Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “thinking 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 NTRSDate not supplied

A Thinking System and Thinking Autonomy

There are many definitions of what a “Thinking System” (TS) is. The literature primarily addresses what is called “Systems Thinking.” Dr. Marie Morganelli from Southern New Hampshire University states that “Systems thinking is a holistic way to investigate factors and interactions that could contribute to a possible outcome. A mindset more than a prescribed practice, systems thinking provides an understanding of how individuals can work together in different types of teams and through that understanding, create the best possible processes to accomplish just about anything.” So, a TS is a system that is capable of “systems thinking,” as it should be able to “ … create [utilize] the best possible processes [and intelligence] to accomplish just about anything.” To achieve this capability, human-like thinking is required. A truly autonomous system must be one that is capable of human-like thinking. This paper will address “Thinking Autonomy” (TA) enabled by a “Thinking System.” It will describe an architecture with the elements required to achieve the “thinking” behavior: understanding, intellect, reason, decision, will. The paper will further describe the contents and functionality of these elements and how to implement them, including software capabilities needed. Finally, the paper will provide details of a software platform that enables TA, the NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS), and describe implementations of thinking systems. Thinking systems will enable a fundamental change how AI and autonomy are implemented. It will change from a “brute force” approach that results in one-time implementations that are minimally intelligent or autonomous to a “thinking” approach where implementations evolve continuously and enable powerful intelligence and autonomy on systems of high complexity as well as on systems-of-systems.

Thinking systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementing Artificial Thinking Autonomy with Model-Based System Engineering

Complex autonomous systems capable of successfully operating independently under ‘known unknowns’ and harsh conditions require paradigm innovation in modern development strategies. In the field of autonomy, developing a system-of-systems which can ostensibly think for itself in the face of ‘unknown unknowns’ is still a field of ongoing research. Maturing the systems architecting and modeling methodologies for developing henceforth named Thinking Autonomous Systems, which are verified with digital mission simulation, can potentially usher in the next generation of artificial intelligence for space exploration. The concept presented in this paper incorporates multiple Model-Based Systems Engineering and simulation methodologies combined as a new paradigm to design a novel, biomimetic thinking autonomy strategy. Anachronistic concepts from classical Kantian philosophy will be leveraged to inspire architectural designs that could be used for complex distributed systems in deep space. To accomplish this, digital transformation of a document-based implementation plan for Thinking Autonomous Systems, generated by experienced NASA software engineers, is implemented for NASA’s Platform for Autonomous Systems by creating descriptive and executable software models in SysML to prototype real-time operating capabilities. This conceptual implementation has been developed by incorporating model-based digital simulations to theorize how a cyberphysical thinking system would achieve specific strategies without crew reliance, while simultaneously being resilient to all operating conditions and remaining functional when devoid of ground communication. Additionally, ensuring that an autonomous system framework is an ethical Artificial Intelligence requires careful consideration of system behavior and accountability, human factors for teaming with a thinking autonomous system, and comparison to other modern approaches used for implementing true autonomy. This paper presents the first steps in formalizing the metacognition required for instantiating a truly Thinking Autonomous System; the approach described symphonizes autonomy characteristics from classical philosophical into a unified software architecture describing human thought. In the future, the foundational models described in this paper can be further leveraged to help advance research into thinking autonomy requirements for future deep space missions as well as for current near-term applications, i.e., living aboard crewed spacecraft like a NASA Gateway cislunar habitat.

Artificial Thought↗
NASA NTRS2023

Artificial Thought is Required for Sustained Autonomy

Current literature primarily addresses what is referred to as “Systems Thinking.” Dr. Marie Morganelli from Southern New Hampshire University states that “Systems thinking is a holistic way to investigate factors and interactions that could contribute to a possible outcome [1]. A mindset more than a prescribed practice, systems thinking provides an understanding of how individuals can work together in different types of teams and through that understanding, create the best possible processes to accomplish just about any-thing.” So, a “Thinking System” is a system that is capable of “systems thinking,” as it should be able to “ …create [utilize] the best possible processes, and possess the [intelligence] to accomplish just about anything.” To achieve this capability, hu-man-like thinking is required. A truly autonomous system must be one that is capable of human-like thinking. Sustained autonomy requires “Thinking Autonomy” (TA) that is enabled by a “Thinking System.”

Autonomous systems↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS)

NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS) is a disruptive software platform and processes being developed by SSC Autonomous Systems Laboratory (ASL). Autonomous operations are critical for the success, safety and crew survival of NASA deep space missions beyond low Earth orbit, including Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, and for the future of cost-effective ground mission operations. NPAS represents the embodiment of an innovative implementation for "thinking" autonomy in contrast to brute-force autonomy. It also uniquely addresses the requirements and integrates five primary functionalities for autonomous operations including: (1) Integrated System Health Management (ISHM), (2) autonomy, guided by health and system concepts of operations; (3) knowledge models of applications; (4) infrastructure to create, schedule, and execute mission plans; and (5) infrastructure to integrate distributed autonomous applications across networks.

Figueroa, Fernando↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS)

NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS) is a disruptive software platform and processes being developed by the NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) Autonomous Systems Laboratory (ASL). Autonomous operations are critical for the success, safety and crew survival of NASA deep space missions beyond low Earth orbit, including the Gateway, and for the future of cost-effective ground mission operations. NPAS represents the embodiment of an innovative paradigm for “thinking” autonomy in contrast to brute-force autonomy. NPAS uniquely addresses the requirements and integrates the primary functionalities for autonomous operations, in one platform that includes: (1) Integrated System Health Management (ISHM); (2) autonomy strategies, guided by system health and concepts of operations; (3) domain objects (system elements) and infrastructure to create complete application domain knowledge models (4) infrastructure to create, schedule, and execute mission plans; (5) infrastructure to develop user interfaces for comprehensive awareness; and (6) infrastructure to integrate distributed autonomous applications across networks. NPAS is a single platform that can be used to make any system operate with any desirable degree of autonomy, as well as provide comprehensive system awareness to operators and users.

Figueroa, Fernando↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Autonomy Technologies for Systems of a Moon Base

The aim of the workshop is to “explore emerging autonomy technologies that could enable or enhance mission capabilities, reduce mission risk, and reduce mission cost.” Enhancing mission capabilities will depend on how capable and trustworthy the autonomy implemented is. As systems increase in complexity, and also with multiple interdependent/interacting systems, current autonomy capability and trustworthiness is very low. A paradigm and technology from NASA that addresses this shortcoming will be discussed, the NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS). NPAS also happens to address reduction of mission risk and cost. NPAS will be discussed as a capability that is reaching readiness for space use, but also serves as a reference to develop technologies suitable for integrated autonomous operations of lunar systems; encompassing autonomous systems, situational awareness, and reasoning and acting.

Autonomous systems↗
NASA NTRS2001

Challenges and Lessons Learned in the Application of Autonomy to Space Operations

NASA's Space Operations Management Office (SOMO) is working toward a goal of providing an integrated infrastructure of mission and data services for space missions undertaken by NASA enterprises. A significant portion of this effort is focused on reducing the cost of these services. We are interested in the potential of autonomy to reduce operations costs. SOMO services support space missions, but are not part of the mission objectives; therefore the level of acceptable risk is very low. In fact, SOMO could be effective ly prevented from applying autonomy if customers merely perceive it as adding risk to their mission(s). We are interested in this workshop from the standpoint of understanding what can be done to realize the potential cost savings due to autonomy while maintaining acceptable risk and serving the needs of our customers. We would like to present our lessons learned so far in adopting autonomy and automation, which we think will contribute to clarifying the challenges facing the use of such technology. SOMO provides services to a diverse and ambitious set of mission customers. Many of these missions are groundbreaking missions for which communications, data, and other operations requirements sometimes cannot be clearly articulated early in the program. This motivates a need for systems that are robust in the face of unanticipated situations so that customer missions are not unreasonably constrained or impacted by "shortcomings" in SOMO services. One of SOMO's primary goals is to realize a paradigm in which SOMO acts as a service provider to organizations that fly space missions for NASA, other government agencies, and even the commercial sector. These organizations purchase SOMO services "by the pound" as customers. We have to provide systems that are not experiments themselves, but rather stable bases from which to do bold experiments. To this end, SOMO also seeks to work closely with industry to see that robust autonomy technology gets infused into products and services for the space industry and beyond. The potential for application of these technologies spans space-based communications networks (e.g. TDRSS) and ground-based assets including communication and tracking antenna systems, data networks, and control centers. There are several problems that are candidates for the application of autonomy, if it can be made reliable enough, including: antenna control, antenna scheduling, communication link scheduling and operation, navigation, attitude determination, fault detection, isolation, and reconfiguration (for spacecraft or ground assets), and mission-level planning and scheduling. Some attempts have been made to apply autonomy and automation in these areas in the past with varying degrees of success. We will present relevant case histories and the lessons inferred from them. Combining this past experience with anticipated future needs, we can clarify the challenges that must be met in order to realize the benefits of autonomy.

Forrest, David J.↗
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 NTRS2010

Space Toxicology Challenges and Ethical Considerations

Before delineating specific ways that nanotechnology enterprises might contribute to better management of toxicological risks during spaceflight, I will show how ethical considerations and several theories of justice can be applied to nanotechnology strategic plans. The principles that guide an ethical technical enterprise include autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, veracity and justice. Veracity (truth) is the underpinning principle; however, beyond this, proponents of nanotechnology must think carefully about balancing conflicting principles. For example, autonomy must yield to beneficence when fearful individuals simply lack knowledge to appreciate nanotechnology's beneficial advances. Justice is a complex topic upon which I will place six models: utilitarian, distributive, free-exchange/choice, individual dignity (social participation), equity vs. greed, and liberation of the poor. After briefly summarizing each model, I will present what I call an iterative-hybrid model of justice to show specifically how our thinking can be applied to nanotechnology enterprises. Within that broad landscape, I will discuss a single feature: how our early effort to understand health risks of carbon nanotubes fits into the iterative model. Finally, I will suggest ways that nanotechnology might advance our management of toxicological risks during spaceflight, but always with an eye toward how such advances might result in a more just world.

James, John T.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Systems Architecture for Fully Autonomous Space Missions

The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is working to develop a revolutionary new system architecture concept in support of fully autonomous missions. As part of GSFC's contribution to the New Millenium Program (NMP) Space Technology 7 Autonomy and on-Board Processing (ST7-A) Concept Definition Study, the system incorporates the latest commercial Internet and software development ideas and extends them into NASA ground and space segment architectures. The unique challenges facing the exploration of remote and inaccessible locales and the need to incorporate corresponding autonomy technologies within reasonable cost necessitate the re-thinking of traditional mission architectures. A measure of the resiliency of this architecture in its application to a broad range of future autonomy missions will depend on its effectiveness in leveraging from commercial tools developed for the personal computer and Internet markets. Specialized test stations and supporting software come to past as spacecraft take advantage of the extensive tools and research investments of billion-dollar commercial ventures. The projected improvements of the Internet and supporting infrastructure go hand-in-hand with market pressures that provide continuity in research. By taking advantage of consumer-oriented methods and processes, space-flight missions will continue to leverage on investments tailored to provide better services at reduced cost. The application of ground and space segment architectures each based on Local Area Networks (LAN), the use of personal computer-based operating systems, and the execution of activities and operations through a Wide Area Network (Internet) enable a revolution in spacecraft mission formulation, implementation, and flight operations. Hardware and software design, development, integration, test, and flight operations are all tied-in closely to a common thread that enables the smooth transitioning between program phases. The application of commercial software development techniques lays the foundation for delivery of product-oriented flight software modules and models. Software can then be readily applied to support the on-board autonomy required for mission self-management. An on-board intelligent system, based on advanced scripting languages, facilitates the mission autonomy required to offload ground system resources, and enables the spacecraft to manage itself safely through an efficient and effective process of reactive planning, science data acquisition, synthesis, and transmission to the ground. Autonomous ground systems in turn coordinate and support schedule contact times with the spacecraft. Specific autonomy software modules on-board include mission and science planners, instrument and subsystem control, and fault tolerance response software, all residing within a distributed computing environment supported through the flight LAN. Autonomy also requires the minimization of human intervention between users on the ground and the spacecraft, and hence calls for the elimination of the traditional operations control center as a funnel for data manipulation. Basic goal-oriented commands are sent directly from the user to the spacecraft through a distributed internet-based payload operations "center". The ensuing architecture calls for the use of spacecraft as point extensions on the Internet. This paper will detail the system architecture implementation chosen to enable cost-effective autonomous missions with applicability to a broad range of conditions. It will define the structure needed for implementation of such missions, including software and hardware infrastructures. The overall architecture is then laid out as a common thread in the mission life cycle from formulation through implementation and flight operations.

Esper, Jamie↗
NASA NTRS2018

Aeronautics Autonomy Testbed Capability (AATC) Team Developed Concepts

In 2015, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formed a multi-center, interdisciplinary team of engineers from three different aeronautics research centers who were tasked with improving NASA autonomy research capabilities. This group was subsequently named the Aeronautics Autonomy Testbed Capability (AATC) team. To aid in confronting the autonomy research directive, NASA contracted IDEO, a design firm, to provide consultants and guides to educate NASA engineers through the practice of design thinking, which is an unconventional method for aerospace design processes. The team then began learning about autonomy research challenges by conducting interviews with a diverse group of researchers and pilots, military personnel and civilians, experts and amateurs. Part of this design thinking process involved developing ideas for products or programs known as concepts that could enable real world fulfillment of the most important latent needs identified through analysis of the interviews. The concepts are intended to be sacrificial, intermediate steps in the design thinking process and are presented in this report to record the efforts of the AATC group. Descriptions are provided in present tense to allow for further ideation and imagining the concept as reality as was attempted during the teams discussions and interviews. This does not indicate that the concepts are actually in practice within NASA though there may be similar existing programs independent of AATC. These concepts were primarily created at two distinct stages during the design thinking process. After the initial interviews, there was a workshop for concept development and the resulting ideas are shown in this work as from the First Round. As part of succeeding interviews, the team members presented the First Round concepts to refine the understanding of existing research needs. This knowledge was then used to generate an additional set of concepts denoted as the Second Round. Some concepts were created by a single person in a few minutes while others were refined by the entire team over several weeks. Thus, certain ideas are more detailed than others but those from the second round are not necessarily more comprehensive than the first round concepts. Primarily, as reported here in the Second Round section, the designs serve to encompass more of the high level end user research needs which were not necessarily known to the team during the prior workshop. In the figures provided throughout this report, illustrations are often provided to represent a concept. Nearly all of the images are informal sketches or renderings and this casualness should, hopefully, not be held to negate the potential insights available within the concepts.

Smith, Phillip J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Designing for Advanced Aerial Mobility: Human-Autonomy Teaming and In-Time System-Wide Safety Assurance

The continued growth of aviation shall require new innovative technologies and operational concepts to meet the ever-increasing demands on air transportation. The NASA Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) project focuses on emerging aviation markets, such as Urban Air Mobility (UAM). UAM is defined as “...a safe and efficient system for air passenger and cargo transportation within an urban area. It is inclusive of small package delivery and other urban unmanned aerial system services and supports a mix of onboard/ground-piloted and increasingly autonomous operations” ([1]). The AAM project emphasizes technology development and validating system-level concepts and solutions in coordination with other NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) projects to enable UAM metro- and micro-plex vertiport and airspace concepts of operations. The NASA AAM research portfolio includes the concepts of Remote Supervisor-in-Command (RSC) and Fleet and Airspace Manager (FAM) as possible human roles for consumer fleet providers. NASA research in RSC is focused on development of guidelines and standards for remote pilots/operators passively and actively controlling a large fleet of autonomous aircraft. For FAM, flight and ground system concepts and technologies to enable high density homogeneous operations at increased scale from vertiport(s), and coordination with other humans in the systems (e.g., UAM urban airspace manager, Air Traffic Control) are key research areas. The envisioned UAM operations are posited to require autonomous systems to enable functions ranging from fleet and resource management to vehicle control. Although automation has become increasingly sophisticated and ubiquitous in civil aviation, autonomy represents a significant evolution in automation, which has generally been limited in functional scope and capability. As autonomy takes on increasing responsibilities, humans and machines will be required to work together in new and different ways [2], rather than traditional design approaches focused on how machines (i.e., autonomy) can do the work of people. The emerging field of human-autonomy teaming (HAT) represents a comprehensive and prioritized research-driven approach to enable the success of future emerging aviation market applications through capabilities and principles that facilitate humans and machine working and thinking better together. The NASA Transformational Tools and Technologies (TTT) Autonomous System (AS) Sub-project was created to assist with the transition into higher levels of autonomy to enable new modes of air transportation, such as UAM. TTT-AS has identified HAT as a key research need to enable UAM while maintaining today’s ultra-safe aviation system safety levels. The latter challenge has been taken up by the NASA System-Wide Safety (SWS) Project, which recognizes that aviation safety, as it evolves, shall require new ways of thinking about safety to include integration of a wide-range of existing and new safety systems and practices, enhanced tools and technologies, increased access to data and data fusion, improved data analysis capabilities, enhanced in-time risk monitoring and detection, hazard prioritization and mitigation, safety assurance decision-support, and in-time integrated system analytics [3].The operational concept of UAM represents a variety of work that has been termed, “work-as-imagined” to characterize the idea that how people think that work is done and how work is actually done are often not the same [4]. To ensure design success and system safety, looking at “work-as-done” provides a comparative approach toward UAM concept and technology design through examination of corresponding analogs found today in aviation (e.g., on-demand operations) and other transportation domains (e.g., port operations). The paper shall discuss various alternative applications with specific focus on airline operation center (AOC) operations, and unmanned aerial system (UAS) command-and-control to inform scaled-versions of FAM and RSC, respectively, and with consideration of the national airspace system contextual environment. The tenets and principles of the HAT field and current NASA research efforts under the TTT-AS sub-project shall also be described. Finally, the SWS sub-project efforts to develop In-Time System-Wide Safety Assurance (ISSA) and In-Time Safety Management Systems (IASMS) are discussed in terms of how “in-time” safety assurance may be conceptualized for the on-demand mobility air taxi “work-as-imagined” operational concept [5]. As part of this effort, concepts from the emerging field of resilience engineering, are being studied. Traditional approaches to aviation safety have focused on what can go wrong and how to prevent it. Another approach to thinking about system safety should reflect not only “avoiding things that go wrong” (protective safety) but also “ensuring that things go right” (productive safety), that enables a system to exhibit the resilient performance [6] necessary for the success of the future aviation system emerging concepts of operations. The paper shall describe efforts focused on how productive safety and resilience may enable a more complete approach to system safety thinking and design of ISSA and IASMS for UAM. Future directions and research needs shall also be discussed.

resilience↗
NASA NTRS2018

Leverage Points for System Health Management of Autonomous Systems

Systems Health Management (SHM) is one of three basic functionalities that constitute an autonomous capability of a system. The other two functionalities are Planning & Scheduling, and Task Execution. In an autonomous system, variable autonomy is often distinct from variable authority to sense, decide, and act. There are quantifiable Levels of Autonomy that can be achieved by tuning different portions of the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act loop to provide flexibility and control. This approach is tabulated for multiple domains such as spacecraft and aerial vehicles. Examining SHM through a Systems Thinking lens helps us understand its stocks and flows, loops, and delays. Systems thinking, and modeling, is a useful way to understand change and complexity of systems of many types. There are certain archetypes that underlie well-known autonomy architectures. And there often are leverage points - best places to intervene in a system - that can resolve or mitigate some fundamental challenges in the design and deployment of autonomous systems. I identify these levers and present the ones that have been successfully used in NASA missions.

Systems Thinking↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Human Performance on Future Deep SpaceMissions

NASA and the commercial spacecraft community are working diligently to put the first woman on the moon in the 2024 timeframe. At the same time, NASA researchers are thinking about how to solve the even larger challenges that future deep space missions will bring – primary among them is crew autonomy. Deep space mission crews will face communication delays and blackouts, and in those situations, the crew may not have access to Mission Control Center (MCC) experts. They will be dependent on each other and the available information onboard to stay alive, healthy, and achieve the mission. The only conceivable way to meet the challenges of Earth independence is to enable the crew to monitor their own health and performance. A number of technologies are presently being explored by NASA to enable crew self-monitoring. This paper highlights select projects, and provides broader discussion about the need for advanced monitoring technologies

Kritina Anderson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Model-Based Systems Engineering, Real-Time Operations, and Autonomy

Model-Based Systems Engineering has been enabled by the development of the SysML language and software tools to create systems models. Systems models described in SysML incorporate frames (Diagrams) that represent behaviors (activities, sequences, state machines, use cases), requirements, and structure (definitions, internal structure, parametric formulation, and packaging). The SysML models are, in turn, used by applications to do analysis and studies of the designs and operational capabilities. These uses of the model are based on simulations, and do not include hardware. This paper presents a software environment and processes that enables more comprehensive systems models for MBSE, and use of these rich models for real-time operations. The paper describes a software platform that enables creation of comprehensive models, beyond what is now possible with SysML and related software tools, called the NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS). The platform encapsulates a paradigm and infrastructure for creating systems models with complexity levels comparable to the ones handled by SysML software tools, but with additional fidelity that includes detailed design diagrams encompassing sensors, components, and design topologies. Furthermore, NPAS enables incorporation of data, information, and knowledge (DIaK) to implement autonomy and Integrated System Health Management (ISHM) and the inherent integration of content encompassing SysML structure and behavior diagrams throughout the NPAS modelAnd lastly, the NPAS models are used in real-time operations, taking advantage of the fidelity and complexity encompassed in the models in order to implement “thinking” ISHM and/or autonomous operations. . Incorporation of SysML model content into an NPAS model is briefly discussed.

MBSE↗
NASA NTRS2018

Serious Gaming for Building a Basis of Certification via Trust and Trustworthiness of Autonomous Systems

Autonomous systems governed by a variety of adaptive and nondeterministic algorithms are being planned for inclusion into safety-critical environments, such as unmanned aircraft and space systems in both civilian and military applications. However, until autonomous systems are proven and perceived to be capable and resilient in the face of unanticipated conditions, humans will be reluctant or unable to delegate authority, remaining in control aided by machine-based information and decision support. Proving capability, or trustworthiness, is a necessary component of certification. Perceived capability is a component of trust. Trustworthiness is an attribute of a cyber-physical system that requires context-driven metrics to prove and certify. Trust is an attribute of the agents participating in the system and is gained over time and multiple interactions through trustworthy behavior and transparency. Historically, artificial intelligence and machine learning systems provide answers without explanation - without a rationale or insight into the machine “thinking”. In order to function as trusted teammates, machines must be able to explain their decisions and actions. This transparency is a product of both content and communication. NASA’s Autonomy Teaming & TRAjectories for Complex Trusted Operational Reliability (ATTRACTOR) project seeks to build a basis for certification of autonomous systems via establishing metrics for trustworthiness and trust in multi-agent team interactions, using AI (Artificial Intelligence) explainability and persistent modeling and simulation, in the context of mission planning and execution, with analyzable trajectories. Inspired by Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG) and Serious Gaming, the proposed ATTRACTOR modeling and simulation environment is similar to online gaming environments in which player (aka agent) participants interact with each other, affect their environment, and expect the simulation to persist and change regardless of any individual agent’s active participation. This persistent simulation environment will accommodate individual agents, groups of self-organizing agents, and large-scale infrastructure behavior. The effects of the emerging adaptation and coevolution can be observed and measured to building a basis of measurable trustworthiness and trust, toward certification of safety-critical autonomous systems.

Allen, B. Danette↗
NASA NTRS2016

Evidence Report: Risk of Performance Errors Due to Training Deficiencies

Substantial evidence supports the claim that inadequate training leads to performance errors. Barshi and Loukopoulos (2012) demonstrate that even a task as carefully developed and refined over many years as operating an aircraft can be significantly improved by a systematic analysis, followed by improved procedures and improved training (see also Loukopoulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009a). Unfortunately, such a systematic analysis of training needs rarely occurs during the preliminary design phase, when modifications are most feasible. Training is often seen as a way to compensate for deficiencies in task and system design, which in turn increases the training load. As a result, task performance often suffers, and with it, the operators suffer and so does the mission. On the other hand, effective training can indeed compensate for such design deficiencies, and can even go beyond to compensate for failures of our imagination to anticipate all that might be needed when we send our crew members to go where no one else has gone before. Much of the research literature on training is motivated by current training practices aimed at current training needs. Although there is some experience with operations in extreme environments on Earth, there is no experience with long-duration space missions where crews must practice semi-autonomous operations, where ground support must accommodate significant communication delays, and where so little is known about the environment. Thus, we must develop robust methodologies and tools to prepare our crews for the unknown. The research necessary to support such an endeavor does not currently exist, but existing research does reveal general challenges that are relevant to long-duration, high-autonomy missions. The evidence presented here describes issues related to the risk of performance errors due to training deficiencies. Contributing factors regarding training deficiencies may pertain to organizational process and training programs for spaceflight, such as when training programs are inadequate or unavailable. Furthermore, failure to match between tasks on the one hand, and learning and memory abilities on the other hand is a contributing factor, especially when individuals' relative efficiency with which new information is acquired, and adjustments made in behavior or thinking, are inconsistent with mission demands. Thus, if training deficiencies are present, the likelihood of errors or of the inability to successfully complete a task increases. What's more, the overall risk to the crew, the vehicle, and the mission increases.

Barshi, Immanuel↗