Monday, December 12, 2016

2030 Joint Integrated Command Control Architecture for Manned and Unmanned Systems

Assignment 9.3 - Research Blog 6: Future Unmanned Systems Impact
Miguel H Quine
UNSY 501 Applications of Unmanned Systems
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University



2030 Joint Integrated Command Control Architecture for Manned and Unmanned Systems 
“We need for unmanned aircraft to act like manned aircraft. We need unmanned aircraft to be tasked like manned aircraft. We should be capable of flying both manned and unmanned platforms together, to include multiple unmanned airframes controlled by one operator,” the general continued. “And we need commanders to have the confidence that unmanned or manned, it doesn't make a difference, as they are equally effective,” (Gen. William T. Hobbins- USAF, 2006).

 
             US forces has developed a new concept of an integrated Command and Control (C2) Architecture that will enable, in coordinated way, the operations of manned and unmanned systems by the year 2030. Thus, both types of systems, manned and unmanned will operate together in the unique architecture with collaborative knowledge in network and common interfaces that will enable interoperability between them. The current interfaces of control and monitoring of unmanned systems have similarities and differences in the design according the operational domain and levels of autonomy; but they have a lot of technological gaps that do not permit integration, compatibility, interoperability, and others.
            The new architecture of systems will involve all points or nodes of interconnection and control interfaces for operations in the battle space; for instance, manned vehicles, unmanned vehicles, personnel, broadcasting and rebroadcasting stations, satellites, and computer networks. Advances in collaborative networks will be enabled with High level of Computing Power, data link of communications with compatible standards, and an “Advanced Cross Medium Rebroadcast capability”. The architecture will be based in open systems and will let to other systems from government agencies to interface with full integration with US Forces Systems.
            C2 Control Systems are models of closed-loop control systems or feedback control systems and open-loop control system. The closed- loop control systems are automated controls systems with automatic feedback; also, this type of control is known as plant model and is based on the loop OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) defined by Boyd. At the same time, the stage of decision and action selection have defined 10 levels of automation of unmanned systems; the high level of fully autonomy that make all decisions acting in autonomous way and ignore the human interaction, the system informs to the human operator if “decides” to, the system informs to the human operator only if “asked” to, the system executes decisions  and then “inform”, the system permits to human operator a short time to change the decision/action before it is executed in automatic way, the system execute suggestion with human operator approval, the system suggest an alternative, the system selects decisions/actions, the system offers a set of decisions or actions, and the low level or manual operation with complete operation by human operator to take decisions and make actions. (Parasuraman, 2000)
National Institute of Standards and Technology developed a simplified model (Autonomy levels for unmanned systems-ALFUS) of three autonomy levels according the human robot interactions of the 10 levels of decision and actions (HRI), Mission Complexity (MC), and Environmental Complexity (EC). The levels are:
Low Autonomy level (1, 2, and 3 - OODA): High level of Human Robot interaction, low level tactical behavior, simple environment.
Medium Autonomy level (4, 5, and 6 - OODA): Medium level HRI, medium complexity, multifunctional missions, moderate environment.
High Autonomy Level (7, 8, and 9): Low level HRI, collaborative and high complexity missions, difficult environment.
As summary, this architecture is envisioned for the command and control C2 systems of unmanned vehicles in the year 2030 and involves the “interfaces” between unmanned and manned vehicles operating in all domains such as air, ground, space, underwater, and surface water, C2 nodes, and others. The main exchange of information is through of a collaborative network which acts as data fusion network which is distributed across the forces. Tactical Cloud Network and Cloud Computing Network are new concepts involved in the new architecture.    
            The 2030 Joint Command and Control architecture is a global model based in the TMN (Telecommunications Management Networks) and OSI (Open System Interconnection) standards which define the mode to access to the Interfaces of control such as the ground control station and NOC centers. The NATO STANAG 4586 is an exchange message standardization which is managed in the level 7- application of the OSI level. For example, the data link is the OSI level 2-Link, the network protocols like IP or X.25 are managed in the OSI level 3- network, the codes of encryption and compression of the sensor data like videos and images are managed in the level 6-Presentation.


  

References
An Integrated Command and Control Architecture for Unmanned Systems in the Year 2030
                (2013). Retrieved from
An integrated command and control architecture Concept for Unmanned Systems in the year 2030
(2013). Retrieved from
Designing Unmanned Systems with Greater Autonomy. (2014). Retrieved from
Parasuraman, R.; Barnes, M. J.; Cosenzo, K. A. Adaptive Automation for Human-Robot
            Teaming in Future Command and Control Systems. The International C2 Journal 2007, 1
(2), 43–68.
Parasuraman, R.; Cosenzo, K. A.; de Visser, E. Adaptive Automation for Human Supervision of
            Multiple Uninhabited Vehicles: Effects on Change Detection, Situation Awareness, and

Mental Workload. Military Psychology 200921 (2), 270–297.

Friday, December 9, 2016

Current Unmanned Aircraft State Law Landscape – Ethical, Privacy, and Legal Issues



8.4 - Research Blog 5: Unmanned System Implementation Strategy
UNSY 501 Applications in Unmanned Systems
Miguel H. Quine - Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
.
Current Unmanned Aircraft State Law Landscape – Ethical, Privacy, and Legal Issues
.
The article of the National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL) (July 7, 2016): “Current Unmanned Aircraft State Law Landscape” includes a summary of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 2016 Legislation status in all states of USA. This summary includes UAS laws, bills, and resolutions.

The article explains that “unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones have a host of applications including law enforcement, land surveillance, wildlife tracking, search and rescue operations, disaster response, border patrol and photography. State legislatures across the country are debating if and how UAS technology should be regulated, taking into account the benefits of their use, ‘privacy concerns’ and their potential economic impact”. (NCSL, 2016)

The requirement to have an ethics, privacy and safety plan in place for an unmanned system operations is a good effort of the FAA to protect the privacy and safety of the citizens, but the legal issues around the privacy rights of the citizens belong to the states or local legislatures or federal Judicial power. Anyway, in regards to obtaining an FAA certification or authorization, the applicant must comply with many steps, adding more requirements, such as more stringent privacy plans, wouldn't necessarily prevent the companies or operators that would violate these laws in the first place. Harsh penalties, to include certification and license revocation fines and federal law enforcement participation would be a sufficient deterrent as long as the enforcement agencies are consistent and active in enforcing current laws and regulations.

 On June 21, 2016 FAA has announced the new regulations of UAVs operations that involve a security plans of protection for American citizens, but the legal issues around the privacy is responsibility of the states or local laws. However “the violators of the privacy and safety of the citizens can be prosecuted under other laws rather than FAA or UAV-specific legislation, such as: Reckless endangerment (a felony), Invasion of privacy (can easily be upgraded to a federal complaint), Obstruction of police/emergency services duties (a felony), Noise ordinance violation, Littering”. (B&H, 2014)

Another question could point to the further steps that can be taken to balance the privacy concerns of citizens with the desires of the UAS industry to expand. The potential to expand the opportunities of unmanned aerial systems is becoming more prevalent every day. The obvious answer would be to construct rules and regulations that would minimize the ability for UAS operators to violate a private citizens privacy rights, such as maintaining certain distances from  residences or populated areas unless directly involved in a commercial activity (such as delivery services - future perspective). But, the biggest deterrent against operators breaking the law is a strong enforcement policy. FAA has started a good coordination with states legislatures for new laws and has and enforcement system, but is not enough fast to solve the issues and the news laws and regulations can sometimes become complacent and weak on enforcement actions.

The general public is more fearful of UAS sensors than those on satellites, manned aircraft, or street cameras. The fear of UAS sensors is partly warranted and partly suspect to wild speculation gained from the media or other opponents of the UAS industry. It is true that UAVs have many sensing capabilities that have the potential to be used for malicious purposes and if this logic was used for all industries, technology would have never had an opportunity to advance.  But, just like many of the things that we use in everyday life was once viewed with skepticism, so goes UAS technology. This industry and the public will adjust to each other and co-exist, but it is important for the public to trust enforcement agencies to enforce privacy laws and regulations.
The regulations must apply to recreational UAS as well as commercial. Current UASs technology has allowed for the same sensing capabilities as commercial and recreational UAS's. The same enforcement actions should be used against anyone who violates a privacy regulation while operating a UAV in any of two modes. This is the best and unique way that the UAS industry and FAA will gain the trust of the public.

Some examples of the 2015-2016 UAS Legislation:  

2015-2016 UAS LEGISLATION
STATE
BILL
SUMMARY
ARIZONA
SB 1449
Prohibits certain operation of UAS, including operation in violation of FAA regulations and operation that interferes with first responders. The law prohibits operating near, or using UAS to take images of, a critical facility. It also preempts any locality from regulating UAS.
CALIFORNIA
AB856
Prohibits entering the airspace of an individual in order to capture an image or recording of that individual engaging in a private, personal or familial activity without permission. This legislation is a response to the use of UAS by the paparazzi.
FLORIDA
SB 766
Prohibits the use of a drone to capture an image of privately owned property or the owner, tenant, or occupant of such property without consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.  
IDAHO
SB 1213
Creates the crime of unlawful use of an UAS and prohibits operation over any event with more than 1500 attendees, over critical infrastructure and over an incident where first responders are actively engaged in response or transport. The law also specifies that only the state may enact a law or regulation, preempting the authority of counties and municipalities.
ILLINOIS
SB 44
Creates a UAS Oversight Task Force which is tasked with considering commercial and private use of UAS, landowner and privacy rights and general rules and regulations for the safe operation of UAS. The task force will prepare recommendations for the use of UAS in the state.
TENNESSEE
HB 153
Prohibits using a drone to capture an image over certain open-air events and fireworks displays. It also prohibits the use of UAS over the grounds of a correctional facility.
TEXAS
HB 2187
Permits individuals in certain professions to capture images used in those professions using UAS as long as no individual is identifiable in the image.


Technical Issues

But when our skies get more and more crowded, how can be managed the separation and deconfliction between unmanned aerial systems and manned aviation? The response point to case of the project of NASA UAS in the National Airspace Integration (NAS) and the role of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) focused in its roadmap “Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS).

NASA is leading the project “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System” or “UAS in the NAS”.” The project is focused to promote and help the integration of unmanned air vehicles into the world around us; also, will contribute capabilities designed to reduce technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges associates with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS” (NASA, 2015)

The project involves entities such as Federal Aviation Administration FAA and RTCA Special Committee 203 (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) which will receive critical data from the project. The role of the FAA: “The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aviation system in the world. The FAA created the ‘Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office’ to facilitate integration of UAS safely and efficiently into the NAS. Toward that goal, the FAA is collaborating with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, which includes manufacturers, commercial vendors, industry trade associations, technical standards organizations, academic institutions, research and development centers, governmental agencies, and other regulators. (FAA, 2013)

References

Are Quadcopters Legal? Retrieved from

Current Unmanned Aircraft State Law Landscape. (2016, July 07). Retrieved  from  

FAA Issues Fact Sheet on State and Local UAS Laws. Retrieved from

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

2015 NASA Technology Roadmaps TA 4: Robotics and Autonomous Systems




Assignment 5.4 - Research Blog 4: Unmanned Systems Space-Based Applications
Miguel H. Quine
UNSY 501 Applications of Unmanned Systems
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

2015 NASA Technology Roadmaps TA 4: Robotics and Autonomous Systems
Published by NASA in July 2015
Robotics and autonomous systems play a critical role in the space exploration, aeronautics, unmanned systems, and science research. NASA has defined that roll in the space exploration for human and science exploration.  For human exploration, the goal is to use robots as precursor explorers before crewed missions and helpers for crewed missions in space. For science exploration the role is focused to research of planetary surfaces. The main goal of robotics and autonomous systems is focused to extend the human reach into space, expand the capacity of the human beings to planetary access, and the human ability to manipulate resources that aid in planetary exploration, supporting and helping space operations, and improve the efficiency of the human operations. Then, it will be necessary to drive new and advanced technologies in robotics, onboard and ground-based autonomous capabilities, human-systems integration, robot software, and robot modeling and simulation. The autonomy and automation needed in these areas will be reached with the development of new algorithms and software for integration with the hardware of the new advanced technologies such as, multi-modal interaction, supervisory control, physical proximity with autonomous for gesture detection and speech recognition, data analysis for decision making, robot modeling and simulation, and advances in robot software for intelligent robots. (Quine, 2016)
Programs and research in robotics and autonomous systems are conducted by NASA with the purpose to develop technological advances in the space systems that will support future space mission of scientific and human exploration. (Quine, 2016)
The report “2015 NASA Technology Roadmaps TA 4: Robotics and Autonomous Systems” (NASA, 2015) shows the programs and research in progress and technologies areas that were defined by NASA in this field. The report involves “a wide range of needed technologies and development pathways for the next 20 years (2015-2035). The roadmaps focus on ‘applied research’ and ‘development’ activities” (NASA, 2015).
Technologies Areas: Mobility, Manipulation, Human-System Interaction, System-Level Autonomy, Systems Engineering.
Capacity of mobility in terrains of extreme topographies such as “steep and deep craters, gullies, canyons, lava tubes, and soft, friable terrains” (NASA, 2015) will be enhanced. The surface mobility of the rovers in the planetary exploration will be increased in speed; also, the capabilities of the sensing onboard and software of control to manage extreme conditions of the terrains will be increased.  
The robotic navigation will provide “a highly reliable, well-characterized, and fast autonomous or semi-autonomous mobility capability to navigate to designated targets on planetary surfaces” (NASA, 2015). Also, collaborative mobility will be provided to enable the distribution and collaboration of tasks by using multiple robotics mobile systems or any combination of robotics systems and manned systems. The new technology must provide critical mobility components such as “compliant long-life wheels, fast and high-torque actuators, energy-efficient and miniaturized actuators, strong abrasion-resistant tethers, and all terrain anchors to meet future mobility needs” (NASA, 2015).
 Robotics systems require the increasing of the dexterity and power efficiency of the manipulators and overall reduction in mass and volume of launch. Collaborative operations and tasks of multiple manipulators will be enabled by integration of 3D sensors with advanced control of the manipulation of multiple arms mobile systems and by enhancing of the overall synchronism of the hand and eye.
Enhances in human-machine interaction will be developed for a fast human understanding of the state of the system under operation and control and adequate decision making. The human operators will have access to virtual environment of multiples modes of sensing or multimodal interactions. Remote interaction for manual and supervisory control will be allowed in case of failing or short delays of the communication systems. Proximity interaction capacity will be developed with the purpose to provide recognizing of the speech, gesture detection.(Quine, 2016)
The System-Level Autonomy of the space mission must be increased to allow operations without human interaction and the improvement of the “overall performance of human exploration, robotic missions, and aeronautics applications through increased autonomy” (NASA, 2015). Every new and advanced technology will involve any system level autonomy. In addition, systems with full autonomy would be ready to work as independent and intelligent systems in environments with dynamic and uncertain behavior. (Quine, 2016)
Robotics systems will have the onboard capacity of analyze their behavior by monitoring, predicting, detecting, and diagnosing of faults, perform analysis of data to define the causes, effects, and take decisions about onboard actions of solutions or requiring the ground support through of the telemetry system. (Quine, 2016)     
Generation of intelligent behavior in the robotics systems will be implemented by providing an infrastructure of hardware and software algorithms for distribution of autonomous functionalities and operations or by generating models of simulations for coordination of the functionalities in distributed manner. (Quine, 2016)
Automated analysis of large volumes of data onboard for decision making that can exceed the ability of the humans to address conflicting data information will be implemented. The requirements point to the optimization of the computing time for decision making and the time to make decision onboard; also, the improvement of the quality of services.(Quine, 2016)
Characteristics of modularity and self-reconfiguration will be implemented in robotics systems, to allow high level of versatility and hardiness to the replacement of components that have failed in the field and the possibility of self-adaptation and self-reparation.
Advances in robot software technology will provide “architectures, frameworks, design patterns, and advances in software to enable the realization of intelligent robots and autonomous systems from component technologies, and providing standardized interfaces and messages” (NASA, 2015).



 References
TA 4 Robotics and Autonomous Systems - NASA. (2015, July). Retrieved November, 2016, from http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2015_nasa_technology_roadmaps_ta_4_robotics_autonomous_systems.pdf    
Advances in Robotics and Autonomous Technologies for Space Systems. (July 25, 2016). Miguel H. Quine – MS Unmanned Systems – Space Systems Concentration – Student –Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.