Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “space traffic coordination”

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.

75 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

Achievements of the DOT-NASA Joint Program on Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies: Application to Multimodal Transportation

This report presents three-year accomplishments from the national program on Commercial Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technology (CRSGT) application to transportation, administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) in collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The joint program was authorized under Section 5113 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This is the first national program of its type focusing on transportation applications of emerging commercial remote sensing technologies. U.S. DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration manages the program in coordination with NASA's Earth Science Enterprise's application programs. The program focuses on applications of CRSGT products and systems for providing smarter and more efficient transportation operations and services. The program is performed in partnership with four major National Consortia for Remote Sensing in Transportation (NCRST). Each consortium focuses on research and development of products in one of the four priority areas for transportation application, and includes technical application and demonstration projects carried out in partnership with industries and service providers in their respective areas. The report identifies products and accomplishments from each of the four consortia in meeting the goal of providing smarter and more efficient transportation services. The products and results emerging from the program are being implemented in transportation operations and services through state and local agencies. The Environmental Assessment and Application Consortium (NCRST-E) provides leadership for developing and deploying cost effective environmental and transportation planning services, and integrates CRSGT advances for achieving smarter and cost effective corridor planning. The Infrastructure Management Consortium (NCRST-I) provides leadership in technologies that achieve smarter and cheaper ways of managing transportation infrastructure assets, operation, and inspection, and integrates CRSGT advances for achieving infrastructure security. The Traffic Flow Consortium (NCRST-F) provides leadership to develop new tools for regional traffic flow management including heavy vehicles and intermodal flow of freight, and integrates CRSGT advances for complementing and extending the reach of ITS user services. The Safety, Hazards and Disasters (NCRST-H) provides leadership for deploying remote sensing technology to locate transportation hazards and improve disaster recovery, and integrates CRSGT advances for application to protect transportation systems from terrorism. The DOT-NASA team is proud to present this report of accomplishments on products and results emerging from the joint program for application to transportation practice.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2015

TTEthernet for Integrated Spacecraft Networks

Aerospace projects have traditionally employed federated avionics architectures, in which each computer system is designed to perform one specific function (e.g. navigation). There are obvious downsides to this approach, including excessive weight (from so much computing hardware), and inefficient processor utilization (since modern processors are capable of performing multiple tasks). There has therefore been a push for integrated modular avionics (IMA), in which common computing platforms can be leveraged for different purposes. This consolidation of multiple vehicle functions to shared computing platforms can significantly reduce spacecraft cost, weight, and design complexity. However, the application of IMA principles introduces significant challenges, as the data network must accommodate traffic of mixed criticality and performance levels - potentially all related to the same shared computer hardware. Because individual network technologies are rarely so competent, the development of truly integrated network architectures often proves unreasonable. Several different types of networks are utilized - each suited to support a specific vehicle function. Critical functions are typically driven by precise timing loops, requiring networks with strict guarantees regarding message latency (i.e. determinism) and fault-tolerance. Alternatively, non-critical systems generally employ data networks prioritizing flexibility and high performance over reliable operation. Switched Ethernet has seen widespread success filling this role in terrestrial applications. Its high speed, flexibility, and the availability of inexpensive commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components make it desirable for inclusion in spacecraft platforms. Basic Ethernet configurations have been incorporated into several preexisting aerospace projects, including both the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS). However, classical switched Ethernet cannot provide the high level of network determinism required by real-time spacecraft applications. Even with modern advancements, the uncoordinated (i.e. event-driven) nature of Ethernet communication unavoidably leads to message contention within network switches. The arbitration process used to resolve such conflicts introduces variation in the time it takes for messages to be forwarded. TTEthernet1 introduces decentralized clock synchronization to switched Ethernet, enabling message transmission according to a time-triggered (TT) paradigm. A network planning tool is used to allocate each device a finite amount of time in which it may transmit a frame. Each time slot is repeated sequentially to form a periodic communication schedule that is then loaded onto each TTEthernet device (e.g. switches and end systems). Each network participant references the synchronized time in order to dispatch messages at predetermined instances. This schedule guarantees that no contention exists between time-triggered Ethernet frames in the network switches, therefore eliminating the need for arbitration (and the timing variation it causes). Besides time-triggered messaging, TTEthernet networks may provide two additional traffic classes to support communication of different criticality levels. In the rate-constrained (RC) traffic class, the frame payload size and rate of transmission along each communication channel are limited to predetermined maximums. The network switches can therefore be configured to accommodate the known worst-case traffic pattern, and buffer overflows can be eliminated. The best-effort (BE) traffic class behaves akin to classical Ethernet. No guarantees are provided regarding transmission latency or successful message delivery. TTEthernet coordinates transmission of all three traffic classes over the same physical connections, therefore accommodating the full spectrum of traffic criticality levels required in IMA architectures. Common computing platforms (e.g. LRUs) can share networking resources in such a way that failures in non-critical systems (using BE or RC communication modes) cannot impact flight-critical functions (using TT communication). Furthermore, TTEthernet hardware (e.g. switches, cabling) can be shared by both TTEthernet and classical Ethernet traffic.

Loveless, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS2011

Risk Management of Jettisoned Objects in LEO

The construction and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS) has led to the release of many objects into its orbital plane, usually during the course of an extra-vehicular activity (EVA). Such releases are often unintentional, but in a growing number of cases, the jettison has been intentional, conducted after a careful assessment of the net risk to the partnership and to other objects in space. Since its launch in 1998 the ISS has contributed on average at least one additional debris object that is simultaneously in orbit with the station, although the number varies widely from zero to eight at any one moment. All of these objects present potential risks to other objects in orbit. Whether it comes from known and tracked orbiting objects or from unknown or untrackable objects, collision with orbital debris can have disastrous consequences. Objects greater than 10cm are generally well documented and tracked, allowing orbiting spacecraft or satellites opportunities to perform evasive maneuvers (commonly known as Debris Avoidance Maneuvers, or DAMs) in the event that imminent collision is predicted. The issue with smaller debris; however, is that it is too numerous to be tracked effectively and yet still poses disastrous consequences if it intercepts a larger object. Due to the immense kinetic energy of any item in orbit, collision with debris as small as 1cm can have catastrophic consequences for many orbiting satellites or spacecraft. Faced with the growing orbital debris threat and the potentially catastrophic consequences of a collision-generated debris shower originating in an orbit crossing the ISS altitude band, in 2007 the ISS program manger asked program specialists to coordinate a multilateral jettison policy amongst the ISS partners. This policy would define the acceptable risk trade rationale for intentional release of a debris object, and other mandatory constraints on such jettisons to minimize the residual risks whenever a jettison was accepted. Although ISS-related debris often presents untenable risks to the EVA crew, IVA crew, or to a departing cargo vehicle for a controlled disposal, such released objects also present a ballistic nuisance to the visiting vehicle traffic, and a potential fragmentation threat to the hundreds of other functional and debris objects whose perigees lie below the ISS orbital altitude. Thus, every such jettison decision is a conscious risk trade.

Bacon, John B.↗