SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Ground Operations”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2001

Alternative Approaches to Mission Control Automation at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

To meet its objective of reducing operations costs without incurring a corresponding increase in risk, NASA is seeking new methods to automate mission operations. This paper examines the state of the art in automating ground operations for space missions. A summary of available technologies and methods for automating mission operations is provided. Responses from interviews with several space mission FOTs (Flight Operations Teams) to assess the degree and success of those technologies and methods implemented are presented. Mission operators that were interviewed approached automation using different tools and methods resulting in varying degrees of success - from nearly completely automated to nearly completely manual. Two key criteria for successful automation are the active participation of the FOT in the planning, designing, testing, and implementation of the system and the relative degree of complexity of the mission.

Rackley, Michael↗

NASA NTRS2016

Effects of Transparency on Pilot Trust and Agreement in the Autonomous Constrained Flight Planner

We performed a human-in-the-loop study to explore the role of transparency in engendering trust and reliance within highly automated systems. Specifically, we examined how transparency impacts trust in and reliance upon the Autonomous Constrained Flight Planner (ACFP), a critical automated system being developed as part of NASA's Reduced Crew Operations (RCO) Concept. The ACFP is designed to provide an enhanced ground operator, termed a super dispatcher, with recommended diversions for aircraft when their primary destinations are unavailable. In the current study, 12 commercial transport rated pilots who played the role of super dispatchers were given six time-pressured all land scenarios where they needed to use the ACFP to determine diversions for multiple aircraft. Two factors were manipulated. The primary factor was level of transparency. In low transparency scenarios the pilots were given a recommended airport and runway, plus basic information about the weather conditions, the aircraft types, and the airport and runway characteristics at that and other airports. In moderate transparency scenarios the pilots were also given a risk evaluation for the recommended airport, and for the other airports if they requested it. In the high transparency scenario additional information including the reasoning for the risk evaluations was made available to the pilots. The secondary factor was level of risk, either high or low. For high-risk aircraft, all potential diversions were rated as highly risky, with the ACFP giving the best option for a bad situation. For low-risk aircraft the ACFP found only low-risk options for the pilot. Both subjective and objective measures were collected, including rated trust, whether the pilots checked the validity of the automation recommendation, and whether the pilots eventually flew to the recommended diversion airport. Key results show that: 1) Pilots trust increased with higher levels of transparency, 2) Pilots were more likely to verify ACFPs recommendations with low levels of transparency and when risk was high, 3) Pilots were more likely to explore other options from the ACFP in low transparency conditions and when risk was high, and 4) Pilots decision to accept or reject ACFPs recommendations increased as a function of the transparency in the explanation. The finding that higher levels of transparency was coupled with higher levels of trust, a lower need to verify other options, and higher levels of agreement with ACFP recommendations, confirms the importance of transparency in aiding reliance on automated recommendations. Additional analyses of qualitative data gathered from subjects through surveys and during debriefing interviews also provided the basis for new design recommendations for the ACFP.

trust↗

NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Crew-Centric Onboard Mission Operations Planning and Execution Tool: Year 2

Currently, mission planning for the International Space Station (ISS) is largely affected by ground operators in mission control. The task of creating a week-long mission plan for ISS crew takes dozens of people multiple days to complete, and is often created far in advance of its execution. As such, re-planning or adapting to changing real-time constraints or emergent issues is similarly taxing. As we design for future mission operations concepts to other planets or areas with limited connectivity to Earth, more of these ground-based tasks will need to be handled autonomously by the crew onboard.There is a need for a highly usable (including low training time) tool that enables efficient self-scheduling and execution within a single package. The ISS Program has identified Playbook as a potential option. It already has high crew acceptance as a plan viewer from previous analogs and can now support a crew self-scheduling assessment on ISS or on another mission. The goals of this work, a collaboration between the Human Research Program and the ISS Program, are to inform the design of systems for more autonomous crew operations and provide a platform for research on crew autonomy for future deep space missions. Our second year of the research effort have included new insights on the crew self-scheduling sessions performed by the crew through use on the HERA (Human Exploration Research Analog) and NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) analogs. Use on the NEEMO analog involved two self-scheduling strategies where the crew planned and executed two days of EVAs (Extra-Vehicular Activities). On HERA year two represented the first HERA campaign where we were able to perform research tasks. This involved selected flexible activities that the crew could schedule, mock timelines where the crew completed more complex planning exercises, usability evaluation of the crew self-scheduling features, and more insights into the limit of plan complexity that the crew could effectively self-schedule. In parallel we have added in new features and functionality in the Playbook tool based off of our insights from crew self-scheduling in the NASA analogs. In particular this year we have added in the ability for the crew to add, edit, and remove their own activities in the Playbook tool, expanding the type of planning and re-planning possible in the tool and opening up the ability for more free form plan creation. The ability to group and manipulate groups of activities from the plan task list was also added, allowing crew members to add predefined sets of activities onto their mission timeline. In addition we also added a way for crew members to roll back changes in their plan, in order to allow an undo like capability. These features expand and complement the initial self-scheduling features added in year one with the goal of making crew autonomous planning more efficient. As part of this work we have also finished developing the first version of our Playbook Data Analysis Tool, a research tool built to interpret and analyze the unobtrusively collected data obtained during the NASA analog missions through Playbook. This data which includes user click interaction as well as plan change information, through the Playbook Data Analysis Tool, allows us to playback this information as if a video camera was mounted over the crewmember's tablet. While the primary purpose of this tool is to allow usability analysis of crew self-scheduling sessions used on the NASA analog, since the data collected is structured, the tool can automatically derive metrics that would be traditionally tedious to achieve without manual analysis of video playback. We will demonstrate and discuss the ability for future derived metrics to be added to the tool. In addition to the current data and results gathered in year two we will also discuss the preparation and goals of our International Space Station (ISS) onboard technology demonstration with Playbook. This technology demonstration will be preformed as part of the CAST payload starting in late 2016.

onboard planning↗

NASA NTRS1994

Modeling actions and operations to support mission preparation

This paper describes two linked technology development projects to support Space Shuttle ground operations personnel, both during mission preparation analysis and related analyses in missions. The Space Propulsion Robust Analysis Tool (SPRAT) will provide intelligent support and automation for mission analysis setup, interpretation, reporting and documentation. SPRAT models the actions taken by flight support personnel during mission preparation and uses this model to generate an action plan. CONFIG will provide intelligent automation for procedure analyses and failure impact analyses, by simulating the interactions between operations and systems with embedded failures. CONFIG models the actions taken by crew during space vehicle malfunctions and simulates how the planned action sequences in procedures affect a device model. Jointly the SPRAT and CONFIG projects provide an opportunity to investigate how the nature of a task affects the representation of actions, and to determine a more general action representation supporting a broad range of tasks. This paper describes the problems in representing actions for mission preparation and their relation to planning and scheduling.

Malin, Jane T.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Telescience Operations on International Space Station

This paper describes the concept of telescience operations for the International Space Station (ISS). The extended duration microgravity environment of the ISS will enable microgravity science research to enter into a new era of increased scientific and technological data return. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a vision of distributed ground operations which enables the Principal Investigator direct interaction with his/her on-board experiment from his/her home location. This is the concept of telescience and is essential for maximizing the use of the long duration science environment that ISS provides. The goal of telescience is to provide the capability to fully tele-operate an experiment from any ground location in such a way as to increase the amount and quality of scientific and technological data return and decrease the operations cost of an individual experiment relative to the era of Space Shuttle experiments. This paper also describes the NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) implementation approach for the LeRC Telescience Support Center (TSC) and Principal Investigator Science Operations Sites (SOS) which will fully meet the concept of telescience as prescribed by the Agency.

Schubert, Kathleen E.↗

NASA NTRS1971

Integrated mission management operations

Operations required to launch a modular space station and to provides sustaining ground operations for support of that orbiting station throughout its 10 year mission are studied. A baseline, incrementally manned program and attendent experiment program options are derived. In addition, features of the program that significantly effect initial development and early operating costs are identified, and their impact on the program is assessed. A preliminary design of the approved modular space station configuration is formulated.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1981

The 1980 Aircraft Safety and Operating Problems, Part 2

Terminal area operations, avionics and human factors, atmospheric environment, and operating problems and potential solutions are discussed. Other topics include flight experiences, ground operations, and acoustics and noise reduction.

Stickle, J. W.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Operations and support for the next-generation space transportation system

The role of operations and support in the design of future space transportation systems (STSs) is studied. There is a need to reduce launch and operation costs for future space systems. Methods for reducing the cost of ground operations and supports for a STS are described. Technological advances such as expert systems, robotics, and sensors, and reduction in management of operations are discussed. Changes in the management of flight operations and control, from a manpower intensive monitoring to a strong vehicle autonomy, are examined. The development of equipment and procedures to improve space operations and reduce costs is analyzed. The use of a clean sheet approach for building a STS is proposed.

Sawaya, G. J.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Operational cost drivers

To be economically viable, the operations cost of launch vehicles must be reduced by an order of magnitude as compared to the Space Transportation System (STS). A summary of propulsion-related operations cost drivers derived from a two-year study of Shuttle ground operations is presented. Examples are given of the inordinate time and cost of launch operations caused by propulsion systems designs that did not adequately consider impacts on prelaunching processing. Typical of these cost drivers are those caused by central hydraulic systems, storable propellants, gimballed engines, multiple propellants, He and N2 systems and purges, hard starts, high maintenance turbopumps, accessibility problems, and most significantly, the use of multiple, nonintegrated RCS, OMS, and main propulsion systems. Recovery and refurbishment of SRBs have resulted in expensive crash and salvage operations. Vehicle system designers are encouraged to be acutely aware of these cost drivers and to incorporate solutions (beginning with the design concepts) to avoid business as usual and costs as usual.

Scholz, Arthur L.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors Vehicle Displacement Analysis: Engineering In Motion

While positioned on the launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center, tall stacked launch vehicles are exposed to the natural environment. Varying directional winds and vortex shedding causes the vehicle to sway in an oscillating motion. The Human Factors team recognizes that vehicle sway may hinder ground crew operation, impact the ground system designs, and ultimately affect launch availability . The objective of this study is to physically simulate predicted oscillation envelopes identified by analysis. and conduct a Human Factors Analysis to assess the ability to carry out essential Upper Stage (US) ground operator tasks based on predicted vehicle motion.

Atencio, Laura Ashley↗

NASA NTRS2011

Aerospace News: Space Shuttle Commemoration. Volume 2, No. 7

The complex space shuttle design was comprised of four components: the external tank, two solid rocket boosters (SRB), and the orbiter vehicle. Six orbiters were used during the life of the program. In order of introduction into the fleet, they were: Enterprise (a test vehicle), Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. The space shuttle had the unique ability to launch into orbit, perform on-orbit tasks, return to earth and land on a runway. It was an orbiting laboratory, International Space Station crew delivery and supply replenisher, satellite launcher and payload delivery vehicle, all in one. Except for the external tank, all components of the space shuttle were designed to be reusable for many flights. ATK s reusable solid rocket motors (RSRM) were designed to be flown, recovered, and the metal components reused 20 times. Following each space shuttle launch, the SRBs would parachute into the ocean and be recovered by the Liberty Star and Freedom Star recovery ships. The recovered boosters would then be received at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Hangar AF facility for disassembly and engineering post-flight evaluation. At Hangar AF, the RSRM field joints were demated and the segments prepared to be returned to Utah by railcar. The segments were then shipped to ATK s facilities in Clearfield for additional evaluation prior to washout, disassembly and refurbishment. Later the refurbished metal components would be transported to ATK s Promontory facilities to begin a new cycle. ATK s RSRMs were manufactured in Promontory, Utah. During the Space Shuttle Program, ATK supported NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center whose responsibility was for all propulsion elements on the program, including the main engines and solid rocket motors. On launch day for the space shuttle, ATK s Launch Site Operations employees at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) provided lead engineering support for ground operations and NASA s chief engineer. It was ATK s responsibility to have a representative in Firing Room 2 at KSC in case of potential motor problems. However, the last time ATK was responsible for a space shuttle launch slip was 1989. During launch, engineers were also stationed in Promontory on teleconference with counterparts at KSC in the event their support was required.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2016

Integrated Refrigeration and Storage for Advanced Liquid Hydrogen Operations

NASA has used liquefied hydrogen (LH2) on a large scale since the beginning of the space program as fuel for the Centaur and Apollo upper stages, and more recently to feed the three space shuttle main engines. The LH2 systems currently in place at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) launch pads are aging and inefficient compared to the state-of-the-art. Therefore, the need exists to explore advanced technologies and operations that can drive commodity costs down, and provide increased capabilities. The Ground Operations Demonstration Unit for Liquid Hydrogen (GODU-LH2) was developed at KSC to pursue these goals by demonstrating active thermal control of the propellant state by direct removal of heat using a cryocooler. The project has multiple objectives including zero loss storage and transfer, liquefaction of gaseous hydrogen, and densification of liquid hydrogen. The key technology challenge was efficiently integrating the cryogenic refrigerator into the LH2 storage tank. A Linde LR1620 Brayton cycle refrigerator is used to produce up to 900W cooling at 20K, circulating approximately 22 g/s gaseous helium through the hydrogen via approximately 300 m of heat exchanger tubing. The GODU-LH2 system is fully operational, and is currently under test. This paper will discuss the design features of the refrigerator and storage system, as well as the current test results.

Liquefaction↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Astrobee On-Orbit Commissioning Manuscript and Presentation

The Astrobee free flying robots operate autonomously inside the International Space Station (ISS) with oversight from a ground operator or ISS crew. They replace the Synchronized Position Hold Engage and Reorient Experimental Satellites (SPHERES) as research platforms for zero-g free-flying robotics. Astrobee can also serve as a mobile camera/sensor platform for flight and payload controllers to improve ISS operations. Development began in late 2014, and flight hardware deployed to the ISS on several launches starting from November 2018 to October 2019. Shortly after the first two robots arrived in April 2019, we began a series of commissioning activities to validate the Astrobee robots. This paper reviews the Astrobee system and describes the on-orbit commissioning activities and results.

ISS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Astrobee On-Orbit Commissioning

ISS↗

NASA NTRS2018

Self-Reliant Rover Design for Increasing Mission Productivity

Achieving consistently high levels of productivity has been a challenge for Mars surface missions. While the rovers have made major discoveries and dramatically increased our understanding of Mars, they often require a great deal of effort from the operations teams, and achieving mission objectives can take longer than anticipated. The objective of this work is to identify changes to ﬂight software and ground operations that enable high levels of productivity with reduced reliance on ground interactions. This will enable the development of Self-Reliant Rovers: rovers that make use of high-level guidance from operators to select their own situational activities and respond to unexpected conditions, all without dependence on ground intervention. In this paper we describe the system we are developing and illustrate how it enables increased mission productivity.

Vasavada, Ashwin↗

NASA NTRS2018

Self-Reliant Rover Design for Increasing Mission Productivity

Vasavada, Ashwin↗

NASA NTRS2013

Qualification of UHF Antenna for Extreme Martian Thermal Environments

The purpose of this development was to validate the use of the external Rover Ultra High Frequency (RUHF) antenna for space under extreme thermal environments to be encountered during the surface operations of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission. The antenna must survive all ground operations plus the nominal 670 Martian sol mission that includes summer and winter seasons of the Mars thermal environment.The qualification effort was to verify that the RUHF antenna design and its bonding and packaging processes are adequate to survive the harsh environmental conditions. The RUHF is a quadrifilar helix antenna mounted on the MSL Curiosity rover deck. The main components of the RUHF antenna are the helix structure, feed cables, and hybrid coupler, and the high-power termination load. In the case of MSL rover externally mounted hardware, not only are the expected thermal cycle depths severe, but there are temperature offsets between the Mars summer and winter seasons. The total number of temperature cycles needed to be split into two regimes of summer cycles and winter cycles. The qualification test was designed to demonstrate a survival life of three times more than all expected ground testing, plus a nominal 670 Martian sol missions. Baseline RF tests and a visual inspection were performed prior to the start of the qualification test. Functional RF tests were performed intermittently during chamber breaks over the course of the qualification test. For the RF return loss measurements, the antenna was tested in a controlled environment outside the thermal chamber with a vector network analyzer that was calibrated over the antenna s operational frequency range. A total of 2,010 thermal cycles were performed. Visual inspection showed a dulling of the solder material. This change will not affect the performance of the antenna. No other changes were observed. RF tests were performed on the RUHF helix antenna, hybrid, and load after the 2,010 qualification cycles test. The RF performance of the RUHF antenna, hybrid, and load were almost identical before and after the complete test. Therefore, the developed design of RUHF is qualified for a long-duration MSL mission. The RUHF antenna has not been used for long-duration missions such as MSL in the past. The state-of-the-art technology of the RUHF antenna is used to develop the antennas for MSL mission survivability. This developmental test data provides the confidence in using this RUHF antenna for future NASA missions to Mars.

Ramesham, Rajeshuni↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Progress in Red vs. Green Propellant Operations: ASCENT Load Operations Lessons Learned

The Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM) [1] is a NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) effort to establish via demonstration ASCENT propellant (Advanced Space Craft Energetic Non-Toxic propellant, formerly referred to as AF-M315E) ground operations through on –orbit performance. ASCENT was developed by Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) as an increased energy density, reduced toxicity and reduced hazard monopropellant formulation relative to hydrazine. The GPIM team was led by Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation (BATC) as Program Management and Principal Investigator with AFRL, Aerojet-Rocketdyne (AR), the United States Space Force Space and Missile Systems Center (USSF/SMC), NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), and NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) as Co-Investigators. The AFRL co-investigator role in the GPIM program was to develop the Propellant Ground Support Equipment (PGSE), associated Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Check Lists (CL), propellant load, propellant specification standard conventions and analysis methods, decontamination and waste disposal practices. This paper will discuss lessons learned in documentation, crew composition and readiness, equipment readiness, propellant readiness and potential improvements in the PGSE design.

Anthony P Zuttarelli↗