Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Autonomous Aerial Vehicles
Autonomous Aerial Vehicles
R=20040010820 2020-07-26T17:16:21+00:00Z
ACTIONS,
OBSERVATIONS,
A~YDDECISION-MAKING:
BIOLOGICALLY
IYSPIRED
STRATEGIES
FOR AUTONOMOUSAERIALVEHICLES
Greg Pisanich ~ a r r A.
y Young'
Corey Ippolito Benton Lau
Laura Plice
euC2emaii.arc.nasa.gov l a m .a.vouneGnasa.gov
QSS Group Inc. ArmyMASA Rotorcraft Division
Compurational Sciences Division
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
L
>
I
Three Semi- Autonomous
Processes on MC; with independent
Watchdog fiinctions
“Consumer”
Information. knowledge &operational data to updated
Mission profile & complex behaviors
FCC Instructions
Natural marriage between bio-inspired search energy and information is assumed needed to
and fmd strategies and statistical random samuline successfully model and sustain vehicle operation and
theorv. Rather than employing an exhaustive search of execution of the planned mission(s). The gathering of
an area, a random sampling (by means of an intelligent Liformation may be regarded as the motivating purpose
random walk flight behavior, for example) of a for sending autonomous vehicles to Mars. The role of
statistically significant portion would yield data that information producer can be filled by instruments and
could be predictive of the actual result. probes that collect information directly !?om the
planetary surface or atmosphere. Information
Robotic Ecolonv consumers take data from producers for processing and
may release information in a different form to other
We are working toward a general architecture for the information consumers.
development of autonomous air vehicles. Although this
will initially involve the use of conventional iMultiple information processing roles may be
programming and representation techniques, we are implemented onboard the same hardware platform. The
striving to move toward a behavioral architecture and steps in the information “food chain” show a similarity
programming model. In our current model, we use a to the layers of abstraction familiar in the design of
producer, consumer and decomposer model borrowed robotic software. Researchers on Earth may be the
fi-om n a t ~ r e ~where
-~ ihe producer provides input ultimate information decomposers about the Maitiaii
(observations) into the system, the consumer evaluates surface.
the data and makes decisions about the input and the
current stite of the machine, md the decoxposer Table 1 is an illustrative ex.mp!e of 2 M x s mhotic
translates those decisions into selections of actions that “ecology” employing aerial explorers. The large
are applied to the world. Figure 4 shows a conceptual number of robotic systems in the ecology is unlikely for
schematic of a holarchical. or “ecology,” architecture as Mars missions in the near future. However, the large
applied to a single aerial vehicle and its sub-systems. A number and variety of robotic systems is entirely
holon is an individual member of the holarchy. possible/feasible for field science testing at Mars analog
sites. Such an ecology has already been mimickedg-’’.
The description of a biological community is based
primarily on the flow of energy. For a bio-inspired
community of autonomous vehicles an analogy of
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Table 1. Examples of a Holarchical Taxonomy for if systemsisub-systems acted in isolation from each
Autonomous Aerial Vehicles. other. An illustrative example of an interactive ecology
of aerial explorers and other systems/subsystems
(building off of Table 1) is
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
DEVELOPMEXT ACTIVITLES
Field Experiments
Hardware and Software Development Fig 10. - PC-104 “Mission Computer”: (a) outside of
Small UAV and (b) partially installed.
Processor Integration Our initial development
effort was focused on integrating an additional The flight software on the PCI104 performs the high-
processor to the aircraft to support advanced reasoning level mission planning and video processing for each
and behaviors. This “mission computer” angments the experimznt. The current implementation of the
OEM avionics “flight computer” onboard the UAV software is built on components that were tested in
I used for flight operations. simulation, 2nd consists of three main concurrently
operating components. A data monitoring component
The flight system is built on an MLB “BAT” UAV monitors the serial port connections to the flight
outfitted with a PC/104 based CPU stack that interfaces computer and the radio modem, relaying information
through serial communication lines with the MLB flight back and forth between these two hardware components
computer and the onboard radio modem (Fig. 10). The while maintaining the system state for other software
PC/IO4 receives state information by monitoring components in the system by monitoring the telemetry
telemetry information sent from the flight computer to data periodically by the flight computer. A second
the ground station, and uploads new flight plans to the component processes video from the onboard camera
flight computer. The PCI104 also receives video input system and triggers events that are received by the other
from the onboard camera system that is used for image software components. The third component performs
processing experiments. The PC/I 04 stack is powered the high level mission planning, receiving state
from the UAV power supply and consists of a Digital information decoded from the data monitoring module
Logical SmartCore 700MHz Pentium 3 CPU board, a and events from the video processing module,
DCDC power supply board and a video capture board. processing this information, and then uploading new
flight plans to the onboard flight computer accordingly.
"Reflection" Architecture and Simulator In This architecture also provides a rapid development
parallel with this effort, we have teamed with another capability that also supports rigorous testing of
UAV project at Ames to co-develop an architecture and components and systems throughout development. The
hardware-in-the-loop simulation capability. This scripting functionality allows for multiple system
system allows us to quickly develop and test flight configurations to be easily created during development,
algorithms and software both in simulation and on the allowing development of automated regression tests,
actual flight hardware. It also provides post flight simulated scenario tests, stand-alone component tests,
capability to visualize and evaluate the flight etc.
performance of algorithms. Figure 11 shows a display
interface from the simulator. Ultimately, we intend to Traditional methods of testing are usually invasive to
implement the robotic ecology and emotional holon software and can increase code size and complexity,
concepts noted earlier using this architecture. which are two factors that always degrade software
quality. With the Reflection architecture, hundreds of
testing conf;,gur.tions, scripts, scenari~, etc., c;?~?he
created without a single modification to source code,
reducing the amount of resources required to
thoroughly test components. Further, components can
be swapped into and out of the architecture as needed,
allowing for the system to support simulation testing of
varying configurations at various levels of fidelity. For
instance, control modules can be tested with simulated
vehicle information in a UAV application by replacing
sensor interface modules with other reusable modules
implementing a simulated vehicle by changing a few
lines in a script file.
controllers. The activated codelets that are represented Flight Behavior: Hawk Flieht Our first
by the arena analogy in Pandemonium presenr the experiment demonstrated the PC/104 commanding a
system with the active control blocks for the system. circling pattern that drifted randomly over time to
Through combination of emotional modeling theories search an area. As the aircraft drifted the flight system
and control theoretic formulation, we hope to show that computers processed the video input looking for a red
emotional modeling can be an effective tool for target tarp on the ground. Figure 12 plots the ground
designing and implementing adaptive control systems path of the aircraft against the ground plot of a
for aerial explorers. simulated aircraft with the same random algorithm.
The UAV was commanded to fly at an altitude of 400 ft
Terrestrial flight demonstration of behavioral flight AGL with an airspeed of 30 miles per hour.
concepts.
Ciicle Expenrneni RigM Test Veers5 S i r n l l i t i o n
We are in the process of completing a series of UAV Gmund Posnion Cornpanson O w nrne
imn ,
flights at MofferLFieid, with rhe goal of deillonsiidting
and evaluating the utility of several biologically-based
flight behaviors that could be used by an aeria:
explorer. The mission modes and biologically-based
behaviors chosen for these flights include:
FUTUREWORK
Equally important is to continue to expand our work Key to the development of such aerial explorers are
with the science community in order to identify new simple robust architectures for vehicle autonomy.
ways in which aerial explorers can be used to enhance Small autonomous aerial vehicles, particularly in the
their work. There is promising follow-on research in context of search and find missions, present unique
that these bio-inspired mission scenario and autonomy challenges as compared to other robotic
coccepts could be applied to rabctic fie!d assistants for platfo~siapplications. The authors presented .m
geologists and biologists performifig terrestrial field outline of a “bio-inspired” architecture for alltonornous
science in extreme environments”. aerial explorers, as well as summarized the
development stztus of their effart. This architecture is
Imaging survey work is only one potential capability heavily dependent upon defining flight “behaviors” -
these aerial robotic field assistants could provide to the actions and observations -- and effecting decision-
field researcher. h4ore than one type of aerial vehicle making via concepts regarding robotic “ecology” (to
configuration might be appropriate for conducting a model information flowiusage through discrete
field campaign. A whole new aerial vehicle design producer, consumer, and decomposer agentsiprocesses)
space might well open up for such robotic field and “emotional holons” (to drive these processes)
assistants. Further, a “system of systems” of robotic
devices (ground and air) and automated tools will likely Finally, representative simulation and flight
demonstration results were presented. Flight
14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
demonstrations entailing three behaviors were Planning and Execution of Missions Using General
conducted at Moffett Field airstrip at Ames Research Classes of Aerial Explorers”, 2003 IEEE
Center. Additionally, an exploratory field Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 8-15,
demonstration was conducted at a remote Mars-analog 2003.
site: Haughton Crater, Devon Island, Canada.
6. Plice, L., “Robot Economy,” Robosphere 2002:
Workshop on Self-sustaining Robotic Ecologies,
ACKYOWLEDGMENTS NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA,
November 14-15,2002.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the programmatic
support and overall contributions of Dr. Steven 7. Thakoor, S., “Bio-Inspired Engineering of
Zornetzer, Acting Deputy Director for at NASA Ames, Exploration Systems”, Journal of Space Mission
Dr. Butler Hine, Manager of the NASA Intelligent Architecture, Issue 2, Fall 2000, p 49-79.
Systems Program, and Mr. Edwin Aiken, Chief of the
ArmyiP*iASA Rotorcraft Division. The authors also 8. Ippolito, C., Plice, L., and Pisanich, G.,
acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Pascal Lee of the “Holarchical Systems and Emotional Holons:
SETI Institute for making possible the success of the Biologically-Inspired System Designs for Control
autonomous aerial vehicle field demonstrations at of Autonomous Aerial Vehicles,” 7‘h World
Haughtoii Crater, Devoi; Islaid, NT, Canada. Fina!ly, P,.~ca,,..,.p
b”lllrlb.IJbC Systematics an:! Cybernetics,
n..
vI1
the authors also acknowledge the technical Orlando, FL, July 2003.
contributions of Dr. Steve Morris and other members of
the staff of MLB, Inc., for the system integration and 9. Pisanich, G., Young, L.A., Ippolito, C., Lau, B.,
operation of the autonomous aerial vehicle. Plice, L., Sargent, R., and Lee, P., “Initial Efforts
towards Mission-Representative Imaging Surveys
from Aerial Explorers,” International Society of
REFERENCES Optical Engineering (SPIE) Electronic Imaging
Conference, San Jose, CA, January 2004.
1. Aiken, E.W., Ormiston, R.A., and Young, L.A.,
“Future Directions in Rotorcraft Technology at 10. Young, L.A., Aiken, E.W., and Briggs, G.A.,
Ames Research Center,” 56” Annual Forum of the “Smart Rotorcraft Field Assistants for Terrestrial
American Helicopter Society, International, and Planetary Science,” 2004 IEEE Aerospace
Virginia Beach, VA, May 2000. Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 2004.
2. Young, L.A., Chen, R.T.N., Aiken, E.W., and 11. Lee, P., ‘-Mars on Earth: The NASA Haughton-
Briggs. G.A., “Design Opportunities and Mars Project,” Ad Astra: The ilfagazine of the
Challenges in the Development of Vertical Lift NutionaZ Space Society, Volume 14, Number 3,
Planetary Aerial Vehicles,” American Helicopter MayIJune 2002.
Society ( A H S ) Vertical Lift Aircraft Design
Conference, San Francisco, CA, January 2000.