Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “architecture definition”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

Exploration Planetary Surface Structural Systems: Design Requirements and Compliance

The Lunar Surface Systems Project developed system concepts that would be necessary to establish and maintain a permanent human presence on the Lunar surface. A variety of specific system implementations were generated as a part of the scenarios, some level of system definition was completed, and masses estimated for each system. Because the architecture studies generally spawned a large number of system concepts and the studies were executed in a short amount of time, the resulting system definitions had very low design fidelity. This paper describes the development sequence required to field a particular structural system: 1) Define Requirements, 2) Develop the Design and 3) Demonstrate Compliance of the Design to all Requirements. This paper also outlines and describes in detail the information and data that are required to establish structural design requirements and outlines the information that would comprise a planetary surface system Structures Requirements document.

Dorsey, John T.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Evolutionary Space Communications Architectures for Human/Robotic Exploration and Science Missions

NASA enterprises have growing needs for an advanced, integrated, communications infrastructure that will satisfy the capabilities needed for multiple human, robotic and scientific missions beyond 2015. Furthermore, the reliable, multipoint infrastructure is required to provide continuous, maximum coverage of areas of concentrated activities, such as around Earth and in the vicinity of the Moon or Mars, with access made available on demand of the human or robotic user. As a first step, the definitions of NASA's future space communications and networking architectures are underway. Architectures that describe the communications and networking needed between the nodal regions consisting of Earth, Moon, Lagrange points, Mars, and the places of interest within the inner and outer solar system have been laid out. These architectures will need the modular flexibility that must be included in the communication and networking technologies to enable the infrastructure to grow in capability with time and to transform from supporting robotic missions in the solar system to supporting human ventures to Mars, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, and beyond. The protocol-based networking capability seamlessly connects the backbone, access, inter-spacecraft and proximity network elements of the architectures employed in the infrastructure. In this paper, we present the summary of NASA's near and long term needs and capability requirements that were gathered by participative methods. We describe an integrated architecture concept and model that will enable communications for evolutionary robotic and human science missions. We then define the communication nodes, their requirements, and various options to connect them.

Bhasin, Kul↗
NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Architecture and System Margins Strategy

NASA's Constellation Program (CxP) is responsible for the definition, design, development, and operations of the flight, ground, and mission operations elements being developed by the United States for the human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond. This paper provides an overview of the latest CxP technical architecture baseline, driving requirements, and reference missions for initial capability to fly to the International Space Station (ISS) and to the Moon. The results of the most recent design decisions and analyses supporting the architecture, including the Ares I, Ares V, Orion crew exploration vehicle, and the Altair lunar lander will be presented.

Muirhead, Brian↗
NASA NTRS1984

Space Station Data Systems development

The content and status of the evolving Space Station Data System (SSDS) development program are presented. High level system requirements and schedules are reviewed, and the challenges of SSDS development are discussed. Present content of the program consists of three major activities: (1) two contracted parallel Space Station Data System architecture studies; (2) the space station phase B definition studies to be awarded in early 1985; and (3) a test bed project for the evaluation and proof-of-concept of data systems technology for space station applications and for the advanced development of long-lead hardware and software for the initial and growth space station configurations. An overview of the present SSDS concept is provided, and the roles of NASA centers in this activity are summarized.

Bigham, J. P., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Implementing neural nets with programmable logic

Networks of Boolean programmable logic modules are presented as one purely digital class of artificial neural nets. The approach contrasts with the continuous analog framework usually suggested. Programmable logic networks are capable of handling many neural-net applications. They avoid some of the limitations of threshold logic networks and present distinct opportunities. The network nodes are called dynamically programmable logic modules. They can be implemented with digitally controlled demultiplexers. Each node performs a Boolean function of its inputs which can be dynamically assigned. The overall network is therefore a combinational circuit and its outputs are Boolean global functions of the network's input variables. The approach offers definite advantages for VLSI implementation, namely, a regular architecture with limited connectivity, simplicity of the control machinery, natural modularity, and the support of a mature technology.

Vidal, Jacques J.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Logistics Modeling for Lunar Exploration Systems

The extensive logistics required to support extended crewed operations in space make effective modeling of logistics requirements and deployment critical to predicting the behavior of human lunar exploration systems. This paper discusses the software that has been developed as part of the Campaign Manifest Analysis Tool in support of strategic analysis activities under the Constellation Architecture Team - Lunar. The described logistics module enables definition of logistics requirements across multiple surface locations and allows for the transfer of logistics between those locations. A key feature of the module is the loading algorithm that is used to efficiently load logistics by type into carriers and then onto landers. Attention is given to the capabilities and limitations of this loading algorithm, particularly with regard to surface transfers. These capabilities are described within the context of the object-oriented software implementation, with details provided on the applicability of using this approach to model other human exploration scenarios. Some challenges of incorporating probabilistics into this type of logistics analysis model are discussed at a high level.

Andraschko, Mark R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of NASA ISRU Plans, Priorites, and Activities

Introduction:The National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) of the United States ofAmerica (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Marsprogram to send astronauts (the first woman andperson of color) back to the lunar surface, create asustainable human lunar exploration program, andlead the first human exploration mission to the Marssurface in the 2030’s [1]. A major objective of thisprogram is to characterize the resources that exist onthe Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them forsustained and affordable exploration. Commonlyknown as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), thesearch for, acquisition, and processing of resources inspace has the potential to greatly reduce thedependency on transporting mission consumables andinfrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing missioncosts, risks, and dependency on Earth.ISRU is Enabling: Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into mission commoditiessuch as rocket propellants, life support consumables,and fuel cell reactants, ISRU enhances and evolvesthe cis-lunar, lander, and surface transportationsystems required for human exploration; expandingand enhancing HOW humans can explore and returnfrom the Moon. Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into metals, silicon, and othermanufacturing and construction feedstock, ISRUenhances and allows for the expansion of criticalinfrastructure using in situ manufacturing andconstruction capabilities that influence WHAT humanscan do on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. Becauseof this, ISRU supports and enables commercialinvolvement beyond NASA and governmentalagencies by both lowering the cost of sustainedtransportation to/from/on the Moon as well assupporting the market required for needing thesetransportation systems. Strategic Framework:To achieve this vision,NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD) ensures the coordinated development ofISRU and other critical space and surfaceinfrastructure elements such as propulsion, power,manufacturing, construction, and robotics through theStrategic Technology Architecture Roundtable(STAR) process. Through STAR, an integratedframework and process has been created allowing forcapabilities and technologies to be linked andassessed, gaps to be identified, specifications andmetrics to be established, and provide a means toprioritize and implement technology development andmissions. A critical part of the STAR effort has beenthe establishment of the Strategic Framework thatorganizes all work under four major Thrusts (Go,Land, Live, and Explore) and identifies the drivingOutcomes for each of these Thrusts. From the Thrustsand Outcomes, all work can be categorized and linkedbetween Capability Areas, and Technology Gaps canbe identified and addressed (Figure 1.)Figure 1. Strategic Framework and STAR FrameworkISRU Envisioned Future: To drive thedevelopment of technologies and capabilities, theSTAR process starts with establishing a ‘grand vision’of where each Outcome and Capability is aiming tobe considered complete. For ISRU, the EnvisionedFuture is “Scalable ISRU production/utilizationcapabilities including sustainable commodities on thelunar and Mars Surface”. This involves starting with10’s of metric tons of products, but evolves into 100’sto 1000’s of metric tons of water, oxygen, propellants,construction and manufacturing feedstock, andcommodities for habitat and food production andoperations. For ISRU, the ‘Prospect to Product’philosophy starts with Destination Reconnaissance &Resource Assessment, followed by ResourceAcquisition, Isolation, and Preparation, leading intoResource Processing (which is further subdivided intomission consumables and feedstocks for constructionand manufacturing). The ISRU Envisioned Futurealso considers what resources are available andattempts to address what and when these resourceswill be evaluated and harnessed, as well asconsidering which products/commodities can beobtained for early use and which ones require moretime and/or users of refined products.It Takes an Architecture: ISRU does not existon its own. By definition, it requires customers/users SHORT TITLE HERE: A. B. Author and C. D. Authorto use the products/commodities produced by ISRUsystems. Also, for an ISRU capability to exist, itmust obtain products and services from other systemsand infrastructure. An important aspect of the STARprocess and the ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is to identify and link all of these systems andcapabilities to achieve the desired end state (Figure2).Figure 2. ISRU as Part of a Larger ArchitectureISRU Capability Drivers: The guidingprinciples for NASA’s Space TechnologyDevelopment for Artemis are to develop criticaltechnologies and capabilities that enable (i) asustainable Lunar surface presence, (ii) the future goalof sending humans to Mars, and (iii) promotingcritical technologies to enable future science andcommercial missions. It is a major goal of theArtemis campaign to establish some sort of base campat the lunar South Pole by approximately the end ofthe decade. The ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is aligned with the Artemis campaign todevelop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities in thistimeframe that could lead to sustained surfaceoperations, infrastructure growth, and commercialoperations in the next decade (Figure 3).Figure 3. ISRU Dual Path to Full Implementation and CommercializationState of the Art and Gaps: To achieve theenvisioned future, an extensive effort was performedto understand the State of the Art (SOA) for ISRUgoing back decades, and to assess the SOA against thenear and long-term goals and objectives of the ISRUStrategic Outcome objectives. While the releasedISRU Envisioned Futures Priorities only includes atop-level definition of both the SOA and Gaps, furtherinformation on these for ISRU can be found in theISRU Gap Assessment Study performed for theInternational Space Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG) [2]. To provide further guidance to industryand academia, a top level assessment was performedand provide that divides critical areas of ISRUcapabilities and technologies into 3 categories:Significant Funding, Partially Covered/MoreRequired, and Limited/No Funded Activities.Envisioned Future Priorities- Next Steps forISRU: While a significant amount of work over abroad range of technology areas has been performedover the last several years for lunar ISRU, to reach theenvisioned future for ISRU, a lot more work isrequired at the technology level leading to bothsystems and technology demonstrations in the nearfuture. To guide investments within NASA, industry,and academia, 5 specific areas of high priority wereidentified. These are:1.Complete development of the Water and Oxygen Mining Paths and close technology gaps, with emphasis on oxygen extraction from Highland regolith and parallel paths for polar water mining.2.Expand development of metal extraction and feedstock for manufacturing and construction, with emphasis on aluminum and initial/easy to obtain/make construction feedstocks leading to more refined metals and other regolith resources. Also, evaluate biologically inspired/derived technologies in bio-mining, bio-plastic, and other feedstock commodities.3.Ensure the resource assessment needed for future ISRU commercial operations is coordinated with both near/long-term science objectives as well as Artemis mission locations of interest.4.Initiate NASA and industry-led system-level analyses, integration, and testing activities for ISRU capabilities. While significant work has been performed at the technology and subsystemlevel, it is now important to understand how these technology investments can be leveraged and utilized in actual systems and applications5.Initiate lunar ISRU technology flight demonstrations leading to initial ‘Pilot Plant’ end-to-end production capability demonstrations, led by industry

ISRU↗
NASA NTRS2014

Interdisciplinary Interactions During R&D and Early Design of Large Engineered Systems

Designing Large-Scale Complex Engineered Systems (LaCES) such as aircraft and submarines requires the input of thousands of engineers and scientists whose work is proximate in neither time nor space. Comprehensive knowledge of the system is dispersed among specialists whose expertise is in typically one system component or discipline. This study examined the interactive work practices among such specialists seeking to improve engineering practice through a rigorous and theoretical understanding of current practice. This research explored current interdisciplinary practices and perspectives during R&D and early LaCES design and identified why these practices and perspectives prevail and persist. The research design consisted of a three-fold, integrative approach that combined an open-ended survey, semi-structured interviews, and ethnography. Significant empirical data from experienced engineers and scientists in a large engineering organization were obtained and integrated with theories from organization science and engineering. Qualitative analysis was used to obtain a holistic, contextualized understanding. The over-arching finding is that issues related to cognition, organization, and social interrelations mostly dominate interactions across disciplines. Engineering issues, such as the integration of hardware or physics-based models, are not as significant. For example, organization culture is an important underlying factor that guided researchers more toward individual sovereignty over cross-disciplinarity. The organization structure and the engineered system architecture also serve as constraints to the engineering work. Many differences in work practices were observed, including frequency and depth of interactions, definition or co-construction of requirements, clarity or creation of the system architecture, work group proximity, and cognitive challenges. Practitioners are often unaware of these differences resulting in confusion and incorrect assumptions regarding work expectations. Cognitively, the enactment and coconstruction of knowledge are the fundamental tasks of the interdisciplinary interactions. Distributed and collective cognition represent most of the efforts. Argument, ignorance, learning, and creativity are interrelated aspects of the interactions that cause discomfort but yield benefits such as problem mitigation, broader understanding, and improved system design and performance. The quality and quantity of social interrelations are central to all work across disciplines with reciprocity, respectful engagement, and heedful interrelations being significant to the effectiveness of the engineering and scientific work.

McGowan, Anna-Maria Rivas↗
NASA NTRS2016

A Cognitive Systems Engineering Approach to Developing HMI Requirements for New Technologies

This document examines the challenges inherent in designing and regulating to support human-automation interaction for new technologies that will deployed into complex systems. A key question for new technologies, is how work will be accomplished by the human and machine agents. This question has traditionally been framed as how functions should be allocated between humans and machines. Such framing misses the coordination and synchronization that is needed for the different human and machine roles in the system to accomplish their goals. Coordination and synchronization demands are driven by the underlying human-automation architecture of the new technology, which are typically not specified explicitly by the designers. The human machine interface (HMI) which is intended to facilitate human-machine interaction and cooperation, however, typically is defined explicitly and therefore serves as a proxy for human-automation cooperation requirements with respect to technical standards for technologies. Unfortunately, mismatches between the HMI and the coordination and synchronization demands of the underlying human-automation architecture, can lead to system breakdowns. A methodology is needed that both designers and regulators can utilize to evaluate the expected performance of a new technology given potential human-automation architectures. Three experiments were conducted to inform the minimum HMI requirements a detect and avoid system for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The results of the experiments provided empirical input to specific minimum operational performance standards that UAS manufacturers will have to meet in order to operate UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS). These studies represent a success story for how to objectively and systematically evaluate prototype technologies as part of the process for developing regulatory requirements. They also provide an opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned from a recent research effort in order to improve the methodology for defining technology requirements for regulators in the future. The biggest shortcoming of the presented research program was the absence of the explicit definition, generation and analysis of potential human-automation architectures. Failure to execute this step in the research process resulted in less efficient evaluation of the candidate prototypes technologies in addition to the complete absence of different approaches to human-automation cooperation. For example, all of the prototype technologies that were evaluated in the research program assumed a human-automation architecture that relied on serial processing from the automation to the human. While this type of human-automation architecture is typical across many different technologies and in many different domains, it ignores different architectures where humans and automation work in parallel. Defining potential human-automation architectures a priori also allows regulators to develop scenarios that will stress the performance boundaries of the technology during the evaluation phase. The importance of adding this step of generating and evaluating candidate human-automation architectures prior to formal empirical evaluation is discussed.

human systems integration↗
NASA NTRS2012

Specification and Design of Electrical Flight System Architectures with SysML

Modern space flight systems are required to perform more complex functions than previous generations to support space missions. This demand is driving the trend to deploy more electronics to realize system functionality. The traditional approach for the specification, design, and deployment of electrical system architectures in space flight systems includes the use of informal definitions and descriptions that are often embedded within loosely coupled but highly interdependent design documents. Traditional methods become inefficient to cope with increasing system complexity, evolving requirements, and the ability to meet project budget and time constraints. Thus, there is a need for more rigorous methods to capture the relevant information about the electrical system architecture as the design evolves. In this work, we propose a model-centric approach to support the specification and design of electrical flight system architectures using the System Modeling Language (SysML). In our approach, we develop a domain specific language for specifying electrical system architectures, and we propose a design flow for the specification and design of electrical interfaces. Our approach is applied to a practical flight system.

specifications↗
NASA NTRS2021

FRESCO: A Framework for Spacecraft Systems Autonomy

Achieving the science exploration and defense goals of the following decades will require flight systems capable of operations with limited operator contact, system mode changes and retasking based on sensor data, and complex robotic operations. To support these capabilities, increasingly autonomous flight systems are required that can perform dedicated mission functions, e.g. payload targeting and communications, and system-level functions, e.g. planning and goal monitoring. Architecting an autonomous system requires a well-reasoned, self-consistent framework to avoid \textit{ad hoc} design choices that will introduce complexity and risk. The Framework for Robust Execution and Scheduling of Commands On-Board, FRESCO, is the result of lessons learned in developing a software architecture to enable autonomous solar system exploration. FRESCO generalizes this work to offer a modular, software-agnostic approach to developing verifiable architecture for autonomous space systems. FRESCO specifies guiding principles, functions, interfaces, and interactions from which mission-specific autonomous control architectures can be derived. FRESCO is a principled framework relying on explicit, state-based goal definitions, centralized management of state knowledge, clearly separated control boundaries, and hierarchical reasoning. Using components from FRESCO reference architecture, an autonomous decision-making architecture can be designed for spacecraft which can then be mapped to flight software architecture. FRESCO is flexibly defined to enable autonomous control of flight systems built using extensive software and hardware heritage. Finally, FRESCO-derived architectures support a spectrum of operator/spacecraft interactions, ranging from traditional commanding to goal-driven commanding with the ability to change mission goals autonomously. FRESCO has been used in defining the autonomy architectures for the ASTERIA mission and have been demonstrated in laboratory and software simulation for small body rendezvous and in-space servicing missions.

Kolcio, Ksenia↗
NASA NTRS2002

SMEX-Lite Modular Solar Array Architecture

The NASA Small Explorer (SMEX) missions have typically had three years between mission definition and launch. This short schedule has posed significant challenges with respect to solar array design and procurement. Typically, the solar panel geometry is frozen prior to going out with a procurement. However, with the SMEX schedule, it has been virtually impossible to freeze the geometry in time to avoid scheduling problems with integrating the solar panels to the spacecraft. A modular solar array architecture was developed to alleviate this problem. This approach involves procuring sufficient modules for multiple missions and assembling the modules onto a solar array framework that is unique to each mission. The modular approach removes the solar array from the critical path of the SMEX integration and testing schedule. It also reduces the cost per unit area of the solar arrays and facilitates the inclusion of experiments involving new solar cell or panel technologies in the SMEX missions.

Lyons, John W.↗
NASA NTRS1995

TROPIX Power System Architecture

This document contains results obtained in the process of performing a power system definition study of the TROPIX power management and distribution system (PMAD). Requirements derived from the PMADs interaction with other spacecraft systems are discussed first. Since the design is dependent on the performance of the photovoltaics, there is a comprehensive discussion of the appropriate models for cells and arrays. A trade study of the array operating voltage and its effect on array bus mass is also presented. A system architecture is developed which makes use of a combination of high efficiency switching power convertors and analog regulators. Mass and volume estimates are presented for all subsystems.

Manner, David B.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Digital Prototyping Methods to Enable Product Development Analysis Cycle Compression in Aerospace Systems

Historically, the product development life cycle (spanning from origination of a systems concept to initial delivery or fielding) for large-scale aerospace systems is 10-25 years. Examples of recent programs exhibiting this timeline are the Space Shuttle (13 years), , International Space Station (18 years), NASA Hubble telescope (16 years), USAF F-35 Strike Fighter (22 years), Missile Defense Agency THAAD (21 years), USAF V-22 Osprey (26 years), USAF B-2 Spirt (19 years), US Army RAH-66 Comanche (22 years, cancelled prior to fielding), James Webb Space Telescope (25 years), Space Launch System (10 years). This list illustrates the challenges of developing and fielding a modern integrated multi-disciplinary aerospace system. These development timelines are often preceded by significant research and development programs and followed by multiple increments, blocks, or spirals to reach planned operational capability. In the modern era of aerospace system acquisition, there is significant pressure to reduce system development timelines to meet system objectives and enable competitiveness in the current industry and landscape. Across the aerospace industry, a range of rapid acquisition and prototyping programs are seeking to achieve system development within timelines considerably less than 10 years. Notably, in September of 2019, NASA issued a solicitation for the development and demonstration of a Human Landing System (HLS) to deliver humans to the lunar surface by 2024 (5 years) and for the development and demonstration of a more sustainable HLS by 2026 (7 years). Lengthy product development cycle timelines are a product of multiple factors ranging from programmatic, sociological, technical, and systems engineering issues. New approaches in systems engineering provide new ways to enable these compressed development timelines. These approaches employ expanded application of advanced systems engineering methods and cross-cutting digital tools to accelerate system development, utilizing digital prototyping to connect maturing sub-system or component technologies into system or system-of-systems hardware prototypes. Approaches such as the use of system integrating physics relationships to reduce the number of design analysis cycle iterations and state analysis modeling to reduce necessary software testing (and improving coverage of system execution scenarios) represent steps forward in reducing the engineering time needed to field new systems. In addition to cost, schedule and performance benefits, expanded digital exploration and demonstration reduce risk in live system test and demonstration. This incremental demonstration approach, where digital prototyping and demonstration leads and informs full system test and demonstration, could be more important for space applications because of the increased difficulty of test and demonstration of space systems and architectures. The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at Marshall Space Flight Center merges traditional multi-disciplinary concept definition methods with modern, cross-cutting systems engineering concepts to enable iterative design and analysis of space architectures and systems through coordinated, strategic management of human capital, technical processes, and technology. This paper provides an overview of that approach, including recent examples and a strategic path forward to enabling continued reduction of aerospace system product development life cycles.

Michael D Watson↗
NASA NTRS1985

Proceedings of the Seminar on Space Station Human Productivity

An exploration of the issues which surround some of the elements of the Human Productivity Program is given. Five general topics were discussed: (1) crew safety, (2) internal contamination, (3) the definition of the Human Productivity Program, (4) aspects of architecture that affect productivity, and (5) the role of mock-ups in the Human Productivity Program.

Cohen, M. M.↗
NASA NTRS1994

On-orbit spacecraft servicing: An element in the evolution of space robotics applications

This paper addresses the renewed interest in on-orbit spacecraft servicing (OSS), and how it fits into the evolution of space applications for intelligent robots. Investment in the development of space robotics and associated technologies is growing as nations recognize that it is a critical component of the exploration and commercial development of space. At the same time, changes in world conditions have generated a renewal of the interest in OSS. This is reflected in the level of activity in the U.S., Japan and Europe in the form of studies and technology demonstration programs. OSS is becoming widely accepted as an opportunity in the evolution of space robotics applications. Importantly, it is a feasible proposition with current technologies and the direction of ongoing research and development activities. Interest in OSS dates back more than two decades, and several programs have been initiated, but no operational system has come on line, arguably with the Shuttle as the exception. With new opportunities arising, however, a fresh look at the feasibility of OSS is warranted. This involves the resolution of complex market, technical and political issues, through market studies, economic analyses, mission requirement definitions, trade studies, concept designs and technology demonstrations. System architectures for OSS are strongly dependent on target spacecraft design and launch delivery systems. Performance and cost factors are currently forcing significant changes in these areas. This presents both challenges and opportunities in the provision of OSS services. In conclusion, there is no question OSS will become a reality, but only when the technical feasibility is combined with either economic viability or political will. In the evolution of space robotics satellite servicing can become the next step towards its eventual role in support of planetary exploration and human beings' journey out into the universe.

Anders, Carl J.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Optical Budgeting for LUVOIR

Future large astronomical telescopes in space will have architectures that will have complex and demanding requirements to meet the science goals. The Large UV/Optical/IR Surveyor (LUVOIR) mission concept being assessed by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center is expected to be 8 to 16 meters in diameter, have a segmented primary mirror, active control, and be diffraction limited at a wavelength of 500 nanometers. The optical stability is expected to be in the picometer range for minutes to hours. Architecture studies to support the NASA Science and Technology Definition teams (STDTs) are underway to evaluate systems performance. A wave front error budget has been developed to help define the technology needs and assess performance. The budget includes both spatial and temporal domain aspects for the active, adaptive and passive elements in the optical design.

space telescopes↗
NASA NTRS1996

Re-Engineering JPL's Mission Planning Ground System Architecture for Cost Efficient Operations in the 21st Century

Work carried out to re-engineer the mission analysis segment of JPL's mission planning ground system architecture is reported on. The aim is to transform the existing software tools, originally developed for specific missions on different support environments, into an integrated, general purpose, multi-mission tool set. The issues considered are: the development of a partnership between software developers and users; the definition of key mission analysis functions; the development of a consensus based architecture; the move towards evolutionary change instead of revolutionary replacement; software reusability, and the minimization of future maintenance costs. The current status and aims of new developments are discussed and specific examples of cost savings and improved productivity are presented.

Fordyce, Jess↗