Engineering topics
Feather, Martin S.
Publications and source records attributed to Feather, Martin S..
Accelerating the Use of Autonomy on Robotic Space Missions –Workshop Summary
The purpose of this workshop was to address the following questions: What are the impediments to making more use of autonomy on robotic space missions? Which of those impediments apply to which kinds of space missions? What is/can/could be done to overcome those impediments? Highlights of the workshop’s treatment of these topics are given herein.
Accelerating the Use of Autonomy on Robotic Space Missions –Workshop Summary
The purpose of this workshop was to address the following questions: What are the impediments to making more use of autonomy on robotic space missions? Which of those impediments apply to which kinds of space missions? What is/can/could be done to overcome those impediments? Highlights of the workshop’s treatment of these topics are given herein.
Case Studies in Verifying Spacecraft Autonomy
Spacecraft, operating with a time-to-effect faster than human command response, or with absent or delayed communication, have depended on autonomy. It is likely that this reliance will continue, and increase further in future missions. Spacecraft autonomy is used when operator intervention is not available or feasible, or when dynamic aspects of a spacecraft situation cannot be predicted in advance. This paper provides case studies of several successfully verified autonomous software systems across multiple spacecraft, flight phases (launch, transit, entry and landing, science utilization), and software classifications, and can serve as examples to future missions in methods of successfully assuring spacecraft autonomy.
Demonstrations of System-Level Autonomy for Spacecraft
System-level autonomy refers to autonomously meeting the crosscutting needs of a system through awareness and coordinated control spanning the system's breadth of capabilities. In contrast to function-level autonomy, which focuses on capabilities required to achieve a specific function such as surface navigation or image recognition, system-level autonomy addresses the needs to coordinate and manage activities and resources, and estimate the state, across subsystems. This paper describes demonstrations that were conducted on a spacecraft workstation testbed. The autonomy was provided by system-level planning and execution integrated with system-level estimators of orbit knowledge and spacecraft hardware health. These components are embedded in a system-level framework defining how goals are formed and executed, which elements exist, and how control authority is distributed among components. The planning and execution system at the heart of the framework has the capability to schedule, execute and monitor completion of tasks, as well as plan around unexpected events including new science opportunities and anomalies. The planning and scheduling system is the Multi-mission EXECutive (MEXEC), supported by the system-level health state estimator Model-Based Off-Nominal State Identification and Detection (MONSID), and Autonomous Navigation (AutoNav) algorithms, which determine the orbital system state based on optical observation of other targets. These components are applicable to many kinds of missions on different platforms. These demonstrations were elaborations of earlier experiments conducted on the ASTERIA (Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research In Astrophysics) CubeSat, described in a companion submission [1]. The spacecraft’s extended mission served as an in-flight test platform, during which some individual autonomous capabilities were flown successfully. The autonomy experiments described here were performed on the ASTERIA workstation testbed.
Software assurance of autonomous spacecraft control
The work described addresses assurance of a planning and execution software system being added to an in-orbit CubeSat to demonstrate autonomous control of that spacecraft. Our focus was on how to develop assurance of the correct operation of the added software in its operational context, our approach to which was to use an assurance case to guide and organize the information involved.
NASA quality assurance in an MBSE world
We explore the impact and consequences of the MBSE Value items discussed above and how they impact the disciplines of quality assurance, reliability and maintainability, system safety, and software assurance. We provide insight into how the MBSE modeling tools can be used to define S&MA processes (ideally as a result of Use Case [1] elaboration of processes represented in MagicDraw®), produce S&MA products (ViewEditor output of various items), and represent S&MA disciplines (S&MA inside of MagicDraw). We also provide insight into the degree to which some elements can be directly integrated into a SysML® model and when, as often happens, an interface to some external source must be provided.
Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment
A number of specific benefits that fit within the hallmarks of effective development are realized with implementation of model-based approaches to systems and assurance. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) enabled by standardized modeling languages (e.g., SysML®) is at the core. These benefits in the context of spaceflight system challenges can include: Improved management of complex development, Reduced risk in the development process, Improved cost management, Improved design decisions. With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community can improve early oversight and insight into project development. NASA has shown the basic constructs of SysML in an MBSE environment offer several key advantages, within a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) initiative.
A hybrid method of assurance cases and testing for improved confidence in autonomous space systems
UNKNOWN
A Hybrid Method of Assurance Cases and Testing for Improved Confidence in Autonomous Space Systems
Autonomous systems react intelligently to their environments, making them capable of handling many possible conditions, but challenging to test. We are investigating a new test development method that aims to maximize the confidence to be achieved by combining Assurance Cases with High Throughput Testing (HTT). Assurance Cases, developed for safety-critical systems, are a rigorous argument that the system satisfies a property (e.g., the Mars rover will not tip over during a traverse). They integrate testing, analysis, and environmental and operational assumptions, from which the set of conditions that testing must cover is determined. In our method, information from the Assurance Case is used to determine the test coverage needed, and then input to HTT to generate the minimal test suites needed to provide that coverage.
A Framework for Reliability and Safety Analysis of Complex Space Missions
Long duration and complex mission scenarios are characteristics of NASA's human exploration of Mars, and will provide unprecedented challenges. Systems reliability and safety will become increasingly demanding and management of uncertainty will be increasingly important. NASA's current pioneering strategy recognizes and relies upon assurance of crew and asset safety. In this regard, flexibility to develop and innovate in the emergence of new design environments and methodologies, encompassing modeling of complex systems, is essential to meet the challenges.
Identifying Where Mission Assurance Can Benefit from Model Based Systems Engineering
Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is being introduced and used to support many aspects of the engineering of complex systems. Our focus is on space systems, with a particular interest in Mission Assurance of those systems. We seek to identify where Mission Assurance can potentially benefit when a space system is developed using an MBSE approach. To do so we consider how MBSE can help provide the evidence that Mission Assurance needs, using the recently developed NASA Reliability and Maintainability Objective Hierarchy as the exposition of those needs. We illustrate this MBSE’s potential contributions using examples drawn from our prior survey of the MBSE literature addressing space mission assurance concerns. The overall conclusion we draw from this is that there are numerous ways in which MBSE may, and in some cases already does, support Mission Assurance.
Identifying Where Mission Assurance Can Benefit from Model Based Systems Engineering
No abstract available
Model Based Mission Assurance: NASA's Assurance Future
Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is seeing increased application in planning and design of NASA’s missions. This suggests the question: what will be the corresponding practice of Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA)? Contemporaneously, NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is evaluating a new objectives based approach to standards to ensure that the Safety and Mission Assurance disciplines and programs are addressing the challenges of NASA’s changing missions, acquisition and engineering practices, and technology. MBSE is a prominent example of a changing engineering practice. We use NASA’s objectives-based strategy for Reliability and Maintainability as a means to examine how MBSE will affect assurance. We surveyed MBSE literature to look specifically for these affects, and find a variety of them discussed (some are anticipated, some are reported from applications to date). Predominantly these apply to the early stages of design, although there are also extrapolations of how MBSE practices will have benefits for testing phases. As the effort to develop MBMA continues, it will need to clearly and unambiguously establish the roles of uncertainty and risk in the system model. This will enable a variety of uncertainty-based analyses to be performed much more rapidly than ever before and has the promise to increase the integration of CRM (Continuous Risk Management) and PRA (Probabilistic Risk Analyses) even more fully into the project development life cycle. Various views and viewpoints will be required for assurance disciplines, and an over-arching viewpoint will then be able to more completely characterize the state of the project/program as well as (possibly) enabling the safety case approach for overall risk awareness and communication.