Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Space Operations Center”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

The Final Count Down: A Review of Three Decades of Flight Controller Training Methods for Space Shuttle Mission Operations

Operations of human spaceflight systems is extremely complex, therefore the training and certification of operations personnel is a critical piece of ensuring mission success. Mission Control Center (MCC-H), at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, in Houston, Texas manages mission operations for the Space Shuttle Program, including the training and certification of the astronauts and flight control teams. As the space shuttle program ends in 2011, a review of how training for STS-1 was conducted compared to STS-134 will show multiple changes in training of shuttle flight controller over a thirty year period. This paper will additionally give an overview of a flight control team s makeup and responsibilities during a flight, and details on how those teams have been trained certified over the life span of the space shuttle. The training methods for developing flight controllers have evolved significantly over the last thirty years, while the core goals and competencies have remained the same. In addition, the facilities and tools used in the control center have evolved. These changes have been driven by many factors including lessons learned, technology, shuttle accidents, shifts in risk posture, and generational differences. A primary method used for training Space Shuttle flight control teams is by running mission simulations of the orbit, ascent, and entry phases, to truly "train like you fly." The reader will learn what it is like to perform a simulation as a shuttle flight controller. Finally, the paper will reflect on the lessons learned in training for the shuttle program, and how those could be applied to future human spaceflight endeavors.

Dittemore, Gary D.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Conducting Research on the International Space Station Using the EXPRESS Rack Facilities

Conducting Research on the International Space Station using the EXPRESS Rack Facilities. Sean W. Thompson and Robert E. Lake. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA. Eight "Expedite the Processing of Experiments to Space Station" (EXPRESS) Rack facilities are located within the International Space Station (ISS) laboratories to provide standard resources and interfaces for the simultaneous and independent operation of multiple experiments within each rack. Each EXPRESS Rack provides eight Middeck Locker Equivalent locations and two drawer locations for powered experiment equipment, also referred to as sub-rack payloads. Payload developers may provide their own structure to occupy the equivalent volume of one, two, or four lockers as a single unit. Resources provided for each location include power (28 Vdc, 0-500 W), command and data handling (Ethernet, RS-422, 5 Vdc discrete, +/- 5 Vdc analog), video (NTSC/RS 170A), and air cooling (0-200 W). Each rack also provides water cooling (500 W) for two locations, one vacuum exhaust interface, and one gaseous nitrogen interface. Standard interfacing cables and hoses are provided on-orbit. One laptop computer is provided with each rack to control the rack and to accommodate payload application software. Four of the racks are equipped with the Active Rack Isolation System to reduce vibration between the ISS and the rack. EXPRESS Racks are operated by the Payload Operations Integration Center at Marshall Space Flight Center and the sub-rack experiments are operated remotely by the investigating organization. Payload Integration Managers serve as a focal to assist organizations developing payloads for an EXPRESS Rack. NASA provides EXPRESS Rack simulator software for payload developers to checkout payload command and data handling at the development site before integrating the payload with the EXPRESS Functional Checkout Unit for an end-to-end test before flight. EXPRESS Racks began supporting investigations onboard ISS on April 24, 2001 and will continue through the life of the ISS.

Thompson, Sean W.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Application of statistical distribution theory to launch-on-time for space construction logistic support

The ability to launch-on-time and to send payloads into space has progressed dramatically since the days of the earliest missile and space programs. Causes for delay during launch, i.e., unplanned 'holds', are attributable to several sources: weather, range activities, vehicle conditions, human performance, etc. Recent developments in space program, particularly the need for highly reliable logistic support of space construction and the subsequent planned operation of space stations, large unmanned space structures, lunar and Mars bases, and the necessity of providing 'guaranteed' commercial launches have placed increased emphasis on understanding and mastering every aspect of launch vehicle operations. The Center of Space Construction has acquired historical launch vehicle data and is applying these data to the analysis of space launch vehicle logistic support of space construction. This analysis will include development of a better understanding of launch-on-time capability and simulation of required support systems for vehicle assembly and launch which are necessary to support national space program construction schedules. In this paper, the author presents actual launch data on unscheduled 'hold' distributions of various launch vehicles. The data have been supplied by industrial associate companies of the Center for Space Construction. The paper seeks to determine suitable probability models which describe these historical data and that can be used for several purposes such as: inputs to broader simulations of launch vehicle logistic space construction support processes and the determination of which launch operations sources cause the majority of the unscheduled 'holds', and hence to suggest changes which might improve launch-on-time. In particular, the paper investigates the ability of a compound distribution probability model to fit actual data, versus alternative models, and recommends the most productive avenues for future statistical work.

Morgenthaler, George W.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Lessons Learned on Implementing Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery (FDIR) in a Ground Launch Environment

This paper's main purpose is to detail issues and lessons learned regarding designing, integrating, and implementing Fault Detection Isolation and Recovery (FDIR) for Constellation Exploration Program (CxP) Ground Operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Part of the0 overall implementation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) CxP, FDIR is being implemented in three main components of the program (Ares, Orion, and Ground Operations/Processing). While not initially part of the design baseline for the CxP Ground Operations, NASA felt that FDIR is important enough to develop, that NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate's (ESMD's) Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) initiated a task for it under their Integrated System Health Management (ISHM) research area. This task, referred to as the FDIIR project, is a multi-year multi-center effort. The primary purpose of the FDIR project is to develop a prototype and pathway upon which Fault Detection and Isolation (FDI) may be transitioned into the Ground Operations baseline. Currently, Qualtech Systems Inc (QSI) Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) software products Testability Engineering and Maintenance System (TEAMS) Designer and TEAMS RDS/RT are being utilized in the implementation of FDI within the FDIR project. The TEAMS Designer COTS software product is being utilized to model the system with Functional Fault Models (FFMs). A limited set of systems in Ground Operations are being modeled by the FDIR project, and the entire Ares Launch Vehicle is being modeled under the Functional Fault Analysis (FFA) project at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Integration of the Ares FFMs and the Ground Processing FFMs is being done under the FDIR project also utilizing the TEAMS Designer COTS software product. One of the most significant challenges related to integration is to ensure that FFMs developed by different organizations can be integrated easily and without errors. Software Interface Control Documents (ICDs) for the FFMs and their usage will be addressed as the solution to this issue. In particular, the advantages and disadvantages of these ICDs across physically separate development groups will be delineated.

Ferrell, Bob A.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Re-Engineering the ISS Payload Operations Control Center During Increased Utilization and Critical Onboard Events

With an increase in utilization and hours of payload operations being executed onboard the International Space Station (ISS), upgrading the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) ISS Payload Control Area (PCA) was essential to gaining efficiencies and assurance of current and future payload health and science return. PCA houses the Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) responsible for the execution of all NASA payloads onboard the ISS. POIC Flight Controllers are responsible for the operation of voice, stowage, command, telemetry, video, power, thermal, and environmental control in support of ISS science experiments. The methodologies and execution of the PCA refurbishment were planned and performed within a four-month period in order to assure uninterrupted operation of ISS payloads and minimal impacts to payload operations teams. To vacate the PCA, three additional HOSC control rooms were reconfigured to handle ISS real-time operations, Backup Control Center (BCC) to Mission Control in Houston, simulations, and testing functions. This involved coordination and cooperation from teams of ISS operations controllers, multiple engineering and design disciplines, management, and construction companies performing an array of activities simultaneously and in sync delivering a final product with no issues that impacted the schedule. For each console operator discipline, studies of Information Technology (IT) tools and equipment layouts, ergonomics, and lines of sight were performed. Infusing some of the latest IT into the project was an essential goal in ensuring future growth and success of the ISS payload science returns. Engineering evaluations led to a state of the art Video Wall implementation and more efficient ethernet cabling distribution providing the latest products and the best solution for the POIC. These engineering innovations led to cost savings for the project. Constraints involved in the management of the project included executing over 450 crew-hours of ISS real-time payload operations including a major onboard communications upgrade, SpaceX un-berth, a Soyuz launch, roll-out of ISS live video and interviews from the POIC, annual BCC certification and hurricane season, and ISS simulations and testing. Continuous ISS payload operations were possible during the PCA facility modifications with the reconfiguration of four control rooms and standup of two temporary control areas. Another major restriction to the project was an ongoing facility upgrade that included a NASA Headquarters mandated replacement of all electrical and mechanical systems and replacement of an external generator. These upgrades required a facility power outage during the PCA upgrades. The project also encompassed console layout designs and ordering, amenities selections and ordering, excessing of old equipment, moves, disposal of old IT equipment, camera installations, facility tour re-schedules, and contract justifications. These were just some of the tasks needed for a successful project. This paper describes the logistics and lessons learned in upgrading a control center capability in the middle of complex real-time operations. Combining the efficiencies of controller interaction and new technology infusion were prime drivers for this upgrade to handle the increased utilization of science research on ISS. The success of this project could not jeopardize the current operations while these facility upgrades occurred.

Dudley, Stephanie R. B.↗
NASA NTRS2010

The Next Generation of Ground Operations Command and Control; Scripting in C no. and Visual Basic

Scripting languages have become a common method for implementing command and control solutions in space ground operations. The Systems Test and Operations Language (STOL), the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) Scripting Language Processor (SLP), and the Spacecraft Control Language (SCL) offer script-commands that wrap tedious operations tasks into single calls. Since script-commands are interpreted, they also offer a certain amount of hands-on control that is highly valued in space ground operations. Although compiled programs seem to be unsuited for interactive user control and are more complex to develop, Marshall Space flight Center (MSFC) has developed a product called the Enhanced and Redesign Scripting (ERS) that makes use of the graphical and logical richness of a programming language while offering the hands-on and ease of control of a scripting language. ERS is currently used by the International Space Station (ISS) Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) Cadre team members. ERS integrates spacecraft command mnemonics, telemetry measurements, and command and telemetry control procedures into a standard programming language, while making use of Microsoft's Visual Studio for developing Visual Basic (VB) or C# ground operations procedures. ERS also allows for script-style user control during procedure execution using a robust graphical user input and output feature. The availability of VB and C# programmers, and the richness of the languages and their development environment, has allowed ERS to lower our "script" development time and maintenance costs at the Marshall POIC.

Ritter, George↗
NASA NTRS2014

Re-Engineering the ISS Payload Operations Control Center During Increased Utilization and Critical Onboard Events

With an increase in the utilization and hours of payload operations being executed onboard the International Space Station (ISS), upgrading the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) ISS Payload Control Area (PCA) was essential to gaining efficiencies and assurance of current and future payload health and science return. PCA houses the Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) responsible for the execution of all NASA payloads onboard the ISS. POIC Flight Controllers are responsible for the operation of voice, stowage, command, telemetry, video, power, thermal, and environmental control in support of ISS science experiments. The methodologies and execution of the PCA refurbishment were planned and performed within a four month period in order to assure uninterrupted operation of ISS payloads and minimal impacts to payload operations teams. To vacate the PCA, three additional HOSC control rooms were reconfigured to handle ISS realtime operations, Backup Control Center (BCC) to Mission Control in Houston, simulations, and testing functions. This involved coordination and cooperation from teams of ISS operations controllers, multiple engineering and design disciplines, management, and construction companies performing an array of activities simultaneously and in sync delivering a final product with no issues that impacted the schedule. For each console operator discipline, studies of Information Technology (IT) tools and equipment layouts, ergonomics, and lines of sight were performed. Infusing some of the latest IT into the project was an essential goal in ensuring future growth and success of the ISS payload science returns. Engineering evaluations led to a state of the art media wall implementation and more efficient ethernet cabling distribution providing the latest products and the best solution for the POIC. These engineering innovations led to cost savings for the project. Constraints involved in the management of the project included executing over 450 crew-hours of ISS real-time payload operations including a major onboard communications upgrade, SpaceX un-berth, a Soyuz launch, roll-out of ISS live video and interviews from the POIC, annual BCC certification and hurricane season, and ISS simulations and testing. Continuous ISS payload operations were possible during the PCA facility modifications with the reconfiguration of four control rooms and standup of two temporary control areas. Another major restriction to the project was an ongoing facility upgrade that included a NASA Headquarters mandated replacement of all electrical and mechanical systems and replacement of an external generator. These upgrades required a facility power outage during the PCA upgrades. The project also encompassed console layout designs and ordering, amenities selections and ordering, excessing of old equipment, moves, disposal of old IT equipment, camera installations, facility tour re-schedules, and contract justifications. These were just some of the tasks needed for a successful project.

Marsh, Angela L.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Automation of Shuttle Tile Inspection - Engineering methodology for Space Station

The Space Systems Integration and Operations Research Applications (SIORA) Program was initiated in late 1986 as a cooperative applications research effort between Stanford University, NASA Kennedy Space Center, and Lockheed Space Operations Company. One of the major initial SIORA tasks was the application of automation and robotics technology to all aspects of the Shuttle tile processing and inspection system. This effort has adopted a systems engineering approach consisting of an integrated set of rapid prototyping testbeds in which a government/university/industry team of users, technologists, and engineers test and evaluate new concepts and technologies within the operational world of Shuttle. These integrated testbeds include speech recognition and synthesis, laser imaging inspection systems, distributed Ada programming environments, distributed relational database architectures, distributed computer network architectures, multimedia workbenches, and human factors considerations.

Wiskerchen, M. J.↗
NASA NTRS1990

A general-purpose development environment for intelligent computer-aided training systems

Space station training will be a major task, requiring the creation of large numbers of simulation-based training systems for crew, flight controllers, and ground-based support personnel. Given the long duration of space station missions and the large number of activities supported by the space station, the extension of space shuttle training methods to space station training may prove to be impractical. The application of artificial intelligence technology to simulation training can provide the ability to deliver individualized training to large numbers of personnel in a distributed workstation environment. The principal objective of this project is the creation of a software development environment which can be used to build intelligent training systems for procedural tasks associated with the operation of the space station. Current NASA Johnson Space Center projects and joint projects with other NASA operational centers will result in specific training systems for existing space shuttle crew, ground support personnel, and flight controller tasks. Concurrently with the creation of these systems, a general-purpose development environment for intelligent computer-aided training systems will be built. Such an environment would permit the rapid production, delivery, and evolution of training systems for space station crew, flight controllers, and other support personnel. The widespread use of such systems will serve to preserve task and training expertise, support the training of many personnel in a distributed manner, and ensure the uniformity and verifiability of training experiences. As a result, significant reductions in training costs can be realized while safety and the probability of mission success can be enhanced.

Savely, Robert T.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Tool for Forecasting Cool-Season Peak Winds Across Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

The expected peak wind speed for the day is an important element in the daily morning forecast for ground and space launch operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) must issue forecast advisories for KSC/CCAFS when they expect peak gusts for >= 25, >= 35, and >= 50 kt thresholds at any level from the surface to 300 ft. In Phase I of this task, the 45 WS tasked the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) to develop a cool-season (October - April) tool to help forecast the non-convective peak wind from the surface to 300 ft at KSC/CCAFS. During the warm season, these wind speeds are rarely exceeded except during convective winds or under the influence of tropical cyclones, for which other techniques are already in use. The tool used single and multiple linear regression equations to predict the peak wind from the morning sounding. The forecaster manually entered several observed sounding parameters into a Microsoft Excel graphical user interface (GUI), and then the tool displayed the forecast peak wind speed, average wind speed at the time of the peak wind, the timing of the peak wind and the probability the peak wind will meet or exceed 35, 50 and 60 kt. The 45 WS customers later dropped the requirement for >= 60 kt wind warnings. During Phase II of this task, the AMU expanded the period of record (POR) by six years to increase the number of observations used to create the forecast equations. A large number of possible predictors were evaluated from archived soundings, including inversion depth and strength, low-level wind shear, mixing height, temperature lapse rate and winds from the surface to 3000 ft. Each day in the POR was stratified in a number of ways, such as by low-level wind direction, synoptic weather pattern, precipitation and Bulk Richardson number. The most accurate Phase II equations were then selected for an independent verification. The Phase I and II forecast methods were compared using an independent verification data set. The two methods were compared to climatology, wind warnings and advisories issued by the 45 WS, and North American Mesoscale (NAM) model (MesoNAM) forecast winds. The performance of the Phase I and II methods were similar with respect to mean absolute error. Since the Phase I data were not stratified by precipitation, this method's peak wind forecasts had a large negative bias on days with precipitation and a small positive bias on days with no precipitation. Overall, the climatology methods performed the worst while the MesoNAM performed the best. Since the MesoNAM winds were the most accurate in the comparison, the final version of the tool was based on the MesoNAM winds. The probability the peak wind will meet or exceed the warning thresholds were based on the one standard deviation error bars from the linear regression. For example, the linear regression might forecast the most likely peak speed to be 35 kt and the error bars used to calculate that the probability of >= 25 kt = 76%, the probability of >= 35 kt = 50%, and the probability of >= 50 kt = 19%. The authors have not seen this application of linear regression error bars in any other meteorological applications. Although probability forecast tools should usually be developed with logistic regression, this technique could be easily generalized to any linear regression forecast tool to estimate the probability of exceeding any desired threshold . This could be useful for previously developed linear regression forecast tools or new forecast applications where statistical analysis software to perform logistic regression is not available. The tool was delivered in two formats - a Microsoft Excel GUI and a Tool Command Language/Tool Kit (Tcl/Tk) GUI in the Meteorological Interactive Data Display System (MIDDS). The Microsoft Excel GUI reads a MesoNAM text file containing hourly forecasts from 0 to 84 hours, from one model run (00 or 12 UTC). The GUI then displays e peak wind speed, average wind speed, and the probability the peak wind will meet or exceed the 25-, 35- and 50-kt thresholds. The user can display the Day-1 through Day-3 peak wind forecasts, and separate forecasts are made for precipitation and non-precipitation days. The MIDDS GUI uses data from the NAM and Global Forecast System (GFS), instead of the MesoNAM. It can display Day-1 and Day-2 forecasts using NAM data, and Day-1 through Day-5 forecasts using GFS data. The timing of the peak wind is not displayed, since the independent verification showed that none of the forecast methods performed significantly better than climatology. The forecaster should use the climatological timing of the peak wind (2248 UTC) as a first guess and then adjust it based on the movement of weather features.

Barrett, Joe H., III↗
NASA NTRS1992

Introduction to Space Station Freedom

NASA field centers and contractors are organized to develop 'work packages' for Space Station Freedom. Marshall Space Flight Center and Boeing are building the U.S. laboratory and habitation modules, nodes, and environmental control and life support system; Johnson Space Center and McDonnell Douglas are responsible for truss structure, data management, propulsion systems, thermal control, and communications and guidance; Lewis Research Center and Rocketdyne are developing the power system. The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) is contributing a Mobile Servicing Center, Special Dextrous Manipulator, and Mobile Servicing Center Maintenance Depot. The National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) is contributing a Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), which includes a pressurized module, logistics module, and exposed experiment facility. The European Space Agency (ESA) is contributing the Columbus laboratory module. NASA ground facilities, now in various stages of development to support Space Station Freedom, include: Marshall Space Flight Center's Payload Operations Integration Center and Payload Training Complex (Alabama), Johnson Space Center's Space Station Control Center and Space Station Training Facility (Texas), Lewis Research Center's Power System Facility (Ohio), and Kennedy Space Center's Space Station Processing Facility (Florida). Budget appropriations impact the development of the Space Station. In Fiscal Year 1988, Congress appropriated only half of the funds that NASA requested for the space station program ($393 million vs. $767 million). In FY 89, NASA sought $967 million for the program, and Congress appropriated $900 million. NASA's FY 90 request was $2.05 billion compared to an appropriation of $1.75 billion; the FY 91 request was $2.45 billion, and the appropriation was $1.9 billion. After NASA restructured the Space Station Freedom program in response to directions from Congress, the agency's full budget request of $2.029 billion for Space Station Freedom in FY 92 was appropriated. For FY 93, NASA is seeking $2.25 billion for the program; the planned budget for FY 94 is $2.5 billion. Further alterations to the hardware configuration for Freedom would be a serious setback; NASA intends 'to stick with the current baseline' and continue planning for utilization.

Kohrs, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2013

Objective Lightning Probability Forecasts for East-Central Florida Airports

The forecasters at the National Weather Service in Melbourne, FL, (NWS MLB) identified a need to make more accurate lightning forecasts to help alleviate delays due to thunderstorms in the vicinity of several commercial airports in central Florida at which they are responsible for issuing terminal aerodrome forecasts. Such forecasts would also provide safer ground operations around terminals, and would be of value to Center Weather Service Units serving air traffic controllers in Florida. To improve the forecast, the AMU was tasked to develop an objective lightning probability forecast tool for the airports using data from the National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN). The resulting forecast tool is similar to that developed by the AMU to support space launch operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) for use by the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) in previous tasks (Lambert and Wheeler 2005, Lambert 2007). The lightning probability forecasts are valid for the time periods and areas needed by the NWS MLB forecasters in the warm season months, defined in this task as May-September.

Crawford, Winfred C.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Concept, Design, & Implementation of a Remote Vehicle Operations Center for Autonomous Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is supporting research to develop a prototype remote vehicle operations center at Langley Research Center to explore current and future advanced air mobility operations using small unmanned aerial systems vehicles as surrogates for future, larger-scale passenger carrying vehicles. The prototype facility known as the Remote Operations for Autonomous Missions (ROAM) Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations Center is being used to explore different roles and responsibilities of remote operators managing multiple autonomous vehicles, with the goal of exploring human-autonomy teaming concepts that enable m:N operations (i.e., m operators managing N vehicles). ROAM has developed into a world-class research, development, and technology (RD&T) environment that can support both the collection of human factors data and the command and control of remote vehicles in beyond visual line of sight conditions. ROAM provides a key capability to enable full end-to-end hardware- and human-in-the-loop simulation testing, connecting with simulated small-UAS and creating a seamless Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) environment. This report describes the development of the ROAM UAS Operations Center from concept through design, culminating in the current implementation at NASA’s Langley Research Center.

CERTAIN↗
NASA NTRS2013

Conducting Research on the International Space Station Using the EXPRESS Rack Facilities

Eight "Expedite the Processing of Experiments to Space Station" (EXPRESS) Rack facilities are located within the International Space Station (ISS) laboratories to provide standard resources and interfaces for the simultaneous and independent operation of multiple experiments within each rack. Each EXPRESS Rack provides eight Middeck Locker Equivalent locations and two drawer locations for powered experiment equipment, also referred to as sub-rack payloads. Payload developers may provide their own structure to occupy the equivalent volume of one, two, or four lockers as a single unit. Resources provided for each location include power (28 Vdc, 0-500 W), command and data handling (Ethernet, RS-422, 5 Vdc discrete, +/- 5 Vdc analog), video (NTSC/RS 170A), and air cooling (0-200 W). Each rack also provides water cooling (500 W) for two locations, one vacuum exhaust interface, and one gaseous nitrogen interface. Standard interfacing cables and hoses are provided on-orbit. One laptop computer is provided with each rack to control the rack and to accommodate payload application software. Four of the racks are equipped with the Active Rack Isolation System to reduce vibration between the ISS and the rack. EXPRESS Racks are operated by the Payload Operations Integration Center at Marshall Space Flight Center and the sub-rack experiments are operated remotely by the investigating organization. Payload Integration Managers serve as a focal to assist organizations developing payloads for an EXPRESS Rack. NASA provides EXPRESS Rack simulator software for payload developers to checkout payload command and data handling at the development site before integrating the payload with the EXPRESS Functional Checkout Unit for an end-to-end test before flight. EXPRESS Racks began supporting investigations onboard ISS on April 24, 2001 and will continue through the life of the ISS.

Thompson, Sean W.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Conducting Research on the International Space Station using the EXPRESS Rack Facilities

Eight "Expedite the Processing of Experiments to Space Station" (EXPRESS) Rack facilities are located within the International Space Station (ISS) laboratories to provide standard resources and interfaces for the simultaneous and independent operation of multiple experiments within each rack. Each EXPRESS Rack provides eight Middeck Locker Equivalent locations and two drawer locations for powered experiment equipment, also referred to as sub-rack payloads. Payload developers may provide their own structure to occupy the equivalent volume of one, two, or four lockers as a single unit. Resources provided for each location include power (28 Vdc, 0-500 W), command and data handling (Ethernet, RS-422, 5 Vdc discrete, +/- 5 Vdc analog), video (NTSC/RS 170A), and air cooling (0-200 W). Each rack also provides water cooling for two locations (500W ea.), one vacuum exhaust interface, and one gaseous nitrogen interface. Standard interfacing cables and hoses are provided on-orbit. One laptop computer is provided with each rack to control the rack and to accommodate payload application software. Four of the racks are equipped with the Active Rack Isolation System to reduce vibration between the ISS and the rack. EXPRESS Racks are operated by the Payload Operations Integration Center at Marshall Space Flight Center and the sub-rack experiments are operated remotely by the investigating organization. Payload Integration Managers serve as a focal to assist organizations developing payloads for an EXPRESS Rack. NASA provides EXPRESS Rack simulator software for payload developers to checkout payload command and data handling at the development site before integrating the payload with the EXPRESS Functional Checkout Unit for an end-to-end test before flight. EXPRESS Racks began supporting investigations onboard ISS on April 24, 2001 and will continue through the life of the ISS.

Thompson, Sean W.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Upgrades to Common Data Acquisition System Software Development for NASA's Rocket Propulsion Test Facilities and Software Reuse

Approximately five years ago, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Stennis Space Center (SSC) resumed operation of its large rocket engine test facilities after thirty years of contractor control. During this period, contactors used their own proprietary Data Acquisition System (DAS) to record and process rocket propulsion test data. The transition from a contractor managed facility to a NASA managed facility posed a difficult challenge. In order to support the commercial space launch initiative, SSC needed to develop a software replacement for the contractor proprietary DAS. This replacement software would enable SSC to operate propulsion test facilities more cost effectively and to be more readily able to adapt software for reuse, while at the same time provide internal and external customers with reliable population test data. Therefore, SSC developed in-house, a non-proprietary software suite of applications to replace the previously used proprietary DAS. The requirements for the DAS suite included recording and processing propulsion test data. This capability eliminates the necessity for customers to provide a DAS or rely on a competitor's DAS. An additional benefit of owning the software suite included enabling the ability to add additional features and functionality at a lower cost. The Rocket Propulsion Test (RPT) Program Office reviewed consideration for funding this project with the caveat that development of the software included availability for use with minimal modifications to all SSC test facilities and RPT centers: Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), and Glenn Research Center (GRC) Plum Brook Station. Based upon this guideline, SSC created the NASA Data Acquisition System (NDAS) software suite. The ability to use the software at multiple centers, even though each field center uses differing DAS hardware with different capabilities, drove a requirement that the software design be portable with minimal modifications to the software. Then, with software release requirements, evaluations, and approvals completed, the NDAS software suite could also become available to other government agencies, corporations, universities, and the general United States public.

Herbert, Phillip W., Sr.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Medical Operations Console Procedure Evaluation: BME Response to Crew Call Down for an Emergency

International Space Station (ISS) Mission Operations are managed by multiple flight control disciplines located at the lead Mission Control Center (MCC) at NASA-Johnson Space Center (JSC). ISS Medical Operations are supported by the complementary roles of Flight Surgeons (Surgeon) and Biomedical Engineer (BME) flight controllers. The Surgeon, a board certified physician, oversees all medical concerns of the crew and the BME provides operational and engineering support for Medical Operations Crew Health Care System. ISS Medical Operations is currently addressing the coordinated response to a crew call down for an emergent medical event, in particular when the BME is the only Medical Operations representative in MCC. In this case, the console procedure BME Response to Crew Call Down for an Emergency will be used. The procedure instructs the BME to contact a Surgeon as soon as possible, coordinate with other flight disciplines to establish a Private Medical Conference (PMC) for the crew and Surgeon, gather information from the crew if time permits, and provide Surgeon with pertinent console resources. It is paramount that this procedure is clearly written and easily navigated to assist the BME to respond consistently and efficiently. A total of five BME flight controllers participated in the study. Each BME participant sat in a simulated MCC environment at a console configured with resources specific to the BME MCC console and was presented with two scripted emergency call downs from an ISS crew member. Each participant used the procedure while interacting with analog MCC disciplines to respond to the crew call down. Audio and video recordings of the simulations were analyzed and each BME participant's actions were compared to the procedure. Structured debriefs were conducted at the conclusion of both simulations. The procedure was evaluated for its ability to elicit consistent responses from each BME participant. Trials were examined for deviations in procedure task completion and/or navigation, in particular the execution of the Surgeon call sequence. Debrief comments were used to analyze unclear procedural steps and to discern any discrepancies between the procedure and generally accepted BME actions. The sequence followed by BME participants differed considerably from the sequence intended by the procedure. Common deviations included the call sequence used to contact Surgeon, the content of BME and crew interaction and the gathering of pertinent console resources. Differing perceptions of task priority and imprecise language seem to have caused multiple deviations from the procedure s intended sequence. The study generated 40 recommendations for the procedure, of which 34 are being implemented. These recommendations address improving the clarity of the instructions, identifying training considerations, expediting Surgeon contact, improving cues for anticipated flight control team communication and identifying missing console tools.

Johnson-Troop↗