831 research outputs found
The 1990 progress report and future plans
This document describes the progress and plans of the Artificial Intelligence Research Branch (RIA) at ARC in 1990. Activities span a range from basic scientific research to engineering development and to fielded NASA applications, particularly those applications that are enabled by basic research carried out at RIA. Work is conducted in-house and through collaborative partners in academia and industry. Our major focus is on a limited number of research themes with a dual commitment to technical excellence and proven applicability to NASA short, medium, and long-term problems. RIA acts as the Agency's lead organization for research aspects of artificial intelligence, working closely with a second research laboratory at JPL and AI applications groups at all NASA centers
Mission Control Concepts for Robotic Operations: Existing approaches and new Solutions
This paper gives a preliminary overview on activities
within the currently ongoing Mission Control Concepts
for Robotic Operations (MICCRO) study.
The aim of the MICCRO study is to reveal commonalities
in the operations of past, current and future robotic
space missions in order to find an abstract, representative
mission control concept applicable to multiple future
missions with robotic systems involved. The existing
operational concepts, responsibilities and information
flows during the different mission phases are taken into
account.
A particular emphasis is put on the possible interaction
between different autonomous components (on-board
and on-ground), their synchronisation and the possible
shift of autonomy borders during different mission
phases
Autonomous Systems, Robotics, and Computing Systems Capability Roadmap: NRC Dialogue
Contents include the following: Introduction. Process, Mission Drivers, Deliverables, and Interfaces. Autonomy. Crew-Centered and Remote Operations. Integrated Systems Health Management. Autonomous Vehicle Control. Autonomous Process Control. Robotics. Robotics for Solar System Exploration. Robotics for Lunar and Planetary Habitation. Robotics for In-Space Operations. Computing Systems. Conclusion
Third International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation for Space 1994
The Third International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation for Space (i-SAIRAS 94), held October 18-20, 1994, in Pasadena, California, was jointly sponsored by NASA, ESA, and Japan's National Space Development Agency, and was hosted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of the California Institute of Technology. i-SAIRAS 94 featured presentations covering a variety of technical and programmatic topics, ranging from underlying basic technology to specific applications of artificial intelligence and robotics to space missions. i-SAIRAS 94 featured a special workshop on planning and scheduling and provided scientists, engineers, and managers with the opportunity to exchange theoretical ideas, practical results, and program plans in such areas as space mission control, space vehicle processing, data analysis, autonomous spacecraft, space robots and rovers, satellite servicing, and intelligent instruments
Space exploration: The interstellar goal and Titan demonstration
Automated interstellar space exploration is reviewed. The Titan demonstration mission is discussed. Remote sensing and automated modeling are considered. Nuclear electric propulsion, main orbiting spacecraft, lander/rover, subsatellites, atmospheric probes, powered air vehicles, and a surface science network comprise mission component concepts. Machine, intelligence in space exploration is discussed
Robotic Planetary Drill Tests
Several proposed or planned planetary science missions to Mars and other Solar System bodies over the next decade require subsurface access by drilling. This paper discusses the problems of remote robotic drilling, an automation and control architecture based loosely on observed human behaviors in drilling on Earth, and an overview of robotic drilling field test results using this architecture since 2005. Both rotary-drag and rotary-percussive drills are targeted. A hybrid diagnostic approach incorporates heuristics, model-based reasoning and vibration monitoring with neural nets. Ongoing work leads to flight-ready drilling software
Advancing automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the US economy
The progress made by levels 1, 2, and 3 of the Office of Space Station in developing and applying advanced automation and robotics technology is described. Emphasis is placed upon the Space Station Freedom Program responses to specific recommendations made in the Advanced Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) progress report 10, the flight telerobotic servicer, and the Advanced Development Program. Assessments are presented for these and other areas as they apply to the advancement of automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom
Engineering Resilient Space Systems
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
Simulating Operational Concepts for Autonomous Robotic Space Exploration Systems: A Framework for Early Design Validation
During mission design, the concept of operations (ConOps) describes how the system operates during various life cycle phases to meet stakeholder expectations. ConOps is sometimes declined in a simple evaluation of the power consumption or data generation per mode. Different operational timelines are typically developed based on expert knowledge. This approach is robust when designing an automated system or a system with a low level of autonomy. However, when studying highly autonomous systems, designers may be interested in understanding how the system would react in an operational scenario when provided with knowledge about its actions and operational environment. These considerations can help verify and validate the proposed ConOps architecture, highlight shortcomings in both physical and functional design, and help better formulate detailed requirements. Hence, this study aims to provide a framework for the simulation and validation of operational scenarios for autonomous robotic space exploration systems during the preliminary design phases. This study extends current efforts in autonomy technology for planetary systems by focusing on testing their operability and assessing their performances in different scenarios early in the design process. The framework uses Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) as the knowledge base for the studied system and its operations. It then leverages a Markov Decision Process (MDP) to simulate a set of system operations in a relevant scenario. It then outputs a feasible plan with the associated variation of a set of considered resources as step functions. This method was applied to simulate the operations of a small rover exploring an unknown environment to observe and sample a set of targets
- …