Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “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 NTRS2013

Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration-1 Concept of Operations (ATD-1 ConOps), Version 2.0

This document is an update to the operations and procedures envisioned for NASA s Air Traffic Management (ATM) Technology Demonstration #1 (ATD-1). The ATD-1 Concept of Operations (ConOps) integrates three NASA technologies to achieve high throughput, fuel-efficient arrival operations into busy terminal airspace. They are Traffic Management Advisor with Terminal Metering (TMA-TM) for precise time-based schedules to the runway and points within the terminal area, Controller-Managed Spacing (CMS) decision support tools for terminal controllers to better manage aircraft delay using speed control, and Flight deck Interval Management (FIM) avionics and flight crew procedures to conduct airborne spacing operations. The ATD-1 concept provides de-conflicted and efficient operations of multiple arrival streams of aircraft, passing through multiple merge points, from top-of-descent (TOD) to the Final Approach Fix. These arrival streams are Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs) from en route altitude to the runway, using primarily speed control to maintain separation and schedule. The ATD-1 project is currently addressing the challenges of integrating the three technologies, and their implantation into an operational environment. The ATD-1 goals include increasing the throughput of high-density airports, reducing controller workload, increasing efficiency of arrival operations and the frequency of trajectory-based operations, and promoting aircraft ADS-B equipage.

Baxley, Brian T.↗
NASA NTRS2014

STK Integrated Message Production List Editor (SIMPLE) for CEO Operations

Late in fiscal year 2011, the Crew Earth Observations (CEO) team was tasked to upgrade and replace its mission planning and mission operations software systems, which were developed in the Space Shuttle era of the 1980s and 1990s. The impetuses for this change were the planned transition of all workstations to the Windows 7 64-bit operating system and the desire for more efficient and effective use of Satellite Tool Kit (STK) software required for reliable International Space Station (ISS) Earth location tracking. An additional requirement of this new system was the use of the same SQL database of CEO science sites from the SMMS, which was also being developed. STK Integrated Message Production List Editor (SIMPLE) is the essential, all-in-one tool now used by CEO staff to perform daily ISS mission planning to meet its requirement to acquire astronaut photography of specific sites on Earth. The sites are part of a managed, long-term database that has been defined and developed for scientific, educational, and public interest. SIMPLE's end product is a set of basic time and location data computed for an operator-selected set of targets that the ISS crew will be asked to photograph (photography is typically planned 12 to 36 hours out). The CEO operator uses SIMPLE to (a) specify a payload operations planning period; (b) acquire and validate the best available ephemeris data (vectors) for the ISS during the planning period; (c) ingest and display mission-specific site information from the CEO database; (d) identify and display potential current dynamic event targets as map features; (e) compute and display time and location information for each target; (f) screen and select targets based on known crew availability constraints, obliquity constraints, and real-time evaluated constraints to target visibility due to illumination (sun elevation) and atmospheric conditions (weather); and finally (g) incorporate basic, computed time and location information for each selected target into the daily CEO Target List product (message) for submission to ISS payload planning and integration teams for their review and approval prior to uplink. SIMPLE requires and uses the following resources: an ISS mission planning period Greenwich Mean Time start date/time and end date/time), the best available ISS mission ephemeris data (vectors) for that planning period, the STK software package configured for the ISS, and an ISS mission-specific subset of the CEO sites database. The primary advantages realized by the development and implementation of SIMPLE into the CEO payload operations support activity are a smooth transition to the Windows 7 operating system upon scheduled workstation refresh; streamlining of the input and verification of the current ISS ephemeris (vector data); seamless incorporation of selected contents of the SQL database of science sites; the ability to tag and display potential dynamic event opportunities on orbit track maps; simplification of the display and selection of encountered sites based on crew availability, illumination, obliquity, and weather constraints; the incorporation of high-quality mapping of the Earth with various satellite-based datasets for use in describing targets; and the ability to encapsulate and export the essential selected target elements in XML format for use by onboard Earth-location systems, such as Worldmap. SIMPLE is a carefully designed and crafted in-house software package that includes detailed help files for the user and meticulous internal documentation for future modifications. It was delivered in February 2012 for test and evaluation. Following acceptance, it was implemented for CEO mission operations support in May 2012.

Trenchard, Mike↗
NASA NTRS2012

Designing Mission Operations for the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory Mission

NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission, to understand the internal structure and thermal evolution of the Moon, offered unique challenges to mission operations. From launch through end of mission, the twin GRAIL orbiters had to be operated in parallel. The journey to the Moon and into the low science orbit involved numerous maneuvers, planned on tight timelines, to ultimately place the orbiters into the required formation-flying configuration necessary. The baseline GRAIL mission is short, only 9 months in duration, but progressed quickly through seven very unique mission phases. Compressed into this short mission timeline, operations activities and maneuvers for both orbiters had to be planned and coordinated carefully. To prepare for these challenges, development of the GRAIL Mission Operations System began in 2008. Based on high heritage multi-mission operations developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Lockheed Martin, the GRAIL mission operations system was adapted to meet the unique challenges posed by the GRAIL mission design. This paper describes GRAIL's system engineering development process for defining GRAIL's operations scenarios and generating requirements, tracing the evolution from operations concept through final design, implementation, and validation.

MOS↗
NASA NTRS2015

Operating in "Strange New Worlds" and Measuring Success - Test and Evaluation in Complex Environments

Software tools are being developed by the Autonomy Incubator at NASA's Langley Research Center that will provide an integrated and scalable capability to support research and non-research flight operations across several flight domains, including urban and mixed indoor-outdoor operations. These tools incorporate a full range of data products to support mission planning, approval, flight operations, and post-flight review. The system can support a number of different operational scenarios that can incorporate live and archived data streams for UAS operators, airspace regulators, and other important stakeholders. Example use cases are described that illustrate how the tools will benefit a variety of users in nominal and off-nominal operational scenarios. An overview is presented for the current state of the toolset, including a summary of current demonstrations that have been completed. Details of the final, fully operational capability are also presented, including the interfaces that will be supported to ensure compliance with existing and future airspace operations environments.

Qualls, Garry↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human Error and the International Space Station: Challenges and Triumphs in Science Operations

Any system with a human component is inherently risky. Studies in human factors and psychology have repeatedly shown that human operators will inevitably make errors, regardless of how well they are trained. Onboard the International Space Station (ISS) where crew time is arguably the most valuable resource, errors by the crew or ground operators can be costly to critical science objectives. Operations experts at the ISS Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC), located at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, have learned that from payload concept development through execution, there are countless opportunities to introduce errors that can potentially result in costly losses of crew time and science. To effectively address this challenge, we must approach the design, testing, and operation processes with two specific goals in mind. First, a systematic approach to error and human centered design methodology should be implemented to minimize opportunities for user error. Second, we must assume that human errors will be made and enable rapid identification and recoverability when they occur. While a systematic approach and human centered development process can go a long way toward eliminating error, the complete exclusion of operator error is not a reasonable expectation. The ISS environment in particular poses challenging conditions, especially for flight controllers and astronauts. Operating a scientific laboratory 250 miles above the Earth is a complicated and dangerous task with high stakes and a steep learning curve. While human error is a reality that may never be fully eliminated, smart implementation of carefully chosen tools and techniques can go a long way toward minimizing risk and increasing the efficiency of NASA's space science operations.

Harris, Samantha S.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Design Considerations for Spacecraft Operations During Uncrewed Dormant Phases of Human Exploration Missions

NASA is transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities in low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. However, pioneering space involves daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. Subject matter experts from NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) are currently studying a human exploration campaign that involves deployment of assets for planetary exploration. This study, called the Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) study, explores options with solar electric propulsion as a central component of the transportation architecture. This particular in-space transportation option often results in long duration transit to destinations. The EMC study is also investigating deployed human rated systems like landers, habitats, rovers, power systems and ISRU system to the surface of Mars, which also will involve long dormant periods when these systems are staged on the surface. In order to enable the EMC architecture, campaign and element design leads along with system and capability development experts from HEOMD's System Maturation Team (SMT) have identified additional capabilities, systems and operation modes that will sustain these systems especially during these dormant phases of the mission. Dormancy is defined by the absence of crew and relative inactivity of the systems. For EMC missions, dormant periods could range from several months to several years. Two aspects of uncrewed dormant operations are considered herein: (1) the vehicle systems that are placed in a dormant state and (2) the autonomous vehicle systems and robotic capabilities that monitor, maintain, and repair the vehicle and systems. This paper describes the mission stages of dormancy operations, phases of dormant operations, and critical system capabilities that are needed for dormant operations. This paper will compare dormancy operations of past robotic missions to identify lessons that can be applied to planned human exploration missions. Finally, this paper will also identify future work and analysis planned to assess system performance metrics and integrated system operations.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗
NASA NTRS2016

Assessment of Delivery Accuracy in an Operational-Like Environment

In order to enable arrival management concepts and solutions in a Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) environment, ground-based sequencing and scheduling functions were developed to support metering operations in the National Airspace System. These sequencing and scheduling tools are designed to assist air traffic controllers in developing an overall arrival strategy, from enroute down to the terminal area boundary. NASA developed a ground system concept and protoype capability called Terminal Sequencing and Spacing (TSAS) to extend metering operations into the terminal area to the runway. To demonstrate the use of these scheduling and spacing tools in an operational-like environment, the FAA, NASA, and MITRE conducted an Operational Integration Assessment (OIA) of a prototype TSAS system at the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC). This paper presents an analysis of the arrival management strategies utilized and delivery accuracy achieved during the OIA. The analysis demonstrates how en route preconditioning, in various forms, and schedule disruptions impact delivery accuracy. As the simulation spanned both enroute and terminal airspace, the use of Ground Interval Management - Spacing (GIM-S) enroute speed advisories was investigated. Delivery accuracy was measured as the difference between the Scheduled Time of Arrival (STA) and the Actual Time of Arrival (ATA). The delivery accuracy was computed across all runs conducted during the OIA, which included deviations from nominal operations which are known to commonly occur in real operations, such as schedule changes and missed approaches. Overall, 83% of all flights were delivered into the terminal airspace within +/- 30 seconds of their STA and 94% of flights were delivered within +/- 60 seconds. The meter fix delivery accuracy standard deviation was found to be between 36 and 55 seconds across all arrival procedures. The data also showed when schedule disruptions were excluded, the percentage of aircraft delivered within +/- 30 seconds was between 85 and 90% across the various arrival procedures at the meter fix. This paper illustrates the ability to meet new delivery accuracy requirements in an operational-like environment using operational systems and NATCA controller participants, while also including common events that might cause disruptions to the schedule and overall system.

Air Traffic Scheduling↗
NASA NTRS2018

Addressing Human Error in International Space Station Flight Control Teams: Advances in Ground Training for Science Operators

In flight control, as with any human in the loop system, operator error is an inevitable reality. On the International Space Station (ISS) where crew time and physical resources are precious and often irreplaceable, operator errors can result in significant, irreversible consequences. Flight controllers at the Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) located at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama know this reality well. At the POIC, operator errors can be caused by a variety of factors, from poor hardware or software design to environmental factors such as time pressure or fatigue. The most difficult errors to address, however, are those which result from ineffective teamwork.Academic research in teamwork has resulted in the identification of many factors which make cross-functional teaming difficult, including leadership, trust building, and communication challenges. These factors, especially when combined with the challenging environmental factors flight control teams must contend with daily, make the goal of minimizing operator errors in payload operations challenging to achieve. To address such teamwork errors, trainers at the POIC have drawn best practices from high reliability industries such as commercial aviation, healthcare, and nuclear power plants, as well as from our sister ISS control center in Houston, Texas, to develop and institute a new training program focused specifically on teamwork skills.This training program, called the Team Skills Curriculum, is based on the concept of Crew Resource Management (CRM) which was developed by NASA in the 1970s for the commercial aviation industry in response to a series of aviation disasters resulting from ineffective teamwork. CRM was later tailored by the Johnson Space Center (JSC) for use in astronaut and flight control training. The result, called Space Flight Resource Management (SFRM) was formally introduced into manned spaceflight training in the late 90s. SFRM has evolved over the years, but the focus has remained on helping operators develop the skills needed to work as part of an effective team. Using these concepts as well as the latest research in cross-functional teaming and data on specific errors occurring at the POIC, trainers in the integrated flight control training branch created a custom training program for both new and certified payload operations specialists.

Harris, Samantha S.↗
NASA NTRS2016

International Space Station (ISS) Payload Autonomous Operations Past, Present and Future

Draper Laboratorys Timeliner is a scripting and automation system that runs onboard computers in the International Space Station (ISS). Timeliner is fully integrated with ISS and can be used to automate ISS operations tasks. Some of the most challenging aspects of operating a payload in low earth orbit are communication delays, ground equipment failures, and human errors. How does a Payload Developer (PD) know their equipment is operating nominally and collecting science in the most efficient way possible or even powered at any given time? During a ground Loss of Signal (LOS) data outage, PDs have no insight into their experiments state, and benefit greatly from Timeliner scripts executing on ISS to perform telemetry monitoring and commanding operations. This paper will discuss current software designs, and new operational uses for Timeliner. Existing Timeliner capabilities discussed will include: autonomous EXPRESS Rack activation and deactivation; autonomous science data downlinks; Minus Eighty Degree Freezer (MELFI) Dewar autonomous safing; JAXA and ESA module autonomous payload facility safing; as well as many others. New operational concepts discussed will include allowing Timeliner on the payload computer to issue core commands (Thermal, Power, Fire Detection), creation of new ground tools that will monitor the current status of Payload Racks as well as all the messaging from autonomous scripts executing, decreasing approval time for Timeliner bundles, and opening up the Payload MDM Enhanced Processor Integrated Communications Card (EPIC) interface. The EPIC interface could provide a new crew interface for PL Timeliner execution. The new interface could operate on either a Payload Computer System (PCS) or a Station Support Computer (SSC) that is plugged into either the Payload LAN or the Operations LAN which will make communicating to the PL MDM more flexible and greatly increase band width for communication.

Space Mission Automation↗
NASA NTRS2019

Long Term Biological Treatment of Space Habitation Waste Waters in a One Stage MABR: Comparison of Operation for N and C Oxidation With and Without Simultaneous Denitrification

Aerobic biological stabilization has been previously demonstrated for full size MABR?s (CoMANDR 1.0, CoMANDR 2.0, and R-CoMANDR) over operating periods of ~1 year. These systems have successfully treated a variety of possible habitation waste streams including an ISS (urine + flush and humidity condensate) and Early Planetary Base (EPB) wastewater (urine, flush water, hygiene wastewater, and laundry). Biological stabilization has a number of advantages including: 1) elimination of hazardous pre-treat chemicals; 2) production of NOx species (that can be easily rejected by evaporative or membrane systems); 3) elimination of volatile organic constituents; 4) a low pH effluent that facilitates membrane and distillation processes; and 5) a effluent that produces a better quality and less hazardous brine for water recovery. Previous work has primarily evaluated aerobic operation in which organic carbon and nitrogen is converted to CO2 and NOx-, respectively. An alternative to aerobic operation would be to include anoxic operation to promote denitrification and production of N2 gas. This allows for production of make-up gas as well as reduces the O2 demand and can increase ammonia oxidation efficiency. We evaluated the operation of a full scale (2 crew/day) MABR operated to perform oxidation of organic carbon and nitrogen with and without simultaneous reduction of oxidized N to N2 gas, simultaneous nitrification denitrification (SNDN). The system was challenged with a variety of space habitation wastewaters ranging from an ISS composition to a possible EPB waste stream under both continuous and on-production feeding modes. The system has been operated for over 2.5 years. We report on an overall comparison of aerobic oxidation and SNDN operational regimes to evaluate the system with the best overall attributes to support recycling of space habitation waste streams.

Biological water processing↗
NASA NTRS2016

On the Maneuvers Operational Response for NASA’s Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) Mission

The Soil-Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) spacecraft requires various kinds of in-orbit maneuvers over the course of its three-year mission. The types of maneuvers include pre-planned commissioning maneuvers to reach its science orbit, regularly executed orbit maintenance maneuvers to overcome drag and other nominally occurring phenomena, as well as (the possibility of) collision avoidance maneuvers. The architecture of the spacecraft – in terms of availability of commanding via ground assets, the inherited avionics' ability to sequence and execute commands, and the capability of available subsystems able to carry out maneuvers – was well defined early in the development of the spacecraft and mission, well before the operational plan for responding to maneuver requests was cemented. The systems engineering challenge became: how to accommodate all three types of maneuvers in the confines of this well-defined architecture. This paper will describe how the operations team on SMAP successfully met this challenge. Specifically, it will dive into the three pronged approach that SMAP developed to handle each type of maneuver described above – to meet the timeliness requirements leveraged on the operations team to execute said maneuvers, while continuing to fit within the allotted staffing profile during nominal operations. Defining this paradigm to fit the mission’s architecture meant re-defining the original paradigm, (planned maneuvers being thought of separately than collision avoidance maneuvers), and re-classifying all responses to maneuver requests as variations and permutations of a singular operational response to a maneuver request. This paper will also describe the tools that were created to simplify the human interface and automate as much of the response as was possible. Finally, this paper will describe, at a very high level, some of the problems encountered and lessons learned by the operations team when this process was executed the first four times during the first ninety days of operations. Though the architecture of the operations team's response to maneuver requests will never be repeated exactly, the flexibility that was inserted via redefining the scope of the problem and by redefining the human interfaces should influence future projects' architectures earlier in their development – in the hopes that said influence will save time and money in the future.

Tirona, Joseph↗
NASA NTRS2018

Predicting Crew Time Allocations for Lunar Orbital Missions Based on Historical ISS Operational Activities

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration continues to define candidate architectures for the planned lunar “Gateway”, it will be necessary to have a detailed understanding of how the crew will inhabit, operate, and maintain the spacecraft. The nature of the Gateway vehicle systems configuration and operations will have a direct impact on the scope of work activities required of the crew. Crew work schedules are sensitive to variations in spacecraft architecture, visiting vehicle activities, and logistics operations – particularly within short duration missions as initially planned for the lunar Gateway. These system and operational configurations must be taken into account when planning for crew time availability to conduct science activities on Gateway missions. This paper presents a methodology that is used to predict crew time distributions for lunar Gateway missions, as applied in NASA’s Exploration Crew Time Model (ECTM). The process utilized for evaluating crew time distributions is based on the categorization of all crew activities into a standardized ontology. Historical ISS daily crew timeline data from July 20, 2011 (post STS retirement) to present day was captured via the Operational Planning Timeline Integration System (OPTimIS) database and characterized according to the standardized ontology. This process enabled correlation and statistical analysis of the ISS data according to common mission parameters such as crew size, ECLSS system design, vehicle traffic operations, and logistics delivery operations. The results of the statistical analysis are a set of crew time distributions for each activity category. These distributions are then utilized within the ECTM to examine crew time allocations based on mission parameter inputs, which serve to characterize the Gateway mission configurations. Results for predicted crew time allocations for representative short duration Gateway missions are presented. These results can be used to evaluate crew schedule availability for science and utilization activities. Variations in expected mission architectures and mission operations are accounted for to correct crew time predictions. The analysis is being leveraged to plan utilization capability objectives that are achievable on the Gateway missions, as well as inform the viability of various mission architecture options.

Stromgren, Chel↗
NASA NTRS2020

Airspace Operations: Vision for 2045 and Beyond

We are seeing interesting changes in airspace operations. We are experiencing growth in global aviation for passenger and cargo travel. At the same time, drones of all sizes, urban air mobility, electric aircraft, commercial space transportation, supersonics, hypersonics, and increasingly autonomous vehicles will continue to mature. These operations along with current aviation will require access to airspace operations. Such access and scalability needs will only continue to increase in the future. Given that systems and procedures that will enable and support the future density and diversity takes a considerable amount of time to build and harmonize across the globe, it is appropriate that research efforts to enable 2045 operations begin now. A perfect storm is brewing as a number of factors are coming together, including: anticipated growth in diversity and density; limitations of our current system to support the growth and diversity; lack of utilization of latest technologies in an increasingly digitized world to support air traffic management; and a long lead time to conduct research, develop requirements, and built and deploy air traffic management systems. All these factors indicate that now is the time to start thinking about the needs of 2045 and beyond. In a limited manner, Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) has shown that new thinking and implementation paths for airspace operations is possible. The current system as it exists is based on many assumptions and limitations of technologies (e.g., radar, human-centered voice communications) which may not be true moving forward given the technologies around us are changing. The panel will discuss the following and related topics: 1. Expected growth in density, diversity, and needed scalability, 2. Likely requirements of air traffic management system to enable and support 2045 and beyond operations, 3. Assumptions related to air traffic management and operations that need to reevaluated based on technology trends, 4. Identification of research priorities and harmonization of research across the globe, and 5. Transition approaches from current air traffic operations to new vision 2045. The panel discussion will be useful for global air traffic management researchers, managers, strategists, airspace users, air traffic management system developers and integrators, and academic researchers.

Kopardekar, Parimal H.↗
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 NTRS2006

Implementing distributed operations : a comparison of two Deep Space Missions

Two very different deep space exploration missions—Mars Exploration Rover and Cassini—have made use of distributed operations for their science teams. In the case of MER, the distributed operations capability was implemented only after the prime mission was completed, as the rovers continued to operate well in excess of their expected mission lifetimes; Cassini, designed for a prime mission of four years, had planned for distributed operations from its inception. The rapid command turnaround timeline of MER, as well as many of the operations features implemented to support it, have proven to be conducive to distributed operations. These features include: a single science team leader during the tactical operations timeline, highly integrated science and engineering teams, processes and file structures designed to permit multiple team members to work in parallel to deliver sequencing products, web-based spacecraft status and planning reports for team-wide access, and near-elimination of paper products from the operations process.

Larsen, Barbara↗
NASA NTRS2006

Cassini distributed instrument operations – what we’ve learned since Saturn orbit insertion

The Cassini mission to Saturn is complex with 12 science teams conducting distributed operations across the United States and Europe. Each Team includes scientists from around the world who actively participate in operations, including observation design, instrument commanding, downlink processing, and archiving. This represents a change in how JPL complex deep-space missions have been operated. Since Saturn Orbit Insertion (SOI), the Cassini Project has spent 17 months conducting science operations and has gained realworld experience that has tested the assumptions and rationale for this approach. We have learned that many of the expected benefits have been realized, but there were numerous unexpected challenges as well. This paper will discuss the lessons learned from the Cassini Tour experience to date. It will revisit the assumptions and rationale behind the distributed instrument operations design and will describe the results, good and bad, of implementing this method of operations. We will describe how Instrument Teams are structured, their roles and responsibilities, what challenges they faced going into orbital operations (the “tour”) and what creative solutions were proposed when funding limitations and schedule milestones prevented optimum solutions. We will also discuss the problems that have been encountered both on the ground and with the instruments, how these problems and anomalies were overcome, and what was learned along the way about the characteristics of distributed instrument operations.

Woncik, Pam↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISS Payload Operations Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts and Solutions

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic brought a dramatic and rapid transformation to almost every aspect of humanity in 2020. The world’s space agencies and their missions were not immune to the wide-sweeping changes. One discipline principally affected was mission operations and the various groups supporting that function. Mission support teams, especially for complex and crewed missions like the International Space Station were forced to rapidly rethink how and where control center staff performed their vital work. Operations training – an essential element to mission ops, had unique hurdles to overcome. Operations training is responsible for preparing astronaut crews for their missions, providing training to flight controllers, as well as ensuring that new team members are ready to join their colleagues. Every element of training was impacted by COVID restrictions. From orientation and introductory classes for new controllers, simulations and advanced lessons, On the Job Training and final evaluations; all aspects faced new challenges. Trainers at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, were forced to become more efficient with trainees and resources to continue supporting payload operations. The pandemic started in the USA in March 2020. Immediately, NASA mandated that the support for ISS real-time operations was critical. As a result, physical access to key facilities was restricted. Trainers and trainees had to quickly shift to 100 percent remote learning. In the short term, this was not a problem. However, instructors discovered lessons that they were accustomed to delivering in a classroom environment did not translate to remote teaching. Another hurdle to operations training was the mandate that all simulations could only be held remotely. The logistics of even small simulations proved to be challenging due to IT restrictions and public internet limitations. With simulations essentially stopped, as well as the restrictions on most OJT, trainees were essentially stopped in their advancement towards certification. Once limitations were identified, trainers prioritized new options. Transitioning to all electronic learning materials was a relatively easy fix. Teaching to large groups took additional shifts in the training paradigm. Methods for preparing astronauts for their missions were revised. Simulation supervisors found more efficient techniques to provide realistic training experience. Communication and approvals from management was essential. In every case, the payload operations instructors found novel solutions to all functions listed. This paper will discuss the factors and solutions payloads operations trainers found to keep scientific research on the ISS flying forward to mission success.

ISS↗
NASA NTRS2021

Concept of Operations for OSIRIS-REx Optical Navigation Image Planning

Optical navigation (OpNav) is a critical subsystem of the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample return mission, which operated in the vicinity of near-Earth asteroid (101955) Bennu from August 2018 through April 2021. A substantial amount of mission resources across multiple subsystems and institutions is required to ensure that the OpNav data are successfully acquired. The KinetX OpNav team, part of the Flight Dynamics System (FDS), is responsible for performing required analysis to develop the OpNav operations plans; requesting, reviewing and verifying the plans; and ultimately using the image data for critical navigation operations. The FDS team, responsible for the mission navigation, is operated by KinetX Aerospace with management and operations support from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The Science Processing and Operations Center (SPOC), located at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, is responsible for generating the planning products for all science and most OpNav data. These plans are integrated into the spacecraft sequences, tested, and commanded by the Mission Support Area (MSA) at Lockheed Martin Space. To ensure mission-critical navigation image data are successfully acquired, the plan is developed through a waterfall of planning cycles over the course of 3 months prior to onboard plan execution. During the initial strategic planning for a mission phase, detailed analysis is performed by the OpNav team to conceptualize the concept of operations (ConOps) for image data collection. This phase OpNav Narrative is included along with other strategic planning documents for the key ground segment stakeholders to review and provide feedback. The detailed OpNav plans get defined in the tactical planning cycle, which spans 8 to 3 weeks before the week-long integrated sequence is executed on-board the spacecraft. During the tactical cycle, the initial OpNav Request is submitted along with the science requests, kicking off development of the science and OpNav plans. Once the initial plan is drafted, interfaces are exercised so that the plan can be reviewed and iterated, if necessary. A rigorous schedule is followed by the planning teams during the implementation cycle, spanning the last 18 days before uplink, to ensure all the necessary integration, testing, and reviewing can occur on time. The development of the OpNav planning ConOps, including responsibilities, interfaces, timelines, and procedures, took extensive collaboration across mission elements and institutions. The process was robust throughout the 137 weeks of continuous Optical Navigation Operations at Bennu, which concluded on April 9th, 2021.

Coralie D. Adam↗