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.

116 records · Page 7

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗