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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Core Body Temperature Predictions Using Metabolic Energy Expenditure and Heart Rate During Simulated Extravehicular Activity

Long duration spaceflight missions will require crew to become more autonomous in conducting extravehicular activities (EVA) without direct communication with Mission Control for biomedical support. To enable such autonomy, we are developing a Crew State and Risk Model (CSRM) as a collection of key physiology domains that drive EVA crew capabilities and workloads. One model component of CSRM is human thermal regulation. In this paper, customized development of a baseline model to predict core body temperature is presented using physiology inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. The model development dataset included a baseline study where participants (n=6, equal male and female) performed a 5-hour EVA in a two-part session while wearing a hybrid space suit simulator (HS3). The first session included an end-to-end EVA traversing 1500 meters to a geology site and traversing back to a habitat conducting geology, payload relocation, and maintenance operations every 500 meters. The second session included standalone tasks of a 2000-meter traverse followed by geology tasks. Thermal measures of core body temperature, local skin temperature, liquid cooling garment temperature, heart rate, and metabolic rate were collected through the test duration. Multiple regression was used to build a linear equation to predict core body temperature from inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. Heat storage was calculated via predicted core body temperature plus LCG and skin temperatures. The model was tested against a dataset from a pressurized suited test (n=6, equal male and female) in the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) conducting similar end-to-end EVA and standalone tasks. Predicted error of the model against the raw test cases was 0.2±0.15 °C. The baseline prediction of core body temperature using heart rates and metabolic rates allows for simple real-time tracking from data collected in-flight to monitor crew consumables and thermal flight limits during EVA.

Bradley Hoffmann↗
NASA NTRS2014

Exploration Technologies for Operations

Although the International Space Station (ISS) assembly has been completed, the Operations support teams continue to seek more efficient and effective ways to prepare for and conduct the ISS operations and future exploration missions beyond low earth orbit. This search for improvement has led to a significant collaboration between the NASA research and advanced software development community at NASA Ames Research Center and the Mission Operations community at NASA Johnson Space Center. Since 2001, NASA Ames Research Center has been developing and applying its advanced intelligent systems and human systems integration research to mission operations tools for several of the unmanned Mars missions operations. Since 2006, NASA Ames Research Center has also been developing and applying its advanced intelligent systems and human systems integration research to mission operations tools for manned operations support with the Mission Operations Directorate at NASA Johnson Space Center. This paper discusses the completion of the development and deployment of a variety of intelligent and human systems technologies adopted for manned mission operations. The technologies associated with the projects include advanced software systems for operations and human-centered computing. Human-centered computing looks to the processes and procedures that people do to perform any given job, then attempts to identify opportunities to improve these processes and procedures. In particular, for mission operations, improvements are quantified by specifically identifying how a tool can increase a persons efficiency, enhance a persons functional capability, andor improve the assurance of a persons decisions. The Ames development team has collaborated with the Mission Operations team to identify areas of efficiencies through technology infusion applications in support of the Plan, Train, and Fly activities of human-spaceflight mission operations. The specific applications discussed in this paper are in the areas of mission planning systems, mission operations design modeling and workflow automation, advanced systems monitoring, mission control technologies, search tools, training management tools, spacecraft solar array management, spacecraft power management, and spacecraft attitude planning. We discuss these specific projects between the Ames Research Center and the Johnson Space Centers Mission Operations Directorate, and how these technologies and projects are enhancing the mission operations support for the International Space Station. We also discuss the challenges, problems, and successes associated with long-distance and multi-year development projects between the research team at Ames and the Mission Operations customers at Johnson Space center. Finally, we discuss how these technology infusion applications and underlying technologies might be used in the future to support on-board operations of the crew and spacecraft systems as human exploration expands beyond low earth orbit to destinations in the solar system where communications delays will require more on-board autonomy and planning by the crew. Longer communications delays will require that the ground mission operations support will be primarily strategic in nature, while the tactical level of planning, systems monitoring and control, and failure analysisisolationrecovery will be the responsibility of both the spacecraft autonomous systems and the crew. Our expectation is that the technologies

mission operations↗
NASA NTRS2007

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 Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also 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 CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Mitchell, J.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Integrated Docking Simulation and Testing with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree of Freedom Dynamic Test System

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 Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Constellation Program; this is carried as one of the CEV Project top risks. The Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation. One of the project activities is a series of "pathfinder" testing and simulation activities to integrate relative navigation sensors with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree-of-Freedom Test System (SDTS). The SDTS will be the primary testing location for the Orion spacecraft s Low Impact Docking System (LIDS). Project team members have integrated the Orion simulation with the SDTS computer system so that real-time closed loop testing can be performed with relative navigation sensors and the docking system in the loop during docking and undocking scenarios. Two relative navigation sensors are being used as part of a "pathfinder" activity in order to pave the way for future testing with the actual Orion sensors. This paper describes the test configuration and test results.

Mitchell, Jennifer D.↗
NASA NTRS2007

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 Automated Rendezvous and Docking, (AR&D).) The crewed versions of the spacecraft may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also 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 CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Howard, Richard T.↗
NASA NTRS2019

A Distributed Hierarchical Framework for Autonomous Spacecraft Control

Future human space missions for exploring beyond low Earth orbit are in the conceptual design stage. One such mission describes a habitat in cis-lunar orbit that is visited by crew periodically, others describe missions to Mars. These missions have one important thing in common: the need for autonomy on the spacecraft. This need stems from the latency and bandwidth constraints on communications between the vehicle and ground control. A variable amount of autonomy may be necessary whether the spacecraft has crew on board or not. Spacecraft are complex systems that are engineered as a collection of subsystems. These subsystems work together to control the overall state of the spacecraft. As such, solutions that increase the autonomy of the spacecraft (called autonomous functions) should respect both the independence and interconnectedness of the spacecraft subsystems. This distributed and hierarchical approach to system monitoring and control is a key idea in the Modular Autonomous Systems Technology (MAST) framework. The MAST framework enables a component-based architecture that provides interfaces and structure to developing autonomous technologies. The framework enforces a distributed, hierarchical architecture for autonomous control systems across subsystems, systems, elements, and vehicles. An example autonomous system was implemented in this framework and tested using realistic spacecraft software and hardware simulations. This paper will discuss the framework, tests conducted, results, and future work.

Badger, Julia M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Trust in NASA’s Artemis Campaign Computer-Human Interface (CHI) Implementation

The NASA Artemis program will return humans to the Moon. This time, with the help of commercial and international partners, the program's objective is a permanent moon base. The moon base infrastructure, including an orbiting moon station and moon surface assets, will be developed for astronauts to stay for the long haul to learn to live and work on another planet in preparation for an eventual Humans-to-Mars mission. As the roundtrip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, the crew will need more onboard systems autonomy and functionality to maintain and control the vehicle or habitat. These mission constraints will change the current Earth-based spacecraft to ground control support approach that will demand more safe, efficient, and effective Computer-Human Interface (CHI) control. For Artemis, CHI is defined as the elements that the crew interfaces with: audio, video, lighting, and crew controls subsystems. Understanding how CHI will need to evolve to support deep space missions will be critical for the Artemis program--especially crew controls, which is the focus of this paper. How does NASA ensure crew controls are reliable enough to control complex systems and prevent a catastrophic event due to human error--especially when the astronauts could be physiologically and/or psychologically impaired? NASA's approach to mitigating catastrophic hazards in human spaceflight system development such as crew controls, is through a holistic system engineering and Human System Integration methodology that focuses on incorporating NASA's Human-Rating Requirements-that ensures human performance characteristics to control/safely recover the crew from hazardous situations within the human interface design are considered. This paper discusses, at a high level, CHI for the Artemis program. Next, a discussion of what it means to human-rate a space system crew controls and how trust in the human-computer interface begins with the NASA human rating requirements. Finally, a discussion on how systems engineering and the human system integration process ensures that crew control implementation incorporates the NASA human-rating requirements.

artemis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Trust in NASA’s Artemis Campaign Computer-Human Interface (CHI) Implementation

The NASA Artemis program will return humans to the Moon. This time, with the help of commercial and international partners, the program's objective is a permanent moon base. The moon base infrastructure, including an orbiting moon station and moon surface assets, will be developed for astronauts to stay for the long haul to learn to live and work on another planet in preparation for an eventual Humans-to-Mars mission. As the roundtrip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, the crew will need more onboard systems autonomy and functionality to maintain and control the vehicle or habitat. These mission constraints will change the current Earth-based spacecraft to ground control support approach that will demand more safe, efficient, and effective Computer-Human Interface (CHI) control. For Artemis, CHI is defined as the elements that the crew interfaces with: audio, video, lighting, and crew controls subsystems. Understanding how CHI will need to evolve to support deep space missions will be critical for the Artemis program--especially crew controls, which is the focus of this paper. How does NASA ensure crew controls are reliable enough to control complex systems and prevent a catastrophic event due to human error--especially when the astronauts could be physiologically and/or psychologically impaired? NASA's approach to mitigating catastrophic hazards in human spaceflight system development such as crew controls, is through a holistic system engineering and Human System Integration methodology that focuses on incorporating NASA's Human-Rating Requirements-that ensures human performance characteristics to control/safely recover the crew from hazardous situations within the human interface design are considered. This paper discusses, at a high level, CHI for the Artemis program. Next, a discussion of what it means to human-rate a space system crew controls and how trust in the human-computer interface begins with the NASA human rating requirements. Finally, a discussion on how systems engineering and the human system integration process ensures that crew control implementation incorporates the NASA human-rating requirements.

artemis↗
NASA NTRS2015

Asteroid and Lava Tube In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Prospecting Free Flyer Project

This project seeks to develop a small free flyer that can be used to safely and effectively prospect on an Asteroid while being controlled by the crew. This will enable the characterization of the Asteroid for the In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). Lava tubes can be explored remotely from the outside Asteroids can contain vast amounts of resources such as water for propellants and metals for feed stocks. Lava Tubes on Mars and the Moon may contain frozen volatile resources. Before the resources can be used, they must be found with a prospecting method. The NASA Agency Asteroid Grand Challenge seeks new ideas for Asteroid retrieval mission technologies for exploration and utilization of asteroids in a Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO). This project will develop a small free flying platform that can be used to safely and effectively prospect on an Asteroid with limited autonomy while being controlled by the crew. This will enable the characterization of the Asteroid for ISRU. Lava tubes can be explored remotely from the outside as well using this same technology.

Technology Portfolio System↗
NASA NTRS2014

NASA Wearable Technology CLUSTER 2013-2014 Report

Wearable technology has the potential to revolutionize the way humans interact with one another, with information, and with the electronic systems that surround them. This change can already be seen in the dramatic increase in the availability and use of wearable health and activity monitors. These devices continuously monitor the wearer using on-­‐body sensors and wireless communication. They provide feedback that can be used to improve physical health and performance. Smart watches and head mounted displays are also receiving a great deal of commercial attention, providing immediate access to information via graphical displays, as well as additional sensing features. For the purposes of the Wearable Technology CLUSTER, wearable technology is broadly defined as any electronic sensing, human interfaces, computing, or communication that is mounted on the body. Current commercially available wearable devices primarily house electronics in rigid packaging to provide protection from flexing, moisture, and other contaminants. NASA mentors are interested in this approach, but are also interested in direct integration of electronics into clothing to enable more comfortable systems. For human spaceflight, wearable technology holds a great deal of promise for significantly improving safety, efficiency, autonomy, and research capacity for the crew in space and support personnel on the ground. Specific capabilities of interest include: Continuous biomedical monitoring for research and detection of health problems. Environmental monitoring for individual exposure assessments and alarms. Activity monitoring for responsive robotics and environments. Multi-modal caution and warning using tactile, auditory, and visual alarms. Wireless, hands-free, on-demand voice communication. Mobile, on-demand access to space vehicle and robotic displays and controls. Many technical challenges must be overcome to realize these wearable technology applications. For example, to make a wearable device that is both functional and comfortable for long duration wear, developers must strive to reduce electronic mass and volume while also addressing constraints imposed by the body attachment method. Depending on the application, the device must be placed in a location that the user can see and reach, and that provides the appropriate access to air and the wearer's skin. Limited power is available from body-­‐worn batteries and heat must be managed to prevent discomfort. If the clothing is to be washed, there are additional durability and washability hurdles that traditional electronics are not designed to address. Finally, each specific capability has unique technical challenges that will likely require unique solutions. In addition to the technical challenges, development of wearable devices is made more difficult by the diversity of skills required and the historic lack of collaboration across domains. Wearable technology development requires expertise in textiles engineering, apparel design, software and computer engineering, electronic design and manufacturing, human factors engineering, and application-­‐specific fields such as acoustics, medical devices, and sensing. Knowledge from each of these domains must be integrated to create functional and comfortable devices. For this reason, the diversity of knowledge and experience represented in the Wearable Technology is critical to overcoming the fundamental challenges in the field.

Simon, Cory↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Strategy for Advancing Earth Independent Medical Operations

Exploration medical operations to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for providing in-mission medical care. The greater distance from Earth is the primary hazard that drives the need for a medical operations paradigm shift from low earth orbit mission. Increasingly complex long duration and long distance missions will have resource constraints (ex: mass, power, volume, data), a paucity of resupply or evacuation opportunities, and disruptions in real-time communications. In order to advance a more autonomous medical approach, a multi-faceted strategy will need to optimize all aspects of human health and performance in space. This strategy will include: increasing onboard medical autonomy through the development of novel crew health and performance systems; decision support capabilities to augment astronauts’ abilities in preventing, diagnosing, and treating medical conditions; creating new procedures and training tools for skill maintenance and just-in-time training; and enabling rapid crew access to data from all on-board systems, leading to better-informed, real-time, autonomous decisions. Collectively, this approach can be referred to as “Earth Independent Medical Operations” (EIMO). The Exploration Medical Capability Element of NASA’s Human Research Program has undertaken a longitudinal planning process to consensus around EIMO. Technical interchange meetings will occur with key constituents in late 2022 and again in early 2023 to define EIMO in practical terms and identify key elements of an EIMO system, with greater conceptual articulation and dissemination planned for the second half of 2023. We will share insights into the strategy for internal and external consensus building around EIMO, with a particular focus on the approach to partner stakeholders within NASA as well as commercial agencies.

Jay Lemery↗
NASA NTRS1983

Autonomy issues for an operational space station

Within the last decade, both the U.S. and the Soviet space programs have taken significant preliminary steps in developing technology and systems which are appropriate for the establishment of space stations. The degree of autonomy which will be provided for the station and the role of the crew represents one of the most critical considerations. The present investigation is concerned with a review of the major autonomy issues associated with a permanent, low earth orbit, operational space station. It is shown that both operational effectiveness and crew safety issues require a relatively high degree of space station autonomy. The autonomy level should, for instance, be higher than that of the present space shuttle. Attention is given to various levels of spacecraft autonomy, system integrity, attitude determination and control, navigation and orbit maintenance, system maintenance and resupply, mission support, and implementation of autonomy.

Daly, K. C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Medical Officer Training and Role of Ground Support for International Space Station (ISS) Operations

Medical systems supporting exploration-class missions to the Moon and Mars will require greater inflight medical decision-making autonomy. An understanding of current ISS training regimens for Crew Medical Officers (CMOs) as well as the role of ground support personnel in medical operations is needed to identify the starting point from which exploration medical system design must evolve in order to achieve inflight medical autonomy.

Rachel Richardson↗
NASA NTRS2001

Architectures and Evaluation for Adjustable Control Autonomy for Space-Based Life Support Systems

In the past five years, a number of automation applications for control of crew life support systems have been developed and evaluated in the Adjustable Autonomy Testbed at NASA's Johnson Space Center. This paper surveys progress on an adjustable autonomous control architecture for situations where software and human operators work together to manage anomalies and other system problems. When problems occur, the level of control autonomy can be adjusted, so that operators and software agents can work together on diagnosis and recovery. In 1997 adjustable autonomy software was developed to manage gas transfer and storage in a closed life support test. Four crewmembers lived and worked in a chamber for 91 days, with both air and water recycling. CO2 was converted to O2 by gas processing systems and wheat crops. With the automation software, significantly fewer hours were spent monitoring operations. System-level validation testing of the software by interactive hybrid simulation revealed problems both in software requirements and implementation. Since that time, we have been developing multi-agent approaches for automation software and human operators, to cooperatively control systems and manage problems. Each new capability has been tested and demonstrated in realistic dynamic anomaly scenarios, using the hybrid simulation tool.

Malin, Jane T.↗
NASA NTRS2006

An Abstract Plan Preparation Language

This paper presents a new planning language that is more abstract than most existing planning languages such as the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) or the New Domain Description Language (NDDL). The goal of this language is to simplify the formal analysis and specification of planning problems that are intended for safety-critical applications such as power management or automated rendezvous in future manned spacecraft. The new language has been named the Abstract Plan Preparation Language (APPL). A translator from APPL to NDDL has been developed in support of the Spacecraft Autonomy for Vehicles and Habitats Project (SAVH) sponsored by the Explorations Technology Development Program, which is seeking to mature autonomy technology for application to the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that will replace the Space Shuttle.

Butler, Ricky W.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Enabling Autonomous On-Board Trouble-Shooting

As NASA missions reach deeper into space, a few crew members will need to do the work of 10s-100s of Ground Controllers, most significantly, in critical areas such as trouble-shooting anomalies that could result in loss of crew or loss of mission. Understanding what the risk is of these sorts of events based on the history of the International Space Station allows us to anticipate how critical this challenge will be for future crewed missions, and allowing us to define the research that must be carried out in order to establish Standards, Guidelines and Requirements for on-board intelligent technologies that can assist crew as needed.

autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2016

Risk Interfaces to Support Integrated Systems Analysis and Development

Objectives for systems analysis capability: Develop integrated understanding of how a complex human physiological-socio-technical mission system behaves in spaceflight. Why? Support development of integrated solutions that prevent unwanted outcomes (Implementable approaches to minimize mission resources(mass, power, crew time, etc.)); Support development of tools for autonomy (need for exploration) (Assess and maintain resilience -individuals, teams, integrated system). Output of this exercise: -Representation of interfaces based on Human System Risk Board (HSRB) Risk Summary information and simple status based on Human Research Roadmap; Consolidated HSRB information applied to support communication; Point-of-Departure for HRP Element planning; Ability to track and communicate status of collaborations. 4

Mindock, Jennifer↗
NASA NTRS2017

Reduced Crew Operations Research at NASA Ames Research Center

In 2012, NASA began exploring the feasibility of single pilot reduced crew operations (SPORCO) in the context of scheduled passenger air carrier operations (i.e., Parts 121 and 135). This research was spurred by two trends in aviation research: the trend toward reducing costs and a shortage of pilots. A series of simulations were conducted to develop tools and a concept of operations to support RCO. This slide deck is a summary of the NASA Ames RCO research prepared for an R T team at Airbus. Airbus is considering moving forward with reducing crew during the cruise phase of flight with long-haul flights and is interested in the work we have completed.

reduced crew operations↗