2025 SBIR Phase I Research Subtopic Pre-Release Z-Enable.05 Amendment.pdf

Fiscal Year 2025 SBIR Phase I Solicitation

Z-ENABLE.05: Extensible Perception, Manipulation, and Interoperability for

Autonomous Robotic Systems (SBIR) (Previously Z5.10)

Related Subtopic Pointers: A2.01, S17.02, T11.05

Lead Center: ARC

Participating Center(s): JSC, LaRC

Subtopic Introduction:

NASA’s Moon-to-Mars objectives highlight the need to develop and demonstrate robotic and autonomous systems capable of supporting sustained operations on the lunar surface and in cislunar space. The following scopes highlight key challenges toward:

• Advancing remote robotic perception and manipulation technologies to enable autonomous robots to assess environment state, detect changes and anomalies, interact with their environment, and perform utilization, maintenance, logistics management, infrastructure outfitting, and in-space assembly tasks.

• Software interoperability for sustained collaborative operations, mission extensibility, improving software quality by streamlining reuse of heritage software components, and the accelerated integration and advancement of autonomy across these assets, so that multiple lunar surface and deep space robotic systems can more easily leverage rapidly evolving and maturing autonomous capabilities while a broad and dependable supply chain of commercial involvement and growth of a sustainable lunar surface and cislunar ecosystem is facilitated.

Scope Title: Sensing and Perception Software for Autonomous Manipulation and

Utilization Tasks

Scope Description:

Accurate sensing and perception are critical for achieving the autonomous manipulation and task performance capabilities required for future lunar missions (both on Gateway and the lunar surface). Limited situational awareness, time delay, data latencies, etc., prevent direct, real-time, human-in-the-loop control from the ground at efficient operational cadences and necessitate greater autonomy on board remote robots in situ. Like those developed for terrestrial applications, perception algorithms and approaches for in-space manipulation require improvements in a variety of technical areas, but with the added challenge of being compatible with current-generation space-rated computing, sensors, etc. Solutions must also be suitable for use within the intravehicular or extravehicular space environment and relevant mission operation constraints.

Technology areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Semantic simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM).

• Affordance recognition.

• Object/obstacle detection and segmentation.

• Object classification and/or registration.

• Pose estimation.

• Grasp detection and planning.

• Perceiving the shape of flexible or articulated objects such as jointed booms, cables, hoses, blankets, fabric cargo bags, etc.

Proposals to improve performance and advance current capabilities in areas of interest are encouraged, but technologies must also present a viable path to deployment on board space robots using current-generation computers and sensing suitable for the environment. Improving the speed and efficiency of sensor data processing and perception algorithm performance is desired, and novel techniques to translate state-of-the-art (or better) terrestrial performance to flight robotic manipulation are specifically sought. Novel approaches to leveraging machine learning for manipulation in the space environment (i.e., without reliance on significant cloud computing resources or large prior datasets) is also of potential interest.

Technologies must be applicable to intravehicular robotics, lunar surface, or other in-space manipulation use cases, such as:

• Assembly and maintenance (e.g., mating/de-mating power, data, and fluid connections; opening/closing panels; installation, stowage, and handling of cables and fluid lines; manipulation of soft goods).

• Science utilization (e.g., moving samples between cold storage and instruments; experiment monitoring and caretaking; small tool use; manipulation of buttons, switches, levers, etc.).

• Habitat mobility (e.g., hatch opening/closing; handrail and seat track grasping).

• Logistics management (e.g., payload handling; packing/unpacking bags; kitting items).

• Intravehicular robot (IVR) spacecraft inspection, monitoring, and anomaly detection.

Dual-use technologies with broad applicability to both space and terrestrial applications are encouraged, but a clear infusion path to NASA missions must be demonstrated. To facilitate infusion, proposals are encouraged, but not required, to:

• Address challenges that are particularly relevant in the space environment, such as ability to run on a radiation-tolerant computing platform, robustness to the high-dynamic-range lighting conditions present both in orbit and at the lunar surface, robustness to sensor radiation damage like hot pixels, adherence to relevant aerospace flight software quality assurance standards, etc.

• Trace proposal relevance to high-priority shortfalls from the NASA STMD National Space Technology

Priority shortfall list. In particular, the following shortfalls may be relevant:

o 1548: Sensing for Autonomous Robotic Operations in Challenging Environmental Conditions o 1538: General-Purpose Robotic Manipulation to Perform Human-Scale Logistics, Maintenance, Outfitting, and Utilization o 1535: Autonomous Vehicle, System, Habitat, and Infrastructure Health Monitoring and

Management o 680: Robust Robotic Intelligence for High-Tempo Autonomous Operations in Dynamic

Mission Conditions

• Target near-term integration and testing on relevant NASA robots (e.g., International Space Station

Astrobee Facility, NASA JSC iMETRO facility, Valkyrie) or in coordination with ongoing NASA development efforts.

• Limit dependence on third-party proprietary technologies that might complicate NASA adoption of the technology.

• Use industry-standard hardware and software interfaces, architectures, and frameworks that align with relevant NASA robotic development efforts to reduce future integration effort (e.g., ROS/ROS2/SpaceROS).

• Demonstrate technology advances in the context of relevant manipulation or utilization task performance.

Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 4 to 6

Primary Technology Taxonomy:

• Level 1: TX 04 Robotics Systems

• Level 2: TX 04.1 Sensing and Perception

Desired Deliverables of Phase I and Phase II:

• Research

• Analysis

• Prototype

• Software

Desired Deliverables Description:

Phase I deliverables include:

• Background research and feasibility studies.

• Conceptual design, trade studies, and description of proposed solution.

• In some instances, an initial proof-of-concept implementation and/or testing (using either hardware or simulation).

Phase II deliverables include:

• Software source code, user manual/instructions, documentation.

• Test and/or performance data.

• Demonstration of software prototype on robot hardware.

State of the Art and Critical Gaps:

Current state-of-the-art approaches rely on computing performance far greater than current space-rated systems;

external equipment or sensors not suitable for the internal habitat or in-space environments; significant cloud computing resources; or large external datasets and training time. Increased accuracy and speed are needed for improved reliability during task performance and to expand the range of manipulation and utilization tasks possible with autonomous robots. Perception suitable for fine dexterous manipulation is limited in the field. Improved processing efficiency and a reduced reliance on external resources is needed to facilitate deployment of onboard space robotic systems and mitigate the lack of direct user interaction during remote operations.

Civil Space Shortfall Ranking https://www.nasa.gov/spacetechpriorities/

• 1548: Sensing for Autonomous Robotic Operations in Challenging Environmental Conditions

• 1538: General-Purpose Robotic Manipulation to Perform Human-Scale Logistics, Maintenance, Outfitting, and Utilization

• 1535: Autonomous Vehicle, System, Habitat, and Infrastructure Health Monitoring and Management

• 680: Robust Robotic Intelligence for High-Tempo Autonomous Operations in Dynamic Mission

Conditions

• 1542: Metrics and Processes for Establishing Trust and Certifying the Trustworthiness of Autonomous

Systems

• 498: Broad and dependable supply chain for space-qualified robotic hardware, electronics, and associated software

Relevance / Science Traceability:

This scope represents an enabling technology for IVR operations on Gateway (science utilization, logistics management, payload handling, maintenance, etc.) and remote robotic manipulation, more generally, in support of lunar surface infrastructure assembly and robotic in-space servicing.

https://techport.nasa.gov/file/314645

Autonomous manipulation, inspection, and utilization supported by the perception technologies in scope directly support NASA’s Moon-to-Mars objectives to: “(LI-4) Demonstrate technologies supporting cislunar orbital/surface depots and support systems needed for continuous human/robotic presence,” and “(OP-9) Demonstrate the capability of integrated robotic systems to support and augment the work of crewmembers on the lunar surface, and in orbit around the Moon.”

Greater robotic autonomy for infrastructure-related manipulation tasks on the lunar surface and in cislunar space is needed: (1) to prevent an undue burden on crew time to perform many of these tasks, and (2) to address the communication limitations (time delay, latency, loss of communications, etc.) that prevent direct ground control from Earth in many of the target use cases.

References:

1. Robot Operating System (ROS) / Space ROS:

https://www.ros.org/ https://space.ros.org/

2. What is Astrobee? https://www.nasa.gov/astrobee

3. NASA Outlines Lunar Surface Sustainability Concept:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-outlines-lunar-surface-sustainability-concept

4. J. Crusan et al. 2018. "Deep Space Gateway Concept: Extending Human Presence Into Cislunar Space."

In Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8396541

5. NASA’s Gateway:

https://www.nasa.gov/gateway

6. T. Smith et al., 2021. "ISAAC: An Integrated System for Autonomous and Adaptive Caretaking."

Presentation, ISS Research and Development Conference. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210020134

7. A. Katterhagen, et al. “Astrobee: A New Tool for ISS Operations.” Presentation, International

Conference on Space Operations (SpaceOps 2018). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190006684

8. A. Katterhagen et al., 2023. “Astrobee: Completed, Current, and Future Research using Free Flying

Robots on the International Space Station”. Presentation, ISS Research and Development Conference.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230006150

9. iMETRO (Integrated Mobile Evaluation Testbed for Robotics Operations) Facility:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230015485/downloads/iMETRO_Azimi_Poster_v5.pdf

10. NASA’s Plans for Commercial LEO Development: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9172512

11. N. Radford et al. 2015. “Valkyrie: NASA's First Bipedal Humanoid Robot.” In Journal of Field

Robotics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 397-419. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rob.21560

12. NASA STMD National Space Technology Priority Shortfall List https://www.spacetechpriorities.org/

13. Examples of potentially relevant software quality assurance standards:

• NPR 7150.2 NASA Software Engineering Requirements https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7150&s=2D

• DO-178C Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C

Scope Title: Modular, Interoperable, and Extensible Flight Software Frameworks

Scope Description:

With multiple lunar surface assets from various vendors representing a core component of NASA’s strategy to build a sustainable lunar surface ecosystem, software interoperability is critical for sustained collaborative operations, mission extensibility, enhancing software quality by streamlining reuse of heritage software components, rapid evolution and integration of autonomy between robotic assets, and maintaining a broad and dependable supply chain for robot software. Infusion of commercial robotic capabilities is slowed, however, by the lack of a fully matured flight software framework compatible with the widespread terrestrial commercial standards (e.g., Robot Operating https://www.ros.org/ https://space.ros.org/ https://www.nasa.gov/astrobee https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-outlines-lunar-surface-sustainability-concept https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8396541 https://www.nasa.gov/gateway https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210020134 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190006684 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230006150 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230015485/downloads/iMETRO_Azimi_Poster_v5.pdf https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9172512 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rob.21560 https://www.spacetechpriorities.org/ https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7150&s=2D

System (ROS)). Robust robot control software and infrastructure developed to the rigors of spaceflight verification and validation standards is needed.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• Spaceflight versions of ROS, core packages, middleware, and oft-used components (e.g., Space ROS).

• Innovative approaches to continuous integration along with easily reusable and reproducible tools and processes targeted to satisfying spaceflight software standards.

• Integration of improved software quality tools such as static code analyzers into spaceflight software frameworks, enabling easier use of the tools to improve trust for future missions.

• Methods to apply code quality standards automatically to ground-focused software to enable use in spaceflight.

• Standardized interfaces and software bridges between robot software frameworks such as ROS and existing spaceflight software architectures (e.g., core Flight System (cFS), F Prime).

• New build/compiler improvements to enable use of existing software tools in resource-constrained applications.

• Novel run-time monitoring, deployment, and management approaches for non-spaceflight software that enables its use in lieu of certification of the frameworks themselves.

• Adapting, modifying, extending, and/or certifying existing open-source robotic software tools for spaceflight computer architectures (e.g., Reduced Instruction Set Computer-V (ISC-V)).

It is desirable to see relevant robotic task capabilities tested and demonstrated using these new software architectures and robotic autonomy/control frameworks. To accelerate development of needed advances beyond individual contributions, offerors are encouraged to contribute improvements and processes to upstream open-source projects, maintain or support continuous integration tools/processes, and/or provide support to foster communities around spaceflight-focused robotics software.

A clear infusion path to NASA mission use cases must be demonstrated, but an open-source business model that enables reuse and interoperability of software components (e.g., open-core) to benefit many potential hardware and software providers and applications is encouraged. Such a model would maximize utility across flight applications while enabling a revenue stream for the offeror, serving to bolster both flight software development efforts and the growth of commercial space and autonomy small businesses.

Proposals are encouraged, but not required, to trace proposal relevance to high-priority shortfalls from the NASA

STMD National Space Technology Priority shortfall list. In particular, the following shortfalls may be relevant:

• 1542: Metrics and Processes for Establishing Trust and Certifying the Trustworthiness of Autonomous

Systems

• 498: Broad and dependable supply chain for space-qualified robotic hardware, electronics, and associated software

• Some of the shortfalls listed in scope 1 are also likely to be relevant depending on the targeted applications.

Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 2 to 6

• Level 1: TX 04 Robotics Systems

• Level 2: .TX 04.6 Robotics Integration

• Analysis

• Background research and feasibility studies.

• Conceptual design, trade studies, description of proposed solutions, references to contributions made to upstream projects.

• In some instances, an initial proof-of-concept implementation and/or testing (using either hardware or simulation).

• Software source code, user manual/instructions, documentation, contributions to upstream projects.

• Test and/or performance data.

• Demonstration of software prototype on robot hardware.

State of the art consists of terrestrial standards like ROS that are not fully matured for robust spaceflight use, and existing spaceflight software frameworks like cFS that do not address the specific challenges of robotic control and robot task development and performance.

Innovative approaches to code quality verification and validation, new software architecture designs, and novel software interfaces are needed to accelerate infusion of autonomous robotic capabilities into flight applications. The lack of such solutions has led to a dramatic underutilization of terrestrial robotic and autonomy technologies in space. Recent work toward developing SpaceROS and ROS-cFS bridge software has exposed multiple gaps in existing technology that must be addressed to successfully field such software frameworks and realize the desired benefits of interoperability and extensibility called for within NASA’s Moon-to-Mars recurring tenets.

Civil Space Shortfall Ranking https://www.nasa.gov/spacetechpriorities/

• 1548: Sensing for Autonomous Robotic Operations in Challenging Environmental Conditions

• 1538: General-Purpose Robotic Manipulation to Perform Human-Scale Logistics, Maintenance, Outfitting, and Utilization

• 1535: Autonomous Vehicle, System, Habitat, and Infrastructure Health Monitoring and Management

• 680: Robust Robotic Intelligence for High-Tempo Autonomous Operations in Dynamic Mission

Conditions

• 1542: Metrics and Processes for Establishing Trust and Certifying the Trustworthiness of Autonomous

Systems

• 498: Broad and dependable supply chain for space-qualified robotic hardware, electronics, and associated software

This scope represents an enabling capability for rapid software infusion for advanced robotic capabilities across a broad range of potential missions. The needs for interoperability, common interfaces, and extensibility are explicitly https://techport.nasa.gov/file/314645 highlighted in NASA’s Moon-to-Mars objectives, and the pursuit of such software tools and frameworks would serve to broaden industry collaboration and commercial access to lunar surface and deep space applications (again, in support of Agency recurring tenets).

Producing software frameworks and standard interfaces specifically geared toward autonomous and robotic capabilities is highlighted as a need in the current Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and Human Surface Mobility

(HSM) Program (EHP) Autonomous Mobility and Operations Roadmap, and technologies within this scope would enable rapid integration of terrestrial technology in support of lunar surface infrastructure and cislunar in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) needs.

References:

1. Space Robot Operating System: https://space.ros.org/ and https://techport.nasa.gov/view/116403

2. FreeRTOS: https://www.freertos.org/RTOS.html

3. SAFERTOS: https://www.highintegritysystems.com/safertos/

4. ROS-Industrial: https://rosindustrial.org/

5. NASA STMD National Space Technology Priority Shortfall List https://www.spacetechpriorities.org/

6. Examples of potentially relevant software quality assurance standards:

• NPR 7150.2 NASA Software Engineering Requirements https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7150&s=2D

• DO-178C Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification

Scope Title: Integrated Mission Planning and Execution Software for Earth-Independent

Robotic Missions

Scope Description:

Space operations are on the cusp of a revolutionary new operational paradigm that leverages modular systems and recurring robotic visits to “persistent platforms,” enabling platform assembly, maintenance, repair, and enhancement. Persistent platforms require persistent operations, and persistent operations require a paradigm shift in how we approach system design, development, and operations. Persistent platforms include, but are not limited to, telecommunication platforms; Earth-observing science platforms; deep space telescopes; and planetary surface systems that support missions such as human outposts, science stations, and in situ resource utilization systems.

These persistent platforms will be autonomously and robotically constructed, maintained, enhanced, and reconfigured in situ as needed to prepare for and support human occupation, maintain critical infrastructure, upgrade with new technology, adapt to changing mission needs, etc.

Beyond the platforms themselves, integrated human-machine and autonomous machine-machine systems for mission planning and execution will be critical to NASA's success in building a lunar economy and a persistent presence on Mars. To achieve this, we must develop innovative function-allocation strategies and solutions that move us away from the traditional human-centric approaches to mission management (with machines as decision-support tools) and toward approaches that empower machines to make decisions. This could be instantiated as teams with humans and machines as equal partners, as well as machine-only teams capable of collaborating and making decisions with and without human input. Codesign of the robotics, autonomy, and human-machine function allocation will be critical to achieving intuitive and efficient processes. For example, retrofitting a function-allocation approach onto an autonomous robot built without the system in mind will likely produce a suboptimal product. History has proven that bolting the human operator or teammate onto a system built without roles and responsibilities in mind often fails in the field because invalid assumptions have been made about human interaction, crew preferences, exposed/hidden information, and real-world operations.

To achieve the required performance at a system level, subsystems must be codesigned with a mission(s) in mind and evolve cooperatively during the development process to achieve an optimized system. Robotics systems that retroactively add autonomy will not be optimal systems. Autonomous systems built without a robot and/or mission https://space.ros.org/ https://techport.nasa.gov/view/116403 https://www.freertos.org/RTOS.html https://www.highintegritysystems.com/safertos/ https://rosindustrial.org/ https://www.spacetechpriorities.org/ in mind will not achieve peak performance. This optimization includes the human as manager, operator, inhabitant, etc., functioning as part of a human-machine team with consideration given to function allocation across multiple-asset systems that may change over the lifetime of a mission or across mission phases. For example, the function allocation required for dormant operations of a habitat versus crew occupancy will utilize the same systems but likely not the same roles and responsibilities across team members. Further, teaming is a paradigm shift away from traditional decision-support tools (DSTs) that assist human decision making to machine systems that are capable of and empowered to make decisions (within constraints) in the absence of human intervention or with human supervision.

This subtopic seeks integrated robot/autonomy/human solutions for mission planning, mission execution, and function allocation for systems ranging from full autonomy with oversight to supervised autonomy to human-in-the-loop teaming. Human-machine teaming elevates the machine from a DST for humans to use while making decisions to a member of the team who is empowered to make decisions, capable of communicating rationale and situation awareness (SA) with other team members (whether human or machine) and participating in collaborative decision making and operations.

Proposal elements of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Autonomous systems for dexterous robots.

• Mission-planning tools and displays that advance the state of the art with integrated fault tolerance and mitigation strategies.

• Modeling and simulation environments for gaming out mission scenarios and function allocation:

o ModSim for design, development, test, evaluation.

o Digital Twin.

• Human-machine teaming and/or modalities of human-machine interfaces (HMIs).

• Scalable ground operations for persistent missions in space exploration and science.

This is within the context of a design reference mission (DRM), such as but not limited to:

• Large, complex campaigns underway, including Artemis and Mars Sample Return. These campaigns consist of multiple spacecraft and/or robotic platforms with complex interoperations and span almost two decades. An example for Artemis is remote construction and/or operation of a large space telescope, lunar infrastructure, and lunar habitats/safe havens, where "construction" is a broad term that includes assembly, repair, maintenance, cable routing, cable mating/demating, etc.

• Large observatories such as the Large UV/Optical/IR Surveyor (LUVOIR), Origins Space Telescope

(OST), Habitable Exoplanet Observatory (HabEx), Lynx, and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.

Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 2 to 5

• Level 1: TX 10 Autonomous Systems

• Level 2: TX 10.X Other Autonomous Systems

• Analysis

A minimally successful Phase I proposal should deliver a feasibility study of the proposed subsystem, including modularity assessment and expected interoperability with external systems, where the subsystem could be:

• Defined concept of operations (ConOps).

• Mission planning tools.

• Mission/asset prognostic capabilities.

• Autonomous robotic systems capable of operating under multiple human-machine function allocation assignments.

• Innovative approaches to human-machine teaming and/or modalities.

It also must include evidence of codesign/development with related subsystems around a specific concept of operations. Phase I deliverables that include a demonstration are preferred.

A Phase II deliverable should include a working prototype (hardware and software) and associated system-level feasibility study focused on a specific design reference mission. End-to-end demonstrations and performance data via software- and/or hardware-in-the-loop simulation environments are acceptable but demonstration of software prototype on robot hardware are preferred.

Software source code, user manual/instructions, documentation, contributions to upstream projects.

The state of the art (SOA) for mission planning and operations is human-centric with machine DSTs for scheduling and monitoring. The current paradigm enables the addition of the DSTs into the traditional planning and operation model but was not designed and has not evolved with delegation of responsibility and decision-making authority away from the human.

There is no SOA or standard operating procedure for human-machine teaming (HMT) and mission planning. There are currently abstract concepts that are a challenge to instantiate as a system.

Civil Space Shortfall Ranking https://www.spacetechpriorities.org

• 1532: Autonomous Planning, Scheduling, and Decision Support to Enable Sustained Earth-

Independent Operations

This scope represents an enabling approach to technology development for persistent reliable operations for in-space and on-surface autonomous systems. Examples include robotic in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing

(ISAM); on-orbit Gateway (science utilization, logistics management, payload handling, maintenance, etc.); and robotic manipulation in support of lunar surface infrastructure assembly and robotic in-space assembly and outfitting.

Autonomous manipulation, inspection, and utilization, supported by the perception technologies in scope, directly support NASA’s Moon-to-Mars objectives to “(LI-4) Demonstrate technologies supporting cislunar orbital/surface depots […] and support systems needed for continuous human/robotic presence,” and “(OP-9) Demonstrate the capability of integrated robotic systems to support and augment the work of crewmembers on the lunar surface, and in orbit around the Moon.”.

References:

1. Computer Human Interface Challenges in Space Exploration:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230009205 https://www.spacetechpriorities.org/ https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230009205

2. The Past, Present, and Future of Display Technology in Space: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2010-

3. Doggett et al., "Persistent Assets in Zero-G and on Planetary Surfaces: Enabled by Modular Technology and Robotic Operations," AIAA SPACE Forum, 2018. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-5305

4. "Digital Twins and Living Models at NASA," ASME Digital Twin Summit, Keynote Address, 2021.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210023699/downloads/ASME%20Digital%20Twin%20Summit%2

0Keynote_final.pdf

5. "Serious Gaming for Building a Basis of Certification for Trust and Trustworthiness of Autonomous

Systems," AIAA Aviation Forum, 2018. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3844

6. Kelley et al., "A Persistent Simulation Environment for Autonomous Systems," AIAA Aviation Forum, 2018. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-4015

7. "OSAM: Autonomy and Dexterous Robots," NASEM DMMI Workshop, 2021.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210016860/downloads/NASEM%20Workshop%20June2021%20A llen0608.pdf

8. LUVOIR: Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor: https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/luvoir/

9. Origins Space Telescope: https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/firs/

10. Habitable Exoplanet Observatory (HabEx): https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/habex/

11. Lynx Mission Concept: https://wwwastro.msfc.nasa.gov/lynx/

12. LISA: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna: https://lisa.gsfc.nasa.gov/

13. Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope: https://science.nasa.gov/mission/roman-space-telescope/

14. Mars Exploration Program Missions: https://mars.nasa.gov/programmissions/

15. Jet Propulsion Laboratory Missions: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/

16. NASA Science: https://science.nasa.gov

17. Artemis: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

18. Mars Sample Return Mission: https://mars.nasa.gov/msr/

19. Space Robot Operating System: https://space.ros.org/ and https://techport.nasa.gov/view/116403

20. FreeRTOS: https://www.freertos.org/RTOS.html

21. SAFERTOS: https://www.highintegritysystems.com/safertos/

22. ROS-Industrial: https://rosindustrial.org/

23. NASA STMD National Space Technology Priority Shortfall List https://www.spacetechpriorities.org/

24. Examples of potentially relevant software quality assurance standards:

a. NPR 7150.2 NASA Software Engineering Requirements https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7150&s=2D

b. DO-178C Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2010-8915 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2010-8915 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-5305 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210023699/downloads/ASME%20Digital%20Twin%20Summit%20Keynote_final.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210023699/downloads/ASME%20Digital%20Twin%20Summit%20Keynote_final.pdf https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3844 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-4015 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210016860/downloads/NASEM%20Workshop%20June2021%20Allen0608.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210016860/downloads/NASEM%20Workshop%20June2021%20Allen0608.pdf https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/luvoir/ https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/firs/ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/habex/ https://wwwastro.msfc.nasa.gov/lynx/ https://lisa.gsfc.nasa.gov/ https://science.nasa.gov/mission/roman-space-telescope/ https://mars.nasa.gov/programmissions/ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/ https://science.nasa.gov/ https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ https://mars.nasa.gov/msr/ https://space.ros.org/ https://techport.nasa.gov/view/116403 https://www.freertos.org/RTOS.html https://www.highintegritysystems.com/safertos/ https://rosindustrial.org/ https://www.spacetechpriorities.org/