SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DIALOGUE”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 253 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2003

Mobile Agents: A Distributed Voice-Commanded Sensory and Robotic System for Surface EVA Assistance

A model-based, distributed architecture integrates diverse components in a system designed for lunar and planetary surface operations: spacesuit biosensors, cameras, GPS, and a robotic assistant. The system transmits data and assists communication between the extra-vehicular activity (EVA) astronauts, the crew in a local habitat, and a remote mission support team. Software processes ("agents"), implemented in a system called Brahms, run on multiple, mobile platforms, including the spacesuit backpacks, all-terrain vehicles, and robot. These "mobile agents" interpret and transform available data to help people and robotic systems coordinate their actions to make operations more safe and efficient. Different types of agents relate platforms to each other ("proxy agents"), devices to software ("comm agents"), and people to the system ("personal agents"). A state-of-the-art spoken dialogue interface enables people to communicate with their personal agents, supporting a speech-driven navigation and scheduling tool, field observation record, and rover command system. An important aspect of the engineering methodology involves first simulating the entire hardware and software system in Brahms, and then configuring the agents into a runtime system. Design of mobile agent functionality has been based on ethnographic observation of scientists working in Mars analog settings in the High Canadian Arctic on Devon Island and the southeast Utah desert. The Mobile Agents system is developed iteratively in the context of use, with people doing authentic work. This paper provides a brief introduction to the architecture and emphasizes the method of empirical requirements analysis, through which observation, modeling, design, and testing are integrated in simulated EVA operations.

Clancey, William J.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Toward an agreement on terminology of nuclear and subnuclear divisions of the motor thalamus

The nomenclature most commonly applied to the motor-related nuclei of the human thalamus differs substantially from that applied to the thalamus of other primates, from which most knowledge of input-output connections is derived. Knowledge of these connections in the human is a prerequisite for stereotactic neurosurgical approaches designed to alleviate movement disorders by the placement of lesions in specific nuclei. Transfer to humans of connectional information derived from experimental studies in nonhuman primates requires agreement about the equivalence of nuclei in the different species, and dialogue between experimentalists and neurosurgeons would be facilitated by the use of a common nomenclature. In this review, the authors compare the different nomenclatures and review the cyto- and chemoarchitecture of the nuclei in the anterolateral aspect of the ventral nuclear mass in humans and monkeys, suggest which nuclei are equivalent, and propose a common terminology. On this basis, it is possible to identify the nuclei of the human motor thalamus that transfer information from the substantia nigra, globus pallidus, cerebellum, and proprioceptive components of the medial lemniscus to prefrontal, premotor, motor, and somatosensory areas of the cerebral cortex. It also becomes possible to suggest the principal functional systems involved in stereotactically guided thalamotomies and the functional basis of the symptoms observed following ischemic lesions in different parts of the human thalamus.

Non-NASA Center↗

NASA NTRS1997

Toward an agreement on terminology of nuclear and subnuclear divisions of the motor thalamus

Review, Tutorial↗

NASA NTRS2004

Peer-to-Peer Human-Robot Interaction for Space Exploration

NASA has embarked on a long-term program to develop human-robot systems for sustained, affordable space exploration. To support this mission, we are working to improve human-robot interaction and performance on planetary surfaces. Rather than building robots that function as glorified tools, our focus is to enable humans and robots to work as partners and peers. In this paper. we describe our approach, which includes contextual dialogue, cognitive modeling, and metrics-based field testing.

Fong, Terrence↗

NASA NTRS2005

Risk and Exploration: Earth, Sea and Stars

The NASA History Division is pleased to present the record of a unique meeting on risk and exploration held under the auspices of the NASA Administrator, Sean O Keefe, at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, from September 26-29, 2004. The meeting was the brainchild of Keith Cowing and astronaut John Grunsfeld, NASA's chief scientist at the time. Its goals, stated in the letter of invitation published herein, were precipitated by the ongoing dialogue on risk and exploration in the wake of the Columbia Shuttle accident, the Hubble Space Telescope servicing question, and, in a broader sense, by the many NASA programs that inevitably involve a balance between risk and forward-looking exploration. The meeting, extraordinarily broad in scope and participant experience, offers insights on why we explore, how to balance risk and exploration, how different groups defi ne and perceive risk differently, and the importance of exploration to a creative society. At NASA Headquarters, Bob Jacobs, Trish Pengra, and Joanna Adamus of NASA Public Affairs led the meeting's implementation. The Naval Postgraduate School, commanded by Rear Admiral Patrick W. Dunne, provided a congenial venue. The meeting was broadcast on NASA TV, and thanks are due in this regard to Al Feinberg, Tony Stewart, Jim Taylor, and the planners collaborative: Mark Shaddock and Spotlight Productions, Donovan Gates of Donovan Gates Production, and Michael Ditertay and his staff on this 30-person television crew. Thanks to their efforts, a DVD record of the meeting has also been produced. Thanks are also due to the moderators: Miles O Brien of CNN, Chris McKay of NASA Ames, David Halpern of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and John Grunsfeld, NASA Headquarters. In order to maintain the informal flavor of the meetings, these proceedings are based on transcripts that have been lightly edited for grammar and punctuation. Most references to slides shown during the presentations have been deleted.

Dick, Steven J.↗

NASA NTRS2005

A Voice Enabled Procedure Browser for the International Space Station

Clarissa, an experimental voice enabled procedure browser that has recently been deployed on the International Space Station (ISS), is to the best of our knowledge the first spoken dialog system in space. This paper gives background on the system and the ISS procedures, then discusses the research developed to address three key problems: grammar-based speech recognition using the Regulus toolkit; SVM based methods for open microphone speech recognition; and robust side-effect free dialogue management for handling undos, corrections and confirmations.

Rayner, Manny↗

NASA NTRS2006

The Human-Robot Interaction Operating System

In order for humans and robots to work effectively together, they need to be able to converse about abilities, goals and achievements. Thus, we are developing an interaction infrastructure called the "Human-Robot Interaction Operating System" (HRI/OS). The HRI/OS provides a structured software framework for building human-robot teams, supports a variety of user interfaces, enables humans and robots to engage in task-oriented dialogue, and facilitates integration of robots through an extensible API.

Fong, Terrence↗

NASA NTRS2006

A Preliminary Study of Peer-to-Peer Human-Robot Interaction

The Peer-to-Peer Human-Robot Interaction (P2P-HRI) project is developing techniques to improve task coordination and collaboration between human and robot partners. Our work is motivated by the need to develop effective human-robot teams for space mission operations. A central element of our approach is creating dialogue and interaction tools that enable humans and robots to flexibly support one another. In order to understand how this approach can influence task performance, we recently conducted a series of tests simulating a lunar construction task with a human-robot team. In this paper, we describe the tests performed, discuss our initial results, and analyze the effect of intervention on task performance.

Fong, Terrence↗

NASA NTRS2006

Calibration Issues and Operating System Requirements for Electron-Probe Microanalysis

Instrument purchase requirements and dialogue with manufacturers have established hardware parameters for alignment, stability, and reproducibility, which have helped improve the precision and accuracy of electron microprobe analysis (EPMA). The development of correction algorithms and the accurate solution to quantitative analysis problems requires the minimization of systematic errors and relies on internally consistent data sets. Improved hardware and computer systems have resulted in better automation of vacuum systems, stage and wavelength-dispersive spectrometer (WDS) mechanisms, and x-ray detector systems which have improved instrument stability and precision. Improved software now allows extended automated runs involving diverse setups and better integrates digital imaging and quantitative analysis. However, instrumental performance is not regularly maintained, as WDS are aligned and calibrated during installation but few laboratories appear to check and maintain this calibration. In particular, detector deadtime (DT) data is typically assumed rather than measured, due primarily to the difficulty and inconvenience of the measurement process. This is a source of fundamental systematic error in many microprobe laboratories and is unknown to the analyst, as the magnitude of DT correction is not listed in output by microprobe operating systems. The analyst must remain vigilant to deviations in instrumental alignment and calibration, and microprobe system software must conveniently verify the necessary parameters. Microanalysis of mission critical materials requires an ongoing demonstration of instrumental calibration. Possible approaches to improvements in instrument calibration, quality control, and accuracy will be discussed. Development of a set of core requirements based on discussions with users, researchers, and manufacturers can yield documents that improve and unify the methods by which instruments can be calibrated. These results can be used to continue improvements of EPMA.

Carpenter, P.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Composites Damage Tolerance Workshop

The Composite Damage Tolerance Workshop included participants from NASA, academia, and private industry. The objectives of the workshop were to begin dialogue in order to establish a working group within the Agency, create awareness of damage tolerance requirements for Constellation, and discuss potential composite hardware for the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Upper Stage (US) and Crew Module. It was proposed that a composites damage tolerance working group be created that acts within the framework of the existing NASA Fracture Control Methodology Panel. The working group charter would be to identify damage tolerance gaps and obstacles for implementation of composite structures into manned space flight systems and to develop strategies and recommendations to overcome these obstacles.

Gregg, Wayne↗

NASA NTRS2008

Science on the Moon: The Wailing Wall of Space Exploration

Science on and from the Moon has important implications for expanding human knowledge and understanding, a prospect for the 21st Century that has been under discussion for at least the past 25 years. That having been said, however, there remain many issues of international versus national priorities, strategy, economy, and politics that come into play. The result is a very complex form of human behavior where science and exploration take center stage, but many other important human options are sacrificed. To renew this dialogue about the Moon, it seems we are already rushing pell-mell into it as has been done in the past. The U.S., Japan, China, India, and Russia either have sent or plan to send satellites and robotic landers there at this time. What does a return to the Moon mean, why are we doing this now, who should pay for it, and how? The only semblance of such a human enterprise seems to be the LHC currently coming online at CERN. Can it be used as a model of international collaboration rather than a sports or military event focused on national competition? Who decides and what is the human sacrifice? There are compelling arguments for establishing science on the Moon as one of the primary goals for returning to the Moon and venturing beyond. A number of science endeavors will be summarized, beyond lunar and planetary science per se. These include fundamental physics experiments that are background-limited by the Earth's magnetic dipole moment and noise produced by its atmosphere and seismic interior. The Moon is an excellent platform for some forms of astronomy. Other candidate Moon-based experiments vary from neutrino and gravitational wave astronomy, particle astrophysics, and cosmic-ray calorimeters, to space physics and fundamental physics such as proton decay. The list goes on and includes placing humans in a hostile environment to study the long-term effects of space weather. The list is long, and even newer ideas will come from this COSPAR conference. However, whatever the list the issue of cooperation and binding collaboration remains. As observers of Moon and other space enterprises, we all know that a room full of 60 scientists will not agree on much of anything and there will probably be 60! please for more funding. People have special interests and little common sense (e.g., conflict between NSF- and NASA-funding roadmaps). Scientists are no exception. Nevertheless, CERN has done it on Earth! Can we do the same on the Moon? Some of the present generation of proposals for science from and on the Moon, plus new ones, will witness a place in space exploration's future. It is clear, however, that the world has not thought this through adequately, except for talk about an international space federation whatever that is. An outpost on the Moon with humans permanently living there much like Antarctica on Earth may be in our future. However, such planning is our collective international responsibility and not that of special-interest investigators from individual nations unless they intend to pay for it.

Wilson, Thomas↗

NASA NTRS2008

Dawn: Cooperation, not Control

On September 27, 2007, a Delta II rocket carrying the Dawn spacecraft lifted off from Kennedy Space Center. Part of NASAs Discovery program, the $370 million Dawn mission began its three-billion-mile voyage to the asteroid belt to study the asteroid Vesta and Ceres, a dwarf planet. The spacecraft is scheduled to reach Vesta in 2011. After spending nine months measuring the composition, shape, and topography of that body, it will travel a billion miles to carry out a similar analysis of Ceres in 2015. The Important Lessons: The demands of Dawn and other challenging missions have taught some important lessons for successful program and project management. These are the main ones: a) Program management, particularly of uncoupled and loosely coupled projects, should be more about enabling than controlling. You're working with motivated, high-performing teams and institutions with a track record of quality and success. Emphasize commander's intent over rudder control; let them know where you want to go and when you want to be there, then let them figure out how to get there. b) Open and honest discussion of issues is essential. People fill the void of the unknown with their worst fears. Get folks around the table and have open, honest, and frank dialogue. I've seldom seen this fail to get to the root of issues. c) You have to earn your seat at the table, proving that you are competent, trustworthy, and dedicated to the success of the mission. d) Know when to fold 'em. Your pride can get rolled up in making a milestone or launch date, but you have to make a judgment based on the realities of the situation and not wear down the team trying to meet an increasingly impossible deadline. e) The NASA governance model that gives a voice to the concerns of engineers and safety experts works-trust it and use it.

May, Todd↗

NASA NTRS2008

Some Expected Characteristics of Lunar Dust: A Geological View Applied to Engineering

Compared to the Earth the geologic nature of the lunar regolith is quite distinct. Even though similar minerals exist on the Earth and Moon, they may have very different properties due to the absence of chemical modification in the lunar environment. The engineering properties of the lunar regolith reflect aspects of the parent rock and the consequences of hypervelocity meteor bombardment. On scales relevant to machinery and chemical processing for In-Situ Resource Utilization, ISRU (such as water production), the lunar regolith compositional range is much more restricted than terrestrial material. This fact impacts predictions of properties required by design engineers for constructing equipment for lunar use. In this paper two examples will be covered. 1) Abrasion is related to hardness and hardness is a commonly measured property for both minerals and engineering materials. Although different hardness scales are routinely employed for minerals and engineering materials, a significant amount of literature is available relating the two. As one example, we will discuss how to relate hardness to abrasion for the design of lunar equipment. We also indicate how abundant the various mineral phases are and typical size distributions for lunar regolith which will impact abrasive nature. 2) Mineral characteristics that may seem trivial to the non-geologist or material scientist may have significant bearing on ISRU processing technologies. As a second example we discuss the impact of traces of F-, Cl-, and OH-, H2O, CO2, and sulfur species which can radically alter melting points and the corrosive nature of reaction products thereby significantly changing bulk chemistry and associated processing technologies. For many engineering uses, a simulant s fidelity to bulk lunar regolith chemistry may be insufficient. Therefore, simulant users need to engage in continuing dialogue with simulant developers and geoscientists.

Street, Kenneth W.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Some Expected Characteristics of Lunar Dust: A Geological View Applied to Engineering

Compared to the Earth the geologic nature of the lunar regolith is quite distinct. Even though similar minerals exist on the Earth and Moon, they may have very different properties due to the absence of chemical modification in the lunar environment. The engineering properties of the lunar regolith reflect aspects of the parent rock and the consequences of hypervelocity meteor bombardment. On scales relevant to machinery and chemical processing for In-Situ Resource Utilization, ISRU (such as water production), the lunar regolith compositional range is much more restricted than terrestrial material. This fact impacts predictions of properties required by design engineers for constructing equipment for lunar use. In this paper two examples will be covered. 1) Abrasion is related to hardness and hardness is a commonly measured property for both minerals and engineering materials. Although different hardness scales are routinely employed for minerals and engineering materials, a significant amount of literature is available relating the two. As one example, we will discuss how to relate hardness to abrasion for the design of lunar equipment. We also indicate how abundant the various mineral phases are and typical size distributions for lunar regolith which will impact abrasive nature. 2) Mineral characteristics that may seem trivial to the non-geologist or material scientist may have significant bearing on ISRU processing technologies. As a second example we discuss the impact of traces of fluoride, chloride, and hydroxide, water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur species which can radically alter melting points and the corrosive nature of reaction products thereby significantly changing bulk chemistry and associated processing technologies. For many engineering uses, a simulant's fidelity to bulk lunar regolith chemistry may be insufficient. Therefore, simulant users need to engage in continuing dialogue with simulant developers and geoscientists.

Street, Kenneth W.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Ares V: New Opportunities for Scientific Payloads

What if scientists and payload planners had access to three to five times the volume and five to nine times the mass provided by today's launch vehicles? This simple question can lead to numerous exciting possibilities, all involving NASA's new Ares V cargo launch vehicle now on the drawing board. Multiple scientific fields and payload designers have that opportunity with the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, being developed at NASA as the heavy-lift component of the U.S. Space Exploration Policy. When the Ares V begins flying late next decade, its capabilities will significantly exceed the 1960s-era Saturn V or the current Space Shuttle, while it benefits from their engineering, manufacturing, and infrastructure heritage. It will send more crew and cargo to more places on the lunar surface than Apollo and provide ongoing support to a permanent lunar outpost. Moreover, it will restore a strategic heavy-lift U.S. asset, which can support human and robotic exploration and scientific ventures for decades to come. Assessment of astronomy payload requirements since Spring 2008 has indicated that Ares V has the potential to support a range of payloads and missions. Some of these missions were impossible in the absence of Ares V's capabilities. Collaborative design/architecture inputs, exchanges, and analyses have already begun between scientists and payload developers. A 2008 study by a National Research Council (NRC) panel, as well as analyses presented by astronomers and planetary scientists at two weekend conferences in 2008, support the position that Ares V has benefit to a broad range of planetary and astronomy missions. This early dialogue with Ares V engineers is permitting the greatest opportunity for payload/transportation/mission synergy and the least financial impact to Ares V development. In addition, independent analyses suggest that Ares V has the opportunity to enable more cost-effective mission design.

Creech, Steve↗

NASA NTRS2009

Proceedings of the Airframe Icing Workshop

The NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has a long history of working with its partners towards the understanding of ice accretion formation and its associated degradation of aerodynamic performance. The June 9, 2009, Airframe Icing Workshop held at GRC provided an opportunity to examine the current NASA airframe icing research program and to dialogue on remaining and emerging airframe icing issues and research with the external community. Some of the airframe icing gaps identified included, but are not limited to, ice accretion simulation enhancements, three-dimensional benchmark icing database development, three-dimensional iced aerodynamics modeling, and technology development for a smart icing system.

Colantonio, Ron O.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ares V: Enabling Unprecedented Payloads for Space in the 21st Century

Numerous technical and programmatic studies since the U.S. space program began in the 1960s has emphasized the need for a heavy lift capability for exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). The Saturn V once embodied that capability until it was retired. Now the Ares V cargo launch vehicle (CaLV) promises to restore and improve on that capability, providing unprecedented opportunities for human and robotic exploration, science, national security and commercial uses. This paper provides an overview of the capabilities of Ares V, both as an opportunity for payloads of increased mass and/or volume, and as a means of reducing risk in the payload design process. The Ares V is part of NASA s Constellation Program, which also includes the Ares I crew launch vehicle (CLV), Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV), and Altair lunar lander. This architecture is designed to carry out the national space policy goals of completing the International Space Station (ISS), retiring the Space Shuttle fleet, and expanding human exploration beyond LEO. The Ares V is designed to loft upper stages and/or cargo, such as the Altair lander, into LEO. The Ares I is designed to put Orion into LEO with a crew of up to four for rendezvous with the ISS or with the Ares V Earth departure stage for journeys to the Moon. While retaining the goals of heritage hardware and commonality, the Ares V configuration continues to be refined through a series of internal trades. The current reference configuration was recommended by the Ares Projects and approved by the Constellation Program during the Lunar Capabilities Concept Review (LCCR) June 2008. The reference configuration defines the Ares V as 381 feet (116m) tall with a gross lift-off mass (GLOM) of 8.1 million pounds (3,704.5 mT). Its first stage will generate 11 million pounds of sea-level liftoff thrust. It will be capable of launching 413,800 pounds (187.7 mT) to LEO, 138,500 pounds (63 mT) direct to the Moon or 156,700 pounds (71.1 mT) in its dual-launch architecture role with Ares I. It could also launch 123,100 pounds (55.8 mT) to Sun-Earth L2. Assessment of astronomy payload requirements since Spring 2008 has indicated that Ares V has the potential to support a range of payloads and missions. Some of these missions were impossible in the absence of Ares V s capabilities. Collaborative design/architecture inputs, exchanges, and analyses have already begun between scientists and payload developers. A 2008 study by a National Research Council (NRC) panel, as well as analyses presented by astronomers and planetary scientists at two weekend conferences in 2008, support the position that Ares V has benefit to a broad range of planetary and astronomy missions. This early dialogue with Ares V engineers is permitting the greatest opportunity for payload/transportation/mission synergy and with the least financial impact to Ares V development. In addition, independent analyses suggest that Ares V has the opportunity to enable more cost-effective mission design. 1

Creech, Steve↗

NASA NTRS2010

Heavy-Lift for a New Paradigm in Space Operations

NASA is developing an unprecedented heavy-lift capability to enable human exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). This capability could also significantly enhance numerous other missions of scientific, national security, and commercial importance. That capability is currently configured as the Ares V cargo launch vehicle. This capability will eclipse the capability the United States lost with the retirement of the Saturn V. It is capable of launching roughly 53 percent more payload mass to trans lunar injection (TLI) and 30 percent more payload mass to LEO than its Apollo Program predecessor. Ares V is a major element of NASA's Constellation Program, which also includes the Ares I crew launch vehicle (CLV), Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV), and a lunar lander for crew and cargo. As currently configured, Ares V will be capable of launching 413,800 pounds (187.7 mT) to LEO, 138,500 pounds (63 mT) direct to the Moon or 156,700 pounds (71.1 mT) in its dual-launch architecture role with Ares I. Its 33-foot (10 m) shroud provides unprecedented payload volume. Assessment of astronomy and planetary science payload requirements since spring 2008 has indicated that a Saturn V-class heavy-lift vehicle has the potential to support a range of payloads and missions. This vehicle configuration enables some missions previously considered difficult or impossible and enhances many others. Collaborative design/architecture inputs, exchanges, and analyses have already begun between scientists and payload developers. This early dialogue between NASA engineers and payload designers allows both communities to shape their designs and operational concepts to be mutually supportive to the extent possible with the least financial impact. This paper provides an overview of the capabilities of a heavy-lift vehicle to launch payloads with increased mass and/or volume and reduce technical and cost risk in both design and operations.

Morris, Bruce↗