Results for “Process Mission Teams” — Page 19

NASA NTRS2016

Enabling Science and Deep Space Exploration through Space Launch System (LSL) Secondary Payload Opportunities

For the first time in almost 40 years, a NASA human-rated launch vehicle has completed its Critical Design Review (CDR). By reaching this milestone, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft are on the path to launch a new era of deep space exploration. NASA is making investments to expand science and exploration capability of the SLS by developing the capability to deploy small satellites during the trans-lunar phase of the mission trajectory. Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), currently planned for launch no earlier than July 2018, will be the first mission to carry such payloads on the SLS. The EM-1 launch will include thirteen 6U Cubesat small satellites that will be deployed beyond low earth orbit. By providing an earth-escape trajectory, opportunities are created for advancement of small satellite subsystems, including deep space communications and in-space propulsion. This SLS capability also creates low-cost options for addressing existing Agency strategic knowledge gaps and affordable science missions. A new approach to payload integration and mission assurance is needed to ensure safety of the vehicle, while also maintaining reasonable costs for the small payload developer teams. SLS EM-1 will provide the framework and serve as a test flight, not only for vehicle systems, but also payload accommodations, ground processing, and on-orbit operations. Through developing the requirements and integration processes for EM-1, NASA is outlining the framework for the evolved configuration of secondary payloads on SLS Block upgrades. The lessons learned from the EM-1 mission will be applied to processes and products developed for future block upgrades. In the heavy-lift configuration of SLS, payload accommodations will increase for secondary opportunities including small satellites larger than the traditional Cubesat class payload. The payload mission concept of operations, proposed payload capacity of SLS, and the payload requirements for launch and deployment will be described to provide potential payload users an understanding of this unique exploration capability.

Singer, Jody↗

NASA NTRS2016

Secondary Payload Opportunities on NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) Enable Science and Deep Space Exploration

For the first time in almost 40 years, a NASA human-rated launch vehicle has completed its Critical Design Review (CDR). With this milestone, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft are on the path to launch a new era of deep space exploration. This first launch of SLS and the Orion Spacecraft is planned no later than November 2018 and will fly along a trans-lunar trajectory, testing the performance of the SLS and Orion systems for future missions. NASA is making investments to expand the science and exploration capability of the SLS by developing the capability to deploy small satellites during the trans-lunar phase of the mission trajectory. Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) will include thirteen 6U Cubesat small satellites to be deployed beyond low earth orbit. By providing an earth-escape trajectory, opportunities are created for the advancement of small satellite subsystems, including deep space communications and in-space propulsion. This SLS capability also creates low-cost options for addressing existing Agency strategic knowledge gaps and affordable science missions. A new approach to payload integration and mission assurance is needed to ensure safety of the vehicle, while also maintaining reasonable costs for the small payload developer teams. SLS EM-1 will provide the framework and serve as a test flight, not only for vehicle systems, but also payload accommodations, ground processing, and on-orbit operations. Through developing the requirements and integration processes for EM-1, NASA is outlining the framework for the evolved configuration of secondary payloads on SLS Block upgrades. The lessons learned from the EM-1 mission will be applied to processes and products developed for future block upgrades. In the heavy-lift configuration of SLS, payload accommodations will increase for secondary opportunities including small satellites larger than the traditional Cubesat class payload. The payload mission concept of operations, proposed payload capacity of SLS, and the payload requirements for launch and deployment will be described to provide potential payload users an understanding of this unique exploration capability.

Singer, Jody↗

NASA NTRS2012

Onboard Science and Applications Algorithm for Hyperspectral Data Reduction

An onboard processing mission concept is under development for a possible Direct Broadcast capability for the HyspIRI mission, a Hyperspectral remote sensing mission under consideration for launch in the next decade. The concept would intelligently spectrally and spatially subsample the data as well as generate science products onboard to enable return of key rapid response science and applications information despite limited downlink bandwidth. This rapid data delivery concept focuses on wildfires and volcanoes as primary applications, but also has applications to vegetation, coastal flooding, dust, and snow/ice applications. Operationally, the HyspIRI team would define a set of spatial regions of interest where specific algorithms would be executed. For example, known coastal areas would have certain products or bands downlinked, ocean areas might have other bands downlinked, and during fire seasons other areas would be processed for active fire detections. Ground operations would automatically generate the mission plans specifying the highest priority tasks executable within onboard computation, setup, and data downlink constraints. The spectral bands of the TIR (thermal infrared) instrument can accurately detect the thermal signature of fires and send down alerts, as well as the thermal and VSWIR (visible to short-wave infrared) data corresponding to the active fires. Active volcanism also produces a distinctive thermal signature that can be detected onboard to enable spatial subsampling. Onboard algorithms and ground-based algorithms suitable for onboard deployment are mature. On HyspIRI, the algorithm would perform a table-driven temperature inversion from several spectral TIR bands, and then trigger downlink of the entire spectrum for each of the hot pixels identified. Ocean and coastal applications include sea surface temperature (using a small spectral subset of TIR data, but requiring considerable ancillary data), and ocean color applications to track biological activity such as harmful algal blooms. Measuring surface water extent to track flooding is another rapid response product leveraging VSWIR spectral information.

Chien, Steve A.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Green Liquid Monopropellant Thruster

Physical Sciences, Inc. (PSI), and Orbital Technologies Corporation (ORBITEC) are developing a unique chemical propulsion system for next-generation NASA science spacecraft and missions. The system is compact, lightweight, and can operate with high reliability over extended periods of time and under a wide range of thermal environments. The system uses a new storable, low-toxicity liquid monopropellant as its working fluid. In Phase I, the team demonstrated experimentally the critical ignition and combustion processes for the propellant and used the data to develop thruster design concepts. In Phase II, the team developed and demonstrated in the laboratory a proof-of-concept prototype thruster. A Phase III project is envisioned to develop a full-scale protoflight propulsion system applicable to a class of NASA missions.

Joshi, Prakash B.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Task Load Management in Earth Independent Medical Operations

BACKGROUND: Medical care in spaceflight carries a high task load and can easily overwhelm a small crew. Present day operations in low Earth orbit (LEO) offload most medical tasks to ground teams in mission control. This team includes dozens of flight surgeons, specialists, and engineers and supports the on-orbit crew in monitoring environmental systems, tracking medications, guiding procedures, providing expert advice, and many other tasks. However, the physical limitations of the speed of light and technical limitations of bandwidth, channel capacity, and signal processing mean that missions beyond LEO cannot rely on this level of telemedical support. The further we travel from Earth the more these tasks will fall on the shoulders of the crew and the greater the risk of task saturation to the wellbeing of the crew and the success of the mission. Exploration class space crews will need progressively more robust systems for managing task load as they progress further out in space. OVERVIEW: Medical task management systems will need to assist with two broad categories of tasks; cognitively intensive tasks and procedure execution tasks. In both cases the goal is for the systems to operate in the background with minimal human-in-the-loop intervention. To accomplish this such systems will need to be designed with careful consideration for human factors and human systems integration to maximize efficiency, minimize alarm fatigue, and avoid inadvertently increasing task loads. Finally, the key domains of space medicine tasking can be used to map present day and near future technologies to the areas where they are best suited to support and identify gaps which can be targeted for research and development. DISCUSSION: Task load is a major challenge for Earth Independent Medical Operations to overcome. It will require careful coordination between experts in a variety of fields paying attention to human factors and human systems integration as well as technical and medical expertise. If done well medical task management systems can handle many of the tasks currently run by humans in mission control and enable human crews to maintain terrestrial standards of care in the extraterrestrial environment.

Dana Levin↗

NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance Integration - the Future of Safe Deep Space Human Exploration

As a foundational element of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis Campaign, the Gateway is an incrementally built cislunar spacecraft that will serve as a platform for deep space human exploration, science, and technology demonstration. The Gateway will be a unifying catalyst for international partners around the world to establish sustained deep space scientific investigations, lunar surface access, and missions to Mars. As human exploration moves farther away from Earth, spacecraft designs must prioritize and optimize mass and volume allocations, while minimizing human and spacecraft risk. To accomplish this objective, the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance functions develop, implement, and ensure compliance with requirements, in concert with the accurate characterization and transparent communication of residual hazard risks, for integrated safety, reliability and maintainability and quality assurance. Safety and Mission Assurance was a key contributor during Gateway program pre-formulation and formulation activities where safety and reliability analysis was embedded in the Gateway Systems Engineering and Integration team. During these early program stages, a preliminary Gateway Integrated Hazard Analysis and Preliminary Gateway Probabilistic Risk Assessment assisted in Gateway architectural and operational definition as part of a risk-informed design process. As the deep space architecture has matured, the integrated Safety and Mission Assurance analyses have matured, new safety review processes have been developed, and requirements have been refined to ensure compliance with integrated safety and mission assurance objectives. The Gateway Program is currently concluding the preliminary design review informed milestone, where the primary objectives included: - Ensured completeness and consistency of the preliminary design, including the meeting of all requirements within appropriate margins and acceptable risk posture. - Identification of any major issues moving forward to the Critical Design phase. At this milestone, Safety and Mission Assurance provided numerous products, including Gateway Top Risks and Risk Mitigation Plans, updated integrated hazard analyses, updated probabilistic risk assessment, Crew Survival Analysis Report, and updated Safety and Mission Assurance Requirements and Plans. These products provide a many-faceted perspective on the inherent risk and available mitigations involved in flying the current proposed vehicle design and anticipated stack configurations. In addition, Safety and Mission Assurance identified top technical, process and workforce concerns to be addressed as the program progresses toward the critical design phase. This paper will detail the evolution of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance integration functions, provide its current status and lessons learned for future human spaceflight programs. Throughout this paper the key tenets of the Gateway Program Safety and Mission Assurance will be discussed: - Application of a risk-informed approach to identify and mitigate areas of highest risk. - Leverage of valuable processes and lessons learned from earlier spaceflight programs. - Development of Safety and Mission Assurance products to inform design risk trades. - Utilization of common Safety and Mission Assurance practices to identify safety risks for multiple perspectives: top-down, bottom-up, and across lines of integration. - Approval of safety hazards at the appropriate level of authority, keeping most deliberation closest to design expertise and elevating risks of greatest concern for program-level consideration. - Championing of Safety and Mission Assurance processes and forums to foster a pervasive safety culture that is transparent, inclusive, and collaborative between all partners. These tenets have allowed the Gateway Safety and Mission Assurance function to play a key role in optimized vehicle design evolution, and early identification and mitigation of Gateway program and Artemis mission risk.

Helen Vaccaro↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System: Comprehensive Test Program Leads to Mission Success during Artemis I Flight Test

NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket had a successful first launch on Nov. 16, 2022, sending an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to the Moon on the agency’s Artemis I mission. Ten 6U CubeSats were also deployed from SLS during the mission. Orbital insertion parameters, including insertion velocity and altitude, were within hundredths and tenths of a percent from predicted values, corroborating data collected from the individual elements that showed similar performance accuracy. While launch remains the main test – and Artemis I was a true test flight – to collect data, confirm and refine computer models, and validate hardware test data, multiple test programs led up to the first flight and enabled the historic launch. Additionally, SLS was designed from the beginning to be a crew-rated launch vehicle, and teams put the astronauts who will fly on it at the forefront of the development process. This paper and presentation will cover the SLS design and development programs that led to the successful Artemis I mission, and which have set the stage to send the first astronauts back to cislunar space since the Apollo 17 crew in 1972.

John Honeycutt↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comprehensive Test Program of NASA's Space Launch System Rocket Leads to Successful Artemis Mission

NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket had a successful first launch on Nov. 16, 2022, sending an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to the Moon on the agency’s Artemis I mission. Ten 6U CubeSats were also deployed from SLS during the mission. Orbital insertion parameters, including insertion velocity and altitude, were within hundredths and tenths of a percent from predicted values, corroborating data collected from the individual elements that showed similar performance accuracy. While launch remains the main test – and Artemis I was a true test flight – to collect data, confirm and refine computer models, and validate hardware test data, multiple test programs led up to the first flight and enabled the historic launch. Additionally, SLS was designed from the beginning to be a crew-rated launch vehicle, and teams put the astronauts who will fly on it at the forefront of the development process. This paper and presentation will cover the SLS design and development programs that led to the successful Artemis I mission, and which have set the stage to send the first astronauts back to cislunar space since the Apollo 17 crew in 1972.

John Honeycutt↗

NASA NTRS2002

An End-to-End Architecture for Science Goal Driven Observing

New observatories will have greater on-board storage capacity and on-board processing capabilities. The new bottleneck will be download capacity. The cost of downlink time and limitations of bandwidth will end the era where all exposure data is downloaded and all data processing is performed on the ground. In addition, observing campaigns involving inherently variable targets will need scheduling flexibility to focus observing time and data download on exposures that are scientifically interesting. The ability to quickly recognize and react to such events by re-prioritizing the observing schedule will be an essential characteristic for maximizing scientific returns. It will also be a step towards increasing spacecraft autonomy, a major goal of NASA's strategic plan. The science goal monitoring (SGM) system is a proof-of-concept effort to address these challenges. We are developing an interactive distributed system that will use on-board processing and storage combined with event-driven interfaces with ground-based processing and operations, to enable fast re-prioritization of observing schedules, and to minimize time spent on non-optimized observations. SGM is initially aimed towards time-tagged observing modes used frequently in spectroscopic studies of varying targets. In particular, the SGM is collaborating with the proposed MIDEX-class mission Kronos team. The variable targets that Kronos seeks to study make an adaptive system such as SGM particularly valuable for achieving mission goals. However, the architecture and interfaces will also be designed for easy adaptability to other observing platforms, including ground-based systems and to work with different scheduling and pipeline processing systems. This talk will focus on our strategy for developing SGM and the technical challenges that we have encountered. We will discuss the SGM architecture as it applies to the Kronos mission and explain how it is scalable to other missions.

Jones, Jeremy↗

NASA NTRS2022

Flight Rule Design, Implementation, Verification, and Validation for the Psyche Mission

NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL)’s upcoming mission Psyche will begin its journey to the asteroid (16) Psyche in late 2022 in an effort to better understand its origins and, in turn, better understand our own. Operating the spacecraft safely will require the dedicated efforts of a small team that understands the spacecraft’s operational constraints, as well as a set of powerful spacecraft models designed to catch command errors that can pose risks to mission success. One of the responsibilities of the operations team is to ensure adherence to a set of Flight Rules written by spacecraft and instrument experts that are designed to mitigate these risks. Psyche’s innovations in Flight Rule design principles and advancements in the tools and processes used to implement and check Flight Rules are discussed. A comparison of Psyche’s approach to Flight Rules to other JPL missions will provide lessons learned for future missions that must perform constraint checking during operations. Flight Rule development faces several major challenges. First, flight rule developers must work with Subject Matter Experts (SME) to write the rules in a way that captures the intent of the constraint in a straightforward, enforceable manner. Second, software implementers must correctly interpret flight rules into code so that it meets the original intent of the SME. Finally, a means must be provided for SMEs to validate flight rule implementations without requiring them to understand the underlying software. Innovative processes intended to efficiently close the loop between stakeholders and software developers are described, such as the use of test-driven development to provide stakeholders with easy-to-review implementations. New guidelines for flight rule writing, designed to address these challenges, are described for future missions to adopt and build upon. Psyche Mission System has a variety of new and heritage tools that improve in the Flight Rule validation and checking process. Psyche developed a powerful, new tool called RandSEQ and made significant improvements to Octopusjam, two valuable tools that aid the development of Flight Rule unit tests. Advancements in the models and processes for performing sequence validation with SEQuence GENerator (SEQGEN), the primary, high-heritage tool used for automated flight rule checks on Psyche, are described. The development of new software and the advancements to existing software put Psyche at the forefront of Flight Rule technology. All missions must perform detailed constraint checking, so a comparison of Psyche’s approach to some of these items to the approaches taken by other missions such as Dawn, M2020, and Europa Clipper is done, specifically to examine SME-developer communication, tools used, and development process. Lessons learned from this comparison will be provided.

Weise, Tim↗

NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model-Based Engineering (REV B)

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses, GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System Safety Engineering for NASA if adequate modeling processes and environment are established.

NASA↗

NASA NTRS1992

The EOS Data and Information System (EOSDIS)

The Earth Observing System (EOS) is the centerpiece of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth initiative. It is a pivotal part of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and hence of the international effort to understand global change and the increasing demands of human activity. EOS consists of a space-based observing system, a Data and Information System (EOSDIS) and a scientific research program. The space component consists of two series of polar-orbiting spacecraft, the first scheduled for launch in 1998, that will collect data for 15 years. EOS is completing its conceptual design phase and is preparing to enter the design phase with the selection and construction of the instruments for the first platform. EOSDIS will allow researchers to quickly and easily access data about the Earth system. Development of EOSDIS has already begun; it will support research and analysis with existing data. Geophysical and biological products will be created from the satellite data to be used to a broad range of the scientific community. NASA has also committed to providing smaller missions - called Earth Probes - dedicated to near-term observations of specific Earth processes. The scientific research program was initiated in 1990, with funding for 28 interdisciplinary teams, to begin development of models that will use EOS data and define the data requirements from the instruments, nine facility instruments and their science teams, 23 instrument investigations and definition studies for a synthetic-aperture radar.

Dozier, J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Revisiting Training and Verification Process Implementation for Risk Reduction on New Missions at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In 2003 we proposed an effort to develop a core program of standardized training and verification practices and standards against which the implementation of these practices could be measured. The purpose was to provide another means of risk reduction for deep space missions to preclude the likelihood of a repeat of the tragedies of the 1998 Mars missions. We identified six areas where the application of standards and standardization would benefit the overall readiness process for flight projects at JPL. These are Individual Training, Team Training, Interface and Procedure Development, Personnel Certification, Interface and procedure Verification, and Operations Readiness Testing. In this paper we will discuss the progress that has been made in the tasks of developing the proposed infrastructure in each of these areas. Specifically we will address the Position Training and Certification Standards that are now available for each operational position found on our Flight Operations Teams (FOT). We will also discuss the MGSS Baseline Flight Operations Team Training Plan which can be tailored for each new flight project at JPL. As these tasks have been progressing, the climate and emphasis for Training and for V and V at JPL has changed, and we have learned about the expansion, growth, and limitations in the roles of traditional positions at JPL such as the Project's Training Engineer, V and V Engineer, and Operations Engineer. The need to keep a tight rein on budgets has led to a merging and/or reduction in these positions which pose challenges to individual capacities and capabilities. We examine the evolution of these processes and the roles involved while taking a look at the impact or potential impact of our proposed training related infrastructure tasks. As we conclude our examination of the changes taking place for new flight projects, we see that the importance of proceeding with our proposed tasks and adapting them to the changing climate remains an important element in reducing the risk in the challenging business of space exploration.

verifications↗

NASA NTRS2010

Support for Systematic Code Reviews with the SCRUB Tool

SCRUB is a code review tool that supports both large, team-based software development efforts (e.g., for mission software) as well as individual tasks. The tool was developed at JPL to support a new, streamlined code review process that combines human-generated review reports with program-generated review reports from a customizable range of state-of-the-art source code analyzers. The leading commercial tools include Codesonar, Coverity, and Klocwork, each of which can achieve a reasonably low rate of false-positives in the warnings that they generate. The time required to analyze code with these tools can vary greatly. In each case, however, the tools produce results that would be difficult to realize with human code inspections alone. There is little overlap in the results produced by the different analyzers, and each analyzer used generally increases the effectiveness of the overall effort. The SCRUB tool allows all reports to be accessed through a single, uniform interface (see figure) that facilitates brows ing code and reports. Improvements over existing software include significant simplification, and leveraging of a range of commercial, static source code analyzers in a single, uniform framework. The tool runs as a small stand-alone application, avoiding the security problems related to tools based on Web browsers. A developer or reviewer, for instance, must have already obtained access rights to a code base before that code can be browsed and reviewed with the SCRUB tool. The tool cannot open any files or folders to which the user does not already have access. This means that the tool does not need to enforce or administer any additional security policies. The analysis results presented through the SCRUB tool s user interface are always computed off-line, given that, especially for larger projects, this computation can take longer than appropriate for interactive tool use. The recommended code review process that is supported by the SCRUB tool consists of three phases: Code Review, Developer Response, and Closeout Resolution. In the Code Review phase, all tool-based analysis reports are generated, and specific comments from expert code reviewers are entered into the SCRUB tool. In the second phase, Developer Response, the developer is asked to respond to each comment and tool-report that was produced, either agreeing or disagreeing to provide a fix that addresses the issue that was raised. In the third phase, Closeout Resolution, all disagreements are discussed in a meeting of all parties involved, and a resolution is made for all disagreements. The first two phases generally take one week each, and the third phase is concluded in a single closeout meeting.

Holzmann, Gerald J.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Curiosity: How to Boldly Go...

Operating a one-ton rover on the surface of Mars requires more than just a joystick and an experiment. With 10 science instruments, 17 cameras, a radioisotope thermoelectric generator and lasers, Curiosity is the largest and most complex rover NASA has sent to Mars. Combined with a 1 way light time of 4 to 20 minutes and a distributed international science and engineering team, it takes a lot of work to operate this mega-rover. The Mars Science Lab's operations team has developed an organization and process that maximizes science return and safety of the spacecraft. These are the voyages of the rover Curiosity, its 2 year mission, to determine the habitability of Gale Crater, to understand the role of water, to study the climate and geology of Mars.

Pyrzak, Guy↗