Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “New Horizons”

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.

351 records · Page 20

Autonomous Image Analysis for Future Mars Missions

To explore high priority landing sites and to prepare for eventual human exploration, future Mars missions will involve rovers capable of traversing tens of kilometers. However, the current process by which scientists interact with a rover does not scale to such distances. Specifically, numerous command cycles are required to complete even simple tasks, such as, pointing the spectrometer at a variety of nearby rocks. In addition, the time required by scientists to interpret image data before new commands can be given and the limited amount of data that can be downlinked during a given command cycle constrain rover mobility and achievement of science goals. Experience with rover tests on Earth supports these concerns. As a result, traverses to science sites as identified in orbital images would require numerous science command cycles over a period of many weeks, months or even years, perhaps exceeding rover design life and other constraints. Autonomous onboard science analysis can address these problems in two ways. First, it will allow the rover to preferentially transmit "interesting" images, defined as those likely to have higher science content. Second, the rover will be able to anticipate future commands. For example, a rover might autonomously acquire and return spectra of "interesting" rocks along with a high-resolution image of those rocks in addition to returning the context images in which they were detected. Such approaches, coupled with appropriate navigational software, help to address both the data volume and command cycle bottlenecks that limit both rover mobility and science yield. We are developing fast, autonomous algorithms to enable such intelligent on-board decision making by spacecraft. Autonomous algorithms developed to date have the ability to identify rocks and layers in a scene, locate the horizon, and compress multi-spectral image data. We are currently investigating the possibility of reconstructing a 3D surface from a sequence of images acquired by a robotic arm camera. This would then allow the return of a single completely in focus image constructed only from those portions of individual images that lie within the camera's depth of field. Output from these algorithms could be used to autonomously obtain rock spectra, determine which images should be transmitted to the ground, or to aid in image compression. We will discuss these algorithms and their performance during a recent rover field test.

Gulick, V. C.↗

Improving Separation Assurance Stability Through Trajectory Flexibility Preservation

New information and automation technologies are enabling the distribution of tasks and decisions from the service providers to the users of the air traffic system, with potential capacity and cost benefits. This distribution of tasks and decisions raises the concern that independent user actions will decrease the predictability and increase the complexity of the traffic system, hence inhibiting and possibly reversing any potential benefits. One such concern is the adverse impact of uncoordinated actions by individual aircraft on the stability of separation assurance. For example, individual aircraft performing self-separation may resolve predicted losses of separation or conflicts with some traffic, only to result in secondary conflicts with other traffic or with the same traffic later in time. In answer to this concern, this paper proposes metrics for preserving user trajectory flexibility to be used in self-separation along with other objectives. The hypothesis is that preserving trajectory flexibility will naturally reduce the creation of secondary conflicts by bringing about implicit coordination between aircraft. The impact of using these metrics on improving self-separation stability is investigated by measuring the impact on secondary conflicts. The scenarios analyzed include aircraft in en route airspace with each aircraft meeting a required time of arrival in a twenty minute time horizon while maintaining separation from the surrounding traffic and using trajectory flexibility metrics to mitigate the risk of secondary conflicts. Preliminary experiments showed promising results in that the trajectory flexibility preservation reduced the potential for secondary conflicts.

Idris, Husni↗

Solar Sails

The Solar Sail Propulsion investment area has been one of the three highest priorities within the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Project. In the fall of 2003, the NASA Headquarters' Science Mission Directorate provided funding and direction to mature the technology as far as possible through ground research and development from TRL 3 to 6 in three years. A group of experts from government, industry, and academia convened in Huntsville, Alabama to define technology gaps between what was needed for science missions to the inner solar system and the current state of the art in ultra1ightweight materials and gossamer structure design. This activity set the roadmap for development. The centerpiece of the development would be the ground demonstration of scalable solar sail systems including masts, sails, deployment mechanisms, and attitude control hardware and software. In addition, new materials would be subjected to anticipated space environments to quantify effects and assure mission life. Also, because solar sails are huge structures, and it is not feasible to validate the technology by ground test at full scale, a multi-discipline effort was established to develop highly reliable analytical models to serve as mission assurance evidence in future flight program decision-making. Two separate contractor teams were chosen to develop the SSP System Ground Demonstrator (SGD). After a three month conceptual mission/system design phase, the teams developed a ten meter diameter pathfinder set of hardware and subjected it to thermal vacuum tests to compare analytically predicted structural behavior with measured characteristics. This process developed manufacturing and handling techniques and refined the basic design. In 2005, both contractor teams delivered 20 meter, four quadrant sail systems to the largest thermal vacuum chamber in the world in Plum Brook, Ohio, and repeated the tests. Also demonstrated was the deployment and articulation of attitude control mechanisms. In conjunction with these tests, the stowed sails were subjected to launch vibration and ascent vent tests. Other investments studied radiation effects on the solar sail materials, investigated spacecraft charging issues, developed shape measuring techniques and instruments, produced advanced trajectory modeling capabilities, and identified and resolved gossamer structure dynamics issues. Technology validation flight and application to a He1iophysics science mission is on the horizon.

Young, Roy↗

Intelligent systems and advanced user interfaces for design, operation, and maintenance of command management systems

Historically, command management systems (CMS) have been large and expensive spacecraft-specific software systems that were costly to build, operate, and maintain. Current and emerging hardware, software, and user interface technologies may offer an opportunity to facilitate the initial formulation and design of a spacecraft-specific CMS as well as to develop a more generic CMS system. New technologies, in addition to a core CMS common to a range of spacecraft, may facilitate the training and enhance the efficiency of CMS operations. Current mission operations center (MOC) hardware and software include Unix workstations, the C/C++ programming languages, and an X window interface. This configuration provides the power and flexibility to support sophisticated and intelligent user interfaces that exploit state-of-the-art technologies in human-machine interaction, artificial intelligence, and software engineering. One of the goals of this research is to explore the extent to which technologies developed in the research laboratory can be productively applied in a complex system such as spacecraft command management. Initial examination of some of these issues in CMS design and operation suggests that application of technologies such as intelligent planning, case-based reasoning, human-machine systems design and analysis tools (e.g., operator and designer models), and human-computer interaction tools (e.g., graphics, visualization, and animation) may provide significant savings in the design, operation, and maintenance of the CMS for a specific spacecraft as well as continuity for CMS design and development across spacecraft. The first six months of this research saw a broad investigation by Georgia Tech researchers into the function, design, and operation of current and planned command management systems at Goddard Space Flight Center. As the first step, the researchers attempted to understand the current and anticipated horizons of command management systems at Goddard. Preliminary results are given on CMS commonalities and causes of low re-use, and methods are proposed to facilitate increased re-use.

Potter, William J.↗

A Dynamic Fountain Model for Lunar Dust

During the Apollo era of exploration it was discovered that sunlight was scattered at the terminators giving rise to horizon glow and streamers above the lunar surface. This was observed from the dark side of the Moon during sunset and sunrise by both surface landers and astronauts in orbit. These observations were quite unexpected, as the Moon was thought to be a pristine environment with a negligible atmosphere or exosphere. Subsequent investigations have shown that the sunlight was most likely scattered by electrostatically charged dust grains originating from the surface. It has since been demonstrated that this dust population could have serious implications for astronomical observations from the lunar surface. The lunar surface is electrostatically charged by the Moon s large-scale interaction with the local plasma environment and the photoemission of electrons due to solar ultra-violet (UV) light and X-rays. The like-charged surface and dust grains then act to repel each other, such that under certain conditions the dust grains are lifted above the surface. We present a dynamic fountain model which can explain how sub-micron dust is able to reach altitudes of up to approximately 100 km above the lunar surface. Previous static dust levitation models are most applicable to the heavier micron-sized grains in close proximity proximity to the surface, but they cannot explain the presence of extremely light grains at high altitudes. If we relax the static constraint applied to previous models, and instead assume that the grains are in constant motion (under the action of dynamic forces), a new picture emerges for the behavior of sub-micron lunar dust.

Stubbs, T. J.↗

Neutron Spectrometer Prospecting in the Mojave Volatiles Project Analog Field Test

We know that volatiles are sequestered at the poles of the Moon. While we have evidence of water ice and a number of other compounds based on remote sensing, the detailed distribution, and physical and chemical form are largely unknown. Additional orbital studies of lunar polar volatiles may yield further insights, but the most important next step is to use landed assets to fully characterize the volatile composition and distribution at scales of tens to hundreds of meters. To achieve this range of scales, mobility is needed. Because of the proximity of the Moon, near real-time operation of the surface assets is possible, with an associated reduction in risk and cost. This concept of operations is very different from that of rovers on Mars, and new operational approaches are required to carry out such real-time robotic exploration. The Mojave Volatiles Project (MVP) was a Moon-Mars Analog Mission Activities (MMAMA) program project aimed at (1) determining effective approaches to operating a real-time but short-duration lunar surface robotic mission, and (2) performing prospecting science in a natural setting, as a test of these approaches. Here we describe some results from the first such test, carried out in the Mojave Desert between 16 and 24 October, 2014. The test site was an alluvial fan just E of the Soda Mountains, SW of Baker, California. This site contains desert pavements, ranging from the late Pleistocene to early-Holocene in age. These pavements are undergoing dissection by the ongoing development of washes. A principal objective was to determine the hydration state of different types of desert pavement and bare ground features. The mobility element of the test was provided by the KREX-2 rover, designed and operated by the Intelligent Robotics Group at NASA Ames Research Center. The rover-borne neutron spectrometer measured the neutron albedo at both thermal and epithermal energies. Assuming uniform geochemistry and material bulk density, hydrogen as either hydroxyl/water in mineral assemblages or as moisture will significantly enhance the return of thermalized neutrons. However, in the Mojave test setting there is little uniformity, especially in bulk material density. We find that lighter toned materials (immature pavements, bar and swale, and wash materials) have lower thermal neutron flux, while mature, darker pavements with the greatest desert varnish development have higher neutron fluxes. Preliminary analysis of samples from the various terrain types in the test area indicates a prevailing moisture content of 2-3 wt% H2O. However, soil mineralogy suggests that the welldeveloped Av1 soil horizon beneath the topmost dark pavement clast layer contains the highest clay content. Structural water (including hydroxyl) in these clays may explain the enhanced neutron albedo over dark pavements. On the other hand, surface and subsurface bulk density can also play a role in neutron albedo - lower density of materials found in washes, for example, can result in a reduction in neutron flux. Analysis is ongoing.

rover-borne neutron spectrometer↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

Technology Alignment and Portfolio Prioritization (TAPP): Advanced Methods in Strategic Analysis, Technology Forecasting and Long Term Planning for Human Exploration and Operations, Advanced Exploration Systems and Advanced Concepts

The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center is expanding its current technology assessment methodologies. ACO is developing a framework called TAPP that uses a variety of methods, such as association mining and rule learning from data mining, structure development using a Technological Innovation System (TIS), and social network modeling to measure structural relationships. The role of ACO is to 1) produce a broad spectrum of ideas and alternatives for a variety of NASA's missions, 2) determine mission architecture feasibility and appropriateness to NASA's strategic plans, and 3) define a project in enough detail to establish an initial baseline capable of meeting mission objectives ACO's role supports the decision­-making process associated with the maturation of concepts for traveling through, living in, and understanding space. ACO performs concept studies and technology assessments to determine the degree of alignment between mission objectives and new technologies. The first step in technology assessment is to identify the current technology maturity in terms of a technology readiness level (TRL). The second step is to determine the difficulty associated with advancing a technology from one state to the next state. NASA has used TRLs since 1970 and ACO formalized them in 1995. The DoD, ESA, Oil & Gas, and DoE have adopted TRLs as a means to assess technology maturity. However, "with the emergence of more complex systems and system of systems, it has been increasingly recognized that TRL assessments have limitations, especially when considering [the] integration of complex systems." When performing the second step in a technology assessment, NASA requires that an Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD2) method be utilized. NASA has used and developed or used a variety of methods to perform this step: Expert Opinion or Delphi Approach, Value Engineering or Value Stream, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for the Order of Prioritization by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and other multi­‐criteria decision-making methods. These methods can be labor-intensive, often contain cognitive or parochial bias, and do not consider the competing prioritization between mission architectures. Strategic Decision-Making (SDM) processes cannot be properly understood unless the context of the technology is understood. This makes assessing technological change particularly challenging due to the relationships "between incumbent technology and the incumbent (innovation) system in relation to the emerging technology and the emerging innovation system." The central idea in technology dynamics is to consider all activities that contribute to the development, diffusion, and use of innovations as system functions. Bergek defines system functions within a TIS to address what is actually happening and has a direct influence on the ultimate performance of the system and technology development. ACO uses similar metrics and is expanding these metrics to account for the structure and context of the technology. At NASA technology and strategy is strongly interrelated. NASA's Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan (SSTIP) prioritizes those technologies essential to the pursuit of NASA's missions and national interests. The SSTIP is strongly coupled with NASA's Technology Roadmaps to provide investment guidance during the next four years, within a twenty-year horizon. This paper discusses the methods ACO is currently developing to better perform technology assessments while taking into consideration Strategic Alignment, Technology Forecasting, and Long Term Planning.

Funaro, Gregory V.↗

Investigating Low-Altitude Constellations of Ad-Hoc Lunar PNT System for Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

In this study, we examine a low-altitude Lunar Position, Navigation, and Timing (LPNT) constellations and the localization performance of Centralized Extended Kalman Filter (CEKF) and Decentralized Extended Kalman Filter (DEKF) algorithms. The primary investigation involves a 100-node swarm operating at a 100 km altitude, in contrast to previous studies that examined a 21-node asset in a frozen-orbit at 5,500 km. The autonomous operation of large-scale swarm is based on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve pseudoranges and relative velocities among swarm nodes. We perform a numerical assessment of the two filtering approaches, utilizing ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets as well as ‘two ISL’ measurements where each spacecraft is restricted to only two antennas. This research includes an analysis of CEKF under 2-ISL constraints and evaluates the performance of DEKF in a 100-node swarm, which has not been explored in previous studies. In addition, we examine the impact of increasing the sampling frequency for DEKF, showing that the update cycle can be shortened from a 10-minute interval. A novel approach for ‘2-ISL limited’ DEKF will also be introduced, using a matching formulation that exhaustively enumerates all potential matches. This study provides valuable insights into large-scale distributed swarm operations, considering various filter configurations, sampling frequencies, matching strategies, and scalability of CEKF and DEKF for low-altitude LPNT applications. The Lunar PNT technology plays a key role in providing reliable and robust navigation services on the Moon's surface and the South pole, where the primary Lunar missions are planned. To support upcoming Lunar missions, including small satellites from NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, the Lunar PNT system must be adaptable to smaller platforms like CubeSats. Driven by the growing involvement of public and private exploration partnerships, the traditional low Earth orbit missions are shifting to beyond geosynchronous orbit [1]. These upcoming missions aim to foster a sustainable and innovative exploration program, in collaboration with commercial and international partners, to facilitate human expansion throughout the solar system and return new knowledge and opportunities to Earth [2]. As part of this trend, there are increasing efforts to utilize science missions in Lunar orbit to develop a non-dedicated and ad-hoc PNT network system. Two traditional approaches, the Deep Space Network (DSN) and the weak signal Global Positioning System (GPS), are established deep-space navigation technologies for missions beyond the geosynchronous orbit. Beginning in 1958, the DSN was developed to communicate with the Explorer 1 spacecraft based on the use of radiometric tracking in spacecraft navigation [3]. The DSN is capable of providing nearly unfettered coverage to spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), however, increased space mission volume has created concerns about future expectations of DSN usage for spacecraft navigation [4]. For cislunar mission applications, the position accuracy using DSN achieves 100 m (3σ) with at least three geometrically diverse ground stations when using radiometric tracking alone [5]. The DSN's dependence on Earth-based ground stations restricts its operational capabilities to periods of Earth visibility. This limitation, coupled with its poor localization performance, renders the DSN unsuitable for future lunar missions that demand continuous tracking and precise positioning. To satisfy the increasing requirements of DSN in Lunar applications, spacecrafts are also required to improve their onboard antenna power and efficiency of the transmission. However, there is an important aggregate cost trade between adding capabilities to every spacecraft and adding to a capacity on the ground that serves multiple spacecraft [6]. A weak GPS system can provide PNT service while the user spacecraft is bound to the Moon, leveraging a single, steerable high gain antenna with the relatively narrow beam which includes all the sources in its field of view [7]. However, the higher the altitude the receiver is above the GPS constellations, the poorer and the weaker are the relative geometry and the received signal powers, respectively, leading to a significant navigation accuracy reduction [8]. The transmitted power becomes weaker with increasing distance from the Earth as well as signals tracked from one of the side lobes of the GPS antenna pattern. As a results, the number of visible satellites and relative geometric condition of the GPS satellites at very high altitude drops dramatically and reduces the navigation solution accuracy. Therefore, the weak GPS system is also not an ideal way to provide PNT service to upcoming Lunar missions when considering its limited geometric condition and the recued navigation accuracy. Another navigation approach on the Moon is being developed, similar to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) on Earth, aiming to offer navigation service with continuous 24/7 coverage across the entire Lunar surface. For example, lunar communications relay and navigation systems (LCRNS) by NASA and Lunar navigation satellite systems (LNSS) by JAXA are designed to serve as dedicated Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) systems for the Moon. However, designing a dedicated LNSS and PNT service involves additional challenges, which are unique to the lunar environment, including limited payload capacity for the CubeSat platform, i.e., the size, weight, and power (SWaP) of the onboard clock, limited lunar ground monitoring stations, and limited financial investment as compared to the legacy Earth-GPS [9]. NASA’s focus on utilizing CubeSat platforms on the Moon leads to an alternative Lunar navigation platform that leverages the existing Lunar science and exploration assets. The small satellites used in Lunar missions can be used to create a low-cost, autonomous, ad-hoc, and on-demand mission-centric Lunar PNT swarm capable of providing PNT services to these low-cost lunar missions [10]. As upcoming Lunar missions will often operate at low-altitude about 30 km to 100 km for scientific observations and mapping purposes, the low-altitude orbital constellations could be employed to create an ad-hoc Lunar PNT system. However, several issues must be addressed, such as the instability of these orbits, which often require maintenance or are only suitable for short-duration missions, operating for fewer than 90 days. Additionally, at an altitude of 100 km, the satellites have a limited period during which they are above the horizon and capable of providing PNT service to users. The implementation of a non-dedicated, ad-hoc Lunar navigation constellation facilitates on-demand PNT services. A preliminary study of ad-hoc Lunar PNT system was conducted using 21 spacecraft in 5,5000 km altitude frozen orbits to test its feasibility and a basic performance of orbital asset localization among ad-hoc Lunar constellations in small satellites format [10]. These swarm assets are designed for autonomous localization with minimal Earth interaction, reducing dependency on bandwidth and ground resources. The design in [10] demonstrated the feasibility of a decentralized PNT approach, specifically employing a DEKF approach for state estimation, which helps minimize onboard operating costs. The DEKF method distributes computation across individual satellites, which lightens the computational load while maintaining accuracy in orbit ephemeris and clock offsets, similar to centralized systems [11]. In a follow-on study [12], each spacecraft was limited to 2 communications antennae, forcing the selection of measurements and scheduling spacecraft activities to perform the measurements. A matching algorithm is implemented to select the best measurements and schedule position estimation updates. The decentralized localization performance is also investigated with increasing levels of network degradation for swarm assets considering the impact of intermittent and permanent communication failure, to demonstrate the robustness and fidelity of the decentralized Lunar PNT service [13]. This study confirmed that the ad-hoc PNT constellations in frozen orbit are highly robust and resilient to communication failures. However, unlike frozen orbit swarm assets, the low-altitude satellites have a limited ground view at an altitude of 100 km, where the ad-hoc Lunar constellation consists of 98 low-altitude satellites, evenly distributed across seven circular polar orbital planes, alongside two satellites in a frozen orbit at an altitude of 5,500 km (Figure 1). Therefore, the number of satellites visible to ground users is significantly limited in low-altitude orbit constellations. As each visibility of a spacecraft remains intact for only a few ticks before it moves out of the field of view, the ground user encounters challenges in maintaining continuous navigation service, resulting in sparse availability and provision of Lunar PNT system. Consequently, service availability is primarily restricted to the Lunar South Pole region (Figure 2). Given these limitations and concerns, the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets will be assessed in this study. We focus on the investigation of the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets and ground users near the Lunar South Pole. The overall flow of the Lunar PNT simulation incorporates the DEKF approach of asset localization and the weighted least-squares approach in user localization (Figure 3). The autonomous Lunar PNT simulation is primarily implemented in MATLAB, where the DEKF based on the matching scheduler is implemented with Google’s OR-tools as a model builder and Gurobi optimization tool as a backend solver. The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is utilized to generate ephemeris data for swarm assets, and accounts for satellite orbital details, mass, and perturbations like solar radiation pressure and drag coefficients. Each ephemeris dataset is produced in the Moon International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) inertial coordinate system. For state estimation, the distributed swarm assets rely on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve tracking pseudoranges and relative velocities between visible satellites and anchor nodes during each observation. Numerical evaluations of the decentralized localization process are conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the low-altitude PNT system in providing reliable navigation services. The main approach involves using DEKF and CEKF to localize 100 satellites in low-altitude constellations, where the CEKF is implemented to serve as a baseline for comparing the performance of distributed algorithms. In both cases, we evaluate ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets, and ‘two ISL’ measurements when spacecraft are constrained to have only two antennas. We test four estimation techniques: CEKF fully sampled, CEKF two ISL, DEKF fully sampled, and DEKF two ISL filters. As the DEKF update cycle is comprised of network setup, communication, and computations, a global broadcast network and 2-way ISL network setup will take from 4 to 6 minutes as maximum [12]. In this simulation, the DEKF update cycle is set to 10 minutes, including a 4-minute latency for obtaining and computing the actual measurement updates. We experiment an increased update cycle to demonstrate the feasibility and evaluate the impact on localization performance using various tuning values for measurement noise covariances (Figures 4 and 5). By comparing centralized and decentralized approaches using a matching algorithm, we analyze the influence of cross-correlation factors in the covariance matrix, assuming 100% reliability of all assets and measurements. The increased frequency and the adjustments of tuning parameters reveal distinct error patterns between the two scenarios. The localization accuracy of the swarm assets and ground users is assessed by taking the median error across 100 assets and one ground user (84.9°S, 137.5°E) over 7-day simulation period (Table 1). Since the user localization accuracy is significantly affected by the performance of the swarm assets, it is crucial to maintain high localization accuracy within the swarm. This study will continue to explore decentralized filtering for autonomous LPNT operations, with further investigation of an 'iterative' matching approach which enumerates every valid matching pair, planned for the following month.

Yeji Kim↗