Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Flight Operations Directorate”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

NASA/MOD Operations Impacts from Shuttle Program

Operations plays a pivotal role in the success of any human spaceflight program. This paper will highlight some of the core tenets of spaceflight operations from a systems perspective and use several examples from the Space Shuttle Program to highlight where the success and safety of a mission can hinge upon the preparedness and competency of the operations team. Further, awareness of the types of operations scenarios and impacts that can arise during human crewed space missions can help inform design and mission planning decisions long before a vehicle gets into orbit. A strong operations team is crucial to the development of future programs; capturing the lessons learned from the successes and failures of a past program will allow for safer, more efficient, and better designed programs in the future. No matter how well a vehicle is designed and constructed, there are always unexpected events or failures that occur during space flight missions. Preparation, training, real-time execution, and troubleshooting are skills and values of the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) flight controller; these operational standards have proven invaluable to the Space Shuttle Program. Understanding and mastery of these same skills will be required of any operations team as technology advances and new vehicles are developed. This paper will focus on individual Space Shuttle mission case studies where specific operational skills, techniques, and preparedness allowed for mission safety and success. It will detail the events leading up to the scenario or failure, how the operations team identified and dealt with the failure and its downstream impacts. The various options for real-time troubleshooting will be discussed along with the operations team final recommendation, execution, and outcome. Finally, the lessons learned will be summarized along with an explanation of how these lessons were used to improve the operational preparedness of future flight control teams.

Fitzpatrick, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2008

Human Factors in Training

Future space missions will be significantly longer than current Shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. Training efforts in FY07 strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center operations. Beginning in January 2008, the training research effort will include team training prototypes and tools. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: 1) Risk associated with poor task design; 2) Risk of error due to inadequate information; 3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design.

Barshi, Immanuel↗
NASA NTRS2009

Human Factors in Training

Future space missions will be significantly longer than current shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. By researching established training principles, examining future needs, and by using current practices in space flight training as test beds, both in Flight Controller and Crew Medical domains, this research project is mitigating program risks and generating templates and requirements to meet future training needs. Training efforts in Fiscal Year 08 (FY08) strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center (MCC) operations. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: (1) Risk associated with poor task design (2) Risk of error due to inadequate information (3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design

Barshi, Immanuel↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors in Training

Future space missions will be significantly longer than current shuttle missions and new systems will be more complex than current systems. Increasing communication delays between crews and Earth-based support means that astronauts need to be prepared to handle the unexpected on their own. As crews become more autonomous, their potential span of control and required expertise must grow to match their autonomy. It is not possible to train for every eventuality ahead of time on the ground, or to maintain trained skills across long intervals of disuse. To adequately prepare NASA personnel for these challenges, new training approaches, methodologies, and tools are required. This research project aims at developing these training capabilities. By researching established training principles, examining future needs, and by using current practices in space flight training as test beds, both in Flight Controller and Crew Medical domains, this research project is mitigating program risks and generating templates and requirements to meet future training needs. Training efforts in Fiscal Year 09 (FY09) strongly focused on crew medical training, but also began exploring how Space Flight Resource Management training for Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) Flight Controllers could be integrated with systems training for optimal Mission Control Center (MCC) operations. The Training Task addresses Program risks that lie at the intersection of the following three risks identified by the Project: 1) Risk associated with poor task design; 2) Risk of error due to inadequate information; and 3) Risk associated with reduced safety and efficiency due to poor human factors design.

Barshi, Immanuel↗
NASA NTRS2011

Preparing for the High Frontier: The Role and Training of NASA Astronauts in the Post- Space Shuttle Era

In May 2010, the National Research Council (NRC) was asked by NASA to address several questions related to the Astronaut Corps. The NRC s Committee on Human Spaceflight Crew Operations was tasked to answer several questions: 1. How should the role and size of the activities managed by the Johnson Space Center Flight Crew Operations Directorate change after space shuttle retirement and completion of the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS)? 2. What are the requirements for crew-related ground-based facilities after the Space Shuttle program ends? 3. Is the fleet of aircraft used for training the Astronaut Corps a cost-effective means of preparing astronauts to meet the requirements of NASA s human spaceflight program? Are there more cost-effective means of meeting these training requirements? Although the future of NASA s human spaceflight program has garnered considerable discussion in recent years and there is considerable uncertainty about what the program will involve in the coming years, the committee was not tasked to address whether human spaceflight should continue or what form it should take. The committee s task restricted it to studying activities managed by the Flight Crew Operations Directorate or those closely related to its activities, such as crew-related ground-based facilities and the training aircraft.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Role and Training of NASA Astronauts in the Post-Shuttle Era

In May 2010 the National Research Council (NRC) was asked by NASA to address several questions related to the Astronaut Corps. The NRC's Committee on Human Spaceflight Crew Operations was tasked to: 1. How should the role and size of the activities managed by the Johnson Space Center Flight Crew Operations Directorate change following space shuttle retirement and completion of the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS)? 2. What are the requirements for crew-related ground-based facilities after the Space Shuttle program ends? 3. Is the fleet of aircraft used for training the Astronaut Corps a cost-effective means of preparing astronauts to meet the requirements of NASA's human spaceflight program? Are there more cost-effective means of meeting these training requirements? Although the future of NASA's human spaceflight program has garnered considerable discussion in recent years, and there is considerable uncertainty about what that program will involve in the coming years, the committee was not tasked to address whether or not human spaceflight should continue, or what form it should take. The committee's task restricted it to studying those activities managed by the Flight Crew Operations Directorate, or those closely related to its activities, such as crew-related ground-based facilities and the training aircraft.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Activity Update for the 2013 Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (UVSI) Yearbook

This year s report offers a high level perspective on some of the UAS related activities in which NASA is involved, both internal and external to the agency. Internally, NASA issued UAS operational policy on certification of NASA UAS and aircrew. A team of NASA UAS experts and operators analyzed all current procedures and best practices to design the policy. An update to the agencies Aircraft Operations Management Manual incorporated a new chapter to address UAS planning, preflight operations, flight operations, flight crew requirements, airworthiness and flight safety reviews. NASA UAS are classified into three categories based on weight and airspeed. Aircrews, including observers, are classified by how they interface with the UAS, and the policy defines qualifications, training, and currency. The NASA flight readiness approval process identifies risks and mitigations in order to reduce the likelihood and/or consequence of the risk to an acceptable level. The UAS operations process incorporates all aspects of airworthiness, flight standards and range safety exactly the same processes used for NASA manned aircraft operations. NASA has two internal organizations that routinely operate UAS. The Science Mission Directorate utilizes UAS as part of its Airborne Science Program and is the most frequent operator of NASA UAS in both national and international airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate conducts UAS flight operations in addition to conducting research important to the UAS community. This past year the Science Mission Directorate supported the Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentimental (HS3) Mission with two NASA Global Hawk platforms. HS3 is a five-year mission specifically targeted to investigate the processes that underlie hurricane formation. During the 2012 portion of this mission the Global Hawk overflew hurricanes Leslie and Nadine in the Atlantic Ocean completing 6 flights and accumulating more than 148 flight hours. Another multi-year mission was initiated last year when the Sensor Integrated Environmental Remote Research Aircraft (SIERRA) UAS began surveying faults in California s Surprise Valley. A team of scientists and engineers from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), NASA Ames Research Center, Central Washington University, and Carnegie Mellon University will measure magnetic fields using ground surveys and the SIERRA to map the geophysics below the surface of Surprise Valley. The data collected will be used to generate 3D maps of the geophysical data of the area. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate continues its collaboration with Boeing to conduct UAS flight operations of the X-48C, a modified version of the X-48B originally built by Cranfield Aerospace, United Kingdom. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate utilizes vehicles of this size for a wide variety of research studies. Most of these operations are conducted within restricted airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate also sponsors the UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project, which is working in close cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address critical challenges associated with routine UAS operations in civil airspace. The project is focused on separation assurance and collision avoidance systems and algorithms, command and control for non-military operations including spectrum allocation requirements, human system interaction issues, and safety and certification topics.

Bauer, Jeffrey E.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Towards a Decision Support System for Space Flight Operations

The Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) has put in place a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) technological framework for the development and execution of the Flight Production Process (FPP). This framework has provided much added value and return on investment to date. This paper describes a vision for a model based Decision Support System (DSS) for the development and execution of the FPP and its design and development process. The envisioned system extends the existing MBSE methodology and technological framework which is currently in use. The MBSE technological framework currently in place enables the systematic collection and integration of data required for building an FPP model for a diverse set of missions. This framework includes the technology, people and processes required for rapid development of architectural artifacts. It is used to build a feasible FPP model for the first flight of spacecraft and for recurrent flights throughout the life of the program. This model greatly enhances our ability to effectively engage with a new customer. It provides a preliminary work breakdown structure, data flow information and a master schedule based on its existing knowledge base. These artifacts are then refined and iterated upon with the customer for the development of a robust end-to-end, high-level integrated master schedule and its associated dependencies. The vision is to enhance this framework to enable its application for uncertainty management, decision support and optimization of the design and execution of the FPP by the program. Furthermore, this enhanced framework will enable the agile response and redesign of the FPP based on observed system behavior. The discrepancy of the anticipated system behavior and the observed behavior may be due to the processing of tasks internally, or due to external factors such as changes in program requirements or conditions associated with other organizations that are outside of MOD. The paper provides a roadmap for the three increments of this vision. These increments include (1) hardware and software system components and interfaces with the NASA ground system, (2) uncertainty management and (3) re-planning and automated execution. Each of these increments provide value independently; but some may also enable building of a subsequent increment.

Meshkat, Leila↗
NASA NTRS2013

Towards a decision support system for space flight operations

The Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) has put in place a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) technological framework for the development and execution of the Flight Production Process (FPP). This framework has provided much added value and return on investment to date. This paper describes a vision for a model based Decision Support System (DSS) for the development and execution of the FPP and its design and development process. The envisioned system extends the existing MBSE methodology and technological framework which is currently in use. The MBSE technological framework currently in place enables the systematic collection and integration of data required for building an FPP model for a diverse set of missions. This framework includes the technology, people and processes required for rapid development of architectural artifacts. It is used to build a feasible FPP model for the first flight of spacecraft and for recurrent flights throughout the life of the program. This model greatly enhances our ability to effectively engage with a new customer. It provides a preliminary work breakdown structure, data flow information and a master schedule based on its existing knowledge base. These artifacts are then refined and iterated upon with the customer for the development of a robust end-to-end, high-level integrated master schedule and its associated dependencies. The vision is to enhance this framework to enable its application for uncertainty management, decision support and optimization of the design and execution of the FPP by the program. Furthermore, this enhanced framework will enable the agile response and redesign of the FPP based on observed system behavior. The differences between the anticipated system behavior and the observed behavior may be due to the processing of tasks internally, or due to external factors such as changes in program requirements or conditions associated with other organizations that are outside of MOD. The paper provides a roadmap for the four increments of this vision. These increments include (1) the existing capabilities (2) hardware and software system components and interfaces with the NASA ground system, (3) uncertainty management and (4) re-planning and automated execution. Each of these increments provides value independently; but some may also enable building of a subsequent increment.

Ruszkowski, James↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis III EVA Mission Capability for de Gerlache-Shackleton Ridge

NASA has committed to sending humans to the Moon no earlier than 2025. The Artemis III mission will include scientific, technology demonstrations, commercial, inspirational, and explorational objectives. Achieving these goals will depend upon balancing priorities and mission constraints. A landing location needs to meet terrain conditions suitable for the lander with acceptable thermal and lighting conditions. This location must also allow access to geological areas of interest within traverse range and capability of walking astronauts. A representative EVA timeline is then developed for an example location on the de Gerlache-Shackleton ridge and used to examine the location’s acceptability as a candidate site for Artemis III. Similar studies are being conducted to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and Flight Operations.

EVA↗
NASA NTRS1984

Writing executable assertions to test flight software

An executable assertion is a logical statement about the variables or a block of code. If there is no error during execution, the assertion statement results in a true value. Executable assertions can be used for dynamic testing of software. They can be employed for validation during the design phase, and exception and error detection during the operation phase. The present investigation is concerned with the problem of writing executable assertions, taking into account the use of assertions for testing flight software. They can be employed for validation during the design phase, and for exception handling and error detection during the operation phase The digital flight control system and the flight control software are discussed. The considered system provides autopilot and flight director modes of operation for automatic and manual control of the aircraft during all phases of flight. Attention is given to techniques for writing and using assertions to test flight software, an experimental setup to test flight software, and language features to support efficient use of assertions.

Mahmood, A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Conceptual Inquiry of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station GNC Flight Controllers

The concept of Mission Control was envisioned by Christopher Columbus Kraft in the 1960's. Instructed to figure out how to operate human space flight safely, Kraft envisioned a room of sub-system experts troubleshooting problems and supporting nominal flight activities under the guidance of one Flight Director who is responsible for the success of the mission. To facilitate clear communication, MCC communicates with the crew through a Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) who is an astronaut themselves. Gemini 4 was the first mission to be supported by such a MCC and successfully completed the first American EVA. The MCC seen on television is called the Flight Control Room (FCR, pronounced ficker) or otherwise known as the front room. While this room is the most visible aspect, it is a very small component of the entire control center. The Shuttle FCR is known as the White FCR (WFCR) and Station's as FCR-1. (FCR-1 was actually the first FCR built at JSC which was used through the Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle programs until the WFCR was completed in 1992. Afterwards FCR-1 was refurbished first for the Life Sciences Center and then for the ISS in 2006.) Along with supporting the Flight Director, each FCR operator is also the supervisor for usually two or three support personnel in a back room called the Multi-Purpose Support Room (MPSR, pronounced mipser). MPSR operators are more deeply focused on their specific subsystems and have the responsible to analyze patterns, and diagnose and assess consequences of faults. The White MPSR (WMPSR) operators are always present for Shuttle operations; however, ISS FCR controllers only have support from their Blue MPSR (BMPSR) while the Shuttle is docked and during critical operations. Since ISS operates 24-7, the FCR team reduces to a much smaller Gemini team of 4-5 operators for night and weekend shifts when the crew is off-duty. The FCR is also supported by the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) which is a collection of contractor engineers who provide analysis and long-term troubleshooting support. Each MER operator is an expert in a very small portion of a sub-system and each FCR console usually interfaces with several MER positions.

Kranzusch, Kara↗
NASA NTRS2010

Mission Operations Directorate - Success Legacy of the Space Shuttle Program

In support of the Space Shuttle Program, as well as NASA's other human space flight programs, the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at the Johnson Space Center has become the world leader in human spaceflight operations. From the earliest programs - Mercury, Gemini, Apollo - through Skylab, Shuttle, ISS, and our Exploration initiatives, MOD and its predecessors have pioneered ops concepts and emphasized a history of mission leadership which has added value, maximized mission success, and built on continual improvement of the capabilities to become more efficient and effective. MOD's focus on building and contributing value with diverse teams has been key to their successes both with the US space industry and the broader international community. Since their beginning, MOD has consistently demonstrated their ability to evolve and respond to an ever changing environment, effectively prepare for the expected and successfully respond to the unexpected, and develop leaders, expertise, and a culture that has led to mission and Program success.

Azbell, Jim↗
NASA NTRS2011

Mission Operations Directorate - Success Legacy of the Space Shuttle Program

In support of the Space Shuttle Program, as well as NASA s other human space flight programs, the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at the Johnson Space Center has become the world leader in human spaceflight operations. From the earliest programs - Mercury, Gemini, Apollo - through Skylab, Shuttle, ISS, and our Exploration initiatives, MOD and its predecessors have pioneered ops concepts and emphasized a history of mission leadership which has added value, maximized mission success, and built on continual improvement of the capabilities to become more efficient and effective. MOD s focus on building and contributing value with diverse teams has been key to their successes both with the US space industry and the broader international community. Since their beginning, MOD has consistently demonstrated their ability to evolve and respond to an ever changing environment, effectively prepare for the expected and successfully respond to the unexpected, and develop leaders, expertise, and a culture that has led to mission and Program success.

Azbell, James A.↗