SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Automation technologies which support autonomy in artificial intelligence systems are discussed. The motivation for system control architecture is reviewed, and the concept of an operating system for autonomous control is examined. Design requirements for complex automated systems are summarized, and system engineering tool applications in design support are discussed.
The NASA Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) requested HRP conduct a survey of industry and government standards and guidelines for the interaction of automation/autonomy with humans. Guidance for verification testing of human-automation designs was also requested. A rapid response was requested so that the deliverables could be provided as part of a future NASA solicitation for automated systems for HLS. The project began with a broad review and analysis of prior NASA work in this area, as well as external standards related to human interaction with automation/autonomy. The team reviewed approximately 200 documents, and interviewed multiple industry and government subject matter experts (SMEs). “Gold standard” documents were selected for focus and key categories were identified. A cross-walk of standards was created, and common standards and guidelines were selected and rephrased (where necessary) to be information-rich, concise, and usable. Verification guidelines and examples were also developed. The final report includes an introduction to automation and autonomy, selected standards and guidelines, verification method guidance, and research gaps. In addition to the report, the team delivered a list of candidate standards for autonomous vehicles, as well as a list of candidate standards for a future NASA-STD-3001 update on automation/autonomy. The presentation will describe the rapid response project approach and methods, examples of standards and guidelines identified and delivered to OCHMO, and research needed to develop additional automation/autonomy design guidance where gaps currently exist.
A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms "autonomy" and "automation". Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that RPAS automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present a definition of "automation". We recommend that autonomy and autonomous operations are out of the scope of the RPAS panel. WG7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of "Levels of Automation" for RPAS.
A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms autonomy and automation. Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present definitions of automation, pilot in the loop, pilot on the loop and pilot out of the loop. We further propose that in future, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) RPAS Panel avoids the use of the terms autonomy and autonomous when referring to automated systems on board RPA. Work Group 7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of Levels of Automation for RPAS.
The evolution of satellite operations over the last 40 years has drastically changed. October 4, 1957 (during the cold war) the Soviet Union launched the world's first spacecraft into orbit. The Sputnik satellite orbited Earth for three months and catapulted the United States into a race for dominance in space. A year after Sputnik, President Dwight Eisenhower formed the National Space and Aeronautics Administration (NASA). With a team of scientists and engineers, NASA successfully launched Explorer 1, the first US satellite to orbit Earth. During these early years, massive amounts of ground support equipment and operators were required to successfully operate spacecraft vehicles. Today, budget reductions and technological advances have forced new approaches to spacecraft operations. These approaches require increasingly complex, on board spacecraft systems, that enable autonomous operations, resulting in more cost-effective mission operations. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, considered world class in satellite development and operations, has developed and operated over 200 satellites during its 40 years of existence. NASA Goddard is adopting several new millennium initiatives that lower operational costs through the spacecraft autonomy and automation. This paper examines NASA's approach to spacecraft autonomy and ground system automation through a comparative analysis of satellite missions for Hubble Space Telescope-HST, Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous-NEAR, and Solar Heliospheric Observatory-SoHO, with emphasis on cost reduction methods, risk analysis and anomalies and strategies employed for mitigating risk.
Design guidelines and functional systems being considered in the process of defining the configuration of the automated systems for a manned space station are outlined. The requirements are dependent on life-cycle costing and will set the necessary level of automation, as well as autonomy from outside commands. Fault protection routines have been largely devised according to successful programming on the Voyager spacecraft. An analysis is still needed of the housekeeping functions, including human necessities, machine functions, and mission objectives. A data base will result, defining the functions that have historically been delegated to either man or machine. Care must be taken to coordinate and document stationkeeping functions that might interface with mission functions. A data management system that is flexible with regards to changing mission objectives and to the MTBF factors, which will determine the level of technology to be used is required. Expert systems will be integrated into the automation to guide the machines in problem solving, including ensuring adequate management of the battery subsystem.
The Criteria Action Table (CAT) is an automation tool developed for monitoring real time system messages for specific events and processes in order to take user defined actions based on a set of user-defined rules. CAT was developed by Lockheed Martin Space Operations as a part of a larger NASA effort at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) to create a component-based, middleware-based, and standard-based general purpose ground system architecture referred as GMSEC - the GSFC Mission Services Evolution Center. CAT has been integrated into the upgraded ground systems for Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) and Small Explorer (SMEX) satellites and it plays the central role in their automation effort to reduce the cost and increase the reliability for spacecraft operations. The GMSEC architecture provides a standard communication interface and protocol for components to publish/describe messages to an information bus. It also provides a standard message definition so components can send and receive messages to the bus interface rather than each other, thus reducing the component-to-component coupling, interface, protocols, and link (socket) management. With the GMSEC architecture, components can publish standard event messages to the bus for all nominal, significant, and surprising events in regard to satellite, celestial, ground system, or any other activity. In addition to sending standard event messages, each GMSEC compliant component is required to accept and process GMSEC directive request messages.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
As the complexity of NASA's planned Space Station design grows, decision-making must be transferred from the crew to an onboard computer system devised for maximum man/machine interactions productivity. The Space Station's electrical power subsystem is presently taken as an exemplary case of design evolution from the manual, through the automated, to the fully autonomous control regimes.
The Space Station crew will be a critical resource for economical operation of science and commercial payloads. Core station housekeeping and maintenance functions should be provided in a manner that requires a minimum of crew interaction. This paper outlines a prospective functional architecture for allocation of autonomous and automated control of these functions and discusses implementation issues arising from safety of manned operations, integration test requirements, and evolution of future station capabilities.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Crew Exploration Vehicle necessitates higher levels of automation than previous NASA vehicles, due to program requirements for automation, including Automated Rendezvous and Docking. Studies of spacecraft development often point to the locus of decision-making authority between humans and computers (i.e. automation) as a prime driver for cost, safety, and mission success. Therefore, a critical component in the Crew Exploration Vehicle development is the determination of the correct level of automation. To identify the appropriate levels of automation and autonomy to design into a human space flight vehicle, NASA has created the Function-specific Level of Autonomy and Automation Tool. This paper develops a methodology for prototyping increased levels of automation for spacecraft rendezvous functions. This methodology is used to evaluate the accuracy of the Function-specific Level of Autonomy and Automation Tool specified levels of automation, via prototyping. Spacecraft rendezvous planning tasks are selected and then prototyped in Matlab using Fuzzy Logic techniques and existing Space Shuttle rendezvous trajectory algorithms.
Main Message: National and Global Needs - Develop scalable airspace operations management system to accommodate increased mobility needs, emerging airspace uses, mix, future demand. Be affordable and economically viable. Sense of Urgency. Saturation (delays), emerging airspace uses, proactive development. Autonomy is Needed for Airspace Operations to Meet Future Needs. Costs, time critical decisions, mobility, scalability, limits of cognitive workload. AutoMax to Accommodate National and Global Needs. Auto: Automation, autonomy, autonomicity for airspace operations. Max: Maximizing performance of the National Airspace System. Interesting Challenges and Path Forward.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Propellant-optimal trajectories, relative sensors and navigation, and docking/capture mechanisms are rendezvous disciplines that receive much attention in the technical literature. However, other areas must be considered. These include absolute navigation, maneuver targeting, attitude control, power generation, software development and verification, redundancy management, thermal control, avionics integration, robotics, communications, lighting, human factors, crew timeline, procedure development, orbital debris risk mitigation, structures, plume impingement, logistics, and in some cases extravehicular activity. While current and future spaceflight programs will introduce new technologies and operations concepts, the complexity of integrating multiple systems on multiple spacecraft will remain. The systems integration task may become more difficult as increasingly complex software is used to meet current and future automation, autonomy, and robotic operation requirements.
Improved real-time decision-making capabilities in both civil transport avionics and airline dispatcher workstations are helping to improve commercial aviation operations in many ways. One emerging capability is the automated derivation of alternate flight plans that yield both flight cost savings and smoother workflow. This emerging capability may be complemented with automated trajectory negotiation capabilities. Here we explore such automated trajectory negotiation capabilities, potential benefit mechanisms, and the required tools, procedures, and architectures.