Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “crew autonomy”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Crew-Aided Autonomous Navigation

A sextant provides manual capability to perform star/planet-limb sightings and offers a cheap, simple, robust backup navigation source for exploration missions independent from the ground. Sextant sightings from spacecraft were first exercised in Gemini and flew as the lost-communication backup for all Apollo missions. This study characterized error sources of navigation-grade sextants for feasibility of taking star and planetary limb sightings from inside a spacecraft. A series of similar studies was performed in the early/mid-1960s in preparation for Apollo missions. This study modernized and updated those findings in addition to showing feasibility using Linear Covariance analysis techniques. The human eyeball is a remarkable piece of optical equipment and provides many advantages over camera-based systems, including dynamic range and detail resolution. This technique utilizes those advantages and provides important autonomy to the crew in the event of lost communication with the ground. It can also provide confidence and verification of low-TRL automated onboard systems. The technique is extremely flexible and is not dependent on any particular vehicle type. The investigation involved procuring navigation-grade sextants and characterizing their performance under a variety of conditions encountered in exploration missions. The JSC optical sensor lab and Orion mockup were the primary testing locations. For the accuracy assessment, a group of test subjects took sextant readings on calibrated targets while instrument/operator precision was measured. The study demonstrated repeatability of star/planet-limb sightings with bias and standard deviation around 10 arcseconds, then used high-fidelity simulations to verify those accuracy levels met the needs for targeting mid-course maneuvers in preparation for Earth reen.

Holt, Greg N.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Development and verification testing of automation and robotics for assembly of space structures

A program was initiated within the past several years to develop operational procedures for automated assembly of truss structures suitable for large-aperture antennas. The assembly operations require the use of a robotic manipulator and are based on the principle of supervised autonomy to minimize crew resources. A hardware testbed was established to support development and evaluation testing. A brute-force automation approach was used to develop the baseline assembly hardware and software techniques. As the system matured and an operation was proven, upgrades were incorprated and assessed against the baseline test results. This paper summarizes the developmental phases of the program, the results of several assembly tests, the current status, and a series of proposed developments for additional hardware and software control capability. No problems that would preclude automated in-space assembly of truss structures have been encountered. The current system was developed at a breadboard level and continued development at an enhanced level is warranted.

Rhodes, Marvin D.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Mars Human Exploration Objectives

This paper reviews the objectives and other considerations of Human exploration of Mars. The objectives of human exploration of Mars are: (1) to learn how Mars is similar to, and different from, Earth; (2) to explore possible life, past and present; (3) to discover what Mars is like now from the perspective of Geoscience and geologic history; and (4) how did Mars form and how did its formation differ from Earth. Considerations of human Martian exploration involve: (1) having a capable base laboratory; (2) having long range transportation; (3) having operational autonomy of the crew, and the requirement of the crew to possess a range of new cognitive processes along with easy communications with terrestrial colleagues; and finally (4) creating the human habitat along with human factors which involve more than just survivability.

Briggs, Geoff↗
NASA NTRS2011

Building a Shared Definitional Model of Long Duration Human Spaceflight

In 1956, on the eve of human space travel Strughold first proposed a simple classification of the present and future stages of manned flight that identified key factors, risks and developmental stages for the evolutionary journey ahead. As we look to optimize the potential of the ISS as a gateway to new destinations, we need a current shared working definitional model of long duration human space flight to help guide our path. Initial search of formal and grey literature augmented by liaison with subject matter experts. Search strategy focused on both the use of term long duration mission and long duration spaceflight, and also broader related current and historical definitions and classification models of spaceflight. The related sea and air travel literature was also subsequently explored with a view to identifying analogous models or classification systems. There are multiple different definitions and classification systems for spaceflight including phase and type of mission, craft and payload and related risk management models. However the frequently used concepts of long duration mission and long duration spaceflight are infrequently operationally defined by authors, and no commonly referenced classical or gold standard definition or model of these terms emerged from the search. The categorization (Cat) system for sailing was found to be of potential analogous utility, with its focus on understanding the need for crew and craft autonomy at various levels of potential adversity and inability to gain outside support or return to a safe location, due to factors of time, distance and location.

Orr, M.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Enabling Human Space Exploration Missions Through Progressively Earth Independent Medical Operations (EIMO)

Goal: Current Space Medicine operations depend on terrestrial support to manage medical events. As astronauts travel to destinations such as the Moon, Mars, and beyond, distance will substantially limit this support and require increasing medical autonomy from the crew. This paper defines Earth Independent Medical Operations (EIMO) and identifies key elements of a conceptual EIMO system. Methods: The NASA Human Research Program Exploration Medical Capability Element held a 2-day conference at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX with NASA experts representing all aspects of Space Medicine. Results: EIMO will be a process enabling progressively resilient deep space exploration systems and crews to reduce risk and increase mission success. Terrestrial assets will continue to provide pre-mission screening, planning, health maintenance, and prevention, while onboard medical care will increasingly be the purview of the crew. Conclusions: This paper defines and describes the key components of EIMO.

ExMC↗
NASA NTRS2003

Methods for Determining the Level of Autonomy to Design into a Human Spaceflight Vehicle: A Function Specific Approach

The next-generation human spaceflight vehicle is in a unique position to realize the benefits of more than thirty years of technological advancements since the Space Shuttle was designed. Computer enhancements, the emergence of highly reliable decision-making algorithms, and an emphasis on efficiency make an increased use of autonomous systems highly likely. NASA is in a position to take advantage of these advances and apply them to the human spaceflight environment. One of the key paradigm shifts will be the shift, where appropriate, of monitoring, option development, decision-making, and execution responsibility from humans to an Autonomous Flight Management (AFM) system. As an effort to reduce risk for development of an AFM system, NASA engineers are developing a prototype to prove the utility of previously untested autonomy concepts. This prototype, called SMART (Spacecraft Mission Assessment and Replanning Tool), is a functionally decomposed flight management system with an appropriate level of autonomy for each of its functions. As the development of SMART began, the most important and most often asked question was, How autonomous should an AFM system be? A thorough study of the literature through 2002 surrounding autonomous systems has not yielded a standard method for designing a level of autonomy into either a crewed vehicle or an uncrewed vehicle. The current focus in the literature on defining autonomy is centered on developing IQ tests for built systems. The literature that was analyzed assumes that the goal of all systems is to strive for complete autonomy from human intervention, rather than identifying how autonomous each function within the system should have been. In contrast, the SMART team developed a method for determining the appropriate level of autonomy to be designed into each function within a system. This paper summarizes the development of the Level of Autonomy Assessment Tool and its application to the SMART project.

AFM (AUTONOMOUS FLIGHT MANAGEMENT)↗
NASA NTRS1986

Study of onboard expert systems to augment space shuttle and space station autonomy

The feasibility of onboard crew activity planning was examined. The use of expert systems technology to aid crewmembers in locating stowed equipment was also investigated. The crew activity planning problem, along with a summary of past and current research efforts, was discussed in detail. The requirements and specifications used to develop the crew activity planning system was also defined. The guidelines used to create, develop, and operate the MFIVE Crew Scheduler and Logistics Clerk were discussed. Also discussed is the mathematical algorithm, used by the MFIVE Scheduler, which was developed to aid in optimal crew activity planning.

Kurtzman, C. R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applying NASA’s Human Systems Integration Methodology in Implementing Voice-Control of Future Spacecraft Systems

Through the NASA Artemis program, a new era of space exploration will serve to lead humanity towards sustained lunar exploration in preparation for the next giant leap-human exploration of Mars. These crewed spacecraft and habitats will require more automation and autonomy to support these complex missions. Crew size will be small and therefore a more efficient command and control input method is desired. Speech recognition along with visual or auditory feedback is an alternative, providing an extra pair of hands and eyes for the crew. Yet, speech recognition demands a highly integrated development approach to ensure a successful system implementation. To ensure the voice control application is developed correctly will require a Human Systems Integration (HSI) approach. This paper provides an insight into the development of a speech/voice control application for a spacecraft system that encompasses automation and autonomy through an HSI approach. Results of the voice control experiment of the Space Shuttle camera system are provided as lessons learned about using voice control on a spacecraft. Limitations and challenges of the technology are addressed as well as how HSI along with Human Readiness Level can help successfully develop voice control command and control systems.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2006

Health and Fitness Evaluations for Long Duration Microgravity Exposure

The current health maintenance program for ISS is adequate; however the future of medical care and research in space requires a change where crew time efficiency and autonomy are emphasized. NASA s medical personnel are currently refining their ability to monitor and provide remote health care in such a manner. The proposed plan would evaluate health and fitness of the on orbit crew to; perform on orbit operations, and readiness to return to a terrestrial environment. A two tiered approach will utilize exercise and medical equipment, as well as periodic medical conferences with the flight surgeon, to provide a quantitative and clinical picture of the crew s health and fitness. Any off nominal health and fitness issues that could arise will be evaluated by providing an "armamentarium" of devices both medical and exercise specific to the on orbit crew to use. The ability for the crew to provide autonomous health care, with decreasing earth support, will become increasingly more important for exploration missions. This new plan of health care and maintenance will allow us to, development such efforts while continuing to monitor and provide the best possible health, care and medical research through the microgravity environment on board ISS.

Roden, Sean Kevin↗
NASA NTRS2001

Robotic space colonies

This paper reviews recent advances in these technologies, with a particular focus on experimental state-of-the-art robot work crew system demonstrations at JPL, that are being conducted now to begin to realize the futuristic robotic colony vision.

robot colonies collective autonomy work crews spac↗
NASA NTRS2000

ISS Payload Operations: The Need for and Benefit of Responsive Planning

International Space Station (ISS) payload operations are controlled through implementation of a payload operations plan. This plan, which represents the defined approach to payload operations in general, can vary in terms of level of definition. The detailed plan provides the specific sequence and timing of each component of a payload's operations. Such an approach to planning was implemented in the Spacelab program. The responsive plan provides a flexible approach to payload operations through generalization. A responsive approach to planning was implemented in the NASA/Mir Phase 1 program, and was identified as a need during the Skylab program. The current approach to ISS payload operations planning and control tends toward detailed planning, rather than responsive planning. The use of detailed plans provides for the efficient use of limited resources onboard the ISS. It restricts flexibility in payload operations, which is inconsistent with the dynamic nature of the ISS science program, and it restricts crew desires for flexibility and autonomy. Also, detailed planning is manpower intensive. The development and implementation of a responsive plan provides for a more dynamic, more accommodating, and less manpower intensive approach to planning. The science program becomes more dynamic and responsive as the plan provides flexibility to accommodate real-time science accomplishments. Communications limitations and the crew desire for flexibility and autonomy in plan implementation are readily accommodated with responsive planning. Manpower efficiencies are accomplished through a reduction in requirements collection and coordination, plan development, and maintenance. Through examples and assessments, this paper identifies the need to transition from detailed to responsive plans for ISS payload operations. Examples depict specific characteristics of the plans. Assessments identify the following: the means by which responsive plans accommodate the dynamic nature of science programs and the crew desire for flexibility; the means by which responsive plans readily accommodate ISS communications constraints; manpower efficiencies to be achieved through use of responsive plans; and the implications of responsive planning relative to resource utilization efficiency.

Nahay, Ed↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Desert RATS Science Backroom: Remotely Supporting Planetary Exploration

NASA's Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of tests designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable. In recent years, a D-RATS science backroom has conducted science operations and tested specific operational approaches. Approaches from the Apollo, Mars Exploration Rovers and Phoenix missions were merged to become the baseline for these tests. In 2010, six days of lunar-analog traverse operations were conducted during each week of the 2-week test, with three traverse days each week conducted with voice and data communications continuously available, and three traverse days conducted with only two 1-hour communications periods per day. In 2011, a variety of exploration science scenarios that tested operations for a near-earth asteroid using several small exploration vehicles and a single habitat. Communications between the ground and the crew in the field used a 50-second one-way delay, while communications between crewmembers in the exploration vehicles and the habitat were instantaneous. Within these frameworks, the team evaluated integrated science operations management using real-time science operations to oversee daily crew activities, and strategic level evaluations of science data and daily traverse results. Exploration scenarios for Mars may include architectural similarities such as crew in a habitat communicating with crew in a vehicle, but significantly more autonomy will have to be given to the crew rather than step-by-step interaction with a science backroom on Earth.

Cohen, Barbara A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-loop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of"pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS. The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (1) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multi-sensor series of trajectories.

Brewster, L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Lab

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success ofthe Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-Ioop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of "pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS.' The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (l) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multisensor series oftrajectories

Brewster, Linda L.↗
NASA NTRS2018

SAM 3.0 Workshop Alliance SV Lab

Nissan is building a Seamless Autonomy Mobility (SAM) which is a cloud-based system of artificial intelligence that manages a fleet of autonomous vehicles. It pairs artificial intelligence with human intelligence in order to create a seamless solution that allows autonomous drive to be viable and marketable. They have created a Mobility Manager function which is a laborer who executed human-in-the-loop functions within SAM system. Nissan invited the HAT Lab to discuss NASA's lessons learned on remote operator support and to participate in a workshop discussion of one of their use cases. This presentation covers some of the HAT Lab's work on a human-autonomy teaming Agent and previous Reduced Crew Operations ground station development.

Human-Autonomy Teaming↗
NASA NTRS1985

Human factors in space station architecture 1: Space station program implications for human factors research

The space station program is based on a set of premises on mission requirements and the operational capabilities of the space shuttle. These premises will influence the human behavioral factors and conditions on board the space station. These include: launch in the STS Orbiter payload bay, orbital characteristics, power supply, microgravity environment, autonomy from the ground, crew make-up and organization, distributed command control, safety, and logistics resupply. The most immediate design impacts of these premises will be upon the architectural organization and internal environment of the space station.

Cohen, M. M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Technology Development Status and Forecast

Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, Extravehicular activity (EVA) technology development became a technology foundational domain under a new program Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration. The goal of the EVA technology effort is to further develop technologies that will be used to demonstrate a robust EVA system that has application for a variety of future missions including microgravity and surface EVA. Overall the objectives will be reduce system mass, reduce consumables and maintenance, increase EVA hardware robustness and life, increase crew member efficiency and autonomy, and enable rapid vehicle egress and ingress. Over the past several years, NASA realized a tremendous increase in EVA system development as part of the Exploration Technology Development Program and the Constellation Program. The evident demand for efficient and reliable EVA technologies, particularly regenerable technologies was apparent under these former programs and will continue to be needed as future mission opportunities arise. The technological need for EVA in space has been realized over the last several decades by the Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS) programs. EVAs were critical to the success of these programs. Now with the ISS extension to 2028 in conjunction with a current forecasted need of at least eight EVAs per year, the EVA technology life and limited availability of the EMUs will become a critical issue eventually. The current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) has vastly served EVA demands by performing critical operations to assemble the ISS and provide repairs of satellites such as the Hubble Space Telescope. However, as the life of ISS and the vision for future mission opportunities are realized, a new EVA systems capability could be an option for the future mission applications building off of the technology development over the last several years. Besides ISS, potential mission applications include EVAs for missions to Near Earth Objects (NEO), Phobos, or future surface missions. Surface missions could include either exploration of the Moon or Mars. Providing an EVA capability for these types of missions enables in-space construction of complex vehicles or satellites, hands on exploration of new parts of our solar system, and engages the public through the inspiration of knowing that humans are exploring places that they have never been before. This paper offers insight into what is currently being developed and what the potential opportunities are in the forecast

Chullen, Cinda↗
NASA NTRS2011

Extravehicular Activity Technology Development Status and Forecast

The goal of NASA s current EVA technology effort is to further develop technologies that will be used to demonstrate a robust EVA system that has application for a variety of future missions including microgravity and surface EVA. Overall the objectives will be to reduce system mass, reduce consumables and maintenance, increase EVA hardware robustness and life, increase crew member efficiency and autonomy, and enable rapid vehicle egress and ingress. Over the past several years, NASA realized a tremendous increase in EVA system development as part of the Exploration Technology Development Program and the Constellation Program. The evident demand for efficient and reliable EVA technologies, particularly regenerable technologies was apparent under these former programs and will continue to be needed as future mission opportunities arise. The technological need for EVA in space has been realized over the last several decades by the Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS) programs. EVAs were critical to the success of these programs. Now with the ISS extension to 2028 in conjunction with a current forecasted need of at least eight EVAs per year, the EVA hardware life and limited availability of the Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMUs) will eventually become a critical issue. The current EMU has successfully served EVA demands by performing critical operations to assemble the ISS and provide repairs of satellites such as the Hubble Space Telescope. However, as the life of ISS and the vision for future mission opportunities are realized, a new EVA systems capability will be needed and the current architectures and technologies under development offer significant improvements over the current flight systems. In addition to ISS, potential mission applications include EVAs for missions to Near Earth Objects (NEO), Phobos, or future surface missions. Surface missions could include either exploration of the Moon or Mars. Providing an EVA capability for these types of missions enables in-space construction of complex vehicles or satellites, hands on exploration of new parts of our solar system, and engages the public through the inspiration of knowing that humans are exploring places that they have never been before. This paper offers insight into what is currently being developed and what the potential opportunities are in the forecast.

Chullen, Cinda↗