LADEE Simulation for Mission Operations

Benz, Nathaniel

Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20190001788

LADEE Simulation for Mission Operations

Benz, Nathaniel

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) model-based spacecraft simulator has been discussed previously at the Workshop on Spacecraft Flight Software including the verification and validation of the flight software, hardware integration of payloads, and multi-domain simulation. In addition to flight software development and testing the LADEE simulator was used by Mission Operations to develop and test spacecraft command scripts, train operators during mission simulations, verification of all tactical command sequence files uploaded to spacecraft during flight.This presentation will discuss the experience of the LADEE operations team using the spacecraft simulator including implementation, processes and lessons learned. We will also discuss a specific instance where the simulator was used in operations to debug and design a software fix for a spacecraft anomaly experienced with the star tracker.

Explore related subjects

Operations Simulator Flight Software

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Benz, Nathaniel. 2018-12-14. LADEE Simulation for Mission Operations. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190001788

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2023

Commercial Low-Earth Orbit Destination (CLD) Concept of Operations

This concept of operations describes: - High-level Government goals, objectives, and needs for the CLD program, vehicle(s), and missions, - Strategies, policies, and processes for developing, certifying, maintaining, using, and retiring CLDs in the context of Government use, and - Government and CLD partner roles, responsibilities, and interactions during various phases of Government CLD operations. The intent of this document is to describe the overall high-level concept of how the end-to-end CLD service will be used to convey the nature and scope of services the Government intends to procure from the CLD partner. It will provide insight into NASA’s concepts for CLD operations rather than to provide mature, explicit, or complete requirements. It addresses how the concept of operations will be used to meet NASA expectations from an operational perspective to facilitate an understanding of the end-to-end CLD service needs, goals, and objectives (NGOs). Formal CLD requirements and standards are detailed in the NASA Commercial LEO Development Program’s (CLDP) various requirements, interface, process, and standards documents, as well as the contractual Statements of Work (SOW) and Data Requirement Deliverables (DRD). As such, the Concept of Operations can use terms such as “should” or “may” or “expects to” since it is not a contractual requirements document. It exists solely to convey the initial nature and type of services the Government intends to procure and is not, per se, a requirements document.

Operations↗

NASA NTRS2020

Remote Support of ISS Payload Operations During the COVID19 Pandemic

As part of the Human Health and Performance Contract (HHPC) with the NASA Johnson Space Center, the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Research Operations and Integration (ROI) element conducts the planning, implementation, and closing of human research operations on-board the International Space Station (ISS). These operations are supported out of the Telescience Support Center (TSC) located in the Mission Control Center at Houston’s Johnson Space Center (MCC-H). HRP ROI has an Emergency Response Plan in place to allow for remote operations to be completed in the case of inclement weather or other natural disaster; however, nominally, the remote support is only expected to last one to two weeks. In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, HRP ROI was challenged to complete a quick transition to supporting on-orbit operations remotely and distanced for an indefinite amount of time. This shift in ground support required close collaboration with various external groups as well as the implementation or adaptation of various technologies and tools to ensure no loss of science data. Operational adjustments were put into place for ground commanding, telemetry monitoring, personnel staffing and private and public audio and video with the ISS. Adjustments were also put in place for communication and collaboration with MCC-H, the Payload Operation and Integration Center (POIC) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), as well as between the various HRP ROI console team members spread across Houston, TX. The ability to successfully support a variety of on-orbit operations from any remote location is more in demand as the commercialization of low Earth orbit is expanding.

Operations↗

NASA NTRS2017

Beyond Control Centers

For NASA's Resource Prospector (RP) Lunar Rover Mission, we are moving away from a control center concept, to a fully distributed operation utilizing control nodes, with decision support from anywhere via mobile devices. This operations concept will utilize distributed information systems, notifications, mobile data access, and optimized mobile data display for off-console decision support. We see this concept of operations as a step in the evolution of mission operations from a central control center concept to a mission operations anywhere concept. The RP example is part of a trend, in which mission expertise for design, development and operations is distributed across countries and across the globe. Future spacecraft operations will be most cost efficient and flexible by following this distributed expertise, enabling operations from anywhere. For the RP mission we arrived at the decision to utilize a fully distributed operations team, where everyone operates from their home institution, based on evaluating the following factors: the requirement for physical proximity for near-real time command and control decisions; the cost of distributed control nodes vs. a centralized control center; the impact on training and mission preparation of flying the team to a central location. Physical proximity for operational decisions is seldom required, though certain categories of decisions, such as launch abort, or close coordination for mission or safety-critical near-real-time command and control decisions may benefit from co-location. The cost of facilities and operational infrastructure has not been found to be a driving factor for location in our studies. Mission training and preparation benefit from having all operators train and operate from home institutions.

Operations↗