Results for “Autonomy” — Page 72

NASA NTRS2006

Contingency Software in Autonomous Systems

This viewgraph presentation reviews the development of contingency software for autonomous systems. Autonomous vehicles currently have a limited capacity to diagnose and mitigate failures. There is a need to be able to handle a broader range of contingencies. The goals of the project are: 1. Speed up diagnosis and mitigation of anomalous situations.2.Automatically handle contingencies, not just failures.3.Enable projects to select a degree of autonomy consistent with their needs and to incrementally introduce more autonomy.4.Augment on-board fault protection with verified contingency scripts

autonomous systems↗

NASA NTRS2007

Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Mitchell, J.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Health and Fitness Evaluations for Long Duration Microgravity Exposure

The current health maintenance program for ISS is adequate; however the future of medical care and research in space requires a change where crew time efficiency and autonomy are emphasized. NASA s medical personnel are currently refining their ability to monitor and provide remote health care in such a manner. The proposed plan would evaluate health and fitness of the on orbit crew to; perform on orbit operations, and readiness to return to a terrestrial environment. A two tiered approach will utilize exercise and medical equipment, as well as periodic medical conferences with the flight surgeon, to provide a quantitative and clinical picture of the crew s health and fitness. Any off nominal health and fitness issues that could arise will be evaluated by providing an "armamentarium" of devices both medical and exercise specific to the on orbit crew to use. The ability for the crew to provide autonomous health care, with decreasing earth support, will become increasingly more important for exploration missions. This new plan of health care and maintenance will allow us to, development such efforts while continuing to monitor and provide the best possible health, care and medical research through the microgravity environment on board ISS.

Roden, Sean Kevin↗

NASA NTRS2006

The NASA Space Communications Data Networking Architecture

The NASA Space Communications Architecture Working Group (SCAWG) has recently been developing an integrated agency-wide space communications architecture in order to provide the necessary communication and navigation capabilities to support NASA's new Exploration and Science Programs. A critical element of the space communications architecture is the end-to-end Data Networking Architecture, which must provide a wide range of services required for missions ranging from planetary rovers to human spaceflight, and from sub-orbital space to deep space. Requirements for a higher degree of user autonomy and interoperability between a variety of elements must be accommodated within an architecture that necessarily features minimum operational complexity. The architecture must also be scalable and evolvable to meet mission needs for the next 25 years. This paper will describe the recommended NASA Data Networking Architecture, present some of the rationale for the recommendations, and will illustrate an application of the architecture to example NASA missions.

Israel, David J.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Sensor Data Qualification for Autonomous Operation of Space Systems

NASA's new Exploration initiative for both robotic and manned missions will require higher levels of reliability, autonomy and reconfiguration capability to make the missions safe, successful and affordable. Future systems will require diagnostic reasoning to assess the health of the system in order to maintain the system s functionality. The diagnostic reasoning and assessment will involve data qualification, fault detection, fault isolation and remediation control. A team of researchers at the NASA Glenn Research Center is currently working on a Sensor Data Qualification (SDQ) system that will support these critical evaluation processes, for both automated and human-in-the-loop applications. Data qualification is required as a first step so that critical safety and operational decisions are based on good data. The SDQ system would monitor a network of related sensors to determine the health of individual sensors within that network. Various diagnostic systems such as the Caution and Warning System would then use the sensor health information with confidence. The proposed SDQ technology will be demonstrated on a variety of subsystems that are relevant to NASA s Exploration systems, which currently include an electrical power system and a cryogenic fluid management system. The focus of this paper is the development and demonstration of a SDQ application for a prototype power distribution unit that is representative of a Crew Exploration Vehicle electrical power system; this provides a unique and relevant environment in which to demonstrate the feasibility of the SDQ technology.

Maul, William A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Space Human Factors Engineering Gap Analysis Project Final Report

Humans perform critical functions throughout each phase of every space mission, beginning with the mission concept and continuing to post-mission analysis (Life Sciences Division, 1996). Space missions present humans with many challenges - the microgravity environment, relative isolation, and inherent dangers of the mission all present unique issues. As mission duration and distance from Earth increases, in-flight crew autonomy will increase along with increased complexity. As efforts for exploring the moon and Mars advance, there is a need for space human factors research and technology development to play a significant role in both on-orbit human-system interaction, as well as the development of mission requirements and needs before and after the mission. As part of the Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Project within the Human Research Program (HRP), a six-month Gap Analysis Project (GAP) was funded to identify any human factors research gaps or knowledge needs. The overall aim of the project was to review the current state of human factors topic areas and requirements to determine what data, processes, or tools are needed to aid in the planning and development of future exploration missions, and also to prioritize proposals for future research and technology development.

Hudy, Cynthia↗

NASA NTRS2006

Parallel Estimation and Control Architectures for Deep-Space Formation Flying Spacecraft

The formation flying of precisely controlled spacecraft in deep space can be used to implement optical instruments capable of imaging planets in other solar systems. The distance of the formation from Earth necessitates a significant level of autonomy and each spacecraft must base its actions on its estimates of the location and velocity of the other spacecraft. Precise coordination and control is the key requirement in such missions and the flow of information between spacecraft must be carefully designed. Doing this in an efficient and optimal manner requires novel techniques for the design of the on-board estimators. The use of standard Kalman filter-based designs can lead to unanticipated dynamics--which we refer to as disagreement dynamics--in the estimators' errors. We show how communication amongst the spacecraft can be designed in order to control all of the dynamics within the formation. We present several results relating the topology of the communication network to the resulting closed-loop control dynamics of the formation. The consequences for the design of the control, communication and coordination are discussed.

distributed control↗

NASA NTRS2004

Safe Agents in Space: Lessons from the Autonomous Sciencecraft Experiment

An Autonomous Science Agent is currently flying onboard the Earth Observing One Spacecraft. This software enables the spacecraft to autonomously detect and respond to science events occurring on the Earth. The package includes software systems that perform science data analysis, deliberative planning, and run-time robust execution. Because of the deployment to a remote spacecraft, this Autonomous Science Agent has stringent constraints of autonomy, reliability, and limited computing resources. We describe these constraints and how they are reflected in our agent architecture.

Eatth Observing One Spacecraft↗

NASA NTRS2007

Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, (AR&D).) The crewed versions of the spacecraft may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the CEV requirements. The relatively low technology readiness of relative navigation sensors for AR&D has been carried as one of the CEV Projects top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation, and to allow the CEV Project to assess the relative navigation sensors.

Howard, Richard T.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Integrated Docking Simulation and Testing with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree of Freedom Dynamic Test System

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as Automated Rendezvous and Docking, AR&D). The crewed versions may also perform AR&D, possibly with a different level of automation and/or autonomy, and must also provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Constellation Program; this is carried as one of the CEV Project top risks. The Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce this risk by increasing technology maturation of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through testing and simulation. One of the project activities is a series of "pathfinder" testing and simulation activities to integrate relative navigation sensors with the Johnson Space Center Six-Degree-of-Freedom Test System (SDTS). The SDTS will be the primary testing location for the Orion spacecraft s Low Impact Docking System (LIDS). Project team members have integrated the Orion simulation with the SDTS computer system so that real-time closed loop testing can be performed with relative navigation sensors and the docking system in the loop during docking and undocking scenarios. Two relative navigation sensors are being used as part of a "pathfinder" activity in order to pave the way for future testing with the actual Orion sensors. This paper describes the test configuration and test results.

Mitchell, Jennifer D.↗

NASA NTRS2007

The ANMLite Language and Logic for Specifying Planning Problems

We present the basic concepts of the ANMLite planning language. We discuss various aspects of specifying a plan in terms of constraints and checking the existence of a solution with the help of a model checker. The constructs of the ANMLite language have been kept as simple as possible in order to reduce complexity and simplify the verification problem. We illustrate the language with a specification of the space shuttle crew activity model that was constructed under the Spacecraft Autonomy for Vehicles and Habitats (SAVH) project. The main purpose of this study was to explore the implications of choosing a robust logic behind the specification of constraints, rather than simply proposing a new planning language.

Butler, Ricky W.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Method and associated apparatus for capturing, servicing and de-orbiting earth satellites using robotics

This invention is a method and supporting apparatus for autonomously capturing, servicing and de-orbiting a free-flying spacecraft, such as a satellite, using robotics. The capture of the spacecraft includes the steps of optically seeking and ranging the satellite using LIDAR; and matching tumble rates, rendezvousing and berthing with the satellite. Servicing of the spacecraft may be done using supervised autonomy, which is allowing a robot to execute a sequence of instructions without intervention from a remote human-occupied location. These instructions may be packaged at the remote station in a script and uplinked to the robot for execution upon remote command giving authority to proceed. Alternately, the instructions may be generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic onboard the robot. In either case, the remote operator maintains the ability to abort an instruction or script at any time, as well as the ability to intervene using manual override to teleoperate the robot.In one embodiment, a vehicle used for carrying out the method of this invention comprises an ejection module, which includes the robot, and a de-orbit module. Once servicing is completed by the robot, the ejection module separates from the de-orbit module, leaving the de-orbit module attached to the satellite for de-orbiting the same at a future time. Upon separation, the ejection module can either de-orbit itself or rendezvous with another satellite for servicing. The ability to de-orbit a spacecraft further allows the opportunity to direct the landing of the spent satellite in a safe location away from population centers, such as the ocean.

Cepollina, Frank J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Method and associated apparatus for capturing, servicing, and de-orbiting earth satellites using robotics

This invention is a method and supporting apparatus for autonomously capturing, servicing and de-orbiting a free-flying spacecraft, such as a satellite, using robotics. The capture of the spacecraft includes the steps of optically seeking and ranging the satellite using LIDAR; and matching tumble rates, rendezvousing and berthing with the satellite. Servicing of the spacecraft may be done using supervised autonomy, which is allowing a robot to execute a sequence of instructions without intervention from a remote human-occupied location. These instructions may be packaged at the remote station in a script and uplinked to the robot for execution upon remote command giving authority to proceed. Alternately, the instructions may be generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic onboard the robot. In either case, the remote operator maintains the ability to abort an instruction or script at any time, as well as the ability to intervene using manual override to teleoperate the robot.In one embodiment, a vehicle used for carrying out the method of this invention comprises an ejection module, which includes the robot, and a de-orbit module. Once servicing is completed by the robot, the ejection module separates from the de-orbit module, leaving the de-orbit module attached to the satellite for de-orbiting the same at a future time. Upon separation, the ejection module can either de-orbit itself or rendezvous with another satellite for servicing. The ability to de-orbit a spacecraft further allows the opportunity to direct the landing of the spent satellite in a safe location away from population centers, such as the ocean.

Cepollina, Frank J.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Human Factors in Training

Future space missions will be significantly longer than current Shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. Training efforts in FY07 strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center operations. Beginning in January 2008, the training research effort will include team training prototypes and tools. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: 1) Risk associated with poor task design; 2) Risk of error due to inadequate information; 3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design.

Barshi, Immanuel↗

NASA NTRS2008

NASA In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Technology and Development Project Overview

Since the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) was released in 2004, NASA, in conjunction with international space agencies, industry, and academia, has continued to define and refine plans for sustained and affordable robotic and human exploration of the Moon and beyond. With the goal of establishing a lunar Outpost on the Moon to extend human presence, pursue scientific activities, use the Moon to prepare for future human missions to Mars, and expand Earth s economic sphere, a change in how space exploration is performed is required. One area that opens up the possibility for the first time of breaking our reliance on Earth supplied consumables and learn to live off the land is In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). ISRU, which involves the extraction and processing of space resources into useful products, can have a substantial impact on mission and architecture concepts. In particular, the ability to make propellants, life support consumables, and fuel cell reagents can significantly reduce the cost, mass, and risk of sustained human activities beyond Earth. However, ISRU is an unproven capability for human lunar exploration and can not be put in the critical path of lunar Outpost success until it has been proven. Therefore, ISRU development and deployment needs to take incremental steps toward the desired end state. To ensure ISRU capabilities are available for pre-Outpost and Outpost deployment by 2020, and mission and architecture planners are confident that ISRU can meet initial and long term mission requirements, the ISRU Project is developing technologies and systems in three critical areas: (1) Regolith Excavation, Handling and Material Transportation; (2) Oxygen Extraction from Regolith; and (3) Volatile Extraction and Resource Prospecting, and in four development stages: (I) Demonstrate feasibility; (II) Evolve system w/ improved technologies; (III) Develop one or more systems to TRL 6 before start of flight development; and (IV) Flight development for Outpost. To minimize cost and ensure that ISRU technologies, systems, and functions are integrated properly into the Outpost, technology development efforts are being coordinated with other development areas such as Surface Mobility, Surface Power, Life Support, EVA, and Propulsion. Lastly, laboratory and field system-level tests and demonstrations will be performed as often as possible to demonstrate improvements in: Capabilities (ex. digging deeper); Performance (ex. lower power); and Duration (ex. more autonomy or more robustness). This presentation will provide the status of work performed to date within the NASA ISRU project with respect to technology and system development and field demonstration activities, as well as the current strategy to implement ISRU in future robotic and human lunar exploration missions.

Sanders, Gerald B.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Implementation of Satellite Formation Flight Algorithms Using SPHERES Aboard the International Space Station

The MIT's Space Systems Laboratory developed the Synchronized Position Hold Engage and Reorient Experimental Satellites (SPHERES) as a risk-tolerant spaceborne facility to develop and mature control, estimation, and autonomy algorithms for distributed satellite systems for applications such as satellite formation flight. Tests performed study interferometric mission-type formation flight maneuvers in deep space. These tests consist of having the satellites trace a coordinated trajectory under tight control that would allow simulated apertures to constructively interfere observed light and measure the resulting increase in angular resolution. This paper focuses on formation initialization (establishment of a formation using limited field of view relative sensors), formation coordination (synchronization of the different satellite s motion) and fuel-balancing among the different satellites.

Mandy, Christophe P.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar: Lunar Habitat Concepts

This paper will describe lunar habitat concepts that were defined as part of the Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar (CxAT-Lunar) in support of the Vision for Space Exploration. There are many challenges to designing lunar habitats such as mission objectives, launch packaging, lander capability, and risks. Surface habitats are required in support of sustaining human life to meet the mission objectives of lunar exploration, operations, and sustainability. Lunar surface operations consist of crew operations, mission operations, EVA operations, science operations, and logistics operations. Habitats are crewed pressurized vessels that include surface mission operations, science laboratories, living support capabilities, EVA support, logistics, and maintenance facilities. The challenge is to deliver, unload, and deploy self-contained habitats and laboratories to the lunar surface. The CxAT-Lunar surface campaign analysis focused on three primary trade sets of analysis. Trade set one (TS1) investigated sustaining a crew of four for six months with full outpost capability and the ability to perform long surface mission excursions using large mobility systems. Two basic habitat concepts of a hard metallic horizontal cylinder and a larger inflatable torus concept were investigated as options in response to the surface exploration architecture campaign analysis. Figure 1 and 2 depicts the notional outpost configurations for this trade set. Trade set two (TS2) investigated a mobile architecture approach with the campaign focused on early exploration using two small pressurized rovers and a mobile logistics support capability. This exploration concept will not be described in this paper. Trade set three (TS3) investigated delivery of a "core' habitation capability in support of an early outpost that would mature into the TS1 full outpost capability. Three core habitat concepts were defined for this campaign analysis. One with a four port core habitat, another with a 2 port core habitat, and the third investigated leveraging commonality of the lander ascent module and airlock pressure vessel hard shell. The paper will describe an overview of the various habitat concepts and their functionality. The Crew Operations area includes basic crew accommodations such as sleeping, eating, hygiene and stowage. The EVA Operations area includes additional EVA capability beyond the suit-port airlock function such as redundant airlock(s), suit maintenance, spares stowage, and suit stowage. The Logistics Operations area includes the enhanced accommodations for 180 days such as closed loop life support systems hardware, consumable stowage, spares stowage, interconnection to the other Hab units, and a common interface mechanism for future growth and mating to a pressurized rover. The Mission & Science Operations area includes enhanced outpost autonomy such as an IVA glove box, life support, and medical operations.

Toups, Larry↗

NASA NTRS2007

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-loop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of"pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS. The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (1) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multi-sensor series of trajectories.

Brewster, L.↗