Results for “software” — Page 17

NASA NTRS2006

Software Engineering Improvement Plan

In performance of this task order, bd Systems personnel provided support to the Flight Software Branch and the Software Working Group through multiple tasks related to software engineering improvement and to activities of the independent Technical Authority (iTA) Discipline Technical Warrant Holder (DTWH) for software engineering. To ensure that the products, comments, and recommendations complied with customer requirements and the statement of work, bd Systems personnel maintained close coordination with the customer. These personnel performed work in areas such as update of agency requirements and directives database, software effort estimation, software problem reports, a web-based process asset library, miscellaneous documentation review, software system requirements, issue tracking software survey, systems engineering NPR, and project-related reviews. This report contains a summary of the work performed and the accomplishments in each of these areas.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2006

Software Defined Radio Standard Architecture and its Application to NASA Space Missions

A software defined radio (SDR) architecture used in space-based platforms proposes to standardize certain aspects of radio development such as interface definitions, functional control and execution, and application software and firmware development. NASA has charted a team to develop an open software defined radio hardware and software architecture to support NASA missions and determine the viability of an Agency-wide Standard. A draft concept of the proposed standard has been released and discussed among organizations in the SDR community. Appropriate leveraging of the JTRS SCA, OMG's SWRadio Architecture and other aspects are considered. A standard radio architecture offers potential value by employing common waveform software instantiation, operation, testing and software maintenance. While software defined radios offer greater flexibility, they also poses challenges to the radio development for the space environment in terms of size, mass and power consumption and available technology. An SDR architecture for space must recognize and address the constraints of space flight hardware, and systems along with flight heritage and culture. NASA is actively participating in the development of technology and standards related to software defined radios. As NASA considers a standard radio architecture for space communications, input and coordination from government agencies, the industry, academia, and standards bodies is key to a successful architecture. The unique aspects of space require thorough investigation of relevant terrestrial technologies properly adapted to space. The talk will describe NASA's current effort to investigate SDR applications to space missions and a brief overview of a candidate architecture under consideration for space based platforms.

Andro, Monty↗

NASA NTRS2008

Open Architecture Standard for NASA's Software-Defined Space Telecommunications Radio Systems

NASA is developing an architecture standard for software-defined radios used in space- and ground-based platforms to enable commonality among radio developments to enhance capability and services while reducing mission and programmatic risk. Transceivers (or transponders) with functionality primarily defined in software (e.g., firmware) have the ability to change their functional behavior through software alone. This radio architecture standard offers value by employing common waveform software interfaces, method of instantiation, operation, and testing among different compliant hardware and software products. These common interfaces within the architecture abstract application software from the underlying hardware to enable technology insertion independently at either the software or hardware layer. This paper presents the initial Space Telecommunications Radio System (STRS) Architecture for NASA missions to provide the desired software abstraction and flexibility while minimizing the resources necessary to support the architecture.

Reinhart, Richard C.↗

NASA NTRS2009

A Reference Model for Software and System Inspections. White Paper

Software Quality Assurance (SQA) is an important component of the software development process. SQA processes provide assurance that the software products and processes in the project life cycle conform to their specified requirements by planning, enacting, and performing a set of activities to provide adequate confidence that quality is being built into the software. Typical techniques include: (1) Testing (2) Simulation (3) Model checking (4) Symbolic execution (5) Management reviews (6) Technical reviews (7) Inspections (8) Walk-throughs (9) Audits (10) Analysis (complexity analysis, control flow analysis, algorithmic analysis) (11) Formal method Our work over the last few years has resulted in substantial knowledge about SQA techniques, especially the areas of technical reviews and inspections. But can we apply the same QA techniques to the system development process? If yes, what kind of tailoring do we need before applying them in the system engineering context? If not, what types of QA techniques are actually used at system level? And, is there any room for improvement.) After a brief examination of the system engineering literature (especially focused on NASA and DoD guidance) we found that: (1) System and software development process interact with each other at different phases through development life cycle (2) Reviews are emphasized in both system and software development. (Figl.3). For some reviews (e.g. SRR, PDR, CDR), there are both system versions and software versions. (3) Analysis techniques are emphasized (e.g. Fault Tree Analysis, Preliminary Hazard Analysis) and some details are given about how to apply them. (4) Reviews are expected to use the outputs of the analysis techniques. In other words, these particular analyses are usually conducted in preparation for (before) reviews. The goal of our work is to explore the interaction between the Quality Assurance (QA) techniques at the system level and the software level.

He, Lulu↗

NASA NTRS2010

Model for Simulating a Spiral Software-Development Process

A discrete-event simulation model, and a computer program that implements the model, have been developed as means of analyzing a spiral software-development process. This model can be tailored to specific development environments for use by software project managers in making quantitative cases for deciding among different software-development processes, courses of action, and cost estimates. A spiral process can be contrasted with a waterfall process, which is a traditional process that consists of a sequence of activities that include analysis of requirements, design, coding, testing, and support. A spiral process is an iterative process that can be regarded as a repeating modified waterfall process. Each iteration includes assessment of risk, analysis of requirements, design, coding, testing, delivery, and evaluation. A key difference between a spiral and a waterfall process is that a spiral process can accommodate changes in requirements at each iteration, whereas in a waterfall process, requirements are considered to be fixed from the beginning and, therefore, a waterfall process is not flexible enough for some projects, especially those in which requirements are not known at the beginning or may change during development. For a given project, a spiral process may cost more and take more time than does a waterfall process, but may better satisfy a customer's expectations and needs. Models for simulating various waterfall processes have been developed previously, but until now, there have been no models for simulating spiral processes. The present spiral-process-simulating model and the software that implements it were developed by extending a discrete-event simulation process model of the IEEE 12207 Software Development Process, which was built using commercially available software known as the Process Analysis Tradeoff Tool (PATT). Typical inputs to PATT models include industry-average values of product size (expressed as number of lines of code), productivity (number of lines of code per hour), and number of defects per source line of code. The user provides the number of resources, the overall percent of effort that should be allocated to each process step, and the number of desired staff members for each step. The output of PATT includes the size of the product, a measure of effort, a measure of rework effort, the duration of the entire process, and the numbers of injected, detected, and corrected defects as well as a number of other interesting features. In the development of the present model, steps were added to the IEEE 12207 waterfall process, and this model and its implementing software were made to run repeatedly through the sequence of steps, each repetition representing an iteration in a spiral process. Because the IEEE 12207 model is founded on a waterfall paradigm, it enables direct comparison of spiral and waterfall processes. The model can be used throughout a software-development project to analyze the project as more information becomes available. For instance, data from early iterations can be used as inputs to the model, and the model can be used to estimate the time and cost of carrying the project to completion.

Mizell, Carolyn↗

NASA NTRS2011

Software Development Standard Processes (SDSP)

A JPL-created set of standard processes is to be used throughout the lifecycle of software development. These SDSPs cover a range of activities, from management and engineering activities, to assurance and support activities. These processes must be applied to software tasks per a prescribed set of procedures. JPL s Software Quality Improvement Project is currently working at the behest of the JPL Software Process Owner to ensure that all applicable software tasks follow these procedures. The SDSPs are captured as a set of 22 standards in JPL s software process domain. They were developed in-house at JPL by a number of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) residing primarily within the Engineering and Science Directorate, but also from the Business Operations Directorate and Safety and Mission Success Directorate. These practices include not only currently performed best practices, but also JPL-desired future practices in key thrust areas like software architecting and software reuse analysis. Additionally, these SDSPs conform to many standards and requirements to which JPL projects are beholden.

Lavin, Milton L.↗

NASA NTRS2003

CLARAty Functional-Layer Software

Functional-layer software for the Coupled Layer Architecture for Robotics Autonomy (CLARAty) is being developed. [CLARAty was described in Coupled-Layer Architecture for Advanced Software for Robots (NPO-21218), NASA Tech Briefs, Vol. 26, No. 12 (December 2002), page 48. To recapitulate: CLARAty was proposed to improve the modularity of robotic software while tightening the coupling between planning/execution and control subsystems. Whereas prior robotic software architectures have typically contained three levels, the CLARAty architecture contains two layers: a decision layer and a functional layer.] Just as an operating system provides abstraction from computational hardware, the CLARAty functional-layer software provides for abstraction for the different robotic systems. The functional-layer software establishes interrelated, object-oriented hierarchies that contain active and passive objects that represent the different levels of system abstrations and components. The functional-layer software is decomposed into a set of reusable core components and a set of extended components that adapt the reusable set to specific hardware implementations. The reusable components (a) provide behavior and interface definitions and implementations of basic functionality, (b) provide local executive capabilities, (c) manage local resources, and (d) support state and resource queries by the decision layer. Software for robotic systems can be built by use of these components.

Nesnas, Issa↗

NASA NTRS2012

Software to Control and Monitor Gas Streams

This software package interfaces with various gas stream devices such as pressure transducers, flow meters, flow controllers, valves, and analyzers such as a mass spectrometer. The software provides excellent user interfacing with various windows that provide time-domain graphs, valve state buttons, priority- colored messages, and warning icons. The user can configure the software to save as much or as little data as needed to a comma-delimited file. The software also includes an intuitive scripting language for automated processing. The configuration allows for the assignment of measured values or calibration so that raw signals can be viewed as usable pressures, flows, or concentrations in real time. The software is based on those used in two safety systems for shuttle processing and one volcanic gas analysis system. Mass analyzers typically have very unique applications and vary from job to job. As such, software available on the market is usually inadequate or targeted on a specific application (such as EPA methods). The goal was to develop powerful software that could be used with prototype systems. The key problem was to generalize the software to be easily and quickly reconfigurable. At Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the prior art consists of two primary methods. The first method was to utilize Lab- VIEW and a commercial data acquisition system. This method required rewriting code for each different application and only provided raw data. To obtain data in engineering units, manual calculations were required. The second method was to utilize one of the embedded computer systems developed for another system. This second method had the benefit of providing data in engineering units, but was limited in the number of control parameters.

Arkin, C.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Validation and Verification of LADEE Models and Software

The Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission will orbit the moon in order to measure the density, composition and time variability of the lunar dust environment. The ground-side and onboard flight software for the mission is being developed using a Model-Based Software methodology. In this technique, models of the spacecraft and flight software are developed in a graphical dynamics modeling package. Flight Software requirements are prototyped and refined using the simulated models. After the model is shown to work as desired in this simulation framework, C-code software is automatically generated from the models. The generated software is then tested in real time Processor-in-the-Loop and Hardware-in-the-Loop test beds. Travelling Road Show test beds were used for early integration tests with payloads and other subsystems. Traditional techniques for verifying computational sciences models are used to characterize the spacecraft simulation. A lightweight set of formal methods analysis, static analysis, formal inspection and code coverage analyses are utilized to further reduce defects in the onboard flight software artifacts. These techniques are applied early and often in the development process, iteratively increasing the capabilities of the software and the fidelity of the vehicle models and test beds.

Gundy-Burlet, Karen↗

NASA NTRS2014

Software Engineering for Human Spaceflight

The Spacecraft Software Engineering Branch of NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) provides world‐class products, leadership, and technical expertise in software engineering, processes, technology, and systems management for human spaceflight. The branch contributes to major NASA programs (e.g. ISS, MPCV/Orion) with in‐house software development and prime contractor oversight, and maintains the JSC Engineering Directorate CMMI rating for flight software development. Software engineering teams work with hardware developers, mission planners, and system operators to integrate flight vehicles, habitats, robotics, and other spacecraft elements. They seek to infuse automation and autonomy into missions, and apply new technologies to flight processor and computational architectures. This presentation will provide an overview of key software‐related projects, software methodologies and tools, and technology pursuits of interest to the JSC Spacecraft Software Engineering Branch.

Fredrickson, Steven E.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Safety Characteristics in System Application of Software for Human Rated Exploration Missions for the 8th IAASS Conference

NASA and its industry and international partners are embarking on a bold and inspiring development effort to design and build an exploration class space system. The space system is made up of the Orion system, the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) system. All are highly coupled together and dependent on each other for the combined safety of the space system. A key area of system safety focus needs to be in the ground and flight application software system (GFAS). In the development, certification and operations of GFAS, there are a series of safety characteristics that define the approach to ensure mission success. This paper will explore and examine the safety characteristics of the GFAS development. The GFAS system integrates the flight software packages of the Orion and SLS with the ground systems and launch countdown sequencers through the 'agile' software development process. A unique approach is needed to develop the GFAS project capabilities within this agile process. NASA has defined the software development process through a set of standards. The standards were written during the infancy of the so-called industry 'agile development' movement and must be tailored to adapt to the highly integrated environment of human exploration systems. Safety of the space systems and the eventual crew on board is paramount during the preparation of the exploration flight systems. A series of software safety characteristics have been incorporated into the development and certification efforts to ensure readiness for use and compatibility with the space systems. Three underlining factors in the exploration architecture require the GFAS system to be unique in its approach to ensure safety for the space systems, both the flight as well as the ground systems. The first are the missions themselves, which are exploration in nature, and go far beyond the comfort of low Earth orbit operations. The second is the current exploration system will launch only one mission per year even less during its developmental phases. Finally, the third is the partnered approach through the use of many different prime contractors, including commercial and international partners, to design and build the exploration systems. These three factors make the challenges to meet the mission preparations and the safety expectations extremely difficult to implement. As NASA leads a team of partners in the exploration beyond earth's influence, it is a safety imperative that the application software used to test, checkout, prepare and launch the exploration systems put safety of the hardware and mission first. Software safety characteristics are built into the design and development process to enable the human rated systems to begin their missions safely and successfully. Exploration missions beyond Earth are inherently risky, however, with solid safety approaches in both hardware and software, the boldness of these missions can be realized for all on the home planet.

capability↗

NASA NTRS2018

Using the cFS Command and Data Dictionary (CCDD) to Automate Software Development on Habulous

Final paper is attached. The NASA developed Core Flight System (cFS) is a reusable software architecture that has been used on multiple spaceflight missions. By using this framework, missions are able to reuse code from other missions, as well as leverage deployment onto similar computer architectures (i.e. not "reinvent the wheel" on each new mission). The success in the cFS concept can be seen in the large number of projects using cFS at FSW-2018. The Habulous project is an Earth-based testbed, used for hardware and software that may one day be used on a future space habitat unit, with many participating groups from various NASA centers and aerospace organizations around the country. The distributed nature of the various teams mean that defining (and following) an interface definition is critical on the project. Additionally, since various groups use various types of computer hardware (32/64-bit, big/little endian, Linux/VxWorks/Windows) many additional complications exist in interfacing all the various components into a final integrated system. cFS is used on the majority the flight software (FSW) in running in Habulous. But some subsystems have elected to not use cFS, and use a software bridge (called SBN_lib) to interact with the other cFS nodes in Habulous. In order to most efficiently develop the FSW, a central database is used to define and store each message sent by cFS. A Command and Data Dictionary (CDD) is something nearly universal on spacecraft, but as a team we worked to develop the CDD before the SW development was complete, and not treat it like "as built" documentation. To manage the CDD, the cFS Command and Data Dictionary (CCDD) tool was chosen (available from NASA as open source software). The CCDD tool has successfully been used to automate/autocode a large amount of software used on Habulous, as we are hoping to use it to define even more items in the future (time-triggered Ethernet (TTE) network maps, CPU scheduling). Additionally, Habulous has been exploring the use of cFS on wildly heterogeneous CPUs, and how to coordinate all those various machines using/extending the software bus â€“ network (SBN) application in cFS, as well as TTE to coordinate message passing between various synchronized machines. The major topics to be covered in the presentation are: (1) Updating to the CCSDS_v2 extended headers (and using CPU# as subsystem ID). (2) Managing all the message identification numbers for each cFS message sent/received on any of the various CPUs. (3) Using the CCDD information to automatically generate the C-header files that define the structure for all software bus (SB) commands/telemetry messages. (4) Using the CCDD to automatically generate XML Telemetry and Command Exchange (XTCE) files, which streams display production/integration/testing in a web based display architecture (5) Extending/customizing SBN to pass messages among computers on multiple networks. (6) Using "Protobetter" inside SBN to manage different endian-ness/architectures. (7) Using SBN_lib to allow non-cFS node to communicate with cFS nodes. (8) Developing TTE network and schedule tables for all the various CPUs to use.

Hirsh, Robert L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗

NASA NTRS2018

Ground Software Technologies – Embracing Change: Mission Drivers and Technology Opportunities to Enable Long Lived Missions

Mission lifecycles have proven to extend well beyond their original design. The benefits to this are countless but introduce challenges in today’s rapidly changing ground infrastructure and software technologies used to enable mission success. What remains constant is the risk posture missions maintain when accepting change and the use of new technologies. Larger missions are ready for change in early lifecycle development but near launch and especially in operations, few continue to evolve beyond what is set in place in phase C. This paper will discuss how the Advance Multi-Mission Operations System (AMMOS) intends to address, three driving missions concerns: Maintaining functionality (hardware/software) for decades, rapidly responding to security vulnerabilities in software, and finally the ability to quickly evolve infrastructure and software changes. These driving concerns are briefly described below: 1. Maintaining functionality (hardware/software) for decades. Hardware updates considerably faster than 10 years ago. Expectations that a system can remain in place for more than 10 years is no longer valid. Expecting to find hardware replacements for a system older than 5 years will increasingly become more and more challenging. How than do missions plan for hardware changes for long lived missions? Principle Objective: Provide abstraction by virtualizing and containerizing software abstract away any hardware dependencies and package up the application lightweight units. 2. Rapidly responding to security vulnerabilities in software. Cost is often the main impediment and largely driven by the revalidation and testing of system that undergo change. In todays, environment security updates are a major diver demanding systems remain up to date. How then do missions accept these changes and avoid large testing efforts? Principle Objective: Help reduce the cost of re-testing by automation of testing, deployment, and compartmentalizing change. 3. Ability to quickly evolve infrastructure and software changes. Responding quickly to change is similar to the second concern in this paper regarding security vulnerabilities. In this case, it address broader concerns of updating software and infrastructure on a more realistic timeline. How do missions stay up to date with the most recent versions of software and allowing for improved functionality? Principle Objective: Use continuous integration techniques at the system level to ensure rapid turnaround. This paper explores each of these concerns in more detail. It focuses the AMMOS’s current plans, challenges and current roadmap.

Giovannoni, Brian J.↗

NASA NTRS2018

F Prime: An Open-Source Framework for Small-Scale Flight Software Systems

Developing ﬂight software for small-scale missions such as CubeSats and SmallSats is challenging. These missions typically have ambitious goals, modest budgets, and tight schedules. To meet these challenges, a good ﬂight software framework is essential. Frameworks can provide an architecture, infrastructure, tools, and reusable software components, all of which can help developers deliver their code on time and on budget. In this paper we present F Prime, a free, open-source ﬂight software framework developed at JPL and tailored to small-scale systems such as CubeSats, SmallSats, and instruments. F Prime comprises several elements: (1) an architecture that decomposes ﬂight software into discrete components with well-deﬁned interfaces; (2) a C++ framework that provides core capabilities such as message queues and threads; (3) tools for specifying components and connections and automatically generating code; (4) a growing collection of ready-to-use components; and (5) tools for testing ﬂight software at the unit and integration levels.We describe the F Prime framework and tools and present our experience using them. We describe several enhancements to the framework currently underway in the areas of software design, software veriﬁcation, and ground data systems for testing.

Levison, Jeffrey W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C. Dempsey↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Crewed Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗

NASA NTRS2022

Flight Software Dictionary Development for the Mars2020 Rover

The Mars2020 project, developed and operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), successfully landed the Perseverance rover and its flying companion Ingenuity on the surface of Mars on February 18th 2021. Perseverance combines heritage and cutting-edge flight software and hardware to accomplish crucial mission requirements related to Martian surface sampling. The design, development, and operation of NASA’s large strategic science missions require the ability to communicate spacecraft capabilities to hundreds of engineers across multiple disciplines. The interaction between flight and ground software development, Verification and Validation (V&V), Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations (ATLO), and management each demand quick understanding of unique slices of information for each discipline. This information includes the current capabilities of the flight system as well as future capabilities and their status as they are developed and tested. Despite the fundamental and critical nature of this information, the flight software dictionaries used to track it are a stumbling block for many projects. These dictionaries provide the cornerstone for the interpretation of data sent from the spacecraft, allowing for quick comprehension by engineers on the ground. During both spacecraft development and operations, flight software dictionary management includes significant challenges due to the large number of interfacing systems and the subtle yet distinct needs of each.The engineering of flight software dictionaries for Mars2020 had numerous challenges, most-notably: parallel dictionary development to support simultaneous separate flight software build campaigns for each mission phase (cruise and surface), managing requests for operations-enabling information without perturbing the heritage interface with the rover, and the introduction of new tools by the dictionary stakeholders that forced the dictionary team to innovate and redesign the heritage tool chain. These challenges generated guiding principles for the dictionary development effort: emphasize coding best practices and unit testing in the dictionary code development tool chain, use institutionally provided COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) tools whenever possible, and maintain the heritage flight-ground interface all while advancing operations-enabling information via a loosely coupled interface.Throughout development and operations, the Mars2020 dictionary toolchain included IBM DOORS Next Generation, GitHub, Microsoft Excel, Docker, Jenkins, and a significant custom-built Python codebase. Significant interfaces included JPL’s command and control software, heritage flight software team tools and processes, and the many cloud-based ground tools developed for the mission.This paper will discuss the requirements for the Mars2020 dictionary development, the development team’s response to those requirements, lessons learned throughout the process, steps taken towards automated deliveries and continuous integration of stakeholder inputs, potential toolchain improvements for Mars2020, and key takeaways that could be applied to future missions.

Pyrzak, Guy↗