Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “TRUST principles”

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.

27 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Event Report for The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful emerging technology area which requires special attention to using it ethically. AI ethics is still an emerging field, and the partners for this workshop and report seek to move AI ethics discussion ahead by experimenting with ways to measure AI ethics criteria. The following document describes the outcomes and learnings from The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop held at the National Institute for Aerospace (NIA), Hampton, Virginia on May 12th, 2022. The purpose of the workshop was for participants to evaluate and experiment-with the methodology and process presented by AIEthics.World in cooperation with Intel Corporation. The meeting participants learned about the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™ and applied the methodology to selected notional AI systems. The workshop facilitated the evaluation of the maturity of the AI system according to ethical considerations relevant to NASA, NIA and other participants. The workshop consisted of three main phases. The first phase focused on understanding and summarizing NASA’s ethical approaches, mission and values based on published documentation, discussions and individual insights & opinions of participants. This information was prioritized, weighted, ordered, and quantified in phase two, to formulate an alignment between human values (ethics) and their applicability to AI systems during all lifecycle phases. The first two phases were summarized as a form of ethical genealogy for artificial intelligence, specific to NASA’s ethical approaches. In the third and last phase of the workshop the participants evaluated notional examples of artificial intelligence to qualify and quantify its ability to adhere to the organizational ethics approaches, using the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™. The workshop uses the concept of genealogy, in the traditional sense: the study and traceability of lines of ancestors in the process of evolutionary development from earlier forms. However, as it is applied to an Ethical AI definition, it is providing the insights to the necessary and mandatory traceability of content, data, metrics, telemetry, elements, and structures which are used in the AI’s lifecycle to foster and measure AI ethics in all steps of its lifecycle. The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop provided NASA with the opportunity to apply the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™, in combination with existing and well-known decision-making and quality control methods to identify the metrics and measurements for an Ethical AI and assess its ethical condition and quality aligned with NASA ethics approaches. The result of the workshop is the capacity for NASA to apply the maturity model assessment to its AI Systems as desired and if necessary, publish the ability of these AI Systems to adhere to the organizational ethical goals. AI ethics frameworks need to be customized for each application domain, for example, individual NASA Mission Directorates. General principles that work in one area such as AI/Machine Learning-based text analysis (the ethics of information-extraction) may need to be adapted for another such as sense-and-avoid decision-making in a flight environment. The workshop was conducted among approximately twenty NASA subject matter experts, so the elements noted above should be considered examples, not definitive NASA ethical AI principles, genealogy, etc. Generating a definitive AI ethics framework for an organization as diverse as NASA would require far more discussion, debate, review, etc. However, the workshop provided valuable insight into mechanisms and processes for quantifying AI ethical qualities.

Artificial Intelligence↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Autonomy Teaming - m:N Operations

The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N). This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT). This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust).

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA HAT Lab Activities

The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N). This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT). This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust).

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

m:N Working Group

The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N). This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT). This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust). This presentation discusses the background and progress of the m:N working group.

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Operations

The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N). This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT). This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust). This presentation discusses the future of GCS control stations and need for Human Systems Integration.

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

m:N Operations and Future

The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N).This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT).This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust). This presentation discusses the barriers and requirements for future m:N operations.

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRS2012

Recursive Branching Simulated Annealing Algorithm

This innovation is a variation of a simulated-annealing optimization algorithm that uses a recursive-branching structure to parallelize the search of a parameter space for the globally optimal solution to an objective. The algorithm has been demonstrated to be more effective at searching a parameter space than traditional simulated-annealing methods for a particular problem of interest, and it can readily be applied to a wide variety of optimization problems, including those with a parameter space having both discrete-value parameters (combinatorial) and continuous-variable parameters. It can take the place of a conventional simulated- annealing, Monte-Carlo, or random- walk algorithm. In a conventional simulated-annealing (SA) algorithm, a starting configuration is randomly selected within the parameter space. The algorithm randomly selects another configuration from the parameter space and evaluates the objective function for that configuration. If the objective function value is better than the previous value, the new configuration is adopted as the new point of interest in the parameter space. If the objective function value is worse than the previous value, the new configuration may be adopted, with a probability determined by a temperature parameter, used in analogy to annealing in metals. As the optimization continues, the region of the parameter space from which new configurations can be selected shrinks, and in conjunction with lowering the annealing temperature (and thus lowering the probability for adopting configurations in parameter space with worse objective functions), the algorithm can converge on the globally optimal configuration. The Recursive Branching Simulated Annealing (RBSA) algorithm shares some features with the SA algorithm, notably including the basic principles that a starting configuration is randomly selected from within the parameter space, the algorithm tests other configurations with the goal of finding the globally optimal solution, and the region from which new configurations can be selected shrinks as the search continues. The key difference between these algorithms is that in the SA algorithm, a single path, or trajectory, is taken in parameter space, from the starting point to the globally optimal solution, while in the RBSA algorithm, many trajectories are taken; by exploring multiple regions of the parameter space simultaneously, the algorithm has been shown to converge on the globally optimal solution about an order of magnitude faster than when using conventional algorithms. Novel features of the RBSA algorithm include: 1. More efficient searching of the parameter space due to the branching structure, in which multiple random configurations are generated and multiple promising regions of the parameter space are explored; 2. The implementation of a trust region for each parameter in the parameter space, which provides a natural way of enforcing upper- and lower-bound constraints on the parameters; and 3. The optional use of a constrained gradient- search optimization, performed on the continuous variables around each branch s configuration in parameter space to improve search efficiency by allowing for fast fine-tuning of the continuous variables within the trust region at that configuration point.

Bolcar, Matthew↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety Culture at the World’s Premier Multi-User Spaceport

NASA’s Agency-wide Safety Culture is implemented at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) using a unique strategy due an unparalleled approach in making human spaceflight history. Kennedy Space Center, the world’s premier multi-user spaceport, enables U.S. government and commercial space access, while providing the world a resource to allow the exploration of and the ability to work in space. A consistently healthy safety culture at KSC is imperative for mission success: desired achievements, protection of space flight hardware, and ultimately, the preservation of human life requires the support of a healthy safety culture. Emphasis on the NASA Agency-wide development of Safety Culture began with the conception of the NASA Agency Safety Culture Working Group. After the devastating loss of life and mission of the Space Shuttle Colombia, a broken safety culture was identified as an organizational cause by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Thus, the Agency Safety Culture Working Group was developed in 2009 to assess the status of the Agency’s Safety Culture, while addressing safety culture concerns at the NASA Center-level. A Five-factor model was developed to serve as the guiding principles for Safety Culture: 1) Reporting Culture, 2) Just Culture, 3) Flexible Culture, 4) Learning Culture, and 5) Engaged Culture. These five factors are included in the NASA Safety Culture logo, which was intentionally designed as a DNA double helix to prompt the permeation of safety into day-to-day work. KSC specifically implements the NASA Agency-wide Safety Culture principles in a tailored approach that is relevant to the diversity of work being performed. An emphasis is placed on the implementation to include safety at home, not exclusively at work. This emphasis is a KSC-specific element that has been intentionally added to promote a closed loop Safety Culture. To advertise the safety culture, various safety and health events are held throughout the calendar year, providing innovative speakers and engaging activities, while also promoting a wide range of curated safety initiatives. Development and continuous improvement of the KSC safety tracking database, allows for advanced tracking-to-closure, along with providing data sets used to identify areas of emphasis. Other safety initiatives rely solely on employee participation, such as the photo challenges; participants are encouraged to identify and capture themselves, coworkers, or family members participating in safe or healthy activities to share with others within the Center and at Agency levels. Fabrication of exclusive videos and graphics are utilized to advertise and inform employee of safety initiatives, upcoming safety events, and general dispersion of safety information. In addition, an anonymous Agency-wide Safety Culture Survey is advertised, administered, and analyzed at Kennedy Space Center, with the purpose of receiving basic feedback on Safety Culture perceptions to help prevent future incidents from occurring. Through these briefly identified means, and many other forms of employee engagement, Kennedy Space Center aims to maintain safety in the forefront, while creating an environment where everyone trusts that safety is a priority.

Larrin E. Moody↗