Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mission management”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

An Architecture to Enable Autonomous Control of Spacecraft

Autonomy is required for manned spacecraft missions distant enough that light-time communication delays make ground-based mission control infeasible. Presently, ground controllers develop a complete schedule of power modes for all spacecraft components based on a large number of factors. The proposed architecture is an early attempt to formalize and automate this process using on-vehicle computation resources. In order to demonstrate this architecture, an autonomous electrical power system controller and vehicle Mission Manager are constructed. These two components are designed to work together in order to plan upcoming load use as well as respond to unanticipated deviations from the plan. The communication protocol was developed using "paper" simulations prior to formally encoding the messages and developing software to implement the required functionality. These software routines exchange data via TCP/IP sockets with the Mission Manager operating at NASA Ames Research Center and the autonomous power controller running at NASA Glenn Research Center. The interconnected systems are tested and shown to be effective at planning the operation of a simulated quasi-steady state spacecraft power system and responding to unexpected disturbances.

space power systems↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery L-2 Countdown Status Briefing

George Diller of NASA Public Affairs hosted this briefing. Pete Nickolenko, NASA Test Director; Scott Higgenbotham, STS-114 Payload-Mission Manager; Cathy Winters, Shuttle Weather Officer were present. Pete reports his team has completed the avionics system check ups, servicing of the cryogenic tanks will take about seven hours that day, and will perform engine system checks and pad close outs come evening. Pete also summarized other standard close out activities: check ups of the Orbiter and ground communications network, rotary service, structure retraction, and external tank load (ETL). Pete reported that the mission will be 12 days with two weather contingency days, and end of mission landing scheduled at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) at approximately 11:00 in the morning, Eastern time on July 25th. Scott briefly reported that all hardware is on board Discovery, closed out, and ready to fly. Cathy reported that hurricane Dennis moved to the North and looking forward to launch. She mentioned of a new hurricane looming and will be named Emily, spotted some crosswinds which will migrate to the west, there is 30% probability weather prohibiting launch. Cathy further gave current weather forecast supported with charts: the Launch Forecast, Tanking Forecast, SRB (Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster) Forecast, CONUS and TAL Launch Sites Forecast, and with 24 hours and 48 hours turn around plan. Launch constraints, weather, crosswinds, cloud cover, ground imagery system, launch countdown, launch crews, mission management simulations, launch team simulations were topics covered with the News Media.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

Autonomy Architectures for a Constellation of Spacecraft

Until the past few years, missions typically involved fairly large expensive spacecraft. Such missions have primarily favored using older proven technologies over more recently developed ones, and humans controlled spacecraft by manually generating detailed command sequences with low-level tools and then transmitting the sequences for subsequent execution on a spacecraft controller. This approach toward controlling a spacecraft has worked spectacularly on previous missions, but it has limitations deriving from communications restrictions - scheduling time to communicate with a particular spacecraft involves competing with other projects due to the limited number of deep space network antennae. This implies that a spacecraft can spend a long time just waiting whenever a command sequence fails. This is one reason why the New Millennium program has an objective to migrate parts of mission control tasks onboard a spacecraft to reduce wait time by making spacecraft more robust. The migrated software is called a "remote agent" and has 4 components: a mission manager to generate the high level goals, a planner/scheduler to turn goals into activities while reasoning about future expected situations, an executive/diagnostics engine to initiate and maintain activities while interpreting sensed events by reasoning about past and present situations, and a conventional real-time subsystem to interface with the spacecraft to implement an activity's primitive actions. In addition to needing remote planning and execution for isolated spacecraft, a trend toward multiple-spacecraft missions points to the need for remote distributed planning and execution. The past few years have seen missions with growing numbers of probes. Pathfinder has its rover (Sojourner), Cassini has its lander (Huygens), and the New Millenium Deep Space 3 (DS3) proposal involves a constellation of 3 spacecraft for interferometric mapping. This trend is expected to continue to progressively larger fleets. For example, one mission proposed to succeed DS3 would have 18 spacecraft flying in formation in order to detect earth-sized planets orbiting other stars. A proposed magnetospheric constellation would involve 5 to 500 spacecraft in Earth orbit to measure global phenomena within the magnetosphere. This work describes and compares three autonomy architectures for a system that continuously plans to control a fleet of spacecraft using collective mission goals instead of goals or command sequences for each spacecraft. A fleet of self-commanding spacecraft would autonomously coordinate itself to satisfy high level science and engineering goals in a changing partially-understood environment making feasible the operation of tens or even a hundred spacecraft (such as for interferometry or plasma physics missions). The easiest way to adapt autonomous spacecraft research to controlling constellations involves treating the constellation as a single spacecraft. Here one spacecraft directly controls the others as if they were connected. The controlling "master" spacecraft performs all autonomy reasoning, and the slaves only have real-time subsystems to execute the master's commands and transmit local telemetry/observations. The executive/diagnostics module starts actions and the master's real-time subsystem controls the action either locally or remotely through a slave. While the master/slave approach benefits from conceptual simplicity, it relies on an assumption that the master spacecraft's executive can continuously monitor the slaves' real-time subsystems, and this relies on high-bandwidth highly-reliable communications. Since unintended results occur fairly rarely, one way to relax the bandwidth requirements involves only monitoring unexpected events in spacecraft. Unfortunately, this disables the ability to monitor for unexpected events between spacecraft and leads to a host of coordination problems among the slaves. Also, failures in the communications system can result in losing slaves. The other two architectures improve robustness while reducing communications by progressively distributing more of the other three remote agent components across the constellation. In a teamwork architecture, all spacecraft have executives and real-time subsystems - only the leader has the planner/scheduler and mission manager. Finally, distributing all remote agent components leads to a peer-to-peer approach toward constellation control.

Barrett, Anthony↗
NASA NTRS2014

Autonomous Spacecraft Communication Interface for Load Planning

Ground-based controllers can remain in continuous communication with spacecraft in low Earth orbit (LEO) with near-instantaneous communication speeds. This permits near real-time control of all of the core spacecraft systems by ground personnel. However, as NASA missions move beyond LEO, light-time communication delay issues, such as time lag and low bandwidth, will prohibit this type of operation. As missions become more distant, autonomous control of manned spacecraft will be required. The focus of this paper is the power subsystem. For present missions, controllers on the ground develop a complete schedule of power usage for all spacecraft components. This paper presents work currently underway at NASA to develop an architecture for an autonomous spacecraft, and focuses on the development of communication between the Mission Manager and the Autonomous Power Controller. These two systems must work together in order to plan future load use and respond to unanticipated plan deviations. Using a nominal spacecraft architecture and prototype versions of these two key components, a number of simulations are run under a variety of operational conditions, enabling development of content and format of the messages necessary to achieve the desired goals. The goals include negotiation of a load schedule that meets the global requirements (contained in the Mission Manager) and local power system requirements (contained in the Autonomous Power Controller), and communication of off-plan disturbances that arise while executing a negotiated plan. The message content is developed in two steps: first, a set of rapid-prototyping "paper" simulations are preformed; then the resultant optimized messages are codified for computer communication for use in automated testing.

Controls↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Application of Lean Thinking Principles and Kaizen Practices for the Successful Development and Implementation of the Ares I-X Flight Test Rocket and Mission

On October 28, 2009 the Ares I-X flight test rocket launched from Kennedy Space Center and flew its suborbital trajectory as designed. The mission was successfully completed as data from the test, and associated development activities were analyzed, transferred to stakeholders, and well documented. Positive lessons learned from Ares I-X were that the application of lean thinking principles and kaizen practices are effective in streamlining development activities. Ares I-X, like other historical rocket development projects, was hampered by technical, cost, and schedule challenges and if not addressed boldly could have resulted in cancellation of the test. The mission management team conducted nine major meetings, referred to as lean events, across its elements to assess plans, procedures, processes, requirements, controls, culture, organization, use of resources, and anything that could be changed to optimize schedule or reduce risk. The preeminent aspect of the lean events was the focus on value added activities and the removal or at least reduction in non-value activities. Trained Lean Six Sigma facilitators assisted the Ares I-X developers in conducting the lean events. They indirectly helped formulate the mission s own unique methodology for assessing schedule. A core team was selected to lead the events and report to the mission manager. Each activity leveraged specialized participants to analyze the subject matter and its related processes and then recommended alternatives and solutions. Stakeholders were the event champions. They empowered and encouraged the team to succeed. The keys to success were thorough preparation, honest dialog, small groups, adherence to the Ares I-X ground rules, and accountability through disciplined reporting and tracking of actions. This lean event formula was game-changing as demonstrated by the success of Ares I-X. It is highly recommended as a management tool to help develop other complex systems efficiently. The key benefits for Ares I-X were obtaining unambiguous schedule margin, defining enabling options for risk reduction, and most importantly a stronger more unified team.

Askins, B. R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Application of Lean Thinking Principles and Kaizen Practices for the Successful Development and Implementation of the Ares I-X Flight Test Rocket and Mission

On October 28, 2009 the Ares I-X flight test rocket launched from Kennedy Space Center and flew its suborbital trajectory as designed. The mission was successfully completed as data from the test, and associated development activities were analyzed, transferred to stakeholders, and well documented. A positive lesson learned from Ares I-X was that the application of lean thinking principles and kaizen practices was very effective in streamlining development activities. Ares I-X, like other historical rocket development projects, was hampered by technical, cost, and schedule challenges and if not addressed boldly could have resulted in cancellation of the test. The mission management team conducted nine major meetings, referred to as lean events, across its elements to assess plans, procedures, processes, requirements, controls, culture, organization, use of resources, and anything that could be changed to optimize schedule or reduce risk. The preeminent aspect of the lean events was the focus on value added activities and the removal or at least reduction in non-value added activities. Trained Lean Six Sigma facilitators assisted the Ares I-X developers in conducting the lean events. They indirectly helped formulate the mission s own unique methodology for assessing schedule. A core team was selected to lead the events and report to the mission manager. Each activity leveraged specialized participants to analyze the subject matter and its related processes and then recommended alternatives and solutions. Stakeholders were the event champions. They empowered and encouraged the team to succeed. The keys to success were thorough preparation, honest dialog, small groups, adherence to the Ares I-X ground rules, and accountability through disciplined reporting and tracking of actions. This lean event formula was game-changing as demonstrated by Ares I-X. It is highly recommended as a management tool to help develop other complex systems efficiently. The key benefits for Ares I-X were obtaining unambiguous schedule margin, defining enabling options for risk reduction, and most importantly a stronger more unified team.

Askins, B. R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

INSPiRE – An Approach to Mission Quality Management using Network Slicing for Space Applications

Managing traffic between the Earth-Moon and Earth-Mars is a complex process requiring significant investment in resources and expertise at NASA. INSPiRE improves the performance of space networks by enabling a dynamic re-configuration process that works for any mixed topology over a heterogeneous and multi-vendor network. To achieve the desired functionality, INSPiRE incorporates a set of algorithms, machine learning processes, and policy inference to handle unpredictable, disruptive events. INSPiRE draws parallels from the current notion of the 3GPP (5G and beyond) Network Slicing approach, where the same physical network divides into several virtual networks, and for each of these virtual networks, there is a guaranteed Quality of Service for the missions that they serve.

cognitive communications↗
NASA NTRS1993

Space and Earth Sciences, Computer Systems, and Scientific Data Analysis Support, Volume 1

This Final Progress Report covers the specific technical activities of Hughes STX Corporation for the last contract triannual period of 1 June through 30 Sep. 1993, in support of assigned task activities at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). It also provides a brief summary of work throughout the contract period of performance on each active task. Technical activity is presented in Volume 1, while financial and level-of-effort data is presented in Volume 2. Technical support was provided to all Division and Laboratories of Goddard's Space Sciences and Earth Sciences Directorates. Types of support include: scientific programming, systems programming, computer management, mission planning, scientific investigation, data analysis, data processing, data base creation and maintenance, instrumentation development, and management services. Mission and instruments supported include: ROSAT, Astro-D, BBXRT, XTE, AXAF, GRO, COBE, WIND, UIT, SMM, STIS, HEIDI, DE, URAP, CRRES, Voyagers, ISEE, San Marco, LAGEOS, TOPEX/Poseidon, Pioneer-Venus, Galileo, Cassini, Nimbus-7/TOMS, Meteor-3/TOMS, FIFE, BOREAS, TRMM, AVHRR, and Landsat. Accomplishments include: development of computing programs for mission science and data analysis, supercomputer applications support, computer network support, computational upgrades for data archival and analysis centers, end-to-end management for mission data flow, scientific modeling and results in the fields of space and Earth physics, planning and design of GSFC VO DAAC and VO IMS, fabrication, assembly, and testing of mission instrumentation, and design of mission operations center.

Estes, Ronald H.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Formulation of consumables management models: Mission planning processor payload interface definition

Consumables models required for the mission planning and scheduling function are formulated. The relation of the models to prelaunch, onboard, ground support, and postmission functions for the space transportation systems is established. Analytical models consisting of an orbiter planning processor with consumables data base is developed. A method of recognizing potential constraint violations in both the planning and flight operations functions, and a flight data file storage/retrieval of information over an extended period which interfaces with a flight operations processor for monitoring of the actual flights is presented.

Torian, J. G.↗
NASA NTRS1977

LST data management and mission operations concept

A candidate design concept for an LST ground facility is described. The design objectives were to use NASA institutional hardware, software and facilities wherever practical, and to maximize efficiency of telescope use. The pointing control performance requirements of LST are summarized, and the major data interfaces of the candidate ground system are diagrammed.

Walker, R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Results from the NASA Spacecraft Fault Management Workshop: Cost Drivers for Deep Space Missions

Fault Management, the detection of and response to in-flight anomalies, is a critical aspect of deep-space missions. Fault management capabilities are commonly distributed across flight and ground subsystems, impacting hardware, software, and mission operations designs. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Discovery & New Frontiers (D&NF) Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently studied cost overruns and schedule delays for five missions. The goal was to identify the underlying causes for the overruns and delays, and to develop practical mitigations to assist the D&NF projects in identifying potential risks and controlling the associated impacts to proposed mission costs and schedules. The study found that four out of the five missions studied had significant overruns due to underestimating the complexity and support requirements for fault management. As a result of this and other recent experiences, the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Planetary Science Division (PSD) commissioned a workshop to bring together invited participants across government, industry, and academia to assess the state of the art in fault management practice and research, identify current and potential issues, and make recommendations for addressing these issues. The workshop was held in New Orleans in April of 2008. The workshop concluded that fault management is not being limited by technology, but rather by a lack of emphasis and discipline in both the engineering and programmatic dimensions. Some of the areas cited in the findings include different, conflicting, and changing institutional goals and risk postures; unclear ownership of end-to-end fault management engineering; inadequate understanding of the impact of mission-level requirements on fault management complexity; and practices, processes, and tools that have not kept pace with the increasing complexity of mission requirements and spacecraft systems. This paper summarizes the findings and recommendations from that workshop, particularly as fault management development issues affect operations and the development of operations capabilities.

Newhouse, Marilyn E.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Internet Technology on Spacecraft

The Operating Missions as Nodes on the Internet (OMNI) project has shown that Internet technology works in space missions through a demonstration using the UoSAT-12 spacecraft. An Internet Protocol (IP) stack was installed on the orbiting UoSAT-12 spacecraft and tests were run to demonstrate Internet connectivity and measure performance. This also forms the basis for demonstrating subsequent scenarios. This approach provides capabilities heretofore either too expensive or simply not feasible such as reconfiguration on orbit. The OMNI project recognized the need to reduce the risk perceived by mission managers and did this with a multi-phase strategy. In the initial phase, the concepts were implemented in a prototype system that includes space similar components communicating over the TDRS (space network) and the terrestrial Internet. The demonstration system includes a simulated spacecraft with sample instruments. Over 25 demonstrations have been given to mission and project managers, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Defense (DoD), contractor technologists and other decisions makers, This initial phase reached a high point with an OMNI demonstration given from a booth at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Inspection Day 99 exhibition. The proof to mission managers is provided during this second phase with year 2000 accomplishments: testing the use of Internet technologies onboard an actual spacecraft. This was done with a series of tests performed using the UoSAT-12 spacecraft. This spacecraft was reconfigured on orbit at very low cost. The total period between concept and the first tests was only 6 months! On board software was modified to add an IP stack to support basic IP communications. Also added was support for ping, traceroute and network timing protocol (NTP) tests. These tests show that basic Internet functionality can be used onboard spacecraft. The performance of data was measured to show no degradation from current approaches. The cost to implement is much less than current approaches due to the availability of highly reliable and standard Internet tools. Use of standard Internet applications onboard reduces the risk of obsolescence inherent in custom protocols due to extremely wide use across all domains. These basic building blocks provide the framework for building onboard software to support direct user communication with payloads including payload control. Other benefits are payload to payload communication from dissimilar spacecraft, constellations of spacecraft, and reconfigurability on orbit. This work is funded through contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).

Rash, James↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Day 5 Post MMT Briefing

Wayne Hill, Space Shuttle Deputy Program Manager, and Chair of the Mission Management Team, reports the following: the testing of the thermal protection system in space, on orbit was successful; the MMT meeting formally approved the mission extension for one day; image analysis from the launch phase has been completed; tile and blankets had been formally cleared by the Engineering team; additional inspection of the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC); gap filler, heat shield and small black spot phenomenon are carefully inspected and evaluated to prepare the safe return of the Discovery. Bill Gerstenmaier, ISS Program Manager reports on the extra vehicular activities (EVA): replaced the GPS antenna; prepared the airlock to attach the ESP2; re-powered CMG2; transfer of CWCs; and the MISSE packages were wrapped around thru at the end of the air lock. He mentioned the high currents problem seen on CMG3, which they will have to take off line to check and understand the problem. Consumables, engineering performance of the three sensors (LCS, LDRI, ITVC), CMG removal and replacement, EVA2 and EVA3, gap fillers, RCC, hydrogen tank pre-press cycles, thermal protection system, inspection, ISS supply maintenance, and projection of next flight are topics covered with the News Media.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2014

MAVEN Information Security Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance (GRC): Lessons Learned

As the first interplanetary mission managed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) had three IT security goals for its ground system: COMPLIANCE, (IT) RISK REDUCTION, and COST REDUCTION. In a multiorganizational environment in which government, industry and academia work together in support of the ground system and mission operations, information security governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC) becomes a challenge as each component of the ground system has and follows its own set of IT security requirements. These requirements are not necessarily the same or even similar to each other's, making the auditing of the ground system security a challenging feat. A combination of standards-based information security management based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management Framework (RMF), due diligence by the Mission's leadership, and effective collaboration among all elements of the ground system enabled MAVEN to successfully meet NASA's requirements for IT security, and therefore meet Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) mandate on the Agency. Throughout the implementation of GRC on MAVEN during the early stages of the mission development, the Project faced many challenges some of which have been identified in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to document these challenges, and provide a brief analysis of the lessons MAVEN learned. The historical information documented herein, derived from an internal pre-launch lessons learned analysis, can be used by current and future missions and organizations implementing and auditing GRC.

FISMA↗
NASA NTRS2002

ASK Magazine

Most of this issue is about ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer). We've collected stories by four members of the ACE management team: Don Margolies, the mission manager from Goddard Space Flight Center; Frandsen, science payloads manager from the Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Mary Chin, project manager in charge of spacecraft development at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory; and Frank Snow, operations and ground systems manager at Goddard.

Post, Todd↗
NASA NTRS2005

A Collaborative Decision Environment for UAV Operations

NASA is developing Intelligent Mission Management (IMM) technology for science missions employing long endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's). The IMM groundbased component is the Collaborative Decision Environment (CDE), a ground system that provides the Mission/Science team with situational awareness, collaboration, and decisionmaking tools. The CDE is used for pre-flight planning, mission monitoring, and visualization of acquired data. It integrates external data products used for planning and executing a mission, such as weather, satellite data products, and topographic maps by leveraging established and emerging Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards to acquire external data products via the Internet, and an industry standard geographic information system (GIs) toolkit for visualization As a Science/Mission team may be geographically dispersed, the CDE is capable of providing access to remote users across wide area networks using Web Services technology. A prototype CDE is being developed for an instrument checkout flight on a manned aircraft in the fall of 2005, in preparation for a full deployment in support of the US Forest Service and NASA Ames Western States Fire Mission in 2006.

D'Ortenzio, Matthew V.↗
NASA NTRS1993

ATLAS-2 Video News Release

This NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) video presents a Marshall Space Flight Center-Television (MSFC-TV) news release describing the objectives of the Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications in Science-2 (ATLAS-2), which is being flown on STS-56. Dr. Tim Miller (Mission Scientist), Dr. Marsha Torr (Mission Scientist), and Teresa Vanhooser (Mission Manager) explain that the ATLAS-2 mission is being launched to study earth atmospheric interactions with the sun in general and how manmade chemicals and pollution are contributing to ozone depletion in our atmosphere in particular. Seven instruments comprise the core payload. ATLAS-2 is an integral part of the Spacelab contribution to NASA's Mission to Planet Earth and characterizes the chemical and physical components of Earth's middle atmosphere and the solar energy injected in the atmosphere, studies that began on ATLAS-1.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Post MMT Briefing

Wayne Hale, Space Shuttle Deputy Program Manager and Terri Murphy, Space Shuttle Imagery Integration Manager are seen in this post Mission Management Team (MMT) briefing. Hale begins with showing a video that was recovered from the Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) looking at the external tank during ascent. Pictures of the RH Nose Landing Gear Damage (NLGD), Protruding gap filler near chine and protruding gap fillers are shown. Terri Murphy talks about the imagery from debris, integrated simulations and radar data collected from the launch. Hale answers questions from the news media about the location of the gap fillers, possible EVA to remove the gap fillers and the thermal protection system.

Source record↗