Advancing the Scientific Frontier with Increasingly Autonomous Systems

A close partnership between people and partially autonomous machines has enabled decades of space exploration. But to further expand our horizons, our systems must become more capable. Increasing the nature and degree of autonomy - allowing our systems to make and act on their own decisions as directed by mission teams - enables new science capabilities and enhances science return. The 2011 Planetary Science Decadal Survey (PSDS) and on-going pre-Decadal mission studies have identified increased autonomy as a core technology required for future missions. However, even as scientific discovery has necessitated the development of autonomous systems and past flight demonstrations have been successful, institutional barriers have limited its maturation and infusion on existing planetary missions. Consequently, the authors and endorsers of this paper recommend that new programmatic pathways be developed to infuse autonomy, infrastructure for support autonomous systems be invested in, new practices be adopted, and the cost-saving value of autonomy for operations be studied.Comment: 10 pages (compared to 8 submitted to PSADS), 2 figures, submitted to National Academy of Sciences Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-203

Methods and tools for the formulation, evaluation and optimization of rover mission concepts

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007.Page 256 blank.Includes bibliographical references (p. 245-255).Traditionally, Mars rover missions have been conceived with a single point design approach, exploring a limited architectural trade space. The design of future missions must resolve a conflict between increasingly ambitious scientific objectives and strict technical and programmatic constraints. Therefore, there is a need for advanced mission study engineers to consider a wider range of surface exploration concepts in order to identify those with superior performance and robustness with respect to evolving mission objectives. To this end, a three stage trade space exploration approach has been developed to supplement point design development in the early conceptual phase of Mars rover missions. The product is an integrated set of theoretical methods and analytical tools which enhances the understanding and enables the rapid exploration of the rover mission trade space. In the formulation stage, the first stage of the approach, a parallel decomposition of the functional and physical aspects of Mars exploration architectures is employed to explore trade space of surface mission concepts. At each step of the decomposition, architectural alternatives are assessed with respect to stakeholder figures of merit.(cont.) The resulting concept development trees allow for a rapid assessment of a given design's strength and robustness with respect to stakeholder priorities. In the evaluation stage, the Mars Surface Exploration (MSE) rover system design tool is used to support quantitative analysis of the superior designs identified in the formulation stage. This tool, for advanced mission studies, offers unique functionality: breadth of exploration, system-level modeling fidelity and rapidity. As a demonstration of its capabilities, the tool is used to model and evaluate a multi-rover mission concept in less than two hours. In the optimization stage, two systems engineering methods are developed to optimize, with MSE, the more complex technical and physical aspects of rover mission architectures. The first method assesses the value of autonomy technologies in future missions; it is based on the principle that the monetary worth of autonomy can be evaluated by benchmarking its performance against competing solutions with known cost. The method is applied to value autonomy development for site-to-site traverse and sample approach activities.(cont.) The second method optimizes platform strategies for space exploration systems; an innovative optimization technique is developed to enumerate of all platform options. In the six rover mission campaigns analyzed, the best platform strategies are shown to generate very limited savings compared to traditional strategies. The two case studies demonstrate that the analytical capabilities of MSE combined with a theoretical structure form a valuable decision making tool for early conceptual design trade-offs.by Julien-Alexandre Lamamy.Ph.D

Exploration: Past and Future Contributions of the Vertical Lift Community and the Flight Vehicle Research and Technology Division

Fulfillment of the exploration vision will require new cross-mission directorate and multi-technical discipline synergies in order to achieve the necessary long-term sustainability. In part, lessons from the Apollo-era, as well as more recent research efforts, suggest that the aeronautics and specifically the vertical lift research community can and will make significant contributions to the exploration effort. A number of notional concepts and associated technologies for such contributions are outlined

Report of the Terrestrial Bodies Science Working Group. Volume 9: Complementary research and development

Topics discussed include the need for: the conception and development of a wide spectrum of experiments, instruments, and vehicles in order to derive the proper return from an exploration program; the effective use of alternative methods of data acquisition involving ground-based, airborne and near Earth orbital techniques to supplement spacraft mission; and continued reduction and analysis of existing data including laboratory and theoretical studies in order to benefit fully from experiments and to build on the past programs toward a logical and efficient exploration of the solar system

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

Service Oriented Robotic Architecture for Space Robotics: Design, Testing, and Lessons Learned

This paper presents the lessons learned from six years of experiments with planetary rover prototypes running the Service Oriented Robotic Architecture (SORA) developed by the Intelligent Robotics Group (IRG) at the NASA Ames Research Center. SORA relies on proven software engineering methods and technologies applied to space robotics. Based on a Service Oriented Architecture and robust middleware, SORA encompasses on-board robot control and a full suite of software tools necessary for remotely operated exploration missions. SORA has been eld tested in numerous scenarios of robotic lunar and planetary exploration. The experiments conducted by IRG with SORA exercise a large set of the constraints encountered in space applications: remote robotic assets, ight relevant science instruments, distributed operations, high network latencies and unreliable or intermittent communication links. In this paper, we present the results of these eld tests in regard to the developed architecture, and discuss its bene ts and limitations

Lunar Rover with Multiple Science Handling Capability

A rover design study was undertaken for exploration of the Moon. Rovers that have been launched in the past carried a suite of science payload either onboard its body or on the robotic arm’s end. No rover has so far been launched and tasked with “carrying and deploying” a payload on an extraterrestrial surface. This paper describes a lunar rover designed for deploying payload as well as carrying a suite of instruments onboard for conventional science tasks. The main consideration during the rover design process was the usage of existing, in-house technology for development of some rover systems. The manipulation subsystem design was derived from the technology of Light Weight Robot, a dexterous arm originally developed for terrestrial applications. Recent efforts have led to definition of a mission architecture for exploration of the Moon with such a rover. An outline of its design, the manipulating arm technology and the design decisions that were made has been presented

Human/Automation Trade Methodology for the Moon, Mars and Beyond

It is possible to create a consistent trade methodology that can characterize operations model alternatives for crewed exploration missions. For example, a trade-space that is organized around the objective of maximizing Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) independence would have the input as a classification of the category of analysis to be conducted or decision to be made, and a commitment to a detailed point in a mission profile during which the analysis or decision is to be made. For example, does the decision have to do with crew activity planning, or life support? Is the mission phase trans-Earth injection, cruise, or lunar descent? Different kinds of decision analysis of the trade-space between human and automated decisions will occurs at different points in a mission's profile. The necessary objectives at a given point in time during a mission will call for different kinds of response with respect to where and how computers and automation are expected to help provide an accurate, safe, and timely response. In this paper, a consistent methodology for assessing the trades between human and automated decisions on-board will be presented and various examples discussed

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

NASA Capability Roadmaps Executive Summary

This document is the result of eight months of hard work and dedication from NASA, industry, other government agencies, and academic experts from across the nation. It provides a summary of the capabilities necessary to execute the Vision for Space Exploration and the key architecture decisions that drive the direction for those capabilities. This report is being provided to the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) team for consideration in development of an architecture approach and investment strategy to support NASA future mission, programs and budget requests. In addition, it will be an excellent reference for NASA's strategic planning. A more detailed set of roadmaps at the technology and sub-capability levels are available on CD. These detailed products include key driving assumptions, capability maturation assessments, and technology and capability development roadmaps