Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ITERATIVE NETWORK”

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.

188 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Vision-Based Distributed Sensing at Vertiports for Advanced Air Mobility and Urban Air Mobility Approach and Landing

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) encompasses a broad vision for air transportation, including Urban Air Mobility (UAM) as a subset. AAM aims to create a more connected and efficient transportation network across various geographical settings. However, navigating AAM aircraft in GPS-denied or degraded environments during approach and landing is challenging. Traditional vision aids like glideslopes and localizers are limited in vertiport environments due to narrow beam constraints and reduced landing angle options. This paper addresses the need for accurate navigation solutions at vertiports by proposing a vision-based distributed sensing (VIDIS) system utilizing cameras with bundle adjustment to assist incoming AAM aircraft during approach and landing while monitoring surface movements to enhance safety and efficiency. Key focus areas for current and future vertiport developers include identifying suitable sensor types and infrastructure standards to support AAM operations and including vertiport markings as vision-based navigation aids. The proposed system offers a novel approach to overcoming navigation challenges in AAM operations, particularly in urban settings where traditional aids may be insufficient. Preliminary simulation results with distributed cameras demonstrate promising outcomes for implementing bundle adjustment techniques to enhance vision-based navigation solutions at vertiports. Generating waypoint-based trajectories via waypoint integration using explicit guidance synthesis (WINGS) creates smooth AAM trajectories for landing at vertiports by using the current waypoint's terminal conditions as the initial conditions for the next waypoint. Combining bundle adjustment's ground-based solution of vertiport features with WINGS, Coplanar Pose from Orthography and Scaling with Iterations (COPOSIT), and an extended Kalman filter (EKF) estimates the state of an incoming aircraft during approach and landing at vertiports. Future work includes testing VIDIS in a high-fidelity simulation and with real-world data.

Distributed sensing↗
NASA NTRS2004

A New, More Physically Based Algorithm, for Retrieving Aerosol Properties over Land from MODIS

The MOD Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) has been successfully retrieving aerosol properties, beginning in early 2000 from Terra and from mid 2002 from Aqua. Over land, the retrieval algorithm makes use of three MODIS channels, in the blue, red and infrared wavelengths. As part of the validation exercises, retrieved spectral aerosol optical thickness (AOT) has been compared via scatterplots against spectral AOT measured by the global Aerosol Robotic NETwork (AERONET). On one hand, global and long term validation looks promising, with two-thirds (average plus and minus one standard deviation) of all points falling between published expected error bars. On the other hand, regression of these points shows a positive y-offset and a slope less than 1.0. For individual regions, such as along the U.S. East Coast, the offset and slope are even worse. Here, we introduce an overhaul of the algorithm for retrieving aerosol properties over land. Some well-known weaknesses in the current aerosol retrieval from MODIS include: a) rigid assumptions about the underlying surface reflectance, b) limited aerosol models to choose from, c) simplified (scalar) radiative transfer (RT) calculations used to simulate satellite observations, and d) assumption that aerosol is transparent in the infrared channel. The new algorithm attempts to address all four problems: a) The new algorithm will include surface type information, instead of fixed ratios of the reflectance in the visible channels to the mid-IR reflectance. b) It will include updated aerosol optical properties to reflect the growing aerosol retrieved from eight-plus years of AERONE". operation. c) The effects of polarization will be including using vector RT calculations. d) Most importantly, the new algorithm does not assume that aerosol is transparent in the infrared channel. It will be an inversion of reflectance observed in the three channels (blue, red, and infrared), rather than iterative single channel retrievals. Thus, this new formulation of the MODIS aerosol retrieval over land includes more physically based surface, aerosol and radiative transfer with fewer potentially erroneous assumptions.

Levy, Robert C.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Greenhouse Gas Concentration Data Recovery Algorithm for a Low Cost, Laser Heterodyne Radiometer

The goal of a coordinated effort between groups at GWU and NASA GSFC is the development of a low-cost, global, surface instrument network that continuously monitors three key carbon cycle gases in the atmospheric column: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), as well as oxygen (O2) for atmospheric pressure profiles. The network will implement a low-cost, miniaturized, laser heterodyne radiometer (mini-LHR) that has recently been developed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. This mini-LHR is designed to operate in tandem with the passive aerosol sensor currently used in AERONET (a well established network of more than 450 ground aerosol monitoring instruments worldwide), and could be rapidly deployed into this established global network. Laser heterodyne radiometry is a well-established technique for detecting weak signals that was adapted from radio receiver technology. Here, a weak light signal, that has undergone absorption by atmospheric components, is mixed with light from a distributed feedback (DFB) telecommunications laser on a single-mode optical fiber. The RF component of the signal is detected on a fast photoreceiver. Scanning the laser through an absorption feature in the infrared, results in a scanned heterodyne signal io the RF. Deconvolution of this signal through the retrieval algorithm allows for the extraction of altitude contributions to the column signal. The retrieval algorithm is based on a spectral simulation program, SpecSyn, developed at GWU for high-resolution infrared spectroscopies. Variations io pressure, temperature, composition, and refractive index through the atmosphere; that are all functions of latitude, longitude, time of day, altitude, etc.; are modeled using algorithms developed in the MODTRAN program developed in part by the US Air Force Research Laboratory. In these calculations the atmosphere is modeled as a series of spherically symmetric shells with boundaries specified at defined altitudes. Temperature, pressure, and species mixing ratios are defined at these boundaries. Between the boundaries, temperature is assumed to vary linearly with altitude while pressure (and thus gas density) vary exponentially. The observed spectrum at the LHR instrument will be the integration of the contributions along this light path. For any absorption measurement the signal at a particular spectral frequency is a linear combination of spectral line contributions from several species. For each species that might absorb in a spectral region, we have pre-calculated its contribution as a function of temperature and pressure. The integrated path absorption spectrum can then by calculated using the initial sun angle (from location, date, and time) and assumptions about pressure and temperature profiles from an atmospheric model. The modeled spectrum is iterated to match the experimental observation using standard multilinear regression techniques. In addition to the layer concentrations, the numerical technique also provides uncertainty estimates for these quantities as well as dependencies on assumptions inherent in the atmospheric models.

Miller, J. Houston↗
NASA NTRS2009

DSN Beowulf Cluster-Based VLBI Correlator

The NASA Deep Space Network (DSN) requires a broadband VLBI (very long baseline interferometry) correlator to process data routinely taken as part of the VLBI source Catalogue Maintenance and Enhancement task (CAT M&E) and the Time and Earth Motion Precision Observations task (TEMPO). The data provided by these measurements are a crucial ingredient in the formation of precision deep-space navigation models. In addition, a VLBI correlator is needed to provide support for other VLBI related activities for both internal and external customers. The JPL VLBI Correlator (JVC) was designed, developed, and delivered to the DSN as a successor to the legacy Block II Correlator. The JVC is a full-capability VLBI correlator that uses software processes running on multiple computers to cross-correlate two-antenna broadband noise data. Components of this new system (see Figure 1) consist of Linux PCs integrated into a Beowulf Cluster, an existing Mark5 data storage system, a RAID array, an existing software correlator package (SoftC) originally developed for Delta DOR Navigation processing, and various custom- developed software processes and scripts. Parallel processing on the JVC is achieved by assigning slave nodes of the Beowulf cluster to process separate scans in parallel until all scans have been processed. Due to the single stream sequential playback of the Mark5 data, some ramp-up time is required before all nodes can have access to required scan data. Core functions of each processing step are accomplished using optimized C programs. The coordination and execution of these programs across the cluster is accomplished using Pearl scripts, PostgreSQL commands, and a handful of miscellaneous system utilities. Mark5 data modules are loaded on Mark5 Data systems playback units, one per station. Data processing is started when the operator scans the Mark5 systems and runs a script that reads various configuration files and then creates an experiment-dependent status database used to delegate parallel tasks between nodes and storage areas (see Figure 2). This script forks into three processes: extract, translate, and correlate. Each of these processes iterates on available scan data and updates the status database as the work for each scan is completed. The extract process coordinates and monitors the transfer of data from each of the Mark5s to the Beowulf RAID storage systems. The translate process monitors and executes the data conversion processes on available scan files, and writes the translated files to the slave nodes. The correlate process monitors the execution of SoftC correlation processes on the slave nodes for scans that have completed translation. A comparison of the JVC and the legacy Block II correlator outputs reveals they are well within a formal error, and that the data are comparable with respect to their use in flight navigation. The processing speed of the JVC is improved over the Block II correlator by a factor of 4, largely due to the elimination of the reel-to-reel tape drives used in the Block II correlator.

Rogstad, Stephen P.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Finding Every Root of a Broad Class of Real, Continuous Functions in a Given Interval

One of the most pervasive needs within the Deep Space Network (DSN) Metric Prediction Generator (MPG) view period event generation is that of finding solutions to given occurrence conditions. While the general form of an equation expresses equivalence between its left-hand and right-hand expressions, the traditional treatment of the subject subtracts the two sides, leaving an expression of the form Integral of(x) = 0. Values of the independent variable x satisfying this condition are roots, or solutions. Generally speaking, there may be no solutions, a unique solution, multiple solutions, or a continuum of solutions to a given equation. In particular, all view period events are modeled as zero crossings of various metrics; for example, the time at which the elevation of a spacecraft reaches its maximum value, as viewed from a Deep Space Station (DSS), is found by locating that point at which the derivative of the elevation function becomes zero. Moreover, each event type may have several occurrences within a given time interval of interest. For example, a spacecraft in a low Moon orbit will experience several possible occultations per day, each of which must be located in time. The MPG is charged with finding all specified event occurrences that take place within a given time interval (or pass ), without any special clues from operators as to when they may occur, for the entire spectrum of missions undertaken by the DSN. For each event type, the event metric function is a known form that can be computed for any instant within the interval. A method has been created for a mathematical root finder to be capable of finding all roots of an arbitrary continuous function, within a given interval, to be subject to very lenient, parameterized assumptions. One assumption is that adjacent roots are separated at least by a given amount, xGuard. Any point whose function value is less than ef in magnitude is considered to be a root, and the function values at distances xGuard away from a root are larger than ef, unless there is another root located in this vicinity. A root is considered found if, during iteration, two root candidates differ by less than a pre-specified ex, and the optimum cubic polynomial matching the function at the end and at two interval points (that is within a relative error fraction L at its midpoint) is reliable in indicating whether the function has extrema within the interval. The robustness of this method depends solely on choosing these four parameters that control the search. The roots of discontinuous functions were also found, but at degraded performance.

Tausworthe, Robert C.↗
NASA NTRS2022

National Campaign (NC)-1 Strategic Conflict Management Simulation (X4) Community Based Rules

Projected demand for transportation services in the urban environment has led to the development of several Concepts of Operation for Urban Air Mobility, or UAM. UAM is a concept for the transportation of people and goods in the metropolitan environment using small, efficient aircraft over short distances as part of an expanding multimodal transportation network. UAM will leverage emerging technologies including electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft, increasing levels of automation and a new operational paradigm in dense airspace where a set of agreed-upon rules govern the procedures and interactions defining a cooperative environment in which operators are entrusted with a range of functions typically conducted by Air Traffic Control (ATC). These rules, proposed in the FAA NextGen Office’s UAM Concept of Operations [1], were originally termed Community Based Rules or Community Business Rules (CBRs), and will in the future termed Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs); this document uses the original term, CBR. CBRs are a set of rules, developed by the UAM community and (where necessary) approved by the FAA that govern the interactions between UAM entities and limit the need for ATC services including, but not limited to, separation control by ATC, addressing a fundamental challenge to scaling UAM operations. UAM community development of CBRs is anticipated to accelerate the adoption of new practices while retaining the regulatory authority of the FAA within required domains (e.g., NAS safety, security and equal access). However, there currently exists no agreed industry forum or defined procedures for CBR development. Investigation of best practices for the development of UAM CBRs was identified by NASA and the FAA NextGen Office as a research need. In collaboration with seven industry partners, NASA participated in a series of simulations that investigated elements of the envisioned UAM operations, with a primary focus on Strategic Conflict Management (SCM). The development and conduct of cooperative UAM simulations with seven industry partners provided a unique opportunity to investigate CBR development practices. Development of CBRs for the UAM SCM simulations was conducted in parallel with simulation capability development and was closely related to requirements definition for the simulations. As such, the CBR development effort presented herein had two objectives: explore CBR development practices in collaboration with the industry partners and develop an initial set of UAM CBRs to support simulation requirements definition and development. Consensus was achieved among NASA and the industry partners on 24 CBRs that were developed to support the cooperative simulation operations across five topic areas: General (related to test requirements), Operational Intent, Conformance Monitoring, Demand Capacity Balancing, and Airspace Constraint Management. Additional topic areas and CBRs were discussed but were deemed outside the scope of the simulation; these are included in the appendices. A collaborative, iterative process was employed for developing the CBRs engaging both NASA and Industry; because CBR development is envisioned to be community-driven, opportunities were sought that provided industry partners leadership roles in developing CBRs. The following key observations and recommendations may aid the UAM industry in future CBR development efforts: - The lack of a defined process proved challenging initially. Stakeholder engagement in the early stages of CBR development was intermittent and may have been due to the lack of a clear definition of roles and responsibilities of those involved in the effort. - Industry leadership of CBR topic areas proved successful. Discussions in these topic areas were engaging, with alternate viewpoints freely discussed and detailed CBRs resulting. This points to the importance of identifying the best-suited leadership in technical areas for CBR development. - Discussions within a CBR topic area were typically dominated by only a few participants. Whereas all industry partners contributed to CBR development, within each topic area, technical leadership was evident even when not formally established. This observation may indicate that smaller, focused groups may be more effective in initial CBR development than an open forum or large standards development effort (although both maybe required prior to FAA review and approval for some CBRs). - Identifying suitable forums for initial UAM CBR development and identifying the most effective industry participants and leadership will be crucial for successful CBR development. Although the operational need for UAM CBRs may not be immediate, establishing the forums and leadership to define the processes for CBR development is a prudent early step to UAM realization.

Community Based Rules↗
NASA NTRS2023

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗