Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “adaptive 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.

156 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1998

Autonomous Satellite Command and Control through the World Wide Web: Phase 3

NASA's New Millenium Program (NMP) has identified a variety of revolutionary technologies that will support orders of magnitude improvements in the capabilities of spacecraft missions. This program's Autonomy team has focused on science and engineering automation technologies. In doing so, it has established a clear development roadmap specifying the experiments and demonstrations required to mature these technologies. The primary developmental thrusts of this roadmap are in the areas of remote agents, PI/operator interface, planning/scheduling fault management, and smart execution architectures. Phases 1 and 2 of the ASSET Project (previously known as the WebSat project) have focused on establishing World Wide Web-based commanding and telemetry services as an advanced means of interfacing a spacecraft system with the PI and operators. Current automated capabilities include Web-based command submission, limited contact scheduling, command list generation and transfer to the ground station, spacecraft support for demonstrations experiments, data transfer from the ground station back to the ASSET system, data archiving, and Web-based telemetry distribution. Phase 2 was finished in December 1996. During January-December 1997 work was commenced on Phase 3 of the ASSET Project. Phase 3 is the subject of this report. This phase permitted SSDL and its project partners to expand the ASSET system in a variety of ways. These added capabilities included the advancement of ground station capabilities, the adaptation of spacecraft on-board software, and the expansion of capabilities of the ASSET management algorithms. Specific goals of Phase 3 were: (1) Extend Web-based goal-level commanding for both the payload PI and the spacecraft engineer; (2) Support prioritized handling of multiple PIs as well as associated payload experimenters; (3) Expand the number and types of experiments supported by the ASSET system and its associated spacecraft; (4) Implement more advanced resource management, modeling and fault management capabilities that integrate the space and ground segments of the space system hardware; (5) Implement a beacon monitoring test; (6) Implement an experimental blackboard controller for space system management; (7) Further define typical ground station developments required for Internet-based remote control and for full system automation of the PI-to-spacecraft link. Each of those goals is examined in the next section. Significant sections of this report were also published as a conference paper.

Cantwell, Brian↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigating Low-Altitude Constellations of Ad-Hoc Lunar PNT System for Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

In this study, we examine a low-altitude Lunar Position, Navigation, and Timing (LPNT) constellations and the localization performance of Centralized Extended Kalman Filter (CEKF) and Decentralized Extended Kalman Filter (DEKF) algorithms. The primary investigation involves a 100-node swarm operating at a 100 km altitude, in contrast to previous studies that examined a 21-node asset in a frozen-orbit at 5,500 km. The autonomous operation of large-scale swarm is based on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve pseudoranges and relative velocities among swarm nodes. We perform a numerical assessment of the two filtering approaches, utilizing ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets as well as ‘two ISL’ measurements where each spacecraft is restricted to only two antennas. This research includes an analysis of CEKF under 2-ISL constraints and evaluates the performance of DEKF in a 100-node swarm, which has not been explored in previous studies. In addition, we examine the impact of increasing the sampling frequency for DEKF, showing that the update cycle can be shortened from a 10-minute interval. A novel approach for ‘2-ISL limited’ DEKF will also be introduced, using a matching formulation that exhaustively enumerates all potential matches. This study provides valuable insights into large-scale distributed swarm operations, considering various filter configurations, sampling frequencies, matching strategies, and scalability of CEKF and DEKF for low-altitude LPNT applications. The Lunar PNT technology plays a key role in providing reliable and robust navigation services on the Moon's surface and the South pole, where the primary Lunar missions are planned. To support upcoming Lunar missions, including small satellites from NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, the Lunar PNT system must be adaptable to smaller platforms like CubeSats. Driven by the growing involvement of public and private exploration partnerships, the traditional low Earth orbit missions are shifting to beyond geosynchronous orbit [1]. These upcoming missions aim to foster a sustainable and innovative exploration program, in collaboration with commercial and international partners, to facilitate human expansion throughout the solar system and return new knowledge and opportunities to Earth [2]. As part of this trend, there are increasing efforts to utilize science missions in Lunar orbit to develop a non-dedicated and ad-hoc PNT network system. Two traditional approaches, the Deep Space Network (DSN) and the weak signal Global Positioning System (GPS), are established deep-space navigation technologies for missions beyond the geosynchronous orbit. Beginning in 1958, the DSN was developed to communicate with the Explorer 1 spacecraft based on the use of radiometric tracking in spacecraft navigation [3]. The DSN is capable of providing nearly unfettered coverage to spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), however, increased space mission volume has created concerns about future expectations of DSN usage for spacecraft navigation [4]. For cislunar mission applications, the position accuracy using DSN achieves 100 m (3σ) with at least three geometrically diverse ground stations when using radiometric tracking alone [5]. The DSN's dependence on Earth-based ground stations restricts its operational capabilities to periods of Earth visibility. This limitation, coupled with its poor localization performance, renders the DSN unsuitable for future lunar missions that demand continuous tracking and precise positioning. To satisfy the increasing requirements of DSN in Lunar applications, spacecrafts are also required to improve their onboard antenna power and efficiency of the transmission. However, there is an important aggregate cost trade between adding capabilities to every spacecraft and adding to a capacity on the ground that serves multiple spacecraft [6]. A weak GPS system can provide PNT service while the user spacecraft is bound to the Moon, leveraging a single, steerable high gain antenna with the relatively narrow beam which includes all the sources in its field of view [7]. However, the higher the altitude the receiver is above the GPS constellations, the poorer and the weaker are the relative geometry and the received signal powers, respectively, leading to a significant navigation accuracy reduction [8]. The transmitted power becomes weaker with increasing distance from the Earth as well as signals tracked from one of the side lobes of the GPS antenna pattern. As a results, the number of visible satellites and relative geometric condition of the GPS satellites at very high altitude drops dramatically and reduces the navigation solution accuracy. Therefore, the weak GPS system is also not an ideal way to provide PNT service to upcoming Lunar missions when considering its limited geometric condition and the recued navigation accuracy. Another navigation approach on the Moon is being developed, similar to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) on Earth, aiming to offer navigation service with continuous 24/7 coverage across the entire Lunar surface. For example, lunar communications relay and navigation systems (LCRNS) by NASA and Lunar navigation satellite systems (LNSS) by JAXA are designed to serve as dedicated Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) systems for the Moon. However, designing a dedicated LNSS and PNT service involves additional challenges, which are unique to the lunar environment, including limited payload capacity for the CubeSat platform, i.e., the size, weight, and power (SWaP) of the onboard clock, limited lunar ground monitoring stations, and limited financial investment as compared to the legacy Earth-GPS [9]. NASA’s focus on utilizing CubeSat platforms on the Moon leads to an alternative Lunar navigation platform that leverages the existing Lunar science and exploration assets. The small satellites used in Lunar missions can be used to create a low-cost, autonomous, ad-hoc, and on-demand mission-centric Lunar PNT swarm capable of providing PNT services to these low-cost lunar missions [10]. As upcoming Lunar missions will often operate at low-altitude about 30 km to 100 km for scientific observations and mapping purposes, the low-altitude orbital constellations could be employed to create an ad-hoc Lunar PNT system. However, several issues must be addressed, such as the instability of these orbits, which often require maintenance or are only suitable for short-duration missions, operating for fewer than 90 days. Additionally, at an altitude of 100 km, the satellites have a limited period during which they are above the horizon and capable of providing PNT service to users. The implementation of a non-dedicated, ad-hoc Lunar navigation constellation facilitates on-demand PNT services. A preliminary study of ad-hoc Lunar PNT system was conducted using 21 spacecraft in 5,5000 km altitude frozen orbits to test its feasibility and a basic performance of orbital asset localization among ad-hoc Lunar constellations in small satellites format [10]. These swarm assets are designed for autonomous localization with minimal Earth interaction, reducing dependency on bandwidth and ground resources. The design in [10] demonstrated the feasibility of a decentralized PNT approach, specifically employing a DEKF approach for state estimation, which helps minimize onboard operating costs. The DEKF method distributes computation across individual satellites, which lightens the computational load while maintaining accuracy in orbit ephemeris and clock offsets, similar to centralized systems [11]. In a follow-on study [12], each spacecraft was limited to 2 communications antennae, forcing the selection of measurements and scheduling spacecraft activities to perform the measurements. A matching algorithm is implemented to select the best measurements and schedule position estimation updates. The decentralized localization performance is also investigated with increasing levels of network degradation for swarm assets considering the impact of intermittent and permanent communication failure, to demonstrate the robustness and fidelity of the decentralized Lunar PNT service [13]. This study confirmed that the ad-hoc PNT constellations in frozen orbit are highly robust and resilient to communication failures. However, unlike frozen orbit swarm assets, the low-altitude satellites have a limited ground view at an altitude of 100 km, where the ad-hoc Lunar constellation consists of 98 low-altitude satellites, evenly distributed across seven circular polar orbital planes, alongside two satellites in a frozen orbit at an altitude of 5,500 km (Figure 1). Therefore, the number of satellites visible to ground users is significantly limited in low-altitude orbit constellations. As each visibility of a spacecraft remains intact for only a few ticks before it moves out of the field of view, the ground user encounters challenges in maintaining continuous navigation service, resulting in sparse availability and provision of Lunar PNT system. Consequently, service availability is primarily restricted to the Lunar South Pole region (Figure 2). Given these limitations and concerns, the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets will be assessed in this study. We focus on the investigation of the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets and ground users near the Lunar South Pole. The overall flow of the Lunar PNT simulation incorporates the DEKF approach of asset localization and the weighted least-squares approach in user localization (Figure 3). The autonomous Lunar PNT simulation is primarily implemented in MATLAB, where the DEKF based on the matching scheduler is implemented with Google’s OR-tools as a model builder and Gurobi optimization tool as a backend solver. The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is utilized to generate ephemeris data for swarm assets, and accounts for satellite orbital details, mass, and perturbations like solar radiation pressure and drag coefficients. Each ephemeris dataset is produced in the Moon International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) inertial coordinate system. For state estimation, the distributed swarm assets rely on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve tracking pseudoranges and relative velocities between visible satellites and anchor nodes during each observation. Numerical evaluations of the decentralized localization process are conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the low-altitude PNT system in providing reliable navigation services. The main approach involves using DEKF and CEKF to localize 100 satellites in low-altitude constellations, where the CEKF is implemented to serve as a baseline for comparing the performance of distributed algorithms. In both cases, we evaluate ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets, and ‘two ISL’ measurements when spacecraft are constrained to have only two antennas. We test four estimation techniques: CEKF fully sampled, CEKF two ISL, DEKF fully sampled, and DEKF two ISL filters. As the DEKF update cycle is comprised of network setup, communication, and computations, a global broadcast network and 2-way ISL network setup will take from 4 to 6 minutes as maximum [12]. In this simulation, the DEKF update cycle is set to 10 minutes, including a 4-minute latency for obtaining and computing the actual measurement updates. We experiment an increased update cycle to demonstrate the feasibility and evaluate the impact on localization performance using various tuning values for measurement noise covariances (Figures 4 and 5). By comparing centralized and decentralized approaches using a matching algorithm, we analyze the influence of cross-correlation factors in the covariance matrix, assuming 100% reliability of all assets and measurements. The increased frequency and the adjustments of tuning parameters reveal distinct error patterns between the two scenarios. The localization accuracy of the swarm assets and ground users is assessed by taking the median error across 100 assets and one ground user (84.9°S, 137.5°E) over 7-day simulation period (Table 1). Since the user localization accuracy is significantly affected by the performance of the swarm assets, it is crucial to maintain high localization accuracy within the swarm. This study will continue to explore decentralized filtering for autonomous LPNT operations, with further investigation of an 'iterative' matching approach which enumerates every valid matching pair, planned for the following month.

Yeji Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Structurally-Adaptive Framework for Distributed Airborne Sensing over Real-time Collaborative Information Sharing Networks

The emergence and maturation of wireless communication technologies continue to transform the aviation industry and are enabling new solutions to challenges faced by NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) initiative. AAM is leading towards high-density autonomous aircraft operations in areas underserved by traditional aviation, such as over densely populated urban centers. In this paper, we build on concepts from distributed sensing and smart spaces - where sensing, processing, and communication are embedded in an environment, and agents are operating within the space can exploit these capabilities in real-time through collaborative information sharing networks. Building from these concepts, we propose a framework to enable a dynamic, topologically-adaptive, and distributed estimation system for man-rated aviation to address challenges faced by autonomous AAM operations. This paper presents the initial concept of operations and system design for this framework, presents a mathematical formulation for abstraction of the problem, identifies requirements and constraints for operation, and presents algorithmic constructs to demonstrate operation. The initial framework design will focus on supporting precision navigation and independent surveillance supporting conformance monitoring of aircraft in airspace corridors and vertiport airspaces. Preliminary results from this framework shows promise in addressing gaps in current technologies needed to enable future AAM concepts, while promising greater capabilities, performance, robustness, and safety over current aviation systems and operations.

Distributed sensing↗
NASA NTRS2024

Safe Exploration: Sensorimotor Assessments for Early Extravehicular Activities

BACKGROUND: Artemis missions will require a new level of crew autonomy around periods of gravitational transition, where sensorimotor disturbances are at their highest. There is a need to define performance thresholds for key sensorimotor assessments that indicate when performance in early extravehicular activities (EVAs) might be impacted or unsafe. This panel presentation will discuss the development of sensorimotor assessments for determining crew preparedness of early EVAs by utilizing a novel portable sensorimotor disorientation analog and other spaceflight analogs. OVERVIEW: To define performance thresholds, a proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks must be validated under various spaceflight analogs. A Sensorimotor Disorientation Analog (SDA) was developed that could induce varying levels of disorientation through combined vestibular (galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS)) and proprioceptive (weighted chest, ankles, and wrists) disruptions. The SDA was first pilot tested using subjective feedback from previously flown astronauts to determine the levels of disorientation that mimic motor performance immediately (R+0) and +24 hours (R+1) postflight. A second study was performed using healthy non-astronaut ground subjects to validate the SDA levels by comparing to astronaut postflight data. The validated SDA was utilized in a third study to map performance in the proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks to operational tasks. The assessment tasks were defined based on lessons learned from Apollo and subject matter experts (e.g., flight surgeons) to include the following: 1) aid in progressive adaptation to the novel gravitational environment; 2) provide opportunities to develop strategies to recover from off-nominal body positions; and 3) mimic operational tasks such that crew can self-assess their potential ability to complete their missions. This presentation will conclude with a discussion on future validation studies of the proposed assessment tasks using other spaceflight analogs such as centrifugation and gravity offload systems. DISCUSSION: Exploration class missions will require crew to be able to self-assess and treat their sensorimotor dysfunction after gravity transitions, and in off-nominal situations they may be required to perform provocative, challenging tasks soon after landing. This panel presentation will discuss current and ongoing research strategies to address the sensorimotor risk on safe exploration during Artemis missions.

Sarah Moudy↗
NASA NTRS2018

Working at the Speed of Innovation: Impedance Mismatch in Rapid and Innovation Projects

In this paper we report on the results of an ethnographic study of a rapid design innovation (RDI) experiment in NASA Aeronautics. This work is based on the study of the Aeronautics Autonomy Testbed Capability (AATC) team in the Convergent Aeronautics Solutions (CAS) project. This paper focuses on and summarizes one of the key over-arching findings from the study: there is a significant mismatch in the organizational culture in the rest of the organization compared with that required for RDI. And, if this organizational cultural mismatch is not addressed, the likelihood of any organization being able to advance a new and different type of work (such as RDI) will be jeopardized. We delineate several aspects of the two different cultures identified in order to enable leaders and practitioners to better understand what contributes to the cultural dissonance and the implications of the differences in the cultures. As well, we identify ways in which those differences can be addressed. Research from organization and other social sciences are incorporated to highlight the differences. The implications of the research suggest that the significant cultural differences trigger a strong and resistive response from the dominant culture that may negate leadership’s strategy to build the new capacity for RDI. While the research results noted the pervasive nature of innovation throughout the workplace, the type of innovation envisioned in RDI is a rare type of innovation that requires significantly new methods, work processes, tools, and skills such that approaches used in the dominate culture cannot be adopted by expediting the existing approaches. Examples include: innovation teaming and leadership; the need for adaptive leadership that changes the relationship of a research leader to the other researchers; and, an interdisciplinary teaming approach which shapes team relationships and activities. Each of these aspects requires new teaming, tools, and skills in order to succeed. Thus, when introducing RDI activities where there is a different dominant culture, teams need to be: well trained; protected; recognized and rewarded. And, team leaders must also be trained in the unique types of teaming and innovation tools used in RDI. Both RDI teaming and team leadership must be sanctioned, supported, and rewarded by leadership. Because of the cultural mismatch, in some organizations looking to add RDI to their existing and established organizations, sep to avoid or mitigate the negative impact of the culture mismatch.

Crain, Cathleen↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adaptive Optimization for System Performance and Combined Bernstein Polynomial, Optimal Reciprocal Collision Avoidance, Differential Dynamic Programming for Trajectory Replanning and Collision Avoidance for UAM Vehicles

The emerging urban air mobility (UAM) sector in aerospace is driving development of unconventional multi-modal vehicle configurations and autonomous flight. The combination of multi-modal vehicle dynamics, complex environment, requirements to deal with flight contingencies in an efficient and safe manner, as well as necessity for precise trajectory following and performance, are the driving influence behind adaptive optimization for system performance. We are interested in trajectory optimization algorithm that would system parameter estimation and identifying the optimal switching time between modes of hybrid dynamical systems. This presentation discusses a parameterized optimal control trajectory optimization algorithm that is an extended and generalized version of Differential Dynamic Programming (DDP), titled Parameterized Differential Dynamic Programming (PDDP). DDP is an efficient trajectory optimization algorithm relying on second order approximations of a system’s dynamics and cost function and has recently been applied to optimize systems with time invariant parameters. Experiments are presented applying PDDP to solve model predictive control (MPC) and moving horizon estimation (MHE) tasks simultaneously. In particular, PDDP is used to determine the optimal transition point between flight regimes of a complex urban air mobility (UAM) class vehicle exhibiting multiple phases of flight and to identify and compensate for actuation faults.

optimization↗
NASA NTRS2018

Playbook for UAS: UX of Goal-Oriented Planning & Execution

We are evaluating the tool Playbook, a mission planning and scheduling tool used for analog missions and research experiments at NASA. We are adapting Playbook to support an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) demonstration that will simulate a "search and recover" mission. To support this demonstration, we need to test this software and its usability with human subjects. Playbook will be used to plan, edit, and monitor simulated UAV swarms, and we are interested in evaluating these capabilities. Allocation of roles and responsibilities between human-automation systems is key to promoting productive cooperation between these two agents. When guiding swarms the user should not be concerned with moving waypoints, adjusting heading and altitude or any other small actions that traditional pilots control. Providing situational awareness through sensor data including radar, heat, live camera feed, and topographic information are key when managing multiple UAVs together. First responders need a good picture of disaster areas in order to make informed decisions. These sensors can initiate movements in the mission that indicate when the human should take control of single aircraft.

UAV swarms↗
NASA NTRS2000

Using Model-Based Reasoning for Autonomous Instrument Operation

Multiprobe missions are an important part of NASA's future: Cluster, Magnetospheric Multi Scale, Global Electrodynamics and Magnetospheric Constellation are representatives from the Sun-Earth Connections Theme. To make such missions robust, reliable, and affordable, ideally the many spacecraft of a constellation must be at least as easy to operate as one spacecraft is today. To support this need for scalability, science instrumentation must become increasingly easy to operate, even as this same instrumentation becomes more capable and advanced. Communication and control resources will be at a premium for future instruments. Many missions will be out of contact with ground operators for extended periods either to reduce operations cost or because of orbits that limit communication to weekly perigee transits. Autonomous capability is necessary if such missions are to effectively achieve their operational objectives. An autonomous system is one that acts given its situation in a mission appropriate manner without external direction to achieve mission goals. To achieve this capability autonomy must be built into the system through judicious design or through a built-in intelligence that recognizes system state and manages system response. To recognize desired or undesired system states, the system must have an implicit or explicit understanding of its expected states given its history and self observations. The systems we are concerned with, science instruments, can have stringent requirements for system state knowledge in addition to requirements driven by health and safety concerns. Without accurate knowledge of the system state, the usefulness of the science instrument may be severely limited. At the same time, health and safety concerns often lead to overly conservative instrument operations further reducing the effectiveness of the instrument. These requirements, coupled with overall mission requirements including lack of communication opportunities and tolerance of environmental hazards, frame the problem of constructing autonomous science instruments. we are developing a model of the Low Energy Neutral Atom instrument (LENA) that is currently flying on board the Imager for Magnetosphere-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) spacecraft. LENA is a particle detector that uses high voltage electrostatic optics and time-of-flight mass spectrometry to image neutral atom emissions from the denser regions of the Earth's magnetosphere. As with most spacecraft borne science instruments, phenomena in addition to neutral atoms are detected by LENA. Solar radiation and energetic particles from Earth's radiation belts are of particular concern because they may help generate currents that may compromise LENA's long term performance. An explicit model of the instrument response has been constructed and is currently in use on board IMAGE to dynamically adapt LENA to the presence or absence of energetic background radiations. The components of LENA are common in space science instrumentation, and lessons learned by modelling this system may be applied to other instruments. This work demonstrates that a model-based approach can be used to enhance science instrument effectiveness. Our future work involves the extension of these methods to cover more aspects of LENA operation and the generalization to other space science instrumentation.

Johnson, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2002

Science Goal Driven Observing and Spacecraft Autonomy

Spacecraft autonomy will be an integral part of mission operations in the coming decade. While recent missions have made great strides in the ability to autonomously monitor and react to changing health and physical status of spacecraft, little progress has been made in responding quickly to science driven events. For observations of inherently variable targets and targets of opportunity, the ability to recognize early if an observation will meet the science goals of a program, and react accordingly, can have a major positive impact on the overall scientific returns of an observatory and on its operational costs. If the onboard software can reprioritize the schedule to focus on alternate targets, discard uninteresting observations prior to downloading, or download a subset of observations at a reduced resolution, the spacecraft's overall efficiency will be dramatically increased. The science goal monitoring (SGM) system is a proof- of-concept effort to address the above challenge. The SGM will have an interface to help capture higher-level science goals from the scientists and translate them into a flexible observing strategy that SGM can execute and monitor. We are developing an interactive distributed system that will use on-board processing and storage combined with event-driven interfaces with ground-based processing and operations, to enable fast re-prioritization of observing schedules, and to minimize time spent on non-optimized observations. This paper will focus on our strategy for developing SGM and the technical challenges that we have encountered. We will discuss the SGM architecture as it applies to the proposed MIDEX-class mission Kronos. However, the architecture and interfaces will also be designed for easy adaptability to other observing platforms, including ground-based systems and to work with different scheduling and pipeline processing systems.

Jones, Jeremy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRS2015

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team

A team is defined as: "two or more individuals who interact socially and adaptively, have shared or common goals, and hold meaningful task interdependences; it is hierarchically structured and has a limited life span; in it expertise and roles are distributed; and it is embedded within an organization/environmental context that influences and is influenced by ongoing processes and performance outcomes" (Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007, p. 189). From the NASA perspective, a team is commonly understood to be a collection of individuals that is assigned to support and achieve a particular mission. Thus, depending on context, this definition can encompass both the spaceflight crew and the individuals and teams in the larger multi-team system who are assigned to support that crew during a mission. The Team Risk outcomes of interest are predominantly performance related, with a secondary emphasis on long-term health; this is somewhat unique in the NASA HRP in that most Risk areas are medically related and primarily focused on long-term health consequences. In many operational environments (e.g., aviation), performance is assessed as the avoidance of errors. However, the research on performance errors is ambiguous. It implies that actions may be dichotomized into "correct" or "incorrect" responses, where incorrect responses or errors are always undesirable. Researchers have argued that this dichotomy is a harmful oversimplification, and it would be more productive to focus on the variability of human performance and how organizations can manage that variability (Hollnagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006) (Category III1). Two problems occur when focusing on performance errors: 1) the errors are infrequent and, therefore, difficult to observe and record; and 2) the errors do not directly correspond to failure. Research reveals that humans are fairly adept at correcting or compensating for performance errors before such errors result in recognizable or recordable failures. Astronauts are notably adept high performers. Most failures are recorded only when multiple, small errors occur and humans are unable to recognize and correct or compensate for these errors in time to prevent a failure (Dismukes, Berman, Loukopoulos, 2007) (Category III). More commonly, observers record variability in levels of performance. Some teams commit no observable errors but fail to achieve performance objectives or perform only adequately, while other teams commit some errors but perform spectacularly. Successful performance, therefore, cannot be viewed as simply the absence of errors or the avoidance of failure Johnson Space Center (JSC) Joint Leadership Team, 2008). While failure is commonly attributed to making a major error, focusing solely on the elimination of error(s) does not significantly reduce the risk of failure. Failure may also occur when performance is simply insufficient or an effort is incapable of adjusting sufficiently to a contextual change (e.g., changing levels of autonomy).

Landon, Lauren Blackwell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗