Search NASA⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 469 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1977

Assess 2: Spacelab simulation. Executive summary

An Airborne Science/Spacelab Experiments System Simulation (ASSESS II) mission, was conducted with the CV-990 airborne laboratory in May 1977. The project studied the full range of Spacelab-type activities including management interactions, experiment selection and funding, hardware development, payload integration and checkout, mission specialist and payload specialist selection and training, mission control center payload operations control center arrangements and interactions, real time interaction during flight between principal investigators and the flight crew, and retrieval of scientific flight data. ESA established an integration and coordination center for the ESA portion of the payload as planned for Spacelab. A strongly realistic Spacelab mission was conducted on the CV-990 aircraft. U.S. and ESA scientific experiments were integrated into a payload and flown over a 10 day period, with the payload flight crew fully-confined to represent a Spacelab mission. Specific conclusions for Spacelab planning are presented along with a brief explanation of each.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114 Flight Day 7 Highlights

The main event of Day 7 is an extravehicular activity (EVA) to remove a failed Control Moment Gyroscope (CMG) from the Z1 Truss of the International Space Station (ISS) (Commander Sergei Krikalev and NASA ISS Science Officer and Flight Engineer John Phillips), and install a replacement stored in the payload of Space Shuttle Discovery (Commander Eileen Collins, Pilot James Kelly, Mission Specialists Soichi Noguchi, Stephen Robinson, Andrew Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, and Charles Camarda). Discovery astronauts Noguchi and Robinson are assisted in suit-up by their fellow crew members, Noguchi is carried by the Space Station Remote Manipulator System between Discovery's payload bay and the Z1 truss in order to exchange the gyroscopes with help from the pistol grip tool. Mission Control speaks to him during the EVA in order to troubleshoot the power and data connectors for new CMG. When back in the open payload bay, Noguchi and Robinson pose for pictures of each other and the Earth.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2024

Assessing the Number of Crew for Mars Against Trade Space Parameters

Missions to Mars will differ from all previous human spaceflight missions in that the onboard crew of astronauts will be required to operate in an Earth-independent manner given the long communication delays on Mars missions. Without a systematic, repeatable process to determine the number and composition of crew necessary to successfully accomplish these missions, NASA increases the risk in that crew sizes may be too small to meet primary mission objectives under nominal conditions and, more consequentially, the crewmembers may not have the expertise needed to successfully respond to unforeseen failures without the real-time expertise in the Mission Control Central (MCC) team on which NASA has come to rely. We present a framework for trade space analysis along with results from human-performance models developed in IMPRINT. We discuss the implications of model results on the trade space for number of crew for missions to Mars. This work was funded by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) with support from NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP).

Donna Dempsey↗
NASA NTRS1975

Apollo 12 Voice Transcript Pertaining to the Geology of the Landing Site, Volume 2

An edited record of the conversions between the Apollo 12 astronauts and mission control pertaining to the geology of the landing site, is presented. All discussions and observations documenting the lunar landscape, its geologic characteristics, the rocks and soils collected and the lunar surface photographic record are included along with supplementary remarks essential to the continuity of events during the mission.

Bailey, N. G.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Interpretation of Space Shuttle telemetry

This paper describes the Payload Deployment and Retrieval System (PDRS) Failure Analysis and Diagnosis problem, our planned use of an expert system employing the C Language Integrated Production System (CLIPS) language to solve it, and our progress to date. In addition, it will address the importance of the overall design within the context of automation in the RTDS architecture, the methodology used, and the validation approach taken. The Decision Support System will evolve as a modularized rule-based system programmed in the CLIPS expert system language. Each of five modules represents a subsystem of the RMS and includes the positioning and retention hardware (MPM/MRL), the Display & Control panel (D8C), the Arm Based Electronics (ABE), the End Effector (EE), and the Orbiter to RMS data interface unit (MCIU). The MPM/MRL subsystem was chosen as the target of a prototype development and its knowledge base is completed. Testing and validation of the software is conducted by experienced mission controllers. The initial design stages for the D&C panel module are beginning.

Culp, Donald R.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Observations of Crew Dynamics During Mars Analog Simulations

Crewmembers on Mars missions will face new and unique challenges compared to those in close communications proximity to Mission Control centers. Crews on Mars will likely become more autonomous and responsible for their day-to-day planning. These explorers will need to make frequent real time decisions without the assistance of large ground support teams. Ground-centric control will no longer be an option due to the communications delays. As a result of the new decision making model, crew dynamics and leadership styles of future astronauts may become significantly different from the demands of today. As a volunteer for the Mars Society on two Mars analog missions, this presenter will discuss observations made during isolated, surface exploration simulations. The need for careful crew selections, not just based on individual skill sets, but on overall team interactions becomes apparent very quickly when the crew is planning their own days and deciding their own priorities. Even more important is the selection of a Mission Commander who can lead a team of highly skilled individuals with strong and varied opinions in a way that promotes crew consensus, maintains fairness, and prevents unnecessary crew fatigue.

Cusack, Stacy L.↗
NASA NTRS1993

DESSY: Making a real-time expert system robust and useful

As the complexity and expected life-span of modern space systems continue to increase, the need for real-time data monitoring and failure analysis becomes more critical to their successful operation. The DEcision Support SYstem (DESSY) is a joint effort by the Intelligent Systems Branch/ER2 and the Remote Manipulator System (RMS) Section/DF44 to develop an expert system for the monitoring of the Payload Deployment and Retrieval System (PDRS). DESSY users, the RMS flight controllers, are provided with user interface enhancements and automated monitoring of system state (physical orientation) and status (operational health). Currently, a DESSY prototype for the Manipulator Positioning Mechanism (MPM) and Manipulator Retention Latches (MRL) of the PDRS has been developed and successfully demonstrated during the STS-49 and STS-46 missions. Expert systems for monitoring real-time operations must not only accurately represent domain knowledge, but also address the challenges of using unfiltered real-time data as input. This paper describes the methods and design strategies developed to overcome problems with real-time data in the NASA Mission Control Center. Types of data problems addressed are as follows: (1) loss of data; (2) erratic data; and (3) data lags and irregularities during state transition. Methods used to handle data problems include rule disabling for ignoring data when data quality is uncertain, context-sensitive bounded pattern recognition for minimizing incorrect conclusions based on bad data, and graceful recovery through system correction when reliable data returns. This combination of methods with an object-based modular DESSY design assures a robust program capable of lengthy periods of uninterrupted use in operations.

Land, Sherry A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Aerosciences Activities to Support Human Space Flight

The Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) has been a critical element of the United State's human space flight program for over 50 years. It is the home to NASA s Mission Control Center, the astronaut corps, and many major programs and projects including the Space Shuttle Program, International Space Station Program, and the Orion Project. As part of JSC's Engineering Directorate, the Applied Aeroscience and Computational Fluid Dynamics Branch is charted to provide aerosciences support to all human spacecraft designs and missions for all phases of flight, including ascent, exo-atmospheric, and entry. The presentation will review past and current aeroscience applications and how NASA works to apply a balanced philosophy that leverages ground testing, computational modeling and simulation, and flight testing, to develop and validate related products. The speaker will address associated aspects of aerodynamics, aerothermodynamics, rarefied gas dynamics, and decelerator systems, involving both spacecraft vehicle design and analysis, and operational mission support. From these examples some of NASA leading aerosciences challenges will be identified. These challenges will be used to provide foundational motivation for the development of specific advanced modeling and simulation capabilities, and will also be used to highlight how development activities are increasing becoming more aligned with flight projects. NASA s efforts to apply principles of innovation and inclusion towards improving its ability to support the myriad of vehicle design and operational challenges will also be briefly reviewed.

LeBeau, Gerald J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors in Space Exploration

The exploration of space is one of the most fascinating domains to study from a human factors perspective. Like other complex work domains such as aviation (Pritchett and Kim, 2008), air traffic management (Durso and Manning, 2008), health care (Morrow, North, and Wickens, 2006), homeland security (Cooke and Winner, 2008), and vehicle control (Lee, 2006), space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts (Perrow, 1999; Woods et ai, 1994). Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues - for example, human-automation interaction (Sheridan and Parasuraman, 2006), telerobotics, display and control design (Smith, Bennett, and Stone, 2006), usability, anthropometry (Chaffin, 2008), biomechanics (Marras and Radwin, 2006), safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness (Tenney and Pew, 2006), crew resource management (Salas et aI., 2006), methods for cognitive work analysis (Bisantz and Roth, 2008) and the like -- are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, Space Shuttle manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (e.g., Bloomberg, 2003; Bos et al, 2006; Brooks and Ince, 1992; Casler and Cook, 1999; Jones, 1994; McCurdy et ai, 2006; Neerincx et aI., 2006; Olofinboba and Dorneich, 2005; Patterson, Watts-Perotti and Woods, 1999; Patterson and Woods, 2001; Seagull et ai, 2007; Sierhuis, Clancey and Sims, 2002). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on sorne of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

FROM↗
NASA NTRS2018

Determining Thermal Capabilities for External Transfer Operations on the International Space Station

External transfers on the International Space Station (ISS) have a degree of difficulty caused by the severity of the radiative thermal environment and the complexity of the operational choreography to perform the installation and activation of the hardware. These transfers can be performed robotically, by astronauts during an Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA - spacewalk), or combination of robotic/crew operations. Robotic transfers may include capability to intermittently power the hardware; while the hardware remains unpowered for EVA operations. Robotic transfers can be staged to occur in a favorable thermal environment, though typically take longer than a transfer by crew during an EVA where the hardware may not be robotically compatible. The hardware is under passive thermal control, use of optics/multi-layer insulation/heaters, while being transferred from/to a visiting vehicle, airlock, stowage platform, or external ISS structure and may include additional design components, such as removable protective blankets, to meet the transfer requirements. Thermal analysis must be performed to determine the capability of the hardware being transferred to provide the Mission Control team the products necessary to plan and execute the operation while establishing an awareness for any contingency response. An overview of the thermal aspects in planning these types of transfer operations, the analytical approaches and assumptions, and examples of results are provided in this paper.

Thermal↗
NASA NTRS1997

STS-83 Postflight Presentation

The flight crew of the STS-83 mission, Cmdr James D. Halsell, Pilot Susan S. Still, Payload Cmdr. Janice E. Voss, Mission Specialists Donald Thomas and Michael Gernhardt, and Payload Specialists Roger Crouch and Greg Linteris, offer a video and still photo presentation of their journey. Included in the presentation are an introduction of the crew and a short briefing by Cmdr. Halsell, the launch and ascent narrated by Still, Spacelab Module narration by Voss, mission control narrated by Cmdr. Halsell, experiment narration by Thomas and Crouch. Also included are video views of the Baja Peninsula, Sinai Peninsula, pivot-point irrigation circles, Comet Hale-Bopp, and the cross-wind landing. The crew poses outside the shuttle for photos. Crew members discuss still photos taken during the mission, including shots of sunsets, the Grand Bahamas Island, Nile River, Baja Peninsula, Indis River of India, and Guadalupe Island.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2010

The Evolution of Extravehicular Activity Operations to Lunar Exploration Based on Operational Lessons Learned During 2009 NASA Desert RATS Field Testing

This paper will present options to evolutionary changes in several philosophical areas of extravehicular activity (EVA) operations. These areas will include single person verses team EVAs; various loss of communications scenarios (with Mission Control, between suited crew, suited crew to rover crew, and rover crew A to rover crew B); EVA termination and abort time requirements; incapacitated crew ingress time requirements; autonomous crew operations during loss of signal periods including crew decisions on EVA execution (including decision for single verses team EVA). Additionally, suggestions as to the evolution of the make-up of the EVA flight control team from the current standard will be presented. With respect to the flight control team, the major areas of EVA flight control, EVA Systems and EVA Tasks, will be reviewed, and suggested evolutions of each will be presented. Currently both areas receive real-time information, and provide immediate feedback during EVAs as well as spacesuit (extravehicular mobility unit - EMU) maintenance and servicing periods. With respect to the tasks being performed, either EMU servicing and maintenance, or the specific EVA tasks, daily revising of plans will need to be able to be smoothly implemented to account for unforeseen situations and findings. Many of the presented ideas are a result of lessons learned by the NASA Johnson Space Center Mission Operations Directorate operations team support during the 2009 NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS). It is important that the philosophy of both EVA crew operations and flight control be examined now, so that, where required, adjustments can be made to a next generation EMU and EVA equipment that will complement the anticipated needs of both the EVA flight control team and the crews.

Bell, Ernest R., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Reinventing The Design Process: Teams and Models

The future of space mission designing will be dramatically different from the past. Formerly, performance-driven paradigms emphasized data return with cost and schedule being secondary issues. Now and in the future, costs are capped and schedules fixed-these two variables must be treated as independent in the design process. Accordingly, JPL has redesigned its design process. At the conceptual level, design times have been reduced by properly defining the required design depth, improving the linkages between tools, and managing team dynamics. In implementation-phase design, system requirements will be held in crosscutting models, linked to subsystem design tools through a central database that captures the design and supplies needed configuration management and control. Mission goals will then be captured in timelining software that drives the models, testing their capability to execute the goals. Metrics are used to measure and control both processes and to ensure that design parameters converge through the design process within schedule constraints. This methodology manages margins controlled by acceptable risk levels. Thus, teams can evolve risk tolerance (and cost) as they would any engineering parameter. This new approach allows more design freedom for a longer time, which tends to encourage revolutionary and unexpected improvements in design.

Wall, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Portable Simulator for On-Board International Space Station Emergency Training

The crew on-board the International Space Station (ISS) have to be prepared for any possible emergency. The emergencies of most concern are a fire, depressurization or a toxic atmosphere. The crew members train on the ground before launch but also need to practice their emergency response skills while they are on orbit for 6 months. On-Board Training (OBT) events for emergency response proficiency used to require the crew and ground teams to use paper "scripts" that showed the path through the emergency procedures. This was not very realistic since the participants could read ahead and never deviate from this scripted path. The new OBT emergency simulator allows the crew to view dynamic information on an iPad only when it would become available during an event. The simulator interface allows the crew member to indicate hatch closures, don and doff masks, read pressures, and sample smoke or atmosphere levels. As the crew executes their actions using the on-board simulator, the ground teams are able to monitor those actions via ground display data flowing through the ISS Ku Band communication system which syncs the on-board simulator software with a ground simulator which is accessible in all the control centers. The OBT Working Group (OBT WG), led by the Chief Training Office (CTO) at Johnson Space center is a Multilateral working group with partners in Russia, Japan, Germany and U.S.A. The OBTWG worked together to create a simulator based on these principles: (a) Create a dynamic simulation that gives real-time data feedback; (b) Maintain real-time interface between Mission Control Centers and crew during OBTs; (c) Provide flexibility for decision making during drill execution; (d) Materially reduce Instructor and Flight Control Team man-hour costs involved with developing, updating, and maintaining emergency OBT cases/scenarios; and (e) Introduce an element of surprise to emergency scenarios so the team can't tell the outcome of the case by reading ahead in a paper script. This paper details some of the background as the project evolved with the International Partners. It also provides more details on how the simulator information for the crew is also shared with the ground teams. Finally, the paper will discuss how this remote simulator concept can be useful for future, longer term space missions.

Bolt, Kathy↗
NASA NTRS1999

International Space Station Multi-Element Integrated Test

The International Space Station offers a unique challenge for integrated testing since the entire station is not launched as an integrated vehicle. The ISS design evolved for over 10 years from the station Freedom program that was based on a "ship and shoot" approach. Ship and shoot assumed the program would accept the hardware for launch and integrate the vehicle on orbit without any ground element-to-element integrated testing. Element-to-Element powered-on integrated testing is needed to identify operational problems on the ground rather than once the hardware is on orbit. The industry is accustomed to testing an integrated vehicle and then verifying it is ready for its operational missions. These tests require ground element emulators to represent on-orbit elements. The ISS Multi-Element Integrated Tests (MEIT) are element-to-element integrated tests bringing together hardware representing several flights. The major purpose of these tests is: 1) Element-to-Element interface compatibility, 2) Systems end-to-end operability and functionality and 3) utilize on-orbit procedures with the crew and mission control center. Execution of these tests is critical since the hardware is available for only a limited period of time. Test configurations are defined which test specific interfaces or functionality. These tests develop operational confidence in the Element-to-Element interfaces and identify major problems on the ground to avoid on-orbit anomalies that could threaten mission success, element survivability or assembly activities. This paper addresses the MEIT process, configurations and lessons-learned from these tests.

Filler, Russell E.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of Dual Pressurized Rover Operations During Simulated Planetary Surface Exploration

Introduction: A pair of small pressurized rovers (Space Exploration Vehicles, or SEVs) is at the center of the Global Point-of-Departure architecture for future human planetary exploration. Simultaneous operation of multiple crewed surface assets should maximize productive crew time, minimize overhead, and preserve contingency return paths. Methods: A 14-day mission simulation was conducted in the Arizona desert as part of NASA?s 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS). The simulation involved two SEV concept vehicles performing geological exploration under varied operational modes affecting both the extent to which the SEVs must maintain real-time communications with mission control ("Continuous" vs. "Twice-a-Day") and their proximity to each other ("Lead-and-Follow" vs. "Divide-and-Conquer"). As part of a minimalist lunar architecture, no communications relay satellites were assumed. Two-person crews consisting of an astronaut and a field geologist operated each SEV, day and night, throughout the entire 14-day mission, only leaving via the suit ports to perform simulated extravehicular activities. Standard metrics enabled quantification of the habitability and usability of all aspects of the SEV concept vehicles throughout the mission, as well as comparison of the extent to which the operating modes affected crew productivity and performance. Practically significant differences in the relevant metrics were prospectively defined for the testing of all hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Data showed a significant 14% increase in available science time (AST) during Lead-and-Follow mode compared with Divide-and-Conquer, primarily because of the minimal overhead required to maintain communications during Lead-and-Follow. In Lead-and-Follow mode, there was a non-significant 2% increase in AST during Twice-a-Day vs. Continuous communications. Situational awareness of the other vehicle?s location, activities, and contingency return constraints were enhanced during Lead-and-Follow and Twice-a-Day communications modes due to line-of-sight and direct SEV-to-SEV communication. Preliminary analysis of Scientific Data Quality and Observation Quality metrics showed no significant differences between modes.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗
NASA NTRS2003

The Mobile Agents Integrated Field Test: Mars Desert Research Station April 2003

The Mobile Agents model-based, distributed architecture, which integrates diverse components in a system for lunar and planetary surface operations, was extensively tested in a two-week field "technology retreat" at the Mars Society s Desert Research Station (MDRS) during April 2003. More than twenty scientists and engineers from three NASA centers and two universities refined and tested the system through a series of incremental scenarios. Agent software, implemented in runtime Brahms, processed GPS, health data, and voice commands-monitoring, controlling and logging science data throughout simulated EVAs with two geologists. Predefined EVA plans, modified on the fly by voice command, enabled the Mobile Agents system to provide navigation and timing advice. Communications were maintained over five wireless nodes distributed over hills and into canyons for 5 km; data, including photographs and status was transmitted automatically to the desktop at mission control in Houston. This paper describes the system configurations, communication protocols, scenarios, and test results.

Clancey, William J.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Transferring Files Between the Deep Impact Spacecrafts and the Ground Data System Using the CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP): A Case Study

The CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) Standard could reshape ground support architectures by enabling applications to communicate over the space link using reliable-symmetric transport services. JPL utilized the CFDP standard to support the Deep Impact Mission. The architecture was based on layering the CFDP applications on top of the CCSDS Space Link Extension Services for data transport from the mission control centers to the ground stations. On July 4, 2005 at 1:52 A.M. EDT, the Deep Impact impactor successfully collided with comet Tempel 1. During the final 48 hours prior to impact, over 300 files were uplinked to the spacecraft, while over 6 thousand files were downlinked from the spacecraft using the CFDP. This paper uses the Deep Impact Mission as a case study in a discussion of the CFDP architecture, Deep Impact Mission requirements, and design for integrating the CFDP into the JPL deep space support services. Issues and recommendations for future missions using CFDP are also provided.

CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP)↗