Results for “mission execution” — Page 11

NASA NTRS1985

An historical overview of NASA manned spacecraft and their crew stations

The first generation of manned spacecraft demonstrated all the types of mission activity planned for the future. Development of these spacecraft and execution of their missions have provided the experience base for the design of current and future spacecraft systems. This paper summarizes the crew station characteristics of the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz and Space Shuttle spacecraft and the design strategies that dictated those characteristics. Also included are some comparisons with current and planned spacecraft and an assessment of the lessons learned as they might be applied in future spacecraft designs.

Loftus, J. P.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Paving the Path for Human Space Exploration: The Challenges and Opportunities

Lauri Hansen, Director of Engineering at NASA Johnson Space Center will discuss the challenges of human space exploration. The future of human exploration begins with our current earth reliant missions in low earth orbit. These missions utilize the International Space Station to learn how to safely execute deep space missions. In addition to serving as an exploration test bed and enabling world class research, the International Space Station enables NASA to build international and commercial partnerships. NASA's next steps will be to enable the commercialization of low earth orbit while concentrating on developing the spacecraft and infrastructure necessary for deep space exploration and long duration missions. The Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle and the Space Launch System rocket are critical building blocks in this next phase of exploration. There are many challenges in designing spacecraft to perform these missions including safety, complex vehicle design, and mass challenges. Orion development is proceeding well, and includes a significant partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA) to develop and build the Service Module portion of the spacecraft. Together, NASA and ESA will provide the capability to take humans further than we have ever been before - 70,000 km past the moon. This will be the next big step in expanding the frontiers of human exploration, eventually leading to human footprints on Mars.

Hansen, Lauri↗

NASA NTRS1985

Research and technology

As the NASA Center responsible for assembly, checkout, servicing, launch, recovery, and operational support of Space Transportation System elements and payloads, Kennedy Space Center is placing increasing emphasis on the Center's research and technology program. In addition to strengthening those areas of engineering and operations technology that contribute to safe, more efficient, and more economical execution of our current mission, we are developing the technological tools needed to execute the Center's mission relative to Space Station and other future programs. The Engineering Development Directorate encompasses most of the laboratories and other Center resources that are key elements of research and technology program implementation and is responsible for implementation of the majority of the projects in this Kennedy Space Center 1985 Annual Report. The report contains brief descriptions of research and technology projects in major areas of Kennedy Space Center's disciplinary expertise.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1986

Research and technology

As the NASA Center responsible for assembly, checkout, servicing, launch, recovery, and operational support of Space Transportation System elements and payloads, Kennedy Space Center is placing increasing emphasis on the Center's research and technology program. In addition to strengthening those areas of engineering and operations technology that contribute to safer, more efficient, and more economical execution of our current mission, we are developing the technological tools needed to execute the Center's mission relative to future programs. The Engineering Development Directorate encompasses most of the laboratories and other Center resources that are key elements of research and technology program implementation, and is responsible for implementation of the majority of the projects in this Kennedy Space Center 1986 Annual Report.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1987

Research and technology 1987 annual report of the Kennedy Space Center

As the NASA Center responsible for assembly, checkout, servicing, launch, recovery, and operational support of Space Transportation System elements and payloads, Kennedy Space Center is placing increasing emphasis on the Center's research and technology program. In addition to strengthening those areas of engineering and operations technology that contribute to safer, more efficient, and more economical execution of our current mission, we are developing the technological tools needed to execute the Center's mission relative to future programs. The Engineering Development Directorate encompasses most of the laboratories and other Center resources that are key elements of research and technology program implementation, and is responsible for implementation of the majority of the projects of this Kennedy Space Center 1987 Annual Report.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1988

Research and technology

As the NASA Center responsible for assembly, checkout, servicing, launch, recovery and operational support of Space Transportation System elements and payloads, Kennedy Space Center is placing emphasis on its research and technology program. In addition to strengthening those areas of engineering and operations technology that contribute to safer, more efficient, and more economical execution of our current mission, we are developing the technological tools needed to execute the Center's mission relative to future programs. The Engineering Development Directorate encompasses most of the laboratories and other Center resources that are key elements of research and technology program implementation, and is responsible for implementation of the majority of the projects in this Kennedy Space Center 1988 Annual Report.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2018

Radio-hosted Flight / Ground Interface for Operations Standardization

The interface between a spacecraft and its ground operations segment includes the flow of commands, configuration, and sequencing elements to the spacecraft, and the flow of telemetry and data products from the spacecraft. Creating and implementing a complete definition of this interface simplifies and standardizes mission operations, allowing easy sharing of operations personnel across missions. Early spacecraft featured a simple flight / ground interface (FGI) using hardware command decoding in the radio, driven by technological limitations of the time. Modern spacecraft use command and data handling (CDH) avionics on which flight software executes, which in turn controls and configures the mission, executes subsystem and instrument instructions, and implements critical fault protection actions. Deep space missions feature advanced operations software for running sequenced activities over a period of weeks, which allows them to function with only infrequent ground contact. This approach comes at the cost of increased complexity in the FGI, requiring expensive modifications to heritage flight software and ground systems. By hosting the interface in the radio instead of the CDH avionics, modern missions can approximate the FGI design simplicity of early spacecraft, with significant advantages for vendor competition, lowered costs, standardization of operations, and reduction of implementation risk.

Lock, Patricia D.↗

NASA NTRS1995

Magellan aerobrake navigation

The Magellan spacecraft has been aerobraked into a 197 x 541 km near-circular orbit around Venus from which it is conducting a high-resolution gravity mapping mission. This was the first interplanetary aerobrake maneuver and involved flying the spacecraft through the upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere 730 times over a 70 day period. Round-trip light-time varied from 9.57 to 18.83 minutes during this period. Navigation for this dynamic phase of the Magellan mission was planned and executed in the face of budget-driven down-sizing with all spacecraft safe modes disabled and a flight-team one-third the size of comparable interplanetary missions. Successful execution of this manuever using spacecraft hardware not designed to operate in a planetary atmosphere, demonstrated a practical cost-saving technique for both large and small future interplanetary missions.

Giorgini, Jon↗

NASA NTRS2024

A Distributed Simulation Framework Applied to Artemis Analysis, Studies, Integration, and Test

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Artemis Program, a series of missions to return humans to the Moon and explore further than before. To execute the Artemis missions, NASA is collaborating with commercial and international partners to create the necessary infrastructure and logistics plan that will establish a long term presence on the Moon ahead of exploring Mars. NASA and its partners are developing a collection of space and surface systems to support crewed missions to the lunar surface that will provide the mobility, habitation, logistics, and exploration support necessary for Artemis mission successes which includes robust scientific investigations. This paper details the design, capabilities, and uses of the Artemis Distributed Simulation (ADS) being developed by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) Team to support Artemis architecture studies. ADS utilizes international interoperability standards to connect a collection of independent vehicle and service simulations; these include but are not limited to elements such as rovers, landers, and habitation elements along with services like communications, environment, visualization, and data logging. ADS’s distributed nature allows for the complex aggregation of constituent Artemis elements; this includes efficient scenario modification with the addition or removal of individual simulations representing Artemis elements or services. This capability provides support for the rapid performance of various Artemis mission trade studies exploring alternate configurations. Currently, ADS uses NASA developed simulations for development and testing; however, through the use of international simulation interoperability standards, ADS provides an integration framework to incorporate dissimilar authoritative vendor simulations as Artemis systems mature and vendor simulations become available. Vendor simulations will be able to join ADS and interact with other Artemis elements and vehicles while limiting the exposure of proprietary data. This paper describes the expansion of an existing distributed simulation infrastructure to accommodate a collaborative and dynamic framework for the Artemis Program. This work includes updated federation designs, integration into existing NASA facilities, advancements in visualizations, and advancements in human driven inputs. This paper will also outline recently completed and ongoing support and collaboration with NASA studies and testing, namely results from energetics and Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) studies. The paper concludes with a plan for future developments and facility integration to enable enhanced studies in preparation for a return of humans to the lunar surface.

Artemis↗

NASA NTRS1999

Medical Aspects of Space Walking

Dr. Musgrave has acquired extensive experience during a distinguished and impressive career that includes flying as an astronaut on six Shuttle missions, participating in many hours of extravehicular activity, and contributing his myriad talents toward great public service, especially in the area of education. He has a unique perspective as a physician, scientist, engineer, pilot, and scholar. His interests and breadth of knowledge, which astound even the seasoned space enthusiast, have provided the space program an extraordinary scientific and technical expertise. Dr. Musgrave presented a personal perspective on space flight with particular emphasis on extravehicular activity (EVA or space walking), which was copiously illustrated with photographs from many space missions. His theme was two fold: the exacting and detailed preparations required for successful execution of a mission plan and a cosmic view of mankind's place in the greater scheme of things.

Musgrave, Story↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C. Dempsey↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Crewed Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗

NASA NTRS1991

Research and technology 1991 annual report

As the NASA Center responsible for assembly, checkout, servicing, launch, recovery, and operational support of Space Transportation System elements and payloads, NASA Kennedy is placing increasing emphasis on the center's research and technology program. In addition to strengthening those areas of engineering and operations technology that contribute to safer, more efficient, and more economical execution of the current mission, the technical tools are being developed which are needed to execute the center's mission relative to future programs. The Engineering Development Directorate encompasses most of the labs and other center resources that are key elements of research and technology program implementation and is responsible for implementation of the majority of the projects in this Kennedy Space Center 1991 annual report.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Reinforcement Learning for Spacecraft Navigation & Environment Characterization in the Planar-Restricted Two-Body Problem

During mission planning and execution, spacecraft operators must balance data collection and downlink, systems constraints, human factors, and navigation. As missions become increasingly complex and ambitious, these factors become more intricately entwined and conflicted. For example, a spacecraft’s position must be known accurately in order to point to and image a target. Large position errors may cause missed observations or require additional scanning that increases operations complexity and data volume. Some observations require imaging from specific relative geometries which adds orbit control and timing considerations. Adjusting the orbit may allow for optimal observability of environmental parameters and/or enable more efficient sensor coverage, but maneuver execution error adds uncertainty to the current state which impacts both characterization and coverage objectives.

Navigation↗

NASA NTRS1981

Manned geosynchronous mission requirements and systems analysis study extension. Volume 1: Executive summary

A study was performed to determine the types of manned missions that will likely be performed in the late 1980's or early 1990's timeframe, to define MOTV configurations which satisfy these missions requirements, and to develop a program plan for its development. Twenty generic missions were originally defined for MOTV but, to simplify the selection process, five of these missions were selected as typical and used as Design Reference Missions. Systems and subsystems requirements were re-examined and sensitivity analyses performed to determine optimum point designs. Turnaround modes were considered to determine the most effective combination of ground based and spaced based activities. A preferred concept for the crew capsule and for the mission mode was developed.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2014

Imagery Integration Team

The Human Exploration Science Office (KX) provides leadership for NASA's Imagery Integration (Integration 2) Team, an affiliation of experts in the use of engineering-class imagery intended to monitor the performance of launch vehicles and crewed spacecraft in flight. Typical engineering imagery assessments include studying and characterizing the liftoff and ascent debris environments; launch vehicle and propulsion element performance; in-flight activities; and entry, landing, and recovery operations. Integration 2 support has been provided not only for U.S. Government spaceflight (e.g., Space Shuttle, Ares I-X) but also for commercial launch providers, such as Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation, servicing the International Space Station. The NASA Integration 2 Team is composed of imagery integration specialists from JSC, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), who have access to a vast pool of experience and capabilities related to program integration, deployment and management of imagery assets, imagery data management, and photogrammetric analysis. The Integration 2 team is currently providing integration services to commercial demonstration flights, Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), and the Space Launch System (SLS)-based Exploration Missions (EM)-1 and EM-2. EM-2 will be the first attempt to fly a piloted mission with the Orion spacecraft. The Integration 2 Team provides the customer (both commercial and Government) with access to a wide array of imagery options - ground-based, airborne, seaborne, or vehicle-based - that are available through the Government and commercial vendors. The team guides the customer in assembling the appropriate complement of imagery acquisition assets at the customer's facilities, minimizing costs associated with market research and the risk of purchasing inadequate assets. The NASA Integration 2 capability simplifies the process of securing one-of-a-kind imagery assets and skill sets, such as ground-based fixed and tracking cameras, crew-in the-loop imaging applications, and the integration of custom or commercial-off-the-shelf sensors onboard spacecraft. For spaceflight applications, the Integration 2 Team leverages modeling, analytical, and scientific resources along with decades of experience and lessons learned to assist the customer in optimizing engineering imagery acquisition and management schemes for any phase of flight - launch, ascent, on-orbit, descent, and landing. The Integration 2 Team guides the customer in using NASA's world-class imagery analysis teams, which specialize in overcoming inherent challenges associated with spaceflight imagery sets. Precision motion tracking, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry, image stabilization, 3D modeling of imagery data, lighting assessment, and vehicle fiducial marking assessments are available. During a mission or test, the Integration 2 Team provides oversight of imagery operations to verify fulfillment of imagery requirements. The team oversees the collection, screening, and analysis of imagery to build a set of imagery findings. It integrates and corroborates the imagery findings with other mission data sets, generating executive summaries to support time-critical mission decisions.

Calhoun, Tracy↗

NASA NTRS2018

Robust, Radiation Tolerant Command and Data Handling and Power System Electronics for SmallSats

In today's budgetary environment, there is significant interest within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to enable small robotic science missions that can be executed faster and cheaper than previous larger missions. To help achieve this, focus has shifted from using exclusively radiation-tolerant or radiation-hardened parts to using more commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components for NASA small satellite missions that can last at least one year in orbit. However, there are some portions of a spacecraft's avionics, such as the Command and Data Handling (C&DH) subsystem and the Power System Electronics (PSE) that need to have a higher level of reliability that goes beyond what is attainable with currently available COTS parts. While there are a number of COTS components that can withstand a total ionizing dose (TID) of tens or hundreds of kilorads, there is still a great deal of concern about tolerance to and mitigation of single-event effects (SEE).

6U satellite↗