Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “The Concept of Operations (ConOps)”

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 163 records · Page 9

Update - Concept of Operations for Integrated Model-Centric Engineering at JPL

The increasingly ambitious requirements levied on JPL's space science missions, and the development pace of such missions, challenge our current engineering practices. All the engineering disciplines face this growth in complexity to some degree, but the challenges are greatest in systems engineering where numerous competing interests must be reconciled and where complex system level interactions must be identified and managed. Undesired system-level interactions are increasingly a major risk factor that cannot be reliably exposed by testing, and natural-language single-viewpoint specifications areinadequate to capture and expose system level interactions and characteristics. Systems engineering practices must improve to meet these challenges, and the most promising approach today is the movement toward a more integrated and model-centric approach to mission conception, design, implementation and operations. This approach elevates engineering models to a principal role in systems engineering, gradually replacing traditional document centric engineering practices.

The Concept of Operations (ConOps)↗

SDSP Lessons Learned from UTM CONOPS

Presentation on Supplemental Data Service Providers from the UAS Traffic Management Concept of Operations

Unmanned Aviation System Traffic Management↗

Concept of Operations for Management by Trajectory

This document describes Management by Trajectory (MBT), a concept for future air traffic management (ATM) in which every flight operates in accordance with a four-dimensional trajectory (4DT) that is negotiated between the airspace user and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to respect the airspace user's goals while complying with National Airspace System (NAS) constraints. In the present-day NAS, the ATM system attempts to predict the trajectory for each flight based on the approved flight plan and scheduled or controlled departure time. However, once the aircraft starts to move, controllers tactically manage the aircraft to implement traffic management restrictions, separate otherwise conflicting aircraft, and address arising NAS constraints. Tactical controller actions are not directly communicated to the automation systems or other stakeholders. Furthermore, the initial trajectory prediction does not anticipate these disruptions or how they will impact the flight. Consequently, and compounded by gaps in required data and models, trajectory predictions are less accurate than possible, which affects Traffic Flow Management (TFM) performance. A cornerstone of the MBT concept is that all air vehicles have, at all times, an assigned 4DT from their current state to their destination. These assigned trajectories consist of trajectory constraints and descriptions. Pilots and air traffic controllers, with the aid of automation, operate the aircraft to comply with the assigned trajectory, unless first negotiating a revision. Equipped aircraft have substantial responsibility for complying with the assigned trajectory without controller intervention. To maximize the operational flexibility available to the airspace user, the assigned trajectory only imposes trajectory constraints as required to achieve the ATM goals of NAS constraint compliance and aircraft separation. Trajectory descriptions are added to the assigned trajectory to ensure sufficient predictability. To further improve trajectory prediction accuracy, airspace users supplement the assigned trajectory by broadcasting intent information and updating it as necessary. Air vehicle intent is a more detailed description of the airspace user's plan for how the flight will fly the assigned trajectory. Air vehicle intent can change freely, without negotiation, as long as it remains in compliance with the assigned trajectory. Aircraft assigned trajectories, air vehicle intent, and predicted trajectories are shared, creating a common view among stakeholders. A NAS Constraint Service gathers and publishes information about all known NAS constraints, enabling airspace users to be informed participants in trajectory negotiation. Trajectory constraints in the assigned trajectory are mapped to NAS constraints to facilitate identifying which aircraft are affected when NAS constraints change. To support efficient trajectory negotiation, all aircraft provide current information about air vehicle capabilities. Assigned trajectories are constructed to satisfy all known NAS constraints, improving trajectory stability and predictability. Uncertainty and disruptions are handled by modifying the assigned trajectory as far in advance as possible. By proactively negotiating changes to the assigned trajectory, rather than relying on controller-selected tactical actions such as vectors to resolve traffic conflicts or implement miles-in-trail restrictions, MBT keeps aircraft on closed trajectories that are fully known to all stakeholders. Since reactive air traffic control actions cannot be predicted in advance, the downstream trajectory cannot be accurately predicted until they happen. Reliable trajectory predictions allow the system to identify needed modifications to trajectories further in advance, where they can be negotiated and communicated as amendments (i.e., additional or altered trajectory constraints) to the assigned trajectory. Decision Support Tools (DSTs) aid controllers in rapidly defining and communicating closed trajectories to the aircraft and support all stakeholders in trajectory negotiation. Anticipated MBT benefit mechanisms include more accurate trajectory predictions, improved ATM performance and robustness to off-nominal conditions, increased flexibility and operational efficiency, reduced impediments to emerging classes of airspace users accessing NAS resources, reduced environmental impacts, and enhanced safety.

ConOps↗

Deep Space Habitat Team: HEFT Phase 2 Effects

HEFT was a NASA-wide team that performed analyses of architectures for human exploration beyond LEO, evaluating technical, programmatic, and budgetary issues to support decisions at the highest level of the agency in HSF planning. HEFT Phase I (April - September, 2010) and Phase II (September - December, 2010) examined a broad set of Human Exploration of Near Earth Objects (NEOs) Design Reference Missions (DRMs), evaluating such factors as elements, performance, technologies, schedule, and cost. At end of HEFT Phase 1, an architecture concept known as DRM 4a represented the best available option for a full capability NEO mission. Within DRM4a, the habitation system was provided by Deep Space Habitat (DSH), Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV), and Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) pressurized elements. HEFT Phase 2 extended DRM4a, resulting in DRM4b. Scrubbed element-level functionality assumptions and mission Concepts of Operations. Habitation Team developed more detailed concepts of the DSH and the DSH/MMSEV/CTV Conops, including functionality and accommodations, mass & volume estimates, technology requirements, and DDT&E costs. DRM 5 represented an effort to reduce cost by scaling back on technologies and eliminating the need for the development of an MMSEV.

Toups, Larry D.↗

SysML Success Tree for DAVINCI In-Situ Campaign Requirements Validation and Redundancy Assessment

The DAVINCI mission will scientifically study the Venusian atmosphere to better understand the current state of the planet and its evolutionary history. This will be accomplished by deploying a descent probe to collect in-situ atmospheric dynamic and spectroscopic measurements, characterize ambient temperatures and pressures during descent, and surface imaging below the cloud layer. To better characterize the DAVINCI In-Situ Campaign, a success tree, developed in the SysML tool, MagicDraw, was created to define the events necessary to have a successful in-situ campaign, for each phase of the campaign. This success tree was also used to validate DAVINCI Program, Mission, and Element level requirements. In addition, because DAVINCI is a single-string mission, the success tree was also used to identify areas of redundancy and resiliency throughout the campaign. The initial redundancy assessment recommended further on-orbit evaluation of the probe’s communication system, as well as further evaluation of the ability of the mass spectrometer turbo-molecular pump to handle the expected decent environment. During the integration and test phase of the overall mission, the success tree will be used to guide the mission validation process, helping to ensure that the in-situ mission elements can perform in accordance with the DAVINCI In-Situ Concept of Operations document.

ConOps↗

UAS Integration into the NAS Project

The goal of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project is to contribute capabilities that reduce technical barriers related to the safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS This goal will be accomplished through a two-phased approach of system-level integration of key concepts, technologies and/or procedures, and demonstrations of integrated capabilities in an operationally relevant environment. Technical objectives include: PHASE 1: a) Validating the key technical areas identified by this project. System-level analyses, a State of the Art Analysis (SOAA), and a ConOps will identify the challenges and barriers preventing routine UAS access to the NAS. b) Developing a national roadmap and gap analysis identifying specific deliverables in the area of operations, procedures, and technologies that will impact future policy decisions. PHASE 2: a) Provide regulators with a methodology for developing airworthiness requirements for UAS and data to support development of certifications standards and regulatory guidance. b) Provide systems-level integrated testing of concepts and/or capabilities that address barriers to routine access to the NAS. Through simulation and flight testing, address issues including separation assurance, communications requirements, and Pilot Aircraft Interfaces (PAIs) in operationally relevant environments

Bauer, Jeff↗

SysML Success Tree for DAVINCI In-Situ Campaign Requirements Validation and Redundancy Assessment

The DAVINCI mission will scientifically study the Venusian atmosphere to better understand the current state of the planet and its evolutionary history. This will be accomplished by deploying a descent probe to collect in-situ atmospheric dynamic and spectroscopic measurements, characterize ambient temperatures and pressures during descent, and surface imaging below the cloud layer. To better characterize the DAVINCI In-Situ Campaign, a success tree, developed in the SysML tool, MagicDraw, was created to define the events necessary to have a successful in-situ campaign, for each phase of the campaign. This success tree was also used to validate DAVINCI Program, Mission, and Element level requirements. In addition, because DAVINCI is a single-string mission, the success tree was also used to identify areas of redundancy and resiliency throughout the campaign. The initial redundancy assessment recommended further on-orbit evaluation of the probe’s communication system, as well as further evaluation of the ability of the mass spectrometer turbo-molecular pump to handle the expected decent environment. During the integration and test phase of the overall mission, the success tree will be used to guide the mission validation process, helping to ensure that the in-situ mission elements can perform in accordance with the DAVINCI In-Situ Concept of Operations document.

model-based↗

SysML Success Tree for DAVINCI In-Situ Campaign Requirements Validation and Redundancy Assessment

The DAVINCI mission will scientifically study the Venusian atmosphere to better understand the current state of the planet and its evolutionary history. This will be accomplished by deploying a descent probe to collect in-situ atmospheric dynamic and spectroscopic measurements, characterize ambient temperatures and pressures during descent, and surface imaging below the cloud layer. To better characterize the DAVINCI In-Situ Campaign, a success tree, developed in the SysML tool, MagicDraw, was created to define the events necessary to have a successful in-situ campaign, for each phase of the campaign. This success tree was also used to validate DAVINCI Program, Mission, and Element level requirements. In addition, because DAVINCI is a single-string mission, the success tree was also used to identify areas of redundancy and resiliency throughout the campaign. The initial redundancy assessment recommended further on-orbit evaluation of the probe’s communication system, as well as further evaluation of the ability of the mass spectrometer turbo-molecular pump to handle the expected decent environment. During the integration and test phase of the overall mission, the success tree will be used to guide the mission validation process, helping to ensure that the in-situ mission elements can perform in accordance with the DAVINCI In-Situ Concept of Operations document.

model-based↗

Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar Scenario 12.0 Habitation Overview

This paper will describe an overview of the Constellation Architecture Team Lunar Scenario 12.0 (LS-12) surface habitation approach and concept performed during the study definition. The Lunar Scenario 12 architecture study focused on two primary habitation approaches: a horizontally-oriented habitation module (LS-12.0) and a vertically-oriented habitation module (LS-12.1). This paper will provide an overview of the 12.0 lunar surface campaign, the associated outpost architecture, habitation functionality, concept description, system integration strategy, mass and power resource estimates. The Scenario 12 architecture resulted from combining three previous scenario attributes from Scenario 4 "Optimized Exploration", Scenario 5 "Fission Surface Power System" and Scenario 8 "Initial Extensive Mobility" into Scenario 12 along with an added emphasis on defining the excursion ConOps while the crew is away from the outpost location. This paper will describe an overview of the CxAT-Lunar Scenario 12.0 habitation concepts and their functionality. The Crew Operations area includes basic crew accommodations such as sleeping, eating, hygiene and stowage. The EVA Operations area includes additional EVA capability beyond the suitlock function such as suit maintenance, spares stowage, and suit stowage. The Logistics Operations area includes the enhanced accommodations for 180 days such as enhanced life support systems hardware, consumable stowage, spares stowage, interconnection to the other habitation elements, a common interface mechanism for future growth, and mating to a pressurized rover or Pressurized Logistics Module (PLM). The Mission & Science Operations area includes enhanced outpost autonomy such as an IVA glove box, life support, medical operations, and exercise equipment.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗

Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration - 3 (ATD-3) Dynamic Weather Routes Domestic En Route Concept of Operations Synopsis Version 1.0

NASA conducted a survey in 2015 of stakeholders in industry, flight operators, and others to collect data on the most pressing air traffic management (ATM) issues impacting en route operations. Weather related delays and interruptions were identified as the most significant and costly problem impacting en route operations in today's system. Additionally, future traffic demands will place greater demands on the FAA's air traffic control system, necessitate a more efficient and integrated traffic management system and provide controller tools to leverage human productivity. Consequently, NASA is assembling a suite of integrated ground and aircraft-based technologies and decision-making aids under the Airspace Technology Demonstrations 3 (ATD-3) project to continuously search for more efficient weather-avoidance routes and to rapidly respond to weather changes and associated traffic management initiatives. These route efficiency enhancements are targeted at en route airspace and will enable continued use of en route and arrival metering in the presence of weather. NASA's Dynamic Weather Routes (DWR) concept represents a subset of those technologies and focuses primarily on the cruise phase of flight. It leverages existing air traffic weather, airspace, and traffic data, as well as improvements in navigation, surveillance, communication and digital network technologies, and builds upon existing ATM automation to address the shortcomings associated with strategic traffic flow management initiatives and weather forecasting uncertainties. The potential benefits in the form of time, fuel, and cost savings are significant. This concept of operations synopsis provides a detailed description of DWR, its potential benefits and notional implementation paths.

DWR↗

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗

NASA CARA Prelaunch Analysis and Process

NASA implemented an official Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8079.1 in June 2023, establishing the minimum collision avoidance requirements and associated operational protocols for NASA space flight programs, projects, and spacecraft to protect the space environment by reducing the risk of collision to an acceptable level. Part of the requirement employs a two-fold approach to analyze the satellite design process with conjunction assessment and risk mitigation in mind, during the pre-launch process, led by the Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Program for non-Human Space Flight (HSF) Missions. This presentation outlines CARA coordination with missions, informed by the NPR, that spans early mission development to operations. CARA is an Agency-level resource that provides support to all NASA non-HSF missions. CARA protects the orbital environment from collision between NASA non-HSF missions and other tracked on-orbit objects. During the pre-formulation and formulation phases, NASA missions undergo a series of conjunction assessment analyses captured in the Orbital Collision Avoidance Plan (OCAP) prior to transitioning to the implementation phase (typically at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) or equivalent). The OCAP analyses consist of a thorough review of the spacecraft(s) orbit selection and placement, deployment, cataloguing performance, trackability, ephemeris generation, conjunction mitigation options, autonomous maneuvering, and risk assessment parameters which are performed by a dedicated CARA Analysis Team. The results of these analyses, CARA’s formal recommendations, and the mission’s methods for implementing them, are documented in the OCAP. The intent of engaging in this process so early in the mission design phase, is to ensure that conjunction assessment is considered from the outset, thus mitigating costly design changes and operational risks down the road. NASA missions are also required to coordinate their operational processes and conjunction mitigation procedures with CARA in a Conjunction Assessment Operations Implementation Agreement (CAOIA). The aim of this process is to document the conjunction assessment screening process, conjunction risk assessment parameters, conjunction mitigation steps, flight dynamics operations concepts and maneuvers, and the communication and coordination process between the mission’s project manager and CARA. The intent of the CAOIA document is for it to be completed iteratively, and as missions update these elements, corresponding changes are made in the CAOIA. With this process in place, the engagement and coordination between the missions and CARA from early in the design process into mission operations, helps to ensure that missions not only have a robust conjunction assessment concept of operations to reduce conjunction risk for space sustainability, but are also able to achieve their science goals and have a successful mission.

conjunction assessment↗

Applying Qualitative Hazard Analysis to Support Quantitative Safety Analysis for Proposed Reduced Wake Separation Conops

This paper describes a scenario-driven hazard analysis process to identify, eliminate, and control safety-related risks. Within this process, we develop selective criteria to determine the applicability of applying engineering modeling to hypothesized hazard scenarios. This provides a basis for evaluating and prioritizing the scenarios as candidates for further quantitative analysis. We have applied this methodology to proposed concepts of operations for reduced wake separation for closely spaced parallel runways. For arrivals, the process identified 43 core hazard scenarios. Of these, we classified 12 as appropriate for further quantitative modeling, 24 that should be mitigated through controls, recommendations, and / or procedures (that is, scenarios not appropriate for quantitative modeling), and 7 that have the lowest priority for further analysis.

Shortle, John F.↗

Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration - 3 (ATD-3) Multi-Flight Common Route (MFCR) Concept of Operations Version 1.0

NASA's Multi Flight Common Route (MFCR) automation represents one element of those technologies focusing primarily on delay recovery in the en route phase of flight. Delay recovery is an attenuation of flight-time delay, accomplished by periodically revising weather-avoidance routing as the convective weather system evolves. MFCR is intended for use by Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs, or Centers) and traffic management specialists (TMSs) in the Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC). MFCR leverages existing weather, airspace, and traffic data, as well as improvements in navigation, surveillance, communication, and digital information technologies, to build on existing ATM automation and address some of the shortcomings associated with strategic traffic flow management initiatives and weather forecasting uncertainties. These capabilities provide significant potential benefits in the form of time, fuel, and cost savings. The concept of operations described in this document describes MFCR functionality as delivered by NASA to the FAA in December 2017, including a list of potential enhancements that may be realized when the system is fielded.

conops↗

NASA Space Environment Analog for Training, Engineering, Science, and Technology (SEATEST) 6 Detailed Final Report

After more than 50 years since the last crewed lunar landing, plans for more missions to the moon are in development. For these missions, efficient and sustainable logistics will be critical. Additionally, innovative methods of cargo transfer to and from a lunar outpost should be considered for successfully establishing a permanent presence on the moon. SEATEST (Space Environment Analog for Training, Engineering, Science, and Technology) is an immersive mission-analogous operational atmosphere where buoyancy effects and supplemental weights can simulate partial gravity conditions similar to those astronauts will experience on the moon. SEATEST 6 took place at the University of Southern California (USC) Wrigley Marine Science Center on Santa Catalina Island from July 18-30, 2023. The analog was used to collect preliminary logistics data on two different offloading conceptual methods (a davit and a zipline) during a simulated lunar mission. Pre-test analysis indicated for a crew of two on a 14-day mission, approximately three Medium Pressurized Logistics Containers (MPLC) sized logistics containers (or a total of 37.5 single Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalents (CTBE)) would be needed to support a mission. A Computer-Aided Design (CAD) analysis was employed on the SEATEST airlock mockup to determine how many logistic containers would fit with two suited crewmembers, don/doff stands, and hatch operations. It was determined that for SEATEST, a total of 15 1.0 Small Pressurized Logistics Containers (SPLCs) and 8 2.0 SPLCs would adequately fit into the approximate 9.5 cubic meter airlock volume. This does not fully represent a complete 14-day logistic supply; however, it does provide a preliminary estimate to initiate design conversations between logistics teams and crew at this early stage of development. Data were collected in eight logistics transfer scenarios over two days with four scenarios per day. Five test subject crew participated in scenarios as pairs. Scenarios included two sizes of logistics containers – 1.0 SPLC (equivalent to a single Cargo Transfer Bag (CTB) and 2.0 SPLC (equivalent to two CTBs). Planed evaluations included the use of a logistics port compared to transfer through an Airlock hatch, offloading methods based on either a davit or a zipline system, choreography of cargo in the airlock to permit ingress and suit doffing, and dust removal protocols for an understanding of the overall impact to transfer ops. Data collected included objective data (task times for conducting overall tasks and subtasks, full audio/video of test activities, and inadvertent “dings” on hardware) and subjective data (crew consensus of: task acceptability and capability assessment ratings related to best practices, considerations, and constraints for EVA-driven logistics transfer ConOps, sim quality of the test environment, and more general debrief comments). The two logistic offloading transfer concepts (davit, zipline) presented both advantages and limitations. The davit’s flexibility in allowing the crew to pick up the containers without physical interaction was well regarded by the crew. Some limitations of select davit hardware components were noted, but the overall concept was acceptable. The zipline system proved to be the most efficient way of moving logistics from the lander to the airlock and eliminated the need for dust operations. However, extended and repetitive lifting of containers to the line could be fatiguing. In conclusion, logistics transfer could hypothetically be achieved without an offloading method; however, the time requirement for such operations would be prohibitive. Results of crew subjective feedback proposed a combined or hybrid davit/zipline method to increase efficiency.

Logistics↗

Aerial Vehicle Routing and Scheduling for UAS Traffic Management: A Monte Carlo Tree Search Approach

Numerous unmanned aircraft systems operating at low altitudes to deliver goods and services may one day become ubiquitous in our cities. In the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) framework, such a concept is envisioned, where aerial vehicles operate beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) within specifically reserved and time stamped “corridors” in the airspace. For example, these corridors or operational intent volumes can connect an aerial vehicle’s origin site to its destination site for package delivery operations. There may also be more than one corridor available for an aerial vehicle to choose from and often different corridors may intersect with one another. Thus, it is imperative to ensure flight trajectories belonging to different aerial vehicles are not in conflict. Per the UTM CONOPs, we assume that a vehicle almost always stays inside its corridor or operational volume. This work provides a framework for strategic deconfliction of UTM or package delivery drones, where we schedule the departure time of all vehicles subject to various temporal constraints (including the corridor deconfliction at the intersections). We present the “multi-route weighted package delivery problem” which serves as an exemplifying model for strategic deconfliction in UTM. In the multi-route weighted package delivery problem, a graph network is given which consists of a set of depots (source) and drop-off (destination) nodes, with multiple routes (defined as a sequence of waypoints) connecting the depots to drop-off nodes. In addition, routes are weighted by the associated ground risk and total travel distance for package delivery. The goal is for a known set of aerial vehicles to depart from the depots, choose a route and take off time, while avoiding conflicts with other aerial vehicles, and minimizing both risk and distance traveled. We provide a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) formulation of the problem, as well as a heuristic solution based on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) – a method used in game theory and artificial intelligence – to overcome limitations inherent to optimal solvers. Computational results show the advantages of using MCTS over the MILP formulation; the former can provide a sub-optimal solution quickly, and may sometimes even reach an optimal solution, whereas the latter may not even produce a solution in reasonable time. Furthermore, results from both the MILP formulation and MCTS methods were validated using a preliminary agent-based simulator implementing the UTM concept of operations. Thus, the MCTS method can be seen as a scalable solution to the complex multi-route weighted package delivery problem and may possibly be extended to similar complex optimization problems.

Kenny Chour↗

Concept of Operations for an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) for Upper E Airspace

The National Airspace System undergoes continuous change including in the Upper Class E airspace involving increasingly complex operations and a widening diversity of vehicles. To secure a safe future system, the National Academies recommended an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) that is extensible to Upper E. Current Air Traffic Management is not cost-effective to scale for future Upper E operations and diversity of vehicles so the Federal Aviation Administration developed an Upper E Traffic Management ConOps to safely integrate the diverse operations and vehicles having different performance characteristics and flight missions without disrupting current operations including space launch and reentry, suborbital flights, supersonic and hypersonic flights, slow moving or stationary unmanned balloons, and long endurance fixed wing vehicles that are slow, stationary, or high speed. IASMS integrates state-of-the-art predictive modeling with reactive and proactive analytics to detect hazards and mitigate risk precursors for Upper E operators. IASMS identifies emergent safety risks exposed by transformation of the NAS with new and increasingly complex operations. Safety intelligence will also expand the data available and offer insight to new approaches for implementing safety improvements to mitigate risk with more seamless “in-time” integration across the policy, risk management, safety assurance, and promotion pillars of SMS.

K Ellis↗

An In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) Concept of Operations for Vertiport Design and Operations

The National Airspace System is foreseen to undergo revolutionary change with Urban Air Mobility (UAM) and its use of vertiports to transport passengers and cargo. To assure safety with UAM and more broadly with Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), the National Academies recommended an In-time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) that is extensible to the design and operation of vertiports. Vertiport designs will scale in several dimensions including physical size and infrastructure depending upon location and in the Services, Functions, and Capabilities required for assuring safety with increasingly complex vertiport designs and operations. These operations will be enabled by evolving technologies including electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft for passenger-and cargo-carrying commercial transportation. Within this construct, safety hazards and risk mitigations involving predictive data analytics and modeling will be used. Use cases and future challenges are examined to guide maturation of the IASMS ConOps for vertiports.

K Ellis↗