Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “space 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

Modeling Deformable Linear Objects for Autonomous Robotic Outfitting of Lunar Surface Systems

This paper presents structural models of deformable linear objects (DLOs). DLOs are a subclass of deformable objects that encompasses common outfitting elements such as cables and ropes. Models are validated through hardware experiments, and integration in a robotic autonomy architecture for space environments is discussed. A persistent human presence on the lunar surface is one of the next major milestones in space exploration. This requires the development of robust extraplanetary construction technologies including structures and materials modeling and robotic systems. Previous robotic construction technology development has primarily focused on structural assembly, with significantly less focus on robotically performed outfitting tasks to instantiate subsystems providing power, data, life support, etc. These tasks involve manipulation of highly flexible elements, which are difficult to model, such as cable harnesses, ropes, and hoses. Robotic manipulation of DLOs, especially cable harnesses, is an active area of research as cable harnesses are essential for providing power and data to space assets. DLO models that can be used for robot manipulator trajectory generation are necessary for autonomous operation of lunar infrastructure. There are many proposed methods for modeling DLOs, and they primarily fall into three types: 1) discrete model-based, 2) continuum model-based, and 3) Neural Network-based. These types each have pros and cons, and the tradeoff between model accuracy and computational speed informs which type should be used. An understanding of this trade-off is imperative for real-time control of autonomous systems. High computational requirements reduce the speed of the model, making real-time control difficult, while accuracy is critical to preventing collisions. Discrete models, such as a mass-spring multibody representation, require relatively few calculations, and accuracy is directly tied to the step size of the discretization. Continuum models, such as a B-spline representation or a Cosserat rod model (a mix of continuous and discrete), are more informed of the structural properties of the cable and are much more accurate than a rigid body mass-spring model, but at significant computational cost. A Neural Network approach can provide an online solution with very few computational steps, but properly generating training data can be difficult and validation for an in-space application is not trivial. This paper explores the trade-off between different modeling approaches and compares accuracy and computational speed/complexity of the three types mentioned above. Model accuracy is evaluated using a cable in a static configuration. True cable shape is obtained using a depth camera for RGB images and point-cloud segmentation. The purpose of this experiment is to evaluate the trade-offs of different approaches to the DLO modeling problem. Understanding the tradeoffs between different cable modeling techniques paves the way for developing robotic control and planning architectures necessary for real-time manipulation of DLOs for lunar infrastructure outfitting. Real-time control is required for robotic systems to be able to actively manipulate a cable in a harsh environment where model and sensor errors compound, and environmental conditions can cause significant disturbances. Cable routing must be performed in areas with high density of objects/obstacles: through truss structures, near solar panels or mirror arrays, next to bundles of electrical equipment. Understanding the best way to plan and manipulate a cable without disrupting the environment or damaging the cable is imperative to robotic outfitting operations on the lunar surface.

Amy M Quartaro↗

Innovations in Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

The Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy (DSA) team at NASA’s Ames Research Center is advancing autonomy in distributed space systems through five key technical areas: distributed resource and task management, reactive operations, system modeling and simulation, human-swarm interaction, and ad hoc network communications. This talk describes recent successes of the DSA experiment onboard the Starling 1.0 mission.

Caleb Adams↗

Autonomous Mission Manager for Rendezvous, Inspection and Mating

To meet cost and safety objectives, space missions that involve proximity operations between two vehicles require a high level of autonomy to successfully complete their missions. The need for autonomy is primarily driven by the need to conduct complex operations outside of communication windows, and the communication time delays inherent in space missions. Autonomy also supports the goals of both NASA and the DOD to make space operations more routine, and lower operational costs by reducing the requirement for ground personnel. NASA and the DoD have several programs underway that require a much higher level of autonomy for space vehicles. NASA's Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program has ambitious goals of reducing costs by a factor or 10 and improving safety by a factor of 100. DARPA has recently begun its Orbital Express to demonstrate key technologies to make satellite servicing routine. The Air Force's XSS-ll program is developing a protoflight demonstration of an autonomous satellite inspector. A common element in space operations for many NASA and DOD missions is the ability to rendezvous, inspect anclJor dock with another spacecraft. For DARPA, this is required to service or refuel military satellites. For the Air Force, this is required to inspect un-cooperative resident space objects. For NASA, this is needed to meet the primary SLI design reference mission of International Space Station re-supply. A common aspect for each of these programs is an Autonomous Mission Manager that provides highly autonomous planning, execution and monitoring of the rendezvous, inspection and docking operations. This paper provides an overview of the Autonomous Mission Manager (AMM) design being incorporated into many of these technology programs. This AMM provides a highly scalable level of autonomous operations, ranging from automatic execution of ground-derived plans to highly autonomous onboard planning to meet ground developed mission goals. The AMM provides the capability to automatically execute the plans and monitor the system performance. In the event of system dispersions or failures the AMM can modify plans or abort to assure overall system safety. This paper describes the design and functionality of Draper's AMM framework, presents concept of operations associated with the use of the AMM, and outlines the relevant features of the flight demonstrations.

Zimpfer, Douglas J.↗

Adjustable Autonomy and Human-Agent Teamwork in Practice: An Interim Report on Space Applications

We give a preliminary perspective on the basic principles and pitfalls of adjustable autonomy and human-centered teamwork. We then summarize the interim results of our study on the problem of work practice modeling and human-agent collaboration in space applications, the development of a broad model of human-agent teamwork grounded in practice, and the integration of the Brahms, KAoS, and NOMADS agent frameworks. We hope our work will benefit those who plan and participate in work activities in a wide variety of space applications, as well as those who are interested in design and execution tools for teams of robots that can function as effective assistants to humans.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M.↗

Progressive autonomy

The present investigation is concerned with the evolution of a space station in terms of the progression of autonomy, as systems perspectives and architectural concepts permit. The distinction between automation and autonomy is considered along with the evolution of autonomy, and the evolution of automation in station operations. Attention is given to the startup of a complex technological system, aspects of station control, questions of crew operational support, factors regarding the habitability of a space station, system design philosophy for autonomy, evolvability, latent capability, stage commonality, and multiple modularity. It is concluded that an evolutionary space station operating over a period of 10-20 years with a great increase in capability over that time will require a design philosophy which is more flexible and open-ended than for previous space systems.

Anderson, J. L.↗

Autonomy for Constellation

The newer types of space systems, which are planned for the future, are placing challenging demands for newer autonomy concepts and techniques. Motivating these challenges are resource constraints. Even though onboard computing power will surely increase in the coming years, the resource constraints associated with space-based processes will continue to be a major factor that needs to be considered when dealing with, for example, agent-based spacecraft autonomy. To realize "economical intelligence", i.e., constrained computational intelligence that can reside within a process under severe resource constraints (time, power, space, etc.), is a major goal for such space systems as the Nanosat constellations. To begin to address the new challenges, we are developing approaches to constellation autonomy with constraints in mind. Within the Agent Concepts Testbed (ACT) at the Goddard Space Flight Center we are currently developing a Nanosat-related prototype for the first of the two-step program.

Truszkowski, Walt↗

Automated procedure execution for space vehicle autonomous control

Increased operational autonomy and reduced operating costs have become critical design objectives in next-generation NASA and DoD space programs. The objective is to develop a semi-automated system for intelligent spacecraft operations support. The Spacecraft Operations and Anomaly Resolution System (SOARS) is presented as a standardized, model-based architecture for performing High-Level Tasking, Status Monitoring and automated Procedure Execution Control for a variety of spacecraft. The particular focus is on the Procedure Execution Control module. A hierarchical procedure network is proposed as the fundamental means for specifying and representing arbitrary operational procedures. A separate procedure interpreter controls automatic execution of the procedure, taking into account the current status of the spacecraft as maintained in an object-oriented spacecraft model.

Broten, Thomas A.↗

Model Based Autonomy for Robust Mars Operations

Space missions have historically relied upon a large ground staff, numbering in the hundreds for complex missions, to maintain routine operations. When an anomaly occurs, this small army of engineers attempts to identify and work around the problem. A piloted Mars mission, with its multiyear duration, cost pressures, half-hour communication delays and two-week blackouts cannot be closely controlled by a battalion of engineers on Earth. Flight crew involvement in routine system operations must also be minimized to maximize science return. It also may be unrealistic to require the crew have the expertise in each mission subsystem needed to diagnose a system failure and effect a timely repair, as engineers did for Apollo 13. Enter model-based autonomy, which allows complex systems to autonomously maintain operation despite failures or anomalous conditions, contributing to safe, robust, and minimally supervised operation of spacecraft, life support, In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) and power systems. Autonomous reasoning is central to the approach. A reasoning algorithm uses a logical or mathematical model of a system to infer how to operate the system, diagnose failures and generate appropriate behavior to repair or reconfigure the system in response. The 'plug and play' nature of the models enables low cost development of autonomy for multiple platforms. Declarative, reusable models capture relevant aspects of the behavior of simple devices (e.g. valves or thrusters). Reasoning algorithms combine device models to create a model of the system-wide interactions and behavior of a complex, unique artifact such as a spacecraft. Rather than requiring engineers to all possible interactions and failures at design time or perform analysis during the mission, the reasoning engine generates the appropriate response to the current situation, taking into account its system-wide knowledge, the current state, and even sensor failures or unexpected behavior.

Kurien, James A.↗

Evolution paths for advanced automation

As Space Station Freedom (SSF) evolves, increased automation and autonomy will be required to meet Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP) objectives. As a precursor to the use of advanced automation within the SSFP, especially if it is to be used on SSF (e.g., to automate the operation of the flight systems), the underlying technologies will need to be elevated to a high level of readiness to ensure safe and effective operations. Ground facilities supporting the development of these flight systems -- from research and development laboratories through formal hardware and software development environments -- will be responsible for achieving these levels of technology readiness. These facilities will need to evolve support the general evolution of the SSFP. This evolution will include support for increasing the use of advanced automation. The SSF Advanced Development Program has funded a study to define evolution paths for advanced automaton within the SSFP's ground-based facilities which will enable, promote, and accelerate the appropriate use of advanced automation on-board SSF. The current capability of the test beds and facilities, such as the Software Support Environment, with regard to advanced automation, has been assessed and their desired evolutionary capabilities have been defined. Plans and guidelines for achieving this necessary capability have been constructed. The approach taken has combined indepth interviews of test beds personnel at all SSF Work Package centers with awareness of relevant state-of-the-art technology and technology insertion methodologies. Key recommendations from the study include advocating a NASA-wide task force for advanced automation, and the creation of software prototype transition environments to facilitate the incorporation of advanced automation in the SSFP.

Healey, Kathleen J.↗

Artificial Intelligence - The Future of Space Communications

Presentation focus on the Cognitive Communications Project Overview. The project aims to develop cognitive communications technologies to increase mission science return and improve resource efficiencies. Another key aspect of the project is understanding the fundamental aspects of cognitive technology and developing artificial intelligence to advance the future of space communications. This involves the use of machine learning algorithms in the next generation architecture for space communications in the effort to increase efficiency, autonomy and increased performance of the space communication and navigations next generation architecture.

Briones, Janette C.↗

Sensor data autonomy

'Smart' sensors onboard NASA space missions will require variable data output bandwidth as they respond to phenomena of interest. An Instrument Telemetry Packet (ITP) approach has been developed which encodes experimental instrument data into an autonomous data package, along with pertinent engineering parameters and ancillary data (time, position, attitude, etc.). New requirements for onboard concentration and buffering, as well as for end-to-end error control, arise from this approach. Emphasis is placed on packet protocols compatible with the data link standard ADCCP, to enable one set of ground support equipment to readily support instrument development, launch site checkout and mission operations phases.

Greene, E. P.↗

Systems autonomy technology: Executive summary and program plan

The National Space Strategy approved by the President and Congress in 1984 sets for NASA a major goal of conducting effective and productive space applications and technology programs which contribute materially toward United States leadership and security. To contribute to this goal, OAST supports the Nation's civil and defense space programs and overall economic growth. OAST objectives are to ensure timely provision of new concepts and advanced technologies, to support both the development of NASA missions in space and the space activities of industry and other organizations, to utilize the strengths of universities in conducting the NASA space research and technology program, and to maintain the NASA centers in positions of strength in critical space technology areas. In line with these objectives, NASA has established a new program in space automation and robotics that will result in the development and transfer and automation technology to increase the capabilities, productivity, and safety of NASA space programs including the Space Station, automated space platforms, lunar bases, Mars missions, and other deep space ventures. The NASA/OAST Automation and Robotics program is divided into two parts. Ames Research Center has the lead role in developing and demonstrating System Autonomy capabilities for space systems that need to make their own decisions and do their own planning. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has the lead role for Telerobotics (that portion of the program that has a strong human operator component in the control loop and some remote handling requirement in space). This program is intended to be a working document for NASA Headquarters, Program Offices, and implementing Project Management.

Bull, John S↗

A space station onboard scheduling assistant

One of the goals for the Space Station is to achieve greater autonomy, and have less reliance on ground commanding than previous space missions. This means that the crew will have to take an active role in scheduling and rescheduling their activities onboard, perhaps working from preliminary schedules generated on the ground. Scheduling is a time intensive task, whether performed manually or automatically, so the best approach to solving onboard scheduling problems may involve crew members working with an interactive software scheduling package. A project is described which investigates a system that uses knowledge based techniques for the rescheduling of experiments within the Materials Technology Laboratory of the Space Station. Particular attention is paid to: (1) methods for rapid response rescheduling to accommodate unplanned changes in resource availability, (2) the nature of the interface to the crew, (3) the representation of the many types of data within the knowledge base, and (4) the possibility of applying rule-based and constraint-based reasoning methods to onboard activity scheduling.

Brindle, A. F.↗

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗

Extreme Problem Solving: The New Challenges of Deep Space Exploration

On the International Space Station today, the crew has the near real-time support of a large group of system experts on the ground when dealing with problems on-board. For exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit, however, intermittent and delayed communication with ground will force small crews to take the lead in responding to vehicle anomalies. Enabling a flight crew of roughly four astronauts to perform the job that has traditionally been done by a ground crew of over 80 experts will require a fundamental rethinking of human-systems integration. Through observations of anomaly resolution processes, interviews with system experts and astronauts, and analyses of problem-solving models, we have identified the capabilities that are not currently available on-board but will be needed to enable safe exploration further away from Earth. These include increased data access, just-in-time training tools and technologies, and troubleshooting decision support. Important questions remain on how these technologies can be designed and implemented for increased crew autonomy. We present this critical challenge for deep space exploration to the human-computer interaction research community to reflect on the areas identified by our needs analysis and contemplate how they might be manifested as solutions.

autonomy↗