Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Operations”

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 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

Architectures for Human Exploration of Near Earth Asteroids

The presentation explores human exploration of Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) key factors including challenges of supporting humans for long-durations in deep-space, incorporation of advanced technologies, mission design constraints, and how many launches are required to conduct a round trip human mission to a NEA. Topics include applied methodology, all chemical NEA mission operations, all nuclear thermal propulsion NEA mission operations, SEP only for deep space mission operations, and SEP/chemical hybrid mission operations. Examples of mass trends between datasets are provided as well as example sensitivity of delta-v and trip home, sensitivity of number of launches and trip home, and expected targets for various transportation architectures.

Drake, Bret G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Performance, Fatigue and Workload During Real-time, Reactive Telerobotic Mission Control Operations

Real-time, reactive telerobotic mission control operations require personnel to actively operate and manage remotely controlled vehicles or robots in real time. Due to the physical separation of the vehicle from the operator, such operations present many additional factors that can influence fatigue (i.e., degraded mental performance) and workload (i.e., mental and physical cost of task requirements), making it difficult to assess how long an individual can safely and accurately conduct operations. The upcoming Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission involves remotely controlling a lunar vehicle from an Earth-based mission control station. METHODS: In order to determine how long personnel could successfully maintain alertness and performance while operating a rover, we studied seven trained operators (i.e., 5 drivers, 2 real-time scientists) in a simulated mission control environment. We further assessed workload in order to determine whether perceived workload levels would change relative to time on task and by time of day. Operators completed two five-hour simulations in a randomized order, beginning at noon and at midnight. Performance was evaluated every 30 minutes using the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), and NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). RESULTS: On average, participants rated themselves as sleepier (5.06 ± 2.28) on the night drives compared to the day drives (3.12 ± 1.44; P < .0001). Workload was rated higher during the day drives (37.93 ± 20.09) compared to night (32.09 ± 21.74; P < .01). Lastly, participants had no change in average reaction time between the two drives. CONCLUSIONS: From the analysis, we observed performance began to degrade after approximately three hours of driving. Our findings suggest that rotating drivers at least every three hours would be prudent to allow for breaks, and to minimize performance degradation, particularly during night shifts.

fatigue↗
NASA NTRS2015

Early Mission Maneuver Operations for the Deep Space Climate Observatory Sun-Earth L1 Libration Point Mission

The Deep Space Climate Observatory mission launched on February 11, 2015, and inserted onto a transfer trajectory toward a Lissajous orbit around the Sun-Earth L1 libration point. This paper presents an overview of the baseline transfer orbit and early mission maneuver operations leading up to the start of nominal science orbit operations. In particular, the analysis and performance of the spacecraft insertion, mid-course correction maneuvers, and the deep-space Lissajous orbit insertion maneuvers are discussed, com-paring the baseline orbit with actual mission results and highlighting mission and operations constraints..

OPERATIONS↗
NASA NTRS2014

Concepts of Operations for Asteroid Rendezvous Missions Focused on Resources Utilization

Several asteroids are the targets of international robotic space missions currently manifested or in the planning stage. This global interest reflects a need to study these celestial bodies for the scientific information they provide about our solar system, and to better understand how to mitigate the collision threats some of them pose to Earth. Another important objective of these missions is providing assessments of the potential resources that asteroids could provide to future space architectures. In this paper, we examine a series of possible mission operations focused on advancing both our knowledge of the types of asteroids suited for different forms of resource extraction, and the capabilities required to extract those resources for mission enhancing and enabling uses such as radiation protection, propulsion, life support, shelter and manufacturing. An evolutionary development and demonstration approach is recommended within the framework of a larger campaign that prepares for the first landings of humans on Mars. As is the case for terrestrial mining, the development and demonstration approach progresses from resource prospecting (understanding the resource, and mapping the 'ore body'), mining/extraction feasibility and product assessment, pilot operations, to full in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). Opportunities to gather specific knowledge for ISRU via resource prospecting during science missions to asteroids are also examined to maximize the pace of development of needed ISRU capabilities and technologies for deep space missions.

radiation protection↗
NASA NTRS2008

GSFC Technical Outreach: The Capitol College Model

In February 2005, as part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Technical Outreach Program, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) awarded Capitol College of Laurel, Maryland an Educational Grant to establish a Space Operation academic curriculum to meet the future needs of mission operations engineers. This was in part due to the aerospace industry and GSFC concerns that a large number of professional engineers are projected to retire in the near term with evidence showing that current enrollment in engineering schools will not produce sufficient number of space operation trained engineers that will meet industry and government demands. Capitol College, under the agreement of the Educational Grant, established the Space Operations Institute (SOI) with a new curriculum in Space Operations that was approved and certified by the State of Maryland. The SO1 programs focuses on attracting, recruiting, and training a pipeline of highly qualified engineers with experience in mission operations, system engineering and development. The selected students are integrated as members of the engineering support team in any of the missions supported by the institute. The students are mentored by professional engineers from several aerospace companies that support GSFC. Initially, the institute was involved in providing console engineers and mission planning trainees for the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS), the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) and the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer mission (TOMS). Subsequently, the students were also involved in the technology refresh of the TOMS ground system and other mission operations development. Further mission assignment by GSFC management included participation in the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) mission operations and ground system technology refresh. The SOI program has been very successful. Since October 2005, sixty-four students have been enrolled in the SOI program and twenty-five have already graduated from the program, nineteen of whom are employed by company's supporting GSFC. Due to the success of the program, the initial grant period was extended for another period of two years. This paper presents the process that established the SOI as a viable pipeline of mission operations engineers, the lessons learned in the process of dealing with grants, and experience gained in mentoring engineering students that are responsible for particular areas of expertise and functionality. This paper can also be considered a case study and model for integrating a student team with government and industry professionals in the real world of mission operations.

Marius, Julio L.↗
NASA NTRS1979

Flight controls/avionics research - Impact on future civil helicopter operating efficiency and mission reliability

Operational efficiency and mission reliability are key capabilities which will impact the future use of helicopters in the civil segment and areas where flight control/avionics research can play a major role. The present paper reviews flight control/avionics system needs for each major area of civil helicopter use. Technology requirements to meet civil needs are discussed. The review points up the need for the development of all-weather flight control concepts and the validation of cost effective active control/fly-by-wire/fly-by-light system concepts with modular architecture which can be tailored to specific mission requirements.

Snyder, W. J.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar: Lunar Habitat Concepts

This paper will describe lunar habitat concepts that were defined as part of the Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar (CxAT-Lunar) in support of the Vision for Space Exploration. There are many challenges to designing lunar habitats such as mission objectives, launch packaging, lander capability, and risks. Surface habitats are required in support of sustaining human life to meet the mission objectives of lunar exploration, operations, and sustainability. Lunar surface operations consist of crew operations, mission operations, EVA operations, science operations, and logistics operations. Habitats are crewed pressurized vessels that include surface mission operations, science laboratories, living support capabilities, EVA support, logistics, and maintenance facilities. The challenge is to deliver, unload, and deploy self-contained habitats and laboratories to the lunar surface. The CxAT-Lunar surface campaign analysis focused on three primary trade sets of analysis. Trade set one (TS1) investigated sustaining a crew of four for six months with full outpost capability and the ability to perform long surface mission excursions using large mobility systems. Two basic habitat concepts of a hard metallic horizontal cylinder and a larger inflatable torus concept were investigated as options in response to the surface exploration architecture campaign analysis. Figure 1 and 2 depicts the notional outpost configurations for this trade set. Trade set two (TS2) investigated a mobile architecture approach with the campaign focused on early exploration using two small pressurized rovers and a mobile logistics support capability. This exploration concept will not be described in this paper. Trade set three (TS3) investigated delivery of a "core' habitation capability in support of an early outpost that would mature into the TS1 full outpost capability. Three core habitat concepts were defined for this campaign analysis. One with a four port core habitat, another with a 2 port core habitat, and the third investigated leveraging commonality of the lander ascent module and airlock pressure vessel hard shell. The paper will describe an overview of the various habitat concepts and their functionality. The Crew Operations area includes basic crew accommodations such as sleeping, eating, hygiene and stowage. The EVA Operations area includes additional EVA capability beyond the suit-port airlock function such as redundant airlock(s), suit maintenance, spares stowage, and suit stowage. The Logistics Operations area includes the enhanced accommodations for 180 days such as closed loop life support systems hardware, consumable stowage, spares stowage, interconnection to the other Hab units, and a common interface mechanism for future growth and mating to a pressurized rover. The Mission & Science Operations area includes enhanced outpost autonomy such as an IVA glove box, life support, and medical operations.

Toups, Larry↗
NASA NTRS2011

Operations Nomenclature [Annexes]

The purpose of Operations Nomenclature (OpNom) is to document methods for denoting all hardware and software and associated data referenced by operations products produced by the International Space Station (ISS) operations community. This includes Operations Data File (ODF) procedures, ground and onboard displays, mission rules, commands, messages and advisories, planning products, etc. This document applies to all agencies and individuals participating in or contributing to ISS mission operations. Mission operations include ground checkout, training, and simulations, as well as real-time activities. The document also applies to all operations documentation (paper or electronic media) and other products that refer to ISS-related equipment or activities.

Shannon, Yvette Y.↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Nation's Vision for Exploration: An Update

I.Current key activities: a) Constellation Level2-System Engineering. b) Lunar Architecture Team (LAT)2-technology assessment and architectural option for the lander. c) Mars Architecture Team-system engineering support, Science integration, precursor program planning. d) Lunar Lander Project Core Team-GN&C and Flight system engineering. e) Technology program-supporting multiple projects in robotics, power systems, aero entry technology. f) Mission Operation Project-Mission operations system engineering. g) Advanced Environmental Monitoring Instruments. H. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter instrument (Diviner). II. Mission Proposals a) Lunar Sample return. b) Lunar Gravity field mapper.

space exploration↗
NASA NTRS1968

Biosatellite II mission.

Operational flight phase of Biosatellite 2 mission to obtain data concerning biological life processes in space and earth

Reynolds, O. E.↗
NASA NTRS2018

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

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

Knapp, Mary↗
NASA NTRS2002

Mars mission science operations facilities design

A variety of designs for Mars rover and lander science operations centers are discussed in this paper, beginning with a brief description of the Pathfinder science operations facility and its strengths and limitations. Particular attention is then paid to lessons learned in the design and use of operations facilities for a series of mission-like field tests of the FIDO prototype Mars rover. These lessons are then applied to a proposed science operations facilities design for the 2003 Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission. Issues discussed include equipment selection, facilities layout, collaborative interfaces, scalability, and dual-purpose environments. The paper concludes with a discussion of advanced concepts for future mission operations centers, including collaborative immersive interfaces and distributed operations. This paper's intended audience includes operations facility and situation room designers and the users of these environments.

Ground Data System (GDC)↗
NASA NTRS1987

Automation of spacecraft control centers

The objective is to describe the further automation of the Payload Operations Control Centers, specifically the Mission Operations Room, by using a series of expert systems interconnected together. The feasibility of using expert systems in the Mission Operations Room is presently being determined. The expert system under development is called the Communications Link Expert Assistance Resource (CLEAR) project. It is the first control center expert system being designed and implemented at Goddard. It will demonstrate the feasibility and practicality of expert systems in a real-time control center environment. There is a two-fold purpose. First is to briefly describe the present effort of the CLEAR expert system under development. The second is to describe how a series of interacting expert systems could be developed to almost totally automate the Mission Operations Room within the control center. How these expert systems would be put together and what functions they could perform in the control center is described. These efforts will provide a great deal of applicability toward the automation of the space station.

Dutilly, Robert↗
NASA NTRS1990

A report on SHARP (Spacecraft Health Automated Reasoning Prototype) and the Voyager Neptune encounter

The development and application of the Spacecraft Health Automated Reasoning Prototype (SHARP) for the operations of the telecommunications systems and link analysis functions in Voyager mission operations are presented. An overview is provided of the design and functional description of the SHARP system as it was applied to Voyager. Some of the current problems and motivations for automation in real-time mission operations are discussed, as are the specific solutions that SHARP provides. The application of SHARP to Voyager telecommunications had the goal of being a proof-of-capability demonstration of artificial intelligence as applied to the problem of real-time monitoring functions in planetary mission operations. AS part of achieving this central goal, the SHARP application effort was also required to address the issue of the design of an appropriate software system architecture for a ground-based, highly automated spacecraft monitoring system for mission operations, including methods for: (1) embedding a knowledge-based expert system for fault detection, isolation, and recovery within this architecture; (2) acquiring, managing, and fusing the multiple sources of information used by operations personnel; and (3) providing information-rich displays to human operators who need to exercise the capabilities of the automated system. In this regard, SHARP has provided an excellent example of how advanced artificial intelligence techniques can be smoothly integrated with a variety of conventionally programmed software modules, as well as guidance and solutions for many questions about automation in mission operations.

Martin, R. G.↗
NASA NTRS1975

IUS/TUG orbital operations and mission support study. Volume 2: Interim upper stage operations

Background data and study results are presented for the interim upper stage (IUS) operations phase of the IUS/tug orbital operations study. The study was conducted to develop IUS operational concepts and an IUS baseline operations plan, and to provide cost estimates for IUS operations. The approach used was to compile and evaluate baseline concepts, definitions, and system, and to use that data as a basis for the IUS operations phase definition, analysis, and costing analysis. Both expendable and reusable IUS configurations were analyzed and two autonomy levels were specified for each configuration. Topics discussed include on-orbit operations and interfaces with the orbiter, the tracking and data relay satellites and ground station support capability analysis, and flight control center sizing to support the IUS operations.

Source record↗