SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “science activity planning”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Repurposing Drilling Control Diagnostics for Subsurface Edge Detection and Boundary Advisement During Planetary Drilling

Informed decision-making during lunar drilling and sampling missions will require data monitoring tools and specialized ground data systems. Accurate and updated situational awareness, with ongoing data monitoring, is critical for timely responses by to incoming science data. Traverse plans and scheduled activities may need to be flexibly changed in order to react to unexpected data or situations. Unlike (for example) Mars missions, the relative lightspeed closeness of the Moon allows for near-real-time ground processing of incoming mission and instrument data. An Apollo-class lunar regolith drill will in a sense “travel” a meter or two vertically at a given subsurface characterization site. As the drill penetrates into lunar regolith, it is likely to encounter a range of material densities, orientations, fracture toughness, and (perhaps) ice percentages. Lunar drill telemetry can provide science teams with a valuable first look into the subsurface structure, the regolith bulk properties, and constituents at each drilled site. Real-time AI-based recognition and reaction to downhole situations has been developed for automated deeper drilling on Mars and beyond. We can leverage the same knowledge bases and pattern-matching as areal-time interpreter of the subsurface, a situational awareness tool during drilling operations. We recently (Sept. 2019) demonstrated this AI drilling monitoring and analysis capability, in control of in-situ drilling and sampling operations, mounted on a KREX-2 rover in Chile’s Atacama Desert. Terrestrial automated drilling log analyses in oil exploration have used similar machine learning techniques in classifying and identifying features in drilling logs –but these typically are designed assuming a drilling fluid influencing downhole measurements and data (permeability, resistivity). Drilling models and existing AI software designed to detect and respond to drilling faults and hard materials can be repurposed, for near-real-time (ground-based) interpretation of drilling telemetry –a potentially valuable advisory tool for strata boundaries and changes in drilling parameters. On the Moon, this approach could be used to study the structure and to some extent the composition of lunar regolith vs. borehole depth, based on recognizable variations in fracture hardness, drilling energy and penetration rates while actively drilling. Since the early 2000s, a series of increasingly-capable real-time drilling telemetry interpretation and characterization software tools have been developed. These subsurface models and software tools have monitored the real-time drilling data received, and automatically identified changes in drill behavior (e.g., encountering a harder target layer, bit inclusions, drill choking due to infall downhole, and others) correlating these with subsurface structures and features. We discuss the mappings between drill borehole parameters, faults or events detected, and modeled changes in rock layer boundaries, in examples drawn from field testing at analog sites in an Arctic impact crater, Rio Tinto, and Chile’s Atacama Desert. These demonstrate how subsurface structural boundaries led to fault detections and responses by the software.

drilling advisor↗

NASA NTRS2008

Cassini Information Management System in Distributed Operations Collaboration and Cassini Science Planning

Launched on October 15, 1997, the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft began its ambitious journey to the Saturnian system with a complex suite of 12 scientific instruments, and another 6 instruments aboard the European Space Agencies Huygens Probe. Over the next 6 1/2 years, Cassini would continue its relatively simplistic cruise phase operations, flying past Venus, Earth, and Jupiter. However, following Saturn Orbit Insertion (SOI), Cassini would become involved in a complex series of tasks that required detailed resource management, distributed operations collaboration, and a data base for capturing science objectives. Collectively, these needs were met through a web-based software tool designed to help with the Cassini uplink process and ultimately used to generate more robust sequences for spacecraft operations. In 2001, in conjunction with the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and later Venustar Software and Engineering Inc., the Cassini Information Management System (CIMS) was released which enabled the Cassini spacecraft and science planning teams to perform complex information management and team collaboration between scientists and engineers in 17 countries. Originally tailored to help manage the science planning uplink process, CIMS has been actively evolving since its inception to meet the changing and growing needs of the Cassini uplink team and effectively reduce mission risk through a series of resource management validation algorithms. These algorithms have been implemented in the web-based software tool to identify potential sequence conflicts early in the science planning process. CIMS mitigates these sequence conflicts through identification of timing incongruities, pointing inconsistencies, flight rule violations, data volume issues, and by assisting in Deep Space Network (DSN) coverage analysis. In preparation for extended mission operations, CIMS has also evolved further to assist in the planning and coordination of the dual playback redundancy of highvalue data from targets such as Titan and Enceladus. This paper will outline the critical role that CIMS has played for Cassini in the distributed ops paradigm throughout operations. This paper will also examine the evolution that CIMS has undergone in the face of new science discoveries and fluctuating operational needs. And finally, this paper will conclude with theoretical adaptation of CIMS for other projects and the potential savings in cost and risk reduction that could potentially be tapped into by future missions.

Equils, Douglas J.↗

NASA NTRS1999

The AIRs Team Science Data Validation Plan

This document describes the required validation activities for the AIRS/AMSU/HSB instrument suite in the post-launch period.

EOS AIRS validation science↗

NASA NTRS1991

Resource envelope concepts for mission planning

Seven proposed methods for creating resource envelopes for Space Station Freedom mission planning are detailed. Four reference science activity models are used to illustrate the effect of adding operational flexibility to mission timelines. For each method, a brief explanation is given along with graphs to illustrate the application of the envelopes to the power and crew resources. The benefits and costs of each method are analyzed in terms of resource utilization. In addition to the effect on individual activities, resource envelopes are analyzed at the experiment level.

Ibrahim, K. Y.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Advanced technologies to support earth orbiting systems

Within NASA, the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) is conducting a major, ongoing engineering research and technology program directed toward the support of future programs, with a major focus on technology for future space science missions. OAST is conducting a substantial effort to identify the technologies required to support the evolution of Mission to Planet Earth. The effort consists of studies, workshops, and technology research programs to explore: (1) new concepts for multisatellite, earth-observing instrumentation and sensor sets; (2) information system advances for continuous and reliable processing of terabit per day data streams; and (3) infrastructure development, including spacecraft bus technology and operations for substantial performance, cost, and reliabiltiy gains. This paper discusses the technological needs of future earth science systems, reviews current and planned activities, and highlights significant achievements in the research and technology program.

Rosen, Robert↗

NASA NTRS2012

An Overview of Suomi NPP VIIRS Calibration Maneuvers

The first Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instrument was successfully launched on-board the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) spacecraft on October 28, 2011. Suomi NPP VIIRS observations are made in 22 spectral bands, from the visible (VIS) to the long-wave infrared (LWIR), and are used to produce 22 Environmental Data Records (EDRs) with a broad range of scientific applications. The quality of these VIIRS EDRs strongly depends on the quality of its calibrated and geo-located Sensor Date Records (SDRs). Built with a strong heritage to the NASA's EOS MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument, the VIIRS is calibrated on-orbit using a similar set of on-board calibrators (OBC), including a solar diffuser (SD) and solar diffuser stability monitor (SDSM) system for the reflective solar bands (RSB) and a blackbody (BB) for the thermal emissive bands (TEB). On-orbit maneuvers of the SNPP spacecraft provide additional calibration and characterization data from the VIIRS instrument which cannot be obtained pre-launch and are required to produce the highest quality SDRs. These include multi-orbit yaw maneuvers for the characterization of SD and SDSM screen transmission, quasi-monthly roll maneuvers to acquire lunar observations to track sensor degradation in the visible through shortwave infrared, and a driven pitch-over maneuver to acquire multiple scans of deep space to determine TEB response versus scan angle (RVS). This paper pro-vides an overview of these three SNPP calibration maneuvers. Discussions are focused on their potential calibration and science benefits, pre-launch planning activities, and on-orbit scheduling and implementation strategies. Results from calibration maneuvers performed during the Intensive Calibration and Validation (ICV) period for the VIIRS sensor are illustrated. Also presented in this paper are lessons learned regarding the implementation of calibration spacecraft maneuvers on follow-on missions.

Butler, James J.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Automated Scheduling of Science Activities for Titan Encounters by Cassini

In an effort to demonstrate the efficacy of automated planning and scheduling techniques for large missions, we have adapted ASPEN (Activity Scheduling and Planning Environment) [1] and CLASP (Compressed Large-scale Activity Scheduling and Planning) [2] to the domain of scheduling high-level science goals into conflict-free operations plans for Titan encounters by the Cassini spacecraft.

Ray, Trina L.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Automated Scheduling of Science Activities for Titan Encounters by Cassini

Ray, Trina L.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Analog Testing of Operations Concepts for Mitigation of Communication Latency During Human Space Exploration

OBJECTIVES: NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) is an underwater spaceflight analog that allows a true mission‐like operational environment and uses buoyancy effects and added weight to simulate different gravity levels. Three missions were undertaken from 2014‐2015, NEEMO's 18‐20. All missions were performed at the Aquarius undersea research habitat. During each mission, the effects of varying operations concepts and tasks type and complexity on representative communication latencies associated with Mars missions were studied. METHODS: 12 subjects (4 per mission) were weighed out to simulate near‐zero or partial gravity extravehicular activity (EVA) and evaluated different operations concepts for integration and management of a simulated Earth‐based science backroom team (SBT) to provide input and direction during exploration activities. Exploration traverses were planned in advance based on precursor data collected. Subjects completed science‐related tasks including presampling surveys, geologic‐based sampling, and marine‐based sampling as a portion of their tasks on saturation dives up to 4 hours in duration that were to simulate extravehicular activity (EVA) on Mars or the moons of Mars. One‐way communication latencies, 5 and 10 minutes between space and mission control, were simulated throughout the missions. Objective data included task completion times, total EVA times, crew idle time, translation time, SBT assimilation time (defined as time available for SBT to discuss data/imagery after it has been collected, in addition to the time taken to watch imagery streaming over latency). Subjective data included acceptability, simulation quality, capability assessment ratings, and comments. RESULTS: Precursor data can be used effectively to plan and execute exploration traverse EVAs (plans included detailed location of science sites, high‐fidelity imagery of the sites, and directions to landmarks of interest within a site). Operations concepts that allow for presampling surveys enable efficient traverse execution and meaningful Mission Control Center (MCC) interaction across long communication latencies and can be done with minimal crew idle time. Imagery and information from the EVA crew that is transmitted real‐time to the intravehicular (IV) crewmember(s) can be used to verify that exploration traverse plans are being executed correctly. That same data can be effectively used by MCC (across comm latency) to provide further instructions to the crew from a SBT on sampling priorities, additional tasks, and changes to the plan. Text / data capabilities are preferred over voice capabilities between MCC and IV when executing exploration traverse plans over communication latency. Autonomous crew planning tools can be effective at modifying existing plans if the objectives and constraints are clearly defined.

Chappell, Steven P.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗

NASA NTRS2002

Continuing Development of a Collaborative Plan to Further Engage South Dakota in NASA's Earth Science Enterprise

An ongoing set of research planning activities have occurred in South Dakota as a consequence of the past two years of NASA-EPSCoR Preparation Grants. During this time a group of approximately 60 scientists, engineers, and university administrators in South Dakota have been directly involved as "theme team" members in a series of five all-day meetings to identify the research and technological priorities that are consistent both with NASA-ESE's interests and the State's expertise. Institutions represented within the group's membership include: South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, South Dakota State University, Augustana College, University of South Dakota, USGS EROS Data Center, Si ranks College, Santa Gleska University, Sisseton Wahpeton Community College, USGS Water Resources Division, US National Weather Service, and the SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources. Many of these organizations are also members and affiliates of the SD Space Grant Consortium. The evolving plan has been guided by the following desirable actions: 1. To establish new contacts and strengthen existing linkages with NASA Centers, relevant NASA researchers, and key personnel at the USGS EROS Data Center. 2. To promote participation from the State's major research institutions, State agencies, and relevant businesses in South Dakota that are interested in strengthening our scientific and technological enterprises. 3. To develop the State's scientific talent and infrastructure for enhanced competitiveness in research, development, and technology-based economic development. 4. To encourage greater participation by under represented groups, especially Native Americans, in scientific education and research. 5. To build greater public and political support in South Dakota for the overall science, engineering, and technology enterprise. 6. To communicate the benefits of current and future NASA programs to the progress and development of South Dakota, the Northern Great Plains Region, and the Nation.

Farwell, Sherry O.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Integration of an Earth-Based Science Team During Human Exploration of Mars

NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) is an underwater spaceflight analog that allows a true mission-like operational environment and uses buoyancy effects and added weight to simulate different gravity levels. A mission was undertaken in 2016, NEEMO 21, at the Aquarius undersea research habitat. During the mission, the effects of varied oper-ations concepts with representative communication latencies as-sociated with Mars missions were studied. Six subjects were weighed out to simulate partial gravity and evaluated different operations concepts for integration and management of a simulated Earth-based science team (ST) who provided input and direction during exploration activities. Exploration traverses were planned in advance based on precursor data collected. Subjects completed science-related tasks including presampling surveys and marine-science-based sampling during saturation dives up to 4 hours in duration that simulated extravehicular activity (EVA) on Mars. A communication latency of 15 minutes in each direction between space and ground was simulated throughout the EVAs. Objective data included task completion times, total EVA time, crew idle time, translation time, ST assimilation time (defined as time available for the science team to discuss, to review and act upon data/imagery after they have been collected and transmitted to the ground). Subjective data included acceptability, simulation quality, capability assessment ratings, and comments. In addition, comments from both the crew and the ST were captured during the post-mission debrief. Here, we focus on the acceptability of the operations concepts studied and the capabilities most enhancing or enabling in the operations concept. The importance and challenges of designing EVA time-lines to account for the length of the task, level of interaction with the ground that is required/desired, and communication latency, are discussed.

Chappell, Steven P.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Rodent Research on the International Space Station - A Look Forward

Rodent Research on the International Space Station (ISS) is one of the highest priority science activities being supported by NASA and is planned for up to two flights per year. The first Rodent Research flight, Rodent Research-1 (RR-1) validates the hardware and basic science operations (dissections and tissue preservation). Subsequent flights will add new capabilities to support rodent research on the ISS. RR-1 will validate the following capabilities: animal husbandry for up to 30 days, video downlink to support animal health checks and scientific analysis, on-orbit dissections, sample preservation in RNA. Later and formalin, sample transfer from formalin to ethanol (hindlimbs), rapid cool-down and subsequent freezing at -80 of tissues and carcasses, sample return and recovery. RR-2, scheduled for SpX-6 (Winter 20142015) will add the following capabilities: animal husbandry for up to 60 days, RFID chip reader for individual animal identification, water refill and food replenishment, anesthesia and recovery, bone densitometry, blood collection (via cardiac puncture), blood separation via centrifugation, soft tissue fixation in formalin with transfer to ethanol, and delivery of injectable drugs that require frozen storage prior to use. Additional capabilities are also planned for future flights and these include but are not limited to male mice, live animal return, and the development of experiment unique equipment to support science requirements for principal investigators that are selected for flight. In addition to the hardware capabilities to support rodent research the Crew Office has implemented a training program in generic rodent skills for all USOS crew members during their pre-assignment training rotation. This class includes training in general animal handling, euthanasia, injections, and dissections. The dissection portion of this training focuses on the dissection of the spleen, liver, kidney with adrenals, brain, eyes, and hindlimbs. By achieving and maintaining proficiency in these basic skills as part of the nominal astronaut training curriculum this allows the rodent research program to focus the mission specific crew training on scientific requirements of research and operations flow.

Experimental capabilities↗

NASA NTRS1975

The 1975 report on active and planned spacecraft and experiments

Information is presented on current and planned spacecraft activity for various disciplines: astronomy, earth sciences, meteorology, planetary sciences, aeronomy, solar physics, and life sciences. For active orbiting spacecraft, the epoch date, orbit type, orbit period, apoasis, periapsis, and inclination are given along with the spacecraft weight, launch date, launch site, launch vehicle, and sponsoring agency. For each planned orbiting spacecraft, the orbit parameters, planned launch date, launch site, launch vehicle, spacecraft weight, and sponsoring agency are given.

Horowitz, R.↗

NASA NTRS2014

ARES Biennial Report 2012 Final

Since the return of the first lunar samples, what is now the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Directorate has had curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials. Originating during the Apollo Program (1960s), this capability at Johnson Space Center (JSC) included scientists who were responsible for the science planning and training of astronauts for lunar surface activities as well as experts in the analysis and preservation of the precious returned samples. Today, ARES conducts research in basic and applied space and planetary science, and its scientific staff represents a broad diversity of expertise in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy), mathematics, and engineering organized into three offices (figure 1): Astromaterials Research (KR), Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation (KT), and Human Exploration Science (KX). Scientists within the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office preserve, protect, document, and distribute samples of the current astromaterials collections. Since the return of the first lunar samples, ARES has been assigned curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials (Apollo lunar samples, Antarctic meteorites - some of which have been confirmed to have originated on the Moon and on Mars - cosmic dust, solar wind samples, comet and interstellar dust particles, and space-exposed hardware). The responsibilities of curation consist not only of the longterm care of the samples, but also the support and planning for future sample collection missions and research and technology to enable new sample types. Curation provides the foundation for research into the samples. The Lunar Sample Facility and other curation clean rooms, the data center, laboratories, and associated instrumentation are unique NASA resources that, together with our staff's fundamental understanding of the entire collection, provide a service to the external research community, which relies on access to the samples. The curation efforts are greatly enhanced by a strong group of planetary scientists who conduct peerreviewed astromaterials research. Astromaterials Research Office scientists conduct peer-reviewed research as Principal or Co-Investigators in planetary science (e. g., cosmochemistry, origins of solar systems, Mars fundamental research, planetary geology and geophysics) and participate as Co-Investigators or Participating Scientists in many of NASA's robotic planetary missions. Since the last report, ARES has achieved several noteworthy milestones, some of which are documented in detail in the sections that follow. Within the Human Exploration Science Office, ARES is a world leader in orbital debris research, modeling and monitoring the debris environment, designing debris shielding, and developing policy to control and mitigate the orbital debris population. ARES has aggressively pursued refinements in knowledge of the debris environment and the hazard it presents to spacecraft. Additionally, the ARES Image Science and Analysis Group has been recognized as world class as a result of the high quality of near-real-time analysis of ascent and on-orbit inspection imagery to identify debris shedding, anomalies, and associated potential damage during Space Shuttle missions. ARES Earth scientists manage and continuously update the database of astronaut photography that is predominantly from Shuttle and ISS missions, but also includes the results of 40 years of human spaceflight. The Crew Earth Observations Web site (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/ESS/crew.htm) continues to receive several million hits per month. ARES scientists are also influencing decisions in the development of the next generation of human and robotic spacecraft and missions through laboratory tests on the optical qualities of materials for windows, micrometeoroid/orbital debris shielding technology, and analog activities to assess surface science operations. ARES serves as host to numerous students and visiting scientists as part of the services provided to the research community and conducts a robust education and outreach program. ARES scientists are recognized nationally and internationally by virtue of their success in publishing in peer-reviewed journals and winning competitive research proposals. ARES scientists have won every major award presented by the Meteoritical Society, including the Leonard Medal, the most prestigious award in planetary science and cosmochemistry; the Barringer Medal, recognizing outstanding work in the field of impact cratering; the Nier Prize for outstanding research by a young scientist; and several recipients of the Nininger Meteorite Award. One of our scientists received the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award (the highest civilian honor given by the DoD). ARES has established numerous partnerships with other NASA Centers, universities, and national laboratories. ARES scientists serve as journal editors, members of advisory panels and review committees, and society officers, and several scientists have been elected as Fellows in their professional societies. This biennial report summarizes a subset of the accomplishments made by each of the ARES offices and highlights participation in ongoing human and robotic missions, development of new missions, and planning for future human and robotic exploration of the solar system beyond low Earth orbit.

Stansbery, Eileen↗

NASA NTRS2022

Mission Planning for Trident: Discovery proposal to Neptune’s moon, Triton

Trident was one of the four Discovery-class Step-1 mission proposals selected by NASA in 2020 for further development and study; however, in 2021, the Step-2 proposal was not down-selected to transition into the next phase of mission development, i.e., a mission for flight.Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, was the primary focus of study for Trident. Triton’s physical and orbital characteristics make it a unique planetary target for scientific exploration, providing opportunities for investigations in a wide variety of scientific fields, including geomorphological, atmospheric, geophysical, magnetospheric, and ionospheric studies. The science objectives of the Trident mission encompassed an in-depth interior-to-exterior set of objectives, focused on multiple outstanding questions resulting from the 1989 encounter of Voyager 2, and subsequent analysis.Ball Aerospace Corp. was tasked with building the Trident spacecraft, with JPL responsible for providing Engineering Support (Mission Design & Navigation, Mission Planning, Flight Operations, Ground Data Systems, Systems Engineering) and leading Project Management. The observatory would carry a wide-ranging suite of scientific instruments onboard, including an Infrared Spectrometer (IRS) and Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) to be provided by Ball Aerospace Corp., a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) from JPL, a Magnetometer from UCLA, a contributed Plasma Science Suite from IRF (Sweden), and a contributed Radio Science instrument from ASI (Italy). All of these instruments would be used to collect unique datasets during the Triton encounter. Trident would have taken advantage of an ~13-yr, nearly-ballistic trajectory to Triton, utilizing a timely Jupiter Gravity Assist, to execute a 10-day long encounter in the Neptunian system. Launch was planned for October 2025, with Triton arrival scheduled for December 2038. The timeline for this mission would have been sub-divided into seven major phases: Launch, Commissioning, Inner Planet Cruise, Outer Planet Cruise, Approach, Encounter, and Science Data Return. Multiple planetary flybys were planned to be performed during the cruise, including three Earth flybys and one Venus flyby in the Inner Planet Cruise phase, and one Jupiter flyby in the Outer Planet Cruise phase. Along with conventional (Range and Doppler) tracking data, Delta-DOR and Optical Navigation data were also to be acquired to assist with spacecraft navigation during the Approach and Encounter phases. A 3 meter X-Band High Gain Antenna would allow playback of all science data at 1 kbps within 1 year after the Triton Encounter. The Mission Planning element on Trident encompassed and informed multiple aspects of this proposal, ranging from science observation planning during the Triton Encounter phase, to generation of activity timelines for all mission phases; performing ground coverage analysis for science observations to be acquired by all instruments and tracing them to science requirements; evaluation of spacecraft resources including data volume stored onboard, power/energy consumption, telecom (commanding/telemetry) requirements, and overall, working at the interface of science and engineering teams on the mission. All of these functions that were performed by the Mission Planning team on this proposal are discussed in this paper.

Prockter, Louise↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analytical Needs in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team

The return of scientifically selected samples from Mars would provide a rare opportunity forinvestigation with the full range of the latest technology available, but to take full advantageof this opportunity, it is important to plan ahead to ensure the pristine nature of the samplesupon arrival within the Earth environment until scientific investigations can begin.The NASA/ESA science community-driven MSR Science Planning Group – Phase 2 (MSPG2)delivered recommendations and guidance regarding curation (1) and science (2, 3) activities tobe performed on the samples under containment. High-level requirements for the infrastruc-ture were also developed by MSPG2 (4). In order to prepare infrastructure-targeted input forthe ESA and NASA facility studies planned in the 2022-2023 timeframe, the agency-led MSROperational Scenarios Definition Team (MOSDT) was assembled to conceptualize the sampleoperations that will inform future architecture teams. Emphasis was placed on the respon-sibility of MOSDT to use community-defined requirements and to represent the view of the international scientific community.All necessary and sufficient instruments and analytical needs described in MSPG2 were inte-grated in MOSDT main deliverable, the operational workflow (see Hays et al, this conference).In MSPG2, notional instruments were split between curation analytical needs, and objective-driven (time-sensitive and sterilization-sensitive) science analytical needs. In MOSDT, whilethe first phases of curation, “pre-Basic Characterization” and “Basic Characterization” wererather streamlined and separate from other analytical needs, “Preliminary Examination” and“Science” instruments were not always physically segregated. In addition to the necessary andsufficient instruments described by MSPG2, the MOSDT recommended additional supportequipment for sterilization, cleanliness and contamination monitoring.It was sometimes necessary for the MOSDT to rely on assumptions to integrate instruments inthe activity workflow. In general, the assumptions were very conservative to limit contaminationand cross-contamination risks. It is expected that future work to refine limits of contaminationwill enable optimization of instrumentation.The community was consulted during the course of the MOSDT work. This abstract’s aimis two-fold: on one hand, inform the scientific community and overall MSR stakeholders, tobring their attention on the analytical needs currently considered as necessary and sufficient;on the other hand, to solicit feedback from a larger community audience to optimize and refineanalytical needs during the next phases of MSR ground-segment preparation.Disclaimer: The decision to implement Mars Sample Return will not be finalized until NASA’scompletion of the program’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This docu-ment is being made available for informational purposes only.[1] Tait et al. (2021) Preliminary planning for Mars Sample Return (MSR) curation activities ina Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0105. [2] Toscaet al. (2021) Time-sensitive aspects of Mars Sample Return (MSR) science. Astrobiologyin press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0115. [3] Velbel et al. (2021) Planning implications relatedto sterilization-sensitive science investigations associated with Mars Sample Return (MSR).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0113. [4] Carrier et al. (2021) Science and curationconsiderations for the design of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0110.

Mars Sample Return↗

NASA NTRS1986

Planetary exploration through year 2000, a core program: Mission operations

In 1980 the NASA Advisory Council created the Solar System Exploratory Committee (SSEC) to formulate a long-range program of planetary missions that was consistent with likely fiscal constraints on total program cost. The SSEC had as its primary goal the establishment of a scientifically valid, affordable program that would preserve the nation's leading role in solar system exploration, capitalize on two decades of investment, and be consistent with the coordinated set of scientific stategies developed earlier by the Committe on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX). The result of the SSEC effort was the design of a Core Program of planetary missions to be launched by the year 2000, together with a realistic and responsible funding plan. The Core Program Missions, subcommittee activities, science issues, transition period assumptions, and recommendations are discussed.

Source record↗