Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Trusted 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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels

Technology Readiness Levels are a mainstay for organizations that fund, develop, test, acquire, or use technologies. Technology Readiness Levels provide a standardized assessment of a technology’s maturity and enable consistent comparison among technologies. They inform decisions throughout a technology’s development life cycle, from concept, through development, to use. A variety of alternative Readiness Levels have been developed, including Algorithm Readiness Levels, manufacturing Readiness Levels, Human Readiness Levels, Commercialization Readiness Levels, Machine Learning Readiness Levels, and Technology Commitment Levels. However, while Technology Readiness Levels have been increasingly applied to emerging disciplines, there are unique challenges to assessing the rapidly developing capabilities of autonomy. This paper adopts the moniker of Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels to identify a two-dimensional scale of readiness and trust appropriate for the special challenges of assessing autonomy technologies that seek space use. It draws inspiration from other readiness levels’ definitions, and from the rich field of trust and trustworthiness. The Space Trusted Autonomy Readiness Levels were developed by a collaborative Space Trusted Autonomy subgroup, which was created from The Space Science and Technology Partnership Forum between the United States Space Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Reconnaissance Office.

Kerianne L Hobbs↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations to Advance Space Trusted Autonomy

The interagency Space Science and Technology Partnership Forum was established in2015 to identify synergistic efforts and technologies across the U.S. government. While the various space agencies of the U.S. government have distinctly different visions for future operational space systems, all share important foundational common needs. These needs, combined with the maturation of autonomous technology and the prospect of leveraging autonomous systems to address those needs, have led each agency to consider how and when to to implement increasing levels of autonomy in their space systems, and how to determine the trustworthiness of an autonomous system. The Partnership facilitated dialogue among the partners, collected and analyzed data on current and desired future levels of capability, and identified gaps to motivate three recommendations that can be addressed within the Partnership community. These recommendations address the need for more robust documenting and socializing of anomalies in space system operations; the need to expand communication and trust within the community of developers, operators, and end users; and the need for a safe development and testing environment for maturing and demonstrating future autonomous space systems. These recommendations will facilitate both near-term programmatic actions and long-term steps for implementing enduring progress towards enabling space trusted autonomy.

Christopher A Jones↗
NASA NTRS2005

Trusted Autonomy for Space Flight Systems

NASA has long supported research on intelligent control technologies that could allow space systems to operate autonomously or with reduced human supervision. Proposed uses range from automated control of entire space vehicles to mobile robots that assist or substitute for astronauts to vehicle systems such as life support that interact with other systems in complex ways and require constant vigilance. The potential for pervasive use of such technology to extend the kinds of missions that are possible in practice is well understood, as is its potential to radically improve the robustness, safety and productivity of diverse mission systems. Despite its acknowledged potential, intelligent control capabilities are rarely used in space flight systems. Perhaps the most famous example of intelligent control on a spacecraft is the Remote Agent system flown on the Deep Space One mission (1998 - 2001). However, even in this case, the role of the intelligent control element, originally intended to have full control of the spacecraft for the duration of the mission, was reduced to having partial control for a two-week non-critical period. Even this level of mission acceptance was exceptional. In most cases, mission managers consider intelligent control systems an unacceptable source of risk and elect not to fly them. Overall, the technology is not trusted. From the standpoint of those who need to decide whether to incorporate this technology, lack of trust is easy to understand. Intelligent high-level control means allowing software io make decisions that are too complex for conventional software. The decision-making behavior of these systems is often hard to understand and inspect, and thus hard to evaluate. Moreover, such software is typically designed and implemented either as a research product or custom-built for a particular mission. In the former case, software quality is unlikely to be adequate for flight qualification and the functionality provided by the system is likely driven largely by the need to publish innovative work. In the latter case, the mission represents the first use of the system, a risky proposition even for relatively simple software.

Freed, Michael↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations to Advance Space Trusted Autonomy

While the various space agencies of the U.S. federal government have distinctly different visions for future operational space systems, all share important foundational commonalities: improve mission performance, reduce mission costs, incorporate technology advances more rapidly, increase reliability and resiliency, reduce risk, and adapt to anomalies and environmental hazards. These common needs, combined with the maturation of autonomous technology and the prospect of leveraging autonomous systems to address these needs, have led each agency to consider how and when to implement increasing levels of autonomy in their space systems. Simultaneously, the related question of how to determine the trustworthiness of an autonomous system is also escalating in significance.

Christopher A Jones↗
NASA NTRS2022

Formal Methods for Trusted Space Autonomy, Boon or Bane?

Trusted Space Autonomy is challenging in that space systems are complex artifacts deployed in a high stakes environment with complicated operational settings. Thus far these challenges have been met using the full arsenal of tools: formal methods, informal methods, testing, runtime techniques, and operations processes. Using examples from previous deployments of autonomy to the Remote Agent on DS-1, Autonomous Sciencecraft on EO-1, WATCH on MER, IPEX, AEGIS on MER, MSL, and M2020, and the M2020 Onboard planner, we discuss how each of these approaches have been used to enable successful deployment of autonomy. We next focus on relatively limited use of formal methods (both prior to deployment and runtime methods). From the needs perspective, formal methods represent the best chance for reliable autonomy as testing, informal methods, and operations accommodations do not scale well with increasing complexity of the autonomous system. However from the practice perspective, formal methods have been limited in their application due to difficulty in eliciting formal specifications and challenges in representing complex constraints such as metric time and resources. We discuss some of these challenges as well as the opportunity to extend formal and informal methods into runtime validation systems.

Chien, Steve↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

What is the Role of Usability and Trust in Autonomy?

Usability encompasses learnability, efficiency, memorability, effectiveness, and satisfaction. NASA’s standards for usability acceptance criteria focus on interfaces that help operators achieve their tasks efficiently, effectively, and with satisfaction. However, discussions on usability, especially regarding future highly automated and autonomous systems, rarely include trust. As NASA plans for long-duration exploration missions, it envisions astronauts operating more independently from Mission Control on Earth. This independence will drive the development of these highly automated and autonomous systems that astronauts will use daily. To prepare for this future, our team has developed a scheduling and execution software tool that facilitates self-scheduling, allowing astronauts to independently manage their own schedule without Mission Control’s involvement. Over many years, we have developed, matured, and evaluated our software tool in extreme environments, prioritizing user-centered design and high usability. These evaluations have included multiple campaigns in NASA analogs, including NEEMO, BASALT, and HERA, as well as technology demonstrations onboard the International Space Station. Our recent research on software interfaces for future astronaut autonomy revealed a strong correlation between usability and trust measures. In a controlled lab experiment, we asked novice users to perform a complex scheduling task, during which the software immediately validated the schedule’s constraints and checked for violations. We collected usability (User Experience Questionnaire, UEQ) and trust (Trust in Automated Systems scale, TAS) measures; significant, strong, and moderate correlations emerged between several of the UEQ metrics and TAS. These results support the argument for investing in usability early to enable and sustain trust in highly automated and autonomous systems.

usability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trustworthy Autonomy for Gateway Vehicle System Manager

This webinar will present techniques for achieving trusted autonomous operations that are being pioneered on the NASA Lunar Gateway Vehicle System Manager (VSM). The challenges of achieving trusted autonomy faced by the VSM project are similar to challenges in underwater autonomous systems. The webinar will describe the overall approach to verification and present in detail the use of design-time (development) assume-guarantee contracts using model checking and runtime (operational) assume-guarantee contracts. The webinar will conclude with a summary of lessons learned to date and future challenges.

Assume-guarantee contracts↗
NASA NTRS2017

Design Reference Missions (DRM): Integrated ODM 'Air-Taxi' Mission Features

Design Reference Missions (DRM): Integrated ODM Air-Taxi Mission Features, Hybrid Electric Integrated System Testbed (HEIST) flight control. Structural Health, Energy Storage, Electric Components, Loss of Control, Degraded Systems, System Health, Real-Time IO Operator Geo-Fencing, Regional Noise Abatement and Trusted Autonomy Inter-operability.

Kloesel, Kurt↗
NASA NTRS2019

Distributed Spacecraft Missions (DSM)

This talk presents the concept of "Distributed Spacecraft Mission (DSM)", its drivers, its challenges and its benefits to NASA future Science and Exploration missions. The presentation focuses on the technology challenges related to DSMs and particularly the needs for Trusted Autonomy and Onboard Processing; particular attention is given to a specific type of DSM, the Intelligent and Collaborative Constellation (ICC). Examples of DSM, ICC and Autonomy-related technologies being currently developed at NASA are being introduced.

Le Moigne, Jacqueline↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling Advanced Air Mobility Operations through Appropriate Trust in Human-Autonomy Teaming: Foundational Research Approaches and Applications

Emerging Advanced Air Mobility(AAM)operations will be enabled by increasingly autonomous systems, requiring technologies to take on more responsibilities and fundamentally altering traditional human-automation interaction paradigms. The growing reliance on higher levels of automation will necessitate research to identify capabilities and principles that facilitate humans and machines working and thinking better together, i.e., human-autonomy teaming (HAT). Trust is an inherent requirement in effective teams because when members work interdependently, those agents (human, automation) must be willing to accept a level of risk to rely upon each other to reach goals and contribute to team tasks. This work provides an initial approach to enabling AAM operations through appropriate trust within HAT. The main contributions of this approach resides in connecting the construct of trust to mental models. Using the outlined mental model approach, we propose novel HAT strategies, such as Adaptive Trust Calibration, and preview planned research activities derived from this approach. Additionally, we propose several practical applications that can currently be employed by AAM development communities.

Eric T Chancey↗
NASA NTRS2022

Adapting a Trusted AI Framework to Space Mission Autonomy

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly pro- posed for new and future capabilities in space missions, the question of how to trust AI-enabled space autonomy has been explored. Recently, a collaboration between The Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labora- tory (JPL) investigated how Aerospace’s Trusted AI Frame- work could be applied to two JPL projects that planned on lev- eraging AI for critical autonomous tasks. This combined effort led to many insights in the practical implementation of trusted AI along with considerable updates to the Trusted AI Frame- work that tailored its topic threads to space exploration. This document cohesively summarizes the enhanced framework as tailored to space missions as well as estimation of the level of trust required as a function of mission criticality and key stakeholders. The goal of this work is to provide a set of best practices to inform autonomy researchers, flight engineers, mission and proposal reviewers, and instrument and mission principal investigators (PI’s) to drive AI-based autonomy that maximizes trust and lowers the barriers to mission adoption for both science and engineering applications.

Amini, Rashied↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experiments for Securing Air Traffic Against Cyber-Physical System Attacks

This presentation describes experiments conducted with single board computers to investigate methods for creating trust for enabling the development of cyber-resilient air transportation systems. Methods included secure communication to prevent unauthorized access to data, consistency of data obtained via sensors and by processing, and built-in safeguards to prevent mission failure. The motivation for this work are the following. The future air transportation system needs to ensure availability, integrity, confidentiality and safety of operations. Safety of vehicles and operations is paramount for successful integration of Urban Air Mobility (UAM), Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), supersonic aircraft and launch vehicles with conventional aviation operations in the National Airspace System. Security is becoming critical because the sensors, networks and computers are far more vulnerable to bad actors than their mechanical or human predecessors. The goal therefore is to design and develop cyber-resilient systems that continue to function even in degraded states. The main findings are (1) off-the-shelf hardware can support development of cyber-resilient onboard flight computers and (2) trust in system design and implementation can be accomplished by integrating layers in depth (detail) and in breadth (scope).

cyber-resilient autonomy, trust, secure communicat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Computational Models of Trustworthiness and Trust in Autonomous Cyber-Physical-Human Systems

In this paper, we propose an approach to developing a concept of actionable trust in multi-agent,cyber-physical-human systems in safety-critical and time-critical environment of air transportation. Actionable trust requires computational models of trustworthiness and trust, for use during system design and in real time, during operations. We describe the models, examine their computability and scalability, as well as what remains to be done.

Autonomous Systems↗