Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “software lifecycle process”

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.

70 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Project Morpheus: Lean Development of a Terrestrial Flight Testbed for Maturing NASA Lander Technologies

NASA's Morpheus Project has developed and tested a prototype planetary lander capable of vertical takeoff and landing that is designed to serve as a testbed for advanced spacecraft technologies. The lander vehicle, propelled by a Liquid Oxygen (LOX)/Methane engine and sized to carry a 500kg payload to the lunar surface, provides a platform for bringing technologies from the laboratory into an integrated flight system at relatively low cost. In 2012, Morpheus began integrating the Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology (ALHAT) sensors and software onto the vehicle in order to demonstrate safe, autonomous landing and hazard avoidance. From the beginning, one of goals for the Morpheus Project was to streamline agency processes and practices. The Morpheus project accepted a challenge to tailor the traditional NASA systems engineering approach in a way that would be appropriate for a lower cost, rapid prototype engineering effort, but retain the essence of the guiding principles. This paper describes the tailored project life cycle and systems engineering approach for the Morpheus project, including the processes, tools, and amount of rigor employed over the project's multiple lifecycles since the project began in fiscal year (FY) 2011.

Devolites, Jennifer L.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Ada and the rapid development lifecycle

JPL is under contract, through NASA, with the US Army to develop a state-of-the-art Command Center System for the US European Command (USEUCOM). The Command Center System will receive, process, and integrate force status information from various sources and provide this integrated information to staff officers and decision makers in a format designed to enhance user comprehension and utility. The system is based on distributed workstation class microcomputers, VAX- and SUN-based data servers, and interfaces to existing military mainframe systems and communication networks. JPL is developing the Command Center System utilizing an incremental delivery methodology called the Rapid Development Methodology with adherence to government and industry standards including the UNIX operating system, X Windows, OSF/Motif, and the Ada programming language. Through a combination of software engineering techniques specific to the Ada programming language and the Rapid Development Approach, JPL was able to deliver capability to the military user incrementally, with comparable quality and improved economies of projects developed under more traditional software intensive system implementation methodologies.

Deforrest, Lloyd↗
NASA NTRS2012

Principles to Products: Toward Realizing MOS 2.0

This is a report on the Operations Revitalization Initiative, part of the ongoing NASA-funded Advanced Multi-Mission Operations Systems (AMMOS) program. We are implementing products that significantly improve efficiency and effectiveness of Mission Operations Systems (MOS) for deep-space missions. We take a multi-mission approach, in keeping with our organization's charter to "provide multi-mission tools and services that enable mission customers to operate at a lower total cost to NASA." Focusing first on architectural fundamentals of the MOS, we review the effort's progress. In particular, we note the use of stakeholder interactions and consideration of past lessons learned to motivate a set of Principles that guide the evolution of the AMMOS. Thus guided, we have created essential patterns and connections (detailed in companion papers) that are explicitly modeled and support elaboration at multiple levels of detail (system, sub-system, element...) throughout a MOS. This architecture is realized in design and implementation products that provide lifecycle support to a Mission at the system and subsystem level. The products include adaptable multi-mission engineering documentation that describes essentials such as operational concepts and scenarios, requirements, interfaces and agreements, information models, and mission operations processes. Because we have adopted a model-based system engineering method, these documents and their contents are meaningfully related to one another and to the system model. This means they are both more rigorous and reusable (from mission to mission) than standard system engineering products. The use of models also enables detailed, early (e.g., formulation phase) insight into the impact of changes (e.g., to interfaces or to software) that is rigorous and complete, allowing better decisions on cost or technical trades. Finally, our work provides clear and rigorous specification of operations needs to software developers, further enabling significant gains in productivity.

AMMOS↗
NASA NTRS2003

Software for Remote Monitoring of Space-Station Payloads

Telescience Resource Kit (TReK) is a suite of application programs that enable geographically dispersed users to monitor scientific payloads aboard the International Space Station (ISS). TReK provides local ground support services that can simultaneously receive, process, record, playback, and display data from multiple sources. TReK also provides interfaces to use the remote services provided by the Payload Operations Integration Center which manages all ISS payloads. An application programming interface (API) allows for payload users to gain access to all data processed by TReK and allows payload-specific tools and programs to be built or integrated with TReK. Used in conjunction with other ISS-provided tools, TReK provides the ability to integrate payloads with the operational ground system early in the lifecycle. This reduces the potential for operational problems and provides "cradle-to-grave" end-to-end operations. TReK contains user guides and self-paced tutorials along with training applications to allow the user to become familiar with the system.

Schneider, Michelle↗
NASA NTRS2017

Applying Standard Independent Verification and Validation (IVV) Techniques Within an Agile Framework: Is There a Compatibility Issue?

Agile methods have gained wide acceptance over the past several years, to the point that they are now a standard management and execution approach for small-scale software development projects. While conventional Agile methods are not generally applicable to large multi-year and mission-critical systems, Agile hybrids are now being developed (such as SAFe) to exploit the productivity improvements of Agile while retaining the necessary process rigor and coordination needs of these projects. From the perspective of Independent Verification and Validation (IVV), however, the adoption of these hybrid Agile frameworks is becoming somewhat problematic. Hence, we find it prudent to question the compatibility of conventional IVV techniques with (hybrid) Agile practices.This paper documents our investigation of (a) relevant literature, (b) the modification and adoption of Agile frameworks to accommodate the development of large scale, mission critical systems, and (c) the compatibility of standard IVV techniques within hybrid Agile development frameworks. Specific to the latter, we found that the IVV methods employed within a hybrid Agile process can be divided into three groups: (1) early lifecycle IVV techniques that are fully compatible with the hybrid lifecycles, (2) IVV techniques that focus on tracing requirements, test objectives, etc. are somewhat incompatible, but can be tailored with a modest effort, and (3) IVV techniques involving an assessment requiring artifact completeness that are simply not compatible with hybrid Agile processes, e.g., those that assume complete requirement specification early in the development lifecycle.

Agile↗
NASA NTRS2011

Cost Model Comparison: A Study of Internally and Commercially Developed Cost Models in Use by NASA

NASA makes use of numerous cost models to accurately estimate the cost of various components of a mission - hardware, software, mission/ground operations - during the different stages of a mission's lifecycle. The purpose of this project was to survey these models and determine in which respects they are similar and in which they are different. The initial survey included a study of the cost drivers for each model, the form of each model (linear/exponential/other CER, range/point output, capable of risk/sensitivity analysis), and for what types of missions and for what phases of a mission lifecycle each model is capable of estimating cost. The models taken into consideration consisted of both those that were developed by NASA and those that were commercially developed: GSECT, NAFCOM, SCAT, QuickCost, PRICE, and SEER. Once the initial survey was completed, the next step in the project was to compare the cost models' capabilities in terms of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) elements. This final comparison was then portrayed in a visual manner with Venn diagrams. All of the materials produced in the process of this study were then posted on the Ground Segment Team (GST) Wiki.

cost models↗
NASA NTRS2017

Mars 2020 Model Based Systems Engineering Pilot

The pilot study is led by the Integration Engineering group in NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP). The Integration Engineering (IE) group is responsible for managing the interfaces between the spacecraft and launch vehicle. This pilot investigates the utility of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) with respect to managing and verifying interface requirements. The main objectives of the pilot are to model several key aspects of the Mars 2020 integrated operations and interface requirements based on the design and verification artifacts from Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) and to demonstrate how MBSE could be used by LSP to gain further insight on the interface between the spacecraft and launch vehicle as well as to enhance how LSP manages the launch service. The method used to accomplish this pilot started through familiarization of SysML, MagicDraw, and the Mars 2020 and MSL systems through books, tutorials, and NASA documentation. MSL was chosen as the focus of the model since its processes and verifications translate easily to the Mars 2020 mission. The study was further focused by modeling specialized systems and processes within MSL in order to demonstrate the utility of MBSE for the rest of the mission. The systems chosen were the In-Flight Disconnect (IFD) system and the Mass Properties process. The IFD was chosen as a system of focus since it is an interface between the spacecraft and launch vehicle which can demonstrate the usefulness of MBSE from a system perspective. The Mass Properties process was chosen as a process of focus since the verifications for mass properties occur throughout the lifecycle and can demonstrate the usefulness of MBSE from a multi-discipline perspective. Several iterations of both perspectives have been modeled and evaluated. While the pilot study will continue for another 2 weeks, pros and cons of using MBSE for LSP IE have been identified. A pro of using MBSE includes an integrated view of the disciplines, requirements, and verifications leading up to launch. The model allows IE to understand the relationships between disciplines throughout test activities and verifications. Additionally, the relationships between disciplines and integration tasks are generally consistent. The model allows for the generic relationships and tasks to be captured and used throughout multiple mission models should LSP further pursue MBSE. A con of MBSE is the amount of time it takes upfront to understand MBSE and create a useful model. The upfront time it takes to create a useful model is heavily discussed in MBSE literature and is a consistent con throughout the known applications of MBSE. The need to understand SysML and the software chosen also poses the possibility of a "bottleneck" or one person being the sole MBSE user for the working group. The utility of MBSE will continue to be evaluated through the remainder of the study. In conclusion, the original objectives of the pilot study were to use artifacts from MSL to model key aspects of Mars 2020 and demonstrate how MBSE could be used by LSP to gain insight into the spacecraft and launch vehicle interfaces. Progress has been made in modeling and identifying the utility of MBSE to LSP IE and will continue to be made until the pilot study's conclusion in mid-August. The results of this study will produce initial models, modeling instructions and examples, and a summary of MBSE's utility for future use by LSP.

Dukes, Alexandra Marie↗
NASA NTRS2004

Transitioning to Intel-based Linux Servers in the Payload Operations Integration Center

The MSFC Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) is the focal point for International Space Station (ISS) payload operations. The POIC contains the facilities, hardware, software and communication interface necessary to support payload operations. ISS ground system support for processing and display of real-time spacecraft and telemetry and command data has been operational for several years. The hardware components were reaching end of life and vendor costs were increasing while ISS budgets were becoming severely constrained. Therefore it has been necessary to migrate the Unix portions of our ground systems to commodity priced Intel-based Linux servers. hardware architecture including networks, data storage, and highly available resources. This paper will concentrate on the Linux migration implementation for the software portion of our ground system. The migration began with 3.5 million lines of code running on Unix platforms with separate servers for telemetry, command, Payload information management systems, web, system control, remote server interface and databases. The Intel-based system is scheduled to be available for initial operational use by August 2004 The overall migration to Intel-based Linux servers in the control center involves changes to the This paper will address the Linux migration study approach including the proof of concept, criticality of customer buy-in and importance of beginning with POSlX compliant code. It will focus on the development approach explaining the software lifecycle. Other aspects of development will be covered including phased implementation, interim milestones and metrics measurements and reporting mechanisms. This paper will also address the testing approach covering all levels of testing including development, development integration, IV&V, user beta testing and acceptance testing. Test results including performance numbers compared with Unix servers will be included. need for a smooth transition while maintaining real-time support. An important aspect of the paper will involve challenges and lessons learned. product compatibility, implications of phasing decisions and tracking of dependencies, particularly non- software dependencies. The paper will also discuss scheduling challenges providing real-time flight support during the migration and the requirement to incorporate in the migration changes being made simultaneously for flight support. This paper will also address the deployment approach including user involvement in testing and the , This includes COTS product compatibility, implications of phasing decisions and tracking of dependencies, particularly non- software dependencies. The paper will also discuss scheduling challenges providing real-time flight support during the migration and the requirement to incorporate in the migration changes being made simultaneously for flight support.

Guillebeau, P. L.↗
NASA NTRS2007

NASA's Software Safety Standard

NASA relies more and more on software to control, monitor, and verify its safety critical systems, facilities and operations. Since the 1960's there has hardly been a spacecraft launched that does not have a computer on board that will provide command and control services. There have been recent incidents where software has played a role in high-profile mission failures and hazardous incidents. For example, the Mars Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, the DART (Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology), and MER (Mars Exploration Rover) Spirit anomalies were all caused or contributed to by software. The Mission Control Centers for the Shuttle, ISS, and unmanned programs are highly dependant on software for data displays, analysis, and mission planning. Despite this growing dependence on software control and monitoring, there has been little to no consistent application of software safety practices and methodology to NASA's projects with safety critical software. Meanwhile, academia and private industry have been stepping forward with procedures and standards for safety critical systems and software, for example Dr. Nancy Leveson's book Safeware: System Safety and Computers. The NASA Software Safety Standard, originally published in 1997, was widely ignored due to its complexity and poor organization. It also focused on concepts rather than definite procedural requirements organized around a software project lifecycle. Led by NASA Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Software Safety Standard has recently undergone a significant update. This new standard provides the procedures and guidelines for evaluating a project for safety criticality and then lays out the minimum project lifecycle requirements to assure the software is created, operated, and maintained in the safest possible manner. This update of the standard clearly delineates the minimum set of software safety requirements for a project without detailing the implementation for those requirements. This allows the projects leeway to meet these requirements in many forms that best suit a particular project's needs and safety risk. In other words, it tells the project what to do, not how to do it. This update also incorporated advances in the state of the practice of software safety from academia and private industry. It addresses some of the more common issues now facing software developers in the NASA environment such as the use of Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Software (COTS), Modified OTS (MOTS), Government OTS (GOTS), and reused software. A team from across NASA developed the update and it has had both NASA-wide internal reviews by software engineering, quality, safety, and project management. It has also had expert external review. This presentation and paper will discuss the new NASA Software Safety Standard, its organization, and key features. It will start with a brief discussion of some NASA mission failures and incidents that had software as one of their root causes. It will then give a brief overview of the NASA Software Safety Process. This will include an overview of the key personnel responsibilities and functions that must be performed for safety-critical software.

Ramsay, Christopher M.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Full-Scaled Advanced Systems Testbed: Ensuring Success of Adaptive Control Research Through Project Lifecycle Risk Mitigation

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Dryden Flight Research Center completed flight testing of adaptive controls research on the Full-Scale Advance Systems Testbed (FAST) in January of 2011. The research addressed technical challenges involved with reducing risk in an increasingly complex and dynamic national airspace. Specific challenges lie with the development of validated, multidisciplinary, integrated aircraft control design tools and techniques to enable safe flight in the presence of adverse conditions such as structural damage, control surface failures, or aerodynamic upsets. The testbed is an F-18 aircraft serving as a full-scale vehicle to test and validate adaptive flight control research and lends a significant confidence to the development, maturation, and acceptance process of incorporating adaptive control laws into follow-on research and the operational environment. The experimental systems integrated into FAST were designed to allow for flexible yet safe flight test evaluation and validation of modern adaptive control technologies and revolve around two major hardware upgrades: the modification of Production Support Flight Control Computers (PSFCC) and integration of two, fourth-generation Airborne Research Test Systems (ARTS). Post-hardware integration verification and validation provided the foundation for safe flight test of Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion and Model Reference Aircraft Control adaptive control law experiments. To ensure success of flight in terms of cost, schedule, and test results, emphasis on risk management was incorporated into early stages of design and flight test planning and continued through the execution of each flight test mission. Specific consideration was made to incorporate safety features within the hardware and software to alleviate user demands as well as into test processes and training to reduce human factor impacts to safe and successful flight test. This paper describes the research configuration, experiment functionality, overall risk mitigation, flight test approach and results, and lessons learned of adaptive controls research of the Full-Scale Advanced Systems Testbed.

Pavlock, Kate M.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Integrated Systems Health Management for Space Exploration

Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) is a system engineering discipline that addresses the design, development, operation, and lifecycle management of components, subsystems, vehicles, and other operational systems with the purpose of maintaining nominal system behavior and function and assuring mission safety and effectiveness under off-nominal conditions. NASA missions are often conducted in extreme, unfamiliar environments of space, using unique experimental spacecraft. In these environments, off-nominal conditions can develop with the potential to rapidly escalate into mission- or life-threatening situations. Further, the high visibility of NASA missions means they are always characterized by extraordinary attention to safety. ISHM is a critical element of risk mitigation, mission safety, and mission assurance for exploration. ISHM enables: In-space maintenance and repair; a) Autonomous (and automated) launch abort and crew escape capability; b) Efficient testing and checkout of ground and flight systems; c) Monitoring and trending of ground and flight system operations and performance; d) Enhanced situational awareness and control for ground personnel and crew; e) Vehicle autonomy (self-sufficiency) in responding to off-nominal conditions during long-duration and distant exploration missions; f) In-space maintenance and repair; and g) Efficient ground processing of reusable systems. ISHM concepts and technologies may be applied to any complex engineered system such as transportation systems, orbital or planetary habitats, observatories, command and control systems, life support systems, safety-critical software, and even the health of flight crews. As an overarching design and operational principle implemented at the system-of-systems level, ISHM holds substantial promise in terms of affordability, safety, reliability, and effectiveness of space exploration missions.

Uckun, Serdar↗
NASA NTRS2008

Enabling and Enhancing Space Mission Success and Reduction of Risk through the Application of an Integrated Data Architecture

The engineering phases of design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT and E) and subsequent planning, preparation, and operation (Ops) of space vehicles in a complex and distributed environment requires massive and continuous flows of information across the enterprise and across temporal stages of the vehicle lifecycle. The resulting capabilities at each subsequent stage depend in part on the capture, preparation, storage, and subsequent provision of information from prior stages. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently designing a fleet of new vehicles that will replace the Space Shuttle and expand space operations and exploration capabilities. This includes the 2 stage human rated lift vehicle Ares 1 and its associated crew vehicle the Orion, and a service module; the heavy lift cargo vehicle, Ares 5, and an associated cargo stage known as the Earth Departure Stage; and a Lunar Lander vehicle that contains a descent stage, and ascent stage, and a habitation module. A variety of concurrent assorted ground operations infrastructure including software and facilities are also being developed, assorted technology and assembly designs and development for equipment such as EVA suits, life support systems, command and control technologies are also in the pipeline. The development is occurring in a distributed manner, with project deliverables being contributed by a large and diverse assortment of vendors and most space faring nations. Critical information about all of the components, software, and procedures must be shared during the DDT and E phases and then made readily available to the mission operations staff for access during the planning, preparation, and operations phases, and also need to be readily available for system to system interactions. The Constellation Data Systems Project (CxDS) is identifying the needs, and designing and deploying systems and processes to support these needs. This paper details the steps and processes that NASA is applying within the Constellation Program to manage this data and information, and to insure that the correct information is available, correctly annotated, and can be provisioned digitally to enhance response times, and support engineering analysis and anomaly resolution.

Brummett, Robert C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Ground Processing Affordability for Space Vehicles

Launch vehicles and most of their payloads spend the majority of their time on the ground. The cost of ground operations is very high. So, why so often is so little attention given to ground processing during development? The current global space industry and economic environment are driving more need for efficiencies to save time and money. Affordability and sustainability are more important now than ever. We can not continue to treat space vehicles as mere science projects. More RLV's (Reusable Launch Vehicles) are being developed for the gains of reusability which are not available for ELV's (Expendable Launch Vehicles). More human-rated vehicles are being developed, with the retirement of the Space Shuttles, and for a new global space race, yet these cost more than the many unmanned vehicles of today. We can learn many lessons on affordability from RLV's. DFO (Design for Operations) considers ground operations during design, development, and manufacturing-before the first flight. This is often minimized for space vehicles, but is very important. Vehicles are designed for launch and mission operations. You will not be able to do it again if it is too slow or costly to get there. Many times, technology changes faster than space products such that what is launched includes outdated features, thus reducing competitiveness. Ground operations must be considered for the full product Lifecycle, from concept to retirement. Once manufactured, launch vehicles along with their payloads and launch systems require a long path of processing before launch. Initial assembly and testing always discover problems to address. A solid integration program is essential to minimize these impacts, as was seen in the Constellation Ares I-X test rocket. For RLV's, landing/recovery and post-flight turnaround activities are performed. Multi-use vehicles require reconfiguration. MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul) must be well-planned--- even for the unplanned problems. Defect limits and standard repairs need to be in-place as well as easily added. Many routine inspections and maintenance can be like an aircraft overhaul. Modifications and technology upgrades should be expected. Another factor affecting ground operations efficiency is trending. It is essential for RLV's, and also useful for ELV's which fly the same or similar models again. Good data analysis of technical and processing performance will determine fixes and improvements needed for safety, design, and future processing. Collecting such data on new or low-frequency vehicles is a challenge. Lessons can be learned from the Space Shuttle, or even the Concorde aircraft. For all of the above topics, efficient business systems must be established for comprehensive program management and good throughput. Drawings, specifications, and manuals for an entire launch vehicle are often in different formats from multiple vendors, plus they have proprietary constraints. Nonetheless, the integration team must ensure that all data needed is compatible and visible to each appropriate team member. Ground processing systems for scheduling, tracking, problem resolution, etc. must be well laid-out. The balance between COTS (commercial off the shelf) and custom software is difficult. Multiple customers, vendors, launch sites, and landing sites add to the complexity of efficient IT (Information Technology) tools.

Ingalls, John↗
NASA NTRS2022

Event Report for The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful emerging technology area which requires special attention to using it ethically. AI ethics is still an emerging field, and the partners for this workshop and report seek to move AI ethics discussion ahead by experimenting with ways to measure AI ethics criteria. The following document describes the outcomes and learnings from The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop held at the National Institute for Aerospace (NIA), Hampton, Virginia on May 12th, 2022. The purpose of the workshop was for participants to evaluate and experiment-with the methodology and process presented by AIEthics.World in cooperation with Intel Corporation. The meeting participants learned about the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™ and applied the methodology to selected notional AI systems. The workshop facilitated the evaluation of the maturity of the AI system according to ethical considerations relevant to NASA, NIA and other participants. The workshop consisted of three main phases. The first phase focused on understanding and summarizing NASA’s ethical approaches, mission and values based on published documentation, discussions and individual insights & opinions of participants. This information was prioritized, weighted, ordered, and quantified in phase two, to formulate an alignment between human values (ethics) and their applicability to AI systems during all lifecycle phases. The first two phases were summarized as a form of ethical genealogy for artificial intelligence, specific to NASA’s ethical approaches. In the third and last phase of the workshop the participants evaluated notional examples of artificial intelligence to qualify and quantify its ability to adhere to the organizational ethics approaches, using the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™. The workshop uses the concept of genealogy, in the traditional sense: the study and traceability of lines of ancestors in the process of evolutionary development from earlier forms. However, as it is applied to an Ethical AI definition, it is providing the insights to the necessary and mandatory traceability of content, data, metrics, telemetry, elements, and structures which are used in the AI’s lifecycle to foster and measure AI ethics in all steps of its lifecycle. The Ethical Artificial Intelligence Quantification Workshop provided NASA with the opportunity to apply the Ethical AI Certification and Maturity Model™, in combination with existing and well-known decision-making and quality control methods to identify the metrics and measurements for an Ethical AI and assess its ethical condition and quality aligned with NASA ethics approaches. The result of the workshop is the capacity for NASA to apply the maturity model assessment to its AI Systems as desired and if necessary, publish the ability of these AI Systems to adhere to the organizational ethical goals. AI ethics frameworks need to be customized for each application domain, for example, individual NASA Mission Directorates. General principles that work in one area such as AI/Machine Learning-based text analysis (the ethics of information-extraction) may need to be adapted for another such as sense-and-avoid decision-making in a flight environment. The workshop was conducted among approximately twenty NASA subject matter experts, so the elements noted above should be considered examples, not definitive NASA ethical AI principles, genealogy, etc. Generating a definitive AI ethics framework for an organization as diverse as NASA would require far more discussion, debate, review, etc. However, the workshop provided valuable insight into mechanisms and processes for quantifying AI ethical qualities.

Artificial Intelligence↗
NASA NTRS2016

MarCO: Interplanetary Mission Development on a CubeSat Scale

Shortly after JPL’s Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) mission launches, separates, and commences its cruise phase, two CubeSats will deploy from the launch vehicle’s upper stage and begin independent flight to Mars (Fig. 1). During InSight’s entry, descent, and landing (EDL) sequence, these twin Mars Cube One (MarCO) spacecraft will fly 3,500 km above the Martian surface, recording and relaying InSight UHF radio data to the Deep Space Network (DSN) on Earth1. MarCO is a twin CubeSat mission developed by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to accompany the InSight (Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport) Mars mission lander. MarCO's primary mission objective is to launch with InSight and independently fly to Mars to serve as a communications relay during InSight's entry, descent, and landing (EDL) phase. MarCO represents a new type of deep space mission: CubeSats at Mars. Building on the development of JPL's first interplanetary CubeSat project, the Interplanetary Nano-Spacecraft Pathfinder in Relevant Environment (INSPIRE), MarCO further refined the approach to hardware, software, and ground architecture development to solve the challenges of quickly building low-budget spacecraft to fly to Mars. The greatest constraint, beyond others typical of CubeSat missions, was time. The duration between MarCO's conception to completion of spacecraft assembly was less than two years - an unprecedented schedule for any planetary mission to date. Through necessity, MarCO has built on previous experience, procedures, systems, and development methodologies, defining a new niche for supporting larger primary missions. The MarCO spacecraft are poised to write a new chapter in deep space exploration. Originally slated to launch and reach Mars in 2016, the InSight mission schedule subsequently slipped to 2018. During the original landing of InSight, Earth would not be in view, and no orbiter around Mars would have been in position to both receive UHF EDL data and simultaneously relay it back to Earth. It was from this obstacle that MarCO was conceived. Regardless of any changes to InSight’s 2018 EDL configuration geometry, MarCO is still expected to fly and serve in the same capacity as originally designed: the first CubeSat mission to Mars. CubeSats have historically been firmly in the domain of universities and small companies. As first conceived, they served as a platform upon which to teach all aspects of the space mission lifecycle. JPL took on this mission type with Interplanetary Nano-Spacecraft Pathfinder in Relevant Environment2 (INSPIRE), moving the concept into a new domain: deep space. Building from the INSPIRE platform and lessons learned, MarCO addressed new challenges in the domain of planetary missions: independent interplanetary flight and navigation, integration with a large-scale mission, long-distance and long-delay communication, short development time, and a small development team. Of these, the greatest constraint was schedule: only 18 months passed from conception of mission concept until delivery of fully assembled and tested flight hardware. Careful selection of mission team, along with extensive use of off-the-shelf equipment, and streamlining automated processes, was essential. This achievement represents the next step in the evolution of CubeSats beyond low-Earth orbit.

Werne, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2012

Development of Human System Integration at NASA

Human Systems Integration seeks to design systems around the capabilities and limitations of the humans which use and interact with the system, ensuring greater efficiency of use, reduced error rates, and less rework in the design, manufacturing and operational deployment of hardware and software. One of the primary goals of HSI is to get the human factors practitioner involved early in the design process. In doing so, the aim is to reduce future budget costs and resources in redesign and training. By the preliminary design phase of a project nearly 80% of the total cost of the project is locked in. Potential design changes recommended by evaluations past this point will have little effect due to lack of funding or a huge cost in terms of resources to make changes. Three key concepts define an effective HSI program. First, systems are comprised of hardware, software, and the human, all of which operate within an environment. Too often, engineers and developers fail to consider the human capacity or requirements as part of the system. This leads to poor task allocation within the system. To promote ideal task allocation, it is critical that the human element be considered early in system development. Poor design, or designs that do not adequately consider the human component, could negatively affect physical or mental performance, as well as, social behavior. Second, successful HSI depends upon integration and collaboration of all the domains that represent acquisition efforts. Too often, these domains exist as independent disciplines due to the location of expertise within the service structure. Proper implementation of HSI through participation would help to integrate these domains and disciplines to leverage and apply their interdependencies to attain an optimal design. Via this process domain interests can be integrated to perform effective HSI through trade-offs and collaboration. This provides a common basis upon which to make knowledgeable decisions. Finally, HSI must be considered early in the requirements development phase of system design and acquisition. This will provide the best opportunity to maximize return on investment (ROI) and system performance. HSI requirements must be developed in conjunction with capability ]based requirements generation through functional. HSI requirements will drive HSI metrics and embed HSI issues within the system design. After a system is designed, implementation of HSI oversights can be very expensive. An HSI program should be included as an integral part of a total system approach to vehicle and habitat development. This would include, but not limited to, workstation design, D&C development, volumetric analysis, training, operations, and human -robotic interaction. HSI is a necessary process for Human Space Flight programs to meet the Agency Human ]System standards and thus mitigate human risks to acceptable levels. NASA has been involved in HSI planning, procedures development, process, and implementation for many years, and has been building several internal and publicly accessible products to facilitate HSI fs inclusion in the NASA Systems Engineering Lifecycle. Some of these products include: NASA STD 3001 Volumes 1 and 2, Human Integration Design Handbook, NASA HSI Implementation Plan, NASA HSI Implementation Plan Templates, NASA HSI Implementation Handbook, and a 2 ]hour short course on HSI delivered as part of the NASA Space and Life Sciences Directorate Academy. These products have been created leveraging industry best practices and lessons learned from other Federal Government agencies.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗