Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Performance Optimized Space Networks”

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.

273 records · Page 16

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗

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↗

Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): SAR Water Body Classification for the Open Data Cube

The detection of inland water bodies from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data provides a great advantage over water detection with optical data, since SAR imaging is not impeded by cloud cover. Traditional methods of detecting water from SAR data involves using thresholding methods that can be labor intensive and imprecise. This paper describes Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): a method of water detection from SAR data which automates and simplifies the thresholding process using machine learning on training data created from Geoscience Australia’s WOFS algorithm. Of the machine learning models tested, the Linear Support Vector Machine was determined to be optimal, with the option of training using solely the VH polarization or a combination of the VH and VV polarizations. WASARD was able to identify water in the target area with a correlation of 97% with WOFS. Sentinel-1, Open Data Cube, Earth Observations, Machine Learning, Water Detection 1. INTRODUCTION Water classification is an important function of Earth imaging satellites, as accurate remote classification of land and water can assist in land use analysis, flood prediction, climate change research, as well as a variety of agricultural applications [2]. The ability to identify bodies of water remotely via satellite is immensely cheaper than contracting surveys of the areas in question, meaning that an application that can accurately use satellite data towards this function can make valuable information available to nations which would not be able to afford it otherwise. Highly reliable applications for the remote detection of water currently exist for use with optical satellite data such as that provided by LANDSAT. One such application, Geoscience Australia’s Water Observations from Space (WOFS) has already been ported for use with the Open Data Cube [6]. However, water detection using optical data from Landsat is constrained by its relatively long revisit cycle of 16 days [5], and water detection using any optical data is constrained in that it lacks the ability to make accurate classifications through cloud cover [2]. The alternative solution which solves these problems is water detection using SAR data, which images the Earth using cloud-penetrating microwaves. Because of its advantages over optical data, much research has been done into water detection using SAR data. Traditionally, this has been done using the thresholding method, which involves picking a polarization band and labeling all pixels for which this band’s value is below a certain threshold as containing water. The thresholding method works since water tends to return a much lower backscatter value to the satellite than land [1]. However, this method can be flawed since estimating the proper threshold is often imprecise, complicated, and labor intensive for the end user. Thresholding also tends to use data from only one SAR polarization, when a combination of polarizations can provide insight into whether water is present. [2] In order to alleviate these problems, this paper presents an application for the Open Data Cube to detect water from SAR data using support vector machine (SVM) classification. 2. PLATFORM WASARD is an application for the Open Data Cube, a mechanism which provides a simple yet efficient means of ingesting, storing, and retrieving remote sensing data. Data can be ingested and made analysis ready according to whatever specifications the researcher chooses, and easily resampled to artificially alter a scene’s resolution. Currently WASARD supports water detection on scenes from ESA’s Sentinel-1 and JAXA’s ALOS. When testing WASARD, Sentinel-1 was most commonly used due to its relatively high spatial resolution and its rapid 6 day revisit cycle [5]. With minor alterations to the application's code, however, it could support data from other satellites. 3. METHODOLOGY Using supervised classification, WASARD compares SAR data to a dataset pre-classified by WOFS in order to train an SVM classifier. This classifier is then used to detect water in other SAR scenes outside the training set. Accuracy was measured according to the following metrics:  Precision: a measure of what percentage of the points WASARD labels as water are truly water  Recall: a measure of what percentage of the total water cover WASARD was able to identify.  F1 Score: a harmonic average of the precision and recall scores Both precision and recall are calculated at the end of the training phase, when the trained classifier is compared to a testing dataset. Because the WOFS algorithm’s classifications are used as the truth values when training a WASARD classifier, when precision and recall are mentioned in this paper, they are always with respect to the values produced by WOFS on a similar scene of Landsat data, which themselves have a classification accuracy of 97% [6]. Visual representations of water identified by WASARD in this paper were produced using the function wasard_plot(), which is included in WASARD. 3.1 Algorithm Selection The machine learning model used by WASARD is the Linear Support Vector Machine (SVM). This model uses a supervised learning algorithm to develop a classifier, meaning it creates a vector which can be multiplied by the vector formed by the relevant data bands to determine whether a pixel in a SAR scene contains water. This classifier is trained by comparing data points from selected bands in a SAR scene to their respective labels, which in this case are “water” or “not water” as given by the WOFS algorithm. The SVM was selected over the Random Forest model, which outperformed the SVM in training speed, but had a greater classification time and lower accuracy, and the Multilayer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network, which had a slightly higher average accuracy than the SVM, but much greater training and classification times. Figure 1: Visual representation of the SVM Classifier. Each white point represents a pixel in a SAR scene. In Figure 1, the diagonal line separating pixels determined to be water from those determined not to be water represents the actual classification vector produced by the SVM. It is worth noting that once the model has been trained, classification of pixels is done in a similar manner as in the thresholding method. This is especially true if only one band was used to train the model. 3.1 Feature Selection Sentinel-1 collects data from two bands: the Vertical/Vertical polarization (VV) and the Vertical/Horizontal polarization (VH). When 100 SVM classifiers were created for each polarization individually, and for the combination of the two, the following results were achieved: Figure 2: Accuracy of classifiers trained using different polarization bands. Precision and Recall were measured with respect to the values produced by WOFS. Figure 2 demonstrates that using both the VV and VH bands trades slightly lower recall for significantly greater precision when compared with the VH band alone, and that using the VV band alone is inferior in both metrics. WASARD therefore defaults to using both the VV and VH bands, and includes the option to use solely the VH band. The VV polarization’s lower precision compared to the VH polarization is in contrast to results from previous research and may merit further analysis [4]. 3.2 Training a Classifier The steps in training a classifier with WASARD are 1. Selecting two scenes (one SAR, one optical) with the same spatial extents, and acquired close to each other in time, with a preference that the scenes are taken on the same day. 2. Using the WOFS algorithm to produce an array of the detected water in the scene of optical data, to be used as the labels during supervised learning 3. Data points from the selected bands from the SAR acquisition are bundled together into an array with the corresponding labels gathered from WOFS. A random sample with an equal number of points labeled “Water” and “Not Water” is selected to be partitioned into a training and a testing dataset 4. Using Scikit-Learn’s LinearSVC object, the training dataset is used to produce a classifier, which is then tested against the testing dataset to determine its precision and recall The result is a wasard_classifier object, which has the following attributes: 1. f1, recall, and precision: 3 metrics used to determine the classifier’s accuracy 2. Coefficient: Vector which the SVM uses to make its predictions. The classifier detects water when the dot product of the coefficient and the vector formed by the SAR bands is positive 3. Save(): allows a user to save a classifier to the disk in order to use it without retraining 4. wasard_classify(): Classifies an entire xarray of SAR data using the SVM classifier All of the above steps are performed automatically when the user creates a wasard_classifier object. 3.3 Classifying a Dataset Once the classifier has been created, it can be used to detect water in an xarray of SAR data using wasard_classify(). By taking the dot product of the classifier’s coefficients and the vector formed by the selected bands of SAR data, an array of predictions is constructed. A classifier can effectively be used on the same spatial extents as the ones where it was trained, or on any area with a similar landscape. While

Kreiser, Zachary↗