SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Operational 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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 829 records · Page 46

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Implementation of Cybersecurity Requirements

Cyber threats are a constant present-day reality for any type of business -- Space exploration is not excluded from these threats either. The Gateway Program is one of NASA’s latest initiatives that extend space exploration beyond low earth orbit. Gateway allows for NASA to prove technologies and mature systems necessary to live and work on another celestial body before embarking on multi-year missions to Mars. The Gateway is a small, human-tended space station in orbit around the Moon. With the increased autonomy, distance and criticality of systems, cybersecurity is one of the critical subsystems that touches and integrates with most if not all subsystems of the Gateway. Building a gateway to the lunar orbit is no simple task. In this presentation, we outline an approach that the Gateway team adopted in creating a cyber safe and robust vehicle to support operations and assure protection of the critical functions. Gateway Program is required to implement National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines to adhere to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA). NIST provides a framework for managing and controlling cybersecurity risks by defining cybersecurity controls and methodologies for implementation. The NIST framework is based upon the system, data within the system, integrations with external systems, and risk assessments to determine impacts for each of those systems. The goals and objectives are to identify appropriate security controls that fulfill and map to the NIST 800-53 framework. The implementation process involves developing an organizational understanding to manage cybersecurity risk to systems, people, assets, data, and capabilities. NIST Security controls are interpreted and defined within the Gateway vehicle requirements subsystems specifications. This paper details the approach, implementation, and challenges faced during the development and design phases to address cyber threats during the Gateway vehicle operations.

Svetlana Hanson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Autonomous sUAS Operating in UTM TCL4+ and STEReO Fire Scenario

This study presents a sUAS payload point design that enables autonomous BVLOS flightin UTM TCL4+ urban environments and STEReO fire responses. The payload components include an onboard computer, 360 deg LIDAR, range finder altimeter, downward-facing monocular camera, forward-facing thermal and visible light dual camera, vehicle-to-vehicle radio modem, and Li-ion smart battery. The components are mounted on an enclosed structural frame that was designed in-house. Placing the autonomy components onboard leverages the advantages of sUAS over manned aircraft such as low-cost, quick response time, and increased scalability. Autonomous capabilities include object and fire detection, V2V communication, embedded processing, and SLAM. Data processing is conducted on-board the aircraft to eliminate the dependency on a ground station downlink. The payload is evaluated in both software simulation as well as flight tests.

Autonomous UAS↗

NASA NTRS2018

UAS Integration in the NAS: Human Systems Integration Overview

This presentation covers the work done by the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) project's Human Systems Integration team. It covers the work done in Phase 1 and how it has informed the development of minimum operational performance standards. The presentation then discusses upcoming HIS work in UAS-NAS Phase 2. Finally the presentation covers the work to be done at the current workshop and how it relates to its ongoing work.

human autonomy teaming↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Autonomous Medical Officer Support (AMOS) ISS Technology Demonstration: Enabling Earth-Independnt Procedure Guidance

Successful performance of medical procedures during missions beyond low Earth orbit requires novel solutions to replace real-time support from the ground since the communication delay will be longer as the crew travels farther from Earth. The Autonomous Medical Officer Support software Technology Demonstration project (AMOS Tech Demo) on the International Space Station (ISS) evaluates a novel software tool that shifts the emphasis from preflight training and real-time guidance (current ISS paradigm) to in-flight just-in-time (JIT) instruction (a new paradigm for crew medical autonomy). The AMOS platform introduces a novel, streamlined, skill-management archetype for exploration missions; the current AMOS version features comprehensive training and guidance modules for urinary bladder and kidney ultrasound examinations. The primary goal of the AMOS Tech Demo was to confirm telemedical proof-of-concept through initial use of the platform for autonomous imaging activities in an operational setting. Success metrics encompassed 1) successful software deployment, 2) collection of click tracking data, and 3) recording of ultrasound images. Additional aims included collecting crew feedback on a) AMOS implementation, and b) integrated training and procedure support concepts, as well as c) evaluation of AMOS use in an operational setting.

D. Ebert↗

NASA NTRS2024

Looking to the Future: A Call to Action for Advanced GNC Algorithm Verification and Validation

Future space systems will rely on autonomous Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) functions to efficiently manage safe and precise self-directed operations in uncertain complex environments. Fundamentally, the GNC system plays a key role in mission performance and safety because it computes the ideal trajectory (Guidance), determines the actual trajectory (Navigation), and executes the ideal trajectory (Control) of a vehicle’s position and attitude. Our current GNC systems are highly automated and already have a high degree of complexity. As missions become more ambitious, GNC systems for launch vehicles and space platforms (e.g., spacecraft, probes, and landers) will require higher levels of performance and autonomous operation than previously encountered, for example, this includes GNC for optimizing aerodynamic and/or propulsion performance during planetary entry. This GNC Verification and Validation (V&V) paper highlights concerns with what undoubtedly will be a trend towards increased complexity as fully autonomous GNC systems are developed for future space missions. Clearly, complex GNC systems pose challenges in the prelaunch V&V phase, which is a relatively expensive part of a mission’s life cycle. Essentially the V&V phase is focused on checking that the system effectively meets all the design and operational requirements for the mission. The authors of this paper (i.e., the Inter-Agency Working Group of GNC subject matter experts) focused on this fundamental question over the past few years: Will the GNC engineering community of practice be sufficiently prepared to perform the necessary V&V on evolving GNC architectures that are driven by very demanding requirements for autonomy, resiliency, reconfigurability, adaptability, and mission cost-benefit balance? It is the viewpoint of our Inter-Agency team that the GNC V&V approaches and processes needed to address the next generation of complex GNC systems, which likely will employ various forms of modern GNC technology, are not currently established to the level the community will need in the future. While researchers and practitioners have made some progress in developing new GNC V&V methods for modern GNC systems, a good deal of work remains to be done to codify such methods in a comprehensive and systematic manner. Thus, the Inter-Agency team’s partner organizations [the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency (ESA), the National Centre for Space Studies (CNES), the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the French Aerospace Lab (ONERA), and ISAE-SUPAERO] have conducted preliminary investigations into advancing GNC V&V techniques, which resulted in the identification of the need for education, new V&V tools, and benchmark problems for the GNC community. The necessary proactive steps to be taken to meet the challenges and fill the gaps in GNC V&V are summarized in this paper. The first steps include identifying advanced analysis tools, developing a GNC V&V roadmap, and expanding education and training programs for GNC practitioners. This paper is a call to action and proposes a comprehensive set of recommended actions for all our stakeholders: space agencies, researchers, and industry.

Samir Bennani↗

NASA NTRS2021

Advanced Multimodal Solutions for Information Presentation

High-workload, fast-paced, and degraded sensory environments are the likeliest candidates to benefit from multimodal information presentation. For example, during extra-vehicular activity (EVA) and telerobotic operations, the sensory restrictions associated with such a hostile environment provide a major challenge to maintaining the situation awareness (SA) required for safe operations. In particular, orientation, navigation, and collision avoidance are critical aspects of EVA tasks that need to be addressed to ensure the safety of the crew and the success of the mission. Multimodal displays hold promise to enhance situation awareness and task performance by utilizing different sensory modalities and maximizing their effectiveness based on appropriate interaction between modalities. Multimodal displays will also play an important role for long-duration information systems and will likely begin to be developed in the early phases of cislunar Gateway, and later lunar or Mars transit missions. Information systems are envisioned for LDEMs that require spacecraft with greater crew autonomy and increased dependence on computer-provided information needed to perform routine tasks, as well as time- and safety critical tasks. Such a system will require a single, common interface that is easy to learn and use and accesses key information from all relevant vehicle/habitat systems to enable task performance in both nominal and emergency conditions. Understanding of multimodal display technologies and their interactions will help to inform interface guidelines for LDEMs. The scope of the current report is an analysis of potential multimodal display technologies for long duration missions and, in particular, will focus on their potential role in EVA activities. The review will address multimodal (combined visual, auditory and/or tactile) displays investigated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), industry, and Department of Defense (DoD). It also considers the need for adaptive information systems to accommodate a variety of operational contexts such as crew status (e.g., fatigue, workload level) and task environment (e.g., EVA, habitat, rover, spacecraft). Current approaches to guidelines and best practices for combining modalities for the most effective information displays are also reviewed. Potential issues in developing interface guidelines for LDEMs are briefly considered.

multimodal displays↗

NASA NTRS2016

Evidence Report: Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies

Substantial evidence supports the claim that inadequate training leads to performance errors. Barshi and Loukopoulos (2012) demonstrate that even a task as carefully developed and refined over many years as operating an aircraft can be significantly improved by a systematic analysis, followed by improved procedures and improved training (see also Loukopoulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009a). Unfortunately, such a systematic analysis of training needs rarely occurs during the preliminary design phase, when modifications are most feasible. Training is often seen as a way to compensate for deficiencies in task and system design, which in turn increases the training load. As a result, task performance often suffers, and with it, the operators suffer and so does the mission. On the other hand, effective training can indeed compensate for such design deficiencies, and can even go beyond to compensate for failures of our imagination to anticipate all that might be needed when we send our crew members to go where no one else has gone before. Much of the research literature on training is motivated by current training practices aimed at current training needs. Although there is some experience with operations in extreme environments on Earth, there is no experience with long-duration space missions where crews must practice semi-autonomous operations, where ground support must accommodate significant communication delays, and where so little is known about the environment. Thus, we must develop robust methodologies and tools to prepare our crews for the unknown. The research necessary to support such an endeavor does not currently exist, but existing research does reveal general challenges that are relevant to long-duration, high-autonomy missions. The evidence presented here describes issues related to the risk of performance errors due to training deficiencies. Contributing factors regarding training deficiencies may pertain to organizational process and training programs for spaceflight, such as when training programs are inadequate or unavailable. Furthermore, failure to match between tasks on the one hand, and learning and memory abilities on the other hand is a contributing factor, especially when individuals' relative efficiency with which new information is acquired, and adjustments made in behavior or thinking, are inconsistent with mission demands. Thus, if training deficiencies are present, the likelihood of errors or of the inability to successfully complete a task increases. What's more, the overall risk to the crew, the vehicle, and the mission increases.

Barshi, Immanuel↗

NASA NTRS2002

Instrument Deployment for Mars Rovers

Future Mars rovers, such as the planned 2009 MSL rover, require sufficient autonomy to robustly approach rock targets and place an instrument in contact with them. It took the 1997 Sojourner Mars rover between 3 and 5 communications cycles to accomplish this. This paper describes the technologies being developed and integrated onto the NASA Ames K9 prototype Mars rover to both accomplish this in one cycle, and to extend the complexity and duration of operations that a Mars rover can accomplish without intervention from mission control.

Pedersen, Liam↗

NASA NTRS2002

The Personal Satellite Assistant: An Internal Spacecraft Autonomous Mobile Monitor

This paper presents an overview of the research and development effort at the NASA Ames Research Center to create an internal spacecraft autonomous mobile monitor capable of performing intra-vehicular sensing activities by autonomously navigating onboard the International Space Station. We describe the capabilities, mission roles, rationale, high-level functional requirements, and design challenges for an autonomous mobile monitor. The rapid prototyping design methodology used, in which five prototypes of increasing fidelity are designed, is described as well as the status of these prototypes, of which two are operational and being tested, and one is actively being designed. The physical test facilities used to perform ground testing are briefly described, including a micro-gravity test facility that permits a prototype to propel itself in 3 dimensions with 6 degrees-of-freedom as if it were in an micro-gravity environment. We also describe an overview of the autonomy framework and its components including the software simulators used in the development process. Sample mission test scenarios are also described. The paper concludes with a discussion of future and related work followed by the summary.

Dorais, Gregory A.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Why Deep Space Habitats Should Be Different from the International Space Station

It is tempting to view the International Space Station (ISS) as a model for deep space habitats. This is not a good idea for many reasons. The ISS does not have a habitation module; instead the individual crew quarters are dispersed across several modules, the galley is in the US Laboratory and the waste hygiene compartment is in a Node. This distributed arrangement may be inconvenient but more important differences distinguish a deep space habitat from the ISS. First, the Space Shuttle launch system that shaped, sized, and delivered most ISS elements has been retired. Its replacement, the Space Launch System (SLS), is specifically designed for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and is capable of transporting more efficient, large diameter, heavy-lift payloads. Next, because of the Earth's protective geomagnetic field, ISS crews are naturally shielded from lethal radiation. Deep space habitat designs must include either a storm shelter or strategically positioned equipment and stowage for radiation protection. Another important difference is the increased transit time with no opportunity for an ISS-type emergency return. It takes 7 to 10 days to go between Earth and cis-lunar locations and 1000 days for the Mars habitat transit. This long commute calls for greater crew autonomy with habitats designed for the crew to fix their own problems. The ISS rack-enclosed, densely packaged subsystems are a product of the Shuttle era and not maintenance friendly. A solution better suited for deep space habitats spreads systems out allowing direct access to single-layer packaging and providing crew access to each component without having to remove another. Operational readiness is another important discriminator. The ISS required over 100 flights to build, resupply, and transport the crew, whereas SLS offers the capability to launch a fully provisioned habitat that is operational without additional outfitting or resupply flights.

Griffin, Brand↗

NASA NTRS2024

Smallsat 2024 - Starling Cubesat Swarm Technology Demonstration Flight Results

The Starling swarm of four 6U CubeSats launched in July 2023 to test four key technologies to enable future swarm missions: 1) Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking (MANET) over a crosslink radio network 2) Autonomous onboard decision-making for operations 3) Optical-based absolute and relative navigation 4) Autonomous maneuver planning and execution The Starling team implemented the Better Approach to Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (B.A.T.M.A.N.) protocol to automatically manage the crosslink network of four satellites. The B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol uses a decentralized approach to managing a multi-hop mesh network of devices, in this case, a satellite swarm. The four satellites were able to successfully establish a network at multiple data rates and demonstrate file transfer and command issuance between spacecraft over the network. Starling incorporated Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy's (DSA) software to demonstrate onboard decision-making. The DSA software takes L1/L2 band GPS measurements and uses them to estimate the relative Total Electron Count (TEC) in the ionosphere. The onboard software then determines if there are any features of interest and provides that information to the other satellites over the crosslink network. The swarm of satellites then reaches a consensus on the optimal TEC observation strategy and adjusts its measurement collection tactics autonomously. The Starling Formation-Flying Optical Experiment (StarFOX), produced by Stanford's Space Rendezvous Laboratory, uses the onboard star trackers to collect images of the other swarm spacecraft and produce angles-only navigation estimates. This system is envisioned to be valuable in applications in which Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) are not available, such as in cis-lunar or deep space. StarFOX successfully applied its algorithms to multiple simultaneous spacecraft targets using the star tracker imagery. Finally, Starling used Emergent Space's Cluster Flight Application (CFA) software suite for the Reconfiguration and Orbit Maintenance Experiments Onboard (ROMEO) demonstration of autonomously planning and executing propulsive maneuvers. Large swarms will need to be able to maintain formation requirements with minimal operator involvement, especially as the size of the swarm scales up. Results from the ROMEO experiment are presented. Starling is funded by the Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program out of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD).

distributed systems↗

NASA NTRS2019

Predicted Performance of an X-Ray Navigation System for Future Deep Space and Lunar Missions

In November 2017, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Station Explorer for X-ray Timing and Navigation Technology (SEXTANT) experiment successfully demonstrated the feasibility of X-ray Pulsar Navigation (XNAV) as part of the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) mission, which is an X-ray Astrophysics Mission of Opportunity currently operating onboard the International Space Station (ISS). XNAV provides a GPS-like absolute autonomous navigation and timing capability available anywhere in the Solar System and beyond. While the most significant benefits of XNAV are expected to come in support of very deep-space missions, the absolute autonomous navigation and timing capability also has utility for inner Solar System missions where increased autonomy or backup navigation and timing services are required, e.g., address loss of communication scenarios.The NASA commitment to develop a Gateway to support exploration of the Moon and eventually Mars, as well as current and future robotic missions such as James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), New Horizons, and much more, certainly will tax the existing ground based infrastructure in terms of availability. There- fore, an extended look at the feasibility and potential performance of XNAV for comparable missions is warranted. In this paper, we briefly review the XNAV concept and present case studies of its utility and performance for a Gateway orbit, Sun-Earth libration orbit, and a deep space transit trajectory.

Getchius, Joel↗

NASA NTRS2022

m:N Working Group Status Report: Collaboration with Government, Industry, and Academia to Reduce m:N Operational Barriers

This is a status report on the m:N working group that has met three times over the last two years. They have identified barriers by domain, detect and avoid use-cases, and further analysis.

multi-vehicle control↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space ROS TOFU: Flying Space ROS with Containerized Hybrid Trust

Space ROS is a distribution of Robot Operating System 2 (ROS2) targeting the specific requirements of flight software and spaceborne robotics while maintaining the flexibility that has made ROS indispensible for robotics research and industrial system integration. With Space ROS, a project can leverage the existing ROS2 ecosystem to reduce redundant development while tackling increasingly complex demands for on-device intelligence; however, there is no substitute for flight heritage to combat the risk-aversion common to spaceflight projects, and Space ROS has yet to fly. To break the collective-action standoff and gain valuable flight experience, the Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy (DSA) team at NASA Ames Research Center developed Opportunistic Software Experiments for Spacecraft Autonomy Testbeds (OSE-SAT) architecture, utilizing containerization to execute lower-trust software under traditionally verified heritage flight software for demonstration on-orbit. OSE-SAT leverages a hybrid-trust model where flexible, complex components like Space ROS can run without risk to the host spacecraft while providing validated feedback to a highly scrutinized, trusted core. We leverage this testbed to demonstrate Space ROS in flight, building heritage, and experience for projects with "Trust On First Use" (TOFU) requirements for flight heritage. We present a Space ROS component for OSE-SAT, lessons learned integrating Space ROS into a flight software stack, and the results of the first known use of Space ROS in orbit.

small satellites↗

NASA NTRS2006

AutoNav Mark3: Engineering the Next Generation of Autonomous Onboard Navigation and Guidance

The success of JPL's AutoNav system at comet Tempel-1 on July 4, 2005, demonstrated the power of autonomous navigation technology for the Deep Impact Mission. This software is being planned for use as the onboard navigation, tracking and rendezvous system for a Mars Sample Return Mission technology demonstration, and several mission proposals are evaluating its use for rendezvous with, and landing on asteroids. Before this however, extensive re-engineering of AutoNav will take place. This paper describes the AutoNav systems-engineering effort in several areas: extending the capabilities, improving operability, utilizing new hardware elements, and demonstrating the new possibilities of AutoNav in simulations.

navigation↗

NASA NTRS1987

NASA Systems Autonomy Demonstration Program - A step toward Space Station automation

This paper addresses a multiyear NASA program, the Systems Autonomy Demonstration Program (SADP), whose main objectives include the development, integration, and demonstration of automation technology in Space Station flight and ground support systems. The role of automation in the Space Station is reviewed, and the main players in SADP and their roles are described. The core research and technology being promoted by SADP are discussed, and a planned 1988 milestone demonstration of the automated monitoring, operation, and control of a complete mission operations subsystem is addressed.

Starks, S. A.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Method and associated apparatus for capturing, servicing and de-orbiting earth satellites using robotics

This invention is a method and supporting apparatus for autonomously capturing, servicing and de-orbiting a free-flying spacecraft, such as a satellite, using robotics. The capture of the spacecraft includes the steps of optically seeking and ranging the satellite using LIDAR; and matching tumble rates, rendezvousing and berthing with the satellite. Servicing of the spacecraft may be done using supervised autonomy, which is allowing a robot to execute a sequence of instructions without intervention from a remote human-occupied location. These instructions may be packaged at the remote station in a script and uplinked to the robot for execution upon remote command giving authority to proceed. Alternately, the instructions may be generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic onboard the robot. In either case, the remote operator maintains the ability to abort an instruction or script at any time, as well as the ability to intervene using manual override to teleoperate the robot.In one embodiment, a vehicle used for carrying out the method of this invention comprises an ejection module, which includes the robot, and a de-orbit module. Once servicing is completed by the robot, the ejection module separates from the de-orbit module, leaving the de-orbit module attached to the satellite for de-orbiting the same at a future time. Upon separation, the ejection module can either de-orbit itself or rendezvous with another satellite for servicing. The ability to de-orbit a spacecraft further allows the opportunity to direct the landing of the spent satellite in a safe location away from population centers, such as the ocean.

Cepollina, Frank J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Method and associated apparatus for capturing, servicing, and de-orbiting earth satellites using robotics

Cepollina, Frank J.↗