Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Task scheduling”

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 NTRS1990

Behavioral networks as a model for intelligent agents

On-going work at NASA Langley Research Center in the development and demonstration of a paradigm called behavioral networks as an architecture for intelligent agents is described. This work focuses on the need to identify a methodology for smoothly integrating the characteristics of low-level robotic behavior, including actuation and sensing, with intelligent activities such as planning, scheduling, and learning. This work assumes that all these needs can be met within a single methodology, and attempts to formalize this methodology in a connectionist architecture called behavioral networks. Behavioral networks are networks of task processes arranged in a task decomposition hierarchy. These processes are connected by both command/feedback data flow, and by the forward and reverse propagation of weights which measure the dynamic utility of actions and beliefs.

Sliwa, Nancy E.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Teams and teamwork at NASA Langley Research Center

The recent reorganization and shift to managing total quality at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) has placed an increasing emphasis on teams and teamwork in accomplishing day-to-day work activities and long-term projects. The purpose of this research was to review the nature of teams and teamwork at LaRC. Models of team performance and teamwork guided the gathering of information. Current and former team members served as participants; their collective experience reflected membership in over 200 teams at LaRC. The participants responded to a survey of open-ended questions which assessed various aspects of teams and teamwork. The participants also met in a workshop to clarify and elaborate on their responses. The work accomplished by the teams ranged from high-level managerial decision making (e.g., developing plans for LaRC reorganization) to creating scientific proposals (e.g., describing spaceflight projects to be designed, sold, and built). Teams typically had nine members who remained together for six months. Member turnover was around 20 percent; this turnover was attributed to heavy loads of other work assignments and little formal recognition and reward for team membership. Team members usually shared a common and valued goal, but there was not a clear standard (except delivery of a document) for knowing when the goal was achieved. However, members viewed their teams as successful. A major factor in team success was the setting of explicit a priori rules for communication. Task interdependencies between members were not complex (e.g., sharing of meeting notes and ideas about issues), except between members of scientific teams (i.e., reliance on the expertise of others). Thus, coordination of activities usually involved scheduling and attendance of team meetings. The team leader was designated by the team's sponsor. This leader usually shared power and responsibilities with other members, such that team members established their own operating procedures for decision making. Sponsors followed a hands-off policy during team operations, but they approved and reviewed team products. Most teams, particularly high-level decision-making teams, had little or no authority to carry out their decisions. Team members had few interpersonal conflicts. They monitored each other respectfully about meeting deadlines. Feedback and backup behaviors were seen as desirable aspects of teamwork, wanted by the members, and done appropriately.

Dickinson, Terry L.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Using Common Graphics Paradigms Implemented in a Java Applet to Represent Complex Scheduling Requirements

The experiments planned for the International Space Station promise to be complex, lengthy and diverse. The scarcity of the space station resources will cause significant competition for resources between experiments. The scheduling job facing the Space Station mission planning software requires a concise and comprehensive description of the experiments' requirements (to ensure a valid schedule) and a good description of the experiments' flexibility (to effectively utilize available resources). In addition, the continuous operation of the station, the wide geographic dispersion of station users, and the budgetary pressure to reduce operations manpower make a low-cost solution mandatory. A graphical representation of the scheduling requirements for station payloads implemented via an Internet-based application promises to be an elegant solution that addresses all of these issues. The graphical representation of experiment requirements permits a station user to describe his experiment by defining "activities" and "sequences of activities". Activities define the resource requirements (with alternatives) and other quantitative constraints of tasks to be performed. Activities definitions use an "outline" graphics paradigm. Sequences define the time relationships between activities. Sequences may also define time relationships with activities of other payloads or space station systems. Sequences of activities are described by a "network" graphics paradigm. The bulk of this paper will describe the graphical approach to representing requirements and provide examples that show the ease and clarity with which complex requirements can be represented. A Java applet, to run in a web browser, is being developed to support the graphical representation of payload scheduling requirements. Implementing the entry and editing of requirements via the web solves the problems introduced by the geographic dispersion of users. Reducing manpower is accomplished by developing a concise representation which eliminates the misunderstanding possible with verbose representations and which captures the complete requirements and flexibility of the experiments.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS1981

The 30/20 GHz flight experiment system, phase 2. Volume 4: Experiment system development plan

The development plan for the 30/20 GHz flight experiment system is presented. A master program schedule with detailed development plans for each subsystem is planned with careful attention given to how technology items to ensure a minimal risk. The work breakdown structure shows the organization of the program management with detailed task definitions. The ROM costs based on the development plan are also given.

Bronstein, L.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Tracking the GLOMR satellite

The task of day-to-day low orbiting satellite tracking utilizing the NAVSPASUR orbital elements is discussed and methods for improving pass time predictions are presented. Estimates are needed for preprogramming of satellite-initiated communications scheduling which requires an accuracy of approximately 30 seconds. This can be achieved by removing the variance associated with the NAVSPASUR D sub 2 (decay) term. Finally, the shock evidenced in GLOMR's orbit on February 7, 1986 is documented and attributed to a severe solar storm with immediately enhanced drag. GLOMR's life expectancy in orbit is now estimated to have dropped approximately 17% by the end of orbit in early February, 1987.

Reiss, Keith W.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Engineering technology for networks

Space Network (SN) modeling and evaluation are presented. The following tasks are included: Network Modeling (developing measures and metrics for SN, modeling of the Network Control Center (NCC), using knowledge acquired from the NCC to model the SNC, and modeling the SN); and Space Network Resource scheduling.

Paul, Arthur S.↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Gravitational-Wave Mission Concept Study

With the conclusion of the NASA/ESA partnership on the Laser interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) Project, NASA initiated a study to explore mission concepts that will accomplish some or all of the LISA science objectives at lower cost. The Gravitational-Wave Mission Concept Study consists of a public Request for Information (RFI), a Core Team of NASA engineers and scientists, a Community Science Team, a Science Task Force, and an open workshop. The RFI yielded 12 mission concepts, 3 instrument concepts and 2 technologies. The responses ranged from concepts that eliminated the drag-free test mass of LISA to concepts that replace the test mass with an atom interferometer. The Core Team reviewed the noise budgets and sensitivity curves, the payload and spacecraft designs and requirements, orbits and trajectories and technical readiness and risk. The Science Task Force assessed the science performance. Three mission concepts have been studied by Team-X, JPL's concurrent design facility, to refine the conceptual design, evaluate key performance parameters, assess risk and estimate cost and schedule. The status of the Study are reported.

Stebbins, Robin↗
NASA NTRS2019

Thermal, Avionics, and Power Considerations for Designing a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Flight Demonstrator

As part of the Appropriations Bill passed by the US Congress in February 2019, NASA was instructed to develop a nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) flight demonstrator by 2024. [4] In response to this directive, the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) was tasked with beginning concept studies for the flight demonstration (FD) mission. During the NTP study formulation, two philoso- phies emerged with regards to FD concept design. The first, Flight Demo 1 (FD1), strictly observes the 2024 schedule requirement at the expense of lower engine performance than expected of theoretical NTP engines. The second concept, Flight Demo 2 (FD2), relaxes the schedule requirement to allow for higher engine performance and more traceability to future operational systems. Both the FD1 and FD2 concepts present considerable challenges for subsystem design, specifically in the areas of thermal control, avionics, and power. To guard against undesired graveyard orbits, a requirement to keep the NTP engine and the reaction control system (RCS) separate was put in place. As a result of this requirement, the avionics subsystem must provide separate command and data handling (CDH) and instrumentation for each propulsion system. In-space instrumentation and monitoring of a NTP system has never been done before, necessitating the development of novel strategies and unique hardware. The heating rates produced by the NTP engine are extremely high, leading to difficulties with thermal control. The FD1 concept utilizes high-pressure gaseous hydrogen (GH2), which is largely insensitive to temperature fluctuations. The FD2 concept, however, utilizes cryogenic liquid hydrogen (LH2) which must be kept stable near 20 Kelvin. A high-performance thermal control system (TCS) will be required to ensure all components and subsystems are maintained within their operational temperature ranges. This paper will highlight the thermal, avionics, and power solutions required for the full scope of challenges for a NTP flight demonstrator.

Johnson, W. E.↗
NASA NTRS1973

The growing importance of costs and ways to maintain cost control on a large program in today's competitive environment

Discussion of management techniques that make it possible to overcome inflationary and developmental cost rises while holding schedule and performance fixed in scientific space programs. The techniques reviewed pertain to high personnel motivation, continual review of contract rigidity for de facto modification by senior judgment, standardization vs design innovation, cooperative customer/contractor goal orientation vs task orientation, and deep real-time management visibility.

Newman, J. J.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Space station needs, attributes, and architectural options: Space station program cost analysis

This report documents the principal cost results (Task 3) derived from the Space Station Needs, Attributes, and Architectural Options study conducted for NASA by the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company. The determined costs were those of Architectural Options (Task 2) defined to satisfy Mission Requirements (Task 1) developed within the study. A major feature of this part of the study was the consideration of realistic NASA budget constraints on the recommended architecture. Thus, the space station funding requirements were adjusted by altering schedules until they were consistent with current NASA budget trends.

Cowls, R. S.↗
NASA NTRS2006

NASA Langley Systems Analysis & Concepts Directorate Technology Assessment/Portfolio Analysis

Systems analysis develops and documents candidate mission and architectures, associated system concepts, enabling capabilities and investment strategies to achieve NASA s strategic objectives. The technology assessment process connects the mission and architectures to the investment strategies. In order to successfully implement a technology assessment, there is a need to collect, manipulate, analyze, document, and disseminate technology-related information. Information must be collected and organized on the wide variety of potentially applicable technologies, including: previous research results, key technical parameters and characteristics, technology readiness levels, relationships to other technologies, costs, and potential barriers and risks. This information must be manipulated to facilitate planning and documentation. An assessment is included of the programmatic and technical risks associated with each technology task as well as potential risk mitigation plans. Risks are assessed and tracked in terms of likelihood of the risk occurring and consequences of the risk if it does occur. The risk assessments take into account cost, schedule, and technical risk dimensions. Assessment data must be simplified for presentation to decision makers. The Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate (SACD) at NASA Langley Research Center has a wealth of experience in performing Technology Assessment and Portfolio Analysis as this has been a business line since 1978.

Cavanaugh, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2006

Interfacing with USSTRATCOM and UTTR during Stardust Earth Return

The Stardust Sample Return Capsule separated from the main spacecraft four hours prior to atmospheric entry. Between this time and the time at which the SRC touched down at the Utah Test and Training Range, two organizations external to JPL were involved in tracking the Sample Return Capsule. Orbit determination for the Stardust spacecraft during deep space cruise, the encounters of asteroid Annefrank and comet Wild 2, and the final approach to Earth used X-band radio metric Doppler and range data obtained through the Deep Space Network. The SRC lacked the electronics needed for coherently transponded radio metric tracking, so the DSN was not able to track the SRC after it separated from the main spacecraft. Although the expected delivery accuracy at atmospheric entry was well within the capability needed to target the SRC to the desired ground location, it was still desirable to obtain direct knowledge of the SRC trajectory in case of anomalies. For this reason U.S. Strategic Command was engaged to track the SRC between separation and atmospheric entry. Once the SRC entered the atmosphere, ground sensors at UTTR were tasked to acquire the descending SRC and maintain track during the descent in order to determine the landing location, to which the ground recovery team was then directed. This paper discusses organizational interfaces, data products, and delivery schedules, and the actual tracking operations are described.

Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR)↗
NASA NTRS1999

One for All: Maintaining a Single Schedule Database for Large Development Projects

Efficiently maintaining and controlling a single schedule database in an Integrated Product Team environment is a significant challenge. It's accomplished effectively with the right combination of tools, skills, strategy, creativity, and teamwork. We'll share our lessons learned maintaining a 20,000 plus task network on a 36 month project.

Hilscher, R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗
NASA NTRS1972

A flight evaluation of a vectored thrust jet V/STOL airplane during simulated instrument approaches using the Kestrel (XV-6A) airplane

An in-flight investigation was made to determine the terminal-area operating problems of a vectored-thrust-jet vertical and short take-off landing (V/STOL) airplane under simulated instrument conditions. Handling-qualities data pertinent to the terminal-area approach and landing task are presented in the text, and additional documentation is included in the appendixes. Problems dealing with the cruise letdown to localizer capture, conversion to powered-lift flight, precise control of the glide slope, approach velocity or deceleration schedule, hover, and landing are discussed.

Morello, S. A.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Autonomous Rovers for Mars Exploration

Rovers will play a critical role in the exploration of Mars. Near-term mission plans call for long traverses over unknown terrain, robust navigation and instrument placement, and reliable operations for extended periods of time. Longer-term missions may visit multiple science sites in a single day and perform opportunistic science data collection, as well as complex scouting, construction, and maintenance tasks in preparation for an eventual human presence. The Pathfinder mission demonstrated the potential for robotic Mars exploration but at the same time indicated the need for more rover autonomy. The highly ground-intensive control with infrequent communication and high latency limited the effectiveness of the Sojourner rover. When failures occurred, Sojourner often sat idle for extended periods of time, awaiting further commands from earth. In future missions, the tasks will be more complex and extended; hence there will be even more situations where things do not go exactly as planned. Significant advances in rover autonomy are needed to cope with increasing task complexity and greater execution uncertainty. Towards this end, we have designed an on-board executive architecture that incorporates robust operation, resource utilization, and failure recovery. In addition, we have designed ground tools to produce and refine contingent schedules that take advantage of the on-board architecture's flexible execution characteristics. Together, the on-board executive and the ground tools constitute an integrated rover autonomy architecture. This work draws from our experience with the Deep Space One autonomy experiment, with enhancements to ensure robust operation in the face of the unpredictable, complex environment that the rover will encounter on Mars. The rover autonomy architecture is currently being developed and deployed on the Marsokhod rover platform at NASA Ames Research Center. The capabilities of the rover autonomy architecture to support autonomous operations will be demonstrated concretely in upcoming field tests.

Anderson, Corin↗
NASA NTRS2004

An Execution Service for Grid Computing

This paper describes the design and implementation of the IPG Execution Service that reliably executes complex jobs on a computational grid. Our Execution Service is part of the IPG service architecture whose goal is to support location-independent computing. In such an environment, once n user ports an npplicntion to one or more hardware/software platfrms, the user can describe this environment to the grid the grid can locate instances of this platfrm, configure the platfrm as required for the application, and then execute the application. Our Execution Service runs jobs that set up such environments for applications and executes them. These jobs consist of a set of tasks for executing applications and managing data. The tasks have user-defined starting conditions that allow users to specih complex dependencies including task to execute when tasks fail, afiequent occurrence in a large distributed system, or are cancelled. The execution task provided by our service also configures the application environment exactly as specified by the user and captures the exit code of the application, features that many grid execution services do not support due to dflculties interfacing to local scheduling systems.

Smith, Warren↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: Artemis astronauts will be required to complete more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedules than during ever before. While new spacesuits are designed to sustain high physical workloads during exploration EVAs (xEVA), crewmembers must also sustain cognitive performance throughout xEVA timelines. It is therefore necessary to characterize the effects of surface xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue. Methods: This study utilized NASA Johnson Space Center’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate lunar gravity and assess xEVA tasks and cognitive performance. Two subjects completed two ~5-hour EVAs in a pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverses. Subjects completed two cognitive assessments (Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT)) before the first and after the second simulated EVA to assess effects of xEVA tasks on processing speed and vigilant attention. Additionally, sleep (e.g., quality, duration, and efficiency) was monitored (Oura Ring) for ≥7 days prior to the simulated EVAs, as well as between each EVA, to account for possible effects of sleep decrements on cognitive metrics. Results: Cognitive performance changed minimally from pre to post EVA for both DSST (response time (RT): S1 Δ129.1ms, S2 Δ40.7ms; Accuracy: S1 preEVA = 1.0, S1 postEVA = 0.98, S2 preEVA = 1.0, S2 postEVA = 1.0) and PVT (S1 PVT RT Δ17.7 ms, S2 PVT RT Δ-2.7 ms). Subjects’ sleep duration immediately prior to EVA showed minimal deviation from baseline (Δhrs; S1 preEVA1= + 0.67, S1 preEVA2 = -.03, S2 preEVA1 = - 1.1, S2 preEVA2 = -1.39) and efficiency (Δ%; S1 preEVA1 = 0.09, S1 preEVA2 = 9.54, S2 preEVA1 = 0, S2 preEVA2= 12). Notably, sleep waketime shifted earlier for one subject by ~1 hr which may have impacted performance. Conclusion: Understanding the impacts of xEVA workloads on cognitive performance will be instrumental to future exploration mission planning and success. Future work will expand the subject pool and test new spacesuit designs to better characterize cognitive performance and impacts of sleep during simulated xEVA and inform modeling and prediction capabilities for future Artemis xEVA planning.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗