Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission Operations”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Development and Execution of End-of-Mission Operations Case Study of the UARS and ERBS End-of-Mission Plans

This Paper is a case study of the development and execution of the End-of-Mission plans for the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) and the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS). The goals of the End-of-Mission Plans are to minimize the time the spacecraft remains on orbit and to minimize the risk of creating orbital debris. Both of these Missions predate the NASA Management Instructions (NMI) that directs missions to provide for safe mission termination. Each spacecrafts had their own unique challenges, which required assessing End-of-Mission requirements versus spacecraft limitations. Ultimately the End-of- Mission operations were about risk mitigation. This paper will describe the operational challenges and the lessons learned executing these End-of-Mission Plans

Hughes, John↗
NASA NTRS2009

Mission Operations and Navigation Toolkit Environment

MONTE (Mission Operations and Navigation Toolkit Environment) Release 7.3 is an extensible software system designed to support trajectory and navigation analysis/design for space missions. MONTE is intended to replace the current navigation and trajectory analysis software systems, which, at the time of this reporting, are used by JPL's Navigation and Mission Design section. The software provides an integrated, simplified, and flexible system that can be easily maintained to serve the needs of future missions in need of navigation services.

Sunseri, Richard F.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Trajectory Design and Early Mission Operations for the Lunar IceCube Mission

The Lunar IceCube (LIC) mission, a Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NSTEP) program selection, was launched as a rideshare onboard Artemis-I on November 16th 2022, and deployed into a high energy lunar flyby trajectory. The final destination of the mission was a polar elliptical lunar orbit from which it could conduct spectroscopy observations of the lunar surface; however, a near rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) was planned to be used as a staging orbit that divided the lunar transfer and low-thrust spiral phases of the mission. This paper presents the process used to design the LIC transfer trajectory from the high-energy deployment state to a 9:2 synodic resonance NRHO. Additional analyses performed, to assess the critical deployment to lunar flyby phase of the trajectory and to generate recovery trajectories following a loss of contact with the spacecraft, are described as well. Lessons learned from working on the LIC mission are presented to inform the design of similar future CubeSat missions.

Robert E Pritchett↗
NASA NTRS1994

Mission operations management

Redefining the approach and philosophy that operations management uses to define, develop, and implement space missions will be a central element in achieving high efficiency mission operations for the future. The goal of a cost effective space operations program cannot be realized if the attitudes and methodologies we currently employ to plan, develop, and manage space missions do not change. A management philosophy that is in synch with the environment in terms of budget, technology, and science objectives must be developed. Changing our basic perception of mission operations will require a shift in the way we view the mission. This requires a transition from current practices of viewing the mission as a unique end product, to a 'mission development concept' built on the visualization of the end-to-end mission. To achieve this change we must define realistic mission success criteria and develop pragmatic approaches to achieve our goals. Custom mission development for all but the largest and most unique programs is not practical in the current budget environment, and we simply do not have the resources to implement all of our planned science programs. We need to shift our management focus to allow us the opportunity make use of methodologies and approaches which are based on common building blocks that can be utilized in the space, ground, and mission unique segments of all missions.

Rocco, David A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Insights and Observations from Operating a Geostationary Laser Communication Relay Mission: Operational Lessons from NASA’s Laser Communications Relay Demonstration (LCRD) and Associated Optical Ground Stations (OGSs)

The NASA Laser Communications Relay Demonstration (LCRD) has operated on orbit for the last two years. The LCRD Mission consists of a geostationary payload and two optical ground stations. This technology demonstration mission is NASA’s first two-way, end-to-end optical communications relay. LCRD has performed an extensive experiment campaign to analyze laser communication performance for extended operations. This paper discusses various lessons learned while operating the optical relay mission from early commissioning through two years of operation. Before launch, engineers and operators performed analyses to generate operational procedures based on expected LCRD performance. However, only operation on orbit can supply actual performance data. Additional topics covered in this paper include pre-launch and commissioning testing, ephemeris generation and cadence, environmental configurations, and accommodation concerns. The addition of Integrated Laser Communications Relay Demonstration Low Earth Orbit User Modem and Amplifier Terminal (ILLUMA-T) to the optical network supplemented the LCRD team’s operational experiences and enabled them to garner new lessons learned. The authors of this paper include day-to-day flight leads who consulted with on-console operators, engineers, and subject matter experts analyzing data and experiment results to gather the lessons learned described in this paper. LCRD is a joint project involving NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), the California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (MIT LL).

Lessons Learned↗
NASA NTRS1977

Integrated payload and mission planning, phase 3. Volume 3: Ground real-time mission operations

The payloads tentatively planned to fly on the first two Spacelab missions were analyzed to examine the cost relationships of providing mission operations support from onboard vs the ground-based Payload Operations Control Center (POCC). The quantitative results indicate that use of a POCC, with data processing capability, to support real-time mission operations is the most cost effective case.

White, W. J.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Planetary mission operations - An overview

An overview of the missions operations systems (MOS) used to support NASA planetary missions is given. The principal factors governing the design characteristics of MOS are discussed, including: the communications requirements of spacecraft over long distance from the earth, the fragility of the scientific payloads, and the inability to carry out planetary missions more than a few times a decade. The uplink and downlink parts of the MOS of Galileo and Voyager spacecraft are illustrated as examples of successful MOS design. A black and white photograph of the operations control center of JPL is provided.

Haynes, N. R.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Mission Operations Centers (MOCs): Integrating key spacecraft ground data system components

In an environment characterized by decreasing budgets, limited system development time, and user needs for increased capabilities, the Mission Operations Division (MOD) at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center initiated a new, cost-effective concept in developing its spacecraft ground data systems: the Mission Operations Center (MOC). In the MOC approach, key components are integrated into a comprehensive and cohesive spacecraft planning, monitoring, command, and control system with a single, state-of-the-art graphical user interface. The MOD is currently implementing MOC's, which feature a common, reusable, and extendable system architecture, to support the X-Ray Timing Explorer (XTE), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), and Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) missions. As a result of the MOC approach, mission operations are integrated, and users can, with a single system, perform real-time health and safety monitoring, real-time command and control, real-time attitude processing, real-time and predictive graphical spacecraft monitoring, trend analysis, mission planning and scheduling, command generation and management, network scheduling, guide star selection, and (using an expert system) spacecraft monitoring and fault isolation. The MOD is also implementing its test and training simulators under the new MOC management structure. This paper describes the MOC concept, the management approaches used in developing MOC systems, the technologies employed and the development process improvement initiatives applied in implementing MOC systems, and the expected benefits to both the user and the mission project in using the MOC approach.

Harbaugh, Randy↗
NASA NTRS2011

MOS 2.0: Modeling the Next Revolutionary Mission Operations System

Designed and implemented in the 1980's, the Advanced Multi-Mission Operations System (AMMOS) was a breakthrough for deep-space NASA missions, enabling significant reductions in the cost and risk of implementing ground systems. By designing a framework for use across multiple missions and adaptability to specific mission needs, AMMOS developers created a set of applications that have operated dozens of deep-space robotic missions over the past 30 years. We seek to leverage advances in technology and practice of architecting and systems engineering, using model-based approaches to update the AMMOS. We therefore revisit fundamental aspects of the AMMOS, resulting in a major update to the Mission Operations System (MOS): MOS 2.0. This update will ensure that the MOS can support an increasing range of mission types, (such as orbiters, landers, rovers, penetrators and balloons), and that the operations systems for deep-space robotic missions can reap the benefits of an iterative multi-mission framework.12 This paper reports on the first phase of this major update. Here we describe the methods and formal semantics used to address MOS 2.0 architecture and some early results. Early benefits of this approach include improved stakeholder input and buy-in, the ability to articulate and focus effort on key, system-wide principles, and efficiency gains obtained by use of well-architected design patterns and the use of models to improve the quality of documentation and decrease the effort required to produce and maintain it. We find that such methods facilitate reasoning, simulation, analysis on the system design in terms of design impacts, generation of products (e.g., project-review and software-delivery products), and use of formal process descriptions to enable goal-based operations. This initial phase yields a forward-looking and principled MOS 2.0 architectural vision, which considers both the mission-specific context and long-term system sustainability.

ground support systems↗
NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Crew-Centric Onboard Mission Operations Planning and Execution Tool: Year 2

Currently, mission planning for the International Space Station (ISS) is largely affected by ground operators in mission control. The task of creating a week-long mission plan for ISS crew takes dozens of people multiple days to complete, and is often created far in advance of its execution. As such, re-planning or adapting to changing real-time constraints or emergent issues is similarly taxing. As we design for future mission operations concepts to other planets or areas with limited connectivity to Earth, more of these ground-based tasks will need to be handled autonomously by the crew onboard.There is a need for a highly usable (including low training time) tool that enables efficient self-scheduling and execution within a single package. The ISS Program has identified Playbook as a potential option. It already has high crew acceptance as a plan viewer from previous analogs and can now support a crew self-scheduling assessment on ISS or on another mission. The goals of this work, a collaboration between the Human Research Program and the ISS Program, are to inform the design of systems for more autonomous crew operations and provide a platform for research on crew autonomy for future deep space missions. Our second year of the research effort have included new insights on the crew self-scheduling sessions performed by the crew through use on the HERA (Human Exploration Research Analog) and NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) analogs. Use on the NEEMO analog involved two self-scheduling strategies where the crew planned and executed two days of EVAs (Extra-Vehicular Activities). On HERA year two represented the first HERA campaign where we were able to perform research tasks. This involved selected flexible activities that the crew could schedule, mock timelines where the crew completed more complex planning exercises, usability evaluation of the crew self-scheduling features, and more insights into the limit of plan complexity that the crew could effectively self-schedule. In parallel we have added in new features and functionality in the Playbook tool based off of our insights from crew self-scheduling in the NASA analogs. In particular this year we have added in the ability for the crew to add, edit, and remove their own activities in the Playbook tool, expanding the type of planning and re-planning possible in the tool and opening up the ability for more free form plan creation. The ability to group and manipulate groups of activities from the plan task list was also added, allowing crew members to add predefined sets of activities onto their mission timeline. In addition we also added a way for crew members to roll back changes in their plan, in order to allow an undo like capability. These features expand and complement the initial self-scheduling features added in year one with the goal of making crew autonomous planning more efficient. As part of this work we have also finished developing the first version of our Playbook Data Analysis Tool, a research tool built to interpret and analyze the unobtrusively collected data obtained during the NASA analog missions through Playbook. This data which includes user click interaction as well as plan change information, through the Playbook Data Analysis Tool, allows us to playback this information as if a video camera was mounted over the crewmember's tablet. While the primary purpose of this tool is to allow usability analysis of crew self-scheduling sessions used on the NASA analog, since the data collected is structured, the tool can automatically derive metrics that would be traditionally tedious to achieve without manual analysis of video playback. We will demonstrate and discuss the ability for future derived metrics to be added to the tool. In addition to the current data and results gathered in year two we will also discuss the preparation and goals of our International Space Station (ISS) onboard technology demonstration with Playbook. This technology demonstration will be preformed as part of the CAST payload starting in late 2016.

onboard planning↗