97 research outputs found

    Engineering Resilient Space Systems

    Get PDF
    Several distinct trends will influence space exploration missions in the next decade. Destinations are becoming more remote and mysterious, science questions more sophisticated, and, as mission experience accumulates, the most accessible targets are visited, advancing the knowledge frontier to more difficult, harsh, and inaccessible environments. This leads to new challenges including: hazardous conditions that limit mission lifetime, such as high radiation levels surrounding interesting destinations like Europa or toxic atmospheres of planetary bodies like Venus; unconstrained environments with navigation hazards, such as free-floating active small bodies; multielement missions required to answer more sophisticated questions, such as Mars Sample Return (MSR); and long-range missions, such as Kuiper belt exploration, that must survive equipment failures over the span of decades. These missions will need to be successful without a priori knowledge of the most efficient data collection techniques for optimum science return. Science objectives will have to be revised ‘on the fly’, with new data collection and navigation decisions on short timescales. Yet, even as science objectives are becoming more ambitious, several critical resources remain unchanged. Since physics imposes insurmountable light-time delays, anticipated improvements to the Deep Space Network (DSN) will only marginally improve the bandwidth and communications cadence to remote spacecraft. Fiscal resources are increasingly limited, resulting in fewer flagship missions, smaller spacecraft, and less subsystem redundancy. As missions visit more distant and formidable locations, the job of the operations team becomes more challenging, seemingly inconsistent with the trend of shrinking mission budgets for operations support. How can we continue to explore challenging new locations without increasing risk or system complexity? These challenges are present, to some degree, for the entire Decadal Survey mission portfolio, as documented in Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022 (National Research Council, 2011), but are especially acute for the following mission examples, identified in our recently completed KISS Engineering Resilient Space Systems (ERSS) study: 1. A Venus lander, designed to sample the atmosphere and surface of Venus, would have to perform science operations as components and subsystems degrade and fail; 2. A Trojan asteroid tour spacecraft would spend significant time cruising to its ultimate destination (essentially hibernating to save on operations costs), then upon arrival, would have to act as its own surveyor, finding new objects and targets of opportunity as it approaches each asteroid, requiring response on short notice; and 3. A MSR campaign would not only be required to perform fast reconnaissance over long distances on the surface of Mars, interact with an unknown physical surface, and handle degradations and faults, but would also contain multiple components (launch vehicle, cruise stage, entry and landing vehicle, surface rover, ascent vehicle, orbiting cache, and Earth return vehicle) that dramatically increase the need for resilience to failure across the complex system. The concept of resilience and its relevance and application in various domains was a focus during the study, with several definitions of resilience proposed and discussed. While there was substantial variation in the specifics, there was a common conceptual core that emerged—adaptation in the presence of changing circumstances. These changes were couched in various ways—anomalies, disruptions, discoveries—but they all ultimately had to do with changes in underlying assumptions. Invalid assumptions, whether due to unexpected changes in the environment, or an inadequate understanding of interactions within the system, may cause unexpected or unintended system behavior. A system is resilient if it continues to perform the intended functions in the presence of invalid assumptions. Our study focused on areas of resilience that we felt needed additional exploration and integration, namely system and software architectures and capabilities, and autonomy technologies. (While also an important consideration, resilience in hardware is being addressed in multiple other venues, including 2 other KISS studies.) The study consisted of two workshops, separated by a seven-month focused study period. The first workshop (Workshop #1) explored the ‘problem space’ as an organizing theme, and the second workshop (Workshop #2) explored the ‘solution space’. In each workshop, focused discussions and exercises were interspersed with presentations from participants and invited speakers. The study period between the two workshops was organized as part of the synthesis activity during the first workshop. The study participants, after spending the initial days of the first workshop discussing the nature of resilience and its impact on future science missions, decided to split into three focus groups, each with a particular thrust, to explore specific ideas further and develop material needed for the second workshop. The three focus groups and areas of exploration were: 1. Reference missions: address/refine the resilience needs by exploring a set of reference missions 2. Capability survey: collect, document, and assess current efforts to develop capabilities and technology that could be used to address the documented needs, both inside and outside NASA 3. Architecture: analyze the impact of architecture on system resilience, and provide principles and guidance for architecting greater resilience in our future systems The key product of the second workshop was a set of capability roadmaps pertaining to the three reference missions selected for their representative coverage of the types of space missions envisioned for the future. From these three roadmaps, we have extracted several common capability patterns that would be appropriate targets for near-term technical development: one focused on graceful degradation of system functionality, a second focused on data understanding for science and engineering applications, and a third focused on hazard avoidance and environmental uncertainty. Continuing work is extending these roadmaps to identify candidate enablers of the capabilities from the following three categories: architecture solutions, technology solutions, and process solutions. The KISS study allowed a collection of diverse and engaged engineers, researchers, and scientists to think deeply about the theory, approaches, and technical issues involved in developing and applying resilience capabilities. The conclusions summarize the varied and disparate discussions that occurred during the study, and include new insights about the nature of the challenge and potential solutions: 1. There is a clear and definitive need for more resilient space systems. During our study period, the key scientists/engineers we engaged to understand potential future missions confirmed the scientific and risk reduction value of greater resilience in the systems used to perform these missions. 2. Resilience can be quantified in measurable terms—project cost, mission risk, and quality of science return. In order to consider resilience properly in the set of engineering trades performed during the design, integration, and operation of space systems, the benefits and costs of resilience need to be quantified. We believe, based on the work done during the study, that appropriate metrics to measure resilience must relate to risk, cost, and science quality/opportunity. Additional work is required to explicitly tie design decisions to these first-order concerns. 3. There are many existing basic technologies that can be applied to engineering resilient space systems. Through the discussions during the study, we found many varied approaches and research that address the various facets of resilience, some within NASA, and many more beyond. Examples from civil architecture, Department of Defense (DoD) / Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiatives, ‘smart’ power grid control, cyber-physical systems, software architecture, and application of formal verification methods for software were identified and discussed. The variety and scope of related efforts is encouraging and presents many opportunities for collaboration and development, and we expect many collaborative proposals and joint research as a result of the study. 4. Use of principled architectural approaches is key to managing complexity and integrating disparate technologies. The main challenge inherent in considering highly resilient space systems is that the increase in capability can result in an increase in complexity with all of the 3 risks and costs associated with more complex systems. What is needed is a better way of conceiving space systems that enables incorporation of capabilities without increasing complexity. We believe principled architecting approaches provide the needed means to convey a unified understanding of the system to primary stakeholders, thereby controlling complexity in the conception and development of resilient systems, and enabling the integration of disparate approaches and technologies. A representative architectural example is included in Appendix F. 5. Developing trusted resilience capabilities will require a diverse yet strategically directed research program. Despite the interest in, and benefits of, deploying resilience space systems, to date, there has been a notable lack of meaningful demonstrated progress in systems capable of working in hazardous uncertain situations. The roadmaps completed during the study, and documented in this report, provide the basis for a real funded plan that considers the required fundamental work and evolution of needed capabilities. Exploring space is a challenging and difficult endeavor. Future space missions will require more resilience in order to perform the desired science in new environments under constraints of development and operations cost, acceptable risk, and communications delays. Development of space systems with resilient capabilities has the potential to expand the limits of possibility, revolutionizing space science by enabling as yet unforeseen missions and breakthrough science observations. Our KISS study provided an essential venue for the consideration of these challenges and goals. Additional work and future steps are needed to realize the potential of resilient systems—this study provided the necessary catalyst to begin this process

    Enabling All-Access Mobility for Planetary Exploration Vehicles via Transformative Reconfiguration

    Get PDF
    Effective large-scale exploration of planetary surfaces requires robotic vehicles capable of mobility across chaotic terrain. Characterized by a combination of ridges, cracks and valleys, the demands of this environment can cause spacecraft to experience significant reductions in operating footprint, performance, or even result in total system loss. Significantly increasing the scientific return of an interplanetary mission is facilitated by architectures capable of real-time configuration changes that go beyond that of active suspensions while concurrently meeting system, mass, power, and cost constraints. This Phase 1 report systematically explores how in-service architecture changes can expand system capabilities and mission opportunities. A foundation for concept generation is supplied by four Martian mission profiles spanning chasms, ice fields, craters and rocky terrain. A fifth mission profile centered on Near Earth Object exploration is also introduced. Concept generation is directed using four transformation principles - a taxonomy developed by the engineering design community to explain the cause of an architecture change and existing brainstorming techniques. This allowed early conceptual sketches of architecture changes to be organized by the principle driving the greatest increase in mission performance capability

    Advanced extravehicular activity systems requirements definition study. Phase 2: Extravehicular activity at a lunar base

    Get PDF
    The focus is on Extravehicular Activity (EVA) systems requirements definition for an advanced space mission: remote-from-main base EVA on the Moon. The lunar environment, biomedical considerations, appropriate hardware design criteria, hardware and interface requirements, and key technical issues for advanced lunar EVA were examined. Six remote EVA scenarios (three nominal operations and three contingency situations) were developed in considerable detail

    Lunar materials processing system integration

    Get PDF
    The theme of this paper is that governmental resources will not permit the simultaneous development of all viable lunar materials processing (LMP) candidates. Choices will inevitably be made, based on the results of system integration trade studies comparing candidates to each other for high-leverage applications. It is in the best long-term interest of the LMP community to lead the selection process itself, quickly and practically. The paper is in five parts. The first part explains what systems integration means and why the specialized field of LMP needs this activity now. The second part defines the integration context for LMP -- by outlining potential lunar base functions, their interrelationships and constraints. The third part establishes perspective for prioritizing the development of LMP methods, by estimating realistic scope, scale, and timing of lunar operations. The fourth part describes the use of one type of analytical tool for gaining understanding of system interactions: the input/output model. A simple example solved with linear algebra is used to illustrate. The fifth and closing part identifies specific steps needed to refine the current ability to study lunar base system integration. Research specialists have a crucial role to play now in providing the data upon which this refinement process must be based

    The Underpinnings of Workload in Unmanned Vehicle Systems

    Get PDF
    This paper identifies and characterizes factors that contribute to operator workload in unmanned vehicle systems. Our objective is to provide a basis for developing models of workload for use in design and operation of complex human-machine systems. In 1986, Hart developed a foundational conceptual model of workload, which formed the basis for arguably the most widely used workload measurement techniquethe NASA Task Load Index. Since that time, however, there have been many advances in models and factor identification as well as workload control measures. Additionally, there is a need to further inventory and describe factors that contribute to human workload in light of technological advances, including automation and autonomy. Thus, we propose a conceptual framework for the workload construct and present a taxonomy of factors that can contribute to operator workload. These factors, referred to as workload drivers, are associated with a variety of system elements including the environment, task, equipment and operator. In addition, we discuss how workload moderators, such as automation and interface design, can be manipulated in order to influence operator workload. We contend that workload drivers, workload moderators, and the interactions among drivers and moderators all need to be accounted for when building complex, human-machine systems

    A framework for space systems architecting under stakeholder objectives ambiguity

    Get PDF
    Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012.Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.Includes bibliographical references (p. 238-251).Matching high ambitions with scarce resources is one of the primary challenges of the aerospace industry, on par with the technical challenges of developing new technology. The challenge is further complicated in space exploration, by its own nature aimed at exploring the unknown. Stakeholder objectives are often unclear due to business cases highly exploratory in nature. Further ambiguity emerges from disagreement between stakeholders and decision-makers called to formulate scientific, technological and policy requirements for new systems. This thesis develops a structured approach to develop recommendations to system architects concerned with the design of unprecedented large aerospace infrastructures for which objectives are ambiguous or unclear. The approach is composed of three parts. The first part consists in a novel taxonomy of ambiguity in systems design that classifies ambiguities in reducible and irreducible components. Building on this taxonomy, the second part of this thesis develops a Descriptive Systems Architecting Management Framework (SA-MF) to distill canonical forms of ambiguity management from the literature in political science, finance and economics, management, and engineering design. The third part of the dissertation presents a Delphi-Based Systems Architecting Framework (DB-SAF). DB-SAF objectives are to identify sources of ambiguity in the value delivery and tradespace exploration processes, characterize and model sources of ambiguity, mitigate ambiguities through effective systems architecting strategies, integrate the analysis of upstream and downstream architecting processes, and to assess the impact of requirement ambiguities on the architectural tradespace. The proposed systems architecting approach has been applied to three case studies: the assessment of a robotic Mars Sample Return Campaign, the study of in-space transportation infrastructure for future human space exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit, and the retrospective analysis of satellite constellations for commercial applications. The application of the proposed approach to three different disciplinary fields demonstrates its broad applicability for architecting complex aerospace systems. This dissertation integrates methods from systems engineering, systems architecting, multivariate statistical analysis, uncertainty modeling, economics, management science and social science research. It allows decision-makers to visualize an architectural synthesis of aerospace systems, understanding adverse impacts of ambiguity, and supporting negotiations among stakeholders for efficient compromise in systems architecting.by Alessandro Aliakbargolkar.Ph.D

    Engineering Resilient Space Systems

    Get PDF
    Several distinct trends will influence space exploration missions in the next decade. Destinations are becoming more remote and mysterious, science questions more sophisticated, and, as mission experience accumulates, the most accessible targets are visited, advancing the knowledge frontier to more difficult, harsh, and inaccessible environments. This leads to new challenges including: hazardous conditions that limit mission lifetime, such as high radiation levels surrounding interesting destinations like Europa or toxic atmospheres of planetary bodies like Venus; unconstrained environments with navigation hazards, such as free-floating active small bodies; multielement missions required to answer more sophisticated questions, such as Mars Sample Return (MSR); and long-range missions, such as Kuiper belt exploration, that must survive equipment failures over the span of decades. These missions will need to be successful without a priori knowledge of the most efficient data collection techniques for optimum science return. Science objectives will have to be revised ‘on the fly’, with new data collection and navigation decisions on short timescales. Yet, even as science objectives are becoming more ambitious, several critical resources remain unchanged. Since physics imposes insurmountable light-time delays, anticipated improvements to the Deep Space Network (DSN) will only marginally improve the bandwidth and communications cadence to remote spacecraft. Fiscal resources are increasingly limited, resulting in fewer flagship missions, smaller spacecraft, and less subsystem redundancy. As missions visit more distant and formidable locations, the job of the operations team becomes more challenging, seemingly inconsistent with the trend of shrinking mission budgets for operations support. How can we continue to explore challenging new locations without increasing risk or system complexity? These challenges are present, to some degree, for the entire Decadal Survey mission portfolio, as documented in Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022 (National Research Council, 2011), but are especially acute for the following mission examples, identified in our recently completed KISS Engineering Resilient Space Systems (ERSS) study: 1. A Venus lander, designed to sample the atmosphere and surface of Venus, would have to perform science operations as components and subsystems degrade and fail; 2. A Trojan asteroid tour spacecraft would spend significant time cruising to its ultimate destination (essentially hibernating to save on operations costs), then upon arrival, would have to act as its own surveyor, finding new objects and targets of opportunity as it approaches each asteroid, requiring response on short notice; and 3. A MSR campaign would not only be required to perform fast reconnaissance over long distances on the surface of Mars, interact with an unknown physical surface, and handle degradations and faults, but would also contain multiple components (launch vehicle, cruise stage, entry and landing vehicle, surface rover, ascent vehicle, orbiting cache, and Earth return vehicle) that dramatically increase the need for resilience to failure across the complex system. The concept of resilience and its relevance and application in various domains was a focus during the study, with several definitions of resilience proposed and discussed. While there was substantial variation in the specifics, there was a common conceptual core that emerged—adaptation in the presence of changing circumstances. These changes were couched in various ways—anomalies, disruptions, discoveries—but they all ultimately had to do with changes in underlying assumptions. Invalid assumptions, whether due to unexpected changes in the environment, or an inadequate understanding of interactions within the system, may cause unexpected or unintended system behavior. A system is resilient if it continues to perform the intended functions in the presence of invalid assumptions. Our study focused on areas of resilience that we felt needed additional exploration and integration, namely system and software architectures and capabilities, and autonomy technologies. (While also an important consideration, resilience in hardware is being addressed in multiple other venues, including 2 other KISS studies.) The study consisted of two workshops, separated by a seven-month focused study period. The first workshop (Workshop #1) explored the ‘problem space’ as an organizing theme, and the second workshop (Workshop #2) explored the ‘solution space’. In each workshop, focused discussions and exercises were interspersed with presentations from participants and invited speakers. The study period between the two workshops was organized as part of the synthesis activity during the first workshop. The study participants, after spending the initial days of the first workshop discussing the nature of resilience and its impact on future science missions, decided to split into three focus groups, each with a particular thrust, to explore specific ideas further and develop material needed for the second workshop. The three focus groups and areas of exploration were: 1. Reference missions: address/refine the resilience needs by exploring a set of reference missions 2. Capability survey: collect, document, and assess current efforts to develop capabilities and technology that could be used to address the documented needs, both inside and outside NASA 3. Architecture: analyze the impact of architecture on system resilience, and provide principles and guidance for architecting greater resilience in our future systems The key product of the second workshop was a set of capability roadmaps pertaining to the three reference missions selected for their representative coverage of the types of space missions envisioned for the future. From these three roadmaps, we have extracted several common capability patterns that would be appropriate targets for near-term technical development: one focused on graceful degradation of system functionality, a second focused on data understanding for science and engineering applications, and a third focused on hazard avoidance and environmental uncertainty. Continuing work is extending these roadmaps to identify candidate enablers of the capabilities from the following three categories: architecture solutions, technology solutions, and process solutions. The KISS study allowed a collection of diverse and engaged engineers, researchers, and scientists to think deeply about the theory, approaches, and technical issues involved in developing and applying resilience capabilities. The conclusions summarize the varied and disparate discussions that occurred during the study, and include new insights about the nature of the challenge and potential solutions: 1. There is a clear and definitive need for more resilient space systems. During our study period, the key scientists/engineers we engaged to understand potential future missions confirmed the scientific and risk reduction value of greater resilience in the systems used to perform these missions. 2. Resilience can be quantified in measurable terms—project cost, mission risk, and quality of science return. In order to consider resilience properly in the set of engineering trades performed during the design, integration, and operation of space systems, the benefits and costs of resilience need to be quantified. We believe, based on the work done during the study, that appropriate metrics to measure resilience must relate to risk, cost, and science quality/opportunity. Additional work is required to explicitly tie design decisions to these first-order concerns. 3. There are many existing basic technologies that can be applied to engineering resilient space systems. Through the discussions during the study, we found many varied approaches and research that address the various facets of resilience, some within NASA, and many more beyond. Examples from civil architecture, Department of Defense (DoD) / Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiatives, ‘smart’ power grid control, cyber-physical systems, software architecture, and application of formal verification methods for software were identified and discussed. The variety and scope of related efforts is encouraging and presents many opportunities for collaboration and development, and we expect many collaborative proposals and joint research as a result of the study. 4. Use of principled architectural approaches is key to managing complexity and integrating disparate technologies. The main challenge inherent in considering highly resilient space systems is that the increase in capability can result in an increase in complexity with all of the 3 risks and costs associated with more complex systems. What is needed is a better way of conceiving space systems that enables incorporation of capabilities without increasing complexity. We believe principled architecting approaches provide the needed means to convey a unified understanding of the system to primary stakeholders, thereby controlling complexity in the conception and development of resilient systems, and enabling the integration of disparate approaches and technologies. A representative architectural example is included in Appendix F. 5. Developing trusted resilience capabilities will require a diverse yet strategically directed research program. Despite the interest in, and benefits of, deploying resilience space systems, to date, there has been a notable lack of meaningful demonstrated progress in systems capable of working in hazardous uncertain situations. The roadmaps completed during the study, and documented in this report, provide the basis for a real funded plan that considers the required fundamental work and evolution of needed capabilities. Exploring space is a challenging and difficult endeavor. Future space missions will require more resilience in order to perform the desired science in new environments under constraints of development and operations cost, acceptable risk, and communications delays. Development of space systems with resilient capabilities has the potential to expand the limits of possibility, revolutionizing space science by enabling as yet unforeseen missions and breakthrough science observations. Our KISS study provided an essential venue for the consideration of these challenges and goals. Additional work and future steps are needed to realize the potential of resilient systems—this study provided the necessary catalyst to begin this process

    Taxonomy Working Group Final Report

    Get PDF
    The purpose of the Taxonomy Working Group was to develop a proposal for a common taxonomy to be used by all NASA projects in the classifying of nonconformances, anomalies, and problems. Specifically, the group developed a recommended list of data elements along with general suggestions for the development of a problem reporting system to better serve NASA's need for managing, reporting, and trending project aberrant events. The Group's recommendations are reported in this document

    Percepción basada en visión estereoscópica, planificación de trayectorias y estrategias de navegación para exploración robótica autónoma

    Get PDF
    Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Informática, Departamento de Ingeniería del Software e Inteligencia artificial, leída el 13-05-2015En esta tesis se trata el desarrollo de una estrategia de navegación autónoma basada en visión artificial para exploración robótica autónoma de superficies planetarias. Se han desarrollado una serie de subsistemas, módulos y software específicos para la investigación desarrollada en este trabajo, ya que la mayoría de las herramientas existentes para este dominio son propiedad de agencias espaciales nacionales, no accesibles a la comunidad científica. Se ha diseñado una arquitectura software modular multi-capa con varios niveles jerárquicos para albergar el conjunto de algoritmos que implementan la estrategia de navegación autónoma y garantizar la portabilidad del software, su reutilización e independencia del hardware. Se incluye también el diseño de un entorno de trabajo destinado a dar soporte al desarrollo de las estrategias de navegación. Éste se basa parcialmente en herramientas de código abierto al alcance de cualquier investigador o institución, con las necesarias adaptaciones y extensiones, e incluye capacidades de simulación 3D, modelos de vehículos robóticos, sensores, y entornos operacionales, emulando superficies planetarias como Marte, para el análisis y validación a nivel funcional de las estrategias de navegación desarrolladas. Este entorno también ofrece capacidades de depuración y monitorización.La presente tesis se compone de dos partes principales. En la primera se aborda el diseño y desarrollo de las capacidades de autonomía de alto nivel de un rover, centrándose en la navegación autónoma, con el soporte de las capacidades de simulación y monitorización del entorno de trabajo previo. Se han llevado a cabo un conjunto de experimentos de campo, con un robot y hardware real, detallándose resultados, tiempo de procesamiento de algoritmos, así como el comportamiento y rendimiento del sistema en general. Como resultado, se ha identificado al sistema de percepción como un componente crucial dentro de la estrategia de navegación y, por tanto, el foco principal de potenciales optimizaciones y mejoras del sistema. Como consecuencia, en la segunda parte de este trabajo, se afronta el problema de la correspondencia en imágenes estéreo y reconstrucción 3D de entornos naturales no estructurados. Se han analizado una serie de algoritmos de correspondencia, procesos de imagen y filtros. Generalmente se asume que las intensidades de puntos correspondientes en imágenes del mismo par estéreo es la misma. Sin embargo, se ha comprobado que esta suposición es a menudo falsa, a pesar de que ambas se adquieren con un sistema de visión compuesto de dos cámaras idénticas. En consecuencia, se propone un sistema experto para la corrección automática de intensidades en pares de imágenes estéreo y reconstrucción 3D del entorno basado en procesos de imagen no aplicados hasta ahora en el campo de la visión estéreo. Éstos son el filtrado homomórfico y la correspondencia de histogramas, que han sido diseñados para corregir intensidades coordinadamente, ajustando una imagen en función de la otra. Los resultados se han podido optimizar adicionalmente gracias al diseño de un proceso de agrupación basado en el principio de continuidad espacial para eliminar falsos positivos y correspondencias erróneas. Se han estudiado los efectos de la aplicación de dichos filtros, en etapas previas y posteriores al proceso de correspondencia, con eficiencia verificada favorablemente. Su aplicación ha permitido la obtención de un mayor número de correspondencias válidas en comparación con los resultados obtenidos sin la aplicación de los mismos, consiguiendo mejoras significativas en los mapas de disparidad y, por lo tanto, en los procesos globales de percepción y reconstrucción 3D.Depto. de Ingeniería de Software e Inteligencia Artificial (ISIA)Fac. de InformáticaTRUEunpu

    Towards a framework for architecting heterogeneous teams of humans and robots for space exploration

    Get PDF
    Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.Includes bibliographical references (p. 113-121).Human-robotic systems will play a critical role in space exploration, should NASA embark on missions to the Moon and Mars. A unified framework to optimally leverage the capabilities of humans and robots in space exploration will be an invaluable tool for mission planning. Although there is a growing body of literature on human robotic interactions (HRI), there is not yet a framework that lends itself both to a formal representation of heterogeneous teams of humans and robots, and to an evaluation of such teams across a series of common, task-based metrics. My objective in this thesis is to lay the foundations of a unified framework for architecting human-robotic systems for optimal task performance given a set of metrics. First, I review literature from different fields including HRI and human-computer interaction, and synthesize multiple considerations for architecting heterogeneous teams of humans and robots. I then present methods to systematically and formally capture the characteristics that describe a human-robotic system to provide a basis for evaluating human-robotic systems against a common set of metrics.(cont.) I propose an analytical formulation of common metrics to guide the design and evaluate the performance of human-robot systems, and I then apply the analytical formulation to a case study of a multi-agent human-robot system developed at NASA. Finally, I discuss directions for further research aimed at developing this framework.by Julie Ann Arnold.S.M
    • …
    corecore