Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human-robotic”

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.

125 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Astrobee: Five years of Completed, Current, and Future Research on the International Space Station using Free Flying Robots.

After five years on the International Space Station (ISS), the Astrobee Research Facility, has completed over 160 Test Sessions logging over 1200 hours of operations. Managed by the NASA ISS Program OZ office and supported by NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) in California, the Astrobee Team currently maintains two identical free-flying Astrobee robots and a Docking Station for research on the ISS. As a technology demonstration platform, the Astrobee Robots are available for Guest Scientists to use for a spectrum of research capabilities. Using ambient air on the ISS, propelled by battery-operated fans, Astrobee is designed to autonomously operate throughout most of the USOS (US Orbital Segment), with the objective of minimizing the need for astronaut support. Astrobee carries a suite of six cameras, a two degree-of-freedom (DOF) arm with a gripper that can grasp ISS handrails and other objects, and three payload bays that provide power and data for guest science hardware. Astrobee can autonomously execute hours-long flight plans or be tele-operated from the ground. While the Astrobee Team continues to improve mapping and autonomous flight capabilities, one of the main goals of Astrobee Robots is to provide research opportunities for Guest Scientists. The Astrobee Robot Software (ARS) makes extensive use of the open-source Robot Operating System (ROS). The ARS can be used interchangeably with an Astrobee Simulator or as Astrobee’s onboard software. ARS features include autonomous docking and perching, real-time teleoperations from the ground, plan based autonomous tasks, multi Astrobee communication, among other capabilities. Through simulation software and ground testing laboratories, the Astrobee Team is available to support Guest Scientists during development and testing and lead real-time ISS operations. The Astrobee Team and Guest Scientists have completed research including Astrobatics maneuvers, RFID and sound sensing capabilities, Gecko materials studies, student Robotics Programming Challenges, and Free Flyer formation flight investigations. Current science with the Astrobee Robots is investigating new docking capabilities through software only research as well as testing new docking hardware installed on the Astrobees. The Astrobee Team and other researchers at NASA Ames continue to explore robotics applications for future NASA missions such as Gateway and potential experiments involving human-robot interactions. Continued advanced mapping resolution capabilities, and high-resolution panoramic imagery also remains areas of research. Exciting in development research involves docking for rendezvous proximity operation (CLINGERS), multi resolution 3D scanning (MRS), space debris removal in microgravity (REACCH). This presentation will mainly focus on completed research over the past year and current science being performed on the Astrobees. This presentation will also focus on how a Guest Scientist/Researcher progresses from conception to running their science on the Astrobees on the ISS, as well as discuss the Astrobee Facility resources available for supporting ground testing and real-time ISS operations.

Astrobee↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Real-Time Science Decisioning During High Tempo-High Intensity Mission Operations and the Role of Analogs

Introduction: NASA’s VIPER mission presents a unique operational paradigm within the history of robotic spaceflight. The proximity of the Moon to the Earth and the terrain elements (surface characteristics, light/shadow dynamics, communication links) of the lunar South Polar landing site create unprecedented operational conditions between these two planetary bodies. Apollo era lunar science and exploration included humans in situ to operate instruments and assimilate observational inputs in real-time. Previous lunar orbital missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges, that were weeks in length. Mars rover missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges between Mars and Earth, that were hours, days, and weeks in length. In the case of the VIPER mission, our operational decisioning for rover driving and instrument commanding will be compressed to minute-scale timeframes. These operational conditions directly impact the manner and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) is required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations. The VST shall provide mission enhancing scientific input to guide rover traverse planning and drill site confirmation and selection throughout surface operations. Further, the VST input will be of vital importance to the mission’s ability to maximize science return and to meet broader NASA objectives for future lunar in-situ resource utilization (ISRU)and exploration activities. The VST co-located in the Mission Science Center (MSC) will be responsive to the tactical operational cadence of the Mission Operations Center (MOC) and will provide further strategic and Long-Term Planning (LTP) guidance to the mission. The VIPER Science Operations & Integration(SO&I)team has developed an architecture that is focused on the infusion of science-decisioning into the operational framework and execution cadence of VIPER. NASA analog research has played a significant role in the construction of the VIPER science operations systems. As an example, the SO&I team has led analog missions that have focused on bringing together expertise in the sciences (natural, applied and social) and in operations in service of learning how to build and hold together interdisciplinary work environments and what tools are needed to support high tempo, high intensity integrated decisioning. These experiences have provided an essential foundation of knowledge to the VIPER team. Those analogs that specifically influenced the VIPER science operations construct were identified through a process of comparative analysis to prioritize those that offered relevance in whole or in part, and those that did not. The analog research output that provided extensibility to the VIPER science operations architecture included remote teams of humans and robots in cooperation (synchronous and asynchronous) with simulated earthbound systems, engineering and science teams, and the integrated assembly of tools that supported scientific analysis and data synthesis and provided infrastructure for the remote testing framework. Analogs which included real-time data monitoring, synthesis, visualization and access in a democratized and operationalized manner were of particular interest to the development of the VIPER MSC toolset both in terms of the technology and the processes used to develop the supporting infrastructure. We anticipate that each subsequent mission to the lunar south pole, whether with robots or humans, will be able to optimize science and exploration return by evolving strategies to infuse real-time collaborative science-decisioning. Furthermore, these efforts will result in a foundation for science operations development in support of human-robotic exploration of deep space and Mars. NASA analogs can continue to provide the opportunity to prepare, test and iterate on the operational concepts and tools that will support these ever-expanding space exploration efforts. Our presentation will include an overview of the VIPER Science Operations & Integration development process and specifics on what aspects of analog research have had a significant impact on our work systems.

D S S Lim↗
DOE OSTI2020

Autonomous Monitoring of Nuclear Repositories: Current State of the Art and Future Directions

Geological repositories for nuclear waste, including spent nuclear fuel, present a significant challenge for traditional International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards tools due to their inaccessibility and demanding operational conditions. The IAEA has been working closely with Member State organizations currently involved in repository construction and planning, including Euratom, the Finnish and Swedish regulatory authorities, and relevant facility operators. However, the verification challenge remains unsolved, and there persists an out- standing need for tools and approaches that will help the IAEA verify that no nuclear material is diverted from a repository environment. The challenge is also not static. Activities must encompass verification of the design, prior to and during the construction/operation phase, and post backfill. Throughout these various phases, it is imperative that the IAEA maintains a continuity of knowledge (CoK) of all material including information on material inventory and flow. This paper highlights these challenges and outlines how they might be addressed by using remote or autonomous vehicles. Specifically, we discuss the current state of the art in robotic autonomy for known or partially known environment mapping and patrolling, as well as shared autonomy, where humans collaborate with closed-loop autonomation to complete tasks. We explore the feasibility of using rovers for these verification tasks, along with the challenges associated with system implementation. Hardware and software suggestions are provided based on the adoption of similar technologies in other comparable areas and ability to close technical gaps. Lastly, human-robotic interactions are considered based on the challenges of the environment of the repository and effective deployment and continued operation of the robot system.

geologic repository, safeguards, IAEA, Robotics↗
NASA NTRS2013

Robotics for Human Exploration

Robots can do a variety of work to increase the productivity of human explorers. Robots can perform tasks that are tedious, highly repetitive or long-duration. Robots can perform precursor tasks, such as reconnaissance, which help prepare for future human activity. Robots can work in support of astronauts, assisting or performing tasks in parallel. Robots can also perform "follow-up" work, completing tasks designated or started by humans. In this paper, we summarize the development and testing of robots designed to improve future human exploration of space.

human-robot interaction↗
NASA NTRS2011

ATHLETE : Double Auger Anchoring Mechanism

The All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (ATHLETE) is a six-limbed robot designed to support surface explorations on Near Earth Objects, the Moon and Mars. ATHLETE can carry large payloads on its top deck and can carry a fully equipped pressurized habitat in low gravity. The robot has wheels on each of its six articulated limbs, allowing it to actively conform to terrain while driving and to walk when driving is impractical. With the use of a tool adapter, ATHLETE limbs can be equipped with end effectors to support various mission objectives. For work on Near Earth Objects and other microgravity environments, an anchoring mechanism is needed to keep the ATHLETE from floating off the surface. My goal for this spring session at JPL was to design and build a counter rotating, double auger, anchoring mechanism. The mechanism mates to the tool adapter and is driven off the wheel motor. The double auger anchoring mechanism will be tested in a regolith simulant that will determine the uplift capacity of the anchoring mechanism.

Human-Robot Systems (HRS) Project↗
NASA NTRS2013

Towards Human-Friendly Efficient Control of Multi-Robot Teams

This paper explores means to increase efficiency in performing tasks with multi-robot teams, in the context of natural Human-Multi-Robot Interfaces (HMRI) for command and control. The motivating scenario is an emergency evacuation by a transport convoy of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) that have to traverse, in shortest time, an unknown terrain. In the experiments the operator commands, in minimal time, a group of rovers through a maze. The efficiency of performing such tasks depends on both, the levels of robots' autonomy, and the ability of the operator to command and control the team. The paper extends the classic framework of levels of autonomy (LOA), to levels/hierarchy of autonomy characteristic of Groups (G-LOA), and uses it to determine new strategies for control. An UGVoriented command language (UGVL) is defined, and a mapping is performed from the human-friendly gesture-based HMRI into the UGVL. The UGVL is used to control a team of 3 robots, exploring the efficiency of different G-LOA; specifically, by (a) controlling each robot individually through the maze, (b) controlling a leader and cloning its controls to followers, and (c) controlling the entire group. Not surprisingly, commands at increased G-LOA lead to a faster traverse, yet a number of aspects are worth discussing in this context.

multi-robot control↗
NASA NTRS2016

Moving NASA Beyond Low Earth Orbit: Future Human-Automation-Robotic Integration Challenges

This presentation will provide an overview of current human spaceflight operations. It will also describe how future exploration missions will have to adapt and evolve in order to deal with more complex missions and communication latencies. Additionally, there are many implications regarding advanced automation and robotics, and this presentation will outline future human-automation-robotic integration challenges.

human-robotic↗
NASA NTRS2016

Becoming Earth Independent: Human-Automation-Robotics Integration Challenges for Future Space Exploration

Future exploration missions will require NASA to integrate more automation and robotics in order to accomplish mission objectives. This presentation will describe on the future challenges facing the human operator (astronaut, ground controllers) as we increase the amount of automation and robotics in spaceflight operations. It will describe how future exploration missions will have to adapt and evolve in order to deal with more complex missions and communication latencies. This presentation will outline future human-automation-robotic integration challenges.

human-robotic↗
NASA NTRS2016

Anthropomorphic Robot Design and User Interaction Associated with Motion

Though in its original concept a robot was conceived to have some human-like shape, most robots now in use have specific industrial purposes and do not closely resemble humans. Nevertheless, robots that resemble human form in some way have continued to be introduced. They are called anthropomorphic robots. The fact that the user interface to all robots is now highly mediated means that the form of the user interface is not necessarily connected to the robots form, human or otherwise. Consequently, the unique way the design of anthropomorphic robots affects their user interaction is through their general appearance and the way they move. These robots human-like appearance acts as a kind of generalized predictor that gives its operators, and those with whom they may directly work, the expectation that they will behave to some extent like a human. This expectation is especially prominent for interactions with social robots, which are built to enhance it. Often interaction with them may be mainly cognitive because they are not necessarily kinematically intricate enough for complex physical interaction. Their body movement, for example, may be limited to simple wheeled locomotion. An anthropomorphic robot with human form, however, can be kinematically complex and designed, for example, to reproduce the details of human limb, torso, and head movement. Because of the mediated nature of robot control, there remains in general no necessary connection between the specific form of user interface and the anthropomorphic form of the robot. But their anthropomorphic kinematics and dynamics imply that the impact of their design shows up in the way the robot moves. The central finding of this report is that the control of this motion is a basic design element through which the anthropomorphic form can affect user interaction. In particular, designers of anthropomorphic robots can take advantage of the inherent human-like movement to 1) improve the users direct manual control over robot limbs and body positions, 2) improve users ability to detect anomalous robot behavior which could signal malfunction, and 3) enable users to be better able to infer the intent of robot movement. These three benefits of anthropomorphic design are inherent implications of the anthropomorphic form but they need to be recognized by designers as part of anthropomorphic design and explicitly enhanced to maximize their beneficial impact. Examples of such enhancements are provided in this report. If implemented, these benefits of anthropomorphic design can help reduce the risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation Robotic Integration (HARI) associated with the HARI-01 gap by providing efficient and dexterous operator control over robots and by improving operator ability to detect malfunctions and understand the intention of robot movement.

automation/robotic integration↗
NASA NTRS2018

Human-Automation Allocations for Current Robotic Space Operations

Within the Human Research Program, one risk delineates the uncertainty surrounding crew working with automation and robotics in spaceflight. The Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration (HARI) is concerned with the detrimental effects on crew performance due to ineffective user interfaces, system designs and/or functional task allocation, potentially compromising mission success and safety. Risk arises because we have limited experience with complex automation and robotics. One key gap within HARI, is the gap related to functional allocation. The gap states: We need to evaluate, develop, and validate methods and guidelines for identifying human-automation/robot task information needs, function allocation, and team composition for future long duration, long distance space missions. Allocations determine the human-system performance as it identifies the functions and performance levels required by the automation/robotic system, and in turn, what work the crew is expected to perform and the necessary human performance requirements. Allocations must take into account each of the human, automation, and robotic systems capabilities and limitations. Some functions may be intuitively assigned to the human versus the robot, but to optimize efficiency and effectiveness, purposeful role assignments will be required. The role of automation and robotics will significantly change in future exploration missions, particularly as crew becomes more autonomous from ground controllers. Thus, we must understand the suitability of existing function allocation methods within NASA as well as the existing allocations established by the few robotic systems that are operational in spaceflight. In order to evaluate future methods of robotic allocations, we must first benchmark the allocations and allocation methods that have been used. We will present 1) documentation of human-automation-robotic allocations in existing, operational spaceflight systems; and 2) To gather existing lessons learned and best practices in these role assignments, from spaceflight operational experience of crew and ground teams that may be used to guide development for future systems. NASA and other space agencies have operational spaceflight experience with two key Human-Automation-Robotic (HAR) systems: heavy lift robotic arms and planetary robotic explorers. Additionally, NASA has invested in high-fidelity rover systems that can carry crew, building beyond Apollo's lunar rover. The heavy lift robotic arms reviewed are: Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS), and the European Robotic Arm (ERA, designed but not deployed in space). The robotic rover systems reviewed are: Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Science Laboratory rover, and the high-fidelity K10 rovers. Much of the design and operational feedback for these systems have been communicated to flight controllers and robotic design teams. As part of the mitigating the HARI risk for future human spaceflight operations, we must document function allocations between robots and humans that have worked well in practice.

robotic allocation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Planning and Monitoring for Swarm Search and Service Missions

To transition from control theory to real applications, it is important to study missions such as Swarm Search and Service (SSS) where vehicles are not only required to search an area, but also service all jobs that they find. In SSS missions each type of job requires a group of vehicles to break-off from the swarm for a given amount of time to successfully service it. The required number of vehicles and the service rate are unique to each job type. Once a job has been completed the vehicles are able to return to the swarm for use elsewhere. If not enough vehicles are present in the swarm at the time that the job is identified, that job is dropped without being serviced. Human operators as tasked with effectively planning and managing these complex missions. This work presents a user study that seeks to test the efficacy and ease-of-use of a prediction model known as the Hybrid Model as an aid in planning and monitoring tasks. Results show that the novel computational model aid allows operators to more effectively choose the necessary swarm size to handle expected mission workload, as well as, maintain sufficient situation awareness to evaluate the performance of the swarm during missions.

swarm search and service↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Self-Scheduling Countermeasures in NASA's HERA Campaign 6

Enhancing crew capabilities for planning and scheduling activities is critical for periods of increased crew autonomy in future long-duration missions where communication delays preclude real-time ground support from Earth. Our study focuses on how to empower astronauts to manage their timelines independently from the experts in the mission control center (MCC). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of scheduling countermeasures on crew scheduling performance, workload, and usability in an analog mission environment. The study involved 16 crew members across four missions in the Limited Autonomy phase of Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaign 6. Crew members used Playbook to schedule one operational day for the entire crew. Half the participants accessed scheduling aids, and we compared their performance to a control group with no aids. Performance, workload, and usability were assessed using time on task, violation counts, NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), and System Usability Scale (SUS). Participants using scheduling aids completed sessions 20% faster and committed 33% fewer violations. While these differences were not statistically significant due to the study’s operational limitations, trends indicate that scheduling aids may reduce errors and improve efficiency. These results can inform the design of scheduling tools to enhance astronauts’ autonomy in long-duration space missions, contributing to improved crew performance and reduced reliance on ground support.

space robotics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Self-Scheduling Countermeasures in NASA's HERA Campaign 6

Enhancing crew capabilities for planning and scheduling activities is critical for periods of increased crew autonomy in future long-duration missions where communication delays preclude real-time ground support from Earth. Our study focuses on how to empower astronauts to manage their timelines independently from the experts in the mission control center (MCC). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of scheduling countermeasures on crew scheduling performance, workload, and usability in an analog mission environment. The study involved 16 crew members across four missions in the Limited Autonomy phase of Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaign 6. Crew members used Playbook to schedule one operational day for the entire crew. Half the participants accessed scheduling aids, and we compared their performance to a control group with no aids. Performance, workload, and usability were assessed using time on task, violation counts, NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), and System Usability Scale (SUS). Participants using scheduling aids completed sessions 20% faster and committed 33% fewer violations. While these differences were not statistically significant due to the study’s operational limitations, trends indicate that scheduling aids may reduce errors and improve efficiency. These results can inform the design of scheduling tools to enhance astronauts’ autonomy in long-duration space missions, contributing to improved crew performance and reduced reliance on ground support.

space robotics↗