Operational range safety for solid-propellant sounding rockets.
Hazards in sounding rocket assembly and launch operations and safety techniques at NASA Wallops station noting storage, explosive control, ground safety, etc
Parker, L. C.↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “ground control stations”
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.
Apollo 15 mission. Temporary loss of command module television picture
An investigation was made into the temporary loss of command module color television picture by the ground station converter at Mission Control Center. Results show the picture loss was caused by a false synchronization pulse that resulted from the inability of the black level clipping circuit to respond adequately to the video signal when bright sunlight suddenly entered the camera's field of view.
Source record↗
Solar power satellite system definition study, phase 2. Volume 2: Reference system description
System descriptions and cost estimates for the reference system of the solar power satellite program are presented. The reference system is divided into five principal elements: the solar power satellites; space construction and support; space and ground transportation; ground receiving stations; and operations control. The program scenario and non-recurring costs are briefly described.
Source record↗
Space Shuttle Technical Conference, Part 2
The retrospective presentation provides technical disciplinary focus in the following technical areas: (1) integrated avionics; (2) guidance, navigation, and control; (3) aerodynamics; (4) structures; (5) life support, environmental control, and crew station; (6) ground operations; (7) propulsion and power; (8) communications and tracking; (9) mechanics and mechanical systems; and (10) thermal and contamination environments and protection systems.
Chaffee, Norman↗
Human factors requirements for telerobotic command and control: The European Space Agency experimental programme
Space Telerobotics research, performed under contract to the European Space Agency (ESA), concerning the execution of human factors experiments, and ultimately leading to the development of a telerobotics test bed, has been carried out since 1985 by a British Consortium consisting of British Aerospace, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and, more recently, the UK National Advanced Robotics Research Centre. The principal aim of the first study of the series was to derive preliminary requirements for a teleoperation servicing system, with reference to two mission model scenarios. The first scenario introduced the problem of communications time delays, and their likely effect on the ground-based operator in control of a manipulator system on board an unmanned servicing vehicle in Low Earth Orbit. In the second scenario, the operator was located on the NASA Orbiter aft flight deck, supervising the control of a prototype manipulator in the 'servicing' of an experimental payload in the cargo bay area. Human factors analyses centered on defining the requirements for the teleoperator workstation, such as identifying basic ergonomic requirements for workstation and panel layouts, defining teleoperation strategies, developing alphanumeric and graphic screen formats for the supervision or direct control of the manipulator, and the potential applications of expert system technology. The second study for ESA involved an experimental appraisal of some of the important issues highlighted in the first study, for which relevant human factors data did not exist. Of central importance during the second study was the issue of communications time delays and their effect on the manual control of a teleoperated manipulator from a ground-based command and control station.
Stone, Robert J.↗
Transferring Files Between the Deep Impact Spacecrafts and the Ground Data System Using the CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP): A Case Study
The CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) Standard could reshape ground support architectures by enabling applications to communicate over the space link using reliable-symmetric transport services. JPL utilized the CFDP standard to support the Deep Impact Mission. The architecture was based on layering the CFDP applications on top of the CCSDS Space Link Extension Services for data transport from the mission control centers to the ground stations. On July 4, 2005 at 1:52 A.M. EDT, the Deep Impact impactor successfully collided with comet Tempel 1. During the final 48 hours prior to impact, over 300 files were uplinked to the spacecraft, while over 6 thousand files were downlinked from the spacecraft using the CFDP. This paper uses the Deep Impact Mission as a case study in a discussion of the CFDP architecture, Deep Impact Mission requirements, and design for integrating the CFDP into the JPL deep space support services. Issues and recommendations for future missions using CFDP are also provided.
CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP)↗
Simulation and Flight Test Capability for Testing Prototype Sense and Avoid System Elements
NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) and The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) have developed, and successfully demonstrated, an integrated simulation-to-flight capability for evaluating sense and avoid (SAA) system elements. This integrated capability consists of a MITRE developed fast-time computer simulation for evaluating SAA algorithms, and a NASA LaRC surrogate unmanned aircraft system (UAS) equipped to support hardware and software in-the-loop evaluation of SAA system elements (e.g., algorithms, sensors, architecture, communications, autonomous systems), concepts, and procedures. The fast-time computer simulation subjects algorithms to simulated flight encounters/ conditions and generates a fitness report that records strengths, weaknesses, and overall performance. Reviewed algorithms (and their fitness report) are then transferred to NASA LaRC where additional (joint) airworthiness evaluations are performed on the candidate SAA system-element configurations, concepts, and/or procedures of interest; software and hardware components are integrated into the Surrogate UAS research systems; and flight safety and mission planning activities are completed. Onboard the Surrogate UAS, candidate SAA system element configurations, concepts, and/or procedures are subjected to flight evaluations and in-flight performance is monitored. The Surrogate UAS, which can be controlled remotely via generic Ground Station uplink or automatically via onboard systems, operates with a NASA Safety Pilot/Pilot in Command onboard to permit safe operations in mixed airspace with manned aircraft. An end-to-end demonstration of a typical application of the capability was performed in non-exclusionary airspace in October 2011; additional research, development, flight testing, and evaluation efforts using this integrated capability are planned throughout fiscal year 2012 and 2013.
Howell, Charles T.↗
Astrobee On-Orbit Commissioning
The Astrobee free flying robots operate in the interior of the International Space Station (ISS) under supervisory control of a ground operator or ISS crew. They replace the Synchronized Position Hold Engage and Reorient Experimental Satellites (SPHERES) as research platforms for zero-g free-flying robotics. Astrobee also provides a tool for improving the efficiency of ISS operations as a mobile camera/sensor platform available to flight and payload controllers. The Astrobee system consists of three robots with perching arms, a docking station, and a ground data system. Development began in late-2014, and flight hardware has been deployed to ISS on several launches starting in November 2018 and concluding in October 2019. Shortly after the first two robots arrived on ISS in April, we began a series of "commissioning" activities to validate both space and ground segments. We plan to complete commissioning and become an operational facility available to guest scientists by the end of 2019. This paper provides an overview of the Astrobee system, a description of the on-orbit activities, and commissioning results.
ISS↗
Astrobee On-Orbit Commissioning
The Astrobee free flying robots operate in the interior of the International Space Station (ISS) under supervisory control of a ground operator or ISS crew. They replace the Synchronized Position Hold Engage and Reorient Experimental Satellites (SPHERES) as research platforms for zero-g free-flying robotics. Astrobee also provides a tool for improving the efficiency of ISS operations as a mobile camera/sensor platform available to flight and payload controllers. The Astrobee system consists of three robots with perching arms, a docking station, and a ground data system. Development began in late-2014, and flight hardware has been deployed to ISS on several launches starting in November 2018 and concluding in October 2019. Shortly after the first two robots arrived on ISS in April, we began a series of “commissioning” activities to validate both space and ground segments. This paper provides an overview of the Astrobee system, a description of the on-orbit activities, and commissioning results.
Astrobee↗
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↗
The Deep Space Network
The objectives, functions, and organization, of the Deep Space Network are summarized. Deep Space stations, ground communications, and network operations control capabilities are described. The network is designed for two-way communications with unmanned spacecraft traveling approximately 1600 km from earth to the farthest planets in the solar system. It has provided tracking and data acquisition support for the following projects: Ranger, Surveyor, Mariner, Pioneer, Apollo, Helios, Viking, and the Lunar Orbiter.
Source record↗
The deep space network
The objectives, functions, and organization of the Deep Space Network are summarized. Deep space station, ground communication, and network operations control capabilities are described.
Source record↗
The deep space network
The objectives, functions, and organization of the Deep Space Network are summarized. Deep space station, ground communication, and network operations control capabilities are described.
Source record↗
The deep space network
The objectives, functions, and organization of the Deep Space Network are summarized. Deep space station, ground communication, and network operations control capabilities are described.
Source record↗
The deep space network
The objectives, functions, and organization of the Deep Space Network are summarized along with deep space station, ground communication, and network operations control capabilities. Mission support of ongoing planetary/interplanetary flight projects is discussed with emphasis on Viking orbiter radio frequency compatibility tests, the Pioneer Venus orbiter mission, and Helios-1 mission status and operations. Progress is also reported in tracking and data acquisition research and technology, network engineering, hardware and software implementation, and operations.
Source record↗
DSN functions and facilities
The objectives, functions, and organization of the Deep Space Network were summarized. Deep space station, ground communication, and network operations control capabilities are described.
N. A. Renzetti↗
Network functions and facilities
The objectives, functions, and organization of the Deep Space Network are summarized; deep space station, ground communication, and network operations control capabilities are described.
Renzetti, N. A.↗
Network functions and facilities
The objectives, functions, and organization of the Deep Space Network are summarized; deep space station, ground communication, and network operations control capabilities are described.
Renzetti, N. A.↗