Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Operations Assurance”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Improving operations: Metrics to Results

As a result of the mission failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) spacecraft in 1999, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) initiated the development of a Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) program to be implemented across all flight projects managed by JPL. One of the initiatives undertaken in 2001 was the collection of data on command file errors occurring in the operational phase of the mission. This paper defines command file errors and how and where they occur in the operations process. It also describes the problem reporting system (PRS) in use for mission operations at JPL. We examine the recent modifications to the PRS that enable the collection of metrics, specifically on command file errors. This paper discusses what the data show us since metrics have been collected for the operational missions conducted by JPL. We examine the evolution of an operational working group initiative to evaluate proximate, contributing, and root causes for the errors. As part of this discussion we see what the metrics have indicated over a decade. At the macro level, we can say that the aggregate command file error rate has been cut to roughly one third of the initial 2001 level by the end of 2011. Additionally, we explore efficient and innovative means to continually integrate the findings and recommendations from the working group back into the flight operations environment.

command file errors↗
NASA NTRS2013

Managing the Risk of Command File Errors

Command File Error (CFE), as defined by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) is, regardless of the consequence on the spacecraft, either: an error in a command file sent to the spacecraft, an error in the process for developing and delivering a command file to the spacecraft, or the omission of a command file that should have been sent to the spacecraft. The risk consequence of a CFE can be mission ending and thus a concern to space exploration projects during their mission operations. A CFE during space mission operations is often the symptom of some kind of imbalance or inadequacy within the system that comprises the hardware & software used for command generation and the human experts involved in this endeavour. As we move into an era of enhanced collaboration with other NASA centers and commercial partners, these systems become more and more complex and hence it is all the more important to formally model and analyze CFEs in order to manage the risk of CFEs. Here we will provide a summary of the ongoing efforts at JPL in this area and also explain some more recent developments in the area of developing quantitative models for the purpose of managing CFE's.

Bayesian Belief Networks↗
NASA NTRS2007

Sample Return Primer and Handbook

This three-part Sample Return Primer and Handbook provides a road map for conducting the terminal phase of a sample return mission. The main chapters describe element-by-element analyses and trade studies, as well as required operations plans, procedures, contingencies, interfaces, and corresponding documentation. Based on the experiences of the lead Stardust engineers, the topics include systems engineering (in particular range safety compliance), mission design and navigation, spacecraft hardware and entry, descent, and landing certification, flight and recovery operations, mission assurance and system safety, test and training, and the very important interactions with external support organizations (non-NASA tracking assets, landing site support, and science curation).

Stardust↗
NASA NTRS2018

ASTERIA Operations Demonstrates the Value of Combining the Mission Assurance and Fault Protection Roles on CubeSats

On November 20, 2017, ASTERIA (Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research in Astrophysics), a 6U CubeSat performing a technology demonstration of astrophysical measurements, deployed from the ISS. The technology demonstration goals to achieve precision photometry via arcsecond-level line-of-sight pointing error and highly stable focal plane temperature control were met by February 2018. Extended mission operations are ongoing, with the primary focus on observing nearby stars for transiting exoplanets. Throughout development and operations, the roles of mission assurance and fault protection have proven critical to achieving the primary technical goals and to maintaining a healthy spacecraft through multiple extended missions. Given the budget and schedule constraints typical of a CubeSat, innovative tailoring of processes has been critical to success throughout both development and operations of ASTERIA. Mission assurance plays an important role in identifying and evaluating risk and developing cost-effective mitigations. Flexibility in the fault protection design offers a variety of options for implementing risk mitigations as risks have been uncovered both in pre-delivery testing and in mission operations. This paper will discuss the approach taken on ASTERIA to implement mission assurance and fault protection and the resulting benefits to operational efficiency and success. It will briefly address the advantages of this approach during development, in which the combination of the roles provided mission assurance significant insight to system risks, which feeds back into testing methodologies and directly into fault protection design. Operations will be discussed in detail. During this phase, the roles merge to identify in-flight fault protection updates to efficiently respond to anomalies and improve the likelihood of successful technology demonstrations. The paper will also detail the tools that are used to analyse data, identify anomalies, and develop the updates to uplink to the spacecraft. Finally, the general operational approach will be discussed to highlight the usefulness of the ASTERIA processes and their applicability to future CubeSat missions.

Knapp, Mary↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human Exploration System Test-Bed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA) Support of Future NASA Deep-Space Missions

The Engineering Directorate at the NASA - Johnson Space Center is outfitting a 20-Foot diameter hypobaric chamber in Building 7 to support future deep-space Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS) research as part of the Human Exploration System Test-bed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA) Project. This human-rated chamber is the only NASA facility that has the unique experience, chamber geometry, infrastructure, and support systems capable of conducting this research. The chamber was used to support Gemini, Apollo, and SkyLab Missions. More recently, it was used to conduct 30-, 60-, and 90-day human ECLSS closed-loop testing in the 1990s to support the International Space Station and life support technology development. NASA studies show that both planetary surface and deep-space transit crew habitats will be 3-4 story cylindrical structures driven by human occupancy volumetric needs and launch vehicle constraints. The HESTIA facility offers a 3-story, 20-foot diameter habitat consistent with the studies' recommendations. HESTIA operations follow stringent processes by a certified test team that including human testing. Project management, analysis, design, acquisition, fabrication, assembly and certification of facility build-ups are available to support this research. HESTIA offers close proximity to key stakeholders including astronauts, Human Research Program (who direct space human research for the agency), Mission Operations, Safety & Mission Assurance, and Engineering Directorate. The HESTIA chamber can operate at reduced pressure and elevated oxygen environments including those proposed for deep-space exploration. Data acquisition, power, fluids and other facility resources are available to support a wide range of research. Recently completed HESTIA research consisted of unmanned testing of ECLSS technologies. Eventually, the HESTIA research will include humans for extended durations at reduced pressure and elevated oxygen to demonstrate very high reliability of critical ECLSS and other technologies.

Marmolejo, Jose↗
NASA NTRS1974

Reliability inputs to Mariner 9 data explosion

This paper describes the prelaunch and post-launch reliability functions which contributed to the success of the Mariner 9 spacecraft. Examples are included to illustrate how each reliability activity was a vital part of each phase of the project. Prelaunch reliability functions included: (1) establishing, negotiating, and monitoring system and subsystem requirements, (2) participating in spacecraft system and subsystem design/hardware reviews, (3) monitoring preparation of failure mode effects and criticality analyses (FMECA), (4) establishing and managing a problem failure reporting (PFR) system for the spacecraft and its support equipment, (5) monitoring electronic parts activities, and (6) participating in spacecraft reviews. Particular emphasis is placed on mission operations reliability assurance activities, which included: (1) spacecraft problem/failure reporting, (2) managing an integrating failure reporting system which covered all mission operations activities, (3) real-time analysis of spacecraft anomalies, and (4) risk assessment.

Macgregor, D. S.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Mission Operations Directorate Preparations for the COTS Visiting Vehicles

With the retirement of the Space Shuttle looming, a series of new spacecraft is under development to assist in providing for the growing logistical needs of the International Space Station (ISS). Two of these vehicles are being built under a NASA initiative known as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. These visiting vehicles ; Space X s Dragon and Orbital Science Corporation s Cygnus , are to be domestically produced in the United States and designed to add to the capabilities of the Russian Progress and Soyuz workhorses, the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H-2 Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Most of what is known about the COTS program has focused on the work of Orbital and SpaceX in designing, building, and testing their respective launch and cargo vehicles. However, there is also a team within the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at NASA s Johnson Space Center working with their operational counterparts in these companies to provide operational safety oversight and mission assurance via the development of operational scenarios and products needed for these missions. Ensuring that the operational aspect is addressed for the initial demonstration flights of these vehicles is the topic of this paper. Integrating Dragon and Cygnus into the ISS operational environment has posed a unique challenge to NASA and their partner companies. This is due in part to the short time span of the COTS program, as measured from initial contract award until first launch, as well as other factors that will be explored in the text. Operational scenarios and products developed for each COTS vehicle will be discussed based on the following categories: timelines, on-orbit checkout, ground documentation, crew procedures, software updates and training materials. Also addressed is an outline of the commonalities associated with the operations for each vehicle. It is the intent of the authors to provide their audience with a better understanding of the mission assurance that MOD brings to commercial ventures to the ISS

Shull, Sarah A.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Verification and Implementation of Operations Safety Controls for Flight Missions

Approximately eleven years ago, the International Space Station launched the first module from Russia, the Functional Cargo Block (FGB). Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Operations (Ops) Engineers played an integral part in that endeavor by executing strict flight product verification as well as continued staffing of S&MA's console in the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) for that flight mission. How were these engineers able to conduct such a complicated task? They conducted it based on product verification that consisted of ensuring that safety requirements were adequately contained in all flight products that affected crew safety. S&MA Ops engineers apply both systems engineering and project management principles in order to gain a appropriate level of technical knowledge necessary to perform thorough reviews which cover the subsystem(s) affected. They also ensured that mission priorities were carried out with a great detail and success.

Jones, Cheryl L.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Safety and Mission Assurance Knowledge Management Retention: Managing Knowledge for Successful Mission Operations

Knowledge Management is a proactive pursuit for the future success of any large organization faced with the imminent possibility that their senior managers/engineers with gained experiences and lessons learned plan to retire in the near term. Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) is proactively pursuing unique mechanism to ensure knowledge learned is retained and lessons learned captured and documented. Knowledge Capture Event/Activities/Management helps to provide a gateway between future retirees and our next generation of managers/engineers. S&MA hosted two Knowledge Capture Events during 2005 featuring three of its retiring fellows (Axel Larsen, Dave Whittle and Gary Johnson). The first Knowledge Capture Event February 24, 2005 focused on two Safety and Mission Assurance Safety Panels (Space Shuttle System Safety Review Panel (SSRP); Payload Safety Review Panel (PSRP) and the latter event December 15, 2005 featured lessons learned during Apollo, Skylab, and Space Shuttle which could be applicable in the newly created Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)/Constellation development program. Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and the Space Shuttle promised and delivered exciting human advances in space and benefits of space in people s everyday lives on earth. Johnson Space Center's Safety & Mission Assurance team work over the last 20 years has been mostly focused on operations we are now beginning the Exploration development program. S&MA will promote an atmosphere of knowledge sharing in its formal and informal cultures and work processes, and reward the open dissemination and sharing of information; we are asking "Why embrace relearning the "lessons learned" in the past?" On the Exploration program the focus will be on Design, Development, Test, & Evaluation (DDT&E); therefore, it is critical to understand the lessons from these past programs during the DDT&E phase.

Johnson, Teresa A.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Flight Dynamics Mission Support and Quality Assurance Process

This paper summarizes the method of the Computer Sciences Corporation Flight Dynamics Operation (FDO) quality assurance approach to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Flight Dynamics Support Branch. Historically, a strong need has existed for developing systematic quality assurance using methods that account for the unique nature and environment of satellite Flight Dynamics mission support. Over the past few years FDO has developed and implemented proactive quality assurance processes applied to each of the six phases of the Flight Dynamics mission support life cycle: systems and operations concept, system requirements and specifications, software development support, operations planing and training, launch support, and on-orbit mission operations. Rather than performing quality assurance as a final step after work is completed, quality assurance has been built in as work progresses in the form of process assurance. Process assurance activities occur throughout the Flight Dynamics mission support life cycle. The FDO Product Assurance Office developed process checklists for prephase process reviews, mission team orientations, in-progress reviews, and end-of-phase audits. This paper will outline the evolving history of FDO quality assurance approaches, discuss the tailoring of Computer Science Corporations's process assurance cycle procedures, describe some of the quality assurance approaches that have been or are being developed, and present some of the successful results.

Oh, InHwan↗
NASA NTRS2023

Full Lunar Surface Visualization and Simulation Platform

This project created a visualization and simulation software platform for the entire lunar surface. Given the polar Artemis landing targets, the challenging terrain, lighting, and associated integrated crew / vehicle risk assessment, a more integrated approach to mission safety certification, potentially impacting equipment design and crew activity is required. This integrated capability will enable Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), Flight Operations (FOD), and EVA to effectively collaborate to reduce human lunar exploration operational risk utilizing the identical tools to perform mission planning, rehearsal simulations, and providing the Safety Review Panel with integrated risk analysis capability.

information fusion↗
NASA NTRS2018

NC Space Grant Report

During the summer of 2018 I supported the Safety & Mission Assurance Directorate (SMA) and Operations Support Division (QA-20) at Stennis Space Center. The mission of the SMA team is to prove safety, risk, reliability, independent assessments, configuration management and quality assurance guidance, and services for all NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) programs, facilities, and supporting infrastructure. The office actively participates and contributes to the Agency-level Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) effort. Over the course of the Summer I participated in three projects. Two of them were focused around Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and the third focused on relief valves for their E-1 engine test stand.

Torres, David↗
NASA NTRS2020

Demonstrating Assurance of Model-Based Fault Diagnosis Systems on an Operational Mission

Developers of robotic scientific and commercial spacecraft are trending towards use of onboard autonomous capabilities for responding quickly to dynamic environments and rapidly changing situations. These capabilities need to know the state of the spacecraft’s health. Model-based fault diagnosis (MBFD) is an approach to estimating health by continuously verifying accurate behavior and diagnosing off-nominal behavior. Proper functioning of MBFD depends on 1) the quality of the diagnostic system model that is analyzed and compared to commands and onboard measurements to estimate a system’s health state, and 2) the correct functionality of the diagnosis engine interrogating the model and comparing its analyses to observed system behavior. Our goal is to develop Verification and Validation (V&V) techniques for MBFD to provide future missions sufficient confidence in its functionality and performance to deploy it on the systems they develop. Our work has been focused on infusing the techniques we developed earlier to an operational mission. First, we are constructing diagnostic models of a spacecraft attitude control system and updating our diagnostic engine so they can be demonstrated aboard the Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research in Astrophysics (ASTERIA) mission, an operational spacecraft for which experiments in autonomy are being planned and executed, using the V&V techniques we have previously developed to assure they are both correct and complete. Since it is nearing the end of its life, ASTERIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate MBFD since the monitored components are expected to fail. Our demonstration will give system developers additional confidence to make timely, informed MBFD deployment decisions. Second, we will be completing performance assessments of the diagnostic engine/diagnostic model ensemble both on the flight system and ground-based testbeds to gain confidence in MBFD’s ability to run successfully in a spacecraft’s resource-constrained environment without adversely affecting other on-board activities. Finally, we are capturing our experience in preparing this demonstration in a set of checklists and guidance documents. Current practice includes high-level institutional guidance documents and standards, but at a high level of abstraction that does not necessarily address specific MBFD concerns. The purpose of the new checklists is to provide future mission developers clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on assuring MBFD. This paper describes our work in these areas. For the first area, we describe the diagnostic models and updated diagnostic engine that will be used for the on-board demonstration. We describe how the V&V techniques we developed earlier are used to assure model and engine correctness and completeness. For the second area, we identify the performance measurement and assessment techniques used to characterize the diagnostic engine and diagnostic models, and discuss the effect of measured performance on overall mission operation. Finally, we present the checklist and guidance documents and describe how they meet the goals of providing system developers with clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on MBFD assurance. We show how the techniques we have developed map into those artifacts.

Nikora, Allen↗