Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Remote Operation”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

A Remote Vehicle Operations Center’s Role in Collecting Human Factors Data

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is supporting research to develop a prototype remote vehicle operations center at Langley Research Center to explore current and future advanced air mobility operations using small unmanned aerial systems vehicles as surrogates for future, larger-scale passenger carrying vehicles. Data collected within the Remote Operations for Autonomous Missions (ROAM) Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations Center will be used to explore different roles and responsibilities of remote operators managing multiple autonomous vehicles, with the goal of exploring human-autonomy teaming concepts that enable m:N operations (i.e., m operators managing N vehicles). ROAM has developed into a world-class research, development, and technology (RD&T) environment that can support both the collection of human factors data and the command and control of remote vehicles in beyond visual line of sight conditions. Presented in this paper is an overview of ROAM, with a focus on the design components that support human factors data collection and a review of initial usability results of the facility.

Human factors↗
NASA NTRS2023

A Remote Vehicle Operations Center’s Role in Collecting Human Factors Data

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is supporting research to develop a prototype remote vehicle operations center at Langley Research Center to explore current and future advanced air mobility operations using small unmanned aerial systems vehicles as surrogates for future, larger-scale passenger carrying vehicles. Data collected within the Remote Operations for Autonomous Missions (ROAM) Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations Center will be used to explore different roles and responsibilities of remote operators managing multiple autonomous vehicles, with the goal of exploring human-autonomy teaming concepts that enable m:N operations (i.e., m operators managing N vehicles). ROAM has developed into a world-class research, development, and technology (RD&T) environment that can support both the collection of human factors data and the command and control of remote vehicles in beyond visual line of sight conditions. Presented in this paper is an overview of ROAM, with a focus on the design components that support human factors data collection and a review of initial usability results of the facility.

Human factors↗
NASA NTRS2013

Surface Telerobotics: Development and Testing of a Crew Controlled Planetary Rover System

In planning for future exploration missions, architecture and study teams have made numerous assumptions about how crew can be telepresent on a planetary surface by remotely operating surface robots from space (i.e. from a flight vehicle or deep space habitat). These assumptions include estimates of technology maturity, existing technology gaps, and operational risks. These assumptions, however, have not been grounded by experimental data. Moreover, to date, no crew-controlled surface telerobot has been fully tested in a high-fidelity manner. To address these issues, we developed the "Surface Telerobotics" tests to do three things: 1) Demonstrate interactive crew control of a mobile surface telerobot in the presence of short communications delay. 2) Characterize a concept of operations for a single astronaut remotely operating a planetary rover with limited support from ground control. 3) Characterize system utilization and operator work-load for a single astronaut remotely operating a planetary rover with limited support from ground control.

Bualat, Maria G.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Magellan spacecraft team remote mission operations - Experience and application to future operations systems

The Magellan Venus radar mapping mission was NASA's first planetary launch in 11 years, heralding a successful return to unmanned planetary exploration. This paper first describes the spacecraft, its mission, and its Mission Operations System, including the remotely located spacecraft team. It then discusses how the flight team achieved mission success, in spite of the obstacles imposed by challenges from the spacecraft and its environment, which had to be resolved with the spacecraft team nearly 1000 miles distant from the rest of the flight team. Benefits of remotely distributed spacecraft operations are summarized and suggestions offered, based on Magellan experience, for future mission operations systems considering the use of distributed elements.

Ledbetter, Kenneth W.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Dynamically variable spot size laser system

A Dynamically Variable Spot Size (DVSS) laser system for bonding metal components includes an elongated housing containing a light entry aperture coupled to a laser beam transmission cable and a light exit aperture. A plurality of lenses contained within the housing focus a laser beam from the light entry aperture through the light exit aperture. The lenses may be dynamically adjusted to vary the spot size of the laser. A plurality of interoperable safety devices, including a manually depressible interlock switch, an internal proximity sensor, a remotely operated potentiometer, a remotely activated toggle and a power supply interlock, prevent activation of the laser and DVSS laser system if each safety device does not provide a closed circuit. The remotely operated potentiometer also provides continuous variability in laser energy output.

Gradl, Paul R.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Remote manual operator for space station intermodule ventilation valve

The Remote Manual Operator (RMO) is a mechanism used for manual operation of the Space Station Intermodule Ventilation (IMV) valve and for visual indication of valve position. The IMV is a butterfly-type valve, located in the ventilation or air circulation ducts of the Space Station, and is used to interconnect or isolate the various compartments. The IMV valve is normally operated by an electric motor-driven actuator under computer or astronaut control, but it can also be operated manually with the RMO. The IMV valve RMO consists of a handle with a deployment linkage, a gear-driven flexible shaft, and a linkage to disengage the electric motor actuator during manual operation. It also provides visual indication of valve position. The IMV valve RMO is currently being prepared for qualification testing.

Guyaux, James R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Airspace Integration Considerations for Increasingly Autonomous Flight and Operations

There is much interest in autonomous systems and their operations. When it comes to autonomous systems, it is critical to understand various levels of proposed autonomy, reasons for selecting autonomous capabilities, certification approaches and various challenges or research needs associated with the integration of autonomous systems in the National Airspace System (NAS). Furthermore, there are levels of autonomous systems proposed for different types of aircraft including: single pilot operations, remotely piloted operations, fully autonomous operations, and multiple aircraft managed by a single, remote pilot. This preliminary article aims to provide a broad overview rather than concentrate on a specific element of autonomous flight. Hence, the focus of this article is on enabling various types of increasingly autonomous aircraft and their operations routinely within the next five to ten years, consistent with the FAA’s Info-Centric NAS (ICN) vision. Under ICN, a fully integrated information environment supports collaboration across diverse traffic management services and shifts decision-making to the most appropriate actor supported by automation. However, the roles and responsibilities of Air Traffic Services (ATS) personnel providing traditional services are likely to be very similar to today in that humans will still be responsible for majority of decision making. There is another NASA research effort beyond ICN is underway called Sky For All which is not covered in this article as it is in the planning stages.

autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2024

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗
NASA NTRS2025

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗
NASA NTRS2004

Expanding Remote Science Operations Capabilities Onboard the International Space Station

EXPRESS Racks have been supporting payload science operations onboard the International Space Station (ISS) since April of 2001. EXPRESS is an acronym that stands for "EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments to Space Station." This name reflects NASA's focus to simplify the process of manifesting experiments and maximizing scientific research capabilities by providing a robust, remotely operated payload support platform. The EXPRESS Rack System was developed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and built by The Boeing Company in Huntsville, Alabama. Eight EXPRESS racks were built and five are currently onboard the ISS supporting science operations. The design and development of the EXPRESS Rack System is a long story that has been documented in previous publications. This paper briefly describes the facilities used to develop and verify flight software, test operational capabilities. It then traces the advancements made in the operational capabilities of the EXPRESS Racks from the time they were launched on STS-100 through the present. The paper concludes with a description of potential enhancements that will make the EXPRESS racks one of the most advanced and capable remote science platforms ever developed.

Cruzen, Craig A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Control Paradigm: Multiple Aircraft Controlled by Multiple Operators

Remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) are becoming more and more prevalent in the aerospace operations. This is true in a number of diverse domains; urban air mobility, medical product delivery, infrastructure inspection, high altitude pseudo-satellites, search and rescue, auto cargo and several other applications. One aspect that all of these share in common is the need for scalability to be viable and continue to grow. The Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) develops an annual economic report. They project that in the first three years of integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the US alone, with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion. This benefit will grow through 2025 when we foresee more than 100,000 jobs created and economic impact of $82 billion. For many of these domains to reach these levels and have the scalability needed, they will require a remote pilot to control multiple aircraft (1:N) or the extension of that, multiple pilots controlling multiple aircraft (m:N). This is a new control paradigm that raises multiple issues in various areas. The issues include regulatory, technical, safety, community acceptance and Human Factors. Human factors issues include displays, pilot workload, pilot situation awareness just to name a few. This panel brings together researchers, developers and operators that have been working in the area of m:N. They will discuss the need, the issues and some potential solutions.

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of Challenges to Integrating Remotely-Piloted Operations into the National Airspace System

An oral presentation summarizing key challenges to integrating remotely-piloted operations into the National Airspace System. The presentation provides an overview of NASA's Pathfinding for an Airspace with Autonomous Vehicles sub-project, recent research activities focused on enabling autonomous cargo delivery, and some of the challenges that have been learned so far from these activities.

Husni Idris↗
NASA NTRS2024

Vertiport Management from Simulation to Flight: Continued Human Factors Assessment of Vertiport Operations

The Urban Air Mobility concept envisions a new future for transportation in urban environments, primarily focused around vertiport operations. A vertiport refers to an identifiable ground or elevated area used for the vertical takeoff and landing of an aircraft. One critical role within vertiport operations that has been proposed but is under-researched is the vertiport manager. The vertiport manager is expected to manage the ground-to-air operations at the vertiport, but their precise responsibilities, tasks, and challenges are currently undefined. The High Density Vertiplex Subproject at NASA is responsible for developing and testing technologies, concepts, and architectures that will support the infrastructure needed for terminal environments around vertiports. Our previous work investigated ground control station operators performing simulated and live flight operations within a remote operations environment. In the current study, we extended from our previous work to explore the role of a vertiport manager. Specifically, we investigated five participants serving as a vertiport manager across both simulated and live flight operations. We performed multiple knowledge elicitation techniques, a thematic content analysis of qualitative data, and naturalistic observations to create a list of insights, design and training recommendations, and a simplified cognitive task diagram of the vertiport manager’s primary task. Findings from this study are discussed within the context of the current debate on the degree to which this role should be automated. A third alternative is suggested to allow a human vertiport manager to be successful by teaming with increasingly autonomous systems, designing the role to improve safety and efficiency of Urban Air Mobility operations.

AAM↗
NASA NTRS2024

Vertiport Management from Simulation to Flight: Continued Human Factors Assessment of Vertiport Operations

The Urban Air Mobility concept envisions a new future for transportation in urban environments, primarily focused around vertiport operations. A vertiport refers to an identifiable ground or elevated area used for the vertical takeoff and landing of an aircraft. One critical role within vertiport operations that has been proposed but is under-researched is the vertiport manager. The vertiport manager is expected to manage the ground-to-air operations at the vertiport, but their precise responsibilities, tasks, and challenges are currently undefined. The High Density Vertiplex Subproject at NASA is responsible for developing and testing technologies, concepts, and architectures that will support the infrastructure needed for terminal environments around vertiports. Our previous work investigated ground control station operators performing simulated and live flight operations within a remote operations environment. In the current study, we extended from our previous work to explore the role of a vertiport manager. Specifically, we investigated five participants serving as a vertiport manager across both simulated and live flight operations. We performed multiple knowledge elicitation techniques, a thematic content analysis of qualitative data, and naturalistic observations to create a list of insights, design and training recommendations, and a simplified cognitive task diagram of the vertiport manager’s primary task. Findings from this study are discussed within the context of the current debate on the degree to which this role should be automated. A third alternative is suggested to allow a human vertiport manager to be successful by teaming with increasingly autonomous systems, designing the role to improve safety and efficiency of Urban Air Mobility operations.

AAM↗
NASA NTRS2003

Utilization of Internet Protocol-Based Voice Systems in Remote Payload Operations

This viewgraph presentation provides an overview of a proposed voice communication system for use in remote payload operations performed on the International Space Station. The system, Internet Voice Distribution System (IVoDS), would make use of existing Internet protocols, and offer a number of advantages over the system currently in use. Topics covered include: system description and operation, system software and hardware, system architecture, project status, and technology transfer applications.

Best, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2009

Real-Time Assessment of Robot Performance During Remote Exploration Operations

To ensure that robots are used effectively for exploration missions, it is important to assess their performance during operations. We are investigating the definition and computation of performance metrics for assessing remote robotic operations in real-time. Our approach is to monitor data streams from robots, compute performance metrics, and provide Web-based displays of these metrics for assessing robot performance during operations. We evaluated our approach for measuring robot performance with the K10 rovers from NASA Ames Research Center during a field test at Moses Lake Sand Dunes (WA) in June 2008. In this paper we present the results of evaluating our software for robot performance and discuss our conclusions from this evaluation for future robot operations.

SBIR TOPIC X7.02 PHASE 1↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MPATH (Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans) Ground Control Station: Design Approach and Initial Usability Results

Envisioned future Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) operations will require a transition of aircraft command and control from onboard pilots to remote operators. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has developed a research ground control station (GCS) software called MPATH (Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans) to study the human factors of remote operators in a representative AAM environment, where small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS; simulated or real) act as surrogates for larger AAM aircraft. A primary focus of the research being conducted with the MPATH GCS is scalability (i.e., one human managing multiple vehicles). MPATH has demonstrated to be a useful capability for human factors research and remote operations. Two initial usability studies and a multi-vehicle control assessment were recently conducted, and usability data and operator feedback were collected. Generally, participants rated MPATH high on usability and interface quality, whereas information quality was rated slightly lower. These results were supported by specific feedback. Several generalized GCS design recommendations are proposed based on the results and feedback from these flight activities. Future updates to MPATH will incorporate the proposed recommendations. In practice, these recommendations could be used by any GCS software designer or developer to promote usability and safety.

Advanced Air Mobility↗