Advertisement

Autonomous Robots

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 29–52 | Cite as

An Autonomous Spacecraft Agent Prototype

  • Barney Pell
  • Douglas E. Bernard
  • Steve A. Chien
  • Erann Gat
  • Nicola Muscettola
  • P. Pandurang Nayak
  • Michael D. Wagner
  • Brian C. Williams
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the New Millennium Remote Agent (NMRA) architecture for autonomous spacecraft control systems. The architecture supports challenging requirements of the autonomous spacecraft domain not usually addressed in mobile robot architectures, including highly reliable autonomous operations over extended time periods in the presence of tight resource constraints, hard deadlines, limited observability, and concurrent activity. A hybrid architecture, NMRA integrates traditional real-time monitoring and control with heterogeneous components for constraint-based planning and scheduling, robust multi-threaded execution, and model-based diagnosis and reconfiguration. Novel features of this integrated architecture include support for robust closed-loop generation and execution of concurrent temporal plans and a hybrid procedural/deductive executive.

We implemented a prototype autonomous spacecraft agent within the architecture and successfully demonstrated the prototype in the context of a challenging autonomous mission scenario on a simulated spacecraft. As a result of this success, the integrated architecture has been selected to fly as an autonomy experiment on Deep Space One (DS-1), the first flight of NASA';s New Millennium Program (NMP), which will launch in 1998. It will be the first AI system to autonomously control an actual spacecraft.

autonomous robots agent architectures action selection and planning diagnosis integration and coordination of multiple activities fault protection operations real-time systems modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahmed, A., Aljabri, A.S., and Eldred, D. 1994. Demonstration of on-board maneuver planning using autonomous s/w architecture. In 8th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites.Google Scholar
  2. Bonasso, R.P., Kortenkamp, D., Miller, D., and Slack, M. 1997. Experiences with an architecture for intelligent, reactive agents. JETAI, 9(1).Google Scholar
  3. Bresina, J., Edgington, W., Swanson, K., and Drummond, M. 1996. Operational closed-loop obesrvation scheduling and execution. In Proc. of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Plan Execution, L. Pryor (Ed.), AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R.A. 1986. A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 2(1):14-23.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, G.M., Bernard, D.E., and Rasmussen, R.D. 1995. Attitude and articulation control for the cassini spacecraft: A fault tolerance overview. In 14th AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, P.R., Greenberg, M.L., Hart, D.M., and Howe, A.E. 1989. Trial by fire: Understanding the design requirements for agents in complex environments. AI Magazine, 10(3):32-48.Google Scholar
  7. Currie, K. and Tate, A. 1991. O-plan: The open planning architecture. Art. Int., 52(1):49-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Kleer, J. and Williams, B.C. 1987. Diagnosing multiple faults. Artificial Intelligence, 32(1):97-130. Reprinted in Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Kleer, J. and Williams, B.C. 1989. Diagnosis with behavioral modes. In Proc. of IJCAI-89, pp. 1324-1330. Reprinted in Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  10. de Kleer, J. and Williams, B.C. (Eds.) 1991. Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier, Vol. 51.Google Scholar
  11. Dean, T. and Boddy, M. 1986. An analysis of time-dependent planning. In Proceedings Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 49-54.Google Scholar
  12. Drabble, B. 1993. Excalibur: A program for planning and reasoning with processes. Artificial Intelligence, 62(1):1-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drabble, B., Tate, A., and Dalton, J. 1996. O-plan project evaluation experiments and results. Oplan Technical Report ARPA-RL/ O-Plan/TR/23 Version 1, AIAI.Google Scholar
  14. Drummond, M., Bresina, J., and Swanson, K. 1994. Just-in-case scheduling. In Proc. of AAAI-94, AAAI Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 1098-1104.Google Scholar
  15. Firby, R.J. 1978. Adaptive execution in complex dynamic worlds. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.Google Scholar
  16. Gat, E. 1992. Integrating planning and reacting in a heterogeneous asynchronous architecture for controlling real-world mobile robots. In Proc. of AAAI-92, AAAI Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Gat, E. 1996. ESL: A language for supporting robust plan execution in embedded autonomous agents. In Proc. of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Plan Execution, L. Pryor (Ed.), AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  18. Georgeff, M.P. and Lansky, A.L. 1987. Procedural knowledge. Technical Report 411, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
  19. Hackney, J., Bernard, D.E., and Rasmussen, R.D. 1993. The cassini spacecraft: Object oriented flight control software. In 1993 Guidance and Control Conference, Keystone, CO.Google Scholar
  20. Hamscher, W., Console, L., and de Kleer, J. 1992. Readings in Model-Based Diagnosis, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, D.M., Anderson, S.D., and Cohen, P.R. 1990. Envelopes as a vehicle for improving the efficiency of plan execution. COINS Technical Report 90-21, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. Hayes-Roth, B. 1995. An architecture for adaptive intelligent systems. Artificial Intelligence, 72.Google Scholar
  23. IJCAI, 1997. Proc. of the Fifteenth Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Laird, J.E., Newell, A., and Rosenbloom, P.S. 1987. Soar: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33(1).Google Scholar
  25. Langley, P. 1992. Systematic and nonsystematic search strategies. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 145-152.Google Scholar
  26. Levinson, R. 1995. A general programming language for unified planning and control. Artificial Intelligence, 76.Google Scholar
  27. Muscettola, N. 1994. HSTS: Integrating planning and scheduling. In Intelligent Scheduling, M. Fox and M. Zweben (Eds.), Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  28. Muscettola, N., Pell, B., Hansson, O., and Mohan, S. 1995. Automating mission scheduling for space-based observatories. In Robotic Telescopes: Current Capabilities, Present Developments, and Future Prospects for Automated Astronomy, G.W. Henry and J.A. Eaton (Eds.), No. 79 in ASP Conf. Series. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
  29. Muscettola, N., Smith, B., Chien, C., Fry, C., Rabideau, G., Rajan, K., and Yan, D. 1997. On-board planning for autonomous spacecraft. In Proc. of the Fourth Int. Symp. on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation for Space (i-SAIRAS), D. Atkinson (Ed.), Tokyo, Japan. Jet Propulsion Laboratory.Google Scholar
  30. Musliner, D., Durfee, E., and Shin, K. 1993. Circa: A cooperative, intelligent, real-time control architecture. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 23(6).Google Scholar
  31. Nayak, P.P. and Williams, B.C. 1997. Fast context switching in realtime propositional reasoning. In Proc. of AAAI-97, AAAI Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Nilsson, N.J. 1994. Teleo-reactive programs for agent control. JAIR, 1:139-158.Google Scholar
  33. Noreils, F. and Chatila, R. 1995. Plan execution monitoring and control architecture for mobile robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation.Google Scholar
  34. Pell, B., Bernard, D.E., Chien, S.A., Gat, E., Muscettola, N., Nayak, P.P., Wagner, M.D., and Williams, B.C. 1996. A remote agent prototype for spacecraft autonomy. In Proc. of the SPIE Conf. on Optical Science, Engineering, and Instrumentation.Google Scholar
  35. Pell, B., Gamble, E., Gat, E., Keesing, R., Kurien, J., Millar, B., Nayak, P.P., Plaunt, C., and Williams, B. 1997. A hybrid procedural/deductive executive for autonomous spacecraft. In Procs. of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Model-Directed Autonomous Systems, P.P. Nayak and B.C. Williams (Eds.), AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pell, B., Gat, E., Keesing, R., Muscettola, N., and Smith, B. 1997. Robust periodic planning and execution for autonomous spacecraft. In Proc. of IJCAI-97, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Pryor, L. (Ed.) 1996. Procs. of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Plan Execution, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  38. Reece, G. and Tate, A. 1994. Synthesizing protection monitors from causal structure. In Procs. AIPS-94, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schoppers, M.J. 1987. Universal plans for reactive robots in unpredictable environments. In Procs. Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1039-1046.Google Scholar
  40. Simmons, R. 1990. An architecture for coordinating planning, sensing, and action. In Proc. DARPA Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling and Control, DARPA, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, pp. 292-297.Google Scholar
  41. Tambe, M., Johnson, W.L., Jones, R.M., Koss, F., Laird, J.E., Rosenbloom, P.S., and Schwamb, K. 1995. Intelligent agents for interactive simulation environments. AI Magazine, 16(1):15-39.Google Scholar
  42. Weld, D.S. 1994. An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Magazine.Google Scholar
  43. Weld, D.S. and de Kleer, J. (Eds.) 1990. Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.: San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
  44. Wilkins, D.E. 1988. Practical Planning, Morgan Kaufman: San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Wilkins, D.E. and Myers, K.L. 1995. A common knowledge representation for plan generation and reactive execution. Journal of Logic and Computation.Google Scholar
  46. Wilkins, D.E., Myers, K.L., Lowrance, J.D., and Wesley, L.P. 1995. Planning and reacting in uncertain and dynamic environments. JETAI, 7(1):197-227.Google Scholar
  47. Williams, B.C. and Nayak, P.P. 1996a. Immobile robots: AI in the new millennium. AI Magazine, 17(3):16-35.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, B.C. and Nayak, P.P. 1996b. A model-based approach to reactive self-configuring systems. In Proc. of AAAI-96, AAAI Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 971-978.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, B.C. and Nayak, P.P. 1997. A reactive planner for a model-based executive. In Proc. of IJCAI-97, Morgan Kaufman Publishers: Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barney Pell
    • 1
  • Douglas E. Bernard
    • 2
  • Steve A. Chien
    • 2
  • Erann Gat
    • 2
  • Nicola Muscettola
    • 3
  • P. Pandurang Nayak
    • 3
  • Michael D. Wagner
    • 4
  • Brian C. Williams
    • 5
  1. 1.Caelum Research CorporationNASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field
  2. 2.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena
  3. 3.NASA Ames Research CenterRecom TechnologiesMoffett Field
  4. 4.Fourth Planet Inc.Los Altos
  5. 5.NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field

Personalised recommendations