Capturing autonomy features for unmanned spacecraft with ARE, the autonomy requirements engineering approach

  • Emil Vassev
  • Mike Hinchey
Original Paper


Along with the traditional requirements, requirements engineering for autonomous and self-adaptive systems needs to address requirements related to adaptation issues, in particular: (1) what adaptations are possible; (2) under what constrains; and (3) how those adaptations are realized. Note that adaptations arise when a system needs to cope with changes to ensure realization of the system’s objectives. The autonomy requirements engineering approach converts adaptation issues into autonomy features where goal-oriented requirements engineering is used along with a model for generic autonomy requirements. The approach is intended to help engineers develop missions for unmanned exploration, often with limited or no human control.


Autonomy requirements Requirements engineering Autonomic systems Selfadaptive systems ARE 



This work was supported by ESTEC ESA (Contract No. 4000106016), by the European Union FP7 Integrated Project Autonomic Service-Component Ensembles (ASCENS), and by Science Foundation Ireland Grant 03/CE2/I303_1 to Lero—the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre at University of Limerick, Ireland.


  1. 1.
    Vassev E, Hinchey M (2013) On the autonomy requirements for space missions. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international symposium on object/component/service-oriented real-time distributed computing workshops (ISCORCW 2013). IEEE Computer Society, pp 1–60Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vassev E, Hinchey M (2013) Autonomy requirements engineering: a case study on the BepiColombo mission. In: Proceedings of C* conference on computer science & software engineering (C3S2E ’13), ACM, pp 31–41Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vassev E, Hinchey M (2013) Autonomy requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international conference on information reuse and integration (IRI ’13), IEEE Computer Society, pp 175–184Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vassev E, Hinchey M (2013) Autonomy requirements engineering. IEEE Comput 46(8):82–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross DT, Schoman KE (1977) Structured analysis for requirements definition. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 3(1):6–15Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Massonet P. (1995) Goal-directed elaboration of requirements for a meeting scheduler: problems and lessons learnt. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international IEEE symposium on requirements engineering, IEEE, pp 194–203Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haumer P, Pohl K, Weidenhaupt K (1998) Requirements elicitation and validation with real world scenes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, Special Issue on Scenario Management 1036–1054Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rolland C, Souveyet C, Achour CB (1998) Guiding goal-modeling using scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, Special Issue on Scenario Management 1055–1071Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Lamsweerde A (2000) Requirements engineering in the year 00: a research perspective. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE’2000), ACM, pp 5–19Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK (1992) A guide to task analysis. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortescue P, Swinerd G, Stark J (eds) (2011) Spacecraft systems engineering, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nixon BA (1993) Dealing with performance requirements during the development of information systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international IEEE symposium on requirements engineering (RE’93), pp 42–49Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamsweerde A, van Letier E (2000) Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, Special Issue on Exception Handling 26(10):978–1005Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amoroso EJ (1994) Fundamentals of computer security. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leveson NG (1995) Safeware: system safety and computers. ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pumfrey DJ (1999) The principled design of computer system safety analyses. DPhil thesis, University of YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vassev E, Hinchey M (2015) KnowLang: knowledge representation for self-adaptive systems. IEEE Comput 48(2):81–84Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ewens WJ, Grant GR (2005) Stochastic processes (i): Poison processes and Markov chains. In: Statistical methods in bioinformatics, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 155–173Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benkhoff J (2012) BepiColombo: overview and latest updates. European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC AbstractsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lero – the Irish Software Engineering Research CentreUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations