Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GROUND STATION”

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 271 records · Page 15

A Human-Autonomy Teaming Approach for a Flight-Following Task

Human involvement with increasingly autonomous systems must adjust to allow for a more dynamic relationship involving cooperation and teamwork. As part of an ongoing project to develop a framework for human autonomy teaming (HAT) in aviation, a study was conducted to evaluate proposed tenets of HAT. Participants performed a flight-following task at a ground station both with and without HAT features enabled. Overall, participants preferred the ground station with HAT features enabled over the station without the HAT features. Participants reported that the HAT displays and automation were preferred for keeping up with operationally important issues. Additionally, participants reported that the HAT displays and automation provided enough situation awareness to complete the task, reduced the necessary workload and were efficient. Overall, there was general agreement that HAT features supported teaming with the automation. These results will be used to refine and expand our proposed framework for human-autonomy teaming.

Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT)↗

Instrument Display Visual Angles for Conventional Aircraft and the MQ-9 Ground Control Station

Aircraft instrument panels should be designed such that primary displays are in optimal viewing location to minimize pilot perception and response time. Human Factors engineers define three zones (i.e. "cones") of visual location: 1) "Easy Eye Movement" (foveal vision); 2) "Maximum Eye Movement" (peripheral vision with saccades), and 3) "Head Movement" (head movement required). Instrument display visual angles were measured to determine how well conventional aircraft (T-34, T-38, F- 15B, F-16XL, F/A-18A, U-2D, ER-2, King Air, G-III, B-52H, DC-10, B747-SCA) and the MQ-9 ground control station (GCS) complied with these standards, and how they compared with each other. Methods: Selected instrument parameters included: attitude, pitch, bank, power, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, heading, turn rate, slip/skid, AOA, flight path, latitude, longitude, course, bearing, range and time. Vertical and horizontal visual angles for each component were measured from the pilot s eye position in each system. Results: The vertical visual angles of displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement" for all but three of the parameters measured, and almost all of the horizontal visual angles fell within this range. All conventional vertical and horizontal visual angles lay within the cone of "Maximum Eye Movement". However, most instrument vertical visual angles of the MQ-9 GCS lay outside the cone of "Easy Eye Movement", though all were within the cone of "Maximum Eye Movement". All the horizontal visual angles for the MQ-9 GCS were within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement". Discussion: Most instrument displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement", though mission-critical instruments sometimes displaced less important instruments outside this area. Many of the MQ-9 GCS systems lay outside this area. Specific training for MQ-9 pilots may be needed to avoid increased response time and potential error during flight.

Bendrick, Gregg A.↗

Instrument Display Visual Angles for Conventional Aircraft and the MQ-9 Ground Control Station

Aircraft instrument panels should be designed such that primary displays are in optimal viewing location to minimize pilot perception and response time. Human Factors engineers define three zones (i.e. cones ) of visual location: 1) "Easy Eye Movement" (foveal vision); 2) "Maximum Eye Movement" (peripheral vision with saccades), and 3) "Head Movement (head movement required). Instrument display visual angles were measured to determine how well conventional aircraft (T-34, T-38, F- 15B, F-16XL, F/A-18A, U-2D, ER-2, King Air, G-III, B-52H, DC-10, B747-SCA) and the MQ-9 ground control station (GCS) complied with these standards, and how they compared with each other. Selected instrument parameters included: attitude, pitch, bank, power, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, heading, turn rate, slip/skid, AOA, flight path, latitude, longitude, course, bearing, range and time. Vertical and horizontal visual angles for each component were measured from the pilot s eye position in each system. The vertical visual angles of displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement" for all but three of the parameters measured, and almost all of the horizontal visual angles fell within this range. All conventional vertical and horizontal visual angles lay within the cone of Maximum Eye Movement. However, most instrument vertical visual angles of the MQ-9 GCS lay outside the cone of Easy Eye Movement, though all were within the cone of Maximum Eye Movement. All the horizontal visual angles for the MQ-9 GCS were within the cone of "Easy Eye Movement". Most instrument displays in conventional aircraft lay within the cone of Easy Eye Movement, though mission-critical instruments sometimes displaced less important instruments outside this area. Many of the MQ-9 GCS systems lay outside this area. Specific training for MQ-9 pilots may be needed to avoid increased response time and potential error during flight. The learning objectives include: 1) Know three physiologic cones of eye/head movement; 2) Understand how instrument displays comply with these design principles in conventional aircraft and an uninhabited aerial vehicle system. Which of the following is NOT a recognized physiologic principle of instrument display design? Cone of Easy Eye Movement 2) Cone of Binocular Eye Movement 3) Cone of Maximum Eye Movement 4) Cone of Head Movement 5) None of the above. Answer: # 2) Cone of Binocular Eye Movement

Kamine, Tovy Haber↗

Tracking Data Certification for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

This paper details the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) tracking data certification effort of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Space Communications Network (SCN) complement of tracking stations consisting of the NASA White Sands 1 antenna (WS1), and the commercial provider Universal Space Network (USN) antennas at South Point, Hawaii; Dongara Australia; Weilheim, Germany; and Kiruna, Sweden. Certification assessment required the cooperation and coordination of parties not under the control of either the LRO project or ground stations as uplinks on cooperating spacecraft were necessary. The LRO range-tracking requirement of 10m 1 sigma could be satisfactorily demonstrated using any typical spacecraft capable of range tracking. Though typical Low Earth Orbiting (LEO) or Geosynchronous Earth Orbiting (GEO) spacecraft may be adequate for range certification, their measurement dynamics and noise would be unacceptable for proper Doppler certification of 1-3mm/sec 1 sigma. As LRO will orbit the Moon, it was imperative that a suitable target spacecraft be utilized which can closely mimic the expected lunar orbital Doppler dynamics of +/-1.6km/sec and +/-1.5m/sq sec to +/-0.15m/sq sec, is in view of the ground stations, supports coherent S-Band Doppler tracking measurements, and can be modeled by the FDF. In order to meet the LRO metric tracking data specifications, the SCN ground stations employed previously uncertified numerically controlled tracking receivers. Initial certification testing revealed certain characteristics of the units that required resolution before being granted certification.

Morinelli, Patrick J.↗

Tracking and data relay satellite system configuration and tradeoff study. Volume 4: TDRS system operation and control and telecommunications service system, part 1

Major study areas treated in this volume are: 1) operations and control and 2) the telecommunication service system. The TDRS orbit selection, orbital deployment, ground station visibility, sequence of events from launch to final orbit position, and TDRS control center functions required for stationkeeping, repositioning, attitude control, and antenna pointing are briefly treated as part of the operations and control section. The last topic of this section concerns the operations required for efficiently providing the TDRSS user telecommunication services. The discussion treats functions of the GSFC control and data processing facility, ground station, and TDRS control center. The second major portion of this volume deals with the Telecommunication Service System (TSS) which consists of the ground station, TDRS communication equipment and the user transceiver. A summary of the requirements and objectives for the telecommunication services and a brief summary of the TSS capabilities is followed by communication system analysis, signal design, and equipment design. Finally, descriptions of the three TSS elements are presented.

Source record↗

Filter Tuning Using the Chi-Squared Statistic

The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) performs orbit determination (OD) for the Aqua and Aura satellites. Both satellites are located in low Earth orbit (LEO), and are part of what is considered the A-Train satellite constellation. Both spacecraft are currently in the science phase of their respective missions. The FDF has recently been tasked with delivering definitive covariance for each satellite.The main source of orbit determination used for these missions is the Orbit Determination Toolkit developed by Analytical Graphics Inc. (AGI). This software uses an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) to estimate the states of both spacecraft. The filter incorporates force modelling, ground station and space network measurements to determine spacecraft states. It also generates a covariance at each measurement. This covariance can be useful for evaluating the overall performance of the tracking data measurements and the filter itself. An accurate covariance is also useful for covariance propagation which is utilized in collision avoidance operations. It is also valuable when attempting to determine if the current orbital solution will meet mission requirements in the future.This paper examines the use of the Chi-square statistic as a means of evaluating filter performance. The Chi-square statistic is calculated to determine the realism of a covariance based on the prediction accuracy and the covariance values at a given point in time. Once calculated, it is the distribution of this statistic that provides insight on the accuracy of the covariance.For the EKF to correctly calculate the covariance, error models associated with tracking data measurements must be accurately tuned. Over estimating or under estimating these error values can have detrimental effects on the overall filter performance. The filter incorporates ground station measurements, which can be tuned based on the accuracy of the individual ground stations. It also includes measurements from the NASA space network (SN), which can be affected by the assumed accuracy of the TDRS satellite state at the time of the measurement.The force modelling in the EKF is also an important factor that affects the propagation accuracy and covariance sizing. The dominant force in the LEO orbit regime is the drag force caused by atmospheric drag. Accurate accounting of the drag force is especially important for the accuracy of the propagated state. The implementation of a box and wing model to improve drag estimation accuracy, and its overall effect on the covariance state is explored.The process of tuning the EKF for Aqua and Aura support is described, including examination of the measurement errors of available observation types (Doppler and range), and methods of dealing with potentially volatile atmospheric drag modeling. Predictive accuracy and the distribution of the Chi-square statistic, calculated based of the ODTK EKF solutions, are assessed versus accepted norms for the orbit regime.

Covariance Analysis↗

Space Station Freedom ground systems program - A survey

The key facilities identified to support Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP) integrated operations and their SSFP roles are described in detail. The ground infrastructure, which must be able to support both assembly and long-term operations, will consist of ground facilities, support systems, and the associated planning and management procedures. During 1992 the SSFP is conducting a major program review of the ground infrastructure including the definition of all facility and support system functional capabilities, interfaces, and data-flow requirements. Operations functionality and interface verification tests are being identified, and operations readiness dates are being set.

Accola, A.↗

The IOAG Recommendations on Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support

In 2014, the Inter-agency Operations Advisory Group (IOAG) chartered a multi-agency team effort to study how to best handle spacecraft emergency as part of cross support among network assets. The original intent is to put in place for the first time a process and guidelines to make emergency support as part of a permanent cross-support capability between space agencies. From the perspective of space communications service providers, a few key issues, common to all agencies, concerning the Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support (SECS) have been explored. They are: context of emergency support, provision of emergency support under a cross-support agreement, provision of emergency support with no cross-support agreement, legal and liability issues, response time, support priority, services provided, sustaining emergency support capabilities, and charge for the support. The positions of the various participating agencies with respect to these issues have been collected, analyzed, and finally harmonized to form the recommended IOAG positions. A central challenge most communications service providers are facing is that since the spacecraft emergency is an unplanned critical event, it typically requires fast response to the emergency call, hence lacking an international standard process for the operational interfaces seems to exacerbate the difficulty in providing SECS. For reducing the response time, i.e. from the time of accepting a request for SECS to the readiness for support, it is recommended that a “cross-support emergency system” be established by IOAG member agencies. Along with it, the IOAG core services, just-in-time ground communications line, cross support service management (CSSM), and standard operations procedures (SOP) for operational interfaces form the basic foundation of the “cross support emergency system”. Of the above, new to the cross support conducted thus far in the IOAG community is the concept of the SOP specifically for the interfaces between the service provider and service user during the SECS. Use cases, salient features, and definition of the key operational activities/tasks relevant to the interfaces are addressed by the effort. Underpinning such a system is the availability of the RF license granted by the local authority, at national and/or regional level, for a given ground station to communicate with and track the spacecraft in emergency mode at the uplink and downlink frequencies assigned to that spacecraft. That means it is critical for the IOAG member agencies to obtain a priori all-band licenses (for the entire X-band or S-band) for some, if not all, of their ground stations that are most capable of or likely to provide SECS. It is also recommended that certain prior arrangements be made with the relevant local licensing authorities for a process that will allow expedited authorization to transmit/receive signals to/from the declared spacecraft over the declared ground stations specifically and solely for the emergency case. Our analysis of the SECS has also uncovered a few fundamental programmatic issues. Recognizing any IOAG positions reached on these issues do not necessarily lead to any binding authority, it is recommended that they, along with those key attributes of the cross support emergency system, be explicitly stated as multi-agency guidelines to guide the implementation and provision of the SECS. The paper will present the results of the working group on Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support and, in particular, its findings, products and recommendations. It will also identify the next steps of this work that may include the production of some international standards as an extension of this work, or the process to make this emergency system usable by other spacecraft operators beyond the space agencies.

Tai, Wallace S.↗

The IOAG Recommendations on Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support

In 2014, the Inter-agency Operations Advisory Group (IOAG) chartered a multi-agency team effort to study how to best handle spacecraft emergency as part of cross support among network assets. The original intent is to put in place for the first time a process and guidelines to make emergency support as part of a permanent cross-support capability between space agencies. From the perspective of space communications service providers, a few key issues, common to all agencies, concerning the Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support (SECS) have been explored. They are: context of emergency support, provision of emergency support under a cross-support agreement, provision of emergency support with no cross-support agreement, legal and liability issues, response time, support priority, services provided, sustaining emergency support capabilities, and charge for the support. The positions of the various participating agencies with respect to these issues have been collected, analyzed, and finally harmonized to form the recommended IOAG positions. A central challenge most communications service providers are facing is that since the spacecraft emergency is an unplanned critical event, it typically requires fast response to the emergency call, hence lacking an international standard process for the operational interfaces seems to exacerbate the difficulty in providing SECS. For reducing the response time, i.e. from the time of accepting a request for SECS to the readiness for support, it is recommended that a “cross-support emergency system” be established by IOAG member agencies. Along with it, the IOAG core services, just-in-time ground communications line, cross support service management (CSSM), and standard operations procedures (SOP) for operational interfaces form the basic foundation of the “cross support emergency system”. Of the above, new to the cross support conducted thus far in the IOAG community is the concept of the SOP specifically for the interfaces between the service provider and service user during the SECS. Use cases, salient features, and definition of the key operational activities/tasks relevant to the interfaces are addressed by the effort. Underpinning such a system is the availability of the RF license granted by the local authority, at national and/or regional level, for a given ground station to communicate with and track the spacecraft in emergency mode at the uplink and downlink frequencies assigned to that spacecraft. That means it is critical for the IOAG member agencies to obtain a priori all-band licenses (for the entire X-band or S-band) for some, if not all, of their ground stations that are most capable of or likely to provide SECS. It is also recommended that certain prior arrangements be made with the relevant local licensing authorities for a process that will allow expedited authorization to transmit/receive signals to/from the declared spacecraft over the declared ground stations specifically and solely for the emergency case. Our analysis of the SECS has also uncovered a few fundamental programmatic issues. Recognizing any IOAG positions reached on these issues do not necessarily lead to any binding authority, it is recommended that they, along with those key attributes of the cross support emergency system, be explicitly stated as multi-agency guidelines to guide the implementation and provision of the SECS. The paper will present the results of the working group on Spacecraft Emergency Cross Support and, in particular, its findings, products and recommendations. It will also identify the next steps of this work that may include the production of some international standards as an extension of this work, or the process to make this emergency system usable by other spacecraft operators beyond the space agencies.

Tai, Wallace S.↗

Techniques of Validation of Aerosol and Water Vapor Retrievals From MODIS

Aerosols are extremely important for global climate studies and modeling in the quest to characterize the global radiation budget and forcing. The physical characteristics, composition, abundance, and spatial distribution and dynamics of aerosols are still very poorly known. Aerosol column optical thickness and other parameters as well as column precipitable water vapor amount are some of the main atmospheric parameters retrieved from the MODIS instrument on board the Terra satellite. To ensure the reliability of these parameters, we have embarked on a very massive validation effort. This involves cross correlation between the retrievals from the satellite data and those obtained from sunphotometer measurements at a large number of ground stations spread throughout the globe. Notable among these ground stations is a large network of over 100 stations coordinated under the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) project. Whereas MODIS retrieves the aerosol parameters throughout the globe once or twice a day during the daytime, the ground measurements cover only discrete locations of the earth, though the retrievals are done several times a day. We have devised a method to. match the MODIS and ground retrievals through spatial statistics for the MODIS data and temporal statistics for the ground data. This has produced good comparisons and has enabled the validation of MODIS aerosol and water vapor retrievals at over 100 discrete locations in various parts of the earth both over the land and over the ocean. Currently, the validation statistical data is produced routinely by the MODIS aerosol group and is even available not only for validation but also for use by the science community for short and long term studies at various parts of the earth. One important advantage is that the system can be expanded to incorporate more locations where ground measurements and other studies may be conducted at any time during the lifetime of MODIS.

Ichoku, Charles↗

Investigating Low-Altitude Constellations of Ad-Hoc Lunar PNT System for Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

In this study, we examine a low-altitude Lunar Position, Navigation, and Timing (LPNT) constellations and the localization performance of Centralized Extended Kalman Filter (CEKF) and Decentralized Extended Kalman Filter (DEKF) algorithms. The primary investigation involves a 100-node swarm operating at a 100 km altitude, in contrast to previous studies that examined a 21-node asset in a frozen-orbit at 5,500 km. The autonomous operation of large-scale swarm is based on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve pseudoranges and relative velocities among swarm nodes. We perform a numerical assessment of the two filtering approaches, utilizing ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets as well as ‘two ISL’ measurements where each spacecraft is restricted to only two antennas. This research includes an analysis of CEKF under 2-ISL constraints and evaluates the performance of DEKF in a 100-node swarm, which has not been explored in previous studies. In addition, we examine the impact of increasing the sampling frequency for DEKF, showing that the update cycle can be shortened from a 10-minute interval. A novel approach for ‘2-ISL limited’ DEKF will also be introduced, using a matching formulation that exhaustively enumerates all potential matches. This study provides valuable insights into large-scale distributed swarm operations, considering various filter configurations, sampling frequencies, matching strategies, and scalability of CEKF and DEKF for low-altitude LPNT applications. The Lunar PNT technology plays a key role in providing reliable and robust navigation services on the Moon's surface and the South pole, where the primary Lunar missions are planned. To support upcoming Lunar missions, including small satellites from NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, the Lunar PNT system must be adaptable to smaller platforms like CubeSats. Driven by the growing involvement of public and private exploration partnerships, the traditional low Earth orbit missions are shifting to beyond geosynchronous orbit [1]. These upcoming missions aim to foster a sustainable and innovative exploration program, in collaboration with commercial and international partners, to facilitate human expansion throughout the solar system and return new knowledge and opportunities to Earth [2]. As part of this trend, there are increasing efforts to utilize science missions in Lunar orbit to develop a non-dedicated and ad-hoc PNT network system. Two traditional approaches, the Deep Space Network (DSN) and the weak signal Global Positioning System (GPS), are established deep-space navigation technologies for missions beyond the geosynchronous orbit. Beginning in 1958, the DSN was developed to communicate with the Explorer 1 spacecraft based on the use of radiometric tracking in spacecraft navigation [3]. The DSN is capable of providing nearly unfettered coverage to spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), however, increased space mission volume has created concerns about future expectations of DSN usage for spacecraft navigation [4]. For cislunar mission applications, the position accuracy using DSN achieves 100 m (3σ) with at least three geometrically diverse ground stations when using radiometric tracking alone [5]. The DSN's dependence on Earth-based ground stations restricts its operational capabilities to periods of Earth visibility. This limitation, coupled with its poor localization performance, renders the DSN unsuitable for future lunar missions that demand continuous tracking and precise positioning. To satisfy the increasing requirements of DSN in Lunar applications, spacecrafts are also required to improve their onboard antenna power and efficiency of the transmission. However, there is an important aggregate cost trade between adding capabilities to every spacecraft and adding to a capacity on the ground that serves multiple spacecraft [6]. A weak GPS system can provide PNT service while the user spacecraft is bound to the Moon, leveraging a single, steerable high gain antenna with the relatively narrow beam which includes all the sources in its field of view [7]. However, the higher the altitude the receiver is above the GPS constellations, the poorer and the weaker are the relative geometry and the received signal powers, respectively, leading to a significant navigation accuracy reduction [8]. The transmitted power becomes weaker with increasing distance from the Earth as well as signals tracked from one of the side lobes of the GPS antenna pattern. As a results, the number of visible satellites and relative geometric condition of the GPS satellites at very high altitude drops dramatically and reduces the navigation solution accuracy. Therefore, the weak GPS system is also not an ideal way to provide PNT service to upcoming Lunar missions when considering its limited geometric condition and the recued navigation accuracy. Another navigation approach on the Moon is being developed, similar to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) on Earth, aiming to offer navigation service with continuous 24/7 coverage across the entire Lunar surface. For example, lunar communications relay and navigation systems (LCRNS) by NASA and Lunar navigation satellite systems (LNSS) by JAXA are designed to serve as dedicated Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) systems for the Moon. However, designing a dedicated LNSS and PNT service involves additional challenges, which are unique to the lunar environment, including limited payload capacity for the CubeSat platform, i.e., the size, weight, and power (SWaP) of the onboard clock, limited lunar ground monitoring stations, and limited financial investment as compared to the legacy Earth-GPS [9]. NASA’s focus on utilizing CubeSat platforms on the Moon leads to an alternative Lunar navigation platform that leverages the existing Lunar science and exploration assets. The small satellites used in Lunar missions can be used to create a low-cost, autonomous, ad-hoc, and on-demand mission-centric Lunar PNT swarm capable of providing PNT services to these low-cost lunar missions [10]. As upcoming Lunar missions will often operate at low-altitude about 30 km to 100 km for scientific observations and mapping purposes, the low-altitude orbital constellations could be employed to create an ad-hoc Lunar PNT system. However, several issues must be addressed, such as the instability of these orbits, which often require maintenance or are only suitable for short-duration missions, operating for fewer than 90 days. Additionally, at an altitude of 100 km, the satellites have a limited period during which they are above the horizon and capable of providing PNT service to users. The implementation of a non-dedicated, ad-hoc Lunar navigation constellation facilitates on-demand PNT services. A preliminary study of ad-hoc Lunar PNT system was conducted using 21 spacecraft in 5,5000 km altitude frozen orbits to test its feasibility and a basic performance of orbital asset localization among ad-hoc Lunar constellations in small satellites format [10]. These swarm assets are designed for autonomous localization with minimal Earth interaction, reducing dependency on bandwidth and ground resources. The design in [10] demonstrated the feasibility of a decentralized PNT approach, specifically employing a DEKF approach for state estimation, which helps minimize onboard operating costs. The DEKF method distributes computation across individual satellites, which lightens the computational load while maintaining accuracy in orbit ephemeris and clock offsets, similar to centralized systems [11]. In a follow-on study [12], each spacecraft was limited to 2 communications antennae, forcing the selection of measurements and scheduling spacecraft activities to perform the measurements. A matching algorithm is implemented to select the best measurements and schedule position estimation updates. The decentralized localization performance is also investigated with increasing levels of network degradation for swarm assets considering the impact of intermittent and permanent communication failure, to demonstrate the robustness and fidelity of the decentralized Lunar PNT service [13]. This study confirmed that the ad-hoc PNT constellations in frozen orbit are highly robust and resilient to communication failures. However, unlike frozen orbit swarm assets, the low-altitude satellites have a limited ground view at an altitude of 100 km, where the ad-hoc Lunar constellation consists of 98 low-altitude satellites, evenly distributed across seven circular polar orbital planes, alongside two satellites in a frozen orbit at an altitude of 5,500 km (Figure 1). Therefore, the number of satellites visible to ground users is significantly limited in low-altitude orbit constellations. As each visibility of a spacecraft remains intact for only a few ticks before it moves out of the field of view, the ground user encounters challenges in maintaining continuous navigation service, resulting in sparse availability and provision of Lunar PNT system. Consequently, service availability is primarily restricted to the Lunar South Pole region (Figure 2). Given these limitations and concerns, the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets will be assessed in this study. We focus on the investigation of the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets and ground users near the Lunar South Pole. The overall flow of the Lunar PNT simulation incorporates the DEKF approach of asset localization and the weighted least-squares approach in user localization (Figure 3). The autonomous Lunar PNT simulation is primarily implemented in MATLAB, where the DEKF based on the matching scheduler is implemented with Google’s OR-tools as a model builder and Gurobi optimization tool as a backend solver. The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is utilized to generate ephemeris data for swarm assets, and accounts for satellite orbital details, mass, and perturbations like solar radiation pressure and drag coefficients. Each ephemeris dataset is produced in the Moon International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) inertial coordinate system. For state estimation, the distributed swarm assets rely on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve tracking pseudoranges and relative velocities between visible satellites and anchor nodes during each observation. Numerical evaluations of the decentralized localization process are conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the low-altitude PNT system in providing reliable navigation services. The main approach involves using DEKF and CEKF to localize 100 satellites in low-altitude constellations, where the CEKF is implemented to serve as a baseline for comparing the performance of distributed algorithms. In both cases, we evaluate ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets, and ‘two ISL’ measurements when spacecraft are constrained to have only two antennas. We test four estimation techniques: CEKF fully sampled, CEKF two ISL, DEKF fully sampled, and DEKF two ISL filters. As the DEKF update cycle is comprised of network setup, communication, and computations, a global broadcast network and 2-way ISL network setup will take from 4 to 6 minutes as maximum [12]. In this simulation, the DEKF update cycle is set to 10 minutes, including a 4-minute latency for obtaining and computing the actual measurement updates. We experiment an increased update cycle to demonstrate the feasibility and evaluate the impact on localization performance using various tuning values for measurement noise covariances (Figures 4 and 5). By comparing centralized and decentralized approaches using a matching algorithm, we analyze the influence of cross-correlation factors in the covariance matrix, assuming 100% reliability of all assets and measurements. The increased frequency and the adjustments of tuning parameters reveal distinct error patterns between the two scenarios. The localization accuracy of the swarm assets and ground users is assessed by taking the median error across 100 assets and one ground user (84.9°S, 137.5°E) over 7-day simulation period (Table 1). Since the user localization accuracy is significantly affected by the performance of the swarm assets, it is crucial to maintain high localization accuracy within the swarm. This study will continue to explore decentralized filtering for autonomous LPNT operations, with further investigation of an 'iterative' matching approach which enumerates every valid matching pair, planned for the following month.

Yeji Kim↗

SYNCOM engineering report, volume I

Engineering report on synchronous communications /SYNCOM/ satellite, communications ground stations, telemetry, and control ground systems

CONTROL SYSTEM↗

Preliminary study of GPS orbit determination accuracy achievable from worldwide tracking data

The improvement in the orbit accuracy if high accuracy tracking data from a substantially larger number of ground stations is available was investigated. Observations from 20 ground stations indicate that 20 cm or better accuracy can be achieved for the horizontal coordinates of the GPS satellites. With this accuracy, the contribution to the error budget for determining 1000 km baselines by GPS geodetic receivers would be only about 1 cm.

Larden, D. R.↗

Preliminary study of GPS orbit determination accuracy achievable from worldwide tracking data

The improvement in the orbit accuracy if high accuracy tracking data from a substantially larger number of ground stations is available was investigated. Observations from 20 ground stations indicate that 20 cm or better accuracy can be achieved for the horizontal coordinates of the GPS satellites. With this accuracy, the contribution to the error budget for determining 1000 km baselines by GPS geodetic receivers would be only about 1 cm. Previously announced in STAR as N83-14605

Larden, D. R.↗

On Development of Three-Dimensional Visualization Capabilities in Glenn Research Center Communication Analysis Suite

With NASA’s upcoming mission to return to the Moon sustainably by 2024 and using that success as a means to step onto the barren world of Mars, it remains more important than ever to conduct research and planning as thoroughly and efficiently as possible. In a mission as complex as landing humans onto another celestial body, a network of orbiting satellites and ground stations must accurately and reliably communicate with each other, enabling crucial data communications throughout the mission. Visualizing this important data communication increases the understanding of the data and can accelerate analyses efforts. The purpose of this software development is to create an interactive visualization with data taken MATLAB® scripts in the GRC Communication Analysis Suite that is easy to understand, can show all necessary data, and display the data accurately. The main types of data to visualize are from the State Propagation, Line of Sight and Dynamic Link Margin scripts. These all show positions and orbits of satellites and ground stations, while the Line of Sight data shows when they have the ability to communicate with each other based on their respective antenna positions and fields of view. Additionally, the Dynamic Link Margin mode color-codes the communication link performance onto the Line of Sight access lines. Visualization requires a graphics language that is easily accessible, has the needed features, and able to easily read data produced by the GRC Communication Analysis Suite MATLAB® scripts. ThreeJS, a graphics library for Web Graphics Library, coded in JavaScript was selected for the visualization. The next part of the software development was to move the data from MATLAB® to the JavaScript. The best way to accomplish this was to implement a MATLAB® function converting the output data of the scripts to a JavaScript Object Notation file. A key part of the development was creating the visualization within JavaScript and ThreeJS to visualize any combination of planets, moons, orbits, satellites, ground stations, line of sight links, and handle future features without changing major parts of the code. The current visualization capability runs directly from MATLAB®, and can dynamically create any scene. This software development currently supports the lunar communications analysis underway by NASA, and can be easily expanded upon in the future to aid any analysis requirements to help plan current and future space missions.

Visualization↗