Page:Advanced Automation for Space Missions.djvu/353

 TABLE 6.4.-CRITICAL AI RESEARCH AREAS IN ROBOT PROBLEM-SOLVING AND PLANNING 1. General robot reasoning about actions 2. Combining AI problem-solving and plan formation with operations-research-scheduling techniques and real-time constraints 3. Techniques for classifying problems into categories and selecting the appropriate problem-solving method to apply to it 4. Expert systems 5. Generalized techniques for dynamic accumulation of problem-specific knowledge during a problemsolving attempt 6. Techniques for abstraction, and the use of abstraction for search guidance 7. Methods of combining several representations and search techniques together in a coherent manner 8. Ways to structure systems to have both fundamental theories to allow a priori reasoning along with a procedural level of skill to allow efficient real-time response 9. Models and representations of reality execution. Table 6.5 gives the relevant mission requirements in these areas, the missions to which they might apply, and the identification of which items from table 6.4 are most relevant. Recommended actions. Traditionally AI has been predominantly a research-oriented activity which implemented systems primarily for experimental purposes. There is a growing awareness among AI researchers that the time has come to produce limited capability but useful working systems. In like manner, NASA should obtain experience at the earliest possible date with elementary space-robot systems in such areas as fully automatic spacecraft docking and sophisticated Earth-sensing satellites. Theoretical research in AI problem-solving and planning techniques will be an active area for several decades to come. If NASA is to become effective in directing this research toward its own goals, then early experience is necessary with elementary state-of-the-art techniques -although substantial advantages can be obtained even with relatively unsophisticated, near-term AI planning and execution monitoring techniques. Most of the areas listed in table 6.4 will progress both at the theoretical and applications levels without NASA taking action. This theory will generally be supportive of NASA's needs, particularly that done by DOD for space applications. Communication between NASA and DOD is thus important in overall planning for both organizations. While DOD interests in the mission requirements listed in table 6.5 are likely to be restricted to categories

TABLE 6.5.--CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MISSION REQUIREMENTS, MISSIONS AND RESEARCH AREAS FROM TABLE 6.4

Mission requirement, Relevant areas

Mission

MR from table 6.4

1. Automated housekeeping TM, a 1,2,4,5,7,8 functions for long-ESb duration spacecraft 2. Fully autonomous sequen-TM,ES 2,3,4,7,8,9 cing of observations, active and passive, from orbit, from landers, and during interplanetary flight, for a variety of sensors 3. Automatic docking, TM, ES 1,3,4,5,6,7,89 refueling, repair and maintenance of semiindependent probes 4. Automatic deployment of TM 1,4,9 landers and orbiters from a central orbiter bus or busses 5. Automatic landing capa-TM 1,2,9 bility on a planetary body where the lander is physically designed as a generalpurpose lander capable of achieving planet fall on planets with a variety of atmosphere densities, wind veh)cities, and surface characteristics 6. Automatic sample-taking TM 1,3,4,5,8 of atmosphere and soil samples, and automatic low level sequencing of a variety of chemical and physical analysis techniques aTitan mission. bEarth mission. MR1, MR2, MR3, and possibly MR4, these cover most of the research areas from table 6.4. If this is indeed the situation with respect to Don, then NASA can concentrate primarily on implementation projects. However, certain needs and operating scenarios are peculiar to NASA and are not likely to develop in theory or applications without direct NASA guidance. Two very s