Results for “The Concept of Operations (ConOps)” — Page 10

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗

NASA NTRS2005

Applying Qualitative Hazard Analysis to Support Quantitative Safety Analysis for Proposed Reduced Wake Separation Conops

This paper describes a scenario-driven hazard analysis process to identify, eliminate, and control safety-related risks. Within this process, we develop selective criteria to determine the applicability of applying engineering modeling to hypothesized hazard scenarios. This provides a basis for evaluating and prioritizing the scenarios as candidates for further quantitative analysis. We have applied this methodology to proposed concepts of operations for reduced wake separation for closely spaced parallel runways. For arrivals, the process identified 43 core hazard scenarios. Of these, we classified 12 as appropriate for further quantitative modeling, 24 that should be mitigated through controls, recommendations, and / or procedures (that is, scenarios not appropriate for quantitative modeling), and 7 that have the lowest priority for further analysis.

Shortle, John F.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration - 3 (ATD-3) Multi-Flight Common Route (MFCR) Concept of Operations Version 1.0

NASA's Multi Flight Common Route (MFCR) automation represents one element of those technologies focusing primarily on delay recovery in the en route phase of flight. Delay recovery is an attenuation of flight-time delay, accomplished by periodically revising weather-avoidance routing as the convective weather system evolves. MFCR is intended for use by Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs, or Centers) and traffic management specialists (TMSs) in the Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC). MFCR leverages existing weather, airspace, and traffic data, as well as improvements in navigation, surveillance, communication, and digital information technologies, to build on existing ATM automation and address some of the shortcomings associated with strategic traffic flow management initiatives and weather forecasting uncertainties. These capabilities provide significant potential benefits in the form of time, fuel, and cost savings. The concept of operations described in this document describes MFCR functionality as delivered by NASA to the FAA in December 2017, including a list of potential enhancements that may be realized when the system is fielded.

conops↗

NASA NTRS2023

NASA Space Environment Analog for Training, Engineering, Science, and Technology (SEATEST) 6 Detailed Final Report

After more than 50 years since the last crewed lunar landing, plans for more missions to the moon are in development. For these missions, efficient and sustainable logistics will be critical. Additionally, innovative methods of cargo transfer to and from a lunar outpost should be considered for successfully establishing a permanent presence on the moon. SEATEST (Space Environment Analog for Training, Engineering, Science, and Technology) is an immersive mission-analogous operational atmosphere where buoyancy effects and supplemental weights can simulate partial gravity conditions similar to those astronauts will experience on the moon. SEATEST 6 took place at the University of Southern California (USC) Wrigley Marine Science Center on Santa Catalina Island from July 18-30, 2023. The analog was used to collect preliminary logistics data on two different offloading conceptual methods (a davit and a zipline) during a simulated lunar mission. Pre-test analysis indicated for a crew of two on a 14-day mission, approximately three Medium Pressurized Logistics Containers (MPLC) sized logistics containers (or a total of 37.5 single Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalents (CTBE)) would be needed to support a mission. A Computer-Aided Design (CAD) analysis was employed on the SEATEST airlock mockup to determine how many logistic containers would fit with two suited crewmembers, don/doff stands, and hatch operations. It was determined that for SEATEST, a total of 15 1.0 Small Pressurized Logistics Containers (SPLCs) and 8 2.0 SPLCs would adequately fit into the approximate 9.5 cubic meter airlock volume. This does not fully represent a complete 14-day logistic supply; however, it does provide a preliminary estimate to initiate design conversations between logistics teams and crew at this early stage of development. Data were collected in eight logistics transfer scenarios over two days with four scenarios per day. Five test subject crew participated in scenarios as pairs. Scenarios included two sizes of logistics containers – 1.0 SPLC (equivalent to a single Cargo Transfer Bag (CTB) and 2.0 SPLC (equivalent to two CTBs). Planed evaluations included the use of a logistics port compared to transfer through an Airlock hatch, offloading methods based on either a davit or a zipline system, choreography of cargo in the airlock to permit ingress and suit doffing, and dust removal protocols for an understanding of the overall impact to transfer ops. Data collected included objective data (task times for conducting overall tasks and subtasks, full audio/video of test activities, and inadvertent “dings” on hardware) and subjective data (crew consensus of: task acceptability and capability assessment ratings related to best practices, considerations, and constraints for EVA-driven logistics transfer ConOps, sim quality of the test environment, and more general debrief comments). The two logistic offloading transfer concepts (davit, zipline) presented both advantages and limitations. The davit’s flexibility in allowing the crew to pick up the containers without physical interaction was well regarded by the crew. Some limitations of select davit hardware components were noted, but the overall concept was acceptable. The zipline system proved to be the most efficient way of moving logistics from the lander to the airlock and eliminated the need for dust operations. However, extended and repetitive lifting of containers to the line could be fatiguing. In conclusion, logistics transfer could hypothetically be achieved without an offloading method; however, the time requirement for such operations would be prohibitive. Results of crew subjective feedback proposed a combined or hybrid davit/zipline method to increase efficiency.

Logistics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerial Vehicle Routing and Scheduling for UAS Traffic Management: A Monte Carlo Tree Search Approach

Numerous unmanned aircraft systems operating at low altitudes to deliver goods and services may one day become ubiquitous in our cities. In the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) framework, such a concept is envisioned, where aerial vehicles operate beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) within specifically reserved and time stamped “corridors” in the airspace. For example, these corridors or operational intent volumes can connect an aerial vehicle’s origin site to its destination site for package delivery operations. There may also be more than one corridor available for an aerial vehicle to choose from and often different corridors may intersect with one another. Thus, it is imperative to ensure flight trajectories belonging to different aerial vehicles are not in conflict. Per the UTM CONOPs, we assume that a vehicle almost always stays inside its corridor or operational volume. This work provides a framework for strategic deconfliction of UTM or package delivery drones, where we schedule the departure time of all vehicles subject to various temporal constraints (including the corridor deconfliction at the intersections). We present the “multi-route weighted package delivery problem” which serves as an exemplifying model for strategic deconfliction in UTM. In the multi-route weighted package delivery problem, a graph network is given which consists of a set of depots (source) and drop-off (destination) nodes, with multiple routes (defined as a sequence of waypoints) connecting the depots to drop-off nodes. In addition, routes are weighted by the associated ground risk and total travel distance for package delivery. The goal is for a known set of aerial vehicles to depart from the depots, choose a route and take off time, while avoiding conflicts with other aerial vehicles, and minimizing both risk and distance traveled. We provide a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) formulation of the problem, as well as a heuristic solution based on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) – a method used in game theory and artificial intelligence – to overcome limitations inherent to optimal solvers. Computational results show the advantages of using MCTS over the MILP formulation; the former can provide a sub-optimal solution quickly, and may sometimes even reach an optimal solution, whereas the latter may not even produce a solution in reasonable time. Furthermore, results from both the MILP formulation and MCTS methods were validated using a preliminary agent-based simulator implementing the UTM concept of operations. Thus, the MCTS method can be seen as a scalable solution to the complex multi-route weighted package delivery problem and may possibly be extended to similar complex optimization problems.

Kenny Chour↗

NASA NTRS2023

Concept of Operations for an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) for Upper E Airspace

The National Airspace System undergoes continuous change including in the Upper Class E airspace involving increasingly complex operations and a widening diversity of vehicles. To secure a safe future system, the National Academies recommended an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) that is extensible to Upper E. Current Air Traffic Management is not cost-effective to scale for future Upper E operations and diversity of vehicles so the Federal Aviation Administration developed an Upper E Traffic Management ConOps to safely integrate the diverse operations and vehicles having different performance characteristics and flight missions without disrupting current operations including space launch and reentry, suborbital flights, supersonic and hypersonic flights, slow moving or stationary unmanned balloons, and long endurance fixed wing vehicles that are slow, stationary, or high speed. IASMS integrates state-of-the-art predictive modeling with reactive and proactive analytics to detect hazards and mitigate risk precursors for Upper E operators. IASMS identifies emergent safety risks exposed by transformation of the NAS with new and increasingly complex operations. Safety intelligence will also expand the data available and offer insight to new approaches for implementing safety improvements to mitigate risk with more seamless “in-time” integration across the policy, risk management, safety assurance, and promotion pillars of SMS.

K Ellis↗

NASA NTRS2023

An In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) Concept of Operations for Vertiport Design and Operations

The National Airspace System is foreseen to undergo revolutionary change with Urban Air Mobility (UAM) and its use of vertiports to transport passengers and cargo. To assure safety with UAM and more broadly with Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), the National Academies recommended an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) that is extensible to the design and operation of vertiports. Vertiport designs will scale in several dimensions including physical size and infrastructure depending upon location and in the Services, Functions, and Capabilities required for assuring safety with increasingly complex vertiport designs and operations. These operations will be enabled by evolving technologies including electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft for passenger-and cargo-carrying commercial transportation. Within this construct, safety hazards and risk mitigations involving predictive data analytics and modeling will be used. Use cases and future challenges are examined to guide maturation of the IASMS ConOps for vertiports.

K Ellis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lessons Learned from Medical System Foundation Development for Long-Duration Lunar Orbit and Lunar Surface Missions

The Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element has been tasked with the development of Medical System Foundations for Level of Care IV for both short-duration lunar orbital missions and, subsequently, long-duration lunar orbital and surface operations missions. These Medical System Foundations serve as a framework to aid in early medical system design and mission planning. The content of both Foundation models is similar, consisting of a concept of operations, functional decomposition, clinical content (medical conditions, capabilities, and resources), technical requirements (interface, non-functional, and functional), and traces between these components and to the NASA standards documents and parent-level (Program- and Vehicle habitat system-level) requirements. Additionally, the development of both Foundations employed systems engineering principles and a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach. Throughout the development of these Foundations, ExMC has strived to improve the efficiency and robustness of its processes and to be more responsive to change (i.e., in design reference mission parameters and assumptions) and to stakeholders’ feedback. The most significant improvements made between the short- and long-duration Foundation models during this transformation process are the following: • Replacement of the traditional document-based ConOps with a model-based ConOps according to MBSE principles, which facilitated more efficient understanding of the material and the consolidation of all relevant information into a centralized location. • Utilization of an agile approach with tasks organized into sprints. This approach enabled solicitation of more frequent usability feedback from stakeholders, incorporation of more human factors reviews into the sprints, and more efficient tasking of team members. This presentation will discuss the journey of developing both Foundation models, as well as the lessons learned and resulting improvements made between the Short- and Long-Duration models.

M Kaetzer↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing the Exploration ConOps (ExCon) Mockup Suit in Lunar Analog Environments in 2022

Understanding how to effectively train for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for Artemis missions is critical. Developing high-fidelity simulation environments is important for Artemis mission preparation. Because the actual Lunar exploration environment cannot be fully replicated on Earth, it is paramount to determine where and how to properly train the Artemis team. The overall focus for this test series was developing the capability to perform Artemis simulated EVAs in high-fidelity, full-scale environments. This test series was broken into three distinct tests titled after the EVA & Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) integrated test team: Joint EVA & HSM Test Team (JETT). The test locations are planned to serve as Artemis training sites and were selected because of their relevance to the expected Artemis Lunar terrain. JETT1 was conducted near Kilbourne Hole by El Paso, Texas and focused on hardware development and checkout. JETT2 was conducted in the Icelandic Highlands and began the transition towards EVA concept of operations (con-ops), risks and technology. JETT3 was conducted near SP Crater by Flagstaff, Arizona and focused on simulating the Artemis III mission including a Houston based Flight Control Team (FCT) and a Science Mission Directorate (SMD) science team. All three JETT tests utilized the Exploration Concept of Operations (ExCon) mockup space suit. The ExCon mockup suit is a lightweight, unpressurized Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) simulator. While it cannot replicate the feel of working within a pressurized suit, it does introduce similar volume constraints and some of the mobility programing to simulate the user experience in the xEMU. Overall, the JETT testing was able to create a simulated Lunar EVA and have two subjects perform full scale operations in line with Artemis III mission expectations. Future work is planned to continue to improve the simulation quality of Lunar EVA simulations.

spacesuit↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing the Exploration Conops (Excon) Mockup Suit in Lunar Analog Environments in 2022

Understanding how to effectively train for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for Artemis missions is critical. Developing high-fidelity simulation environments is important for Artemis mission preparation. Because the actual Lunar exploration environment cannot be fully replicated on Earth, it is paramount to determine where and how to properly train the Artemis team. The overall focus for this test series was developing the capability to perform Artemis simulated EVAs in high-fidelity, full-scale environments. This test series was broken into three distinct tests titled after the EVA & Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) integrated test team: Joint EVA & HSM Test Team (JETT). The test locations are planned to serve as Artemis training sites and were selected because of their relevance to the expected Artemis Lunar terrain. JETT1 was conducted near Kilbourne Hole by El Paso, Texas and focused on hardware development and checkout. JETT2 was conducted in the Icelandic Highlands and began the transition towards EVA concept of operations (con-ops), risks and technology. JETT3 was conducted near SP Crater by Flagstaff, Arizona and focused on simulating the Artemis III mission including a Houston based Flight Control Team (FCT) and a Science Mission Directorate (SMD) science team. All three JETT tests utilized the Exploration Concept of Operations (ExCon) mockup space suit. The ExCon mockup suit is a lightweight, unpressurized Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) simulator. While it cannot replicate the feel of working within a pressurized suit, it does introduce similar volume constraints and some of the mobility programing to simulate the user experience in the xEMU. Overall, the JETT testing was able to create a simulated Lunar EVA and have two subjects perform full scale operations in line with Artemis III mission expectations. Future work is planned to continue to improve the simulation quality of Lunar EVA simulations.

spacesuit↗

NASA NTRS2018

Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration - 3 (ATD-3): Operational Concept for the Integration of ATD-3 Capabilities Version 1.0

ATD-3 has developed four capabilities to address its goal and objectives. The four ATD-3 capabilities include: Dynamic Weather Routes (DWR), Multi-Flight Common Routes (MFCR), Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests (TASAR), and Dynamic Routes for Arrivals in Weather (DRAW). This document describes the long-term, mature vision for the use and incorporation of the ATD-3 capabilities into the National Airspace System (NAS). This vision describes their complementary interaction and the benefit capture that accrues from use. Recognizing that all capabilities are unlikely to be implemented in unison, each of the capabilities is designed and able to be implemented independently. As discrete portions of the integrated capabilities are planned, additional integration efforts should be undertaken to validate the complementary interactions and benefit pool are realized from the selected subset.

ConOps↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing the Exploration Conops (Excon) Mockup Suit in Lunar Analog Environments in 2022

Understanding how to effectively train for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for Artemis missions is critical. Developing high-fidelity simulation environments is important for Artemis mission preparation. Because the actual Lunar exploration environment cannot be fully replicated on Earth, it is paramount to determine where and how to properly train the Artemis team. Tasked by the new Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program(EHP), a team of stakeholders from engineering, flight operations, human health and performance, astromaterials and science, and the crew office worked together to perform EVAs in 3 simulated lunar environments. The overall focus for this test series was developing the capability to perform Artemis simulated EVAs in high-fidelity, full-scale environments. This test series was broken into 3 distinct tests titled after the EHP integrated test team: Joint EVA Test Team (JETT). The test locations are planned to serve as Artemis training sites and were selected because of their relevance to the expected Artemis Lunar terrain. JETT1was conducted near Kilbourne Holeby El Paso, Texas and focused on hardware development and checkout. JETT2 was conducted in the Icelandic Highlands and began the transition towards EVA concept operations(con-ops), risks and technology.JETT3 was conducted near SP Crater by Flagstaff Arizona and focused on simulating the Artemis III mission with a simulated Houston based Flight Control Team (FCT) and a Science Mission Directorate (SMD) science team. All three JETT tests utilized the Excon mockup space suit. The Excon mockup suit is a light-weight, unpressurized Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU)simulator. While it cannot replicate the feel of working within a pressurized suit, it does introduce similar volume constraints and some of the mobility programing to simulate the user experience in the xEMU. Overall, the JETT testing was able to create a simulated Lunar EVA and have two subjects perform full scale operations in line with Artemis III mission expectations. Future work is planned to continue to improve the simulation quality of Lunar EVA simulations.

spacesuit↗

NASA NTRS2023

Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2022 Test Report

The primary purpose of the 2022 Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS 22) analog mission field test was to provide data and recommendations regarding how pressurized rover (PR) design, cabin configuration, driving modes, timeline constraints, and mission operations can be acceptably implemented to support future Artemis missions that include a PR. The goal of these evaluations was to provide first order feedback and data on design concepts currently being traded as options for future pressurized rover flight prototypes. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) may provide a PR for future Artemis missions. One of the primary objectives of D-RATS 2022 was to share with the JAXA PR team the processes and protocols by which NASA has learned to successfully evaluate rover concepts through integrated HITL evaluations over the past 20+ years, so that JAXA could apply any applicable lessons learned to their PR design, development, testing, and evaluation.

analog↗

NASA NTRS2025

Provider of Services for Urban Air Mobility (PSU) Prototype Simulation (X5) Final Report

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new air transportation service concept to carry passengers or cargo in metropolitan areas, leveraged by innovative aircraft and air traffic automation technologies. NASA has conducted a series of simulations, called the X-series simulation, to evaluate the UAM concept of operations and support the development of airspace procedures and services for UAM operations. The simulation called “X5” was conducted in 2023 to test a Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) prototype developed by NASA for UAM flight planning, strategic conflict management support, and data exchange between UAM operators. In this simulation, two strategic conflict management capabilities, Demand-Capacity Balancing and Sequencing and Scheduling, were further investigated. This document describes the UAM system architecture modeled, the X5 simulation environment to be executed (e.g., traffic scenario and UAM airspace construct), and the strategic conflict management processes developed and evaluated in this study. Then, the simulation results are provided using several system performance metrics, such as the number of operations planned and activated, demand-capacity imbalances detected and resolved, and pre-departure delays. Based on these metrics, the test findings and lessons learned from this simulation are discussed. NASA developed a PSU prototype as part of a reference implementation of UAM system architecture and evolved strategic conflict management capabilities for UAM operations from the previous collaborative simulations with industry partners. Below is the summary of the achievements: - Aligned NASA’s UAM reference architecture with the FAA’s UAM ConOps notional architecture - Extended UAM airspace management capabilities to include 1) Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to ensure operators coordinate planned usage of shared vertiports, and 2) Sequencing and Scheduling (S&S) at UAM corridor entry and exit points to help facilitate an orderly flow of traffic - Defined the PSU information exchange APIs and requirements towards informing industry standards - Developed and tested a NASA PSU prototype as reference implementation to validate the requirements and APIs - Developed a prototype service connecting NASA’s PSU and the FAA system for testing future PSU-ATM interface requirements - Tested NASA-developed assumptions for UAM operations such as airspace design, procedures, vehicle performance, and strategic conflict management methods to inform future Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs) development with industry - Evaluated system performance metrics such as number of simultaneous operations and ground delays that can help define system-level requirements. The simulation results showed that the UAM traffic demand could be managed to minimize the needs of tactical separation provision with ground delays assigned by DCB and S&S. These accomplishments and the lessons learned from the PSU Prototype X5 simulation activities will be valuable inputs for the Air Mobility Pathfinders (AMP) project, which is NASA’s new project to create and evaluate a reference architecture for safe, secure, and scalable UAM operations.

Simulation↗