Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “remote operation”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1996

Remote manual operator for space station intermodule ventilation valve

The Remote Manual Operator (RMO) is a mechanism used for manual operation of the Space Station Intermodule Ventilation (IMV) valve and for visual indication of valve position. The IMV is a butterfly-type valve, located in the ventilation or air circulation ducts of the Space Station, and is used to interconnect or isolate the various compartments. The IMV valve is normally operated by an electric motor-driven actuator under computer or astronaut control, but it can also be operated manually with the RMO. The IMV valve RMO consists of a handle with a deployment linkage, a gear-driven flexible shaft, and a linkage to disengage the electric motor actuator during manual operation. It also provides visual indication of valve position. The IMV valve RMO is currently being prepared for qualification testing.

Guyaux, James R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Airspace Integration Considerations for Increasingly Autonomous Flight and Operations

There is much interest in autonomous systems and their operations. When it comes to autonomous systems, it is critical to understand various levels of proposed autonomy, reasons for selecting autonomous capabilities, certification approaches and various challenges or research needs associated with the integration of autonomous systems in the National Airspace System (NAS). Furthermore, there are levels of autonomous systems proposed for different types of aircraft including: single pilot operations, remotely piloted operations, fully autonomous operations, and multiple aircraft managed by a single, remote pilot. This preliminary article aims to provide a broad overview rather than concentrate on a specific element of autonomous flight. Hence, the focus of this article is on enabling various types of increasingly autonomous aircraft and their operations routinely within the next five to ten years, consistent with the FAA’s Info-Centric NAS (ICN) vision. Under ICN, a fully integrated information environment supports collaboration across diverse traffic management services and shifts decision-making to the most appropriate actor supported by automation. However, the roles and responsibilities of Air Traffic Services (ATS) personnel providing traditional services are likely to be very similar to today in that humans will still be responsible for majority of decision making. There is another NASA research effort beyond ICN is underway called Sky For All which is not covered in this article as it is in the planning stages.

autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2024

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗
NASA NTRS2025

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗
NASA NTRS2004

Expanding Remote Science Operations Capabilities Onboard the International Space Station

EXPRESS Racks have been supporting payload science operations onboard the International Space Station (ISS) since April of 2001. EXPRESS is an acronym that stands for "EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments to Space Station." This name reflects NASA's focus to simplify the process of manifesting experiments and maximizing scientific research capabilities by providing a robust, remotely operated payload support platform. The EXPRESS Rack System was developed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and built by The Boeing Company in Huntsville, Alabama. Eight EXPRESS racks were built and five are currently onboard the ISS supporting science operations. The design and development of the EXPRESS Rack System is a long story that has been documented in previous publications. This paper briefly describes the facilities used to develop and verify flight software, test operational capabilities. It then traces the advancements made in the operational capabilities of the EXPRESS Racks from the time they were launched on STS-100 through the present. The paper concludes with a description of potential enhancements that will make the EXPRESS racks one of the most advanced and capable remote science platforms ever developed.

Cruzen, Craig A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Control Paradigm: Multiple Aircraft Controlled by Multiple Operators

Remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) are becoming more and more prevalent in the aerospace operations. This is true in a number of diverse domains; urban air mobility, medical product delivery, infrastructure inspection, high altitude pseudo-satellites, search and rescue, auto cargo and several other applications. One aspect that all of these share in common is the need for scalability to be viable and continue to grow. The Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) develops an annual economic report. They project that in the first three years of integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the US alone, with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion. This benefit will grow through 2025 when we foresee more than 100,000 jobs created and economic impact of $82 billion. For many of these domains to reach these levels and have the scalability needed, they will require a remote pilot to control multiple aircraft (1:N) or the extension of that, multiple pilots controlling multiple aircraft (m:N). This is a new control paradigm that raises multiple issues in various areas. The issues include regulatory, technical, safety, community acceptance and Human Factors. Human factors issues include displays, pilot workload, pilot situation awareness just to name a few. This panel brings together researchers, developers and operators that have been working in the area of m:N. They will discuss the need, the issues and some potential solutions.

multi-vehicle control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of Challenges to Integrating Remotely-Piloted Operations into the National Airspace System

An oral presentation summarizing key challenges to integrating remotely-piloted operations into the National Airspace System. The presentation provides an overview of NASA's Pathfinding for an Airspace with Autonomous Vehicles sub-project, recent research activities focused on enabling autonomous cargo delivery, and some of the challenges that have been learned so far from these activities.

Husni Idris↗
NASA NTRS2024

Vertiport Management from Simulation to Flight: Continued Human Factors Assessment of Vertiport Operations

The Urban Air Mobility concept envisions a new future for transportation in urban environments, primarily focused around vertiport operations. A vertiport refers to an identifiable ground or elevated area used for the vertical takeoff and landing of an aircraft. One critical role within vertiport operations that has been proposed but is under-researched is the vertiport manager. The vertiport manager is expected to manage the ground-to-air operations at the vertiport, but their precise responsibilities, tasks, and challenges are currently undefined. The High Density Vertiplex Subproject at NASA is responsible for developing and testing technologies, concepts, and architectures that will support the infrastructure needed for terminal environments around vertiports. Our previous work investigated ground control station operators performing simulated and live flight operations within a remote operations environment. In the current study, we extended from our previous work to explore the role of a vertiport manager. Specifically, we investigated five participants serving as a vertiport manager across both simulated and live flight operations. We performed multiple knowledge elicitation techniques, a thematic content analysis of qualitative data, and naturalistic observations to create a list of insights, design and training recommendations, and a simplified cognitive task diagram of the vertiport manager’s primary task. Findings from this study are discussed within the context of the current debate on the degree to which this role should be automated. A third alternative is suggested to allow a human vertiport manager to be successful by teaming with increasingly autonomous systems, designing the role to improve safety and efficiency of Urban Air Mobility operations.

AAM↗
NASA NTRS2024

Vertiport Management from Simulation to Flight: Continued Human Factors Assessment of Vertiport Operations

The Urban Air Mobility concept envisions a new future for transportation in urban environments, primarily focused around vertiport operations. A vertiport refers to an identifiable ground or elevated area used for the vertical takeoff and landing of an aircraft. One critical role within vertiport operations that has been proposed but is under-researched is the vertiport manager. The vertiport manager is expected to manage the ground-to-air operations at the vertiport, but their precise responsibilities, tasks, and challenges are currently undefined. The High Density Vertiplex Subproject at NASA is responsible for developing and testing technologies, concepts, and architectures that will support the infrastructure needed for terminal environments around vertiports. Our previous work investigated ground control station operators performing simulated and live flight operations within a remote operations environment. In the current study, we extended from our previous work to explore the role of a vertiport manager. Specifically, we investigated five participants serving as a vertiport manager across both simulated and live flight operations. We performed multiple knowledge elicitation techniques, a thematic content analysis of qualitative data, and naturalistic observations to create a list of insights, design and training recommendations, and a simplified cognitive task diagram of the vertiport manager’s primary task. Findings from this study are discussed within the context of the current debate on the degree to which this role should be automated. A third alternative is suggested to allow a human vertiport manager to be successful by teaming with increasingly autonomous systems, designing the role to improve safety and efficiency of Urban Air Mobility operations.

AAM↗
NASA NTRS2003

Utilization of Internet Protocol-Based Voice Systems in Remote Payload Operations

This viewgraph presentation provides an overview of a proposed voice communication system for use in remote payload operations performed on the International Space Station. The system, Internet Voice Distribution System (IVoDS), would make use of existing Internet protocols, and offer a number of advantages over the system currently in use. Topics covered include: system description and operation, system software and hardware, system architecture, project status, and technology transfer applications.

Best, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2009

Real-Time Assessment of Robot Performance During Remote Exploration Operations

To ensure that robots are used effectively for exploration missions, it is important to assess their performance during operations. We are investigating the definition and computation of performance metrics for assessing remote robotic operations in real-time. Our approach is to monitor data streams from robots, compute performance metrics, and provide Web-based displays of these metrics for assessing robot performance during operations. We evaluated our approach for measuring robot performance with the K10 rovers from NASA Ames Research Center during a field test at Moses Lake Sand Dunes (WA) in June 2008. In this paper we present the results of evaluating our software for robot performance and discuss our conclusions from this evaluation for future robot operations.

SBIR TOPIC X7.02 PHASE 1↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MPATH (Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans) Ground Control Station: Design Approach and Initial Usability Results

Envisioned future Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) operations will require a transition of aircraft command and control from onboard pilots to remote operators. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has developed a research ground control station (GCS) software called MPATH (Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans) to study the human factors of remote operators in a representative AAM environment, where small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS; simulated or real) act as surrogates for larger AAM aircraft. A primary focus of the research being conducted with the MPATH GCS is scalability (i.e., one human managing multiple vehicles). MPATH has demonstrated to be a useful capability for human factors research and remote operations. Two initial usability studies and a multi-vehicle control assessment were recently conducted, and usability data and operator feedback were collected. Generally, participants rated MPATH high on usability and interface quality, whereas information quality was rated slightly lower. These results were supported by specific feedback. Several generalized GCS design recommendations are proposed based on the results and feedback from these flight activities. Future updates to MPATH will incorporate the proposed recommendations. In practice, these recommendations could be used by any GCS software designer or developer to promote usability and safety.

Advanced Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRS1990

Mars Observer remote science operations

The objectives and the background of the Mars Observer mission are briefly reviewed with emphasis on the remote science operations portion of the mission. In particular, the discussion covers observational planning and instrument sequences, data retrieval, instrument health monitoring, and science analysis. Attention is also given to workstation technology utilization, science team, project data base, common data formats, and security.

Kahn, Peter B.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Operating a Remote Manipulator in Simulated Low Gravity

Efforts to control remote manipulators in simulated microgravity described in report. Experiments conducted to determine effects of weightlessness on performance of operator controlling remote manipulator, or slave arm, by master arm at control station. Report concludes microgravity disturbs neuromotor control of human arm. Also suggests disturbance compensated for by adjustments in controller.

Bejczy, A. K.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Illumination requirements for operating a space remote manipulator

Critical issues and requirements involved in illuminating remote manipulator operations in space help establish engineering designs for these manipulators. A remote manipulator is defined as any mechanical device that is controlled indirectly or from a distance by a human operator for the purpose of performing potentially dangerous or hazardous tasks to increase safety, reliability, and efficiency. Future space flights will rely on remote manipulators for a variety of tasks including satellite repair and servicing, structural assembly, data collection and analysis, and performance of contingency tasks. Carefully designed illumination of these manipulators will assure that these tasks will be completed efficiently and successfully. Studies concerning the influence of illumination on operation of a remote manipulator are few. Available results show that illumination can influence how successfully a human operates a remote manipulator. The intent of this study was to more fully examine this topic.

Chandlee, George O.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Results from Testing Crew-Controlled Surface Telerobotics on the International Space Station

During Summer 2013, the Intelligent Robotics Group at NASA Ames Research Center conducted a series of tests to examine how astronauts in the International Space Station (ISS) can remotely operate a planetary rover. The tests simulated portions of a proposed lunar mission, in which an astronaut in lunar orbit would remotely operate a planetary rover to deploy a radio telescope on the lunar far side. Over the course of Expedition 36, three ISS astronauts remotely operated the NASA "K10" planetary rover in an analogue lunar terrain located at the NASA Ames Research Center in California. The astronauts used a "Space Station Computer" (crew laptop), a combination of supervisory control (command sequencing) and manual control (discrete commanding), and Ku-band data communications to command and monitor K10 for 11 hours. In this paper, we present and analyze test results, summarize user feedback, and describe directions for future research.

robotics↗