NOTE: End date changed to 06/30/2025 per A. Beitman/NASA JSC (Ed., 2/14/25).

NOTE: End date changed to 02/28/2025 per L. Dang/NASA JSC (Ed., 8/5/24).

NOTE: Period of performance changed from initial award. Original start date: 11/17/2023. Original end date: 11/16/2024. New start and end dates changed per NSSC information (Ed., 2/4/2024).

AIMS of the proposed work are to identify areas of contention in scheduling or where communication concerning scheduling may not be effective, and provide recommendations for how scheduling, as well as other aspects of autonomy could be negotiated and managed in a communication or decision support tool.

A review of autonomy issues in space operations, supplemented by selective data on crew autonomy and scheduling from the NASA Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) and the NASA Scientific International Research In a Unique terrestrial Station (SIRIUS), will deliver: identification of problematic aspects of operational autonomy in space, with particular focus on Artemis; recommendations for how scheduling of tasks and activities can be negotiated, and best practices for managing shifting responsibilities; and definition of required features and parameters for a schedule negotiator technology function with feedback from selected subject matter experts.

SIGNIFICANCE of the proposed effort relates to its potential to facilitate collaboration and shared mental models among multi-team system members during Artemis and other long-term space operations. Successful scheduling negotiation is critical to mission success, and solutions will provide insight for other potentially disruptive autonomy elements.

During the past year, we focused on interviews with NASA autonomy experts/stakeholders, which were transcribed and coded for relevant themes. Our sample of autonomy experts/stakeholders was comprised of people who have experienced or have an interest and a stake in crew autonomy - these are experts who are qualified to expand on a vision of how things could work under crew autonomy. Their perspectives are rooted in different roles and experiences of autonomy, and many interviewees had performed several overlapping roles in research, analog participation, and flight operations.

Our questions included interviewee perspectives on: 1. Crew Autonomy – its meaning, components, and motivating factors a. Definitions and operationalizations of crew autonomy b. Motivational factors for crew autonomy

2. Crew/MCC Relationship – issues and changes in roles during crew autonomy a. Impact of crew autonomy on the MTS b. MTS cohesion and efficiency c. Redefining MTS roles and responsibilities

3. Crew Self-scheduling – a. Preferences and implications b. Implementations c. Preferences and implications d. Benefits and concerns

4. Lessons learned from self-scheduling data

5. Requirements for successful implementation of operational autonomy

Integration and synthesis of these interview data are still in process, but some preliminary findings are reported here. Surprisingly, we did not find consistent patterns according to stakeholder group – perhaps in part because their multiple roles afforded the interviewees multiple perspectives. Rather, we saw wide variance in interviewee perspectives with respect to how crew autonomy would be implemented and what it would look like. Predictions ranged from business as usual or minor tweaks to the current system, with much of ground ops looking pretty much the same - to a significantly different concept of operations that requires the crew to possess the expertise, skills, and information necessary to perform a mission independently.

Several interviewees voiced the opinion that preserving the integrity of the space/ground multi-team system (MTS) is going to be more difficult under crew autonomy. The impact of crew autonomy will depend to a great extent on relationships among members of the MTS. Our interviewees suggest that in a crew autonomy concept of operations, ground’s role would be more supportive than directive, but ground would continue to be responsible for the ‘big picture’ and the long view, and would be the overall guardian of mission objectives, goals and priorities, and essential tasks.

The issue of who should schedule tasks and activities during autonomy elicited varied responses from our interviewees. Some interviewees suggested that the crew should self-schedule tasks and activities; others believed that scheduling should be a shared responsibility between crews and ground. Other responses built on the theme of ground providing overall guidance and doing some scheduling, but crews having flexibility over their schedules.

One concern that emerged was the tension or tradeoff between control over schedule vs. demands/workload. Some reactions to the notion of crew self-scheduling were based on the concern that asking the crew to manage all or a large part of their own scheduling would add significantly to their workload – with the rationale that the crew shouldn’t be asked to do anything that ground could do for them.

For our final report, all data from literature, interviews, and self-scheduling analyses will be integrated and synthesized according to the project goals, objectives, and data themes. Lessons learned from self-scheduling data will be discussed and extended to crew autonomy overall and its impact on the MTS. We will discuss constraints and requirements for crew autonomy, and recommendations for needed research, training, enabling technologies, and successful implementation and negotiation of crew autonomy during space operations.

NOTE: End date changed to 06/30/2025 per A. Beitman/NASA JSC (Ed., 2/14/25).

NOTE: End date changed to 02/28/2025 per L. Dang/NASA JSC (Ed., 8/5/24).

NOTE: Period of performance changed from initial award. Original start date: 11/17/2023. Original end date: 11/16/2024. New start and end dates changed per NSSC information (Ed., 2/4/2024).

AIMS of the proposed work are to identify areas of contention in scheduling or where communication concerning scheduling may not be effective, and provide recommendations for how scheduling, as well as other aspects of autonomy could be negotiated and managed in a communication or decision support tool.

A review of autonomy issues in space operations, supplemented by selective data on crew autonomy and scheduling from the NASA Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) and the NASA Scientific International Research In a Unique terrestrial Station (SIRIUS), will deliver: identification of problematic aspects of operational autonomy in space, with particular focus on Artemis; recommendations for how scheduling of tasks and activities can be negotiated, and best practices for managing shifting responsibilities; and definition of required features and parameters for a schedule negotiator technology function with feedback from selected subject matter experts.

SIGNIFICANCE of the proposed effort relates to its potential to facilitate collaboration and shared mental models among multi-team system members during Artemis and other long-term space operations. Successful scheduling negotiation is critical to mission success, and solutions will provide insight for other potentially disruptive autonomy elements.

A potential area of contention between autonomous space crews and ground support is the scheduling of tasks and activities. Crew self-scheduling will be an integral component of crew autonomy and can serve as a proxy for other autonomy concerns—it embodies characteristics that may undermine the accuracy of space-ground shared mental models, cause friction between space crews and ground, and negatively impact space-ground collaboration. AIMS of this effort, using crew self-scheduling as a proxy for issues and concerns associated with crew autonomy, are to: 1) identify areas of contention in scheduling or where communication concerning scheduling may not be effective; 2) provide recommendations for how scheduling in autonomous operations could be negotiated in the context of Artemis and other long-duration missions; and 3) propose human-centered design guidance for how this negotiation could be managed in a communication/decision support tool.

METHODS for this effort involve a multi-pronged approach including a review of autonomy issues in space operations, research on crew self-scheduling and literature relevant to the design of decision support for self-scheduling, interviews with autonomy researchers and NASA analog and operations personnel, and analyses of selective data on crew autonomy and scheduling from NASA analog missions.

During the past year, we identified relevant literature and created a database of categorized summaries of articles on autonomy, self-scheduling, multi-team systems, methodologies, and co-active/human-centered/ and ecological interface designs. These are helping us to define nuances and "trade spaces" of crew autonomy. We re-analyzed post-mission interviews with NASA analog crewmembers and ground support focusing on their understanding of crew autonomy and its implications for crew/ground collaboration. This provided insights into the meaning of autonomy and its motivating factors, crewmembers’ scheduling preferences, and the crew/Mission Control relationship under autonomy.

We also conducted preliminary analyses of data in analog studies where participants were able to self-schedule some activities and characterized the particular types of activities participants chose for spontaneous self-scheduling. These activities included most often Operational activities such as habitat maintenance, followed by Outreach, Science, Exercise, Surveys, and Personal Time activities such as meals or pre-sleep.

We are currently conducting interviews with autonomy "experts," such as researchers, analog participants, flight crew, and ground support to contribute their insights on crew autonomy issues. Our questions focus on what autonomy means to the different stakeholders in space operations, what operational changes it would require, the challenges associated with crew self-scheduling, and how tasks and activities such as self-scheduling would be managed and negotiated during the course of an autonomous mission.

SIGNIFICANCE of this effort relates to its potential to facilitate collaboration and shared mental models among space-ground team members during Artemis and other long-term autonomous space crew operations. Successful negotiation of task and activity scheduling is critical to mission success and solutions will provide insight for other potentially disruptive autonomy elements.

NOTE: Period of performance changed from initial award. Original start date: 11/17/2023. Original end date: 11/16/2024. New start and end dates changed per NSSC information (Ed., 2/4/2024).

AIMS of the proposed work are to identify areas of contention in scheduling or where communication concerning scheduling may not be effective, and provide recommendations for how scheduling, as well as other aspects of autonomy could be negotiated and managed in a communication or decision support tool.

A review of autonomy issues in space operations, supplemented by selective data on crew autonomy and scheduling from the NASA Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) and the NASA Scientific International Research In a Unique terrestrial Station (SIRIUS), will deliver: identification of problematic aspects of operational autonomy in space, with particular focus on Artemis; recommendations for how scheduling of tasks and activities can be negotiated, and best practices for managing shifting responsibilities; and definition of required features and parameters for a schedule negotiator technology function with feedback from selected subject matter experts.

SIGNIFICANCE of the proposed effort relates to its potential to facilitate collaboration and shared mental models among multi-team system members during Artemis and other long-term space operations. Successful scheduling negotiation is critical to mission success, and solutions will provide insight for other potentially disruptive autonomy elements.