Distributed expert systems for ground and space applications

Presented here is the Spacecraft Command Language (SCL) concept of the unification of ground and space operations using a distributed approach. SCL is a hybrid software environment borrowing from expert system technology, fifth generation language development, and multitasking operating system environments. Examples of potential uses for the system and current distributed applications of SCL are given

Feasibility of Warehouse Drone Adoption and Implementation

While aerial delivery drones capture headlines, the pace of adoption of drones in warehouses has shown the greatest acceleration. Warehousing constitutes 30% of the cost of logistics in the US. The rise of e-commerce, greater customer service demands of retail stores, and a shortage of skilled labor have intensified competition for efficient warehouse operations. This takes place during an era of shortening technology life cycles. This paper integrates several theoretical perspectives on technology diffusion and adoption to propose a framework to inform supply chain decision-makers on when to invest in new robotics technology

A risk-aware architecture for resilient spacecraft operations

In this paper we discuss a resilient, risk-aware software architecture for onboard, real-time autonomous operations that is intended to robustly handle uncertainty in space-craft behavior within hazardous and unconstrained environments, without unnecessarily increasing complexity. This architecture, the Resilient Spacecraft Executive (RSE), serves three main functions: (1) adapting to component failures to allow graceful degradation, (2) accommodating environments, science observations, and spacecraft capabilities that are not fully known in advance, and (3) making risk-aware decisions without waiting for slow ground-based reactions. This RSE is made up of four main parts: deliberative, habitual, and reflexive layers, and a state estimator that interfaces with all three. We use a risk-aware goal-directed executive within the deliberative layer to perform risk-informed planning, to satisfy the mission goals (specified by mission control) within the specified priorities and constraints. Other state-of-the-art algorithms to be integrated into the RSE include correct-by-construction control synthesis and model-based estimation and diagnosis. We demonstrate the feasibility of the architecture in a simple implementation of the RSE for a simulated Mars rover scenario

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

Application of Correct-by-Construction Principles for a Resilient Risk-Aware Architecture

In this paper we discuss the application of correct-by-construction techniques to a resilient, risk-aware software architecture for onboard, real-time autonomous operations. We mean to combat complexity and the accidental introduction of bugs through the use of verifiable auto-coding software and correct-by-construction techniques, and discuss the use of a toolbox for correct-by-construction Temporal Logic Planning (TuLiP) for such a purpose. We describe some of TuLiP’s current functionality, specifically its ability to model symbolic discrete systems and synthesize software controllers and control policies that are correct-by-construction. We then move on to discuss the use of these techniques to define a deliberative goal-directed executive capability that performs risk-informed action-planning – to satisfy the mission goals (specified by mission control) within the specified priorities and constraints. Finally, we discuss an application of the TuLiP process to a simple rover resilience scenario

The evolution of business analytics : based on case study research

While business analytics is becoming more significant and widely used by companies from increasing industries, for many the concept remains a complex illusion. The field of business analytics is considerably generic and fragmented, leaving managers confused and ultimately inhibited to make valuable decisions. This paper presents an evolutionary depiction of business analytics, using real-world case studies to illustrate a distinct overview that describes where the phenomenon was derived from, where it currently stands, and where it is heading towards. This paper provides eight case studies, representing three different eras: yesterday (1950s to 1990s), today (2000s to 2020s), and tomorrow (2030s to 2050s). Through cross-case analysis we have identified concluding patterns that lay as foundation for the discussion on future development within business analytics. We argue based on our findings that automatization of business processes will most likely continue to increase. AI is expanding in numerous areas, each specializing in a complex task, previously reserved by professionals. However, patterns show that new occupations linked to artificial intelligence will most probably be created. For the training of intelligent systems, data will most likely be requested more than ever. The increasing data will likely cause complications in current data infrastructures, causing the need for stronger networks and systems. The systems will need to process, store, and manage the great amount of various data types in real-time, while maintaining high security. Furthermore, data privacy concerns have become more significant in recent years, although, the case study research indicates that it has not limited corporations access to data. On the contrary, corporations, people, and devices will most likely become even more connected than ever before.nhhma

Workshop proceedings: Information Systems for Space Astrophysics in the 21st Century, volume 1

The Astrophysical Information Systems Workshop was one of the three Integrated Technology Planning workshops. Its objectives were to develop an understanding of future mission requirements for information systems, the potential role of technology in meeting these requirements, and the areas in which NASA investment might have the greatest impact. Workshop participants were briefed on the astrophysical mission set with an emphasis on those missions that drive information systems technology, the existing NASA space-science operations infrastructure, and the ongoing and planned NASA information systems technology programs. Program plans and recommendations were prepared in five technical areas: Mission Planning and Operations; Space-Borne Data Processing; Space-to-Earth Communications; Science Data Systems; and Data Analysis, Integration, and Visualization

RIACS

The Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS) was established by the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) at the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) on June 6, 1983. RIACS is privately operated by USRA, a consortium of universities that serves as a bridge between NASA and the academic community. Under a five-year co-operative agreement with NASA, research at RIACS is focused on areas that are strategically enabling to the Ames Research Center's role as NASA's Center of Excellence for Information Technology. The primary mission of RIACS is charted to carry out research and development in computer science. This work is devoted in the main to tasks that are strategically enabling with respect to NASA's bold mission in space exploration and aeronautics. There are three foci for this work: (1) Automated Reasoning. (2) Human-Centered Computing. and (3) High Performance Computing and Networking. RIACS has the additional goal of broadening the base of researcher in these areas of importance to the nation's space and aeronautics enterprises. Through its visiting scientist program, RIACS facilitates the participation of university-based researchers, including both faculty and students, in the research activities of NASA and RIACS. RIACS researchers work in close collaboration with NASA computer scientists on projects such as the Remote Agent Experiment on Deep Space One mission, and Super-Resolution Surface Modeling

NASA Technology Plan 1998

This NASA Strategic Plan describes an ambitious, exciting vision for the Agency across all its Strategic Enterprises that addresses a series of fundamental questions of science and research. This vision is so challenging that it literally depends on the success of an aggressive, cutting-edge advanced technology development program. The objective of this plan is to describe the NASA-wide technology program in a manner that provides not only the content of ongoing and planned activities, but also the rationale and justification for these activities in the context of NASA's future needs. The scope of this plan is Agencywide, and it includes technology investments to support all major space and aeronautics program areas, but particular emphasis is placed on longer term strategic technology efforts that will have broad impact across the spectrum of NASA activities and perhaps beyond. Our goal is to broaden the understanding of NASA technology programs and to encourage greater participation from outside the Agency. By relating technology goals to anticipated mission needs, we hope to stimulate additional innovative approaches to technology challenges and promote more cooperative programs with partners outside NASA who share common goals. We also believe that this will increase the transfer of NASA-sponsored technology into nonaerospace applications, resulting in an even greater return on the investment in NASA