Advancing automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the US economy

Described here is the progress made by Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the Space Station Freedom in developing and applying advanced automation and robotics technology. Emphasis was placed on the Space Station Freedom program responses to specific recommendations made in the Advanced Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) Progress Report 13, and issues of A&R implementation into the payload operations integration Center at Marshall Space Flight Center. Assessments are presented for these and other areas as they apply to the advancement of automation and robotics technology for Space Station Freedom

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

The 1995 Goddard Conference on Space Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Information Technologies

This publication comprises the papers presented at the 1995 Goddard Conference on Space Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Information Technologies held at the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, on May 9-11, 1995. The purpose of this annual conference is to provide a forum in which current research and development directed at space applications of artificial intelligence can be presented and discussed

Space Science Opportunities Augmented by Exploration Telepresence

Since the end of the Apollo missions to the lunar surface in December 1972, humanity has exclusively conducted scientific studies on distant planetary surfaces using teleprogrammed robots. Operations and science return for all of these missions are constrained by two issues related to the great distances between terrestrial scientists and their exploration targets: high communication latencies and limited data bandwidth. Despite the proven successes of in-situ science being conducted using teleprogrammed robotic assets such as Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity rovers on the surface of Mars, future planetary field research may substantially overcome latency and bandwidth constraints by employing a variety of alternative strategies that could involve: 1) placing scientists/astronauts directly on planetary surfaces, as was done in the Apollo era; 2) developing fully autonomous robotic systems capable of conducting in-situ field science research; or 3) teleoperation of robotic assets by humans sufficiently proximal to the exploration targets to drastically reduce latencies and significantly increase bandwidth, thereby achieving effective human telepresence. This third strategy has been the focus of experts in telerobotics, telepresence, planetary science, and human spaceflight during two workshops held from October 3–7, 2016, and July 7–13, 2017, at the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS). Based on findings from these workshops, this document describes the conceptual and practical foundations of low-latency telepresence (LLT), opportunities for using derivative approaches for scientific exploration of planetary surfaces, and circumstances under which employing telepresence would be especially productive for planetary science. An important finding of these workshops is the conclusion that there has been limited study of the advantages of planetary science via LLT. A major recommendation from these workshops is that space agencies such as NASA should substantially increase science return with greater investments in this promising strategy for human conduct at distant exploration sites

Space Science Opportunities Augmented by Exploration Telepresence

Since the end of the Apollo missions to the lunar surface in December 1972, humanity has exclusively conducted scientific studies on distant planetary surfaces using teleprogrammed robots. Operations and science return for all of these missions are constrained by two issues related to the great distances between terrestrial scientists and their exploration targets: high communication latencies and limited data bandwidth. Despite the proven successes of in-situ science being conducted using teleprogrammed robotic assets such as Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity rovers on the surface of Mars, future planetary field research may substantially overcome latency and bandwidth constraints by employing a variety of alternative strategies that could involve: 1) placing scientists/astronauts directly on planetary surfaces, as was done in the Apollo era; 2) developing fully autonomous robotic systems capable of conducting in-situ field science research; or 3) teleoperation of robotic assets by humans sufficiently proximal to the exploration targets to drastically reduce latencies and significantly increase bandwidth, thereby achieving effective human telepresence. This third strategy has been the focus of experts in telerobotics, telepresence, planetary science, and human spaceflight during two workshops held from October 3–7, 2016, and July 7–13, 2017, at the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS). Based on findings from these workshops, this document describes the conceptual and practical foundations of low-latency telepresence (LLT), opportunities for using derivative approaches for scientific exploration of planetary surfaces, and circumstances under which employing telepresence would be especially productive for planetary science. An important finding of these workshops is the conclusion that there has been limited study of the advantages of planetary science via LLT. A major recommendation from these workshops is that space agencies such as NASA should substantially increase science return with greater investments in this promising strategy for human conduct at distant exploration sites

Robotic Ultrasound Imaging: State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives

Ultrasound (US) is one of the most widely used modalities for clinical intervention and diagnosis due to the merits of providing non-invasive, radiation-free, and real-time images. However, free-hand US examinations are highly operator-dependent. Robotic US System (RUSS) aims at overcoming this shortcoming by offering reproducibility, while also aiming at improving dexterity, and intelligent anatomy and disease-aware imaging. In addition to enhancing diagnostic outcomes, RUSS also holds the potential to provide medical interventions for populations suffering from the shortage of experienced sonographers. In this paper, we categorize RUSS as teleoperated or autonomous. Regarding teleoperated RUSS, we summarize their technical developments, and clinical evaluations, respectively. This survey then focuses on the review of recent work on autonomous robotic US imaging. We demonstrate that machine learning and artificial intelligence present the key techniques, which enable intelligent patient and process-specific, motion and deformation-aware robotic image acquisition. We also show that the research on artificial intelligence for autonomous RUSS has directed the research community toward understanding and modeling expert sonographers' semantic reasoning and action. Here, we call this process, the recovery of the "language of sonography". This side result of research on autonomous robotic US acquisitions could be considered as valuable and essential as the progress made in the robotic US examination itself. This article will provide both engineers and clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of RUSS by surveying underlying techniques.Comment: Accepted by Medical Image Analysi

Advancing automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the U.S. economy

In April 1985, as required by Public Law 98-371, the NASA Advanced Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) reported to Congress the results of its studies on advanced automation and robotics technology for use on Space Station Freedom. This material was documented in the initial report (NASA Technical Memorandum 87566). A further requirement of the law was that ATAC follow NASA's progress in this area and report to Congress semiannually. This report is the sixteenth in a series of progress updates and covers the period between 15 Sep. 1992 - 16 Mar. 1993. The report describes the progress made by Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the Space Station Freedom in developing and applying advanced automation and robotics technology. Emphasis was placed upon the Space Station Freedom Program responses to specific recommendations made in ATAC Progress Report 15; and includes a status review of Space Station Freedom Launch Processing facilities at Kennedy Space Center. Assessments are presented for these and other areas as they apply to the advancement of automation and robotics technology for Space Station Freedom

NASA SBIR abstracts of 1991 phase 1 projects

The objectives of 301 projects placed under contract by the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are described. These projects were selected competitively from among proposals submitted to NASA in response to the 1991 SBIR Program Solicitation. The basic document consists of edited, non-proprietary abstracts of the winning proposals submitted by small businesses. The abstracts are presented under the 15 technical topics within which Phase 1 proposals were solicited. Each project was assigned a sequential identifying number from 001 to 301, in order of its appearance in the body of the report. Appendixes to provide additional information about the SBIR program and permit cross-reference of the 1991 Phase 1 projects by company name, location by state, principal investigator, NASA Field Center responsible for management of each project, and NASA contract number are included