Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Autonomous Software”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Transitioning Autonomous Systems Technology Research to a Flight Software Environment

NASA has developed methods and algorithms for autonomous spacecraft operations,including automated planning and scheduling, fault diagnostics and impact determination,procedure management and display. Making the transition from technology research tooperational flight software requires overcoming significant technical, programmatic andcultural challenges. Technology research is aimed at developing methods that performspecific functions correctly, but the resulting software may not be designed for flightprocessors with limited CPU, memory and network resources, and may not be easilyintegrated into spacecraft flight software. Our objective in the Autonomous Systems andOperations Project is to make significant strides toward the transformation from technologyto operational use. Our focus was twofold: maturing research grade autonomy software intoa flight software environment using broadly accepted languages and tools; and integratingautonomy applications with each other and with representative systems and their data andcommand interfaces. For a target flight software environment, we chose Core FlightSoftware, developed by Goddard Space Flight Center as a common operating systemindependent framework. Our hardware integration environment was provided by theIntegrated Power and Avionics Systems (iPAS) Lab at Johnson Space Center, in whichvarious subsystem development has been conducted to address engineering challenges forthe vehicles and systems required for long-duration missions into the solar system. The iPASand its network of connected facilities provides realistic subsystem hardware or simulationsof spacecraft power, life support, guidance, navigation and control, and command and datahandling subsystems. Interfaces between autonomy applications and the subsystems beingassessed and controlled were developed, assessed and refined. The hardware and softwareenvironment using CFS and the iPAS facility has proven to be a highly flexible and realisticenvironment in which to rapidly integrate applications in an iterative, low cost setting. Usingthe integration environment we have developed, we will turn our focus to performance andsizing analysis to determine the computational requirements for full-scale deployment ofautonomy technology. Scalability of reasoners and the spacecraft models upon which theyoperate, and robustness across the full range of spacecraft conditions and environments willbe explored and improved. We are making significant contributions to the future programsthat will build the spacecraft that will take humans beyond the Earth-Moon system, in whichprogram Systems Engineers will be able to accurately and confidently design in accurate,robust and mature autonomous operations systems.

Flight Software↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases are being increasingly acknowledged as a way to build trust in complex systems with autonomous capabilities [1]. An assurance case is a comprehensive, defensible, and valid justification that a system will function as intended for the specific mission and operating environment. Such justifications for systems with autonomous capabilities are often based on various probabilistic quantifications [2]. Due to the dynamic nature of the environmental conditions in which these systems operate, as well as the changing nature of the autonomous systems themselves, these probabilistic quantifications cannot be simply estimated once during design time. Rather, they need to be continually evaluated during systems operations to ensure that the assurance case justifications are valid. We refer to the assurance case that combines both the static and dynamic elements as a Dynamic Assurance Case (DAC). Such complex systems with autonomous capabilities are often deployed with a Ground Control Software (GCS) component to enable remote operation. Whether the system is composed of a single unit or a fleet of units, deployed distributed or in remote environments, GCS acts as a window into the behavior of the deployed system. It receives telemetry from the system, issues commands to the system and provides various functionalities to visualize the system performance. We propose a dynamic assurance framework where the GCS acts as a relay between the autonomous system and its DAC. GCS can be used to measure both unit-specific as well as system-wide probabilistic quantifications using the incoming telemetry. We embed these quantifications throughout the DAC as variables that can be updated by external sources. We use the GCS to periodically update these variables, which allows us to continually evaluate the formally defined assurance case justifications. We demonstrate our dynamic assurance framework in the NASA Ames project Troupe1 that aims at developing a fleet of rovers capable of au- tonomously mapping their environment. The rovers work cooperatively, each collecting data for different parts of the environment. Each rover runs an identical core Flight System (cFS) [4] application. Troupe1 uses OpenC3 Cosmos [5] as the ground system, and AdvoCATE [3] to capture the system DAC. We show how we can measure both rover-specific and system-wide quantifications in Cosmos using its Ruby scripting editor and pass them into the DAC modelled in AdvoCATE. Then, we show how these incoming variables can be embedded in different parts of the DAC and how effects of their updates can be observed

Irfan Sljivo↗
NASA NTRS2004

Verifying Diagnostic Software

Livingstone PathFinder (LPF) is a simulation-based computer program for verifying autonomous diagnostic software. LPF is designed especially to be applied to NASA s Livingstone computer program, which implements a qualitative-model-based algorithm that diagnoses faults in a complex automated system (e.g., an exploratory robot, spacecraft, or aircraft). LPF forms a software test bed containing a Livingstone diagnosis engine, embedded in a simulated operating environment consisting of a simulator of the system to be diagnosed by Livingstone and a driver program that issues commands and faults according to a nondeterministic scenario provided by the user. LPF runs the test bed through all executions allowed by the scenario, checking for various selectable error conditions after each step. All components of the test bed are instrumented, so that execution can be single-stepped both backward and forward. The architecture of LPF is modular and includes generic interfaces to facilitate substitution of alternative versions of its different parts. Altogether, LPF provides a flexible, extensible framework for simulation-based analysis of diagnostic software; these characteristics also render it amenable to application to diagnostic programs other than Livingstone.

Lindsey, Tony↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems Through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases have emerged as a way to build trust in complex autonomous systems. Many assurance case justifications for such systems need to be constantly reevaluated based on the current system context and performance. Autonomous systems, especially those deployed in remote environments, often have a ground control system that enables monitoring and remote operations. In this paper, we propose a dynamic assurance framework that aims at connecting the assurance case with the ground control system. We use the ground control system to facilitate dynamic evaluation of quantitative assurance measures that support various justifications in the assurance case. We demonstrate the proposed dynamic assurance framework on the NASA Ames Research Center project Troupe. We use a combination of in-house and external tools to identify the assurance measures, formalize the related requirements, and generate monitors that feed the data to the external ground control system.

dynamic assurance case↗
NASA NTRS2003

The Logical Extension

The same software controlling autonomous and crew-assisted operations for the International Space Station (ISS) is enabling commercial enterprises to integrate and automate manual operations, also known as decision logic, in real time across complex and disparate networked applications, databases, servers, and other devices, all with quantifiable business benefits. Auspice Corporation, of Framingham, Massachusetts, developed the Auspice TLX (The Logical Extension) software platform to effectively mimic the human decision-making process. Auspice TLX automates operations across extended enterprise systems, where any given infrastructure can include thousands of computers, servers, switches, and modems that are connected, and therefore, dependent upon each other. The concept behind the Auspice software spawned from a computer program originally developed in 1981 by Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Draper Laboratory for simulating tasks performed by astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle. At the time, the Space Shuttle Program was dependent upon paper-based procedures for its manned space missions, which typically averaged 2 weeks in duration. As the Shuttle Program progressed, NASA began increasing the length of manned missions in preparation for a more permanent space habitat. Acknowledging the need to relinquish paper-based procedures in favor of an electronic processing format to properly monitor and manage the complexities of these longer missions, NASA realized that Draper's task simulation software could be applied to its vision of year-round space occupancy. In 1992, Draper was awarded a NASA contract to build User Interface Language software to enable autonomous operations of a multitude of functions on Space Station Freedom (the station was redesigned in 1993 and converted into the international venture known today as the ISS)

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2024

Autonomous Medical Officer Support (AMOS) Software Technology Demonstrations on the International Space Station (ISS)

Performance of medical procedures in spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) requires novel solutions to replace real-time ground support because as distance from Earth increases, communication latencies increase, hampering remote guidance. The Autonomous Medical Officer Support Software (AMOS) Technology Demonstrations on the International Space Station (ISS) trialed a novel software tool that shifts the emphasis from preflight training and real-time remote guidance (current ISS paradigm) to a new standard of multi-dimensional in-flight just-in-time (JIT) instruction. The AMOS platform is a skill management tool for all mission phases and currently features comprehensive training and guidance modules for urinary bladder and renal ultrasound examinations. Variability in Subject anatomy, Operator experience, and Operator receptiveness to instruction during autonomous exams are persistent but manageable limitations. Here we report the first successful demonstrations of autonomous imaging activities in the operational setting of spaceflight, validating this autonomous guidance proof of concept.

Douglas Ebert↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems through Ground Control Software∗

Assurance cases are being increasingly acknowledged as a way to build trust in complex systems with autonomous capabilities [1]. An assurance case is a comprehensive, defensible, and valid justification that a system will function as intended for the specific mission and operating environment. Such justifications for systems with autonomous capabilities are often based on various probabilistic quantifications [2]. Due to the dynamic nature of the environmental conditions in which these systems operate, as well as the changing nature of the autonomous systems themselves, these probabilistic quantifications cannot be simply estimated once during design time. Rather, they need to be continually evaluated during systems operations to ensure that the assurance case justifications are valid. We refer to the assurance case that combines both the static and dynamic elements as a Dynamic Assurance Case (DAC).

dynamic assurance case↗
NASA NTRS2008

A Testbed for Evaluating Lunar Habitat Autonomy Architectures

A lunar outpost will involve a habitat with an integrated set of hardware and software that will maintain a safe environment for human activities. There is a desire for a paradigm shift whereby crew will be the primary mission operators, not ground controllers. There will also be significant periods when the outpost is uncrewed. This will require that significant automation software be resident in the habitat to maintain all system functions and respond to faults. JSC is developing a testbed to allow for early testing and evaluation of different autonomy architectures. This will allow evaluation of different software configurations in order to: 1) understand different operational concepts; 2) assess the impact of failures and perturbations on the system; and 3) mitigate software and hardware integration risks. The testbed will provide an environment in which habitat hardware simulations can interact with autonomous control software. Faults can be injected into the simulations and different mission scenarios can be scripted. The testbed allows for logging, replaying and re-initializing mission scenarios. An initial testbed configuration has been developed by combining an existing life support simulation and an existing simulation of the space station power distribution system. Results from this initial configuration will be presented along with suggested requirements and designs for the incremental development of a more sophisticated lunar habitat testbed.

Lawler, Dennis G.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Implementation of a Point Algorithm for Real-Time Convex Optimization

The primal-dual interior-point algorithm implemented in G-OPT is a relatively new and efficient way of solving convex optimization problems. Given a prescribed level of accuracy, the convergence to the optimal solution is guaranteed in a predetermined, finite number of iterations. G-OPT Version 1.0 is a flight software implementation written in C. Onboard application of the software enables autonomous, real-time guidance and control that explicitly incorporates mission constraints such as control authority (e.g. maximum thrust limits), hazard avoidance, and fuel limitations. This software can be used in planetary landing missions (Mars pinpoint landing and lunar landing), as well as in proximity operations around small celestial bodies (moons, asteroids, and comets). It also can be used in any spacecraft mission for thrust allocation in six-degrees-of-freedom control.

Acikmese, Behcet↗
NASA NTRS2003

Working and Learning with Knowledge in the Lobes of a Humanoid's Mind

Humanoid class robots must have sufficient dexterity to assist people and work in an environment designed for human comfort and productivity. This dexterity, in particular the ability to use tools, requires a cognitive understanding of self and the world that exceeds contemporary robotics. Our hypothesis is that the sense-think-act paradigm that has proven so successful for autonomous robots is missing one or more key elements that will be needed for humanoids to meet their full potential as autonomous human assistants. This key ingredient is knowledge. The presented work includes experiments conducted on the Robonaut system, a NASA and the Defense Advanced research Projects Agency (DARPA) joint project, and includes collaborative efforts with a DARPA Mobile Autonomous Robot Software technical program team of researchers at NASA, MIT, USC, NRL, UMass and Vanderbilt. The paper reports on results in the areas of human-robot interaction (human tracking, gesture recognition, natural language, supervised control), perception (stereo vision, object identification, object pose estimation), autonomous grasping (tactile sensing, grasp reflex, grasp stability) and learning (human instruction, task level sequences, and sensorimotor association).

Ambrose, Robert↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Crewed Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRS2006

Methodology for Designing Fault-Protection Software

A document describes a methodology for designing fault-protection (FP) software for autonomous spacecraft. The methodology embodies and extends established engineering practices in the technical discipline of Fault Detection, Diagnosis, Mitigation, and Recovery; and has been successfully implemented in the Deep Impact Spacecraft, a NASA Discovery mission. Based on established concepts of Fault Monitors and Responses, this FP methodology extends the notion of Opinion, Symptom, Alarm (aka Fault), and Response with numerous new notions, sub-notions, software constructs, and logic and timing gates. For example, Monitor generates a RawOpinion, which graduates into Opinion, categorized into no-opinion, acceptable, or unacceptable opinion. RaiseSymptom, ForceSymptom, and ClearSymptom govern the establishment and then mapping to an Alarm (aka Fault). Local Response is distinguished from FP System Response. A 1-to-n and n-to- 1 mapping is established among Monitors, Symptoms, and Responses. Responses are categorized by device versus by function. Responses operate in tiers, where the early tiers attempt to resolve the Fault in a localized step-by-step fashion, relegating more system-level response to later tier(s). Recovery actions are gated by epoch recovery timing, enabling strategy, urgency, MaxRetry gate, hardware availability, hazardous versus ordinary fault, and many other priority gates. This methodology is systematic, logical, and uses multiple linked tables, parameter files, and recovery command sequences. The credibility of the FP design is proven via a fault-tree analysis "top-down" approach, and a functional fault-mode-effects-and-analysis via "bottoms-up" approach. Via this process, the mitigation and recovery strategy(s) per Fault Containment Region scope (width versus depth) the FP architecture.

Barltrop, Kevin↗
NASA NTRS1996

SEDSAT 1 Technologies

The original goals of this project were to support the development of SEDSAT 1 for a tethered launch in July of 1997. This specifically required: (1) Monitoring development progress against a comprehensive delivery plan; (2) Incremental development and release of CDS and SEASIS software; (3) Supporting the integration of version 1.0 SEASIS software that will allow minimal autonomous operation without a software reload. These algorithms would include image quality evaluation, attitude determination, and autonomous earth imaging; and (4) Developing software requirements and design for ground segment software, concentrating on command and data download capability; and interface to external development efforts for a more comprehensive software suite to be used after the initial mission. Because of an unfavorable space shuttle safety review of the SEDS-3 tether deployer, and cost and schedule problems in upgrading the deployer, the mission was changed to an independent launch of SEDSAT. The original plan was to do a tether-less deployment from the space shuttle. Since this would have resulted in an unacceptable orbital lifetime, the mission was changed again to a tethered launch from a Delta II in June 1998. As a result of Marshall Space Flight Center's redirection of the SEDS-3 mission away from a tether launch, the whole question of a tether endmass had to be reconsidered. The net result of these multiple changes was twofold. First, we completed work needed to define some aspects of ground software on SEDSAT 1 that would remain constant no matter the launch mode. Second, we developed a set of concepts for using SEDSAT 1 technology to support alternative endmass missions on SEDS-3. Both of these are included.

Maier, Mark W.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Hybrid Automated Diagnosis of Discrete/Continuous Systems

A recently conceived method of automated diagnosis of a complex electromechanical system affords a complete set of capabilities for hybrid diagnosis in the case in which the state of the electromechanical system is characterized by both continuous and discrete values (as represented by analog and digital signals, respectively). The method is an integration of two complementary diagnostic systems: (1) beacon-based exception analysis for multi-missions (BEAM), which is primarily useful in the continuous domain and easily performs diagnoses in the presence of transients; and (2) Livingstone, which is primarily useful in the discrete domain and is typically restricted to quasi-steady conditions. BEAM has been described in several prior NASA Tech Briefs articles: "Software for Autonomous Diagnosis of Complex Systems" (NPO-20803), Vol. 26, No. 3 (March 2002), page 33; "Beacon-Based Exception Analysis for Multimissions" (NPO-20827), Vol. 26, No. 9 (September 2002), page 32; "Wavelet-Based Real-Time Diagnosis of Complex Systems" (NPO-20830), Vol. 27, No. 1 (January 2003), page 67; and "Integrated Formulation of Beacon-Based Exception Analysis for Multimissions" (NPO-21126), Vol. 27, No. 3 (March 2003), page 74. Briefly, BEAM is a complete data-analysis method, implemented in software, for real-time or off-line detection and characterization of faults. The basic premise of BEAM is to characterize a system from all available observations and train the characterization with respect to normal phases of operation. The observations are primarily continuous in nature. BEAM isolates anomalies by analyzing the deviations from nominal for each phase of operation. Livingstone is a model-based reasoner that uses a model of a system, controller commands, and sensor observations to track the system s state, and detect and diagnose faults. Livingstone models a system within the discrete domain. Therefore, continuous sensor readings, as well as time, must be discretized. To reason about continuous systems, Livingstone uses monitors that discretize the sensor readings using trending and thresholding techniques. In development of the a hybrid method, BEAM results were sent to Livingstone to serve as an independent source of evidence that is in addition to the evidence gathered by Livingstone standard monitors. The figure depicts the flow of data in an early version of a hybrid system dedicated to diagnosing a simulated electromechanical system. In effect, BEAM served as a "smart" monitor for Livingstone. BEAM read the simulation data, processed the data to form observations, and stored the observations in a file. A monitor stub synchronized the events recorded by BEAM with the output of the Livingstone standard monitors according to time tags. This information was fed to a real-time interface, which buffered and fed the information to Livingstone, and requested diagnoses at the appropriate times. In a test, the hybrid system was found to correctly identify a failed component in an electromechanical system for which neither BEAM nor Livingstone alone yielded the correct diagnosis.

Park, Han↗