Engineering Papers⌕ Search

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.

At least 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRS2008

The Telesupervised Adaptive Ocean Sensor Fleet (TAOSF) Architecture: Coordination of Multiple Oceanic Robot Boats

Earth science research must bridge the gap between the atmosphere and the ocean to foster understanding of Earth s climate and ecology. Ocean sensing is typically done with satellites, buoys, and crewed research ships. The limitations of these systems include the fact that satellites are often blocked by cloud cover, and buoys and ships have spatial coverage limitations. This paper describes a multi-robot science exploration software architecture and system called the Telesupervised Adaptive Ocean Sensor Fleet (TAOSF). TAOSF supervises and coordinates a group of robotic boats, the OASIS platforms, to enable in-situ study of phenomena in the ocean/atmosphere interface, as well as on the ocean surface and sub-surface. The OASIS platforms are extended deployment autonomous ocean surface vehicles, whose development is funded separately by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). TAOSF allows a human operator to effectively supervise and coordinate multiple robotic assets using a sliding autonomy control architecture, where the operating mode of the vessels ranges from autonomous control to teleoperated human control. TAOSF increases data-gathering effectiveness and science return while reducing demands on scientists for robotic asset tasking, control, and monitoring. The first field application chosen for TAOSF is the characterization of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). We discuss the overall TAOSF architecture, describe field tests conducted under controlled conditions using rhodamine dye as a HAB simulant, present initial results from these tests, and outline the next steps in the development of TAOSF.

sensor web↗
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

Extreme Problem Solving: The New Challenges of Deep Space Exploration

On the International Space Station today, the crew has the near real-time support of a large group of system experts on the ground when dealing with problems on-board. For exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit, however, intermittent and delayed communication with ground will force small crews to take the lead in responding to vehicle anomalies. Enabling a flight crew of roughly four astronauts to perform the job that has traditionally been done by a ground crew of over 80 experts will require a fundamental rethinking of human-systems integration. Through observations of anomaly resolution processes, interviews with system experts and astronauts, and analyses of problem-solving models, we have identified the capabilities that are not currently available on-board but will be needed to enable safe exploration further away from Earth. These include increased data access, just-in-time training tools and technologies, and troubleshooting decision support. Important questions remain on how these technologies can be designed and implemented for increased crew autonomy. We present this critical challenge for deep space exploration to the human-computer interaction research community to reflect on the areas identified by our needs analysis and contemplate how they might be manifested as solutions.

autonomy↗
DOE OSTI2021

Autonomous experimentation systems for materials development: A community perspective

Solutions to many of the world's problems depend upon materials research and development. However, advanced materials can take decades to discover and decades more to fully deploy. Humans and robots have begun to partner to advance science and technology orders of magnitude faster than humans do today through the development and exploitation of closed-loop, autonomous experimentation systems. This review discusses the specific challenges and opportunities related to materials discovery and development that will emerge from this new paradigm. Our perspective incorporates input from stakeholders in academia, industry, government laboratories, and funding agencies. We outline the current status, barriers, and needed investments, culminating with a vision for the path forward. We intend the article to spark interest in this emerging research area and to motivate potential practitioners by illustrating early successes. We also aspire to encourage a creative reimagining of the next generation of materials science infrastructure. To this end, we frame future investments in materials science and technology, hardware and software infrastructure, artificial intelligence and autonomy methods, and critical workforce development for autonomous research.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
NASA NTRS2026

Multi-Agent Swarm State of the Art Report

The Next-Generation Multi-Agent Swarm (NGS) Study conducted by NASA’s Ames Research Center for NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) will develop a comprehensive understanding of emerging multi-agent swarm capabilities. The study aims to identify existing swarm capabilities and asses their potential for persistent lunar space situational awareness, surface monitoring, and distributed autonomy demonstrations. A key objective is to inform the design of a next-generation multi-agent swarm that can perform autonomous distributed remote sensing, position, navigation, and timing (PNT) services, automated deployment that leverages autonomy, edge computing, and interoperable networking to enable cooperative operations without the need for immediate human operation. This study will address specific shortfalls identified by STMD, including intelligent multi-agent constellations, autonomy, edge computation, position, navigation, and timing for small spacecraft, small spacecraft propulsion, and space situational awareness (1625, 1438, 1433, 1557, 1431, 1430, 1589). The NASA Ames Mission Design Center (MDC) will provide subject matter expertise to support systems engineering trades, while experts in autonomy and spacecraft swarms in NASA’s Intelligent Systems Division will lead the study and focus on identifying emerging next-generation swarm capabilities. The study objectives include: capturing the current state-of-the-art for multi-agent swarm capabilities, evaluating technologies and creating technology roadmaps, and developing at least one new technology demonstration mission concept. This initial NGS study report surveys the current state of the art in technology areas relevant for the next-generation multi-agent swarm design. Our primary focus is on surveying relevant deployed space systems1, supplemented with selective analysis of relevant proposed missions and technology developments that have yet to fly.

agent↗
NASA NTRS1992

A method for planning collision free trajectories for two cooperating robots

Robotic systems designed specifically for space applications often exhibit a high level of autonomy to reduce the costs associated with having humans in space. This paper presents a method for autonomously planning collision free paths for two cooperating robots in a static environment. The method performs selective mapping of configuration space while attempting to locate a safe path. The method is based around an algorithm aimed at transversing a space of arbitrary dimension which contains both safe and unsafe regions. While the procedure cannot guarantee finding a solution even if one may exist, it is intended to find a solution to many practical path planning problems within a reasonable amount of time. Results are presented for applying the procedure to two cooperating six degree of freedom manipulators (Puma 560s).

Weaver, Jonathan M.↗
NASA NTRS1991

On operator strategic behavior

Deeper and more detailed knowledge as to how human operators such as pilots respond, singly and in groups, to demands on their performance which arise from technical systems will support the manipulation of such systems' design in order to accommodate the foibles of human behavior. Efforts to understand how self-autonomy impacts strategic behavior and such related issues as error generation/recognition/correction are still in their infancy. The present treatment offers both general and aviation-specific definitions of strategic behavior as precursors of prospective investigations.

Hancock, P. A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Remote systems development

Potential space missions of the nineties and the next century require that we look at the broad category of remote systems as an important means to achieve cost-effective operations, exploration and colonization objectives. This paper addresses such missions, which can use remote systems technology as the basis for identifying required capabilities which must be provided. The relationship of the space-based tasks to similar tasks required for terrestrial applications is discussed. The development status of the required technology is assessed and major issues which must be addressed to meet future requirements are identified. This includes the proper mix of humans and machines, from pure teleoperation to full autonomy; the degree of worksite compatibility for a robotic system; and the required design parameters, such as degrees-of-freedom. Methods for resolution are discussed including analysis, graphical simulation and the use of laboratory test beds. Grumman experience in the application of these techniques to a variety of design issues are presented utilizing the Telerobotics Development Laboratory which includes a 17-DOF robot system, a variety of sensing elements, Deneb/IRIS graphics workstations and control stations. The use of task/worksite mockups, remote system development test beds and graphical analysis are discussed with examples of typical results such as estimates of task times, task feasibility and resulting recommendations for design changes. The relationship of this experience and lessons-learned to future development of remote systems is also discussed.

Olsen, R.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Experimental Evaluation of Verification and Validation Tools on Martian Rover Software

To achieve its science objectives in deep space exploration, NASA has a need for science platform vehicles to autonomously make control decisions in a time frame that excludes intervention from Earth-based controllers. Round-trip light-time is one significant factor motivating autonomy capability, another factor is the need to reduce ground support operations cost. An unsolved problem potentially impeding the adoption of autonomy capability is the verification and validation of such software systems, which exhibit far more behaviors (and hence distinct execution paths in the software) than is typical in current deepspace platforms. Hence the need for a study to benchmark advanced Verification and Validation (V&V) tools on representative autonomy software. The objective of the study was to access the maturity of different technologies, to provide data indicative of potential synergies between them, and to identify gaps in the technologies with respect to the challenge of autonomy V&V. The study consisted of two parts: first, a set of relatively independent case studies of different tools on the same autonomy code, second a carefully controlled experiment with human participants on a subset of these technologies. This paper describes the second part of the study. Overall, nearly four hundred hours of data on human use of three different advanced V&V tools were accumulated, with a control group that used conventional testing methods. The experiment simulated four independent V&V teams debugging three successive versions of an executive controller for a Martian Rover. Defects were carefully seeded into the three versions based on a profile of defects from CVS logs that occurred in the actual development of the executive controller. The rest of the document is structured a s follows. In section 2 and 3, we respectively describe the tools used in the study and the rover software that was analyzed. In section 4 the methodology for the experiment is described; this includes the code preparation, seeding of defects, participant training and experimental setup. Next we give a qualitative overview of how the experiment went from the point of view of each technology; model checking (section 5), static analysis (section 6), runtime analysis (section 7) and testing (section 8). The find section gives some preliminary quantitative results on how the tools compared.

Brat, Guillaume↗
NASA NTRS2015

Collaborating with Autonomous Agents

With the anticipated increase of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) entering into the National Airspace System, it is highly likely that vehicle operators will be teaming with fleets of small autonomous vehicles. The small vehicles may consist of sUAS, which are 55 pounds or less that typically will y at altitudes 400 feet and below, and small ground vehicles typically operating in buildings or defined small campuses. Typically, the vehicle operators are not concerned with manual control of the vehicle; instead they are concerned with the overall mission. In order for this vision of high-level mission operators working with fleets of vehicles to come to fruition, many human factors related challenges must be investigated and solved. First, the interface between the human operator and the autonomous agent must be at a level that the operator needs and the agents can understand. This paper details the natural language human factors e orts that NASA Langley's Autonomy Incubator is focusing on. In particular these e orts focus on allowing the operator to interact with the system using speech and gestures rather than a mouse and keyboard. With this ability of the system to understand both speech and gestures, operators not familiar with the vehicle dynamics will be able to easily plan, initiate, and change missions using a language familiar to them rather than having to learn and converse in the vehicle's language. This will foster better teaming between the operator and the autonomous agent which will help lower workload, increase situation awareness, and improve performance of the system as a whole.

Trujillo, Anna C.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Mitigations to Reduce the Law of Unintended Consequences for Autonomy and Other Technological Advances

The United Nations states that Earth’s population is expected to reach just under 10 billion people (9.7) by the year 2050. To meet the demands of 10 billion people, governments, multinational corporations and global leaders are relying on autonomy and technological advances to augment and/or accommodate human efforts to meet the required needs of daily living. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) gene-edited plants and cloning will be utilized to expand human food supply. Biomimetic implants are expected to improve life expectancy with 3D printed body parts. Human functioning will be extended with wearables and cybernetic implants continuing humanity’s path toward transhumanism. Families will be strengthened with 3 parent households. Disease will surely be eradicated using the CRISPR-CAS9 genetic engineering revolution to design out undesirable human traits and to design in new capabilities. With autonomous cars, trucks and buses on our roads and on-demand autonomous aircraft delivering pizzas, medical prescriptions and groceries in the air and multi-planet vehicles traversing space, utopia will finally arrive! Or will it? All of these powerful, man-made, technological systems will experience unintended consequences with certainty. Instead of over-reacting with hysteria and fear, we should be seeking answers to the following questions - “What skills are required to architect socially-healthy technological systems for 2050?” “What mindsets should we embody to ameliorate hubris syndrome and to build our future technological systems with deliberation, soberness and social responsibility?”

Morris, A. Terry↗
NASA NTRS2016

Advanced Technologies for Robotic Exploration Leading to Human Exploration: Results from the SpaceOps 2015 Workshop

This paper will provide a summary and analysis of the SpaceOps 2015 Workshop all-day session on "Advanced Technologies for Robotic Exploration, Leading to Human Exploration", held at Fucino Space Center, Italy on June 12th, 2015. The session was primarily intended to explore how robotic missions and robotics technologies more generally can help lead to human exploration missions. The session included a wide range of presentations that were roughly grouped into (1) broader background, conceptual, and high-level operations concepts presentations such as the International Space Exploration Coordination Group Roadmap, followed by (2) more detailed narrower presentations such as rover autonomy and communications. The broader presentations helped to provide context and specific technical hooks, and helped lay a foundation for the narrower presentations on more specific challenges and technologies, as well as for the discussion that followed. The discussion that followed the presentations touched on key questions, themes, actions and potential international collaboration opportunities. Some of the themes that were touched on were (1) multi-agent systems, (2) decentralized command and control, (3) autonomy, (4) low-latency teleoperations, (5) science operations, (6) communications, (7) technology pull vs. technology push, and (8) the roles and challenges of operations in early human architecture and mission concept formulation. A number of potential action items resulted from the workshop session, including: (1) using CCSDS as a further collaboration mechanism for human mission operations, (2) making further contact with subject matter experts, (3) initiating informal collaborative efforts to allow for rapid and efficient implementation, and (4) exploring how SpaceOps can support collaboration and information exchange with human exploration efforts. This paper will summarize the session and provide an overview of the above subjects as they emerged from the SpaceOps 2015 Workshop session.

space operations↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions: A Multi-Team Research Effort to Reduce Risk in the Human-System Integration Architecture for Future Deep-Space Missions

In future exploration missions beyond low earth-orbit, crew will have to execute complex operations and respond to off-nominal events, without real-time support from Mission Control. It is anticipated that increased reliance on automated systems, including human-centric vehicle and information architecture, will need to be designed to support the crew; increased risk to performance, health, and safety may occur if these are not implemented appropriately. The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP) in the NASA Human Research Program supports research to characterize and mitigate such human health and performance risks, including the Risk of Adverse Outcome Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). The HSIA risk addresses the integration of onboard capability and the crew roles and responsibilities necessary to enable the crew to respond effectively and efficiently in the increasingly autonomous mission operations environment. In 2017, HFBP released the “Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions” (HCAAM) research topic to address HSIA related questions. HCAAM is a major NASA research effort that has assembled a multidisciplinary team from seven institutions to work closely with design and engineering efforts on research towards developing and refining human performance standards, guidelines and automation tools. The scientific focus is on quantitative assessment of human capabilities relevant to future deep-space missions during which earth/spacecraft communication is so delayed and intermittent that the crew must be able to function autonomously. The integrated strategy of the HCAAM project characterizes human capabilities and limitations related to potential performance decrements during long duration exploration mission spaceflight as relevant to both routine and complex task performance; defines system characteristics that reduce the likelihood or impact of potential decrements in human performance capabilities; performs integrated assessment of intelligent system responses within the context of an operational environment with relevant NASA tools, systems, and data structures in order to determine positive or negative interactions and validate recommended approaches; and proposes specific updates to existing standards and guidelines for inclusion in NASA handbooks for the design of future spacecraft intelligent systems that provide crew performance assessment/feedback, and to also serve as decision-support aids for the onboard crew (i.e., NASA-STD-3001, and NASA/SP-Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)). The scientific research vectors being addressed by the seven HCAAM teams include: - crew task performance (accuracy, efficiency) (crew + automation) - crew performance (accuracy, efficiency) - crew Situation Awareness - procedure design and multi-modal enhancement - concurrent tasking (mixed manual + some level of autonomy) - task handover - crew self-planning and time-lining - task design - trust in automation, real-time calibration - human multi-sensory feedback and guidance - human trust in on-board software-based intelligent assistants - virtual assistants The presentation will highlight plans and progress made in each of these research areas as well as the methods by which surrogate astronaut crews in the NASA JSC HERA spaceflight analog facility will function as human test subjects for all of the HCAAM research projects.

HCAAM VNSCOR↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacological Treatment Through Precision Medicine and Pharmacogenomics for Human Deep Space Exploration

INTRODUCTION: Future spaceflight will require increased crew medical autonomy as exploration class missions expanding duration and distance from Earth, especially for Mars missions. As mission duration increases, it will be even more essential to have appropriate amounts of effective medication to ensure the maintenance of crew health and performance. Conversely, mass and volume constraints will become more severe as future spaceflight expands beyond low Earth orbit, where resupply is difficult or becomes impossible. These constraints thus convey an urgency to further tailor medications included in the spacecraft formulary and increased examination of appropriate dosing regimens. BACKGROUND: Precision Health is an exciting area of cutting-edge research and medicine focused on maintaining an individual’s health and performance through in-depth understanding of an individual’s unique factors and molecular profiles. This approach can be adapted to better predict, monitor, and address physiological responses to the spaceflight environment. One example is the field of pharmacogenomics (PGX),the study of how the expressed genome impacts drug responses with the goal of prescribing the right dose of the right drug at the right time. Specifically, PGX testing provides valuable information on an individual’s precise allelic variations to guide physicians in making informed decisions on pharmaceutical choice and dosing to avoid adverse drug events and maximize pharmacological efficacy. The goal of this study was to evaluate which drugs in the current space pharmacy could be evaluated using PGX testing and to understand the potential impact on the health and wellness of the astronaut population. Additionally, we sought to evaluate clinically available FDA-approved PGX testing solutions to better understand its applicability. METHODS: A complete list of drugs onboard the International Space Station (ISS) was analyzed for risk and likelihood of drug failure and PGX actionability. This analysis encompassed both personal astronaut medications, including supplements and over the counter drugs (n=151) and ISS MedKit formulary medications (n=95). Duplicate medications and different formulations were removed, which resulted in 157 total drugs used in the subsequent analysis. A 5x5 risk assessment table was produced by examining the likelihood of drug failure compared to the consequence of drug failure. Likelihood of individual drug failure was defined by whether existing processes are sufficient to prevent adverse events, as ranked from 1 (very low, can easily be prevented) to 5 (very high, cannot be prevented) during a Mars mission. In contrast, the consequence of drug failure was defined by impact to safety, schedule, cost or technical and ranked from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).A comprehensive assessment of commercially available PGX solutions is currently underway to evaluate specimen requirements, cost/benefit analysis (cost vs. number of alleles assessed), utility of variant analysis, relevance to inflight medication usage, quality of reporting in enabling clinical application, and ease of integration into electronic medical records. RESULTS: Risk assessments(LxC 5x5 table) indicated29medicationswere in the yellow or red zone driven predominantly by drug failure or safety concerns, with the remainder(n=128)of the medications in the green zone where risk is acceptable. We found that current PGX testing results could impact 21% of the total medications in the ISS MedKit and IMAK; of these, 9 medications currently have direct clinically actionable guidance available. Results of the clinical PGX solution evaluations as related to these medications will be presented. CONCLUSION: PGX testing has demonstrated clear benefits in terrestrial medicine and clinical environments for the selection of proper medications, avoiding adverse drug reactions, and maximizing drug efficacy. We propose that similar benefits would be bestowed on the astronaut and commercial spaceflight passenger population by performing preemptive pre-flight PGX testing to reduce risk of mission failure due to ineffective or toxic medications, improve targeting drug efficacy and safety, and further open the door to countermeasure research exploring PGX-related allelic variants. For example, PGX results could allow tailoring of specific medications at optimal doses more precisely to each individual astronaut, particularly in areas of space motion sickness, sleep aids, and analgesics. An additional benefit is that PGX results could provide information for better planning of the components of a space pharmacy for deep space missions to be more cost effective and more efficient in the utilization of limited pharmaceutical resources. Finally, while PGX testing of the astronaut corps is not currently conducted, this approach could provide immediate impact in support of mission success by reducing risks, optimizing astronaut performance, and providing valuable insights into long-term astronaut health. Such advancements in clinical decision making are important next steps in building dynamic individual risk profiles for astronauts, increasing crew autonomy and providing tailored countermeasures

Alice R W Tang↗
NASA NTRS1983

Space station autonomy requirements

Several concepts of autonomy have emerged from space station technology and mission studies. Unifying these concepts is important to enabling the needs for and requirements of autonomous systems for a space station to be explored. One purpose of autonomy related to a space station is to offload routine, demonstrated, precisely specifiable tasks and functions from humans to machines in order to increase habitability, increase human-machine system productivity, or to decrease operational costs. Defining incremental roles, functions, and technical capabilities for autonomy leads to identification of computing systems technologies needed to enable various degrees of autonomy.

Anderson, J. L.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Issues in the design of an executive controller shell for Space Station automation

A major goal of NASA's Systems Autonomy Demonstration Project is to focus research in artificial intelligence, human factors, and dynamic control systems in support of Space Station automation. Another goal is to demonstrate the use of these technologies in real space systems, for both round-based mission support and on-board operations. The design, construction, and evaluation of an intelligent autonomous system shell is recognized as an important part of the Systems Autonomy research program. His paper describes autonomous systems and executive controllers, outlines how these intelligent systems can be utilized within the Space Station, and discusses a number of key design issues that have been raised during some preliminary work to develop an autonomous executive controller shell at NASA Ames Research Center.

Erickson, William K.↗