocate capacity to three FCAs, either (1) by manually setting capacity for every 60-minute time window, (2) by manually setting capacity for every 15-minute time window, or (3) by using the FBA capability to automatically generate capacity settings. Results showed no significant differences in terms of overall system performance, indicated by similar ground delay and airport throughput numbers between methods. However, differences in individual strategies afforded by the manual methods allowed some participants to achieve system-wide delay that was much lower than the average. The FBA was the fastest method of capacity setting, and it received the lowest subjective rating scores on physical task load, mental task load, task difficulty and task complexity out of the three methods. Finally, participants explained through qualitative feedback that there were many benefits to using the FBA, such as ease of use, accuracy, and low risk of human input error. Participants did not experience the same limitations with the FBA that they did with the manual methods, such as reduced accuracy in the 60-minute manual condition, or high complexity in the 15-minute/manual condition. These results suggest that the FBA automation enhancement to CTOP maintains system performance while improving human performance. Therefore, the FBA could be introduced as a way to mitigate operator workload while planning a CTOP.

NextGen↗

Human Factors Research for Space Exploration: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation

As part of NASA's Human Research Program, the Space Human Factors Engineering Project serves as the bridge between Human Factors research and Human Spaceflight applications. Our goal is to be responsive to the operational community while addressing issues at a sufficient level of abstraction to ensure that our tools and solutions generalize beyond the point design. In this panel, representatives from four of our research domains will discuss the challenges they face in solving current problems while also enabling future capabilities. Historically, engineering-dominated organizations have tended to view good Human Factors (HF) as a desire rather than a requirement in system design and development. Our field has made significant gains in the past decade, however; the Department of Defense, for example, now recognizes Human-System Integration (HSI), of which HF is a component, as an integral part of their divisions hardware acquisition processes. And our own agency was far more accepting of HF/HSI requirements during the most recent vehicle systems definition than in any prior cycle. Nonetheless, HF subject matter experts at NASA often find themselves in catch up mode... coping with legacy systems (hardware and software) and procedures that were designed with little regard for the human element, and too often with an attitude of we can deal with any operator issues during training. Our challenge, then, is to segregate the true knowledge gaps in Space Human Factors from the prior failures to incorporate best (or even good) HF design principles. Further, we strive to extract the overarching core HF issues from the point-design-specific concerns that capture the operators (and managers) attention. Generally, our approach embraces a 3M approach to Human Factors: Measurement, Modeling, and Mitigation. Our first step is to measure human performance, to move from subjective anecdotes to objective, quantified data. Next we model the phenomenon, using appropriate methods in our field, modifying them to suit the unique aspects of the space environment. Finally, we develop technologies, tools, and procedures to mitigate the decrements in human performance and capabilities that occur in space environments. When successful, we decrease risks to crew safety and to mission success. When extremely successful (or lucky), we devise generalizable solutions that advance the state of our practice. Our panel is composed of researchers from diverse domains of our project... from different boxes, if you will, of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS).

Kaiser, Mary K.↗

Ocular Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of Anterior Eye Injuries in Space Flight

While Ocular Coherence Tomography (OCT) is not a first-line modality to evaluate anterior eye structures terrestrially, it is a resource already available on the International Space Station (ISS) that can be used in medical contingencies that involve the anterior eye. With remote guidance and subject matter expert (SME) support from the ground, a minimally trained crewmember can now use OCT to evaluate anterior eye pathologies on orbit. OCT utilizes low-coherence interferometry to produce detailed cross-sectional and 3D images of the eye in real time. Terrestrially, it has been used to evaluate macular pathologies and glaucoma. Since 2013, OCT has been used onboard the ISS as one part of a suite of hardware to evaluate the Visual Impairment/Intracranial Pressure risk faced by astronauts, specifically assessing changes in the retina and choroid during space flight. The Anterior Segment Module (ASM), an add-on lens, was also flown for research studies, providing an opportunity to evaluate the anterior eye in real time if clinically indicated. Anterior eye pathologies that could be evaluated using OCT were identified. These included corneal abrasions and ulcers, scleritis, and acute angle closure glaucoma. A remote guider script was written to provide ground specialists with step-by-step instructions to guide ISS crewmembers, who do not get trained on the ASM, to evaluate the anterior eye. The instructions were tested on novice subjects and/or operators, whose feedback was incorporated iteratively. The final remote guider script was reviewed by SME optometrists and NASA flight surgeons. The novel application of OCT technology to space flight allows for the acquisition of objective data to diagnose anterior eye pathologies when other modalities are not available. This demonstrates the versatility of OCT and highlights the advantages of using existing hardware and remote guidance skills to expand clinical capabilities in space flight.

Fer, Dan M.↗

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.

Ziemer, John K.↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

Electronic data generation and display system

The Electronic Data Generation and Display System (EDGADS) is a field tested paperless technical manual system. The authoring provides subject matter experts the option of developing procedureware from digital or hardcopy inputs of technical information from text, graphics, pictures, and recorded media (video, audio, etc.). The display system provides multi-window presentations of graphics, pictures, animations, and action sequences with text and audio overlays on high resolution color CRT and monochrome portable displays. The database management system allows direct access via hierarchical menus, keyword name, ID number, voice command or touch of a screen pictoral of the item (ICON). It contains operations and maintenance technical information at three levels of intelligence for a total system.

Wetekamm, Jules↗

Lessons learned in the development of the STOL intelligent tutoring system

Lessons learned during the development of the NASA Systems Test and Operations Language (STOL) Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), being developed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center are presented. The purpose of the intelligent tutor is to train STOL users by adapting tutoring based on inferred student strengths and weaknesses. This system has been under development for over one year and numerous lessons learned have emerged. These observations are presented in three sections, as follows. The first section addresses the methodology employed in the development of the STOL ITS and briefly presents the ITS architecture. The second presents lessons learned, in the areas of: intelligent tutor development; documentation and reporting; cost and schedule control; and tools and shells effectiveness. The third section presents recommendations which may be considered by other ITS developers, addressing: access, use and selection of subject matter experts; steps involved in ITS development; use of ITS interface design prototypes as part of knowledge engineering; and tools and shells effectiveness.

Seamster, Thomas↗

Simulation-based instruction of technical skills

A rapid intelligent tutoring development system (RAPIDS) was developed to facilitate the production of interactive, real-time graphical device models for use in instructing the operation and maintenance of complex systems. The tools allowed subject matter experts to produce device models by creating instances of previously defined objects and positioning them in the emerging device model. These simulation authoring functions, as well as those associated with demonstrating procedures and functional effects on the completed model, required no previous programming experience or use of frame-based instructional languages. Three large simulations were developed in RAPIDS, each involving more than a dozen screen-sized sections. Seven small, single-view applications were developed to explore the range of applicability. Three workshops were conducted to train others in the use of the authoring tools. Participants learned to employ the authoring tools in three to four days and were able to produce small working device models on the fifth day.

Towne, Douglas M.↗

Assessment of cockpit interface concepts for data link retrofit

The problem is examined of retrofitting older generation aircraft with data link capability. The approach taken analyzes requirements for the cockpit interface, based on review of prior research and opinions obtained from subject matter experts. With this background, essential functions and constraints for a retrofit installation are defined. After an assessment of the technology available to meet the functions and constraints, candidate design concepts are developed. The most promising design concept is described in detail. Finally, needs for further research and development are identified.

Mccauley, Hugh W.↗

Building an adaptive agent to monitor and repair the electrical power system of an orbital satellite

Over several years we have developed a multistrategy apprenticeship learning methodology for building knowledge-based systems. Recently we have developed and applied our methodology to building intelligent agents. This methodology allows a subject matter expert to build an agent in the same way in which the expert would teach a human apprentice. The expert will give the agent specific examples of problems and solutions, explanations of these solutions, or supervise the agent as it solves new problems. During such interactions, the agent learns general rules and concepts, continuously extending and improving its knowledge base. In this paper we present initial results on applying this methodology to build an intelligent adaptive agent for monitoring and repair of the electrical power system of an orbital satellite, stressing the interaction with the expert during apprenticeship learning.

Tecuci, Gheorghe↗

An Approach to the Reuse of Technical Materials for Educational Purposes

This project addresses the problem of transforming technical documents intended for a technical audience into educational materials directed toward segments of the general public. In particular it addresses the conversion of technical material into Internet based educational materials. A major consideration of the project is the conservation of the time of subject matter experts in the organization in recognition of the fact that such experts are likely to be more valuable to the organization for purposes other than the production of educational outreach.

Levinstein, Irwin↗

Definitions of Tactical and Strategic: An Informal Study

Seventeen subject matter experts defined tactical and strategic within the aviation domain. They provided five verbs and a sentence describing both behaviors. The verbs for strategic behavior were Plan, Think, Arrange, Formulate, Intend, Devise, Anticipate, and Order. The verbs for tactical behavior were Act, Fly, Respond, Do, Avoid, Control, React, and Move. Verbs that were common to both were Get Information, Navigate, Know, Execute, Manage, Perceive, Understand, Direct, Concentrate, and Point. The responses highlight the difference between planning (strategic) and carrying out those plans (tactical). Tactical verbs are more action-oriented that change the state of the world after they have been accomplished. Strategic verbs are more prescriptive in that they do not change the state of the world but offer a procedure or program for changing the world. The pilot is in a tactical mode when actually moving the aircraft and in a strategic mode when thinking about moving it.

Schutte, Paul C.↗