Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mission execution”

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 559 records · Page 31
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Orbit Determination Accuracy Analysis of the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission During Perigee Raise

The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) will provide orbit determination and prediction support for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission during the missions commissioning period. The spacecraft will launch into a highly elliptical Earth orbit in 2015. Starting approximately four days after launch, a series of five large perigee-raising maneuvers will be executed near apogee on a nearly every-other-orbit cadence. This perigee-raise operations concept requires a high-accuracy estimate of the orbital state within one orbit following the maneuver for performance evaluation and a high-accuracy orbit prediction to correctly plan and execute the next maneuver in the sequence. During early mission design, a linear covariance analysis method was used to study orbit determination and prediction accuracy for this perigee-raising campaign. This paper provides a higher fidelity Monte Carlo analysis using the operational COTS extended Kalman filter implementation that was performed to validate the linear covariance analysis estimates and to better characterize orbit determination performance for actively maneuvering spacecraft in a highly elliptical orbit. The study finds that the COTS extended Kalman filter tool converges on accurate definitive orbit solutions quickly, but prediction accuracy through orbits with very low altitude perigees is degraded by the unpredictability of atmospheric density variation.

Determination↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Planetary Protection is Not a One Size Fits All Missions Approach: Enabling the Planetary Protection Programmatic and Engineering Process

Missions have a wide range of variables that change their management and engineering structure (e.g., competed vs directed missions, multiple NASA centers, international partnerships, increased commercial collaborations, etc.). Why would an identical planetary protection approach and structure for each mission make sense in this evolving landscape? Missions do not fit in a one-size-fits-all approach, likewise their planetary protection process should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. During the significant update to NPR 8715.24 and NASA-STD-8719.27 planetary protection policies, the programmatic execution and engineering implementation processes were changed to provide clarification, streamlining, and expansion to include alternative approaches. From a programmatic perspective, these changes include the flexibility in timing and combination of gate products in addition to providing varying levels of technical depth commensurate and appropriate with the mission categorization. From a technical perspective, these changes include the ability to A) leverage either a performance-based and/or a prescriptive-based approach, B) identify applicable international consensus standards for verification, and C) propose alternative methods that adhere to sound scientific and engineering consensus. This presentation will directly highlight the culture shift in planetary protection, areas of flexibility available to the technical community for mission program and engineering execution, and feature some of the specific mission scenarios that have already leveraged such processes.

Nick Benardini↗
NASA NTRS2014

Orbit Determination Accuracy Analysis of the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission During Perigee Raise

The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) will provide orbit determination and prediction support for the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission during the mission's commissioning period. The spacecraft will launch into a highly elliptical Earth orbit in 2015. Starting approximately four days after launch, a series of five large perigee-raising maneuvers will be executed near apogee on a nearly every-other-orbit cadence. This perigee-raise operations concept requires a high-accuracy estimate of the orbital state within one orbit following the maneuver for performance evaluation and a high-accuracy orbit prediction to correctly plan and execute the next maneuver in the sequence. During early mission design, a linear covariance analysis method was used to study orbit determination and prediction accuracy for this perigee-raising campaign. This paper provides a higher fidelity Monte Carlo analysis using the operational COTS extended Kalman filter implementation that was performed to validate the linear covariance analysis estimates and to better characterize orbit determination performance for actively maneuvering spacecraft in a highly elliptical orbit. The study finds that the COTS extended Kalman filter tool converges on accurate definitive orbit solutions quickly, but prediction accuracy through orbits with very low altitude perigees is degraded by the unpredictability of atmospheric density variation.

Multiscale↗
NASA NTRS2002

Robotic Exploration: The Role of Science Autonomy

Historical mission operations have involved: (1) commands transmitted to the craft; (2) execution of commands; (3) return of scientific data; (4) evaluation of these data by scientists; and (5) recommendations for future mission activity by scientists. This cycle is repeated throughout the mission with command opportunities once or twice per day. For a rover, this historical cycle is not amenable to rapid long range traverses or rapid response to any novel or unexpected situations.

Roush, Ted L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the moon and eventually enable a human Mars mission. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the crew health and performance (CHP) research and technology development (R&D) necessary to enable these future missions. These organizations include flight programs as well as other organizations such as the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), Human Research Program, Space Technology Mission Directorate, and System Capability Leadership Teams, each of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for the management of risks and strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA for identifying and prioritizing R&D needs. Alignment and evolution of these strategic planning constructs is ongoing and will allow for alignment and traceability between M2M objectives and R&D investments at a detailed level. While this reorganization is ongoing, and even after it is established, there is a recognized need among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&D priorities in a unified and digestible way that synthesizes the considerations and perspectives of the CHP community across NASA. To achieve this, the HMTA facilitated a series of group discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, which culminated in a product identifying the eight highest priority mission-enabling CHP capabilities for human missions to Mars, referred to as the “Top Human System Capability Needs for Mars”. The list includes Earth-Independent Human Operations; Mars Duration Food System; Mars Duration Effects on Human Physiology; Risks Mitigations for Vehicle Atmospheres; Computational Injury & Anthropometric Models; Exploration Exercise Countermeasures; Individual Variability in Responses to Spaceflight; and Sensorimotor Countermeasures. Existing strategic planning and risk management tools and processes were considered, as well as practicalities of technical, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&D risk mitigations and technology solutions. The product is not owned by any one organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. It is anticipated that this list will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&D progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS1973

Navigation and dispersion analysis for probe missions to Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus

Probe missions to the outer planets must consider the effects of dispersions in entry and communication parameters which results from navigation and executions errors. Presented are navigation analyses and trends in entry and communication dispersions for probe missions to Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. It is shown that the dispersions at Jupiter are dominated by execution errors while the dispersions at Uranus are totally influenced by navigation uncertainties. It is further shown that a successful probe mission to Uranus requires an optical navigation capability aboard the spacecraft to yield a reasonable entry footprint.

Hendricks, T. C.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Spitzer Observatory Operations -- Increasing Efficiency in Mission Operations

This paper explores the how's and why's of the Spitzer Mission Operations System's (MOS) success, efficiency, and affordability in comparison to other observatory-class missions. MOS exploits today's flight, ground, and operations capabilities, embraces automation, and balances both risk and cost. With operational efficiency as the primary goal, MOS maintains a strong control process by translating lessons learned into efficiency improvements, thereby enabling the MOS processes, teams, and procedures to rapidly evolve from concept (through thorough validation) into in-flight implementation. Operational teaming, planning, and execution are designed to enable re-use. Mission changes, unforeseen events, and continuous improvement have often times forced us to learn to fly anew. Collaborative spacecraft operations and remote science and instrument teams have become well integrated, and worked together to improve and optimize each human, machine, and software-system element.

operational efficiency↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek A Whitman↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek Whitman↗
NASA NTRS2008

cFE/CFS (Core Flight Executive/Core Flight System)

This viewgraph presentation describes in detail the requirements and goals of the Core Flight Executive (cFE) and the Core Flight System (CFS). The Core Flight Software System is a mission independent, platform-independent, Flight Software (FSW) environment integrating a reusable core flight executive (cFE). The CFS goals include: 1) Reduce time to deploy high quality flight software; 2) Reduce project schedule and cost uncertainty; 3) Directly facilitate formalized software reuse; 4) Enable collaboration across organizations; 5) Simplify sustaining engineering (AKA. FSW maintenance); 6) Scale from small instruments to System of Systems; 7) Platform for advanced concepts and prototyping; and 7) Common standards and tools across the branch and NASA wide.

Wildermann, Charles P.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Evaluation of Robotic Systems to Carry Out Traverse Execution, Opportunistic Science, and Landing Site Evaluation Tasks

This report covers the execution of and results from the activities proposed and approved in Exploration Analogs and Mission Development (EAMD) Field Test Protocol HMP2010: Evaluation of Robotic Systems to carry out Traverse Execution, Opportunistic Science, and Landing Site Evaluation Tasks. The field tests documented in this report examine one facet of a larger program of planetary surface exploration. This program has been evolving and maturing for several years, growing from a broad policy statement with a few specified milestones for NASA to an international effort with much higher fidelity descriptions of systems and operations necessary to accomplish this type of exploration.

Hoffman, Stephen J.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Perseverance Rover’s Robotic Arm and Turret Mounted Instruments’ Surface Commissioning

The Robotic Arm (RA) on the Perseverance rover is an integral component of the Sampling and Caching System necessary for completing the science goals of the Mars 2020 mission. While the Perseverance rover was based on the Curiosity rover which landed in 2012, the Robotic Arm was redesigned to carry a much larger turret with a new suite of payloads. Shortly after Perseverance landed in Jezero Crater, a series of checkouts was completed with the RA during the first 100 sols of the mission in order to ensure proper functionality of the RA and the instruments mounted on the turret. This period of time in the mission was called Surface Operations Transition (SOX). The objective of SOX was to systematically execute checkout activities for all the basic functionality so that the RA and instruments, as well as other rover components, could be released for scientific exploration.RA activities during SOX can be divided into a few different categories: Mechanism Checkouts, Rover Visual Inspections, Performance Characterization, and Instrument Functional Checkouts. Many of these checkouts built off of each other such that each subsequent activity would verify incrementally complex functionality. Many of the defined activities were executed several times throughout the development of the rover and served as a check that the RA’s performance is consistent with testing on Earth. Other activities were developed uniquely for SOX to respond to challenges discovered during development. They were designed to be verifiable without the help of ground support equipment or previous executions on the flight hardware to compare against.This paper discusses the formulation and conception of the various RA SOX checkout activities, verification and testing required to certify them for flight, execution of the activities on Mars, issues encountered, and finally results and findings as the mission transitioned to nominal science operations. We will be presenting the results and analysis using downlinked imaging and data from the flight vehicle to show how we verified the performance of the Robotic Arm and the turret mounted instruments in order to transition to science operations with a clean bill of health.

Edgett, Kenneth↗
NASA NTRS2015

Technology Demonstration Missions

Technology Demonstration Missions (TDM) is in its third year of execution, being initiated in 2010 and baselined in January of 2012. There are 11 projects that NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has contributed to or led: (1) Evolvable Cryogenics (eCryo): Cyrogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Engineering Development Unit (EDU), a proof of manufacturability effort, used to enhance knowledge and technology related to handling cryogenic propellants, specifically liquid hydrogen. (2) Composites for Exploration Upper Stage (CEUS): Design, build, test, and address flight certification of a large composite shell suitable for the second stage of the Space Launch System (SLS). (3) Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC): Spaceflight to demo small, low-mass atomic clock that can provide unprecedented stability for deep space navigation. (4) Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM): Demo of high-performance, green propellant propulsion system suitable for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA)-class spacecraft. (5) Human Exploration Telerobotics (HET): Demonstrating how telerobotics, remote control of a variety of robotic systems, can take routine, highly repetitive, dangerous or long-duration tasks out of human hands. (6) Laser Communication Relay Demo (LCRD): Demo to advance optical communications technology toward infusion into deep space and near Earth operational systems, while growing the capabilities of industry sources. (7) Low Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD): Demo new supersonic inflatable decelerator and parachute technologies to enable Mars landings of larger payloads with greater precision at a wider range of altitudes. (8) Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Entry Descent & Landing Instrumentation (MEDLI): Demo of embedded sensors embedded in the MSL heat shield, designed to record the heat and atmospheric pressure experienced during the spacecraft's high-speed, hot entry in the Martian atmosphere. (9) Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP): 50-kW class spacecraft that uses flexible blanket solar arrays for power generation and an electric propulsion system that delivers payload from low-Earth orbit to higher orbits. (10) Solar Sail Demonstration (SSD): Demo to validate sail deployment techniques for solar sails that are propelled by the pressure of sunlight. (11) Terrestrial HIAD Orbit Reentry (THOR): Demo of a 3.7-m Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) entry vehicle to test second generation aerothermal performance and modeling.

McDougal, John↗
NASA NTRS2013

Embedding Temporal Constraints For Coordinated Execution in Habitat Automation

Future NASA plans call for long-duration deep space missions with human crews. Because of light-time delay and other considerations, increased autonomy will be needed. This will necessitate integration of tools in such areas as anomaly detection, diagnosis, planning, and execution. In this paper we investigate an approach that integrates planning and execution by embedding planner-derived temporal constraints in an execution procedure. To avoid the need for propagation, we convert the temporal constraints to dispatchable form. We handle some uncertainty in the durations without it affecting the execution; larger variations may cause activities to be skipped.

Morris, Paul↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial Design Guidelines for Onboard Automation of Flight Path Management

Achieving the National Academy of Science’s vision of advanced aerial mobility will depend on significant developments in automation to achieve safe and efficient operations. Flight path management (FPM), a major category of automation functionality needed to achieve this vision, will provide dynamic management of an aircraft’s flight path, ensuring that it remains feasible to fly to mission completion, deconflicted from hazards, coordinated with other traffic, flexible to accommodate future disturbances, and optimized to meet business objectives. While efforts are underway to advance FPM technology for the Urban Air Mobility application, initial design guidelines are presented for FPM automation capabilities to achieve each of these objectives based on 15+ years of prior FPM automation research and development. Methods to efficiently account for uncertainty in the prediction of trajectories are described, as are additional considerations for prioritizing safety in the design of FPM automation capabilities and interactions between aircraft. Recommendations are supported by extensive experience gained via previous work with the FPM reference automation system, Autonomous Operations Planner, developed by NASA. By employing capable FPM automation supported by cooperative operational flight rules and information sharing, future aircraft operators will benefit from an increased ability to plan and execute safe and efficient flights and to achieve mission success in a dynamic airspace.

Flight Path Management, FPM, AOP, UAM, deconflicti↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial Design Guidelines for Onboard Automation of Flight Path Management

Achieving the National Academy of Science’s vision of advanced aerial mobility will depend on significant developments in automation to achieve safe and efficient operations. Flight path management (FPM), a major category of automation functionality needed to achieve this vision, will provide dynamic management of an aircraft’s flight path, ensuring that it remains feasible to fly to mission completion, deconflicted from hazards, coordinated with other traffic, flexible to accommodate future disturbances, and optimized to meet business objectives. While efforts are underway to advance FPM technology for the Urban Air Mobility application, initial design guidelines are presented for FPM automation capabilities to achieve each of these objectives based on 15+ years of prior FPM automation research and development. Methods to efficiently account for uncertainty in the prediction of trajectories are described, as are additional considerations for prioritizing safety in the design of FPM automation capabilities and interactions between aircraft. Recommendations are supported by extensive experience gained via previous work with the FPM reference automation system, Autonomous Operations Planner, developed by NASA. By employing capable FPM automation supported by cooperative operational flight rules and information sharing, future aircraft operators will benefit from an increased ability to plan and execute safe and efficient flights and to achieve mission success in a dynamic airspace.

Flight Path Management↗
NASA NTRS2012

MPST Software: MoonKommand

This software automatically processes Sally Ride Science (SRS) delivered MoonKAM camera control files (ccf) into uplink products for the GRAIL-A and GRAIL-B spacecraft as part of an education and public outreach (EPO) extension to the Grail Mission. Once properly validated and deemed safe for execution onboard the spacecraft, MoonKommand generates the command products via the Automated Sequence Processor (ASP) and generates uplink (.scmf) files for radiation to the Grail-A and/or Grail-B spacecraft. Any errors detected along the way are reported back to SRS via email. With Moon Kommand, SRS can control their EPO instrument as part of a fully automated process. Inputs are received from SRS as either image capture files (.ccficd) for new image requests, or downlink/delete files (.ccfdl) for requesting image downlink from the instrument and on-board memory management. The Moon - Kommand outputs are command and file-load (.scmf) files that will be uplinked by the Deep Space Network (DSN). Without MoonKommand software, uplink product generation for the MoonKAM instrument would be a manual process. The software is specific to the Moon - KAM instrument on the GRAIL mission. At the time of this writing, the GRAIL mission was making final preparations to begin the science phase, which was scheduled to continue until June 2012.

Kwok, John H.↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Analog Missions: Driving Exploration Through Innovative Testing

Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) will require a unique collection of advanced, innovative technologies and the precise execution of complex and challenging operational concepts. One tool we in the Analog Missions Project at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) utilize to validate exploration system architecture concepts and conduct technology demonstrations, while gaining a deeper understanding of system-wide technical and operational challenges, is our analog missions. Analog missions are multi-disciplinary activities that test multiple features of future spaceflight missions in an integrated fashion to gain a deeper understanding of system-level interactions and integrated operations. These missions frequently occur in remote and extreme environments that are representative in one or more ways to that of future spaceflight destinations. They allow us to test robotics, vehicle prototypes, habitats, communications systems, in-situ resource utilization, and human performance as it relates to these technologies. And they allow us to validate architectural concepts, conduct technology demonstrations, and gain a deeper understanding of system-wide technical and operational challenges needed to support crewed missions beyond LEO. As NASA develops a capability driven architecture for transporting crew to a variety of space environments, including the moon, near-Earth asteroids (NEA), Mars, and other destinations, it will use its analog missions to gather requirements and develop the technologies that are necessary to ensure successful human exploration beyond LEO. Currently, there are four analog mission platforms: Research and Technology Studies (RATS), NASA s Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO), In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), and International Space Station (ISS) Test bed for Analog Research (ISTAR).

Reagan, Marcum L.↗