Operations Coordination Plan Status
This will be presented at the Earth Science Constellation Mission Operations Working Group meeting to discuss Operations Coordination Plan Status.
statu↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Operations coordination plan”
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.
Operations Coordination Plan Status
This presentation provides the history of the Constellation Operations Coordination Plan and a summary of the changes since the previous version was published in 2011.
Afternoon Constellation↗
Operations Coordination Plan Status
This will be presented at the Earth Science Constellation Mission Operations Working Group meeting June 13-15, 2017, to discuss Operatioins Coordination Plan Status.
Operations coordination plan↗
Mars 2001 Lander Mission: Measurement Synergy Through Coordinated Operations Planning And Implementation
The 2001 Mars Surveyor Program Mission includes an orbiter with a gamma ray spectrometer and a multispectral thermal imager, and a lander with an extensive set of instrumentation, a robotic arm, and the Marie Curie Rover. The Mars 2001 Science Operations Working Group (SOWG) is a subgroup of the Project Science Group that has been formed to provide coordinated planning and implementation of scientific observations, particularly for the landed portion of the mission. The SOWG will be responsible for delivery of a science plan and, during operations, generation and delivery of conflict-free sequences. This group will also develop an archive plan that is compliant with Planetary Data System (PDS) standards, and will oversee generation, validation, and delivery of integrated archives to the PDS. In this report we cover one element of the SOWG planning activities, the development of a plan that maximizes the scientific return from lander-based observations by treating the instrument packages as an integrated payload. Scientific objectives for the lander mission have been defined. They include observations focused on determining the bedrock geology of the site through analyses of rocks and also local materials found in the soils, and the surficial geology of the site, including windblown deposits and the nature and history of formation of indurated sediments such as duricrust. Of particular interest is the identification and quantification of processes related to early warm, wet conditions and the presence of hydrologic or hydrothermal cycles. Determining the nature and origin of duricrust and associated salts is -very important in this regard. Specifically, did these deposits form in the vadose zone as pore water evaporated from soils or did they form by other processes, such as deposition of volcanic aerosols? Basic information needed to address these questions includes the morphology, topography, and geologic context of landforms and materials exposed at the site, together with quantitative information on material mineralogy, chemistry, and physical properties (rock textures; soil grain size and shape distributions; degree and nature of soil induration; soil magnetic properties). The calibration targets provide radiometric and mineralogical control surfaces. The magnets allow observations of magnetic phases. Patch plates are imaged to determine adhesive and abrasive properties of soils. Coordinated mission planning is crucial for optimizing the measurement synergy among the packages included on the lander. This planning has already begun through generation of multi-sol detailed operations activities. One focus has been to develop a scenario to use the arm to dig a soil trench to a depth of tens of centimeters. The activity will be monitored through use of Pancam and RAC to ensure nominal operations and to acquire data to determine subsurface physical properties (e.g., angle of repose of trench walls). Pancam and Mini-TES observations would also provide constraints on mineralogy and texture for the walls and bottom of the trench during excavation. If desired, soils excavated at depth could be deposited on the surface and Mossbauer and APXS measurements could be acquired for these materials. Soil samples from various depths would be delivered to MECA for characterization of aqueous geochemistry and physical properties of soil grains, particularly size, shape, and hardness. These physical properties would be determined by optical and atomic force microscopy. When completed, detailed information of soil properties as a function of depth would be obtained. These various data sets would constrain our understanding of whether or not there are systematic variations in soil characteristics as a function of depth. These variations might be related, for example, to evaporative moisture losses and formation of salt deposits, thereby indicating water transport processes occurred fairly recently. Many other value-added measurement scenarios are being developed. For example, characterizing the nature and dynamics of dust deposition will be done using MIP/DART to provide deposition rates, Pancam and RAC imaging of lander and rover surfaces to extrapolate these measurements to other areas, and a variety of measurements to determine if the bulk loose soil has the same characteristics as dust that accumulates during the mission. Bedrock geology of the site is primarily an APEX-focus setting, mineralogy, and texture, and APXS data to be we interest will be to determine the extent to which rock hydrothermal processes, given that APEX is the precursor 4 and 2005 rover missions. Additional information is contained in the original.
Arvidson, R.↗
Operations Coordination Plan Status
This presentation will introduce topics of note for the Earth Science Constellation (ESC) Mission Operations Working Group (MOWG) meeting being held in Toulouse, France from June 5-7, 2019.
Case, Warren F.↗
Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment (LACIE). Implementation plan for operations coordination center
There are no author-identified significant results in this report.
Source record↗
Provider of Services for Urban Air Mobility (PSU) Prototype Simulation (X5) Final Report
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new air transportation service concept to carry passengers or cargo in metropolitan areas, leveraged by innovative aircraft and air traffic automation technologies. NASA has conducted a series of simulations, called the X-series simulation, to evaluate the UAM concept of operations and support the development of airspace procedures and services for UAM operations. The simulation called “X5” was conducted in 2023 to test a Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) prototype developed by NASA for UAM flight planning, strategic conflict management support, and data exchange between UAM operators. In this simulation, two strategic conflict management capabilities, Demand-Capacity Balancing and Sequencing and Scheduling, were further investigated. This document describes the UAM system architecture modeled, the X5 simulation environment to be executed (e.g., traffic scenario and UAM airspace construct), and the strategic conflict management processes developed and evaluated in this study. Then, the simulation results are provided using several system performance metrics, such as the number of operations planned and activated, demand-capacity imbalances detected and resolved, and pre-departure delays. Based on these metrics, the test findings and lessons learned from this simulation are discussed. NASA developed a PSU prototype as part of a reference implementation of UAM system architecture and evolved strategic conflict management capabilities for UAM operations from the previous collaborative simulations with industry partners. Below is the summary of the achievements: - Aligned NASA’s UAM reference architecture with the FAA’s UAM ConOps notional architecture - Extended UAM airspace management capabilities to include 1) Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to ensure operators coordinate planned usage of shared vertiports, and 2) Sequencing and Scheduling (S&S) at UAM corridor entry and exit points to help facilitate an orderly flow of traffic - Defined the PSU information exchange APIs and requirements towards informing industry standards - Developed and tested a NASA PSU prototype as reference implementation to validate the requirements and APIs - Developed a prototype service connecting NASA’s PSU and the FAA system for testing future PSU-ATM interface requirements - Tested NASA-developed assumptions for UAM operations such as airspace design, procedures, vehicle performance, and strategic conflict management methods to inform future Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs) development with industry - Evaluated system performance metrics such as number of simultaneous operations and ground delays that can help define system-level requirements. The simulation results showed that the UAM traffic demand could be managed to minimize the needs of tactical separation provision with ground delays assigned by DCB and S&S. These accomplishments and the lessons learned from the PSU Prototype X5 simulation activities will be valuable inputs for the Air Mobility Pathfinders (AMP) project, which is NASA’s new project to create and evaluate a reference architecture for safe, secure, and scalable UAM operations.
Simulation↗
MaROS Strategic Relay Planning and Coordination Interfaces
The Mars Relay Operations Service (MaROS) is designed to provide planning and analysis tools in support of ongoing Mars Network relay operations. Strategic relay planning requires coordination between lander and orbiter mission ground data system (GDS) teams to schedule and execute relay communications passes. MaROS centralizes this process, correlating all data relevant to relay coordination to provide a cohesive picture of the relay state. Service users interact with the system through thin-layer command line and web user interface client applications. Users provide and utilize data such as lander view periods of orbiters, Deep Space Network (DSN) antenna tracks, and reports of relay pass performance. Users upload and download relevant relay data via formally defined and documented file structures including some described in Extensible Markup Language (XML). Clients interface with the system via an http-based Representational State Transfer (ReST) pattern using Javascript Object Notation (JSON) formats. This paper will provide a general overview of the service architecture and detail the software interfaces and considerations for interface design.
Allard, Daniel A.↗
Coordinating space telescope operations in an integrated planning and scheduling architecture
The Heuristic Scheduling Testbed System (HSTS), a software architecture for integrated planning and scheduling, is discussed. The architecture has been applied to the problem of generating observation schedules for the Hubble Space Telescope. This problem is representative of the class of problems that can be addressed: their complexity lies in the interaction of resource allocation and auxiliary task expansion. The architecture deals with this interaction by viewing planning and scheduling as two complementary aspects of the more general process of constructing behaviors of a dynamical system. The principal components of the software architecture are described, indicating how to model the structure and dynamics of a system, how to represent schedules at multiple levels of abstraction in the temporal database, and how the problem solving machinery operates. A scheduler for the detailed management of Hubble Space Telescope operations that has been developed within HSTS is described. Experimental performance results are given that indicate the utility and practicality of the approach.
Muscettola, Nicola↗
Payload Operations Center - Lessons from Commercial Engagement
The International Space Station (ISS) Payload Operations and Integration Center (POIC) at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, United States, has gone through an evolution from supporting exclusively government ISS users to providing 50% (or more) of their support to commercial users. At the same time, they have expanded ground and facility operations to support a United States Orbital Segment crew expansion from three to four astronauts allowing an additional of 34 hours crew time per week. These additional hours are dedicated to utilization and have already surpassed the 100 hour peak weekly milestone in July 2018. This paper discusses the Center's changes in planning, staffing, coordination, and operations while addressing topics from the addition of secondary flight control positions to dynamic operations product reviews. MSFC's Human Exploration and Development Operations Office, which manages payload operations, seeks through this paper to highlight the higher priority commercial users now receive in replanning and in additional crew time.
Watkins, Bobby J.↗
NASA’s Simulation Activities for Evaluating UAM Concept of Operations
NASA’s vision for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is to help emerging aviation markets to safely develop an air transportation system that moves people and cargo between places previously not served or underserved by aviation using revolutionary new aircraft types. Urban Air Mobility (UAM), the concept of expanding transportation networks by serving short flights to transport people and goods around metropolitan areas, is part of a larger paradigm shift toward AAM, in which new technologies and business models are enabling transformational applications of aviation. In NASA’s Concept of Operations for UAM, Providers of Services for UAM (PSU) play a key role to enable safe and efficient UAM operations by sharing operational data among UAM operators. PSUs provide a pre-departure strategic conflict management service that establishes operational plans for new flights and coordinates them with all relevant operations in shared airspace. The strategic conflict management aims to minimize the need for tactical separation provision, while considering anticipated traffic demand, vertiport capacity and availability, forecasted weather, and airspace restrictions. NASA is currently preparing a new lab evaluation activity with aviation industry partners, called the X4 simulation, to demonstrate their airspace services and capabilities and test new information exchange requirements for UAM operations. This simulation activity will support NASA’s National Campaign (NC) flight tests which are planned over the next several years to guide the collective community and stakeholders through a series of scenario-based test activities that involve vehicles and airspace management services operating in a live test environment. This presentation will provide an overview of the X4 simulation, including objectives, scenarios, assumptions, system architecture, and test schedule. The X4 simulation will evaluate the interconnectivity and operational intent sharing between PSUs for multiple operators, as well as the performance of strategic conflict management.
Urban Air Mobility, Simulation, Advanced Air Mobil↗
Flying the Earth Observing Constellations
Prior to the launch of the Earth Observing System (EOS) Terra and Landsat-7 satellites in 1999, the Project Scientists for the two missions and the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project at the Goddard Space Flight Center signed an inter-project agreement document describing their plan to fly in loose formation, approximately 20 minutes within each other. In November 2000, a technology demonstration satellite, Earth Observer-1 (EO-1), was launched into the same orbit as that of Landsat-7 and Terra, with a goal of flying within a minute from Landsat-7. The SAC-C satellite, developed and operated by the government of Argentina, was launched along with EO-1, with a goal of flying near both Terra and Landsat-7. This formation enables the scientists to make use of the scientific synergy among the instruments on the different spacecraft. This group of satellites constitutes the morning constellation, which is led by the Landsat-7, which has a mean local time (MLT) at 10:00 a.m. In May 2002, the EOS Aqua satellite was launched into an orbit with an altitude of 705 km. and a 1:30 p.m. MLT. Two smaller satellites, CALIPSO (a joint U.S./French mission), and CloudSat (a joint NASA/Colorado State University/Air Force mission), plan to fly in tight formation, within 15 seconds of each other. In addition, CALIPSO and CloudSat also plan to be within 30 to 60 seconds of the Aqua satellite. A third satellite, PARASOL, managed by the French Space Agency, CNES, will be placed within a minute of the CALIPSO satellite. In 2004, the Aura satellite will be launched and phased in relation to the Aqua satellite, such that the instruments on Aura will be able to view the same mass of air no later than 8 minutes after the instruments on Aqua have observed it. Representatives from each mission are currently documenting a plan on how they will coordinate on-orbit operations. Why are all these satellites planning to fly as a constellation? The answer is that as a constellation. the scientists will be able to acquire science data not only from their specific instruments on a single satellite, but science data from the other satellites which will have been taken at approximately the same time, thus resulting in coordinated science observation data. This leads to better quality science. This paper describes how the mission design has been driven by the science requirements. The morning and the afternoon constellations present operational challenges, which had not previously been encountered. Operations planning must address not only how the satellites of each constellation operate safely together, but also, how the two constellations fly on the same orbits without interfering with each other as they downlink data to their respective ground stations. This paper describes the operations experience gained from the morning constellation and the planning for the afternoon constellation.
Kelly, Angelita C.↗
Lessons Learned In Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station
The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The "pieces" are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.
Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
Lessons Learned in Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station
The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The pieces are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.
Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NEEMO 20: Science Training, Operations, and Tool Development
The 20th mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) was a highly integrated evaluation of operational protocols and tools designed to enable future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. NEEMO 20 was conducted from the Aquarius habitat off the coast of Key Largo, FL in July 2015. The habitat and its surroundings provide a convincing analog for space exploration. A crew of six (comprised of astronauts, engineers, and habitat technicians) lived and worked in and around the unique underwater laboratory over a mission duration of 14-days. Incorporated into NEEMO 20 was a diverse Science Team (ST) comprised of geoscientists from the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES/XI) Division from the Johnson Space Center (JSC), as well as marine scientists from the Department of Biological Sciences at Florida International University (FIU). This team trained the crew on the science to be conducted, defined sampling techniques and operational procedures, and planned and coordinated the science focused Extra Vehicular Activities (EVAs). The primary science objectives of NEEMO 20 was to study planetary sampling techniques and tools in partial gravity environments under realistic mission communication time delays and operational pressures. To facilitate these objectives two types of science sites were employed 1) geoscience sites with available rocks and regolith for testing sampling procedures and tools and, 2) marine science sites dedicated to specific research focused on assessing the photosynthetic capability of corals and their genetic connectivity between deep and shallow reefs. These marine sites and associated research objectives included deployment of handheld instrumentation, context descriptions, imaging, and sampling; thus acted as a suitable proxy for planetary surface exploration activities. This abstract briefly summarizes the scientific training, scientific operations, and tool development conducted during NEEMO 20 with an emphasis on the primary lessons learned.
Graff, T.↗
The SILEX experiment system operations
The European Space Agency is going to conduct an inter orbit link experiment which will connect a low Earth orbiting satellite and a Geostationary satellite via optical terminals. This experiment has been called SILEX (Semiconductor Inter satellite Link EXperiment). Two payloads will be built. One called PASTEL (PASsager de TELecommunication) will be embarked on the French Earth observation satellite SPOT4. The future European experimental data relay satellite ARTEMIS (Advanced Relay and TEchnology MISsion) will carry the OPALE terminal (Optical PAyload Experiment). The principal characteristic of the mission is a 50 Megabits flow of data transmitted via the optical satellite link. The relay satellite will route the data via its feeder link thus permitting a real time reception in the European region of images taken by the observation satellite. The PASTEL terminal has been designed to cover up to 9 communication sessions per day with an average of 5. The number of daily contact opportunities with the low earth orbiting satellite will be increased and the duration will be much longer than the traditional passes over a ground station. The terminals have an autonomy of 24 hours with respect to ground control. Each terminal will contain its own orbit model and that of its counter terminal for orbit prediction and for precise computation of pointing direction. Due to the very narrow field of view of the communication laser beam, the orbit propagation calculation needs to be done with a very high accuracy. The European Space Agency is responsible for the operation of both terminals. A PASTEL Mission Control System (PMCS) is being developed to control the PASTEL terminal on board SPOT4. The PMCS will interface with the SPOT4 Control Centre for the execution of the PASTEL operations. The PMCS will also interface with the ARTEMIS Mission Control System for the planning and the coordination of the operation. It is the first time that laser technology will be used to support inter-satellite links in Europe. Due to the complexity and experimental character of this new optical technology, the SILEX experiment control facilities will be designed to allow as much operational flexibility as possible.
Demelenne, B.↗
Targeting and Localization for Mars Rover Operations
A design and a partially developed application framework were presented for improving localization and targeting for surface spacecraft. The program has value for the Mars Science Laboratory mission, and has been delivered to support the Mars Exploration Rovers as part of the latest version of the Maestro science planning tool. It also has applications for future missions involving either surface-based or low-altitude atmospheric robotic vehicles. The targeting and localization solutions solve the problem of how to integrate localization estimate updates into operational planning tools, operational data product generalizations, and flight software by adding expanded flexibility to flight software, the operations data product pipeline, and operations planning tools based on coordinate frame updates during a planning cycle.
Powell, Mark W.↗