March 2006 

NASA/TM-2006-214287 

Joint Technical Architecture for Robotic 

Systems (JTARS)—Final Report 

Arthur T. Bradley and Sidney E. Holloway III 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
The NASA STI Program Office . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) 

Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA 

maintain this important role. 

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by 

Langley Research Center, the lead center for NASA’s 

scientific and technical information. The NASA STI 

Program Office provides access to the NASA STI 

Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and 

space science STI in the world. The Program Office is 

also NASA’s institutional mechanism for 

disseminating the results of its research and 

development activities. These results are published by 

NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but having 

less stringent limitations on manuscript length 

and extent of graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services that complement the STI 

Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating 

custom thesauri, building customized databases, 

organizing and publishing research results ... even 

providing videos. 

For more information about the NASA STI Program 

Office, see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI Program Home Page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov 

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at (301) 621-0134 

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

(301) 621-0390 

• Write to: 

 NASA STI Help Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

 7121 Standard Drive 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 

 

March 2006 

NASA/TM-2006-214287 

Joint Technical Architecture for Robotic 

Systems (JTARS)—Final Report 

Arthur T. Bradley and Sidney E. Holloway III 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161-2171 

(301) 621-0390 (703) 605-6000 
Document Description 

This document represents the final report for 

the Joint Technical Architecture for Robotic 

Systems (JTARS) project, funded by the 

Office of Exploration as part of the 

Intramural Call for Proposals of 2005. The 

project was prematurely terminated, without 

review, as part of an agency-wide 

realignment towards the development of a 

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and 

meeting the near-term goals of lunar 

exploration. 

Executive Summary 

Recognizing the need for interoperable robots 

to accomplish the new exploration initiative, 

NASA’s Office of Exploration Systems 

Research & Technology established the Joint 

Technical Architecture for Robotic Systems 

(JTARS). JTARS charter was to identify the 

interface standards necessary to achieve 

interoperability among space robots. A 

JTARS working group (JTARS-WG) was 

established comprising recognized leaders in 

the field of space robotics, including 

representatives from numerous NASA centers 

along with academia and private industry. 

The working group’s early accomplishments 

included identifying key issues required for 

interoperability, defining which systems are 

within the project’s scope, and framing the 

JTARS manuals around types of interaction 

and classes of robotic systems. Significant 

work remained on the task including 

identifying standards, establishing an 

electronic database of systems, and a 

establishing a program to ensure agency-wide 

adoption of the JTARS guidelines. 

Introduction 

In January of 2004, NASA was given a 

presidential directive to "gain a new foothold 

on the moon and to prepare for new journeys 

to the worlds beyond our own." As part of 

this initiative, NASA is focused on returning 

to the moon by 2020 to serve as the launching 

point for missions beyond. Robotic probes 

were expected to be on the lunar surface by 

2008, with a human mission as early as 2015, 

"with the goal of living and working there for 

increasingly extended periods of time." 

To achieve NASA’s mandate for creating a 

sustainable campaign of space exploration, a 

paradigm shift will have to occur in the space 

robotics industry. Specifically, robotic 

systems-of-systems must be realized through 

a renewed focus towards interoperability, 

modularity, and reuse. The practice of 

developing unique mission-specific 

components communicating through custom 

user-defined interfaces will have to give way 

to standardization. 

The focus of lunar and Martian expeditions 

will extend from early exploration, to site 

preparation, to long-duration habitation. 

Given the hostile environmental conditions, 

each of these activities will require the 

extensive use of robotic systems. Such 

ambitious objectives will introduce 

tremendous new challenges – requiring 

system planners to think far beyond simply 

getting to the remote location safely and 

taking pictures or measurements. Robots that 

operate independently of one another, like 

those seen in the past (e.g. Sojourner, 

Spirit/Opportunity), will be inadequate to 

accomplish the complex tasks associated with 

these challenges. Rather, complex systemsof-systems will be required in which robots 

work cooperatively by widely exchanging 

information, planning and dividing complex 

tasks, sharing common resources, and 

physically cooperating to manipulate objects. 

The challenges associated with cooperative 

robotics are many, including 

communications, smart mechanisms, control, 

autonomy, physical compatibility, sensor 

processing, and operator control. 
The development of the Joint Technical 

Architecture for Robotic Systems (JTARS) is 

funded by NASA’s Advanced Space 

Technology Program (ASTP) in the Office of 

Exploration Systems Research and 

Technology (ESR&T) [2]. In January of 

2005, the JTARS working group was tasked 

with establishing the technical architecture by 

which interoperable space robots capable of 

cooperative behavior can be developed. Once 

established, the JTARS architecture will be 

used by those involved in the acquisition, 

development, or management of new or 

improved robotic systems within NASA. The 

JTARS working group is scheduled to 

complete its task in 2008, but the resulting 

documents will be updated periodically. 

A similar theme of standardization, 

interoperability, and reliable 

intercommunication was introduced ten years 

ago in the Department of Defense (DOD). In 

an effort to achieve those goals, the Asst. 

Secretary of Defense issued a directive to 

principals to “reach a consensus of a working 

set of standards” and “establish a single 

unifying DOD technical architecture (TA)...” 

so that “new systems can be born joint and 

interoperable, and existing systems will have 

a baseline to move toward interoperability.” 

From that directive, the Joint Technical 

Architecture (JTA) was created. Though now 

superseded by DOD’s Information 

Technology Standards Registry (DISR), the 

JTA was established to mandate the 

minimum set of standards and guidelines for 

acquisition of all DOD systems that produce, 

use, or exchange information. JTARS has a 

similar charter but with space robotics as its 

focus. 

JTARS is a joint technical architecture that 

identifies required standards, protocols, and 

practices to be used for NASA robotics. In 

this context, the term “joint” refers to the 

architecture being crosscutting, equally 

applicable to in-space, aerial, surface, and 

subsurface robotic systems. Following the 

concepts put forward in the JTA, the term 

“architecture” refers to the structure of 

components, their relationships, and the 

principles and guidelines governing 

Fig. 1. Interrelated views [1] 

their design. As shown in Fig. 1, JTARS is 

part of an interrelated set of views: 

operational, system, and technical. 

The operational architecture contains 

descriptions of the operational elements, their 

assigned tasks and activities, and the 

information flow required between them to 

complete the mission. It also details the 

nature of information exchanged in sufficient 

detail to determine specific interoperability 

requirements. 

The systems architecture is a description of 

systems and interconnections supporting 

mission functions. It shows how the systems 

interoperate, and it details the operations of 

particular systems within an architecture. 

The systems view of a single system includes 

descriptions of the physical connections, 

location of key nodes, circuits, networks, 

platforms, etc. It also specifies system and 

component performance parameters (e.g., 

2
total dose, mean time between failures, 

operating speed, etc.). 

The technical architecture provides 

guidelines upon which engineering 

specifications are based, modular elements 

defined, and product lines developed. It 

includes a collection of the technical 

standards, conventions, and rules with criteria 

that indicate which are appropriate for a 

particular product. 

Benefits 

There are many benefits to standardizing 

space robots. The most obvious benefits 

would come in the form of enhanced 

capabilities, cost savings, and risk reduction. 

Enhanced Capabilities 

Standardization would prove invaluable in 

creating cooperative systems capable of being 

controlled by common operator stations. 

Advanced robotic systems-of-systems with 

individual units working cooperatively could 

potentially meet the upcoming technical 

challenges including off-planet resource 

extraction and processing and habitat 

construction and maintenance. 

Cost Savings 

Clear and relevant standards could serve as 

guidelines for acquisitions, both during 

development and qualification. Such 

standards would promote competition by 

effectively “leveling the playing field.” This 

would allow for smaller companies to enter 

the market by reducing the high research 

costs associated with developing missionunique systems. This increase in 

competition would ultimately lead to better 

product selection and cost reduction. 

It is also expected that standards-driven 

systems would be more modular in nature, 

leading to the sharing and reuse of 

components. Finally, standards-based 

systems would be easier to validate and 

verify through the use of common reusable 

test sets and simulators. 

Risk Reduction 

The most significant risk reduction would 

likely come from eliminating unique “one of 

a kind” systems, and replacing them with 

robots equipped with well-understood 

interfaces and capabilities. Reliability is also 

expected to improve as the designs are 

verified and reused. 

By increasing competition, the risks currently 

seen by being tied to a small set of vendors 

would also decrease. Finally, the JTARS 

manuals are expected to be “living 

documents,” useful in distributing lessons 

learned, and thus helping to ensure that all 

vendors are aware of important design 

considerations. 

Project Goals 

The four high-level goals associated with 

JTARS and their relevant impact on 

Exploration Systems Research & Technology 

goals are discussed below. 

Establish a comprehensive working group 

of senior contributors to NASA robotics 

JTARS is being developed by a working 

group comprising representatives from seven 

NASA centers as well as experts from 

industry and academia. Dr. Bradley of 

NASA LaRC serves as the project’s principal 

investigator and working group chairman. 

Many recognized experts working in NASA 

robotics are actively participating in the 

working group. 

The working group openly invites additional 

participation from industry and academia, as 

well as from the international space 

community (e.g. DLR, JAXA, CSA, ESA, 

JSA, etc.). Working group contacts as well 

3
as the past meeting schedule can be found at 

www.jtars.org.

Relationship to Broader ESR&T Goals

The establishment of a comprehensive 

working group of senior robotics engineers 

assists ESR&T in advancing the current state 

of the art in space robots. The group will 

assist in the identification of standards 

necessary for creating robots capable of 

interoperating to accomplish difficult tasks. 

The group will also work to create an open 

dialogue between NASA centers, industry, 

and researchers as they focus on the many 

challenges facing exploration. 

Identify and document recommended 

standards and protocols for NASA robotic 

systems 

The JTARS working group is tasked with 

identifying and documenting the standards, 

protocols, and practices necessary for 

creating interoperable space robots. It is 

expected that two volumes will be generated, 

one identifying recommended standards and 

practices, and a second identifying emerging 

technologies. The documents will identify 

both “core” elements common to all systems 

and application-specific standards organized 

into corresponding domains. The expectation 

is that future NASA robotic systems that fall 

within the scope of JTARS will be developed 

compliant with the JTARS recommended 

standards. Provisions will also be provided to 

accommodate legacy systems. Systems will 

ultimately be identified as “JTARScompliant,” indicating that they follow the 

prescribed standards, protocols, and practices. 

Relationship to Broader ESR&T Goals 

The development of JTARS manuals will 

provide NASA robot developers with a 

comprehensive set of guidelines prescribing 

standards, protocols, and practices. Such 

uniformity will help to ensure long term 

product reusability, which will result in cost 

reduction. Standardization will further enable 

more complex robotic networks by allowing 

better intercommunication and cooperation. 

Develop an online JTARS resource 

JTARS will be an evolving knowledge base, 

one that must keep pace with advancing 

technologies, technical challenges, the 

marketplace, and the associated standards 

upon which it’s based. The JTARS manuals 

would therefore be “living documents,” 

updated periodically by a small subset of the 

working group. As part of the JTARS effort, 

the working group would set up a NASA 

website where the most current JTARS 

documents could be downloaded, minutes 

from the working group meetings reviewed, 

and change requests processed. An online 

technical database will also be developed to 

provide developers and integrators 

information detailing how current robotic 

systems align with JTARS recommendations 

– helping to reduce risk, lower cost, and 

avoid interoperability problems.

Relationship to Broader ESR&T Goals 

The online resource would allow engineers to 

search a technical database of robotic 

systems, detailing system specifications and 

their respective alignment with JTARS 

recommendations. Sharing of compliance 

information would help to facilitate 

interoperability, technical exchange, and cost 

reduction. The manuals and meeting minutes 

would also be available to disseminate the 

latest JTARS information. The resource will 

facilitate interoperability, technical exchange, 

and cost reduction. 

Ensure End-User Product Adoption 

With product adoption in mind, JTARS 

emphasizes participation by end users, 

including NASA engineers, industry 

developers, academic researchers, and 

4
international partners. It also leverages the 

expertise of technical standards programs and 

synergistic activities both inside and outside 

the agency (e.g. NASA’s Technical Standards 

Program [3], DOD’s JAUS [4], and NIST’s 

ALFUS [5]). 

The final year of the proposed 4-year effort 

would shift the working group from 

investigating standards and drafting 

recommendations to ensuring NASA-wide 

adoption. This will be accomplished though 

on-site presentations and training throughout 

NASA as well as within industry and 

academia. Suggestions and corrections 

resulting from the outreach activities will be 

reviewed and implemented prior to the first 

official release of the manuals. Once released, 

system developers will use JTARS to 

facilitate the development of systems that are 

capable of cooperative behavior, intersystem 

interoperability, and long-term reusability. 

System integrators will use JTARS to foster 

the integration of legacy and new systems. 

Relationship to Broader ESR&T Goals 

The widespread adoption of JTARS will 

ensure that the benefits of standardization are 

achieved across the agency. End-user 

briefings will serve as a valuable outreach 

effort and is inline with the philosophy of 

creating “One NASA.” 

Scope and Focus

NASA has many systems under development, 

from satellites to rovers, many of which can 

be considered “robotic” in nature. An 

important milestone of the JTARS Working 

Group was therefore to clearly define the 

scope of the effort, specifically answering the 

question, “What systems fall within the 

charter of JTARS?” 

Two broad approaches were considered. One 

divided systems based on where and how 

they were used, the other divided systems 

based on capabilities. Ultimately, the 

approach based on capabilities was adopted, 

because it greatly simplifies the identification 

of what systems are within the scope of 

JTARS. 

Fig. 2 illustrates how three metrics are used 

to determine which systems fall within the 

scope of JTARS. The metrics considered 

descriptive of robotic systems are processing 

capability, communications, and the ability to 

physically interact with the world. 

Systems that meet a minimum level of all 

three metrics fall within the scope of JTARS. 

Within the “core” bounded region, subregions can be identified to indicate systems 

with advanced capabilities. It is expected that 

JTARS will levy additional recommendations 

on more capable systems enabling them to 

perform advanced cooperative activities. 

Therefore, there can be different levels of 

compliance depending on system capabilities. 

Note that the specific boundaries are not yet 

defined, and are likely to shift over time as 

technologies advance. 

Fig. 2. Metrics to determine scope 

There are several important implications that 

result from our definition of what systems fall 

within the scope of JTARS. Specifically, the 

definition suggests that JTARS applies to 

robotic systems independent of their: 

Location (e.g. Mars, Earth, moon, in-space, 

etc.) 

5
Function (e.g. rovers, station crawlers, air 

vehicles, etc.) 

Level of autonomy (teleoperated to fully 

autonomous) 

An important exception is that JTARS 

requirements should not supersede higherlevel system-use requirements. For example, 

for robots used on the International Space 

Station (ISS), ISS requirements should 

supersede JTARS for similar specifications. 

However, this exception will be mitigated as 

future systems-of-systems directly leverage 

the standardization offered through JTARS. 

Content 

JTARS is robot centric in that it prescribes 

how a robot should interact with other 

systems, whether they are additional robots, 

sensors, payloads, satellites, etc. Fig. 3 

illustrates the robot-centric view. 

The specific format or technical content of 

the JTARS manuals has yet to be fully 

defined. What is known is that two manuals 

will be developed, one that prescribes 

existing technologies, and a second that 

identifies promising future technologies. The 

documents will identify both “core” elements 

common to all systems and applicationspecific standards organized into 

corresponding domains and subdomains. 

High-Level Topics 

Four high-level (Level 0) topics have 

currently been identified: physical 

interactions, information exchange, command 

structure, and reference frames. 

Fig. 3. JTARS robot-centric view 

Physical Interactions 

Standards will need to identify physical 

interactions associated with robots working 

cooperatively, including (but not limited to): 

end effectors 

tools 

mounts and hard points 

maximum loads 

workspace constraints 

electrical mates 

Information Exchange 

Defining the methods of exchanging 

information between robots and/or supporting 

systems requires the identification of an 

interconnection standard and a message set. 

The working group is currently considering 

the International Organization of Standards 

Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) 7-layer 

model for the interconnection standards, and 

the Department of Defense’s Joint 

Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS) 

for a message set. The important features of 

each are listed below. 

OSI Model 

As shown in Fig. 4, the OSI model defines a 

networking framework for implementing 

protocols in seven layers. Other variants (e.g. 

6
5-layer) have also been proposed. With 

either model, control is passed from one layer 

to the next, starting at the application layer in 

one station, proceeding to the bottom 

physical layer, then over the channel to the 

next station and back up the hierarchy of the 

receiver. Additional information can be 

found at the International Organization of 

Standardization, www.iso.org. 

Fig. 4. OSI layers [7] 

JAUS Message Set 

The Joint Architecture for Robotic Systems 

was developed by the Department of Defense 

as a common message set between unmanned 

systems. It is currently being converted to a 

Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) 

standard. JAUS addresses many of the 

important considerations of communicating 

between unmanned (robotic) systems, 

including: 

Commands/Sequences 

Responses 

Queries 

Data 

Events 

Periodic Communications 

 

Command Structure 

For robots to cooperative effectively, a 

command structure will need to be defined. 

The command structure will serve as a policy 

for processing commands, sharing data, and 

changing the authority structure within 

individual units or across the larger system. 

The structure would define which system(s) 

had authority to direct subordinate systems. 

Fig. 5 is a simple illustration showing how 

the command structure would influence the 

handling of incoming and outgoing 

information. 

Fig. 5. Command structure concept 

Reference Frames 

Robotic systems working cooperatively will 

require common frames of reference, 

including time, spatial distance, units of 

measure, and workspace definitions. 

Domains 

At lower levels, JTARS manuals will likely 

be organized into classes of robotic systems 

known as “domains.” There are many ways 

to classify robots into domains, including: 

Hierarchical (e.g. component, subsystem, 

system, system-of-systems) 

Interfaces (e.g. communications, software, 

hardware) 

Tasks (e.g. exploring, assembly, 

manufacturing, etc.) 

UNIT

SUB-UNIT SUB-UNIT

SUB-UNIT

SENSORY

DATA

UNIT

RESPONSE

INCOMING

COMMANDS

OUTGOING

COMMANDS

REFERENCES & 

CONTEXTUAL DATA

INTERACTION

POLICY

AUTHORITY

POLICY

UNIT

SUB-UNIT SUB-UNIT

SUB-UNIT

SENSORY

DATA

UNIT

RESPONSE

INCOMING

COMMANDS

OUTGOING

COMMANDS

REFERENCES & 

CONTEXTUAL DATA

INTERACTION

POLICY

AUTHORITY

POLICY

7
Operating Environments (e.g. surface, 

transport, orbital, aerial, etc.) 

To date however, the working group has not 

decided on the optimal domain organization. 

Programmatics 

The JTARS Project was initiated on February 

1, 2005 with a premature termination date of 

January 31, 2006. The project included 

participation of robotic experts from NASA 

Centers, Langley (LaRC), Glenn (GRC), 

Goddard (GSFC), Marshall (MSFC), Johnson 

(JSC), Ames (ARC), and the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory (JPL) along with experts from 

Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), 

Massachussetts Institute of Technology 

(MIT), and Titan Corporation. LaRC was 

given the responsibility of lead center on the 

effort with the Principal Investigator, Arthur 

Bradley, managing the technical effort of the 

team and with Project Manager, S.E. “Chip” 

Holloway III managing the programmatics. 

NASA Headquarters directly sent each 

NASA Center their individual budgets to 

individually manage. Figure 6 illustrates the 

project budget with the appropriate Center 

break down. 

Center FY05 FY06

Total 542.4 180.8 723.2 5844.5

ARC 64.43 21.48 85.9 768.2

GRC 48.38 16.13 64.5 589.9

GSFC 50.25 16.75 67 571.6

JSC 56.18 18.73 74.9 635.5

JPL 76.73 25.58 102.3 907.6

LARC 228.75 76.25 305 2187.3

MSFC 17.7 5.9 23.6 184.4

PHASE I Phase I 

Total Project Total

Project Budget 

($K)

Fig. 6. JTARS Project Budget 

The JTARS team was comprised of 3 

researchers from ARC, 2 researchers from 

GRC, 2 researchers from GSFC, 4 

researchers from JPL, 3 researchers from 

JSC, 2 researchers from LaRC, one 

researcher from MSFC, one researcher from 

MIT, 2 researchers from CWRU, one 

researcher from Titan Corp and one 

researcher from the Department of Defense. 

With the Program Office sending each Center 

their funding directly, the Project Manager 

was challenged to effectively manage the 

project resources. The Project Manager 

worked diligently to organize working group 

meetings that maximized working group 

attendance. Figure 7 illustrates the planned 

versus actual labor charges. 

CS Workforce

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Jan05Feb05Mar05Apr05May05Jun05Jul05Aug05Sep05Oct05Nov05Dec05

CS Direct FTEs

CS Plan CS Actual

Fig. 7. Civil Service Workforce 

The MIT researcher was brought on board by 

contract. The period of performance was 

from February 3, 2005 through the end of the 

year. The Titan Corporation researcher was 

brought to the team by a task level contract 

for 150 hours of support for the working 

group meetings. The two CWRU researchers 

were brought on board via an institutional 

grant with a period of performance from 

February 9, 2005 to February 8, 2006. 

In 2005, JTARS was a low-level man-hour 

supported project of approximately 0.1 full 

time equivalent (FTE) per person except for 

8
the Principal Investigator and Project 

Manager. With the low-level support, most 

of the productivity was accomplished at the 

quarterly meetings with only minimal 

planning for the execution of the meetings 

done outside of the working group. 

The Project Manager reported directly to 

NASA Headquarters via a database file 

system called “WindChill”. Each month the 

project manager would upload a Word file 

and PowerPoint file outlining the 

accomplishments, schedule, risks, and 

budget. 

The project was directed to use Earned Value 

Management (EVM) reporting. For a project 

of this size, EVM was burdensome and 

beneficial. EVM was burdensome because it 

required extra personnel to generate the 

reports. EVM benefitted the project as the 

EVM tools clearly illustrated when one center 

erroneously overcharged the project $210K 

the first month. Figure 8 illustrates the 

erroneous overcharge which was corrected 

three months later. After the correction was 

made, the spending rate closely followed the 

plan. The project’s EVM reporting was 

adversely affected until this error was 

corrected. 

Costs

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

$K

Cum Cost Plan 15.7 38.7 82.7 132.7 183.7 234.7 278.7 325.2 371.2 415.2 464.2 508.2

Cum Cost Actual 28.1 247.8 294.9 319.5 190.3 217.54 246.7 307.1 382.5 385.08 433.25

Variance 12.4 209.1 212.2 186.8 6.6 -17.16 -32 -18.1 11.3 -30.12 -30.95

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05

FY05 FY06

Fig. 8. JTARS Monthly Costs 

The project maintained it’s schedule 

throughout the duration of the base period 

and achieved all milestones on or ahead of 

schedule. Figure 9 illustrates the project 

schedule. 

Fig. 9. JTARS Schedule 

Summary 

In January of 2005, JTARS was initiated by 

NASA’s Office of Exploration Systems 

Research and Technology. The primary goal 

of the project was to establish the technical 

architecture by which interoperable space 

robots could be developed. JTARS would 

prescribe standards, protocols, and practices 

to be used for NASA robotics, and had the 

long-term goal of broadening into an 

international standard. 

When defining the scope of JTARS, an 

approach was adopted that divided systems 

based on capabilities rather than function. As 

a result, JTARS applies to robotic systems 

ranging from teleoperated to autonomous 

independent of “where” or “how” they are to 

be used as long as they meet or exceed three 

metrics. Those metrics are processing 

capability, communications, and physical 

interaction with the world. 

The specific format or technical content of 

the JTARS manuals had yet to be fully 

defined. What is known is that two manuals 

would be developed, one that prescribed 

existing technologies, and a second that 

identified promising future technologies. The 

documents would identify both “core” 

elements common to all systems and 

9
application-specific standards organized into 

corresponding domains. Four high-level 

categories had been identified: physical 

interactions, information exchange, command 

structure, and reference frames. 

JTARS was being developed by a working 

group comprising representatives from many 

NASA centers as well as experts from 

industry and academia. The working group 

openly invites additional participation from 

industry and academia, as well as from the 

international community (e.g. DLR, JAXA, 

CSA, ESA). Working group contacts as well 

as the past meeting schedule can be found at 

www.jtars.org. 

References 

[1] Department of Defense Joint Technical 

Architecture, Vols. I and II, Version 6.0, 

October 2003. 

[2] Human and Robotic Technology 

Formulation Plan, Version 5.1, 29 July 2004 

(Amended 13 September 2004), 

Development Programs Division, Office of 

Exploration Systems, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. 

20546. 

[3] Technical Standards Program, 

information found at

www.standards.nasa.gov. 

[4] Joint Architecture for Unmanned 

Systems, Domain Model, V3.0, December 

2003. 

[5] Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems 

(ALFUS) Framework, NIST Special 

Publication 1011, September 2004. 

[6] Enabling Interoperable Space Robots with 

the Joint Technical Architecture for Robotics 

Systems (JTARS), 8th International 

Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, 

Robotics, and Automation in Space, Munich, 

September 2005. 

[7] Fonda, C., Postogna, F., Computer 

Networking Basics, Programme of Training 

and System Development on Networking and 

Radio Communications, January 1998. 

10
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Joint Technical Architecture for Robotic Systems (JTARS) - Final Report

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Bradley, Arthur T.; and Holloway, Sidney E., III

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-19219

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

An electronic version can be found at http://ntrs.nasa.gov

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 63

Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

This document represents the final report for the Joint Technical Architecture for Robotic Systems (JTARS) project, funded

by the Office of Exploration as part of the Intramural Call for Proposals of 2005. The project was prematurely terminated,

without review, as part of an agency-wide realignment towards the development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and

meeting the near-term goals of lunar exploration.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Architecture; Interoperable; Robotics; Space Robots

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

15

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(301) 621-0390

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

069256.02.01.02.04

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TM-2006-214287

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 03 - 2006