SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This is an invited talk on autonomy and workload for an AFRL Blue Sky workshop sponsored by the Florida Institute for Human Machine Studies. The presentation reviews various metrics of workload and how to move forward with measuring workload in a human-autonomy teaming environment.
Over the last two years a number of workshops or similar meetings have been held under the auspice of NASA Ames Research Center that, although dealing with different primary foci, considered at some level the cross-cutting topic of humans-autonomous systems and the partnership between them. This publication presents findings from the reports of these meetings as they inform the process of designing autonomous systems to work in conjunction with humans. Some workshops were highly relevant to this question, others less so. Drawing from conclusions in these reports, this publication presents, at a high level, a summary of issues that could usefully be considered in the design process of automated systems working with human agents. Although differing in emphases, reports from the several workshops reflect many similar beliefs regarding human-autonomy teaming (HAT). Conclusions can be viewed as generally applicable to various aviation venues—air, ground, and air-ground interactions. The objective of the workshops was primarily to identify issues, concerns, and research needs associated with evolving human-autonomy systems—not in providing solutions. The analysis herewithin is generally limited to the findings in the workshop reports. And, since there was often commonality in findings among the several reports, no attempt is made to ascribe particular findings or observations to particular reports.
Current literature primarily addresses what is referred to as “Systems Thinking.” Dr. Marie Morganelli from Southern New Hampshire University states that “Systems thinking is a holistic way to investigate factors and interactions that could contribute to a possible outcome [1]. A mindset more than a prescribed practice, systems thinking provides an understanding of how individuals can work together in different types of teams and through that understanding, create the best possible processes to accomplish just about any-thing.” So, a “Thinking System” is a system that is capable of “systems thinking,” as it should be able to “ …create [utilize] the best possible processes, and possess the [intelligence] to accomplish just about anything.” To achieve this capability, hu-man-like thinking is required. A truly autonomous system must be one that is capable of human-like thinking. Sustained autonomy requires “Thinking Autonomy” (TA) that is enabled by a “Thinking System.”
This paper describes the process MSL in using to infuse autonomy into a rover, and describes attributes, and evaluation criteria and their use pertinent to autonomy technologies for Mars rovers in general.
This paper presents an overview of a newly developed Coupled Layer Architecture for Robotic Autonomy (CLARAty), which is designed for improving the modularity of system software while more tightly coupling the interaction of autonomy and controls.
The Earth Observing One Spacecraft is currently flying The Autonomous Sciencecraft Experiment (ASE) - onboard autonomy software to improve science return. The ASE software enables the spacecraft to autonomously detect and respond to science events occurring on the Earth. ASE includes software systems that perform science data analysis, mission planning, and run-time robust execution. In this article we describe the autonomy flight software and how it enables a new paradigm of autonomous science and mission operations.
Science-guided autonomy augments rovers with reasoning to make observations and take actions related to the objectives of scientific exploration. When rovers can directly interpret instrument measurements then scientific goals can inform and adapt ongoing navigation decisions. These autonomous explorers will make better scientific observations and collect massive, accurate datasets. In current astrobiology studies in the Atacama Desert we are applying algorithms for science autonomy to choose effective observations and measurements. Rovers are able to decide when and where to take follow-up actions that deepen scientific understanding. These techniques apply to planetary rovers, which we can illustrate with algorithms now used by Mars rovers and by discussing future missions.
NASAs Armstrong Flight Research Center has been engaged in the development of highly automatic safety systems for aviation since the mid 80s. For the past three years under Seedling and Center Innovation funding this work has moved toward the development of a software architecture applicable to autonomous safety. This work is now broadening and accelerating to address the airworthiness issues surrounding making a case for trustworthy autonomy. This software architecture is called the expandable variable-autonomy architecture (EVAA) and utilizes a run-time assurance approach to safety assurance.
A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms autonomy and automation. Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present definitions of automation, pilot in the loop, pilot on the loop and pilot out of the loop. We further propose that in future, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) RPAS Panel avoids the use of the terms autonomy and autonomous when referring to automated systems on board RPA. Work Group 7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of Levels of Automation for RPAS.
Human involvement with increasingly autonomous systems must adjust to allow for a more dynamic relationship involving cooperation and teamwork. As part of an ongoing project to develop a framework for human autonomy teaming (HAT) in aviation, a study was conducted to evaluate proposed tenets of HAT. Participants performed a flight-following task at a ground station both with and without HAT features enabled. Overall, participants preferred the ground station with HAT features enabled over the station without the HAT features. Participants reported that the HAT displays and automation were preferred for keeping up with operationally important issues. Additionally, participants reported that the HAT displays and automation provided enough situation awareness to complete the task, reduced the necessary workload and were efficient. Overall, there was general agreement that HAT features supported teaming with the automation. These results will be used to refine and expand our proposed framework for human-autonomy teaming.
A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms "autonomy" and "automation". Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that RPAS automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present a definition of "automation". We recommend that autonomy and autonomous operations are out of the scope of the RPAS panel. WG7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of "Levels of Automation" for RPAS.
The NATO HFM-247 Working Group is creating a summary report of the group's activities on human-autonomy teaming. This chapter is a summary of our at NASA Ames work toward developing a framework for human-autonomy teaming (HAT) in aviation. The purpose of this project was to demonstrate and evaluate proposed tenets of HAT. The HAT features were derived from three tenets and were built into an automated recommender system on a ground station. These tenets include bi-directional communication, automation transparency, and operator directed interface. This study focused primarily on interactions with one piece of automation, the Autonomous Constrained Flight Planner (ACFP). The ACFP is designed to support rapid diversion decisions for commercial pilots in off-nominal situations. Much effort has gone into enhancing this tool not only in capability but also in transparency. In this study, participants used the ACFP at a ground station designed to aid dispatchers in a flight following role to reroute aircraft in situations such as inclement weather, system failures and medical emergencies. Participants performed this task both with HAT features enabled and without and provided feedback. We examined subjective and behavioral indicators of HAT collaborations using a proof-of-concept demonstration of HAT tenets. The data collected suggest potential advantages and disadvantages of HAT.
In this talk I will describe NASA strategy and research efforts to provide safety assurance for increasingly autonomous systems used in aviation. In the near future, autonomy will play an important role in civil aviation, and its applications will range from vehicles and platforms (UAVs, transport-class, including supersonic to hypersonic, aircraft) to airspace operations, or health management systems. This infusion of autonomy is driven by a need for optimizing airspace operations to accommodate increasing traffic density (e.g., adaptive trajectory-based operations, autonomous tugs, close parallel runways, and dynamic separation assurance), reducing operation costs to ensure that US operators can compete with emergent countries, and enabling new business models (e.g., fire fighting, UAS-based package delivery and precise aerial photography). In essence virtually every component of the National Airspace System will become increasingly autonomous. Yet we need to do so in a safe manner and have techniques and processes in place to ensure the safety of the public. This talk describes NASA plans to address this problem
The results of a survey applying these metrics to historic missions and planned future missions are charted, showing rather startling differences between autonomy achieved by missions that have already flown vs. autonomy predicted by some missions that have yet to fly.
The impact of infusing breakthrough autonomy technology into a flight project was a big surprise. Valuable technical and cultural lessons, many of general applicability when intorducing system-level autonomy, have been learned by infusing the Remote Agent (RA) into NASA's Deep Space 1 (DS1) Spacecraft.
The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N). This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT). This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust).
Deep space exploration missions face the challenge of communication transmission latencies between ground stations and astronaut crews due to increasing distance between the Earth and spacecraft in transit. To address this, research at NASA has aimed toward supporting crew autonomy by enabling astronauts to schedule their own timelines with minimal oversight from Mission Control. While self-scheduling has been shown to be feasible, it is yet to be studied as an integral part of autonomous crew operations. The current paper reviews the operationalization of self-scheduling and a number of related objectives during Campaign 6 of HERA, a Human Exploration Research Analog. Research objectives include studying the effects of phasic autonomy over the course of a 45-day mission, evaluating differences in scheduling performance produced by software interface aids, and deploying a novel measure of crew attitudes toward self-scheduling and plan execution.
Deep space exploration missions face the challenge of communication transmission latencies between ground stations and astronaut crews due to increasing distance between the Earth and spacecraft in transit. To address this, research at NASA has aimed toward supporting crew autonomy by enabling astronauts to schedule their own timelines with minimal oversight from Mission Control. While self-scheduling has been shown to be feasible, it is yet to be studied as an integral part of autonomous crew operations. The current paper reviews the operationalization of self-scheduling and a number of related objectives during Campaign 6 of HERA, a Human Exploration Research Analog. Research objectives include studying the effects of phasic autonomy over the course of a 45-day mission, evaluating differences in scheduling performance produced by software interface aids, and deploying a novel measure of crew attitudes toward self-scheduling and plan execution.