Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Cassini science planning process”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

Cassini science planning process

The mission design for Cassini-Huygens calls for a four-year orbital survey of the Saturnian system and the descent into the Titan atmosphere and eventual soft-landing of the Huygens probe. The Cassini orbiter tour consists of 76 orbits around Saturn with 44 close Titan flybys and 8 targeted icy satellite flybys. The Cassini orbiter spacecraft carries twelve scientific instruments that will perform a wide range of observations on a multitude of designated targets. The science opportunities, frequency of encounters, the length of the Tour, and the use of distributed operations pose significant challenges for developing the science plan for the orbiter mission. The Cassini Science Planning Process is the process used to develop and integrate the science and engineering plan that incorporates an acceptable level of science required to meet the primary mission objectives far the orbiter. The bulk of the integrated science and engineering plan will be developed prior to Saturn Orbit Insertion (Sol). The Science Planning Process consists of three elements: 1) the creation of the Tour Atlas, which identifies the science opportunities in the tour, 2) the development of the Science Operations Plan (SOP), which is the conflict-free timeline of all science observations and engineering activities, a constraint-checked spacecraft pointing profile, and data volume allocations to the science instruments, and 3) an Aftermarket and SOP Update process, which is used to update the SOP while in tour with the latest information on spacecraft performance, science opportunities, and ephemerides. This paper will discuss the various elements of the Science Planning Process used on the Cassini Mission to integrate, implement, and adapt the science and engineering activity plans for Tour.

Cassini↗
NASA NTRS2010

Multi-Objective Multi-User Scheduling for Space Science Missions

We have developed an architecture called MUSE (Multi-User Scheduling Environment) to enable the integration of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms with existing domain planning and scheduling tools. Our approach is intended to make it possible to re-use existing software, while obtaining the advantages of multi-objective optimization algorithms. This approach enables multiple participants to actively engage in the optimization process, each representing one or more objectives in the optimization problem. As initial applications, we apply our approach to scheduling the James Webb Space Telescope, where three objectives are modeled: minimizing wasted time, minimizing the number of observations that miss their last planning opportunity in a year, and minimizing the (vector) build up of angular momentum that would necessitate the use of mission critical propellant to dump the momentum. As a second application area, we model aspects of the Cassini science planning process, including the trade-off between collecting data (subject to onboard recorder capacity) and transmitting saved data to Earth. A third mission application is that of scheduling the Cluster 4-spacecraft constellation plasma experiment. In this paper we describe our overall architecture and our adaptations for these different application domains. We also describe our plans for applying this approach to other science mission planning and scheduling problems in the future.

science planning↗
NASA NTRS2022

Balancing Predictive and Reactive Science Planning for Mars 2020 Perseverance

The design of the science planning process for a space science mission needs to find a balance between operational and resource constraints and scientific decision-making. Science planning has previously been characterized as either predictive or reactive. Predictive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned far in advance. For example, a combination of long one-way light time plus high-stakes science decisions drove the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn to have an extremely predictive planning process. On the other extreme, reactive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned based on the results of the previous plan. For example, the Mars Exploration Rover mission interacted with the surface of Mars, and so the planning team needed to know the state of the rover at the end of each planning cycle before starting the next cycle. Operational and resource constraints that require management on intermediate timescales has led to the development of a science planning process between these two extremes. For example, the Mars Science Laboratory is a technically complex rover and has a parallel predictive process that allows the operations team to manage engineering constraints several days in advance while maintaining the reactive tactical planning process similar to that of MER. The Mars 2020 Perseverance rover is a technically complex rover in the MSL style, but has an added layer of science complexity: it is tasked with collecting a returnable cache of scientifically valuable samples of Mars within prime mission. Thus, the science planning process also needs to accommodate high-stakes longer-term science decisions in the style of Cassini. In order to balance the push-pull of these constraints, we have developed a science campaign-focused operational paradigm for Mars 2020 Perseverance that allows for both predictive planning to accommodate technological complexity and high-stakes science decisions as well as reactive planning to accommodate the realities of interacting with the martian surface. This paradigm influenced the design of operational processes and operational tools.

Spanovich, Nicole↗
NASA NTRS1993

Science planning and sequencing for Cassini

This paper will address the science planning and sequencing aspects of the command generation process for the scientifically diverse Cassini Mission. The mission's prime objectives are to study the Saturnian system and deliver the Huygens Probe to the moon Titan. Together, the spacecraft and probe will be the largest and most complicated craft ever launched to another planet. The presentation will begin with an overview of the Cassini spacecraft and its scientific instrumentation. This will be followed with a description of the Oct. 1997 mission. Next, the structure of the science planning and sequencing process, with special emphasis on science's role, will be outlined. Finally, this presentation will conclude with a discussion of some of the unique challenges faced by the Ground System during Cassini's four-year orbital tour.

Wessen, Randii R.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Cassini Information Management System in Distributed Operations Collaboration and Cassini Science Planning

Launched on October 15, 1997, the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft began its ambitious journey to the Saturnian system with a complex suite of 12 scientific instruments, and another 6 instruments aboard the European Space Agencies Huygens Probe. Over the next 6 1/2 years, Cassini would continue its relatively simplistic cruise phase operations, flying past Venus, Earth, and Jupiter. However, following Saturn Orbit Insertion (SOI), Cassini would become involved in a complex series of tasks that required detailed resource management, distributed operations collaboration, and a data base for capturing science objectives. Collectively, these needs were met through a web-based software tool designed to help with the Cassini uplink process and ultimately used to generate more robust sequences for spacecraft operations. In 2001, in conjunction with the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and later Venustar Software and Engineering Inc., the Cassini Information Management System (CIMS) was released which enabled the Cassini spacecraft and science planning teams to perform complex information management and team collaboration between scientists and engineers in 17 countries. Originally tailored to help manage the science planning uplink process, CIMS has been actively evolving since its inception to meet the changing and growing needs of the Cassini uplink team and effectively reduce mission risk through a series of resource management validation algorithms. These algorithms have been implemented in the web-based software tool to identify potential sequence conflicts early in the science planning process. CIMS mitigates these sequence conflicts through identification of timing incongruities, pointing inconsistencies, flight rule violations, data volume issues, and by assisting in Deep Space Network (DSN) coverage analysis. In preparation for extended mission operations, CIMS has also evolved further to assist in the planning and coordination of the dual playback redundancy of highvalue data from targets such as Titan and Enceladus. This paper will outline the critical role that CIMS has played for Cassini in the distributed ops paradigm throughout operations. This paper will also examine the evolution that CIMS has undergone in the face of new science discoveries and fluctuating operational needs. And finally, this paper will conclude with theoretical adaptation of CIMS for other projects and the potential savings in cost and risk reduction that could potentially be tapped into by future missions.

Equils, Douglas J.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Market-Based Approaches to Managing Science Return from Planetary Missions

A research plan is described for the design and testing of a method for the planning and negotiation of science observations. The research plan is presented in relation to the fact that the current method, which involves a hierarchical process of science working groups, is unsuitable for the planning of the Cassini mission. The research plan involves the market-based approach in which participants are allocated budgets of scheduling points. The points are used to provide an intensity of preference for the observations being scheduled. In this way, the schedulers do not have to limit themselves to solving major conflicts, but try to maximize the number of scheduling points that result in a conflict-free timeline. Incentives are provided for the participants by the fixed budget concerning their tradeoff decisions. A degree of feedback is provided in the process so that the schedulers may rebid based on the current timeline.

Wessen, Randii R.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Orbit Control Operations for the Cassini-Huygens Mission

The Cassini-Huygens spacecraft was launched in 1997 as an international and collaborative mission to study Saturn and its many moons. After a seven-year cruise, Cassini began orbiting Saturn for a four- year tour. This tour consists of 157 planned maneuvers, and their back-up locations, designed to target 52 encounters, mostly of Saturn's largest moon Titan. One of the mission's first activities was to release the Huygens probe to Titan in December 2004. Currently in its last year of the prime mission, Cassini-Huygens continues to obtain valuable data on Saturn, Titan, and Saturn's other satellites. Return of this information is in large part due to a healthy spacecraft and successful navigation. A two-year extended mission, beginning July 2008, will offer the opportunity to continue science activities. With a demanding navigation schedule that compares with the prime tour, the Cassini Navigation team relies on operations procedures developed during the prime mission to carry-out the extended mission objectives. Current processes for orbit control operations evolved from the primary navigational requirement of staying close to predetermined targeting conditions according to Cassini science sequence planning. The reference trajectory is comprised of flyby conditions to be accomplished at minimal propellant cost. Control of the planned reference trajectory orbit, and any trajectory updates, is achieved with the execution of Orbit Trim Maneuvers (OTMs). The procedures for designing, processing, and analyzing OTMs during Cassini operations is presented. First, a brief overview of the Cassini-Huygens Mission is given, followed by a general description of navigation. Orbit control and maneuver execution methods are defined, along with an outline of the orbit control staffing and operations philosophy. Finally, an example schedule of orbit control operations is shown.

navigation↗
NASA NTRS2017

The Cassini Grand Finale Mission: Planning for a New Mission Environment

The Cassini F-Ring & Proximal Orbits (FRPO) is a new and unique mission; to ensure the highest priority science gets implemented, the POST (Proximal Orbit Science Team) was created to pre-allocate the time around periapse for all 22 proximal orbits. The F-ring orbits, and proximal time outside of POST, were handled similar to Cassini’s Solstice Mission using the Pre-Integrated Event (PIE) process. The new and unique properties of the spacecraft’s trajectory required much forethought to be flown safely while still planning for the most and best science return possible. Some ring-plane crossings (RPX) will be protected against dust impacts by turning the high gain antenna (HGA) to the dust RAM direction (HGA2RAM). If on the first proximal RPX higher than expected dust readings are seen then the Project Office may choose to require more (all) subsequent RPX to be HGA2RAM, implemented via a real-time command overlay for uplinked sequences. The pointing uncertainties will be larger than usual after the final targeted flyby; some of the process changes to address this include adding extra orbit trim maneuvers (OTMs) (fuel permitting) to resync to the reference trajectory and reduce pointing uncertainties; and movable blocks of commands to be used for some periapses where atmospheric drag may cause large timing shifts Changes made for FRPO to address perceptions that these sequences will be hard to implement include requiring early pointing designs (during integration) for certain types of observations, requiring teams to check early on that they can turn to and from their observation attitude, and that their attitude is safe, and adjusting the Implementation process to give more time for science observation designers. This paper will discuss these process changes and lessons learned so far.

Ray, Trina↗
NASA NTRS2006

Implementing Distributed Operations: A Comparison of Two Deep Space Missions

Two very different deep space exploration missions--Mars Exploration Rover and Cassini--have made use of distributed operations for their science teams. In the case of MER, the distributed operations capability was implemented only after the prime mission was completed, as the rovers continued to operate well in excess of their expected mission lifetimes; Cassini, designed for a mission of more than ten years, had planned for distributed operations from its inception. The rapid command turnaround timeline of MER, as well as many of the operations features implemented to support it, have proven to be conducive to distributed operations. These features include: a single science team leader during the tactical operations timeline, highly integrated science and engineering teams, processes and file structures designed to permit multiple team members to work in parallel to deliver sequencing products, web-based spacecraft status and planning reports for team-wide access, and near-elimination of paper products from the operations process. Additionally, MER has benefited from the initial co-location of its entire operations team, and from having a single Principal Investigator, while Cassini operations have had to reconcile multiple science teams distributed from before launch. Cassini has faced greater challenges in implementing effective distributed operations. Because extensive early planning is required to capture science opportunities on its tour and because sequence development takes significantly longer than sequence execution, multiple teams are contributing to multiple sequences concurrently. The complexity of integrating inputs from multiple teams is exacerbated by spacecraft operability issues and resource contention among the teams, each of which has their own Principal Investigator. Finally, much of the technology that MER has exploited to facilitate distributed operations was not available when the Cassini ground system was designed, although later adoption of web-based and telecommunication tools has been critical to the success of Cassini operations.

Cassini Mission↗
NASA NTRS2010

Cassini Titan Science Integration: Getting a 'Jumpstart' on the Process

The Cassini spacecraft has been in orbit for five years, returning a wealth of scientific data from Titan and the Saturn system. The mission is a cooperative undertaking between NASA, ESA and the Italian Space Agency and the project is currently planning for a second extension of the mission. The Cassini Solstice Mission (CSM) will extend the mission's lifetime until Saturn's northern summer solstice in 2017. The Titan Orbiter Science Team (TOST) has the task of integrating the science observations for all 126 targeted Titan flybys (44 in the Prime Mission, 26 in the first extension (Equinox Mission), and 56 in the second extension (Solstice Mission)) contained in the chosen trajectory. Cassini science instruments are body-fixed with limited ability to articulate; thus, the spacecraft pointing during the flybys must be allocated among the instruments to accomplish the mission's science goals. The science that can be accomplished on each Titan flyby also critically depends on the closest approach altitude, which is in turn determined by the attitude, but changing the altitude impacts the overall trajectory for the Solstice Mission. During the Prime and Extended missions, TOST has learned that the best way to achieve Cassini's Titan science goals is via a 'jumpstart' process prior to final delivery of the trajectory. The jumpstart is driven by the desire to balance Titan science across the entire set of flybys during the CSM, and to influence any changes (tweaks) to the flyby altitudes. By the end of the jumpstart, TOST produces Master Timelines for each flyby, identifying each flyby's prime science observations and allocating control of the spacecraft attitude to specific instrument teams. In addition, developing timelines early, while the science and operations teams are still fully funded, decreases the future workload in integration and implementation.

Steadman, Kimberly B.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Using AUTORAD for Cassini File Uplinks: Incorporating Automated Commanding into Mission Operations

As the Cassini spacecraft embarked on the Solstice Mission in October 2010, the flight operations team faced a significant challenge in planning and executing the continuing tour of the Saturnian system. Faced with budget cuts that reduced the science and engineering staff by over a third in size, new and streamlined processes had to be developed to allow the Cassini mission to maintain a high level of science data return with a lower amount of available resources while still minimizing the risk. Automation was deemed an important key in enabling mission operations with reduced workforce and the Cassini flight team has made this goal a priority for the Solstice Mission. The operations team learned about a utility called AUTORAD which would give the flight operations team the ability to program selected command files for radiation up to seven days in advance and help minimize the need for off-shift support that could deplete available staffing during the prime shift hours. This paper will describe how AUTORAD is being utilized by the Cassini flight operations team and the processes that were developed or modified to ensure that proper oversight and verification is maintained in the generation and execution of radiated command files.

Goo, Sherwin↗
NASA NTRS1994

Matrix evaluation of science objectives

The most fundamental objective of all robotic planetary spacecraft is to return science data. To accomplish this, a spacecraft is fabricated and built, software is planned and coded, and a ground system is designed and implemented. However, the quantitative analysis required to determine how the collection of science data drives ground system capabilities has received very little attention. This paper defines a process by which science objectives can be quantitatively evaluated. By applying it to the Cassini Mission to Saturn, this paper further illustrates the power of this technique. The results show which science objectives drive specific ground system capabilities. In addition, this process can assist system engineers and scientists in the selection of the science payload during pre-project mission planning; ground system designers during ground system development and implementation; and operations personnel during mission operations.

Wessen, Randii R.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Space and Earth Sciences, Computer Systems, and Scientific Data Analysis Support, Volume 1

This Final Progress Report covers the specific technical activities of Hughes STX Corporation for the last contract triannual period of 1 June through 30 Sep. 1993, in support of assigned task activities at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). It also provides a brief summary of work throughout the contract period of performance on each active task. Technical activity is presented in Volume 1, while financial and level-of-effort data is presented in Volume 2. Technical support was provided to all Division and Laboratories of Goddard's Space Sciences and Earth Sciences Directorates. Types of support include: scientific programming, systems programming, computer management, mission planning, scientific investigation, data analysis, data processing, data base creation and maintenance, instrumentation development, and management services. Mission and instruments supported include: ROSAT, Astro-D, BBXRT, XTE, AXAF, GRO, COBE, WIND, UIT, SMM, STIS, HEIDI, DE, URAP, CRRES, Voyagers, ISEE, San Marco, LAGEOS, TOPEX/Poseidon, Pioneer-Venus, Galileo, Cassini, Nimbus-7/TOMS, Meteor-3/TOMS, FIFE, BOREAS, TRMM, AVHRR, and Landsat. Accomplishments include: development of computing programs for mission science and data analysis, supercomputer applications support, computer network support, computational upgrades for data archival and analysis centers, end-to-end management for mission data flow, scientific modeling and results in the fields of space and Earth physics, planning and design of GSFC VO DAAC and VO IMS, fabrication, assembly, and testing of mission instrumentation, and design of mission operations center.

Estes, Ronald H.↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Cassini Solstice Mission: Streamlining Operations by Sequencing with PIEs

The Cassini Solstice Mission (CSM) is the second extended mission phase of the highly successful Cassini/Huygens mission to Saturn. Conducted at a much-reduced funding level, operations for the CSM have been streamlined and simplified significantly. Integration of the science timeline, which involves allocating observation time in a balanced manner to each of the five different science disciplines (with representatives from the twelve different science instruments), has long been a labor-intensive endeavor. Lessons learned from the prime mission (2004-2008) and first extended mission (Equinox mission, 2008-2010) were utilized to design a new process involving PIEs (Pre-Integrated Events) to ensure the highest priority observations for each discipline could be accomplished despite reduced work force and overall simplification of processes. Discipline-level PIE lists were managed by the Science Planning team and graphically mapped to aid timeline deconfliction meetings prior to assigning discrete segments of time to the various disciplines. Periapse segments are generally discipline-focused, with the exception of a handful of PIEs. In addition to all PIEs being documented in a spreadsheet, allocated out-of-discipline PIEs were entered into the Cassini Information Management System (CIMS) well in advance of timeline integration. The disciplines were then free to work the rest of the timeline internally, without the need for frequent interaction, debate, and negotiation with representatives from other disciplines. As a result, the number of integration meetings has been cut back extensively, freeing up workforce. The sequence implementation process was streamlined as well, combining two previous processes (and teams) into one. The new Sequence Implementation Process (SIP) schedules 22 weeks to build each 10-week-long sequence, and only 3 sequence processes overlap. This differs significantly from prime mission during which 5-week-long sequences were built in 24 weeks, with 6 overlapping processes.

Vandermey, Nancy↗
NASA NTRS2013

Twenty Years of Systems Engineering on the Cassini-Huygens Mission

Over the past twenty years, the Cassini-Huygens Mission has successfully utilized systems engineering to develop and execute a challenging prime mission and two mission extensions. Systems engineering was not only essential in designing the mission, but as knowledge of the system was gained during cruise and science operations, it was critical in evolving operational strategies and processes. This paper discusses systems engineering successes, challenges, and lessons learned on the Cassini-Huygens Mission gathered from a thorough study of mission plans and developed scenarios, and interviews with key project leaders across its twenty-year history.

Manor-Chapman, Emily↗
NASA NTRS2005

Three Dimensional Rover/Lander/Orbiter Mission-Planning (3D-ROMPS) System: A Modern Approach to Mission Planning

NASA's current mission planning system is based on point design, two-dimensional display, spread sheets, and report technology. This technology does not enable engineers to analyze the results of parametric studies of missions plans. This technology will not support the increased observational complexity and data volume of missions like Cassini, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), and Mars Sample Return (MSR). The goal of the 3D-ROMPS task has been to establish a set of operational mission planning and analysis tools in the Image Processing Laboratory (IPL) Mission Support Area (MSA) that will respond to engineering requirements for planning future Solar System Exploration (SSE) missions using a three-dimensional display.

Scharfe, Nathan D.↗