Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Process Mission Teams”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

The InSAR Scientific Computing Environment 3.0: A Flexible Framework for NISAR Operational and User-Led Science Processing

The InSAR Scientific Computing Environment (ISCE) was first developed under the NASA Advanced Information Systems Technology as a flexible, extensible object-oriented framework for Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) processing. The ISCE framework uses Python 3 at the workflow level, controlling modules of compiled code for functional processing, and managing inputs, outputs, and other flow control services. The currently released version, called ISCE 2.1, is distributed to the research community through the Western North America InSAR Consortium under a research license. The ISCE team is working on the next generation of the code in order to prepare for the NASAISRO SAR (NISAR) mission operational processing. Innovations in this code include augmentation or conversion of the custom Python framework elements in ISCE with the Pyre framework, new workflows for interferometric and polarimetric stack processing, a more intuitive and graphically based user interface, and flow control for hybrid computing environments including CPU/GPU clusters, logging and error tracking facilities, and new more efficient computational modules that exploit graphical processor units (GPUs) when available. The ISCE 3.0 framework is designed to work in an operational environment as well as on a single user’s laptop or compute cluster, with services to discover capabilities and scale computations accordingly.

Buckley, Sean M.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Exploring Mission Concepts with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts called the A-Team. The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods with subject matter expertise and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. Methods are grouped by Concept Maturity Level (CML), from 1 through 3, including idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for each CML are presented, and the key team roles are described from two points of view: innovative methods and technical expertise. A-Team roles for providing innovative methods include the facilitator, study lead, and assistant study lead. A-Team roles for providing technical expertise include the architect, lead systems engineer, and integration engineer. In addition to these key roles, each A-Team study is uniquely staffed to match the study topic and scope including subject matter experts, scientists, technologists, flight and instrument systems engineers, and program managers as needed. Advanced analysis and collaborative engineering tools (e.g. cost, science traceability, mission design, knowledge capture, study and analysis support infrastructure) are also under development for use in A-Team studies and will be discussed briefly. The A-Team facilities provide a constructive environment for innovative ideas from all aspects of mission formulation to eliminate isolated studies and come together early in the development cycle when they can provide the biggest impact. This paper provides an overview of the A-Team, its study processes, roles, methods, tools and facilities.

Team Eureka↗
NASA NTRS2002

Science Planning for Multi-Spacecraft Coordinated Observations

Fulfilling the promise of an era of great observatories, NASA now has more than three space-based astronomical telescopes operating in different wavebands. This situation provides astronomers with a unique opportunity to simultaneously observe with multiple observatories. Yet scheduling multiple observatories simultaneously is highly inefficient when compared to single observatory observations. Thus, programs using multiple observatories are limited not due to scientific restrictions, but due to operational inefficiencies. Each year, a number of proposals are accepted by a space-based observatory for conduction of astronomical observations and gathering of science data for the study of galactic events. Since each space-based observatory uses a set of instruments designed to operate in specific energy regions, most such studies are conducted by submitting observation proposals to multiple observatories, with requests to coordinate among themselves. To assure that the proposed observations can be scheduled, each observatory's staff has to check that the observations are valid and meet all the constraints for their own observatory; in addition, they have to verify that the observations satisfy the constraints of the other observatories. Thus, coordinated observations require painstaking manual collaboration among the observatory staff at each observatory. In order to exploit new paradigms for observatory operation, the Goddard Space Flight Center's Advanced Architectures and Automation Branch has developed a prototype tool called the Visual Observation Layout Tool (VOLT). The main objective of VOLT is to provide a visual tool to automate the science planning of coordinated observations for multiple spacecraft, as well as to increase the scheduling probability of observations. However, VOLT is also useful for single observatory planning to optimize observatory control. Three space-based missions are interested in using VOLT (the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer). The VOLT team members have collaborated with these missions to gather requirements and obtain feedback on their mission planning processes. VOLT has been developed as a cross-platform Java client application for use by scientists and observatory science planning staff to visualize scheduling options and constraints. It also supports a lightweight graphical user interface for remote viewing via a Web front end. Additionally, it uniquely supports the ability to interact with multiple, diverse scheduling packages in order to determine windows of opportunity for observations and visually portray the constraints of each observation request. VOLT enables science data capture scenarios which are currently either impossible, or which require extensive time and manpower to coordinate amongst multiple observatories. it supports early detection of planning conflicts by generating coordinated solutions based on observatory schedulability and constraints. The project development approach has included frequent prototype demonstrations to our interested missions to obtain feedback after each release of the software. We will present an overview of our lessons learned in infusing the VOLT tool into the operations of the missions we have collaborated with and a brief demonstration of the software.

Maks, Lori↗
NASA NTRS2010

MaROS Strategic Relay Planning and Coordination Interfaces

The Mars Relay Operations Service (MaROS) is designed to provide planning and analysis tools in support of ongoing Mars Network relay operations. Strategic relay planning requires coordination between lander and orbiter mission ground data system (GDS) teams to schedule and execute relay communications passes. MaROS centralizes this process, correlating all data relevant to relay coordination to provide a cohesive picture of the relay state. Service users interact with the system through thin-layer command line and web user interface client applications. Users provide and utilize data such as lander view periods of orbiters, Deep Space Network (DSN) antenna tracks, and reports of relay pass performance. Users upload and download relevant relay data via formally defined and documented file structures including some described in Extensible Markup Language (XML). Clients interface with the system via an http-based Representational State Transfer (ReST) pattern using Javascript Object Notation (JSON) formats. This paper will provide a general overview of the service architecture and detail the software interfaces and considerations for interface design.

Allard, Daniel A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Human Factors Throughout the Life Cycle: Lessons Learned from the Shuttle Program

With the ending of the Space Shuttle Program, it is critical that we not forget the Human Factors lessons we have learned over the years. At every phase of the life cycle, from manufacturing, processing and integrating vehicle and payload, to launch, flight operations, mission control and landing, hundreds of teams have worked together to achieve mission success in one of the most complex, high-risk socio-technical enterprises ever designed. Just as there was great diversity in the types of operations performed at every stage, there was a myriad of human factors that could further complicate these human systems. A single mishap or close call could point to issues at the individual level (perceptual or workload limitations, training, fatigue, human error susceptibilities), the task level (design of tools, procedures and aspects of the workplace), as well as the organizational level (appropriate resources, safety policies, information access and communication channels). While we have often had to learn through human mistakes and technological failures, we have also begun to understand how to design human systems in which individuals can excel, where tasks and procedures are not only safe but efficient, and how organizations can foster a proactive approach to managing risk and supporting human enterprises. Panelists will talk about their experiences as they relate human factors to a particular phase of the shuttle life cycle. They will conclude with a framework for tying together human factors lessons-learned into system-level risk management strategies.

human factors↗
NASA NTRS1989

Technology for the Mission to Planet Earth

Mission to Planet Earth is a concept referring to the endeavor of making long term, space based global observations for the purpose of understanding earth system processes. The Ad Hoc Review Team on Space Technology was formed to determine what technologies must be developed in the near term to support this endeavor. The review team's central finding is that the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology has identified all the correct technologies to pursue, but that the mission and system architecture has not been developed sufficiently to permit determination of meaningful priorities. Some of the specific recommendations of the review team are as follows: (1) long term, space based investigation of global changes and the earth's systems; (2) studies should begin that include the performance of relative cost-benefit trade-off analyses and development of operations concepts; (3) funding should be increased, especially in research and development; (4) pursue new technology in information processing; (5) improve interagency integration and coordination; and (6) after architecture studies are complete, another team should meet to consider questions of technology priorities, development schedules, and funding allocation.

Graham, Amy↗
NASA NTRS2020

MER Opportunity dust-storm recovery operations and implications for future Mars surface missions

In June 2018, NASA’s Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity became engulfed in the most intense global dust storm observed in its 14-year mission and in Mars’ recorded history. Sapped of life-giving solar energy, Opportunity fell silent to ground operators on June 11, in what would be its final call home. Over the course of the next eight months, the MER team employed numerous recovery efforts and radiated over one thousand commands to wake the silent rover. Although unsuccessful, MER’s dust-storm recovery team changed the paradigm of dust-storm operations from Opportunity’s survival of a previous global dust storm in 2007. In this paper, the authors offer a glimpse into MER’s recovery efforts and lessons learned from Opportunity dust-storm operations for future solar-powered Mars surface missions. In the first section, the authors discuss the indicators of the approaching dust storm and the actions the team employed to reduce Opportunity’s power consumption and preserve available battery charge prior to loss of contact. The second section discusses the team’s recovery efforts until Opportunity’s declared End-of-Mission, the steps the team took to re-establish contact with Opportunity, the assumptions made during each step of the recovery process, and the commanding actions employed. Finally, the authors discuss the operational impacts of global dust storms on the safe and successful operation of solar-powered spacecraft on the Martian surface, and offer design recommendations for future solar-powered missions from the lessons learned during Opportunity’s 14-year mission and experience through two global dust storms.

Nelson, Robert W.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Science Planning for the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), launched on August 12, 2005, carries six science instruments, each with unique requirements for repetitive global monitoring, regional or global survey mapping, and/or targeted observations of Mars. Some prefer nadir-only observations, while other instruments require many off-nadir observations (especially for stereo viewing). Because the operations requirements are often incompatible, an interactive science planning process has been developed. This process is more complex than in some recent NASA Mars missions, but less complex (and more repetitive) than processes used by many large planetary missions. It takes full advantage of MRO's novel onboard processing capabilities, and uses simple electronic interactions between geographically distributed teams. This paper describes the process used during MRO's Primary Science Phase (PSP) to plan both interactive and non-interactive observations of Mars, and what has already been learned in the tests and rehearsals preparing for PSP.

planning↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trends in Human Spaceflight: Analysis of Observed Propulsion Failure Modes Following NASA’s Artemis I Mission

In 2022, NASA’s Artemis program returned the agency to lunar space, propelled by the Orion European Service Module (ESM). Through rigorous ground test campaigns for Artemis I and II and the collection and transmission of operational data during the Artemis I flight, the Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) team created and maintained a robust database of component nonconformances. This study analyzes in-flight and ground processing findings on the Artemis ESM propulsion subsystem to track reliability and safety metrics, as well as comparing the data to that of previous human spaceflight programs, Apollo and Space Shuttle. In drawing a comparison to the Artemis I flight, recommendations can be made for the Artemis II crewed mission to ensure best practices for flight safety, including redundancy and failure tolerance in the system. The results reinforce a need for robust safety standards and caution against the complacency of a single successful test flight.

human spaceflight safety↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trends in Human Spaceflight: Analysis of Observed Propulsion Failure Modes Following NASA’s Artemis I Mission

In 2022, NASA’s Artemis program returned the agency to lunar space, propelled by the Orion European Service Module (ESM). Through rigorous ground test campaigns for Artemis I and II and the collection and transmission of operational data during the Artemis I flight, the Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) team created and maintained a robust database of component nonconformances. This study analyzes in-flight and ground processing findings on the Artemis ESM propulsion subsystem to track reliability and safety metrics, as well as comparing the data to that of previous human spaceflight programs, Apollo and Space Shuttle. In drawing a comparison to the Artemis I flight, recommendations can be made for the Artemis II crewed mission to ensure best practices for flight safety, including redundancy and failure tolerance in the system. The results reinforce a need for robust safety standards and caution against the complacency of a single successful test flight.

human spaceflight safety↗
NASA NTRS1981

Space Transportation System Cargo projects: inertial stage/spacecraft integration plan. Volume 1: Management plan

The Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Management System for the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) - spacecraft processing from KSC arrival through launch is described. The roles and responsibilities of the agencies and test team organizations involved in IUS-S/C processing at KSC for non-Department of Defense missions are described. Working relationships are defined with respect to documentation preparation, coordination and approval, schedule development and maintenance, test conduct and control, configuration management, quality control and safety. The policy regarding the use of spacecraft contractor test procedures, IUS contractor detailed operating procedures and KSC operations and maintenance instructions is defined. Review and approval requirements for each documentation system are described.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

Laser Communication Demonstration System (LCDS) and future mobile satellite services

The Laser Communications Demonstration System (LCDS) is a proposed in-orbit demonstration of high data rate laser communications technology conceived jointly by NASA and U.S. industry. The program objectives are to stimulate industry development and to demonstrate the readiness of high data rate optical communications in Earth orbit. For future global satellite communication systems using intersatellite links, laser communications technology can offer reduced mass and power requirements and higher channel bandwidths without regulatory constraints. As currently envisioned, LCDS will consist of one or two orbiting laser communications terminals capable of demonstrating high data rate (greater than 750Mbps) transmission in a dynamic space environment. Two study teams led by Motorola and Ball Aerospace are currently in the process of conducting a Phase A/B mission definition study of LCDS under contracts with JPL/NASA. The studies consist of future application survey, concept and requirements definition, and a point design of the laser communications flight demonstration. It is planned that a single demonstration system will be developed based on the study results. The Phase A/B study is expected to be completed by the coming June, and the current results of the study are presented in this paper.

Chien-Chung Chen↗
NASA NTRS2008

Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA's Constellation System

In 2004 NASA began implementation of the first phases of a new space exploration policy. This implementation effort included the development of a new human-carrying spacecraft, known as Orion; the Altair lunar lander; and two new launch vehicles, the Ares I and Ares V rockets.collectively called the Constellation System (described in Chapter 5 of this report). The Altair lunar lander, which is in the very preliminary concept stage, is not discussed in detail in the report. In 2007 NASA asked the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the science opportunities enabled by the Constellation System. To do so, the NRC established the Committee on Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA's Constellation System. In general, the committee interpreted "Constellation-enabled" broadly, to include not only mission concepts that required Constellation, but also those that could be significantly enhanced by Constellation. The committee intends this report to be a general overview of the topic of science missions that might be enabled by Constellation, a sort of textbook introduction to the subject. The mission concepts that are reviewed in this report should serve as general examples of kinds of missions, and the committee s evaluation should not be construed as an endorsement of the specific teams that developed the mission concepts or of their proposals. Additionally, NASA has a well-developed process for establishing scientific priorities by asking the NRC to conduct a "decadal survey" for a particular discipline. Any scientific mission that eventually uses the Constellation System will have to be properly evaluated by means of this decadal survey process. The committee was impressed with the scientific potential of many of the proposals that it evaluated. However, the committee notes that the Constellation System has been justified by NASA and selected in order to enable human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.not to enable science missions. Virtually all of the science mission concepts that could take advantage of Constellation s unique capabilities are likely to be prohibitively expensive. Several times in the past NASA has begun ambitious space science missions that ultimately proved too expensive for the agency to pursue. Examples include the Voyager-Mars mission and the Prometheus program and its Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter spacecraft (both examples are discussed in Chapter 1). Finding: The scientific missions reviewed by the committee as appropriate for launch on an Ares V vehicle fall, with few exceptions, into the "flagship" class of missions. The preliminary cost estimates, based on mission concepts that at this time are not very detailed, indicate that the costs of many of the missions analyzed will be above $5 billion (in current dollars). The Ares V costs are not included in these estimates. All of the costs discussed in this report are presented in current-year (2008) dollars, not accounting for potential inflation that could occur between now and the decade in which these missions might be pursued. In general, preliminary cost estimates for proposed missions are, for many reasons, significantly lower than the final costs. Given the large cost estimates for many of the missions assessed in this report, the potentially large impacts on NASA's budget by many of these missions are readily apparent.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2019

"Making Safety Happen" Through Probabilistic Risk Assessment at NASA

NASA is using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as one of the tools in its Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) tool belt to identify and quantify risks associated with human spaceflight. This paper discusses some of the challenges and benefits associated with developing and using PRA for NASA human space programs. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, while some have implemented PRA from the start of the program. It has been observed that the earlier a design change is made in the concept or design phase, the less impact it has on cost and schedule. Not finding risks until the operation phase yields much costlier design changes and major delays, which can result in discussions of just accepting the risk. Risk contributors identified by PRA are not just associated with hardware failures. They include but are not limited to crew fatality due to medical causes, the environment the vehicle and crew are exposed to, the software being used, and the reliability of the crew performing required actions. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, and while PRA can still provide a benefit for operations and future design trades, the benefit of implementing PRA from the start of the program provides the added benefit of informing design and reducing risk early in program development. Currently, NASA’s International Space Station (ISS) program is in its 20th year of on-orbit operations around the Earth and has several new programs in the design phase preparing to enter the operation phase all of which have active (or living) PRAs. These programs incorporate PRA as part of their Risk-Informed, Decision-Making (RIDM) process. For new NASA human spaceflight programs discussion begins with mission concept, establishing requirements, forming the PRA team, and continues through the design cycles into the operational phase. Several examples of PRA related applications and observed lessons are included.

Applications↗
NASA NTRS2008

Europa Explorer Operational Scenarios Development

In 2007, NASA conducted four advanced mission concept studies for outer planets targets: Europa, Ganymede, Titan and Enceladus. The studies were conducted in close cooperation with the planetary science community. Of the four, the Europa Explorer Concept Study focused on refining mission options, science trades and implementation details for a potential flagship mission to Europa in the 2015 timeframe. A science definition team (SDT) was appointed by NASA to guide the study. A JPL-led engineering team worked closely with the science team to address 3 major focus areas: 1) credible cost estimates, 2) rationale and logical discussion of radiation risk and mitigation approaches, and 3) better definition and exploration of science operational scenario trade space. This paper will address the methods and results of the collaborative process used to develop Europa Explorer operations scenarios. Working in concert with the SDT, and in parallel with the SDT's development of a science value matrix, key mission capabilities and constraints were challenged by the science and engineering members of the team. Science goals were advanced and options were considered for observation scenarios. Data collection and return strategies were tested via simulation, and mission performance was estimated and balanced with flight and ground system resources and science priorities. The key to this successful collaboration was a concurrent development environment in which all stakeholders could rapidly assess the feasibility of strategies for their success in the full system context. Issues of science and instrument compatibility, system constraints, and mission opportunities were treated analytically and objectively leading to complementary strategies for observation and data return. Current plans are that this approach, as part of the system engineering process, will continue as the Europa Explorer Concept Study moves toward becoming a development project.

Lock, Robert E.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Mission Operations Working Group (MOWG) Report to the OMI Science Team

This PowerPoint presentation will discuss Aura's current spacecraft and OMI insturment status, highlight anyperformance trends and impacts to OMI operations, identify any operational changes and express concerns or potential process improvements. Reviewed by Eric Moyer, ESMO Deputy Project Manager.

Aura Mission Status↗
NASA NTRS2006

Spitzer Observatory Operations -- Increasing Efficiency in Mission Operations

This paper explores the how's and why's of the Spitzer Mission Operations System's (MOS) success, efficiency, and affordability in comparison to other observatory-class missions. MOS exploits today's flight, ground, and operations capabilities, embraces automation, and balances both risk and cost. With operational efficiency as the primary goal, MOS maintains a strong control process by translating lessons learned into efficiency improvements, thereby enabling the MOS processes, teams, and procedures to rapidly evolve from concept (through thorough validation) into in-flight implementation. Operational teaming, planning, and execution are designed to enable re-use. Mission changes, unforeseen events, and continuous improvement have often times forced us to learn to fly anew. Collaborative spacecraft operations and remote science and instrument teams have become well integrated, and worked together to improve and optimize each human, machine, and software-system element.

operational efficiency↗