Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “prototyped verification system”

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 NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) Testing

Following successful completion of the space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 1.0 development and testing in 2011, the second system-level prototype, PLSS 2.0, was developed in 2012 to continue the maturation of the advanced PLSS design which is intended to reduce consumables, improve reliability and robustness, and incorporate additional sensing and functional capabilities over the current Space Shuttle/International Space Station Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) PLSS. PLSS 2.0 represents the first attempt at a packaged design comprising first generation or later component prototypes and medium fidelity interfaces within a flight-like representative volume. Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) is carryover terminology from the Space Shuttle Program referring to the series of test sequences used to verify functionality of the EMU PLSS prior to installation into the Space Shuttle airlock for launch. As applied to the PLSS 2.0 development and testing effort, PIA testing designated the series of 27 independent test sequences devised to verify component and subsystem functionality, perform in situ instrument calibrations, generate mapping data to define set-points for control algorithms, evaluate hardware performance against advanced PLSS design requirements, and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback on evolving design requirements and performance specifications. PLSS 2.0 PIA testing was carried out from 3/20/13 - 3/15/14 using a variety of test configurations to perform test sequences that ranged from stand-alone component testing to system-level testing, with evaluations becoming increasingly integrated as the test series progressed. Each of the 27 test sequences was vetted independently, with verification of basic functionality required before completion. Because PLSS 2.0 design requirements were evolving concurrently with PLSS 2.0 PIA testing, the requirements were used as guidelines to assess performance during the tests; after the completion of PIA testing, test data served to improve the fidelity and maturity of design requirements as well as plans for future advanced PLSS functional testing.

Watts, Carly↗
NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) Testing

Following successful completion of the space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 1.0 development and testing in 2011, the second system-level prototype, PLSS 2.0, was developed in 2012 to continue the maturation of the advanced PLSS design. This advanced PLSS is intended to reduce consumables, improve reliability and robustness, and incorporate additional sensing and functional capabilities over the current Space Shuttle/International Space Station Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) PLSS. PLSS 2.0 represents the first attempt at a packaged design comprising first generation or later component prototypes and medium fidelity interfaces within a flight-like representative volume. Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) is carryover terminology from the Space Shuttle Program referring to the series of test sequences used to verify functionality of the EMU PLSS prior to installation into the Space Shuttle airlock for launch. As applied to the PLSS 2.0 development and testing effort, PIA testing designated the series of 27 independent test sequences devised to verify component and subsystem functionality, perform in situ instrument calibrations, generate mapping data, define set-points, evaluate control algorithms, evaluate hardware performance against advanced PLSS design requirements, and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback on evolving design requirements and performance specifications. PLSS 2.0 PIA testing was carried out in 2013 and 2014 using a variety of test configurations to perform test sequences that ranged from stand-alone component testing to system-level testing, with evaluations becoming increasingly integrated as the test series progressed. Each of the 27 test sequences was vetted independently, with verification of basic functionality required before completion. Because PLSS 2.0 design requirements were evolving concurrently with PLSS 2.0 PIA testing, the requirements were used as guidelines to assess performance during the tests; after the completion of PIA testing, test data served to improve the fidelity and maturity of design requirements as well as plans for future advanced PLSS functional testing.

Anchondo, Ian↗
NASA NTRS2013

SILHIL Replication of Electric Aircraft Powertrain Dynamics and Inner-Loop Control for V&V of System Health Management Routines

Software-in-the-loop and Hardware-in-the-loop testing of failure prognostics and decision making tools for aircraft systems will facilitate more comprehensive and cost-effective testing than what is practical to conduct with flight tests. A framework is described for the offline recreation of dynamic loads on simulated or physical aircraft powertrain components based on a real-time simulation of airframe dynamics running on a flight simulator, an inner-loop flight control policy executed by either an autopilot routine or a human pilot, and a supervisory fault management control policy. The creation of an offline framework for verifying and validating supervisory failure prognostics and decision making routines is described for the example of battery charge depletion failure scenarios onboard a prototype electric unmanned aerial vehicle.

Verification and Validation↗
NASA NTRS2018

Blind Study Validating Parametric Costing Tools PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H for NASA Science Missions

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE TruePlanning - Space Missions Catalog by PRICE Systems, and SEER-H by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. However, no independent verification of the accuracy of these tools is publicly available. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

Paul D Friz↗
NASA NTRS2019

Blind Study Validating Parametric Costing Tools PRICE True Planning and SEER-H for NASA Science Missions

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE True Planning - Space Missions Catalog by PRICE Systems, and SEER-H by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. However, no independent verification of the accuracy of these tools is publicly available. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE True Planning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

Friz, Paul D.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Unmanned Vacuum Environment Testing

For the first time in more than 30 years, an advanced space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) design was operated inside a vacuum chamber representative of the flight operating environment. The test article, PLSS 2.0, was the second system-level integrated prototype of the advanced PLSS design, following the PLSS 1.0 Breadboard that was developed and tested throughout 2011. Whereas PLSS 1.0 included five technology development components with the balance the system simulated using commercial-off-the-shelf items, PLSS 2.0 featured first generation or later prototypes for all components less instrumentation, tubing and fittings. Developed throughout 2012, PLSS 2.0 was the first attempt to package the system into a flight-like representative volume. PLSS 2.0 testing included an extensive functional evaluation known as Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) testing, Human-in-the-Loop testing in which the PLSS 2.0 prototype was integrated via umbilicals to a manned prototype space suit for 19 two-hour simulated EVAs, and unmanned vacuum environment testing. Unmanned vacuum environment testing took place from 1/9/15-7/9/15 with PLSS 2.0 located inside a vacuum chamber. Test sequences included performance mapping of several components, carbon dioxide removal evaluations at simulated intravehicular activity (IVA) conditions, a regulator pressure schedule assessment, and culminated with 25 simulated extravehicular activities (EVAs). During the unmanned vacuum environment test series, PLSS 2.0 accumulated 378 hours of integrated testing including 291 hours of operation in a vacuum environment and 199 hours of simulated EVA time. The PLSS prototype performed nominally throughout the test series, with two notable exceptions including a pump failure and a Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator (SWME) leak, for which post-test failure investigations were performed. In addition to generating an extensive database of PLSS 2.0 performance data, achievements included requirements and operational concepts verification, as well as demonstration of vehicular interfaces, consumables sizing and recharge, and water quality control.

Watts, Carly↗
NASA NTRS2016

Modeling in the State Flow Environment to Support Launch Vehicle Verification Testing for Mission and Fault Management Algorithms in the NASA Space Launch System

Analysis methods and testing processes are essential activities in the engineering development and verification of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS). Central to mission success is reliable verification of the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the SLS launch vehicle (LV) flight software. This is particularly difficult because M&FM algorithms integrate and operate LV subsystems, which consist of diverse forms of hardware and software themselves, with equally diverse integration from the engineering disciplines of LV subsystems. M&FM operation of SLS requires a changing mix of LV automation. During pre-launch the LV is primarily operated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) organization with some LV automation of time-critical functions, and much more autonomous LV operations during ascent that have crucial interactions with the Orion crew capsule, its astronauts, and with mission controllers at the Johnson Space Center. M&FM algorithms must perform all nominal mission commanding via the flight computer to control LV states from pre-launch through disposal and also address failure conditions by initiating autonomous or commanded aborts (crew capsule escape from the failing LV), redundancy management of failing subsystems and components, and safing actions to reduce or prevent threats to ground systems and crew. To address the criticality of the verification testing of these algorithms, the NASA M&FM team has utilized the State Flow environment6 (SFE) with its existing Vehicle Management End-to-End Testbed (VMET) platform which also hosts vendor-supplied physics-based LV subsystem models. The human-derived M&FM algorithms are designed and vetted in Integrated Development Teams composed of design and development disciplines such as Systems Engineering, Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), liquid engines, and the astronaut crew office. Since the algorithms are realized using model-based engineering (MBE) methods from a hybrid of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), SFE methods are a natural fit to provide an in depth analysis of the interactive behavior of these algorithms with the SLS LV subsystem models. For this, the M&FM algorithms and the SLS LV subsystem models are modeled using constructs provided by Matlab which also enables modeling of the accompanying interfaces providing greater flexibility for integrated testing and analysis, which helps forecast expected behavior in forward VMET integrated testing activities. In VMET, the M&FM algorithms are prototyped and implemented using the same C++ programming language and similar state machine architectural concepts used by the FSW group. Due to the interactive complexity of the algorithms, VMET testing thus far has verified all the individual M&FM subsystem algorithms with select subsystem vendor models but is steadily progressing to assessing the interactive behavior of these algorithms with LV subsystems, as represented by subsystem models. The novel SFE applications has proven to be useful for quick look analysis into early integrated system behavior and assessment of the M&FM algorithms with the modeled LV subsystems. This early MBE analysis generates vital insight into the integrated system behaviors, algorithm sensitivities, design issues, and has aided in the debugging of the M&FM algorithms well before full testing can begin in more expensive, higher fidelity but more arduous environments such as VMET, FSW testing, and the Systems Integration Lab7 (SIL). SFE has exhibited both expected and unexpected behaviors in nominal and off nominal test cases prior to full VMET testing. In many findings, these behavioral characteristics were used to correct the M&FM algorithms, enable better test coverage, and develop more effective test cases for each of the LV subsystems. This has improved the fidelity of testing and planning for the next generation of M&FM algorithms as the SLS program evolves from non-crewed to crewed flight, impacting subsystem configurations and the M&FM algorithms that control them. SFE analysis has improved robustness and reliability of the M&FM algorithms by revealing implementation errors and documentation inconsistencies. It is also improving planning efficiency for future VMET testing of the M&FM algorithms hosted in the LV flight computers, further reducing risk for the SLS launch infrastructure, the SLS LV, and most importantly the crew.

Trevino, Luis↗
NASA NTRS1994

Concept verification of three dimensional free motion simulator for space robot

In the development of automatic assembling technologies for space structures, it is an indispensable matter to investigate and simulate the movements of robot satellites concerned with mission operation. The movement investigation and simulation on the ground will be effectively realized by a free motion simulator. Various types of ground systems for simulating free motion have been proposed and utilized. Some of these methods are a neutral buoyancy system, an air or magnetic suspension system, a passive suspension balance system, and a free flying aircraft or drop tower system. In addition, systems can be simulated by computers using an analytical model. Each free motion simulation method has limitations and well known problems, specifically, disturbance by water viscosity, limited number of degrees-of-freedom, complex dynamics induced by the attachment of the simulation system, short experiment time, and the lack of high speed super-computer simulation systems, respectively. The basic idea presented here is to realize 3-dimensional free motion. This is achieved by combining a spherical air bearing, a cylindrical air bearing, and a flat air bearing. A conventional air bearing system has difficulty realizing free vertical motion suspension. The idea of free vertical suspension is that a cylindrical air bearing and counter balance weight realize vertical free motion. This paper presents a design concept, configuration, and basic performance characteristics of an innovative free motion simulator. A prototype simulator verifies the feasibility of 3-dimensional free motion simulation.

Okamoto, Osamu↗
NASA NTRS2013

V and V of Lexical, Syntactic and Semantic Properties for Interactive Systems Through Model Checking of Formal Description of Dialog

During early phases of the development of an interactive system, future system properties are identified (through interaction with end users in the brainstorming and prototyping phase of the application, or by other stakehold-ers) imposing requirements on the final system. They can be specific to the application under development or generic to all applications such as usability principles. Instances of specific properties include visibility of the aircraft altitude, speed… in the cockpit and the continuous possibility of disengaging the autopilot in whatever state the aircraft is. Instances of generic properties include availability of undo (for undoable functions) and availability of a progression bar for functions lasting more than four seconds. While behavioral models of interactive systems using formal description techniques provide complete and unambiguous descriptions of states and state changes, it does not provide explicit representation of the absence or presence of properties. Assessing that the system that has been built is the right system remains a challenge usually met through extensive use and acceptance tests. By the explicit representation of properties and the availability of tools to support checking these properties, it becomes possible to provide developers with means for systematic exploration of the behavioral models and assessment of the presence or absence of these properties. This paper proposes the synergistic use two tools for checking both generic and specific properties of interactive applications: Petshop and Java PathFinder. Petshop is dedicated to the description of interactive system behavior. Java PathFinder is dedicated to the runtime verification of Java applications and as an extension dedicated to User Interfaces. This approach is exemplified on a safety critical application in the area of interactive cockpits for large civil aircrafts.

human-computer interface↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Blind Validation Study of PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE TruePlanning by PRICE Systems, and System Estimation and Evaluation of Resources-Hardware (SEER-H) by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. This study is an independent verification of the accuracy of these tools and was originally published in 2018. The purpose of this presentation is to circulate the findings of that study among the NASA cost community. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER-H had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. Nine of the twelve mission's actual costs fell within the 80% confidence interval of SEER's probabilistic estimates; however, none of the missions fell within PRICE’s confidence intervals. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER-H which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

SEER↗
NASA NTRS2014

LADEE Multi-Domain Simulation

The Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) was a small explorer class spacecraft that was launched on Sept 7, 2013 and that was de-orbited and successfully impacted the Moons surface on April 17, 2014 after completing all of the mission objectives. The low-cost rapidly prototyped hardware design used for the spacecraft was extend to the development of the software base. To achieve this goal, a Model Based Design approach was utilized to develop the onboard flight software, and out of this development a model based multipurpose simulator was created of the LADEE spacecraft and its mission environment. This simulator extended the traditional function of propagating the vehicle's kinematic and rotational states and included the electrical and thermal states propagation. Traditionally, these domains are handled by domain specific high fidelity simulations that use the states histories from other domains as input. By reducing the fidelity and abstracting the relevant features being monitored and controlled by the flight software, it was possible to model the coupling across these domains resulting in more accurate overall system behavior. A faster than real-time workstation (WSIM) version of the LADEE simulator was used to develop and test the software control algorithms in the Simulink environment. To maximize the performance of the simulation, modeling knobs were introduced to reduce the resolution of the some of the domains models when the effects of that domain were not significant for the scope of that simulation. The automatic code generation feature in Simulink was used to port the simulation to several real-time environments to support Processor-in-the-Loop (PIL) and Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) testing, verification and validation. The real-time environment required that the design of each of the domain models be deterministic as possible in the time required to perform all of the calculations to update its states. The simulation interface was designed to be compatible with the command interface employed by the LADEE mission operation team. The WSIM, PIL, and HIL simulators thus used a common interface and thus were used for flight software testing, for mission operations personnel training (nominal and off-nominal operations) prior to the mission and to perform command sequence verification during the mission. This presentation will look at the modeling strategies used to create a common interface to the simulator and to model and couple multiple domains within the simulation, the results of those strategies, and the lessons learned.

Multi-Domain↗
NASA NTRS1993

Scientific goals of the Cooperative Multiscale Experiment (CME)

Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCS) form the focus of CME. Recent developments in global climate models, the urgent need to improve the representation of the physics of convection, radiation, the boundary layer, and orography, and the surge of interest in coupling hydrologic, chemistry, and atmospheric models of various scales, have emphasized the need for a broad interdisciplinary and multi-scale approach to understanding and predicting MCS's and their interactions with processes at other scales. The role of mesoscale systems in the large-scale atmospheric circulation, the representation of organized convection and other mesoscale flux sources in terms of bulk properties, and the mutually consistent treatment of water vapor, clouds, radiation, and precipitation, are all key scientific issues concerning which CME will seek to increase understanding. The manner in which convective, mesoscale, and larger scale processes interact to produce and organize MCS's, the moisture cycling properties of MCS's, and the use of coupled cloud/mesoscale models to better understand these processes, are also major objectives of CME. Particular emphasis will be placed on the multi-scale role of MCS's in the hydrological cycle and in the production and transport of chemical trace constituents. The scientific goals of the CME consist of the following: understand how the large and small scales of motion influence the location, structure, intensity, and life cycles of MCS's; understand processes and conditions that determine the relative roles of balanced (slow manifold) and unbalanced (fast manifold) circulations in the dynamics of MCS's throughout their life cycles; assess the predictability of MCS's and improve the quantitative forecasting of precipitation and severe weather events; quantify the upscale feedback of MCS's to the large-scale environment and determine interrelationships between MCS occurrence and variations in the large-scale flow and surface forcing; provide a data base for initialization and verification of coupled regional, mesoscale/hydrologic, mesoscale/chemistry, and prototype mesoscale/cloud-resolving models for prediction of severe weather, ceilings, and visibility; provide a data base for initialization and validation of cloud-resolving models, and for assisting in the fabrication, calibration, and testing of cloud and MCS parameterization schemes; and provide a data base for validation of four dimensional data assimilation schemes and algorithms for retrieving cloud and state parameters from remote sensing instrumentation.

Cotton, William↗
NASA NTRS1996

Second International Airborne Remote Sensing Conference and Exhibition

The conference provided four days of displays and scientific presentations on applications, technology, a science of sub-orbital data gathering and analysis. The twelve displayed aircraft equipped with sophisticated instrumentation represented a wide range of environmental and reconnaissance missions,including marine pollution control, fire detection, Open Skies Treaty verification, thermal mapping, hydrographical measurements, military research, ecological and agricultural observations, geophysical research, atmospheric and meterological observations, and aerial photography. The U.S. Air Force and the On-Site Inspection Agency displayed the new Open Skies Treaty verification Boeing OC 135B that promotes international monitoring of military forces and activities. SRl's Jetstream uses foliage and ground penetrating SAR for forest inventories, toxic waste delineation, and concealed target and buried unexploded ordnance detection. Earth Search Sciences's Gulfstream 1 with prototype miniaturized airborne hyperspectral imaging equipment specializes in accurate mineral differentiation, low-cost hydrocarbon exploration, and nonproliferation applications. John E. Chance and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers displayed the Bell 2 helicopter with SHOALS that performs hydrographic surveying of navigation projects, coastal environment assessment, and nautical charting surveys. Bechtel Nevada and U.S. DOE displayed both the Beech King AIR B-200 platform equipped to provide first response to nuclear accidents and routine environmental surveillance, and the MBB BO-105 helicopter used in spectral analysis for environmental assessment and military appraisal. NASA Ames Research Center's high-altitude Lockheed ER-2 assists in earth resources monitoring research in atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, and electronic sensors; ozone and greenhouse studies and satellite calibration and data validation. Ames also showcased the Learjet 24 Airborne Observatory that completed missions in Venus cloud cover analysis, Quadantid meteor shower studies, extra-solar far infrared ionic structure lines measurement, Cape Kennedy launch support, and studies in air pollution, The Products and Services Exhibit showcased new sensor and image processing technologies, aircraft data collection services, unmanned vehicle technology, platform equipment, turn-key services, software a workstations, GPS services, publications, and processing and integration systems by 58 exhibitors. The participation of aircraft users and crews provided unique dialogue between those who plan data collection a operate the remote sensing technology, and those who supply the data processing and integration equipment. Research results using hyperspectral imagery, radar and optical sensors, lidar, digital aerial photography, a integrated systems were presented. Major research and development programs and campaigns we reviewed, including CNR's LARA Project and European Space Agency's 1991-1995 Airborne Campaign. The pre-conference short courses addressed airborne video, photogrammetry, hyperspectral data analysis, digital orthophotography, imagery and GIS integration, IFSAR, GPS, and spectrometer calibration.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

ACTS Ka-Band Earth Stations: Technology, Performance, and Lessons Learned

The Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) Project invested heavily in prototype Ka-band satellite ground terminals to conduct an experiments program with the ACTS satellite. The ACTS experiment's program proposed to validate Ka-band satellite and ground station technology. demonstrate future telecommunication services. demonstrate commercial viability and market acceptability of these new services, evaluate system networking and processing technology, and characterize Ka-band propagation effects, including development of techniques to mitigate signal fading. This paper will present a summary of the fixed ground terminals developed by the NASA Glenn Research Center and its industry partners, emphasizing the technology and performance of the terminals (Part 1) and the lessons learned throughout their six year operation including the inclined orbit phase of operations (Full Report). An overview of the Ka-band technology and components developed for the ACTS ground stations is presented. Next. the performance of the ground station technology and its evolution during the ACTS campaign are discussed to illustrate the technical tradeoffs made during the program and highlight technical advances by industry to support the ACTS experiments program and terminal operations. Finally. lessons learned during development and operation of the user terminals are discussed for consideration of commercial adoption into future Ka-band systems. The fixed ground stations used for experiments by government, academic, and commercial entities used reflector based offset-fed antenna systems ranging in size from 0.35m to 3.4m antenna diameter. Gateway earth stations included two systems, referred to as the NASA Ground Station (NGS) and the Link Evaluation Terminal (LET). The NGS provides tracking, telemetry, and control (TT&C) and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) network control functions. The LET supports technology verification and high data rate experiments. The ground stations successfully demonstrated many services and applications at Ka-band in three different modes of operation: circuit switched TDMA using the satellite on-board processor, satellite switched SS-TDMA applications using the on-board Microwave Switch Matrix (MSM), and conventional transponder (bent-pipe) operation. Data rates ranged from 4.8 kbps up to 622 Mbps. Experiments included: 1) low rate (4.8- 1 00's kbps) remote data acquisition and control using small earth stations, 2) moderate rate (1-45 Mbps) experiments included full duplex voice and video conferencing and both full duplex and asymmetric data rate protocol and network evaluation using mid-size ground stations, and 3) link characterization experiments and high data rate (155-622 Mbps) terrestrial and satellite interoperability application experiments conducted by a consortium of experimenters using the large transportable ground stations.

Reinhart, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Proceedings of the 2004 High Spatial Resolution Commercial Imagery Workshop

Topics covered include: NASA Applied Sciences Program; USGS Land Remote Sensing: Overview; QuickBird System Status and Product Overview; ORBIMAGE Overview; IKONOS 2004 Calibration and Validation Status; OrbView-3 Spatial Characterization; On-Orbit Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) Measurement of QuickBird; Spatial Resolution Characterization for QuickBird Image Products 2003-2004 Season; Image Quality Evaluation of QuickBird Super Resolution and Revisit of IKONOS: Civil and Commercial Application Project (CCAP); On-Orbit System MTF Measurement; QuickBird Post Launch Geopositional Characterization Update; OrbView-3 Geometric Calibration and Geopositional Accuracy; Geopositional Statistical Methods; QuickBird and OrbView-3 Geopositional Accuracy Assessment; Initial On-Orbit Spatial Resolution Characterization of OrbView-3 Panchromatic Images; Laboratory Measurement of Bidirectional Reflectance of Radiometric Tarps; Stennis Space Center Verification and Validation Capabilities; Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation (JACIE) Team; Adjacency Effects in High Resolution Imagery; Effect of Pulse Width vs. GSD on MTF Estimation; Camera and Sensor Calibration at the USGS; QuickBird Geometric Verification; Comparison of MODTRAN to Heritage-based Results in Vicarious Calibration at University of Arizona; Using Remotely Sensed Imagery to Determine Impervious Surface in Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Estimating Sub-Pixel Proportions of Sagebrush with a Regression Tree; How Do YOU Use the National Land Cover Dataset?; The National Map Hazards Data Distribution System; Recording a Troubled World; What Does This-Have to Do with This?; When Can a Picture Save a Thousand Homes?; InSAR Studies of Alaska Volcanoes; Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) Data Products; Improving Access to the USGS Aerial Film Collections: High Resolution Scanners; Improving Access to the USGS Aerial Film Collections: Phoenix Digitizing System Product Distribution; System and Product Characterization: Issues Approach; Innovative Approaches to Analysis of Lidar Data for the National Map; Changes in Imperviousness near Military Installations; Geopositional Accuracy Evaluations of QuickBird and OrbView-3: Civil and Commercial Applications Project (CCAP); Geometric Accuracy Assessment: OrbView ORTHO Products; QuickBird Radiometric Calibration Update; OrbView-3 Radiometric Calibration; QuickBird Radiometric Characterization; NASA Radiometric Characterization; Establishing and Verifying the Traceability of Remote-Sensing Measurements to International Standards; QuickBird Applications; Airport Mapping and Perpetual Monitoring Using IKONOS; OrbView-3 Relative Accuracy Results and Impacts on Exploitation and Accuracy Improvement; Using Remotely Sensed Imagery to Determine Impervious Surface in Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Applying High-Resolution Satellite Imagery and Remotely Sensed Data to Local Government Applications: Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Automatic Co-Registration of QuickBird Data for Change Detection Applications; Developing Coastal Surface Roughness Maps Using ASTER and QuickBird Data Sources; Automated, Near-Real Time Cloud and Cloud Shadow Detection in High Resolution VNIR Imagery; Science Applications of High Resolution Imagery at the USGS EROS Data Center; Draft Plan for Characterizing Commercial Data Products in Support of Earth Science Research; Atmospheric Correction Prototype Algorithm for High Spatial Resolution Multispectral Earth Observing Imaging Systems; Determining Regional Arctic Tundra Carbon Exchange: A Bottom-Up Approach; Using IKONOS Imagery to Assess Impervious Surface Area, Riparian Buffers and Stream Health in the Mid-Atlantic Region; Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy Civil Implementation Update; USGS Commercial Remote Sensing Data Contracts (CRSDC); and Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy (CRSSP): Civil Near-Term Requirements Collection Update.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2013

Distributed Engine Control Empirical/Analytical Verification Tools

NASA's vision for an intelligent engine will be realized with the development of a truly distributed control system featuring highly reliable, modular, and dependable components capable of both surviving the harsh engine operating environment and decentralized functionality. A set of control system verification tools was developed and applied to a C-MAPSS40K engine model, and metrics were established to assess the stability and performance of these control systems on the same platform. A software tool was developed that allows designers to assemble easily a distributed control system in software and immediately assess the overall impacts of the system on the target (simulated) platform, allowing control system designers to converge rapidly on acceptable architectures with consideration to all required hardware elements. The software developed in this program will be installed on a distributed hardware-in-the-loop (DHIL) simulation tool to assist NASA and the Distributed Engine Control Working Group (DECWG) in integrating DCS (distributed engine control systems) components onto existing and next-generation engines.The distributed engine control simulator blockset for MATLAB/Simulink and hardware simulator provides the capability to simulate virtual subcomponents, as well as swap actual subcomponents for hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) analysis. Subcomponents can be the communication network, smart sensor or actuator nodes, or a centralized control system. The distributed engine control blockset for MATLAB/Simulink is a software development tool. The software includes an engine simulation, a communication network simulation, control algorithms, and analysis algorithms set up in a modular environment for rapid simulation of different network architectures; the hardware consists of an embedded device running parts of the CMAPSS engine simulator and controlled through Simulink. The distributed engine control simulation, evaluation, and analysis technology provides unique capabilities to study the effects of a given change to the control system in the context of the distributed paradigm. The simulation tool can support treatment of all components within the control system, both virtual and real; these include communication data network, smart sensor and actuator nodes, centralized control system (FADEC full authority digital engine control), and the aircraft engine itself. The DECsim tool can allow simulation-based prototyping of control laws, control architectures, and decentralization strategies before hardware is integrated into the system. With the configuration specified, the simulator allows a variety of key factors to be systematically assessed. Such factors include control system performance, reliability, weight, and bandwidth utilization.

DeCastro, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS2020

Is Structured Agile an Oxymoron? Tales from Implementing and Executing Agile in a US Government Environment

To paraphrase a famous quote, "No plan survives contact with the reality." Software (SW) development is often a classic example of this: whatever the plan was for a particular development, it often does not survive contact with technical realities, budget realities, program realities and schedule realities. Traditionally, SW development has followed a waterfall methodology with requirements being rigorously specified before the design, which was completed before the coding and unit testing started, which were in turn finished before validation and verification started. This model of SW engineering derives much from the HW engineering of large systems, and has been the standard methodology used in US government software acquisitions and systems for decades, with highly variable results. US Government SW requirements are built around Waterfall concepts, which assume that the plan will survive contact with reality, or at least that modifications to the plan are relatively small, and relatively few.Because of the inefficiencies and difficulties inherent in Waterfall, the commercial SW world started using a different SW development methodology called Agile more than 20 years ago. Agile believes that a plan should evolve and learn rapidly in response to the realities encountered. At its core, there are a few key elements of Agile:- A small team of people which is highly flexible and adaptive. The team collaborates and interoperates through sophisticated development architectures and release environments- An iterative, incremental development and release approach which is based upon the concept that knowledge comes from experience within the team, and that the team makes decisions based upon what it knows- A team culture which prizes transparency, inspection and adaptation. These values are necessary so that the team experience and decision making is transparent and responsive to the realities encountered during development and testingSo, how to use Agile in a US Government environment? GMSEC (Goddard Mission Services Evolution Center) develops satellite ground system software for NASA and other US Government agencies. The SW developed by the team contains a large code base of many applications used within satellite mission operations centers. It spans the full gamut of SW development types: from SW which is in a classic maintenance and sustainment mode, to new developments with a fairly well understood scope and approach, to new developments whose scope and approach are quite unclear and which require significant research and prototyping. Team members move between all of these different types of SW development. Waterfall was inadequate to the programmatic and technical needs of the team, as well as the various types of SW development being done. The software plan was not surviving contact with the technical and programmatic realities experienced by the team. To address this, the team started a small pilot project in 2016 to test the use of Agile within a small subset of the team for a new web services application. In early 2018, the use of Agile was expanded to the whole team and all the software, but we had to fulfill the NASA SW development requirements. And we needed to do this while still remaining true to the key Agile elements of transparency, inspection and adaption. In order to do this, the team worked very closely with the Software Process Improvement (SPI) team at NASA Goddard, as well as NASA engineering manageme

Beech, Theresa W.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Development and Demonstration of an Ada Test Generation System

In this project we have built a prototype system that performs Feasible Path Analysis on Ada programs: given a description of a set of control flow paths through a procedure, and a predicate at a program point feasible path analysis determines if there is input data which causes execution to flow down some path in the collection reaching the point so that tile predicate is true. Feasible path analysis can be applied to program testing, program slicing, array bounds checking, and other forms of anomaly checking. FPA is central to most applications of program analysis. But, because this problem is formally unsolvable, syntactic-based approximations are used in its place. For example, in dead-code analysis the problem is to determine if there are any input values which cause execution to reach a specified program point. Instead an approximation to this problem is computed: determine whether there is a control flow path from the start of the program to the point. This syntactic approximation is efficiently computable and conservative: if there is no such path the program point is clearly unreachable, but if there is such a path, the analysis is inconclusive, and the code is assumed to be live. Such conservative analysis too often yields unsatisfactory results because the approximation is too weak. As another example, consider data flow analysis. A du-pair is a pair of program points such that the first point is a definition of a variable and the second point a use and for which there exists a definition-free path from the definition to the use. The sharper, semantic definition of a du-pair requires that there be a feasible definition-free path from the definition to the use. A compiler using du-pairs for detecting dead variables may miss optimizations by not considering feasibility. Similarly, a program analyzer computing program slices to merge parallel versions may report conflicts where none exist. In the context of software testing, feasibility analysis plays an important role in identifying testing requirements which are infeasible. This is especially true for data flow testing and modified condition/decision coverage. Our system uses in an essential way symbolic analysis and theorem proving technology, and we believe this work represents one of the few successful uses of a theorem prover working in a completely automatic fashion to solve a problem of practical interest. We believe this work anticipates an important trend away from purely syntactic-based methods for program analysis to semantic methods based on symbolic processing and inference technology. Other results demonstrating the practical use of automatic inference is being reported in hardware verification, although there are significant differences between the hardware work and ours. However, what is common and important is that general purpose theorem provers are being integrated with more special-purpose decision procedures to solve problems in analysis and verification. We are pursuina commercial opportunities for this work, and will use and extend the work in other projects we are engaged in. Ultimately we would like to rework the system to analyze C, C++, or Java as a key step toward commercialization.

Source record↗