Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Control”

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 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2001

Titan Airship Surveyor

Saturn's moon Titan is considered to be one of the prime candidates for studying prebiotic materials - the substances that precede the formation of life but have disappeared from the Earth as a result of the evolution of life. A unique combination of a dense, predominantly nitrogen, atmosphere (more than four times that of the Earth), low gravity (six times less than on the Earth) and small temperature variations makes Titan the almost ideal planet for studies with lighter-than-air aerial platforms (aerobots). Moreover, since methane clouds and photochemical haze obscure the surface, low-altitude aerial platforms are the only practical means that can provide global mapping of the Titan surface at visible and infrared wavelengths. One major challenge in Titan exploration is the extremely cold atmosphere (approx. 90 K). However, current material technology the capability to operate aerobots at these very low temperatures. A second challenge is the remoteness from the Sun (10 AU) that makes the nuclear (radioisotopic) energy the only practical source of power. A third challenge is remoteness from the Earth (approx. 10 AU, two-way light-time approx. 160 min) which imposes restrictions on data rates and makes impractical any meaningful real-time control. A small-size airship (approx. 25 cu m) can carry a payload approximately 100 kg. A Stirling engine coupled to a radioisotope heat source would be the prime choice for producing both mechanical and electrical power for sensing, control, and communications. The cold atmospheric temperature makes Stirling machines especially effective. With the radioisotope power source the airship may fly with speed approximately 5 m/s for a year or more providing an excellent platform for in situ atmosphere measurements and a high-resolution remote sensing with unlimited access on a global scale. In a station-keeping mode the airship can be used for in situ studies on the surface by winching down an instrument package. Floating above the surface allows relatively simple means for flight control. Mission requirements and possible methods of navigation, control, data acquisition, and communications are discussed. The presentation describes also the state-of-the art and current progress in aerial deployed aerobots.

Kerzhanovich, V.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Computer Software Configuration Item-Specific Flight Software Image Transfer Script Generator

A K-shell UNIX script enables the International Space Station (ISS) Flight Control Team (FCT) operators in NASA s Mission Control Center (MCC) in Houston to transfer an entire or partial computer software configuration item (CSCI) from a flight software compact disk (CD) to the onboard Portable Computer System (PCS). The tool is designed to read the content stored on a flight software CD and generate individual CSCI transfer scripts that are capable of transferring the flight software content in a given subdirectory on the CD to the scratch directory on the PCS. The flight control team can then transfer the flight software from the PCS scratch directory to the Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EEPROM) of an ISS Multiplexer/ Demultiplexer (MDM) via the Indirect File Transfer capability. The individual CSCI scripts and the CSCI Specific Flight Software Image Transfer Script Generator (CFITSG), when executed a second time, will remove all components from their original execution. The tool will identify errors in the transfer process and create logs of the transferred software for the purposes of configuration management.

Bolen, Kenny↗
NASA NTRS2013

Advanced Strategic and Tactical Relay Request Management for the Mars Relay Operations Service

This software provides a new set of capabilities for the Mars Relay Operations Service (MaROS) in support of Strategic and Tactical relay, including a highly interactive relay request Web user interface, mission control over relay planning time periods, and mission management of allowed strategic vs. tactical request parameters. Together, these new capabilities expand the scope of the system to include all elements critical for Tactical relay operations. Planning of replay activities spans a time period that is split into two distinct phases. The first phase is called Strategic, which begins at the time that relay opportunities are identified, and concludes at the point that the orbiter generates the flight sequences for on board execution. Any relay request changes from this point on are called Tactical. Tactical requests, otherwise called Orbit - er Relay State Changes (ORSC), are highly restricted in terms of what types of changes can be made, and the types of parameters that can be changed may differ from one orbiter to the next. For example, one orbiter may be able to delay the start of a relay request, while another may not. The legacy approach to ORSC management involves exchanges of e-mail with "requests for change" and "acknowledgement of approval," with no other tracking of changes outside of e-mail folders. MaROS Phases 1 and 2 provided the infrastructure for strategic relay for all supported missions. This new version, 3.0, introduces several capabilities that fully expand the scope of the system to include tactical relay. One new feature allows orbiter users to manage and "lock" Planning Periods, which allows the orbiter team to formalize the changeover from Strategic to Tactical operations. Another major feature allows users to interactively submit tactical request changes via a Web user interface. A third new feature allows orbiter missions to specify allowed tactical updates, which are automatically incorporated into the tactical change process. This software update is significant in that it provides the only centralized service for tactical request management available for relay missions.

Allard, Daniel A.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Optimizing Light in Day-to-Day Spaceflight Operations

NASA Behavioral Health and Performance Element (BHP) personnel have previously reported on efforts to transition evidence‐based recommendations for a flexible lighting system on the International Space Station (ISS). Based on these recommendations, beginning in 2016 the ISS will replace the current fluorescent‐based lights with an LED‐based system to optimize visual performance, facilitate circadian alignment, promote sleep, and hasten schedule shifting. Additional efforts related to lighting countermeasures in spaceflight operations have also been underway. As an example, a recent BHP research study led by investigators at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, evaluated the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of blue‐enriched light exposure during exercise breaks for flight controllers working the overnight shift in the Mission Control Center (MCC) at NASA Johnson Space Center. This effort, along with published laboratory studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of appropriately timed light for promoting alertness, served as an impetus for new light options, and educational protocols for flight controllers. In addition, a separate set of guidelines related to the light emitted from electronic devices, were provided to the Astronaut Office this past year. These guidelines were based on an assessment led by NASA's Lighting Environment Test Facility that included measuring the spectral power distribution, irradiance, and radiance of light emitted from ISS‐grade laptops and I‐Pads, as well as Android devices. Evaluations were conducted with and without the use of off‐the‐shelf screen filters as well as a software application that touts minimizing the short‐wave length of the visible light spectrum. This presentation will focus on the transition for operations process related to lighting countermeasures in the MCC, as well as the evidence to support recommendations for optimal use of laptops, I‐Pads, and Android devices during all phases of spaceflight operations.

Whitmire, Alexandra↗
NASA NTRS1995

STS-70 Mission Highlights

The highlights of the STS-70 mission are presented in this video. The flight crew consisted of Cmdr. Tom Henricks, Pilot Kevin Kregel, Flight Engineer Nancy Currie, and Mission Specialists Dr. Don Thomas and Dr. Mary Ellen Weber. The mission's primary objective was the deployment of the 7th Tracking Data and Relay Satellite (TDRS), which will provide a communication, tracking, telemetry, data acquisition, and command services space-based network system essential to low Earth orbital spacecraft. Secondary mission objectives included activating and studying the Physiological and Anatomical Rodent Experiment/National Institutes of Health-Rodents (PARE/NIH-R), The Bioreactor Demonstration System (BDS), the Commercial Protein Crystal Growth (CPCG) studies, the Space Tissue Loss/National Institutes of Health-Cells (STL/NIH-C) experiment, the Biological Research in Canisters (BRIC) experiment, Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment-2 (SAREX-2), the Visual Function Tester-4 (VFT-4), the Hand-Held, Earth Oriented, Real-Time, Cooperative, User-Friendly, Location-Targeting and Environmental System (HERCULES), the Microcapsules in Space-B (MIS-B) experiment, the Windows Experiment (WINDEX), the Radiation Monitoring Equipment-3 (RME-3), and the Military Applications of Ship Tracks (MAST) experiment. There was an in-orbit dedication ceremony by the spacecrew and the newly Integrated Mission Control Center to commemorate the Center's integration. The STS-70 mission was the first mission monitored by this new control center. Earth views included the Earth's atmosphere, a sunrise over the Earth's horizon, several views of various land masses, some B/W lightning shots, some cloud cover, and a tropical storm.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

SCOS 2: An object oriented software development approach

The Spacecraft Control and Operations System 2 (SCOS 2), is intended to provide the generic mission control system infrastructure for future ESA missions. It represents a bold step forward in order to take advantage of state-of-the-art technology and current practices in the area of software engineering. Key features include: (1) use of object oriented analysis and design techniques; (2) use of UNIX, C++ and a distributed architecture as the enabling implementation technology; (3) goal of re-use for development, maintenance and mission specific software implementation; and (4) introduction of the concept of a spacecraft control model. This paper touches upon some of the traditional beliefs surrounding Object Oriented development and describes their relevance to SCOS 2. It gives rationale for why particular approaches were adopted and others not, and describes the impact of these decisions. The development approach followed is discussed, highlighting the evolutionary nature of the overall process and the iterative nature of the various tasks carried out. The emphasis of this paper is on the process of the development with the following being covered: (1) the three phases of the SCOS 2 project - prototyping & analysis, design & implementation and configuration / delivery of mission specific systems; (2) the close cooperation and continual interaction with the users during the development; (3) the management approach - the split between client staff, industry and some of the required project management activities; (4) the lifecycle adopted being an enhancement of the ESA PSS-05 standard with SCOS 2 specific activities and approaches defined; and (5) an examination of some of the difficulties encountered and the solutions adopted. Finally, the lessons learned from the SCOS 2 experience are highlighted, identifying those issues to be used as feedback into future developments of this nature. This paper does not intend to describe the finished product and its operation, but focusing on the journey to arrive there, concentrating therefore on the process and not the products of the SCOS 2 software development.

Symonds, Martin↗
NASA NTRS1993

Training augmentation device for the Air Force satellite Control Network

From the 1960's and into the early 1980's satellite operations and control were conducted by Air Force Systems Command (AFSC), now Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), out of the Satellite Control Facility at Onizuka AFB, CA. AFSC was responsible for acquiring satellite command and control systems and conducting routine satellite operations. The daily operations, consisting of satellite health and status contacts and station keeping activities, were performed for AFSC by a Mission Control Team (MCT) staffed by civilian contractors who were responsible for providing their own technically 'qualified' personnel as satellite operators. An MCT consists of five positions: mission planner, ground controller, planner analyst, orbit analyst, and ranger controller. Most of the training consisted of On-the-Job-Training (OJT) with junior personnel apprenticed to senior personnel until they could demonstrate job proficiency. With most of the satellite operators having 15 to 25 years of experience, there was minimal risk to the mission. In the mid 1980's Air Force Space Command (AFSPACOM) assumed operational responsibility for a newly established control node at Falcon AFB (FAFB) in CO. The satellites and ground system program offices (SPO's) are organized under AFSC's Space and Missiles Systems Center (SMC) to function as a systems engineering and acquisition agency for AFSPACECOM. The collection of the satellite control nodes, ground tracking stations, computer processing equipment, and connecting communications links is referred to as the Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN).

Shoates, Keith B.↗
NASA NTRS2001

STS-99 Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Stability and Control

The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) flew aboard Space Shuttle Endeavor February 2000 and used interferometry to map 80% of the Earth's landmass. SRTM employed a 200-foot deployable mast structure to extend a second antenna away from the main antenna located in the Shuttle payload bay. Mapping requirements demanded precision pointing and orbital trajectories from the Shuttle on-orbit Flight Control System (PCS). Mast structural dynamics interaction with the FCS impacted stability and performance of the autopilot for attitude maneuvers and pointing during mapping operations. A damper system added to ensure that mast tip motion remained with in the limits of the outboard antenna tracking system while mapping also helped to mitigate structural dynamic interaction with the FCS autopilot. Late changes made to the payload damper system, which actually failed on-orbit, required a redesign and verification of the FCS autopilot filtering schemes necessary to ensure rotational control stability. In-flight measurements using three sensors were used to validate models and gauge the accuracy and robustness of the pre-mission notch filter design.

Hamelin, Jennifer L.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Monitoring real-time navigation processes using the automated reasoning tool (ART)

An expert system is described for monitoring and controlling navigation processes in real-time. The ART-based system features data-driven computation, accommodation of synchronous and asynchronous data, temporal modeling for individual time intervals and chains of time intervals, and hypothetical reasoning capabilities that consider alternative interpretations of the state of navigation processes. The concept is illustrated in terms of the NAVEX system for monitoring and controlling the high speed ground navigation console for Mission Control at Johnson Space Center. The reasoning processes are outlined, including techniques used to consider alternative data interpretations. Installation of the system has permitted using a single operator, instead of three, to monitor the ascent and entry phases of a Shuttle mission.

Maletz, M. C.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Remote Support of ISS Payload Operations During the COVID19 Pandemic

As part of the Human Health and Performance Contract (HHPC) with the NASA Johnson Space Center, the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Research Operations and Integration (ROI) element conducts the planning, implementation, and closing of human research operations on-board the International Space Station (ISS). These operations are supported out of the Telescience Support Center (TSC) located in the Mission Control Center at Houston’s Johnson Space Center (MCC-H). HRP ROI has an Emergency Response Plan in place to allow for remote operations to be completed in the case of inclement weather or other natural disaster; however, nominally, the remote support is only expected to last one to two weeks. In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, HRP ROI was challenged to complete a quick transition to supporting on-orbit operations remotely and distanced for an indefinite amount of time. This shift in ground support required close collaboration with various external groups as well as the implementation or adaptation of various technologies and tools to ensure no loss of science data. Operational adjustments were put into place for ground commanding, telemetry monitoring, personnel staffing and private and public audio and video with the ISS. Adjustments were also put in place for communication and collaboration with MCC-H, the Payload Operation and Integration Center (POIC) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), as well as between the various HRP ROI console team members spread across Houston, TX. The ability to successfully support a variety of on-orbit operations from any remote location is more in demand as the commercialization of low Earth orbit is expanding.

Operations↗
NASA NTRS2019

Inserting New Technologies into Human-Computer Interfaces for Future Lunar and Mars Missions

Plans call for human cislunar operations and lunar surface access, to prepare for eventual Mars missions. NASA will also develop new opportunities in lunar orbit that provide the foundation and act as a gateway for human exploration deeper into the solar system. Current human spaceflight is complex and requires as many as fifty people to support the International Space Station (ISS) Mission Control Center (MCC) in Houston, Texas. These flight controllers in the front and back rooms of the MCC, serve as an extra pair of eyes overseeing the numerous station systems. Deep space missions - to the moon, Mars, and beyond - will be more complex and place challenging mission constraints on the crew. As the round-trip communication delays increase in deep space exploration, more on-board systems autonomy and functionality will be needed to maintain and control the vehicle. These mission constraints will change the Earth-based ground control approach and will demand efficient and effective human-computer interfaces (HCI) to control a highly complex vehicle or habitat system. All of this necessitates a different approach to designing and developing spacecraft and habitats. In the beginning of new human spaceflight programs, focus is typically on launch vehicle and uncrewed spacecraft design and development. The reasoning behind this focus to enable flight testing of an integrated launch vehicle and spacecraft system to ensure it will be safe enough to allow humans on board. This is an essential process for new spacecraft, however, the practical effect is a lack of funding for the spacecraft’s human interfaces development. It can be many years before the human interface development begins, putting it late in the spacecraft lifecycle, when almost all other spacecraft systems and subsystems are already in place. This forces the usage of existing and proven technologies for the HCI interfaces. We posit that putting the human first in a spacecraft design process will yield a more effective spacecraft for exploration and long duration missions. NASA Human Research Program (HRP) has identified inadequate HCI as a risk for future missions. New tools and procedures to aid the crew in operating a complex spacecraft will be required. This paper discusses ongoing activities in the development of the next generation HCI components and systems, and a new approach toward human interfaces for spacecraft.

Salazar, George A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Neural Net Safety Monitor Design

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) has been conducting flight-test research using an F-15 aircraft (figure 1). This aircraft has been specially modified to interface a neural net (NN) controller as part of a single-string Airborne Research Test System (ARTS) computer with the existing quad-redundant flight control system (FCC) shown in figure 2. The NN commands are passed to FCC channels 2 and 4 and are cross channel data linked (CCDL) to the other computers as shown. Numerous types of fault-detection monitors exist in the FCC when the NN mode is engaged; these monitors would cause an automatic disengagement of the NN in the event of a triggering fault. Unfortunately, these monitors still may not prevent a possible NN hard-over command from coming through to the control laws. Therefore, an additional and unique safety monitor was designed for a single-string source that allows authority at maximum actuator rates but protects the pilot and structural loads against excessive g-limits in the case of a NN hard-over command input. This additional monitor resides in the FCCs and is executed before the control laws are computed. This presentation describes a floating limiter (FL) concept1 that was developed and successfully test-flown for this program (figure 3). The FL computes the rate of change of the NN commands that are input to the FCC from the ARTS. A window is created with upper and lower boundaries, which is constantly floating and trying to stay centered as the NN command rates are changing. The limiter works by only allowing the window to move at a much slower rate than those of the NN commands. Anywhere within the window, however, full rates are allowed. If a rate persists in one direction, it will eventually hit the boundary and be rate-limited to the floating limiter rate. When this happens, a persistent counter begins and after a limit is reached, a NN disengage command is generated. The tunable metrics for the FL are (1) window size, (2) drift rate, and (3) persistence counter. Ultimate range limits are also included in case the NN command should drift slowly to a limit value that would cause the FL to be defeated. The FL has proven to work as intended. Both high-g transients and excessive structural loads are controlled with NN hard-over commands. This presentation discusses the FL design features and presents test cases. Simulation runs are included to illustrate the dramatic improvement made to the control of NN hard-over effects. A mission control room display from a flight playback is presented to illustrate the neural net fault display representation. The FL is very adaptable to various requirements and is independent of flight condition. It should be considered as a cost-effective safety monitor to control single-string inputs in general.

Larson, Richard R.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Implementation of an Adaptive Controller System from Concept to Flight Test

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) has been conducting flight-test research using an F-15 aircraft (figure 1). This aircraft has been specially modified to interface a neural net (NN) controller as part of a single-string Airborne Research Test System (ARTS) computer with the existing quad-redundant flight control system (FCC) shown in figure 2. The NN commands are passed to FCC channels 2 and 4 and are cross channel data linked (CCDL) to the other computers as shown. Numerous types of fault-detection monitors exist in the FCC when the NN mode is engaged; these monitors would cause an automatic disengagement of the NN in the event of a triggering fault. Unfortunately, these monitors still may not prevent a possible NN hard-over command from coming through to the control laws. Therefore, an additional and unique safety monitor was designed for a single-string source that allows authority at maximum actuator rates but protects the pilot and structural loads against excessive g-limits in the case of a NN hard-over command input. This additional monitor resides in the FCCs and is executed before the control laws are computed. This presentation describes a "floating limiter" (FL) concept that was developed and successfully test-flown for this program (figure 3). The FL computes the rate of change of the NN commands that are input to the FCC from the ARTS. A window is created with upper and lower boundaries, which is constantly "floating" and trying to stay centered as the NN command rates are changing. The limiter works by only allowing the window to move at a much slower rate than those of the NN commands. Anywhere within the window, however, full rates are allowed. If a rate persists in one direction, it will eventually "hit" the boundary and be rate-limited to the floating limiter rate. When this happens, a persistent counter begins and after a limit is reached, a NN disengage command is generated. The tunable metrics for the FL are (1) window size, (2) drift rate, and (3) persistence counter. Ultimate range limits are also included in case the NN command should drift slowly to a limit value that would cause the FL to be defeated. The FL has proven to work as intended. Both high-g transients and excessive structural loads are controlled with NN hard-over commands. This presentation discusses the FL design features and presents test cases. Simulation runs are included to illustrate the dramatic improvement made to the control of NN hard-over effects. A mission control room display from a flight playback is presented to illustrate the neural net fault display representation. The FL is very adaptable to various requirements and is independent of flight condition. It should be considered as a cost-effective safety monitor to control single-string inputs in general.

Larson, Richard R.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Concept of Operations for a Prospective "Proving Ground" in the Lunar Vicinity

NASA is studying conceptual architectures for a "Proving Ground" near the Moon or in high lunar orbit to conduct human space exploration missions that bridge the gap between today's operations with the International Space Station (ISS) and future human exploration of Mars beginning in the 2030s. This paper describes the framework of a concept of operations ("Conops") for candidate activities in the Proving Ground. The Conops discusses broad goals that the Proving Ground might address, such as participation from commercial entities, support for human landings on the Moon, use of mature technologies, and growth of capability through a steady cadence of increasingly ambitious piloted missions. Additional Proving Ground objectives are outlined in a companion paper. Key elements in the Conops include the Orion spacecraft (with mission kits for docking and other specialized operations) and the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket. Potential additions include a new space suit, commercial launch vehicles and logistics carriers, Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) stages to move elements between different orbits and eventually take them on excursions to deep space, a core module with multiple docking ports, a habitation block, and robotic and piloted lunar landers. The landers might include reusable ascent modules which could remain docked to in-space elements between lunar sorties. A module providing advanced regenerative life support functions could launch to the ISS, and later move to the Proving Ground. The architecture will include infrastructure for launch preparation, communication, mission control, and range safety. The Conops describes notional missions chosen to guide the design of the architecture and its elements. One such mission might be the delivery of a approximately 10-t Transit Habitat element, comanifested with Orion on a Block 1B SLS launcher, to the Proving Ground. In another mission, the architecture might participate in direct human exploration of an asteroidal boulder brought to high lunar orbit by the Asteroid Redirect Mission. The Proving Ground stack could serve as a staging point and tele-operation center for robotic and piloted Moon landings. With the addition of a SEP stage, the architecture could support months-long excursions within and beyond the Earth's sphere of influence, possibly culminating in a year-long mission to land humans on a near-Earth asteroid. In the last case, after returning to near-lunar space, two of the asteroid explorers could join two crewmembers freshly arrived from Earth for a Moon landing, helping to quantify the risk of landing deconditioned crews on Mars. In a conceptual mission particularly stressing to system design, Proving Ground elements could transit to Mars orbit. Other possible design-driving operations include relocation of the stack with no crew on board, the unpiloted journey of the advanced life support module from ISS to the lunar vicinity, excursions to other destinations in near-Earth space, and additional support for Mars exploration in conjunction with the Evolvable Mars Campaign. The Proving Ground Conops concludes with a discussion of aborts and contingency operations

Love, Stanley G.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Risk Trade-Space Analysis for Safe Human Expeditions to Mars

We assessed the integrated safety, health, and performance risk to crews on long-duration missions, specifically to Mars. Using a systems approach rather than one focused on individual countermeasures, we examined the trade space around several such risks to identify high-potential risk mitigation strategies and characterize aspects of Mars mission architectures that could lower aggregated risk. Current Mars Design Reference missions would require durations well over two years and would increase crew exposure to radiation and microgravity well beyond ISS levels, likely resulting in significantly reduced performance beyond our current capability to mitigate that could jeopardize mission success. A “fast Mars transit” round-trip mission concept was studied using an innovative flight dynamics approach to quantify the minimum total mission energy required for a Mars transit with total mission duration less than 400 days. This approach holds promise for sending humans to Mars and returning them safely with acceptable, potentially mitigatable, exposure to microgravity and radiation using current or near-term technologies. The fast transit concept would also result in fewer time-driven vehicle failures and enable sustainable deployment of humans and infrastructure to Mars on a regular cadence, allowing steady exploration and colonization of Mars. Finally, we conclude that reliance on the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mission operations paradigm – i.e., one of near-complete real-time dependence on experts at Mission Control to manage the combined state of the mission, vehicle, and crew – is high risk given the communication delays and limited resupply of any Mars mission, and this risk is not eliminated by the shorter missions durations of fast transit scenarios. Based on historical trends, it is highly likely that the crew will face a high-consequence problem of uncertain origin during Mars transit when ground support will be greatly reduced. While it may be possible to reduce anomaly rates through improved reliability analysis and testing, and to reduce anomaly impacts through added robustness, such mitigations address only known failure modes and known uncertainties. Therefore, a radical shift in the Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA) that defines the operational paradigm, systems design, and human-systems interactions is required to improve the risk posture to an acceptable level regardless of mission duration.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C. Dempsey↗