SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Control”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 415 records · Page 23

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1990

Tank Pressure Control Experiment - A low-g mixing investigation

The Tank Pressure Control Experiment (TPCE) was conceived to meet the need for an aspect of cryogenic fluid management technology that is critical to several future national space missions: control of cryogenic storage tank pressures by active mixing. In-space testing is the only means of obtaining the fluid dynamic data necessary to develop and test predictive models of mixing. These models, when validated, will allow future cryogenic systems to be designed with more efficient and reliable pressure control systems. The objectives of the TPCE project are to characterize the fluid dynamics of jet-induced mixing in low gravity, evaluate the validity of empirical models and correlations, and provide data for use in developing and validating computational fluid dynamic models. This paper discusses prior studies of low-g mixing, the objectives and benefits of TPCE, the design and status of the payload, and preliminary results obtained from low-g aircraft testing.

Bentz, M. D.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Advanced timeline systems

The Mission Planning Division of the Mission Operations Laboratory at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is responsible for scheduling experiment activities for space missions controlled at MSFC. In order to draw statistically relevant conclusions, all experiments must be scheduled at least once and may have repeated performances during the mission. An experiment consists of a series of steps which, when performed, provide results pertinent to the experiment's functional objective. Since these experiments require a set of resources such as crew and power, the task of creating a timeline of experiment activities for the mission is one of resource constrained scheduling. For each experiment, a computer model with detailed information of the steps involved in running the experiment, including crew requirements, processing times, and resource requirements is created. These models are then loaded into the Experiment Scheduling Program (ESP) which attempts to create a schedule which satisfies all resource constraints. ESP uses a depth-first search technique to place each experiment into a time interval, and a scoring function to evaluate the schedule. The mission planners generate several schedules and choose one with a high value of the scoring function to send through the approval process. The process of approving a mission timeline can take several months. Each timeline must meet the requirements of the scientists, the crew, and various engineering departments as well as enforce all resource restrictions. No single objective is considered in creating a timeline. The experiment scheduling problem is: given a set of experiments, place each experiment along the mission timeline so that all resource requirements and temporal constraints are met and the timeline is acceptable to all who must approve it. Much work has been done on multicriteria decision making (MCDM). When there are two criteria, schedules which perform well with respect to one criterion will often perform poorly with respect to the other. One schedule dominates another if it performs strictly better on one criterion, and no worse on the other. Clearly, dominated schedules are undesireable. A nondominated schedule can be generated by some sort of optimization problem. Generally there are two approaches: the first is a hierarchical approach while the second requires optimizing a weighting or scoring function.

Bulfin, R. L.↗

NASA NTRS2005

A Reliable Service-Oriented Architecture for NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Mission

The Collaborative Information Portal (CIP) was enterprise software developed jointly by the NASA Ames Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for NASA's highly successful Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission. Both MER and CIP have performed far beyond their original expectations. Mission managers and engineers ran CIP inside the mission control room at JPL, and the scientists ran CIP in their laboratories, homes, and offices. All the users connected securely over the Internet. Since the mission ran on Mars time, CIP displayed the current time in various Mars and Earth time zones, and it presented staffing and event schedules with Martian time scales. Users could send and receive broadcast messages, and they could view and download data and image files generated by the rovers' instruments. CIP had a three-tiered, service-oriented architecture (SOA) based on industry standards, including J2EE and web services, and it integrated commercial off-the-shelf software. A user's interactions with the graphical interface of the CIP client application generated web services requests to the CIP middleware. The middleware accessed the back-end data repositories if necessary and returned results for these requests. The client application could make multiple service requests for a single user action and then present a composition of the results. This happened transparently, and many users did not even realize that they were connecting to a server. CIP performed well and was extremely reliable; it attained better than 99% uptime during the course of the mission. In this paper, we present overviews of the MER mission and of CIP. We show how CIP helped to fulfill some of the mission needs and how people used it. We discuss the criteria for choosing its architecture, and we describe how the developers made the software so reliable. CIP's reliability did not come about by chance, but was the result of several key design decisions. We conclude with some of the important lessons we learned form developing, deploying, and supporting the software.

Mak, Ronald↗

NASA NTRS2012

Simpler ISS Flight Control Communications and Log Keeping via Social Tools and Techniques

The heart of flight operations control involves a) communicating effectively in real time with other controllers in the room and/or in remote locations and b) tracking significant events, decisions, and rationale to support the next set of decisions, provide a thorough shift handover, and troubleshoot/improve operations. International Space Station (ISS) flight controllers speak with each other via multiple voice circuits or loops, each with a particular purpose and constituency. Controllers monitor and/or respond to several loops concurrently. The primary tracking tools are console logs, typically kept by a single operator and not visible to others in real-time. Information from telemetry, commanding, and planning systems also plays into decision-making. Email is very secondary/tertiary due to timing and archival considerations. Voice communications and log entries supporting ISS operations have increased by orders of magnitude because the number of control centers, flight crew, and payload operations have grown. This paper explores three developmental ground system concepts under development at Johnson Space Center s (JSC) Mission Control Center Houston (MCC-H) and Marshall Space Flight Center s (MSFC) Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC). These concepts could reduce ISS control center voice traffic and console logging yet increase the efficiency and effectiveness of both. The goal of this paper is to kindle further discussion, exploration, and tool development.

Scott, David W.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Intelligent Launch and Range Operations Virtual Test Bed (ILRO-VTB)

Intelligent Launch and Range Operations Virtual Test Bed (ILRO-VTB) is a real-time web-based command and control, communication, and intelligent simulation environment of ground-vehicle, launch and range operation activities. ILRO-VTB consists of a variety of simulation models combined with commercial and indigenous software developments (NASA Ames). It creates a hybrid software/hardware environment suitable for testing various integrated control system components of launch and range. The dynamic interactions of the integrated simulated control systems are not well understood. Insight into such systems can only be achieved through simulation/emulation. For that reason, NASA has established a VTB where we can learn the actual control and dynamics of designs for future space programs, including testing and performance evaluation. The current implementation of the VTB simulates the operations of a sub-orbital vehicle of mission, control, ground-vehicle engineering, launch and range operations. The present development of the test bed simulates the operations of Space Shuttle Vehicle (SSV) at NASA Kennedy Space Center. The test bed supports a wide variety of shuttle missions with ancillary modeling capabilities like weather forecasting, lightning tracker, toxic gas dispersion model, debris dispersion model, telemetry, trajectory modeling, ground operations, payload models and etc. To achieve the simulations, all models are linked using Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA). The test bed provides opportunities for government, universities, researchers and industries to do a real time of shuttle launch in cyber space.

Bardina, Jorge↗

NASA NTRS1990

Launching AI in NASA ground systems

This paper will discuss recent operational successes in implementing expert systems to support the complex functions of NASA mission control systems at the Goddard Space Flight Center, including fault detection and diagnosis for real time and engineering analysis functions in the Cosmic Background Explorer and Gamma Ray Observatory missions and automation of resource planning and scheduling functions for various missions. It will also discuss ongoing developments and prototypes that will lead to increasingly sophisticated applications of artificial intelligence. These include the use of neural networks to perform telemetry monitoring functions, the implementation of generic expert system shells that can be customized to telemetry handling functions specific to NASA control centers, the applications of AI in training and user support, the long-term potential of implementing systems based around distributed, cooperative problem solving, and the use of AI to control and assist system development activities.

Perkins, Dorothy C.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Human Factors in Training - Space Flight Resource Management Training

Accidents and incidents show that high workload-induced stress and poor teamwork skills lead to performance decrements and errors. Research on teamwork shows that effective teams are able to adapt to stressful situations, and to reduce workload by using successful strategies for communication and decision making, and through dynamic redistribution of tasks among team members. Furthermore, superior teams are able to recognize signs and symptoms of workload-induced stress early, and to adapt their coordination and communication strategies to the high workload, or stress conditions. Mission Control Center (MCC) teams often face demanding situations in which they must operate as an effective team to solve problems with crew and vehicle during onorbit operations. To be successful as a team, flight controllers (FCers) must learn effective teamwork strategies. Such strategies are the focus of Space Flight Resource Management (SFRM) training. SFRM training in MOD has been structured to include some classroom presentations of basic concepts and case studies, with the assumption that skill development happens in mission simulation. Integrated mission simulations do provide excellent opportunities for FCers to practice teamwork, but also require extensive technical knowledge of vehicle systems, mission operations, and crew actions. Such technical knowledge requires lengthy training. When SFRM training is relegated to integrated simulations, FCers can only practice SFRM after they have already mastered the technical knowledge necessary for these simulations. Given the centrality of teamwork to the success of MCC, holding SFRM training till late in the flow is inefficient. But to be able to train SFRM earlier in the flow, the training cannot rely on extensive mission-specific technical knowledge. Hence, the need for a generic SFRM training framework that would allow FCers to develop basic teamwork skills which are mission relevant, but without the required mission knowledge. Work on SFRM training has been conducted in collaboration with the Expedition Vehicle Division at the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) and with United Space Alliance (USA) which provides training to Flight Controllers. The space flight resource management training work is part of the Human Factors in Training Directed Research Project (DRP) of the Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Project under the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Human factors researchers at the Ames Research Center have been investigating team work and distributed decision making processes to develop a generic SFRM training framework for flight controllers. The work proposed for FY10 continues to build on this strong collaboration with MOD and the USA Training Group as well as previous research in relevant domains such as aviation. In FY10, the work focuses on documenting and analyzing problem solving strategies and decision making processes used in MCC by experienced FCers.

Bryne, Vicky↗

NASA NTRS2009

Telemetry Boards Interpret Rocket, Airplane Engine Data

For all the data gathered by the space shuttle while in orbit, NASA engineers are just as concerned about the information it generates on the ground. From the moment the shuttle s wheels touch the runway to the break of its electrical umbilical cord at 0.4 seconds before its next launch, sensors feed streams of data about the status of the vehicle and its various systems to Kennedy Space Center s shuttle crews. Even while the shuttle orbiter is refitted in Kennedy s orbiter processing facility, engineers constantly monitor everything from power levels to the testing of the mechanical arm in the orbiter s payload bay. On the launch pad and up until liftoff, the Launch Control Center, attached to the large Vehicle Assembly Building, screens all of the shuttle s vital data. (Once the shuttle clears its launch tower, this responsibility shifts to Mission Control at Johnson Space Center, with Kennedy in a backup role.) Ground systems for satellite launches also generate significant amounts of data. At Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, across the Banana River from Kennedy s location on Merritt Island, Florida, NASA rockets carrying precious satellite payloads into space flood the Launch Vehicle Data Center with sensor information on temperature, speed, trajectory, and vibration. The remote measurement and transmission of systems data called telemetry is essential to ensuring the safe and successful launch of the Agency s space missions. When a launch is unsuccessful, as it was for this year s Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite, telemetry data also provides valuable clues as to what went wrong and how to remedy any problems for future attempts. All of this information is streamed from sensors in the form of binary code: strings of ones and zeros. One small company has partnered with NASA to provide technology that renders raw telemetry data intelligible not only for Agency engineers, but also for those in the private sector.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1979

Spacecraft automated operations

Trends in automation of planetary spacecraft are examined using data from missions as far back as Mariner '67 and up to the highly sophisticated Galileo. Nine design considerations which influence the degree of automation such as protection against catastrophic failures, highly repetitive functions, loss of spacecraft communications, and the need for near-real-time adaptivity are discussed. Rapid growth of automation is shown in terms of on-board hardware by plots of number of processors on board, the average speed of processors, and total core memory. The number of commands transmitted from the ground has grown to 5 million bits in Voyager, so that increases in mission complexity have increased both in spacecraft automation and ground operations. Achieving greater automation by transferring ground operations to the spacecraft with the current means of controlling missions, are considered noting proposed changes. For the future, improved computer technology, more microprocessors and increased core storage will be used, and the number of automated functions and their complexity will grow. It is concluded that using the growing computational capability of spacecraft will achieve more autonomy thus reversing the trend of increased mission complexity and cost.

Bird, T. H.↗

NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Mission Status Briefing

This STS-114 Discovery Mission Status Briefing begins with Eileen Collins, Commander of the STS-114 Discovery, and crewmembers in orbit talking with mission control after launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Collins gives tribute to the crewmembers of the Space Shuttle Columbia and their families. Phil Engelauf, STS-114 Mission Operations Representative presents his mission status briefing and John Shannon, Space Shuttle Flight Operations and Integration Manager talks about the processing of radar data taken of the Space Shuttle Discovery during ascent. A video presentation from the Solid Rocket Booster Camera is shown by John Shannon. The video includes: 1) Piece of orbiter tile and origins of debris; 2) Pictures of debris after SRB separation; 3) TYVEK covers; and 4) Bird impacts external tank nose cone. Questions from the news media about tile shearing, vehicle damage and debris from the external tank are answered.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Human Performance on Future Deep Space Missions Abstract

NASA and the commercial spacecraft community are working diligently to put the first woman on the moon in the 2024 timeframe. At the same time, NASA researchers are thinking about how to solve the even larger challenges that future deep space missions will bring. Space travel itself is difficult, but astronauts on deep space missions will face obstacles and unknowns never before experienced. In addition to the altered gravity and hostile/closed environment of a spacecraft, deep space crews will face increased radiation, isolation, and distance from Earth. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA, or “spacewalk”) operations, crew will experience increased physical and cognitive workload due to extended types, frequencies and durations of tasks performed on exploration missions in partial gravity environments. All of these stressors will impact crew physical and mental health and performance in difficult-to-anticipate ways. Crew autonomy may be one of the biggest challenges faced. Communication delays and blackouts will occur, and in those situations, the crew may not have access to the Mission Control Center (MCC). They may be forced to be solely dependent on each other and the available information onboard to stay alive, healthy, and achieve the mission. The only conceivable way to meet the challenges of Earth independence is to enable the crew to monitor their own health and performance -- preferably unobtrusively as they perform their duties. Technologies and techniques must be developed to aid the crew in these assessments. A deep space mission is expected to have relatively short periods of high cognitive demand, stress, and fatigue, alongside potentially long periods of cognitive underload during the transit, where boredom, loneliness, and depression can set in. Both ends of this spectrum are dangerous. Crew must be made aware when their task performance drops significantly, when their cognitive workload is too high, when they have lost situation awareness, or when they are too stressed or too fatigued to perform well. They must be able to identify these risks, and then mitigate them with countermeasures available onboard. A number of self-monitoring technologies are presently being explored by NASA to advance crew state determination capabilities. These range from real-time, physiological workload and situation awareness assessments, to crew health measurements determining physical and mental fitness for duty, to task performance metrics such as suit resource expenditures. For EVA tasks during surface exploration missions, biomedical information such as metabolic rate may be provided to crewmembers for situational awareness related to task performance efficiency. In addition, translation distances, hydration, nutrition, inspired CO2 exposure and other consumables usage rates may be useful input metrics for modeling individualized performance during tasks to inform crew or provide estimates of work efficiency. Oculomotor metrics such as gaze dwell time, pupilometry, and eye tracking collected in advanced helmet mounted displays could potentially be used to characterize crew situation awareness. This paper highlights some of these projects, and provides broader discussion about the need for advanced monitoring and smart technologies, as NASA takes the leap into the next generation of space exploration.

Kritina Holden↗

NASA NTRS1997

Mobile range control center/range safety command destruct and real-time instantaneous impact prediction system

The mobile range control center/range safety command destruct and real time instantaneous impact prediction system (MRCCS), designed for launching sounding rockets and expendable launch vehicles, is described. The MRCCS provides mission control and range safety support for remote launch sites and is equipped with telemetry and radar data acquisition systems, real time data computation systems, range safety display systems, and command destruct transmitters.

Hudson, Sandra Merritt↗

NASA NTRS2018

Development and Testing of a Vehicle Management System for Autonomous Spacecraft Habitat Operations

As the increased distance between Earth-based mission control and the spacecraft results in increasing communication delays, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. In addition, both near-term and future missions will feature significant periods when crew is not present, meaning the vehicles will need to operate themselves autonomously. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program pioneers new approaches for rapidly developing prototype systems, demonstrating key capabilities, and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Under this program, NASA has developed and demonstrated multiple technologies to enable the autonomous operation of a dormant space habitat. These technologies included a fault-tolerant avionics architecture, novel spacecraft power system and power system controller, and autonomy software to control the habitat. The demonstration involved simulation of the habitat and multiple spacecraft sub-systems (power storage and distribution, avionics, and air-side life-support) during a multi-day test at NASA's Johnson Space Center. The foundation of the demonstration was â€˜quiescent operations' of a habitat during a 55 minute eclipse period. For this demonstration, the spacecraft power distribution system and air-side life support system were simulated at a high level of fidelity; additional systems were managed, but with lower fidelity operational constraints and system behavior. Operational constraints for real and simulated loads were developed by analyzing on-orbit hardware and evaluating future Exploration capable technology. A total of 13 real and simulated loads were used during the test. Eight scenarios including both nominal and off-nominal conditions were performed. Over the course of the test, every application performed its desired functions successfully during the simulated tests. The results will inform both future tests, as well as provide insight to NASA's domestic and international partners, as they construct the next generation of space habitats to be used on beyond-Earth missions.

Autonomous Systems and Operations↗

NASA NTRS1986

X-29A technology demonstrator flight test program overview

An overview of the X-29A functional flight program and concept evaluation program is presented, including some of the unique and different preparations for the first flight. Included are a discussion of the many organizational responsibilities and a description of the program management structure for the test team. Also discussed are preflight ground, flight functional envelope expansion, and flight research test objectives and qualitive results to date for both a limited-envelope flight control system and an expanded-envelope system. The aircraft, including the instrumentation system and measurements, is described. In addition, a discussion is included regarding the use of major support facilities, such as ground and flight simulators, the NASA Western Aeronautical Test Range and mission control center, and the Grumman automated telemetry station. An overview of the associated real-time and postflight batch data processing software approaches is presented. The use of hardware-in-the-loop simulation for independent verification and validation and mission planning and practice is discussed. Also included is a description of the flight-readiness review, the airworthiness and flight safety review, work scheduling, technical briefings, and preflight and postflight crew briefings. The configuration control process used on the X-29A program is described, and its relationship to both simulation and aircraft operations is discussed. An X-29A schedule overview is presented with an outline of a proposed follow-on program.

Sefic, W. J.↗

NASA NTRS1972

Analysis of a display and control system man-machine interface concept. Volume 1: Final technical report

An evaluation was made of the feasibility of utilizing a simplified man machine interface concept to manage and control a complex space system involving multiple redundant computers that control multiple redundant subsystems. The concept involves the use of a CRT for display and a simple keyboard for control, with a tree-type control logic for accessing and controlling mission, systems, and subsystem elements. The concept was evaluated in terms of the Phase B space shuttle orbiter, to utilize the wide scope of data management and subsystem control inherent in the central data management subsystem provided by the Phase B design philosophy. Results of these investigations are reported in four volumes.

Karl, D. R.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Automated Recognition of Geologically Significant Shapes in MER PANCAM and MI Images

Autonomous recognition of scientifically important information provides the capability of: 1) Prioritizing data return; 2) Intelligent data compression; 3) Reactive behavior onboard robotic vehicles. Such capabilities are desirable as mission scenarios include longer durations with decreasing interaction from mission control. To address such issues, we have implemented several computer algorithms, intended to autonomously recognize morphological shapes of scientific interest within a software architecture envisioned for future rover missions. Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) instrument payloads include a Panoramic Camera (PANCAM) and Microscopic Imager (MI). These provide a unique opportunity to evaluate our algorithms when applied to data obtained from the surface of Mars. Early in the mission we applied our algorithms to images available at the mission web site (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/images.html), even though these are not at full resolution. Some algorithms would normally use ancillary information, e.g. camera pointing and position of the sun, but these data were not readily available. The initial results of applying our algorithms to the PANCAM and MI images are encouraging. The horizon is recognized in all images containing it; such information could be used to eliminate unwanted areas from the image prior to data transmission to Earth. Additionally, several rocks were identified that represent targets for the mini-thermal emission spectrometer. Our algorithms also recognize the layers, identified by mission scientists. Such information could be used to prioritize data return or in a decision-making process regarding future rover activities. The spherules seen in MI images were also autonomously recognized. Our results indicate that reliable recognition of scientifically relevant morphologies in images is feasible.

Morris, Robert↗

NASA NTRS2006

Integrated Human-Robotic Missions to the Moon and Mars: Mission Operations Design Implications

For most of the history of space exploration, human and robotic programs have been independent, and have responded to distinct requirements. The NASA Vision for Space Exploration calls for the return of humans to the Moon, and the eventual human exploration of Mars; the complexity of this range of missions will require an unprecedented use of automation and robotics in support of human crews. The challenges of human Mars missions, including roundtrip communications time delays of 6 to 40 minutes, interplanetary transit times of many months, and the need to manage lifecycle costs, will require the evolution of a new mission operations paradigm far less dependent on real-time monitoring and response by an Earthbound operations team. Robotic systems and automation will augment human capability, increase human safety by providing means to perform many tasks without requiring immediate human presence, and enable the transfer of traditional mission control tasks from the ground to crews. Developing and validating the new paradigm and its associated infrastructure may place requirements on operations design for nearer-term lunar missions. The authors, representing both the human and robotic mission operations communities, assess human lunar and Mars mission challenges, and consider how human-robot operations may be integrated to enable efficient joint operations, with the eventual emergence of a unified exploration operations culture.

Korth, David↗

NASA NTRS2007

Integrated Human-Robotic Missions to the Moon and Mars: Mission Operations Design Implications

human robotic missions↗