SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This paper describes the planning and execution phases of the experiment. The paper presents results obtained from the flight experiment, and shares lessons learned.
The AutoCon computer programs facilitate and accelerate the planning and execution of orbital control maneuvers of spacecraft while analyzing and resolving mission constraints. AutoCon-F is executed aboard spacecraft, enabling the spacecraft to plan and execute maneuvers autonomously; AutoCon-G is designed for use on the ground. The AutoCon programs utilize advanced techniques of artificial intelligence, including those of fuzzy logic and natural-language scripting, to resolve multiple conflicting constraints and automatically plan maneuvers. These programs can be used to satisfy requirements for missions that involve orbits around the Earth, the Moon, or any planet, and are especially useful for missions in which there are requirements for frequent maneuvers and for resolution of complex conflicting constraints. During operations, the software targets new trajectories, places and sizes maneuvers, and controls spacecraft burns. AutoCon-G provides a userfriendly graphical interface, and can be used effectively by an analyst with minimal training. AutoCon-F reduces latency and supports multiple-spacecraft and formation-flying missions. The AutoCon architecture supports distributive processing, which can be critical for formation- control missions. AutoCon is completely object-oriented and can easily be enhanced by adding new objects and events. AutoCon-F was flight demonstrated onboard GSFC's EO-1 spacecraft flying in formation with Landsat-7.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.
LBNL researchers developed a template and companion guide for structuring distribution system plans. The template covers 10 key sections in utility distribution system plans and underlying topics: -Executive Summary -Planning Objectives -Current Distribution System -Planning Approach -Asst Management, Reliability and Resilience -O&M Expenses -Capacity Expansion Planning -Solution Identification -Cost-effectiveness -Implementation For each section in the template, the companion guide provides: a description of the topics covered and their importance; the type of content to include in the plan; an example utility approach; and references to other utility plans that serve as models for the topic.
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.
The Executive Summary and Proceedings of the Working Group Meeting was analyzed to identify specific projects appropriate for Distribution Automation and Control DAC RD&D. Specific projects that should be undertaken in the DAC RD&D program were recommended. The projects are presented under broad categories of work selected based on ESC's interpretation of the results of the Working Group Meeting. Some of the projects are noted as utility industry projects. The ESC recommendations regarding program management are presented. Utility versus Government management responsibilities are noted.
This paper will describe how the Spitzer Mission Operations System planned and executed the characterization phase between Spitzer's cryogenic mission and its warm mission. To the largest extend possible, the execution of this phase was done with existing processing and procedures. The modifications that were made were in response to the differences of the characterization phase compared to normal phases before and after. The primary two categories of difference are: unknown date of execution due to uncertainty of knowledge of the date of helium depletion, and the short cycle time for data analysis and re-planning during execution. In addition, all of the planning and design had to be done in parallel with normal operations, and we had to transition smoothly back to normal operations following the transition. This paper will also describe the re-planning we had to do following an anomaly discovered in the first days after helium depletion.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) partnered with E9 Insight (E9) to update the 2022 database of executive, legislative, and regulatory actions focusing on energy equity and directed at electricity and natural gas utilities. The resulting database contains 307 energy equity actions, which consist of documents (e.g., bills, dockets, and executive orders) identified through keyword searches associated with energy equity. Based on our review, almost half of states (32 + DC) were taking some sort of action on energy equity (i.e., executive order, PUC activity, agency plan, or executive bill). In the report, we explored temporal trends to track state actions over time across regions, outcomes, equity tenets, and objectives. We also explored what drivers led to what outcomes. Drivers were organized into legislative, regulatory, executive, and stakeholder-driven.
Version 2 of Closed Loop Execution and Recovery (CLEaR) has been developed. CLEaR is an artificial intelligence computer program for use in planning and execution of actions of autonomous agents, including, for example, Deep Space Network (DSN) antenna ground stations, robotic exploratory ground vehicles (rovers), robotic aircraft (UAVs), and robotic spacecraft. CLEaR automates the generation and execution of command sequences, monitoring the sequence execution, and modifying the command sequence in response to execution deviations and failures as well as new goals for the agent to achieve. The development of CLEaR has focused on the unification of planning and execution to increase the ability of the autonomous agent to perform under tight resource and time constraints coupled with uncertainty in how much of resources and time will be required to perform a task. This unification is realized by extending the traditional three-tier robotic control architecture by increasing the interaction between the software components that perform deliberation and reactive functions. The increase in interaction reduces the need to replan, enables earlier detection of the need to replan, and enables replanning to occur before an agent enters a state of failure.
We are developing onboard planning and execution technologies to provide robust and opportunistic mission operations for a potential Titan aerobot. Aerobot have the potential for collecting a vast amount of high priority science data. However, to be effective, an aerobot must address several challenges including communication constraints, extended periods without contact with Earth, uncertain and changing environmental conditions, maneuverability constraints and potentially short-lived science opportunities. We are developing the AerOASIS system to develop and test technology to support autonomous science operations for a potential Titan Aerobot. The planning and execution component of AerOASIS is able to generate mission operations plans that achieve science and engineering objectives while respecting mission and resource constraints as well as adapting the plan to respond to new science opportunities. Our technology leverages prior work on the OASIS system for autonomous rover exploration. In this paper we describe how the OASIS planning component was adapted to address the unique challenges of a Titan Aerobot and we describe a field demonstration of the system with the JPL prototype aerobot.
The Dawn spacecraft was launched on September 27th, 2007. Its mission is to consecutively rendezvous with and observe the two largest bodies in the asteroid belt, Vesta and Ceres. It has already completed over a year's worth of direct observations of Vesta (spanning from early 2011 through late 2012) and is currently on a cruise trajectory to Ceres, where it will begin scientific observations in mid-2015. Achieving this data collection required careful planning and execution from all spacecraft teams. Dawn's Orbit Determination (OD) team was tasked with accurately predicting the trajectory of the Dawn spacecraft during the Vesta science phases, and also determining the parameters of Vesta to support future science orbit design. The future orbits included the upcoming science phase orbits as well as the transfer orbits between science phases. In all, five science phases were executed at Vesta, and this paper will describe some of the OD team contributions to the planning and execution of those phases.
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a 6.6m diameter, segmented, deployable telescope for cryogenic IR space astronomy (~40K). The JWST Observatory includes the Optical Telescope Element (OTE) and the Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM) that contains four science instruments (SI) and the fine guider. The SIs are mounted to a composite metering structure. The SI and guider units were integrated to the ISIM structure and optically tested at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center as a suite using the Optical Telescope Element SIMulator (OSIM). OSIM is a full field, cryogenic JWST telescope simulator. SI performance, including alignment and wave front error, were evaluated using OSIM. We describe test and analysis methods for optical performance verification of the ISIM Element, with an emphasis on the processes used to plan and execute the test. The complexity of ISIM and OSIM drove us to develop a software tool for test planning that allows for configuration control of observations, associated scripts, and management of hardware and software limits and constraints, as well as tools for rapid data evaluation, and flexible re-planning in response to the unexpected. As examples of our test and analysis approach, we discuss how factors such as the ground test thermal environment are compensated in alignment. We describe how these innovative methods for test planning and execution and post-test analysis were instrumental in the verification program for the ISIM element, with enough information to allow the reader to consider these innovations and lessons learned in this successful effort in their future testing for other programs.
Integrated planning and execution of teleoperations in space with time delays is shown. The topics include: 1) The Problem; 2) Future Robot Surgery? 3) Approach Overview; 4) Robonaut; 5) Normal Planning and Execution; 6) Planner Context; 7) Implementation; 8) Use of JSHOP2; 9) Monitoring and Testing GUI; 10) Normal sequence: first the supervisor acts; 11) then the robot; 12) Robot might be late; 13) Supervisor can work ahead; 14) Deviations from Plan; 15) Robot State Change Example; 16) Accomplished goals skipped in replan; 17) Planning continuity; 18) Supervisor Deviation From Plan; 19) Intentional Deviation; and 20) Infeasible states.
Most approaches to robust automony with respect to planning and execution are focused on either providing models that allow for flexibility or providing techniques for changing models to improve performance. We take these techniques into consideration, but focus the majority of our work on robust autonomous planning and execution with imperfect models.
A multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary education is increasingly being emphasized for engineering undergraduates. However, often the focus is on interaction between engineering disciplines. This paper discusses the experience at Tuskegee University in providing interdisciplinary research experiences for undergraduate students in both Aerospace Engineering and Psychology through the utilization of a low cost flight simulation environment. The environment, which is pc-based, runs a low-cost of-the-shelf software and is configured for multiple out-of-the-window views and a synthetic heads down display with joystick, rudder and throttle controls. While the environment is being utilized to investigate and evaluate various strategies for training novice pilots, students were involved to provide them with experience in conducting such interdisciplinary research. On the global inter-disciplinary level these experiences included developing experimental designs and research protocols, consideration of human participant ethical issues, and planning and executing the research studies. During the planning phase students were apprised of the limitations of the software in its basic form and the enhancements desired to investigate human factors issues. A number of enhancements to the flight environment were then undertaken, from creating Excel macros for determining the performance of the 'pilots', to interacting with the software to provide various audio/video cues based on the experimental protocol. These enhancements involved understanding the flight model and performance, stability & control issues. Throughout this process, discussions of data analysis included a focus from a human factors perspective as well as an engineering point of view.
A simple, airborne, flight-management descent algorithm was developed and programmed into a small programmable calculator. The algorithm may be operated in either a time mode or speed mode. The time mode was designed to aid the pilot in planning and executing a fuel-conservative descent to arrive at a metering fix at a time designated by the air traffic control system. The speed model was designed for planning fuel-conservative descents when time is not a consideration. The descent path for both modes was calculated for a constant with considerations given for the descent Mach/airspeed schedule, gross weight, wind, wind gradient, and nonstandard temperature effects. Flight tests, using the algorithm on the programmable calculator, showed that the open-loop guidance could be useful to airline flight crews for planning and executing fuel-conservative descents.
Multiple organizations within NASA and outside of NASA fund and participate in research related to extravehicular activity (EVA). In October 2015, representatives of the EVA Office, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD), and the Human Research Program (HRP) at NASA Johnson Space Center agreed on a formal framework to improve multi-year coordination and collaboration in EVA research. At the core of the framework is an Integrated EVA Research Plan and a process by which it will be annually reviewed and updated. The over-arching objective of the collaborative framework is to conduct multi-disciplinary cost-effective research that will enable humans to perform EVAs safely, effectively, comfortably, and efficiently, as needed to enable and enhance human space exploration missions. Research activities must be defined, prioritized, planned and executed to comprehensively address the right questions, avoid duplication, leverage other complementary activities where possible, and ultimately provide actionable evidence-based results in time to inform subsequent tests, developments and/or research activities. Representation of all appropriate stakeholders in the definition, prioritization, planning and execution of research activities is essential to accomplishing the over-arching objective. A formal review of the Integrated EVA Research Plan will be conducted annually. External peer review of all HRP EVA research activities including compilation and review of published literature in the EVA Evidence Book is already performed annually. Coordination with stakeholders outside of the EVA Office, CTSD, and HRP is already in effect on a study-by-study basis; closer coordination on multi-year planning with other EVA stakeholders including academia is being actively pursued. Details of the current Integrated EVA Research Plan are presented including description of ongoing and planned research activities in the areas of: Benchmarking; Anthropometry and Suit Fit; Sensors; Human-Suit Modeling; Suit Trauma Monitoring and Countermeasures; EVA Workload and Duration Effects; Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation; Deconditioned EVA Performance; and Exploration EVA Concept of Operations.