Making Flying as Simple as Driving, Transformation Flight Certification Symposium Panel
Making Flying as Simple as Driving
advanced air mobility↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “human 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.
True Partnership: An Actual Human Machine Team
Presentation covering current SOA and what is required to move to autonomous teammates.
human machine team↗
Cyber-Threat Assessment for the Air Traffic Management System: A Network Controls Approach
Air transportation networks are being disrupted with increasing frequency by failures in their cyber- (computing, communication, control) systems. Whether these cyber- failures arise due to deliberate attacks or incidental errors, they can have far-reaching impact on the performance of the air traffic control and management systems. For instance, a computer failure in the Washington DC Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZDC) on August 15, 2015, caused nearly complete closure of the Centers airspace for several hours. This closure had a propagative impact across the United States National Airspace System, causing changed congestion patterns and requiring placement of a suite of traffic management initiatives to address the capacity reduction and congestion. A snapshot of traffic on that day clearly shows the closure of the ZDC airspace and the resulting congestion at its boundary, which required augmented traffic management at multiple locations. Cyber- events also have important ramifications for private stakeholders, particularly the airlines. During the last few months, computer-system issues have caused several airlines fleets to be grounded for significant periods of time: these include United Airlines (twice), LOT Polish Airlines, and American Airlines. Delays and regional stoppages due to cyber- events are even more common, and may have myriad causes (e.g., failure of the Department of Homeland Security systems needed for security check of passengers, see [3]). The growing frequency of cyber- disruptions in the air transportation system reflects a much broader trend in the modern society: cyber- failures and threats are becoming increasingly pervasive, varied, and impactful. In consequence, an intense effort is underway to develop secure and resilient cyber- systems that can protect against, detect, and remove threats, see e.g. and its many citations. The outcomes of this wide effort on cyber- security are applicable to the air transportation infrastructure, and indeed security solutions are being implemented in the current system. While these security solutions are important, they only provide a piecemeal solution. Particular computers or communication channels are protected from particular attacks, without a holistic view of the air transportation infrastructure. On the other hand, the above-listed incidents highlight that a holistic approach is needed, for several reasons. First, the air transportation infrastructure is a large scale cyber-physical system with multiple stakeholders and diverse legacy assets. It is impractical to protect every cyber- asset from known and unknown disruptions, and instead a strategic view of security is needed. Second, disruptions to the cyber- system can incur complex propagative impacts across the air transportation network, including its physical and human assets. Also, these implications of cyber- events are exacerbated or modulated by other disruptions and operational specifics, e.g. severe weather, operator fatigue or error, etc. These characteristics motivate a holistic and strategic perspective on protecting the air transportation infrastructure from cyber- events. The analysis of cyber- threats to the air traffic system is also inextricably tied to the integration of new autonomy into the airspace. The replacement of human operators with cyber functions leaves the network open to new cyber threats, which must be modeled and managed. Paradoxically, the mitigation of cyber events in the airspace will also likely require additional autonomy, given the fast time scale and myriad pathways of cyber-attacks which must be managed. The assessment of new vulnerabilities upon integration of new autonomy is also a key motivation for a holistic perspective on cyber threats.
Complex Networks↗
Autonomy Software: V&V Challenges and Characteristics
The successful operation of unmanned air vehicles requires software with a high degree of autonomy. Only if high level functions can be carried out without human control and intervention, complex missions in a changing and potentially unknown environment can be carried out successfully. Autonomy software is highly mission and safety critical: failures, caused by flaws in the software cannot only jeopardize the mission, but could also endanger human life (e.g., a crash of an UAV in a densely populated area). Due to its large size, high complexity, and use of specialized algorithms (planner, constraint-solver, etc.), autonomy software poses specific challenges for its verification, validation, and certification. -- - we have carried out a survey among researchers aid scientists at NASA to study these issues. In this paper, we will present major results of this study, discussing the broad spectrum. of notions and characteristics of autonomy software and its challenges for design and development. A main focus of this survey was to evaluate verification and validation (V&V) issues and challenges, compared to the development of "traditional" safety-critical software. We will discuss important issues in V&V of autonomous software and advanced V&V tools which can help to mitigate software risks. Results of this survey will help to identify and understand safety concerns in autonomy software and will lead to improved strategies for mitigation of these risks.
Schumann, Johann↗
Development and Execution of Autonomous Procedures Onboard the International Space Station to Support the Next Phase of Human Space Exploration
Now that major assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) is complete, NASA's focus has turned to using this high fidelity in-space research testbed to not only advance fundamental science research, but also demonstrate and mature technologies and develop operational concepts that will enable future human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. The ISS as a Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) project was established to reduce risks for manned missions to exploration destinations by utilizing ISS as a high fidelity micro-g laboratory to demonstrate technologies, operations concepts, and techniques associated with crew autonomous operations. One of these focus areas is the development and execution of ISS Testbed for Analog Research (ISTAR) autonomous flight crew procedures intended to increase crew autonomy that will be required for long duration human exploration missions. Due to increasing communications delays and reduced logistics resupply, autonomous procedures are expected to help reduce crew reliance on the ground flight control team, increase crew performance, and enable the crew to become more subject-matter experts on both the exploration space vehicle systems and the scientific investigation operations that will be conducted on a long duration human space exploration mission. These tests make use of previous or ongoing projects tested in ground analogs such as Research and Technology Studies (RATS) and NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO). Since the latter half of 2012, selected non-critical ISS systems crew procedures have been used to develop techniques for building ISTAR autonomous procedures, and ISS flight crews have successfully executed them without flight controller involvement. Although the main focus has been preparing for exploration, the ISS has been a beneficiary of this synergistic effort and is considering modifying additional standard ISS procedures that may increase crew efficiency, reduce operational costs, and raise the amount of crew time available for scientific research. The next phase of autonomous procedure development is expected to include payload science and human research investigations. Additionally, ISS International Partners have expressed interest in participating in this effort. The recently approved one-year crew expedition starting in 2015, consisting of one Russian and one U.S. Operating Segment (USOS) crewmember, will be used not only for long duration human research investigations but also for the testing of exploration operations concepts, including crew autonomy.
beyond low earth orbit (BLEO)↗
Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities
Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.
Mark E Lewis↗
Wetware, Hardware, or Software Incapacitation: Observational Methods to Determine When Autonomy Should Assume Control
Control-theoretic modeling of human operator's dynamic behavior in manual control tasks has a long, rich history. There has been significant work on techniques used to identify the pilot model of a given structure. This research attempts to go beyond pilot identification based on experimental data to develop a predictor of pilot behavior. Two methods for pre-dicting pilot stick input during changing aircraft dynamics and deducing changes in pilot behavior are presented This approach may also have the capability to detect a change in a subject due to workload, engagement, etc., or the effects of changes in vehicle dynamics on the pilot. With this ability to detect changes in piloting behavior, the possibility now exists to mediate human adverse behaviors, hardware failures, and software anomalies with autono-my that may ameliorate these undesirable effects. However, appropriate timing of when au-tonomy should assume control is dependent on criticality of actions to safety, sensitivity of methods to accurately detect these adverse changes, and effects of changes in levels of auto-mation of the system as a whole.
Trujillo, Anna C.↗
Advancing Robotic Control for Space Exploration Using Robonaut 2
Robonaut 2, or R2, arrived on the International Space Station (ISS) in February 2011 and is currently being tested in preparation for its role initially as an Intra-Vehicular Activity (IVA) tool and eventually as a robot that performs Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA). Robonaut 2, is a state of the art dexterous anthropomorphic robotic torso designed for assisting astronauts. R2 features increased force sensing, greater range of motion, higher bandwidth, and improved dexterity over its predecessor. Robonaut 2 is unique in its ability to safely allow humans in its workspace and to perform significant tasks in a workspace designed for humans. The current operational paradigm involves either the crew or the ground control team running semi-autonomous scripts on the robot as both the astronaut and the ground team monitor R2 and the data it produces. While this is appropriate for the check-out phase of operations, the future plans for R2 will stress the current operational framework. The approach described here will outline a suite of operational modes that will be developed for Robonaut 2. These operational modes include teleoperation, shared control, directed autonomy, and supervised autonomy, and they cover a spectrum of human involvement in controlling R2.
Badger, Julia↗
Assessing V and V Processes for Automation with Respect to Vulnerabilities to Loss of Airplane State Awareness
Automation has contributed substantially to the sustained improvement of aviation safety by minimizing the physical workload of the pilot and increasing operational efficiency. Nevertheless, in complex and highly automated aircraft, automation also has unintended consequences. As systems become more complex and the authority and autonomy (A&A) of the automation increases, human operators become relegated to the role of a system supervisor or administrator, a passive role not conducive to maintaining engagement and airplane state awareness (ASA). The consequence is that flight crews can often come to over rely on the automation, become less engaged in the human-machine interaction, and lose awareness of the automation mode under which the aircraft is operating. Likewise, the complexity of the system and automation modes may lead to poor understanding of the interaction between a mode of automation and a particular system configuration or phase of flight. These and other examples of mode confusion often lead to mismanaging the aircraftâ€"TM"s energy state or the aircraft deviating from the intended flight path. This report examines methods for assessing whether, and how, operational constructs properly assign authority and autonomy in a safe and coordinated manner, with particular emphasis on assuring adequate airplane state awareness by the flight crew and air traffic controllers in off-nominal and/or complex situations.
Whitlow, Stephen↗
Approaches for Synthesis and Deployment of Controller Models on Automated Vehicles for Car-following in Mixed Autonomy
This paper describes the software design patterns and vehicle interfaces that were employed to transition vehicle controllers from simulation environments to open-road field experiments. The approach relies on a life cycle that utilizes model-based design and code generation, along with agile software development, and both software and hardware-in-the-loop testing, with additional safety margins. Autonomous designs should consider the dynamics of mixed autonomy in traffic to safely operate among humans. The software that provides a vehicle’s behavior intelligence is often developed through simulation, which may have a mismatch between dynamics, or as a result of a reinforcement learning workflow, which may be a black box with challenges to analyze. In each of these cases, it is important to have research interfaces that provide strongly typed data streams accessible to researchers who are not software experts while continuing to satisfy safety and liveness constraints. This paper describes how we design the hardware platform interfaces and software design process for a mixed autonomy traffic experiment with a leader-follower scenario. Controller synthesis for these vehicles requires clearly articulated vehicle interfaces and software design patterns for successful onboard deployment. Testing strategies for such controllers are also described before algorithms are transitioned to full-scale field experiments with safety operators for the vehicles. Testing strategies include software-in-the-loop simulation testing, hardware-in-the-loop simulation, ghost-car testing, and read-only testing in live traffic. With our approach, we were not only able to validate our controller synthesized in scripts and simulation, but also able to scale deployment to multiple vehicles.
Bhadani, Rahul↗
Trusted Communication: Utilizing Speech Communication to Enhance Human-Machine Teaming Success
An area of increasing interest for the next generation of aircraft is autonomy and the integration of increasingly autonomous systems into the national airspace. Such an integration requires humans to work closely with autonomous systems, forming teams. Our hypothesis is that a team composed of both humans and autonomous systems will operate better than either entity alone. We have existing procedures for certifying pilots to operate in the national airspace and are currently working on methods for validating the function of autonomous systems, however we have no method in place for assessing the interaction of these two disparate systems. Communication is one avenue. This paper will examine the use of language as a metric for ascertaining human-machine teaming effectiveness. A proof-of-concept of the application of two communication-based analysis techniques, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), for the prediction of success in human/chatbot teaming was conducted. By running these analyses over data from the 2014 and 2015 Loebner Prize competitions of human/chatbot teaming, numerical scores were obtained that can be associated with scores provided by human judges during the competition. Correlating their LIWC and LSA data with the scores provided by the judges, and using linear regression over this correlation, formulae were obtained that predict the score of human/chatbot interaction. These formulae were tested over the 2013 Loebner Prize transcripts, determining that, though there was strong correlation between predicted and actual scores, the predictive success of this method was not strong. However, with specialized topic spaces and lexica, as well as larger data sets, the predictive power of these metrics will improve. Given the importance of providing metrics for human-machine system team success and given the promise shown by the communication-basedLIWCand LSAmethods, continuing research in this area is necessary. After examining the potential for using communication and spoken language as a metric for the success of human/autonomous system teaming, this paper then examines aspects inherent to communication systems that may contribute to unreliability and reduced trust. Modern natural language processing tools rely on deep learning algorithms to create language rules that produce accurate results, but these rules are uninterpretable. The resulting blackbox system lacks transparency necessary for full validation and complete trust. Additionally, speech-based interfaces pose other difficulties to developing coordinated teamwork between humans and autonomous systems. Human communication is infrequently limited to speech only, instead usually relying on a combination of verbal, gestural, and general body language communication. Reducing an analysis of team effectiveness to a study of spoken language alone is problematic as it leaves these other equally important forms of communication out. This paper will examine these problems and the general deficiencies in speech-based metrics for human-machine teaming.
E L Meszaros↗
Intermediate Levels of Autonomy within the SSM/PMAD Breadboard
The Space Station Module Power Management and Distribution (SSM/PMAD) bread-board is a test bed for the development of advanced power system control and automation. Software control in the SSM/PMAD breadboard is through co-operating systems, called Autonomous Agents. Agents can be a mixture of algorithmic software and expert systems. The early SSM/PMAD system was envisioned as being completely autonomous. It soon became apparent, though, that there would always be a need for human intervention, at least as long as a human interacts with the system in any way. In a system designed only for autonomous operation, manual intervention meant taking full control of the whole system, and loosing whatever expertise was in the system. Several methods for allowing humans to interact at an appropriate level of control were developed. This paper examines some of these intermediate modes of autonomy. The least humanly intrusive mode is simple monitoring. The ability to modify future behavior by altering a schedule involves high-level interaction. Modification of operating activities comes next. The coarsest mode of control is individual, unplanned operation of individual Power System components. Each of these levels is integrated into the SSM/PMAD breadboard, with support for the user (such as warnings of the consequences of control decisions) at every level.
Dugal-Whitehead, Norma R.↗
AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station
NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Activation and deactivation of this facility is time consuming and operationally intensive, requiring coordination of three flight control positions, 47 nominal steps, 57 commands, 276 telemetry checks, and coordination of multiple ISS systems (both core and payload). Utilization of Draper Laboratory's Timeliner software, deployed on-board the ISS within the Command and Control (C&C) computers and the Payload computers, allowed development of the automated procedures specific to ISS without having to certify and employ novel software for procedure development and execution. The procedures contained the ground procedure logic and actions as possible to include fault detection and recovery capabilities.
Stetson, Howard K.↗
AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station
NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Activation and deactivation of this facility is time consuming and operationally intensive, requiring coordination of three flight control positions, 47 nominal steps, 57 commands, 276 telemetry checks, and coordination of multiple ISS systems (both core and payload). Utilization of Draper Laboratory's Timeliner software, deployed on-board the ISS within the Command and Control (C&C) computers and the Payload computers, allowed development of the automated procedures specific to ISS without having to certify and employ novel software for procedure development and execution. The procedures contained the ground procedure logic and actions as possible to include fault detection and recovery capabilities. The autonomous operations concept includes a reduction of the amount of data a crew operator is required to verify during activation or de-activation, as well as integration of procedure execution status and relevant data in a single integrated display. During execution, the auto-procedures (via Timerliner) provide a step-by-step messaging paradigm and a high-level status upon termination. This messaging and high-level status is the only data generated for operator display. To enhance situational awareness of the operator, the Web-based Procedure Display (WebPD) provides a novel approach to the issues of procedure display and execution tracking. WebPD is a web based application that serves as the user interface for electronic procedure execution. It incorporates several aspects of the HTML5 standard. Procedures are written in a dialect of XML called Procedure Representation Language (PRL). WebPD tracks execution status in the procedure or procedures being displayed. WebPD aggregates and simplifies the auto-sequence execution status information, and formatted to be easily followed and understood by an operator who is not dedicated to actively monitoring the task. WebPD also provides an integrated data and control interface to pause or halt the execution in order to provide a check point of operation and to examine progress before starting the next sequence of activities. For this demonstration, the procedure was initiated and monitored from the ground. As the Timeliner sequences executed, their high-level execution status was written to PLMDM memory. This memory is read and downlinked via Ku-Band at a 1 Hz rate. The data containing the high-level execution status is de-commutated on the ground, and rebroadcast for WebPD consumption. A future demonstration will be performed onboard, with ISS astronauts initiating the operations instead of ground controllers. The AMO EXPRESS experiment demonstrated activation and de-activation of EXPRESS rack 7, providing the capability of future single button activations and deactivations of facility class racks. The experiment achieved numerous technical and operations 'firsts' for the ISS
Stetson, Howard K.↗
AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station
NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions.NASAs Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS).
Autonomous Mission Operations↗
New Era Towards Autonomous Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Recent Trends and Future Perspectives
Abstract The Additive Manufacturing (AM) landscape has significantly transformed in alignment with Industry 4.0 principles, primarily driven by the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Digital Twin (DT). However, current Intelligent Additive Manufacturing (IAM) systems face limitations such as fragmented AI tool usage and suboptimal human-machine interaction (HMI). This paper reviews existing IAM solutions, emphasizing control, monitoring, process autonomy, and end-to-end integration, and identifies key limitations, such as the absence of a high-level controller for global decision-making. To address these gaps, we propose a transition from IAM to Autonomous Additive Manufacturing (AAM), featuring a hierarchical framework with four integrated layers: knowledge, generative solution, operational, and cognitive. In the cognitive layer, AI agents notably enable machines to independently observe, analyze, plan, and execute operations that traditionally require human intervention. These capabilities streamline production processes and expand the possibilities for innovation, particularly in sectors like in-space manufacturing (ISM). Additionally, this paper discusses the role of AI in self-optimization and lifelong learning, positing that the future of AM will be characterized by a symbiotic relationship between human expertise and advanced autonomy, fostering a more adaptive, resilient manufacturing ecosystem.
Fan, Haolin↗
Design of a simulation environment for laboratory management by robot organizations
This paper describes the basic concepts needed for a simulation environment capable of supporting the design of robot organizations for managing chemical, or similar, laboratories on the planned U.S. Space Station. The environment should facilitate a thorough study of the problems to be encountered in assigning the responsibility of managing a non-life-critical, but mission valuable, process to an organized group of robots. In the first phase of the work, we seek to employ the simulation environment to develop robot cognitive systems and strategies for effective multi-robot management of chemical experiments. Later phases will explore human-robot interaction and development of robot autonomy.
Zeigler, Bernard P.↗
United States planetary rover status: 1989
A spectrum of concepts for planetary rovers and rover missions, is covered. Rovers studied range from tiny micro rovers to large and highly automated vehicles capable of traveling hundreds of kilometers and performing complex tasks. Rover concepts are addressed both for the Moon and Mars, including a Lunar/Mars common rover capable of supporting either program with relatively small modifications. Mission requirements considered include both Science and Human Exploration. Studies include a range of autonomy in rovers, from interactive teleoperated systems to those requiring and onboard System Executive making very high level decisions. Both high and low technology rover options are addressed. Subsystems are described for a representative selection of these rovers, including: Mobility, Sample Acquisition, Science, Vehicle Control, Thermal Control, Local Navigation, Computation and Communications. System descriptions of rover concepts include diagrams, technology levels, system characteristics, and performance measurement in terms of distance covered, samples collected, and area surveyed for specific representative missions. Rover development schedules and costs are addressed for Lunar and Mars exploration initiatives.
Pivirotto, Donna L. S.↗