Results for “Verification and Validation (V&V)” — Page 13

NASA NTRS2020

Demonstrating Assurance of Model-Based Fault Diagnosis Systems on an Operational Mission

Developers of robotic scientific and commercial spacecraft are trending towards use of onboard autonomous capabilities for responding quickly to dynamic environments and rapidly changing situations. These capabilities need to know the state of the spacecraft’s health. Model-based fault diagnosis (MBFD) is an approach to estimating health by continuously verifying accurate behavior and diagnosing off-nominal behavior. Proper functioning of MBFD depends on 1) the quality of the diagnostic system model that is analyzed and compared to commands and onboard measurements to estimate a system’s health state, and 2) the correct functionality of the diagnosis engine interrogating the model and comparing its analyses to observed system behavior. Our goal is to develop Verification and Validation (V&V) techniques for MBFD to provide future missions sufficient confidence in its functionality and performance to deploy it on the systems they develop. Our work has been focused on infusing the techniques we developed earlier to an operational mission. First, we are constructing diagnostic models of a spacecraft attitude control system and updating our diagnostic engine so they can be demonstrated aboard the Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research in Astrophysics (ASTERIA) mission, an operational spacecraft for which experiments in autonomy are being planned and executed, using the V&V techniques we have previously developed to assure they are both correct and complete. Since it is nearing the end of its life, ASTERIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate MBFD since the monitored components are expected to fail. Our demonstration will give system developers additional confidence to make timely, informed MBFD deployment decisions. Second, we will be completing performance assessments of the diagnostic engine/diagnostic model ensemble both on the flight system and ground-based testbeds to gain confidence in MBFD’s ability to run successfully in a spacecraft’s resource-constrained environment without adversely affecting other on-board activities. Finally, we are capturing our experience in preparing this demonstration in a set of checklists and guidance documents. Current practice includes high-level institutional guidance documents and standards, but at a high level of abstraction that does not necessarily address specific MBFD concerns. The purpose of the new checklists is to provide future mission developers clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on assuring MBFD. This paper describes our work in these areas. For the first area, we describe the diagnostic models and updated diagnostic engine that will be used for the on-board demonstration. We describe how the V&V techniques we developed earlier are used to assure model and engine correctness and completeness. For the second area, we identify the performance measurement and assessment techniques used to characterize the diagnostic engine and diagnostic models, and discuss the effect of measured performance on overall mission operation. Finally, we present the checklist and guidance documents and describe how they meet the goals of providing system developers with clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on MBFD assurance. We show how the techniques we have developed map into those artifacts.

Nikora, Allen↗

NASA NTRS2022

NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) 3.1: Model Verification and Validation

The NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) 3.1 Model Verification and Validation (V&V) document accompanies the delivery of the latest ORDEM 3.1 model (Vavrin & Manis, 2019) and provides a detailed description of the V&V activities used to verify that the model was built correctly and validate the model against independent, real world sources of data obtained from sampling the orbital debris environment. This ORDEM 3.1 Model V&V document, along with the related ORDEM 3.1 Model Process document – which covers details of the mathematical, statistical, and physical basis of the model – are intended to inform credibility assessments, risk analyses, uncertainty characterizations, and other applications derived from use of the model by the ORDEM 3.1 user community.

Timothy Kennedy↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA GeneLab RNASeq Consensus Pipeline: A Nextflow Implementation

The NASA GeneLab project (genelab.nasa.gov) seeks to accelerate space biology research through cataloging and democratizing omics data. Since raw omics data is largely inaccessible to non-bioinformaticians, GeneLab works with the scientific community to develop standard processing pipelines to generate and publish processed data. Unlike raw data, processed data has greater immediate value to a wide range of users with varying technical backgrounds and computational capabilities. Standardizing processing workflows is essential to match the pace of raw data generation, ensure reproducibility, and enable standardized processed data for comparison across datasets. Previously, GeneLab developed a standardized pipeline for processing RNAseq data, referred to as the ‘GeneLab RNAseq Consensus Pipeline (RCP)’, in collaboration with GeneLab’s Analysis Working Groups. The work presented here is a Nextflow implementation of GeneLab’s RCP that automates and accelerates data processing of RNASeq datasets hosted on GeneLab. In addition to the core data processing, the workflow also includes staging of GeneLab raw data and a robust verification and validation (V&V) program that runs after each processing step to identify errors in real-time, stop additional downstream computation, and preserve computational resources. The workflow, including the staging and V&V functionality, is open source for others to reuse and modify at https://github.com/nasa/GeneLab_Data_Processing/tree/master/RNAseq.

Jonathan Dejesus Oribello↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lean Model-Based Systems Engineering on the NASA High-Density Vertiplex Subproject

The High Density Vertiplex (HDV) subproject of NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) project adopted Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)in July of 2020, prior to subproject formulation. A small and lean team of HDV Systems Engineers(SE) are utilizing MagicDraw to execute NASA SE processes via MBSE. The SEs learned how to use MagicDraw from scratch and HDV is the first project for which the SEs have utilized MagicDraw. This paper will demonstrate project technical execution via MBSE, utilizing the digital elements built into the SysML (Systems Modeling Language). SysML provides a model-centric means of carrying out the NASA SE common technical processes by providing tools for complete system modeling, including requirements and interface management and design capture. The authors also leverage and extend SysML to perform other SE tasks, such as Verification and Validation (V&V)tracking. MBSE has two main purposes for HDV: 1) documenting the subproject’s logical architecture for distribution outside of the subproject, 2) capturing the subproject’s physical architecture in a single-source-of-truth for use by the subproject’s members. This paper details the challenges, lessons learned, and solutions that were encountered in implementing MBSE in the first iteration on a multi-iteration, full-lifecycle design, build, fly project.

Demetrios Katsaduros↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA GeneLab RNASeq Consensus Pipeline: A Nextflow Implementation

The NASA GeneLab project (genelab.nasa.gov) seeks to accelerate space biology research through cataloging and democratizing omics data. Since raw omics data is largely inaccessible to non-bioinformaticians, GeneLab works with the scientific community to develop standard processing pipelines to generate and publish processed data. Unlike raw data, processed data has greater immediate value to a wide range of users with varying technical backgrounds and computational capabilities. Standardizing processing workflows is essential to match the pace of raw data generation, ensure reproducibility, and enable standardized processed data for comparison across datasets. Previously, GeneLab developed a standardized pipeline for processing RNAseq data, referred to as the ‘GeneLab RNAseq Consensus Pipeline (RCP)’, in collaboration with GeneLab’s Analysis Working Groups. The work presented here is a Nextflow implementation of GeneLab’s RCP that automates and accelerates data processing of RNASeq datasets hosted on GeneLab. In addition to the core data processing, the workflow also includes staging of GeneLab raw data and a robust verification and validation (V&V) program that runs after each processing step to identify errors in real-time, stop additional downstream computation, and preserve computational resources. The workflow, including the staging and V&V functionality, is open source for others to reuse and modify at https://github.com/nasa/GeneLab_Data_Processing/tree/master/RNAseq.

Jonathan D Oribello↗

NASA NTRS2022

A Robust Machine Learning Schema for Developing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Machine Learning Models

Recent advances in the development of machine learning (ML) algorithms have enabled the creation of predictive models that can improve decision making, decrease computational cost, and improve efficiency in a variety of fields. As an organization begins to develop and implement such models, the data used in the training, validation, and testing of ML models, the model parameters, and the use cases or limitations of the models must be properly stored to ensure models are both fully traceable and used correctly. In the context of predicting material behavior, advances in computationally intense, physics-based modeling of material behavior at various length scales and the emergence of Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) have driven the need for developing data-driven surrogate models of the physics-based simulation tools using ML techniques. Surrogate model development allows for accurate material behavior prediction at a fraction of the cost of its physics-based counterpart, allowing for multiscale simulations of real-world applications, further enabling the ability to design fit-for-purpose materials for a reasonable computational investment. However, training such models requires extensive data, and thus, effective data management is necessary to reach the full potential that ML can offer to material design and ICME. This paper proposes a generalized, robust schema that allows organizations to store both real (experimental) and virtual (simulation) data used to train ML models and the defining model parameters and architectures within the Granta MI Platform. The developed schema allows for various types of data inputs and outputs, including single point values, time-series data, and images that can be used in the prediction of material behavior, while following outlined best practices for effective data management. An effective schema for ML data and models can help prevent the recreation of virtual/real training data and surrogate models, help reduce the time to create new models similar to existing ones by offering a starting point in the hyperparameter determination stages, minimize resources devoted to verification and validation (V&V) and certification of models, and ensure that data and surrogate models are not misused due to full traceability of both the data and ML model. It also allows organizations access to models that have already been developed, such that they can be used in the design of new materials, enabling the overall goals of ICME.

Brandon L. Hearley↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Predicting Fiber Failure of Plain Weave Fabric with Recursive Multiscale Micromechanics

Recent advances in the development of machine learning (ML) algorithms have enabled the creation of predictive models that can improve decision making, decrease computational cost, and improve efficiency in a variety of fields. As an organization begins to develop and implement such models, the data used in the training, validation, and testing of machine learning models, the model parameters, and the use cases or limitations of the models must be properly stored to ensure models are both fully traceable and used correctly. In the context of predicting material behavior, advances in computationally intense, physics-based, modeling of material behavior at various length scales, and the emergence of Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) have driven the need for developing data-driven surrogate models of the physics-based simulation tools using machine learning (ML) techniques. Surrogate model development allows for accurate material behavior prediction at a fraction of the cost of its physics-based counterpart, allowing for multiscale simulations of real-world applications, further enabling the ability to design fit-for-purpose materials for a reasonable computational investment. However, training such models requires extensive data, and thus effective data management is necessary to reach the full potential that ML can offer to material design and ICME. This paper proposes a generalized, robust schema that allows organizations to store both real (experimental) and virtual (simulation) data used to train machine learning models and the defining model parameters and architectures. The developed schema allows for various types of data inputs and outputs, including single point values, time-series data, and images that can be used in for various types of machine learning models while following outlined best practices for effective data management. An effective schema for machine learning data and models can help prevent the recreation of virtual/real training data and surrogate models, can help reduce the time to create new models similar to existing ones by offering a starting point in the hyperparameter determination stages, minimize resources devoted to verification and validation (V&V) and certification of models, and ensure that data and surrogate models are not misused due to full traceability of both the data and ML model. It also allows organizations access to models that have already been developed, such that they can be used in the design of new materials, enabling the overall goals of ICME.

Failure↗

NASA NTRS2022

Visual Odometry Thinking While Driving for the Curiosity Mars Rover's Three-Year Test Campaign: Impact of Evolving Constraints on Verification and Validation

Over the first 9 years of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Curiosity rover's surface mission, more than 87\% of its driving has been performed using Visual Odometry (VO). The benefits of using VO during driving are that it minimizes rover position uncertainty and can be used to monitor wheel slip, halting a drive if excessive wheel slip is occurring. The VO implementation on board Curiosity acquires and processes VO images in between drive steps while the rover is stationary. A VO Thinking While Driving (VTWD) flight software capability has been developed which enables the processing of VO images during rover driving, increasing the distance Curiosity can drive with VO in a given time period up to as much as 1.75x total distance. Verification and Validation (V\&V) of the capability has been challenging due to impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and unavailability of the JPL Mars Yard outdoor test site. The VTWD V\&V test procedures were modified to use a small indoor space with Mars-like terrain. This paper describes the 3 year V\&V effort under challenging conditions to approve the VTWD capability for use on the Curiosity rover.

Rankin, Arturo↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lean Model-Based Systems Engineering on the NASA High-Density Vertiplex Subproject

The High Density Vertiplex (HDV) subproject of NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) project adopted Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) in July of 2020, prior to subproject formulation. A small and lean team of HDV Systems Engineers (SE) are utilizing MagicDraw to execute NASA SE processes via MBSE. The SEs learned how to use MagicDraw from scratch and HDV is the first project for which the SEs have utilized MagicDraw. This presentation will demonstrate project technical execution via MBSE, utilizing the digital elements built into the SysML (Systems Modeling Language). SysML provides a model-centric means of carrying out the NASA SE common technical processes by providing tools for complete system modeling, including requirements and interface management and design capture. The authors also leverage and extend SysML to perform other SE tasks, such as Verification and Validation (V&V) tracking. MBSE has two main purposes for HDV: 1) documenting the subproject’s logical architecture for distribution outside of the subproject, 2) capturing the subproject’s physical architecture in a single-source-of-truth for use by the subproject’s members. This presentation details the challenges, lessons learned, and solutions that were encountered in implementing MBSE in the first iteration on a multi-iteration, full-lifecycle design, build, fly project.

systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2022

Benefits and Challenges of CCSDS File Delivery Protocol as Applied to Europa Clipper

—This paper describes the use of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) on the Europa Clipper mission for both uplink and downlink of files. It includes an overview of CFDP, the history of why CFDP was chosen, how it benefits mission operations, some of the mission scenarios that stress CFDP, operability aspects, the best practices that Clipper adopted from other missions and some of the technical challenges with implementation, and verification and validation. The benefits to mission operations accrue because CFDP reduces the need for manual management of file transfer, including retransmission of missing data, and deletion of files only after confirmation of receipt by the ground. The challenges occur because CFDP is a round-trip protocol – it requires messages in both directions to complete a file transfer, and because it uses timers to ensure that control messages are resent if needed to prevent transactions from going stale. Any situations where communication is restricted to a single direction, interrupted, reordered, or backlogged can pose a challenge. There are also implementation challenges. Europa Clipper is the first mission at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to adopt class 2, fully acknowledged, CFDP for both uplink and downlink. The implementation needed new software, requirements and operational procedures. The experience of the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) with CFDP from their previous missions was crucial to success for Europa Clipper. Because CFDP relies on timers and messages travel in both directions, verification and validation (V&V) requires new approaches. For certain scenarios, a live ground system talking to a live flight system with realistic simulated one-way light times, data rates and data outages must be used.

Albers, Joshua↗

NASA NTRS2022

Robotics Verification and Validation Strategies for Perseverance Rover Sampling and Caching

The Mars 2020 Sampling and Caching Subsystem(SCS) is the most complex robotic system ever fielded on a MarsRover. It includes a 5 degree-of-freedom Robotic Arm, coringdrill, gas Dust Removal Tool, interfaces for two turret-mountedinstruments, and an Adaptive Caching Assembly (ACA). TheACA is itself a complex robotic system, containing hardware tosupport docking and bit exchange, a 3 degree-of-freedomSample Handling Assembly for manipulating sample tubes,storage for several drill bits and sample tubes, and mechanismsto support observing and sealing samples collected by the drill.To successfully verify and validate the SCS hardware andsoftware and its integration with the Mars 2020 flight systemseveral key strategies were employed.The SCS Verification and Validation (V&V) program utilizedmultiple test venues with tiered levels of fidelity. These includedsimulation and visualization software environments, low fidelitydevelopment testbeds, testbeds with high fidelity SCS hardwareand commercial off-the shelf avionics, integrated systemtestbeds with flight-like avionics, and environmental testbedscapable of simulating Martian surface temperature andpressure. Multiple units of each SCS hardware componentmoved fluidly between test venues to accomplish myriadstandalone and coordinated test objectives. Test preparationand executions were performed by a diverse team of engineerswith training and technical ownership tailored for individualexperience and role. Despite significant differences between testvenues, the SCS V&V team established efficient and consistentprocesses and tools for procedure development, test execution,and data review that enabled personnel, as well as technicalproducts such as sequences and parameter configurations, toflow between venues effectively. A series of benchmark testsprovided evidence of performance consistency as elements weretransferred between venues and as system capability evolved.This paper provides an overview of the SCS V&V program andexplores several overarching strategies that enabled successfuloperation in the face of unprecedented complexity. Keyoutcomes of the SCS validation effort are summarized, alongwith lessons learned and beneficial integrations of validationtool and process innovations into Mars surface operations.

Brooks, Sawyer↗

NASA NTRS2022

Flight Software Dictionary Development for the Mars2020 Rover

The Mars2020 project, developed and operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), successfully landed the Perseverance rover and its flying companion Ingenuity on the surface of Mars on February 18th 2021. Perseverance combines heritage and cutting-edge flight software and hardware to accomplish crucial mission requirements related to Martian surface sampling. The design, development, and operation of NASA’s large strategic science missions require the ability to communicate spacecraft capabilities to hundreds of engineers across multiple disciplines. The interaction between flight and ground software development, Verification and Validation (V&V), Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations (ATLO), and management each demand quick understanding of unique slices of information for each discipline. This information includes the current capabilities of the flight system as well as future capabilities and their status as they are developed and tested. Despite the fundamental and critical nature of this information, the flight software dictionaries used to track it are a stumbling block for many projects. These dictionaries provide the cornerstone for the interpretation of data sent from the spacecraft, allowing for quick comprehension by engineers on the ground. During both spacecraft development and operations, flight software dictionary management includes significant challenges due to the large number of interfacing systems and the subtle yet distinct needs of each.The engineering of flight software dictionaries for Mars2020 had numerous challenges, most-notably: parallel dictionary development to support simultaneous separate flight software build campaigns for each mission phase (cruise and surface), managing requests for operations-enabling information without perturbing the heritage interface with the rover, and the introduction of new tools by the dictionary stakeholders that forced the dictionary team to innovate and redesign the heritage tool chain. These challenges generated guiding principles for the dictionary development effort: emphasize coding best practices and unit testing in the dictionary code development tool chain, use institutionally provided COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) tools whenever possible, and maintain the heritage flight-ground interface all while advancing operations-enabling information via a loosely coupled interface.Throughout development and operations, the Mars2020 dictionary toolchain included IBM DOORS Next Generation, GitHub, Microsoft Excel, Docker, Jenkins, and a significant custom-built Python codebase. Significant interfaces included JPL’s command and control software, heritage flight software team tools and processes, and the many cloud-based ground tools developed for the mission.This paper will discuss the requirements for the Mars2020 dictionary development, the development team’s response to those requirements, lessons learned throughout the process, steps taken towards automated deliveries and continuous integration of stakeholder inputs, potential toolchain improvements for Mars2020, and key takeaways that could be applied to future missions.

Pyrzak, Guy↗

NASA NTRS2024

Looking to the Future: A Call to Action for Advanced GNC Algorithm Verification and Validation

Future space systems will rely on autonomous Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) functions to efficiently manage safe and precise self-directed operations in uncertain complex environments. Fundamentally, the GNC system plays a key role in mission performance and safety because it computes the ideal trajectory (Guidance), determines the actual trajectory (Navigation), and executes the ideal trajectory (Control) of a vehicle’s position and attitude. Our current GNC systems are highly automated and already have a high degree of complexity. As missions become more ambitious, GNC systems for launch vehicles and space platforms (e.g., spacecraft, probes, and landers) will require higher levels of performance and autonomous operation than previously encountered, for example, this includes GNC for optimizing aerodynamic and/or propulsion performance during planetary entry. This GNC Verification and Validation (V&V) paper highlights concerns with what undoubtedly will be a trend towards increased complexity as fully autonomous GNC systems are developed for future space missions. Clearly, complex GNC systems pose challenges in the prelaunch V&V phase, which is a relatively expensive part of a mission’s life cycle. Essentially the V&V phase is focused on checking that the system effectively meets all the design and operational requirements for the mission. The authors of this paper (i.e., the Inter-Agency Working Group of GNC subject matter experts) focused on this fundamental question over the past few years: Will the GNC engineering community of practice be sufficiently prepared to perform the necessary V&V on evolving GNC architectures that are driven by very demanding requirements for autonomy, resiliency, reconfigurability, adaptability, and mission cost-benefit balance? It is the viewpoint of our Inter-Agency team that the GNC V&V approaches and processes needed to address the next generation of complex GNC systems, which likely will employ various forms of modern GNC technology, are not currently established to the level the community will need in the future. While researchers and practitioners have made some progress in developing new GNC V&V methods for modern GNC systems, a good deal of work remains to be done to codify such methods in a comprehensive and systematic manner. Thus, the Inter-Agency team’s partner organizations [the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency (ESA), the National Centre for Space Studies (CNES), the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the French Aerospace Lab (ONERA), and ISAE-SUPAERO] have conducted preliminary investigations into advancing GNC V&V techniques, which resulted in the identification of the need for education, new V&V tools, and benchmark problems for the GNC community. The necessary proactive steps to be taken to meet the challenges and fill the gaps in GNC V&V are summarized in this paper. The first steps include identifying advanced analysis tools, developing a GNC V&V roadmap, and expanding education and training programs for GNC practitioners. This paper is a call to action and proposes a comprehensive set of recommended actions for all our stakeholders: space agencies, researchers, and industry.

Samir Bennani↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Flight Systems Integration Path

The foundation for a safe and successful flight test of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) X-57 Maxwell all-electric experimental airplane, or any X-Plane, is comprehensive system testing on the ground. This test campaign includes verification and validation (V&V) that the integrated system operates as designed and expected, as well as understanding how the system reacts and responds to failures that can occur during flight by performing failure modes and effects testing (FMET). The aircraft should be in the final flight configuration for these test activities because any modifications, even those that appear insignificant, could affect test outcomes. Although the plan was to perform V&V and FMET testing once the airplane was in the flight configuration, due to multiple component redesigns, concurrent software development, and other problems with on-aircraft testing, the X-57 Maxwell never made it into a full-flight configuration. As a result, a build-up approach was followed to test software and hardware as they became ready in order to continue making progress wherever possible. Using this approach revealed problems with the hardware and software faster than waiting for a full-flight configuration, allowing solutions to be found more quickly and in parallel with other project tasks. Other than unloaded motor testing in a lab setting, the only other test setup was on the airplane itself. On-aircraft testing was preferrable in order to test things as close to a flight configuration as possible but was time consuming due to the requirements for testing on the airplane. To overcome some of the on-aircraft barriers, off-aircraft test configurations, such as the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) setups, were used, but each of these setups had limitations to be considered. As a result, solutions found in the SIL or HIL configurations did not always work as expected on the airplane, resulting in an iterative process between on- and off-aircraft testing to find the final solution. Having a dedicated test platform such as an iron bird that closely represents the aircraft - without flight hardware - would have been the most effective off-aircraft test setup, which could have allowed the project to save time and money and potentially reach flight. This paper will highlight the V&V and FMET considerations and testing prerequisites, the build-up approaches to both software and system testing, the benefits and drawbacks to different test configurations, as well as battery testing and operations.

Kassidy M. Mclaughlin↗

NASA NTRS2024

Recommendations on Evidence and Process for Certification of Learning-enabled Components in Aerospace Systems

This report primarily identifies a collection of relevant and necessary evidence for assurance of machine learnt components (MLCs)—also known as learning-enabled components—integrated into aircraft systems, and gives preliminary suggestions on the elements of a certification process that invoke the identified evidence. The main focus is on feedforward neural networks that are static and trained offline through supervised learning. A brief background on the generic elements of the lifecycle of an MLC is given to contextualize the assurance considerations and, consequently, the evidence that is relevant and necessary to support certification. At the level of an MLC, those considerations relate to: (i) the consistency and correctness of MLC contributions to system functions in the context of a validated functional intent; and (ii) the absence of MLC contributions to aircraft-level failure conditions. At an ML model level, confidence in model and data properties contribute to assurance of the containing MLC, in particular: (a) generalizability and robustness of models, in the presence of inputs not previously seen during training, disturbances to inputs, and unexpected inputs; and (b) valid data, i.e., data that are at least representative, relevant, complete, and accurate. Evidence for the above span the elements of the ML lifecycle, and includes, at a minimum, lifecycle artifacts that pertain to: (1) properties of requirements capturing functional intent, safety constraints, and aspects of the intended use and operating environment; (2) model performance, model complexity and design, and algorithm choice; (3) achievement of required performance at the levels of a trained model during model development, a trained model after model development is complete, and a trained model that is transformed into an executable equivalent; (4) model implementation aspects necessary for transforming a trained model into the executable equivalent; (5) integration of the executable trained model into the containing MLC, and eventually the larger system; and, (6) lastly, the verification and validation (V&V) of each of the above. Such V&V lifecycle artifacts themselves include: aspects of coverage, e.g., of various levels of requirements by the input space of the model and the data; traceability (where applicable); application of formal methods for property specification, analysis, and checking. Examples of evidence generation methods and tools further ground the discussion on what constitutes evidence, and the contribution to assurance during certification. The identified assurance considerations and supporting evidence is not a comprehensive set. Additionally, neither what should be considered as sufficient evidence relative to the assigned criticality of an MLC, nor how criticality ought to be determined and adjusted, have been considered in this report. However, suggestions are made for potential activities of the ML lifecycle that are aimed at providing confidence that an MLC can be relied upon when integrated into its containing (aircraft) system. Those activities are proposed as candidate elements of a certification process for MLCs. The main purpose of this report to inform regulatory guidance and consensus standards that may be used to meet the safety intent of the applicable regulations.

Aviation safety↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Flight Systems Integration Path

The foundation for a safe and successful flight test of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) X-57 Maxwell all-electric experimental airplane, or any X-Plane, is comprehensive system testing on the ground. This test campaign includes verification and validation (V&V) that the integrated system operates as designed and expected, as well as understanding how the system reacts and responds to failures that can occur during flight by performing failure modes and effects testing (FMET). The aircraft should be in the final flight configuration for these test activities because any modifications, even those that appear insignificant, could affect test outcomes. Although the plan was to perform V&V and FMET testing once the airplane was in the flight configuration, due to multiple component redesigns, concurrent software development, and other problems with on-aircraft testing, the X-57 Maxwell never made it into a full-flight configuration. As a result, a build-up approach was followed to test software and hardware as they became ready in order to continue making progress wherever possible. Using this approach revealed problems with the hardware and software faster than waiting for a full-flight configuration, allowing solutions to be found more quickly and in parallel with other project tasks. Other than unloaded motor testing in a lab setting, the only other test setup was on the airplane itself. On-aircraft testing was preferrable in order to test things as close to a flight configuration as possible but was time consuming due to the requirements for testing on the airplane. To overcome some of the on-aircraft barriers, off-aircraft test configurations, such as the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) setups, were used, but each of these setups had limitations to be considered. As a result, solutions found in the SIL or HIL configurations did not always work as expected on the airplane, resulting in an iterative process between on- and off-aircraft testing to find the final solution. Having a dedicated test platform such as an iron bird that closely represents the aircraft - without flight hardware - would have been the most effective off-aircraft test setup, which could have allowed the project to save time and money and potentially reach flight. This paper will highlight the V&V and FMET considerations and testing prerequisites, the build-up approaches to both software and system testing, the benefits and drawbacks to different test configurations, as well as battery testing and operations.

Kassidy McLaughlin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Onboard Navigation Error Analysis for Aerocapture at Uranus

Capturing into an orbit around Uranus using aerocapture allows one to design a mission with faster interplanetary trajectories and less propellant requirements. Such an aerocapture mission would rely on the onboard Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) subsystems to successfully capture into an orbit around Uranus. Uncertainty in the state information and the noise in the sensor measurements induce navigation errors in the guidance and control subsystems, which can affect the overall performance of the aerocapture mission at Uranus. Understanding the effect of these navigation errors on mission performance is essential. To this end, this work considers different sensors with varying quality to understand their impact on the overall mission performance. In addition, this paper studies the impact of the uncertainty in the initial states used to initialize the onboard navigation filter and understands their effect on mission performance. This paper also shows the onboard navigation errors obtained from the Linear Covariance (LinCov) analysis and uses them for verification and validation (V&V) of the results from Program to Optimize and Simulate Trajectories-II (POST2).

Pardha Sai Chadalavada↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Onboard Navigation Error Analysis for Aerocapture at Uranus

Capturing into an orbit around Uranus using aerocapture allows one to design a mission with faster interplanetary trajectories and less propellant requirements. Such an aerocapture mission would rely on the onboard Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) subsystems to successfully capture into an orbit around Uranus. Uncertainty in the state information and the noise in the sensor measurements induce navigation errors in the guidance and control subsystems, which can affect the overall performance of the aerocapture mission at Uranus. Understanding the effect of these navigation errors on mission performance is essential. To this end, this work considers different sensors with varying quality to understand their impact on the overall mission performance. In addition, this paper studies the impact of the uncertainty in the initial states used to initialize the onboard navigation filter and understands their effect on mission performance. This paper also shows the onboard navigation errors obtained from the Linear Covariance (LinCov) analysis and uses them for verification and validation (V\&V) of the results from Program to Optimize and Simulate Trajectories-II (POST2).

Aerocapture↗