Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “flight software”

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.

At least 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

The Cassini Spacecraft: Object Oriented Flight Control Software

The Cassini AACS object-oriented Flight Software is depicted in increasing levels of detail using a Context Diagram, Architecture Diagrams, an Object Diagram for each object, and a Statechart for each object. The detail contained in the diagrams is enhanced and refined during the Requirements and Design Phases of both Subsystem and Software Development. Examples of all the diagrams as well as the criteria for object selection, the advantages of statecharts, and the ease of modifying the design to accommodate changes in scope are described.

object-oriented↗
NASA NTRS1999

Spacecraft Software Maintenance: An Effective Approach to Reducing Costs and Increasing Science Return

Flight software is a mission critical element of spacecraft functionality and performance. When ground operations personnel interface to a spacecraft, they are typically dealing almost entirely with the capabilities of onboard software. This software, even more than critical ground/flight communications systems, is expected to perform perfectly during all phases of spacecraft life. Due to the fact that it can be reprogrammed on-orbit to accommodate degradations or failures in flight hardware, new insights into spacecraft characteristics, new control options which permit enhanced science options, etc., the on- orbit flight software maintenance team is usually significantly responsible for the long term success of a science mission. Failure of flight software to perform as needed can result in very expensive operations work-around costs and lost science opportunities. There are three basic approaches to maintaining spacecraft software--namely using the original developers, using the mission operations personnel, or assembling a center of excellence for multi-spacecraft software maintenance. Not planning properly for flight software maintenance can lead to unnecessarily high on-orbit costs and/or unacceptably long delays, or errors, in patch installations. A common approach for flight software maintenance is to access the original development staff. The argument for utilizing the development staff is that the people who developed the software will be the best people to modify the software on-orbit. However, it can quickly becomes a challenge to obtain the services of these key people. They may no longer be available to the organization. They may have a more urgent job to perform, quite likely on another project under different project management. If they havn't worked on the software for a long time, they may need precious time for refamiliarization to the software, testbeds and tools. Further, a lack of insight into issues related to flight software in its on-orbit environment, may find the developer unprepared for the challenges. The second approach is to train a member of the flight operations team to maintain the spacecraft software. This can prove to be a costly and inflexible solution. The person assigned to this duty may not have enough work to do during a problem free period and may have too much to do when a problem arises. If the person is a talented software engineer, he/she may not enjoy the limited software opportunities available in this position; and may eventually leave for newer technology computer science opportunities. Training replacement flight software personnel can be a difficult and lengthy process. The third approach is to assemble a center of excellence for on-orbit spacecraft software maintenance. Personnel in this specialty center can be managed to support flight software of multiple missions at once. The variety of challenges among a set of on-orbit missions, can result in a dedicated, talented staff which is fully trained and available to support each mission's needs. Such staff are not software developers but are rather spacecraft software systems engineers. The cost to any one mission is extremely low because the software staff works and charges, minimally on missions with no current operations issues; and their professional insight into on-orbit software troubleshooting and maintenance methods ensures low risk, effective and minimal-cost solutions to on-orbit issues.

Shell, Elaine M.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Dynamic assertion testing of flight control software

Assertions are used to dynamically test fault tolerant flight software. The experiment showed that 87% of typical errors introduced into the program would be detected by assertions. Detailed analysis of the test data showed that the number of assertions needed to detect those errors could be reduced to a minimal set. The analysis also revealed that the most effective assertions tested program parameters that provided greater indirect (collateral) testing of other parameters.

Andrews, D. M.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Cassini spacecraft: Object oriented flight control software

The Cassini Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem (AACS) is responsible for determining and controlling the spacecraft attitude including instrument pointing, antenna pointing, and thrust vector pointing during velocity change maneuvers. The 12 year mission life, long round-trip light time, and extended periods of coast without continuous ground control drive the AACS flight software design in the directions of autonomy, fault tolerance, and modularity to accommodate planned upgrades in flight. The Cassini AACS Flight Software is depicted in increasing levels of detail using a Context Diagram, Architecture Diagrams (i.e., Dependency Diagrams), an Object Diagram for each object, and a Statechart (i.e., State Transition Diagram) for each object. The detail contained in the diagrams is enhanced and refined during the Requirements and Design Phases of both Subsystem and Software Development. Examples of all the diagrams as well as the criteria for object selection, the advantages of statecharts, and the ease of modifying the design to accommodate changes in scope are described.

Hackney, John C.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Dynamic assertion testing of flight control software

An experiment in using assertions to dynamically test fault tolerant flight software is described. The experiment showed that 87% of typical errors introduced into the program would be detected by assertions. Detailed analysis of the test data showed that the number of assertions needed to detect those errors could be reduced to a minimal set. The analysis also revealed that the most effective assertions tested program parameters that provided greater indirect (collateral) testing of other parameters.

Andrews, D. M.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Mars Science Laboratory Boot Robustness Testing

Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is one of the most complex spacecrafts in the history of mankind. Due to the nature of its complexity, a large number of flight software (FSW) requirements have been written for implementation. In practice, these requirements necessitate very complex and very precise flight software with no room for error. One of flight software's responsibilities is to be able to boot up and check the state of all devices on the spacecraft after the wake up process. This boot up and initialization is crucial to the mission success since any misbehavior of different devices needs to be handled through the flight software. I have created a test toolkit that allows the FSW team to exhaustively test the flight software under variety of different unexpected scenarios and validate that flight software can handle any situation after booting up. The test includes initializing different devices on spacecraft to different configurations and validate at the end of the flight software boot up that the flight software has initialized those devices to what they are suppose to be in that particular scenario.

mission phases↗
NASA NTRS1986

An empirical study of flight control software reliability

The results of a laboratory experiment in flight control software reliability are reported. The experiment tests a small sample of implementations of a pitch axis control law for a PA28 aircraft with over 14 million pitch commands with varying levels of additive input and feedback noise. The testing which uses the method of n-version programming for error detection surfaced four software faults in one implementation of the control law. The small number of detected faults precluded the conduct of the error burst analyses. The pitch axis problem provides data for use in constructing a model in the prediction of the reliability of software in systems with feedback. The study is undertaken to find means to perform reliability evaluations of flight control software.

Dunham, J. R.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Descent and Landing Triggers for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Exploration Flight Test-1

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) will perform a flight test known as Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) currently scheduled for 2014. One of the primary functions of this test is to exercise all of the important Guidance, Navigation, Control (GN&C), and Propulsion systems, along with the flight software for future flights. The Descent and Landing segment of the flight is governed by the requirements levied on the GN&C system by the Landing and Recovery System (LRS). The LRS is a complex system of parachutes and flight control modes that ensure that the Orion MPCV safely lands at its designated target in the Pacific Ocean. The Descent and Landing segment begins with the jettisoning of the Forward Bay Cover and concludes with sensing touchdown. This paper discusses the requirements, design, testing, analysis and performance of the current EFT-1 Descent and Landing Triggers flight software.

Bihari, Brian D.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Evolution of the Space Shuttle Primary Avionics Software and Avionics for Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles

As a result of recommendation from the Augustine Panel, the direction for Human Space Flight has been altered from the original plan referred to as Constellation. NASA s Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) proposes the use of a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SDLV) and an Orion derived spacecraft (salvaged from Constellation) to support a new flexible direction for space exploration. The SDLV must be developed within an environment of a constrained budget and a preferred fast development schedule. Thus, it has been proposed to utilize existing assets from the Shuttle Program to speed development at a lower cost. These existing assets should not only include structures such as external tanks or solid rockets, but also the Flight Software which has traditionally been a "long pole" in new development efforts. The avionics and software for the Space Shuttle was primarily developed in the 70 s and considered state of the art for that time. As one may argue that the existing avionics and flight software may be too outdated to support the new SDLV effort, this is a fallacy if they can be evolved over time into a "modern avionics" platform. The technology may be outdated, but the avionics concepts and flight software algorithms are not. The reuse of existing avionics and software also allows for the reuse of development, verification, and operations facilities. The keyword is evolve in that these assets can support the fast development of such a vehicle, but then be gradually evolved over time towards more modern platforms as budget and schedule permits. The "gold" of the flight software is the "control loop" algorithms of the vehicle. This is the Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) software algorithms. This software is typically the most expensive to develop, test, and verify. Thus, the approach is to preserve the GNC flight software, while first evolving the supporting software (such as Command and Data Handling, Caution and Warning, Telemetry, etc.). This can be accomplished by gradually removing the "support software" from the legacy flight software leaving only the GNC algorithms. The "support software" could be re-developed for modern platforms, while leaving the GNC algorithms to execute on technology compatible with the legacy system. It is also possible to package the GNC algorithms into an emulated version of the original computer (via Field Programmable Gate Arrays or FPGAs), thus becoming a "GNC on a Chip" solution where it could live forever to be embedded in modern avionics platforms.

Ferguson, Roscoe C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Safety-Critical Partitioned Software Architecture: A Partitioned Software Architecture for Robotic

The flight software on virtually every mission currently managed by JPL has several major flaws that make it vulnerable to potentially fatal software defects. Many of these problems can be addressed by recently developed partitioned operating systems (OS). JPL has avoided adopting a partitioned operating system on its flight missions, primarily because doing so would require significant changes in flight software design, and the risks associated with changes of that magnitude cannot be accepted by an active flight project. The choice of a partitioned OS can have a dramatic effect on the overall system and software architecture, allowing for realization of benefits far beyond the concerns typically associated with the choice of OS. Specifically, we believe that a partitioned operating system, when coupled with an appropriate architecture, can provide a strong infrastructure for developing systems for which reusability, modifiability, testability, and reliability are essential qualities. By adopting a partitioned OS, projects can gain benefits throughout the entire development lifecycle, from requirements and design, all the way to implementation, testing, and operations.

(Avionics Application Standard Software Interface ↗
NASA NTRS2000

Supporting Development of Satellite's Guidance Navigation and Control Software: A Product Line Approach

The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Flight Software Branch (FSB) is developing a Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Flight Software (FSW) product line. The demand for increasingly more complex flight software in less time while maintaining the same level of quality has motivated us to look for better FSW development strategies. The GNC FSW product line has been planned to address the core GNC FSW functionality very similar on many recent low/near Earth missions in the last ten years. Unfortunately these missions have not accomplished significant drops in development cost since a systematic approach towards reuse has not been adopted. In addition, new demands are continually being placed upon the FSW which means the FSB must become more adept at providing GNC FSW functionality's core so it can accommodate additional requirements. These domain features together with engineering concepts are influencing the specification, description and evaluation of FSW product line. Domain engineering is the foundation for emerging product line software development approaches. A product line is 'A family of products designed to take advantage of their common aspects and predicted variabilities'. In our product line approach, domain engineering includes the engineering activities needed to produce reusable artifacts for a domain. Application engineering refers to developing an application in the domain starting from reusable artifacts. The focus of this paper is regarding the software process, lessons learned and on how the GNC FSW product line manages variability. Existing domain engineering approaches do not enforce any specific notation for domain analysis or commonality and variability analysis. Usually, natural language text is the preferred tool. The advantage is the flexibility and adapt ability of natural language. However, one has to be ready to accept also its well-known drawbacks, such as ambiguity, inconsistency, and contradictions. While most domain analysis approaches are functionally oriented, the idea of applying the object-oriented approach in domain analysis is not new. Some authors propose to use UML as the notation underlying domain analysis. Our work is based on the same idea of merging UML and domain analysis. Further, we propose a few extensions to UML in order to express variability, and we define precisely their semantics so that a tool can support them. The extensions are designed to be implemented on the API of a popular industrial CASE tool, with obvious advantages in cost and availability of tool support. The paper outlines the product line processes and identifies where variability must be addressed. Then it describes the product line products with respect to how they accommodate variability. The Celestial Body subdomain is used as a working example. Our results to date are summarized and plans for the future are described.

McComas, David↗
NASA NTRS1987

Product assurance policies and procedures for flight dynamics software development

The product assurance policies and procedures necessary to support flight dynamics software development projects for Goddard Space Flight Center are presented. The quality assurance and configuration management methods and tools for each phase of the software development life cycles are described, from requirements analysis through acceptance testing; maintenance and operation are not addressed.

Perry, Sandra↗
NASA NTRS1979

Functional description of the ISIS system

Development of software for avionic and aerospace applications (flight software) is influenced by a unique combination of factors which includes: (1) length of the life cycle of each project; (2) necessity for cooperation between the aerospace industry and NASA; (3) the need for flight software that is highly reliable; (4) the increasing complexity and size of flight software; and (5) the high quality of the programmers and the tightening of project budgets. The interactive software invocation system (ISIS) which is described is designed to overcome the problems created by this combination of factors.

Berman, W. J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

LADEE Simulation for Mission Operations

The Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) model-based spacecraft simulator has been discussed previously at the Workshop on Spacecraft Flight Software including the verification and validation of the flight software, hardware integration of payloads, and multi-domain simulation. In addition to flight software development and testing the LADEE simulator was used by Mission Operations to develop and test spacecraft command scripts, train operators during mission simulations, verification of all tactical command sequence files uploaded to spacecraft during flight.This presentation will discuss the experience of the LADEE operations team using the spacecraft simulator including implementation, processes and lessons learned. We will also discuss a specific instance where the simulator was used in operations to debug and design a software fix for a spacecraft anomaly experienced with the star tracker.

Operations↗
NASA NTRS2012

Optimizing Flight Control Software With an Application Platform

Flight controllers in NASA s mission control centers work day and night to ensure that missions succeed and crews are safe. The IT goals of NASA mission control centers are similar to those of most businesses: to evolve IT infrastructure from basic to dynamic. This paper describes Mission Control Technologies (MCT), an application platform that is powering mission control today and is designed to meet the needs of future NASA control centers. MCT is an extensible platform that provides GUI components and a runtime environment. The platform enables NASA s IT goals through its use of lightweight interfaces and configurable components, which promote standardization and incorporate useful solution patterns. The MCT architecture positions mission control centers to reach the goal of dynamic IT, leading to lower cost of ownership, and treating software as a strategic investment.

Smith, Irene Skupniewicz↗
NASA NTRS2016

Voyager Interstellar Mission: Challenges of Flying a Very Old Spacecraft on a Very Long Mission

Two Voyager spacecraft were launched in 1977. After the successful flybys of Jupiter and Saturn by both Voyagers and Uranus and Neptune by Voyager 2, the mission has been extended for another 30 years in search of the transition region between the dominance of the solar energy and interstellar energy. The Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM) started on January 1, 1990. It can be characterized by several factors including extremely long communication distances, aging hardware, reduced staffing levels and difficulty in obtaining Deep Space Network (DSN) resources necessitated by the increasing distance between the spacecraft and Earth. The mission was redesigned to compensate for such factors while maximizing the science return. After 25 years of VIM and several significant science discoveries, both Voyager spacecraft are still functioning well and the Voyager flight team is preparing for an even longer mission - until the year 2025 and beyond. In order to work around the challenges and to continue the mission even further, the team has been implementing numerous changes, mainly through flight software modifications and hardware reconfiguration. The major drivers for the changes are two-fold: resource constraints (such as decreasing power output and difficulty in obtaining the necessary DSN coverage) and anomalies due to the aging hardware. The majority of changes occur through flight software modifications so the state of the on-board responses is appropriate for the changing space environment and mission phase, and the flight software is compatible in allowing the maximum data gathering. The on-board flight software routines such as baseline sequence, fault protection routines, the High Gain Antenna POINTing to Earth (HPOINT) table, and long-term events table need to be maintained through flight software updates. The changes also occur through hardware reconfiguration such as selecting the backup Hybrid Buffer Interface Circuits (HYBIC) or attitude propulsion thrusters. This paper will describe the challenges of VIM and what has been done to overcome or mitigate those challenges. The primary focus will be the major flight software changes made during VIM and the changes that are in store for the near future in preparation for continuing the extended mission, from the originally projected year of 2020 out to the year 2025 and possibly beyond.

Matsumoto, Sun Kang↗
NASA NTRS2010

AutoGNC Testbed

A simulation testbed architecture was developed and implemented for the integration, test, and development of a TRL-6 flight software set called Auto- GNC. The AutoGNC software will combine the TRL-9 Deep Impact AutoNAV flight software suite, the TRL-9 Virtual Machine Language (VML) executive, and the TRL-3 G-REX guidance, estimation, and control algorithms. The Auto- GNC testbed was architected to provide software interface connections among the AutoNAV and VML flight code written in C, the G-REX algorithms in MATLAB and C, stand-alone image rendering algorithms in C, and other Fortran algorithms, such as the OBIRON landmark tracking suite. The testbed architecture incorporates software components for propagating a high-fidelity truth model of the environment and the spacecraft dynamics, along with the flight software components for onboard guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C). The interface allows for the rapid integration and testing of new algorithms prior to development of the C code for implementation in flight software. This testbed is designed to test autonomous spacecraft proximity operations around small celestial bodies, moons, or other spacecraft. The software is baselined for upcoming comet and asteroid sample return missions. This architecture and testbed will provide a direct improvement upon the onboard flight software utilized for missions such as Deep Impact, Stardust, and Deep Space 1.

Carson, John M., III↗