Use of a Dynamic Radioisotope Power Source for a Long Duration Lunar Science Rover
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
DRPS↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “lunar rover”
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.
Objectives and requirements of unmanned rover exploration of the moon
Unmanned lunar rover exploration objectives and requirements, considering heterogeneous surface
Conel, J. E.↗
VIPER: Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover
We will review the technical components of the NASA lunar rover mission, VIPER, with a focus on software components that rely on ROS 2 and Gazebo. We’ll start with an overview of the hardware and software components. Next, we’ll explore some of the custom Gazebo plugins for simulating the rover and the lunar surface. We’ll describe a fault injection framework that was built on ROS 2 parameters and how it is used to simulate hardware faults. Finally, we’ll see how ROS 2 is used as part of the rover ground software.
Jacob Michael Perron↗
High Speed Lunar Navigation for Crewed and Remotely Piloted Vehicles
Increased navigation speed is desirable for lunar rovers, whether autonomous, crewed or remotely operated, but is hampered by the low gravity, high contrast lighting and rough terrain. We describe lidar based navigation system deployed on NASA's K10 autonomous rover and to increase the terrain hazard situational awareness of the Lunar Electric Rover crew.
Pedersen, L.↗
VIPER – Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover: Mission Overview
VIPER is a low cost, lunar volatiles detection and measurement mission that will be delivered to the lunar south pole by one of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services partners and will characterize the nature of the volatiles in the area and extrapolate this data to create global lunar water resource maps. It will be the first mining expedition on another world while simultaneously addressing fundamental planetary science questions. Prospecting for lunar water at the poles is the next step in understanding the resource potential and addressing key theories about water emplacement and retention. It now appears that potentially economically significant amounts of water ice exists at the poles of the Moon, however, the distribution of this water is still not understood at a level sufficient to fully evaluate economic models. The water ice (and other potential volatiles), the “ore body”, needs to be understood at the scales of 10s to 100s of meters to evaluate localization, extraction and processing techniques. To accomplish this, VIPER will survey permanently-shadowed regions, semi-permanent shadowed regions, and even semi and full sunlit areas in order to have a comprehensive survey of polar region volatiles, to best inform future mission architectures. In order to characterize the volatiles, a payload suite consisting of a neutron spectrometer, mass spectrometer, near infrared spectrometer and a 1-meter drill will be hosted on the VIPER mobile lunar rover platform. Since VIPER is a relatively low cost, schedule-constrained, risk-tolerant mission, there are architectural limitations that require unique mission planning constraints to enable exploration of the lunar south pole region. These regions offer unique challenges such as uncertain terrain conditions, rock and crater hazards, lunar dust, multipath communications effects, extreme thermal environments and multiple overlapping planning constraints. Mission design/traverse planning, system design capabilities and mission operations are all highly linked through initial development phases. We will describe the current mission overview and the unique approaches taken by the VIPER project based on our programmatic framework and unique mission environment.
VIPER↗
Proceedings of the 8th Annual Summer Conference: NASA/USRA Advanced Design Program
Papers presented at the 8th Annual Summer Conference are categorized as Space Projects and Aeronautics projects. Topics covered include: Systematic Propulsion Optimization Tools (SPOT), Assured Crew Return Vehicle Post Landing Configuration Design and Test, Autonomous Support for Microorganism Research in Space, Bioregenerative System Components for Microgravity, The Extended Mission Rover (EMR), Planetary Surface Exploration MESUR/Autonomous Lunar Rover, Automation of Closed Environments in Space for Human Comfort and Safety, Walking Robot Design, Extraterrestrial Surface Propulsion Systems, The Design of Four Hypersonic Reconnaissance Aircraft, Design of a Refueling Tanker Delivering Liquid Hydrogen, The Design of a Long-Range Megatransport Aircraft, and Solar Powered Multipurpose Remotely Powered Aircraft.
Source record↗
Viper Science Operations: Lunar Dynamic Science Table and ‘Tracker’ Tool.
Introduction: The NASA VIPER lunar rover mission [1] presents a unique operational paradigm within the history of robotic spaceflight. The proximity of the Moon to the Earth and the terrain elements (surface characteristics, light/shadow dynamics, communication links) of the Lunar South Polar landing site create unprecedented operational conditions between these two planetary bodies. Apollo era lunar science and exploration included humans in situ to operate instruments and assimilate observational inputs in real-time. Previous lunar orbital missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges, that were weeks in duration. Mars rover missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges between Mars and Earth, that were hours, days, and weeks in length. In the case of the VIPER mission, our operational decisioning for rover driving and instrument commanding will be compressed to minute-scale timeframes. These operational conditions will directly impact the workflow and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) will be required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations [2]. The VST in the VIPER Mission Science Center (MSC) and the Mission Operations Center (MOC) shall provide mission-enhancing scientific input to guide traverse planning and drill site confirmation/selection throughout surface operations. Further, the VST input will be of vital importance to the mission’s ability to maximize science return and to meet broader NASA objectives for future lunar ISRU and exploration activities. Specifically, the VST in the MSC and MOC will provide science-driven, consensus-based, timely input and decision-making to enhance mission operations and align mission science return with broader Agency goals. They will enable the characterization of the distribution (lateral and vertical extent, concentration, variability), form (chemical/physical state of these reservoirs of lunar water and key isotopes), and context (e.g., accessibility/overburden, environment, soil mechanics, trafficability, and temperatures) of lunar polar volatiles and water content for the VIPER mission. Additionally, the MSC will be selecting or reconfirming the location and path towards and from the third drill site (Drill Site Charlie) within each Science Station [6]. To enable scientific decision-making within the operational paradigm of the VIPER lunar rover mission requires detailed articulation of the VST’s scientific objectives and goals, and the operationalization of these objectives and goals through their association with specific data products, tasks, and decisional procedures. Further, defining and tracking scientific success metrics throughout surface operations will enable the VST to have a quantified understanding of the mission’s evolving ability to accomplish the stated scientific objectives and goals both during and after the mission. This abstract provides an overview of the methods and development activities towards defining, operationalizing, and tracking scientific objectives and goals throughout VIPER surface operations. Specifically, we focus on the VIPER Lunar Dynamic Science Table (LDST) and the VIPER “Tracker” tool.
Darlene Sze Shien Lim↗
Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies
Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.
LTV↗
Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies
Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.
LTV↗
Thermal Impact of Lunar Dust on Rovers
Experience and ground tests have shown that lunar dust coverage can severely degrade thermal system performance, and with the push to go back to the Moon for longer than a few days, lunar dust is being recognized as a significant technical challenge. The Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) and Pressurized Rover (PR) will be operating on the lunar surface for long durations and roving at high speeds with interaction with astronauts and other robotics, which will cause dust to transfer to the vehicle, potentially to critical thermal surfaces. Dust coverage results in a change of overall optical properties, increased resistance to heat rejection due to the insulating effect of a dust layer, and even abrasion to thermal surfaces and soft goods. This paper provides an overview of what is currently known and unknown about what will happen to thermal surfaces exposed to dust on the Lunar South Pole, some dust mitigation options and testing guidance, and what resources can be used to help overcome this problem.
Lunar dust↗
Thermal Impacts of Lunar Dust For Rovers
Experience and ground tests have shown that lunar dust coverage can severely degrade thermal system performance, and with the push to go back to the Moon for longer than a few days, lunar dust is being recognized as a significant technical challenge. The Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) and Pressurized Rover (PR) will be operating on the lunar surface for long durations and roving at high speeds with interaction with astronauts and other robotics, which will cause dust to transfer to the vehicle, potentially to critical thermal surfaces. Dust coverage results in a change of overall optical properties, increased resistance to heat rejection due to the insulating effect of a dust layer, and even abrasion to thermal surfaces and soft goods. This paper provides an overview of what is currently known and unknown about what will happen to thermal surfaces exposed to dust on the Lunar South Pole, some dust mitigation options and testing guidance, and what resources can be used to help overcome this problem.
Lunar dust↗
Electrostatic Power Generation from Negatively Charged, Simulated Lunar Regolith
Research was conducted to develop an electrostatic power generator for future lunar missions that facilitate the utilization of lunar resources. The lunar surface is known to be negatively charged from the constant bombardment of electrons and protons from the solar wind. The resulting negative electrostatic charge on the dust particles, in the lunar vacuum, causes them to repel each other minimizing the potential. The result is a layer of suspended dust about one meter above the lunar surface. This phenomenon was observed by both Clementine and Surveyor spacecrafts. During the Apollo 17 lunar landing, the charged dust was a major hindrance, as it was attracted to the astronauts' spacesuits, equipment, and the lunar buggies. The dust accumulated on the spacesuits caused reduced visibility for the astronauts, and was unavoidably transported inside the spacecraft where it caused breathing irritation [1]. In the lunar vacuum, the maximum charge on the particles can be extremely high. An article in the journal "Nature", titled "Moon too static for astronauts?" (Feb 2, 2007) estimates that the lunar surface is charged with up to several thousand volts [2]. The electrostatic power generator was devised to alleviate the hazardous effects of negatively charged lunar soil by neutralizing the charged particles through capacitive coupling and thereby simultaneously harnessing power through electric charging [3]. The amount of power generated or collected is dependent on the areal coverage of the device and hovering speed over the lunar soil surface. A thin-film array of capacitors can be continuously charged and sequentially discharged using a time-differentiated trigger discharge process to produce a pulse train of discharge for DC mode output. By controlling the pulse interval, the DC mode power can be modulated for powering devices and equipment. In conjunction with a power storage system, the electrostatic power generator can be a power source for a lunar rover or other systems. The negatively charged lunar soil would also be neutralized mitigating some of the adverse effects resulting from lunar dust.
Choi, Sang H.↗
Development of the Resource Prospector Planetary Rover
The Resource Prospector (RP) is an In-‐Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) lunar rover mission under study by NASA. RP is planned to launch in 2020 to prospect for subsurface volatiles and to extract oxygen from lunar regolith. The mission will address several of NASA's "Strategic Knowledge Gaps" for lunar exploration. The mission will also address the Global Exploration Roadmap's strategic goal of using local resources for human exploration. The distribution of lunar subsurface volatiles drives the mission requirement for mobility. The spatial distribution is hypothesized to be governed by impact cratering with the top 0.5 m being patchy at scales of 100 m. The mixing time scale increases with depth (less frequent larger impacts). Consequently, increased mobility reduces the depth requirement for sampling. The target RP traverse will extend 1 km radially from the landing site to sample craters of varying sizes. Sampling craters with different ages will reveal possible volatile emplacement history. In 1 Ga, approximately 60-70 craters of 10 m diameter form per km2. Thus, the rover will need to sample at least ten of these craters, which may require a total traverse path length of 2-‐3 km. During 2014-2015, we developed an initial prototype rover for RP. The current design is a solar powered, four-wheeled vehicle, with hub motor drive, offset four wheel steering, and active suspension. Active suspension provides capabilities including changing vehicle ride height, traversing comparatively large obstacles, and controlling load on the wheels. All-wheel steering enables the vehicle to point arbitrarily while roving, e.g., to keep the solar array pointed at the sun while in motion. The offset steering combined with active suspension improves driving in soft soil. The rover's on-board software utilizes NASA's Core Flight Software, which is a reusable flight software environment. During 2015, we completed the initial rover software build, which provides low-level hardware interfaces, basic mobility control, waypoint driving, odometry, basic error checking, and camera services. Development of the prototype rover has enabled maturation of many of the subsystems to TRL 5. During the next year, we will conduct integrated testing of concepts of operation, navigation, and remote driving tools. In addition, we will perform environmental tests including radiation (avionics), thermal and thermal/vacuum (mechanisms), and gravity offload (mobility).
robotics↗
Past US studies and developments for planetary rovers
The history of planetary rovers in the U.S. space program is outlined in the context of the goals, mission and spacecraft designs, and operations designs. The American lunar rover work has had three main stages. In the early sixties, the capacity of Surveyor lunar landers to deliver rovers with a mass of about 50 kg to the Moon was exploited. Several such machines were built and tested beginning in 1964 but none went to the Moon. A manned 400 kg short range rover was then developed. Three of these operated on the Moon in 1971 and 1972 as part of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions. Following these Apollo successes, attempts were made to provide two kinds of follow on models: automated or dual mode (human carrying or not) rovers in the few hundred kg size class, and multi-ton mobile habitats that could carry humans on extended traverses. With the closing of both Soviet and American lunar exploration in the seventies, neither of these proposals succeeded. In parallel with these lunar developments, a lengthy technology program on Martian roving has gone on in the U.S., sometimes coming close to preproject status and sometimes fading away, but never quite being abandoned. As a result it is possible today to contemplate a wide range of lunar and Martian roving missions that could be made practical within a few years. However, with today's funding constraints none of the well studied, larger mission concepts appear to fit. Therefore new efforts are being made toward developing much smaller rovers taking advantage of new miniature techniques, not only in mobility systems but also in the scientific instruments that a small rover can carry. Illustrations are included.
Burke, James D.↗
Testing Mars Exploration Rover-Inspired Operational Strategies for Semi-Autonomous Rovers on the Moon Ii: the GeoHeuristic Operational Strategies Test in Alaska
We used MER-derived semi-autonomous rover science operations strategies to determine best practices suitable for remote semi-autonomous lunar rover geology. Two field teams studied two glacial moraines as analogs for potential ice-bearing lunar regolith. At each site a Rover Team commanded a human rover to execute observations based on common MER sequences; the resulting data were used to identify and characterize targets of interest. A Tiger Team followed the Rover Team using traditional terrestrial field methods, and the results of the two teams were compared. Narrowly defined goals that can be addressed using cm-scale or coarser resolution may be met sufficiently by the operational strategies adapted from MER survey mode. When reconnaissance is the primary goal, the strategies tested are necessary but not sufficient. Further, there may be a set of optimal observations for such narrowly defined, hypothesis-driven science goals, such that collecting further data would result in diminishing returns. We confirm results of previous tests that indicated systematic observations might improve efficiency during strategic planning, and improve science output during data analysis. This strategy does not markedly improve the rate at which a science team can ingest data to feed back into tactical decision-making. Other methods should be tested to separate the strategic and tactical processes, and to build in time for data analysis.
MER↗
Characterizing Lunar Water Resource Prospector: A Rover mission to the Lunar Polar region
No abstract available
NIRVSS↗
An Alternate Configuration of the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle
The NASA Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) Team has developed an alternate configuration of the vehicle that can be used as a lunar lander. The MMSEV was originally conceived of during the Constellation program as the successor to the Apollo lunar rover as a pressurized rover for two-person, multiday excursions on the lunar surface. Following the cancellation of the Constellation program, the MMSEV has been reconfigured to serve as a free-flying scout vehicle for exploration of a Near Earth Asteroid and is also being assessed for use as a Habitable Airlock in a Cislunar microgravity spacecraft. The Alternate MMSEV (AMMSEV) variant of the MMSEV would serve as the transport vehicle for a four-person lunar crew, providing descent from an orbiting spacecraft or space station and ascent back to the spaceborne asset. This paper will provide a high level overview of the MMSEV and preliminary results from human-in-the-loop testing.
Howard, Robert L., Jr.↗
A New Architecture for Visualization: Open Mission Control Technologies
Open Mission Control Technologies (MCT) is a new architecture for visualisation of mission data. Driven by requirements for new mission capabilities, including distributed mission operations, access to data anywhere, customization by users, synthesis of multiple data sources, and flexibility for multi-mission adaptation, Open MCT provides users with an integrated customizable environment. Developed at NASAs Ames Research Center (ARC), in collaboration with NASAs Advanced Multimission Operations System (AMMOS) and NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Open MCT is getting its first mission use on the Jason 3 Mission, and is also available in the testbed for the Mars 2020 Rover and for development use for NASAs Resource Prospector Lunar Rover. The open source nature of the project provides for use outside of space missions, including open source contributions from a community of users. The defining features of Open MCT for mission users are data integration, end user composition and multiple views. Data integration provides access to mission data across domains in one place, making data such as activities, timelines, telemetry, imagery, event timers and procedures available in one place, without application switching. End user composition provides users with layouts, which act as a canvas to assemble visualisations. Multiple views provide the capability to view the same data in different ways, with live switching of data views in place. Open MCT is browser based, and works on the desktop as well as tablets and phones, providing access to data anywhere. An early use case for mobile data access took place on the Resource Prospector (RP) Mission Distributed Operations Test, in which rover engineers in the field were able to view telemetry on their phones. We envision this capability providing decision support to on console operators from off duty personnel. The plug-in architecture also allows for adaptation for different mission capabilities. Different data types and capabilities may be added or removed using plugins. An API provides a means to write new capabilities and to create data adaptors. Data plugins exist for mission data sources for NASA missions. Adaptors have been written by international and commercial users. Open MCT is open source. Open source enables collaborative development across organizations and also makes the product available outside of the space community, providing a potential source of usage and ideas to drive product design and development. The combination of open source with an Apache 2 license, and distribution on GitHub, has enabled an active community of users and contributors. The spectrum of users for Open MCT is, to our knowledge, unprecedented for mission software. In addition to our NASA users, we have, through open source, had users and inquires on projects ranging from Internet of Things, to radio hobbyists, to farming projects. We have an active community of contributors, enabling a flow of ideas inside and outside of the space community.
Trimble, Jay↗