ALBERT

Description: An autonomous spacecraft must balance long-term and short-term considerations. It must perform purposeful activities that ensure long-term science and engineering goals are achieved and ensure that it maintains positive resource margins. This requires planning in advance to avoid a series of shortsighted decisions that can lead to failure, However, it must also respond in a timely fashion to a somewhat dynamic and unpredictable environment. Thus, spacecraft plans must often be modified due to fortuitous events such as early completion of observations and setbacks such as failure to acquire a guidestar for a science observation. This paper describes the use of iterative repair to support continuous modification and updating of a current working plan in light of changing operating context.

Description: Automated planning and Scheduling, including automated path planning, has been integrated with an Internet-based distributed operations system for planetary rover operations. The resulting prototype system enables faster generation of valid rover command sequences by a distributed planetary rover operations team. The Web Interface for Telescience (WITS) provides Internet-based distributed collaboration, the Automated Scheduling and Planning Environment (ASPEN) provides automated planning and scheduling, and an automated path planner provided path planning. The system was demonstrated on the Rocky 7 research rover at JPL.

Description: This paper describes the application of an automated planning and scheduling system to the NASA Earth Orbitin 1 (EO-1) missions. The planning system, ASPEN, is used to autonomously schedule the daily activites of the satellite.

Description: In this paper, we describe ASPEN (Automated Planning/Scheduling Environment), a modular, reconfigurable application framework which is capable of supporting a wide variety of planning and scheduling applications.

Description: This paper discusses a proof-of-concept prototype for ground-based automatic generation of validated rover command sequences from highlevel science and engineering activities. This prototype is based on ASPEN, the Automated Scheduling and Planning Environment. This Artificial Intelligence (AI) based planning and scheduling system will automatically generate a command sequence that will execute within resource constraints and satisfy flight rules.

Description: The MAPGEN [2] (Mixed-initiative Activity Plan GENerator) planning system is a great example of a hybrid procedural/declarative system where the advantages of each are leveraged to produce an effective planner/scheduler for Mars Exploration Rover tactical planning. We explore the adaptation of the same domain to an entirely declarative planning system (ASPEN [4] Activity Scheduling and Planning ENvironment), and demonstrate that, with some translation, much of the procedural knowledge encoding is amenable to a declarative knowledge encoding.

Description: A set of automated planning algorithms is the current operations baseline approach for the Intelligent Payload Module (IPM) of the proposed Hyper spectral Infrared Imager (HyspIRI) mission. For this operations concept, there are only local (e.g. non-depletable) operations constraints, such as real-time downlink and onboard memory, and the forward sweeping algorithm is optimal for determining which science products should be generated onboard and on ground based on geographical overflights, science priorities, alerts, requests, and onboard and ground processing constraints. This automated planning approach was developed for the HyspIRI IPM concept. The HyspIRI IPM is proposed to use an X-band Direct Broadcast (DB) capability that would enable data to be delivered to ground stations virtually as it is acquired. However, the HyspIRI VSWIR and TIR instruments will produce approximately 1 Gbps data, while the DB capability is 15 Mbps for a approx. =60X oversubscription. In order to address this mismatch, this innovation determines which data to downlink based on both the type of surface the spacecraft is overflying, and the onboard processing of data to detect events. For example, when the spacecraft is overflying Polar Regions, it might downlink a snow/ice product. Additionally, the onboard software will search for thermal signatures indicative of a volcanic event or wild fire and downlink summary information (extent, spectra) when detected, thereby reducing data volume. The planning system described above automatically generated the IPM mission plan based on requested products, the overflight regions, and available resources.

Description: This software translates MAPGEN (Europa and APGEN) domains to ASPEN, and the resulting domain can be used to perform planning for the Mars Exploration Rover (MER). In other words, this is a conversion of two distinct planning languages (both declarative and procedural) to a third (declarative) planning language in order to solve the problem of faithful translation from mixed-domain representations into the ASPEN Modeling Language. The MAPGEN planning system is an example of a hybrid procedural/declarative system where the advantages of each are leveraged to produce an effective planner/scheduler for MER tactical planning. The adaptation of the planning system (ASPEN) was investigated, and, with some translation, much of the procedural knowledge encoding is amenable to declarative knowledge encoding. The approach was to compose translators from the core languages used for adapting MAGPEN, which consists of Europa and APGEN. Europa is a constraint- based planner/scheduler where domains are encoded using a declarative model. APGEN is also constraint-based, in that it tracks constraints on resources and states and other variables. Domains are encoded in both constraints and code snippets that execute according to a forward sweep through the plan. Europa and APGEN communicate to each other using proxy activities in APGEN that represent constraints and/or tokens in Europa. The composition of a translator from Europa to ASPEN was fairly straightforward, as ASPEN is also a declarative planning system, and the specific uses of Europa for the MER domain matched ASPEN s native encoding fairly closely. On the other hand, translating from APGEN to ASPEN was considerably more involved. On the surface, the types of activities and resources one encodes in APGEN appear to match oneto- one to the activities, state variables, and resources in ASPEN. But, when looking into the definitions of how resources are profiled and activities are expanded, one sees code snippets that access various information available during planning for the moment in time being planned to decide at the time what the appropriate profile or expansion is. APGEN is actually a forward (in time) sweeping discrete event simulator, where the model is composed of code snippets that are artfully interleaved by the engine to produce a plan/schedule. To solve this problem, representative code is simulated as a declarative series of task expansions. Predominantly, three types of procedural models were translated: loops, if statements, and code blocks. Loops and if statements were handled using controlled task expansion, and code blocks were handled using constraint networks that maintained the generation of results based on what the order of execution would be for a procedural representation. One advantage with respect to performance for MAPGEN is the use of APGEN s GUI. This GUI is written in C++ and Motif, and performs very well for large plans.

Description: The Automated Scheduling and Planning Environment (ASPEN) software system, aspects of which have been reported in several previous NASA Tech Briefs articles, includes a subsystem that utilizes a portfolio of heuristic algorithms that work synergistically to solve problems. The nature of the synergy of the specific algorithms is that their likelihoods of success are negatively correlated: that is, when a combination of them is used to solve a problem, the probability that at least one of them will succeed is greater than the sum of probabilities of success of the individual algorithms operating independently of each other. In ASPEN, the portfolio of algorithms is used in a planning process of the iterative repair type, in which conflicts are detected and addressed one at a time until either no conflicts exist or a user-defined time limit has been exceeded. At each choice point (e.g., selection of conflict; selection of method of resolution of conflict; or choice of move, addition, or deletion) ASPEN makes a stochastic choice of a combination of algorithms from the portfolio. This approach makes it possible for the search to escape from looping and from solutions that are locally but not globally optimum.