Using Continuous Planning Techniques to Coordinate Multiple Rovers
This paper describes a dynamic planning system for coordinating multiple rovers in collecting planetary surface data.
multiple rovers continuous planning↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “multiple rovers continuous planning”
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.
Coordinated continual planning methods for cooperating rovers
This paper compares and contrasts several coordination schemes for a system that continuously plans to control collections of rovers (or spacecraft) using collective mission goals, instead of goals or command sequences for each spacecraft.
continual planning rovers multiple agents↗
Commanding Curiosity from the Couch: MSL Remote Operations, Challenges, and Path Ahead
This paper describes how the Mars ScienceLaboratory (MSL) project prepared for and successfully beganCuriosity rover Mars operations from their homes in responseto the COVID-19 work-from-home orders. In a very shortperiod, the team developed procedures and executed a remoteoperations readiness test in parallel with the team's support fornominal operations. Continuing regular rover operations withan entirely remote team had not previously been consideredfeasible due to a variety of factors. These included both thehuman factors, such as multiple concurrent person-to-personinteractions of the uplink planning team, as well as technicalfactors, such as reliance on powerful workstations dedicated tographically intensive software tools used for planning. The testwas conducted on March 12th, with both the downlink anduplink teams successfully simulating a near full planning day.The JPL administration announced the transition to mandatorytelework on Monday, March 16th. MSL stood down the uplinkplanning originally scheduled for the next day while downlinkcontinued monitoring the rover. Full operations then resumedper schedule with nearly the entire operations team teleworkingon Friday, March 20th, during which the team planned roveractivities for three Martian days (sols). These activities includedthe successful drilling of the "Edinburgh" rock target, a highlycomplex contact science activity.As of October 1st, 2020, the Mars Science Laboratory missionoperations team has conducted 88 remote tactical uplink shiftsfor a total of 190 sols of planned rover activity, which accountsfor more than 6% of the mission to date. In this period the roverhas completed four drilling campaigns and driven over 1150meters towards its next major science target – a sulfate bearinggeologic unit at the foot of Mount Sharp. Success has not beenwithout its challenges. Many of these have been addressed whileothers will remain in some form until the team can safely returnto JPL, which in turn is the largest challenge for the future.
Stroupe, Ashley↗
Continual coordination of shared activities
Interacting agents that interleave planning and execution must reach consensus on their commitments to each other. For domains with varying degrees of interaction and different constraints on communication and computation, agents will require different coordination protocols in order to efficiently achieve their goals. ShAC (Shared Activity Coordination) is a framework for designing coordination protocols and an algorithm for continually coordinating agents using these protocols during execution. We show how a variety of protocols can be constructed using this framework and describe how ShAC coordinates two rovers and an orbiter in a simulated Mars scenario.
multiple agents coordination planning scheduling M↗
Continual coordination of spacecraft through shared activities
Interacting agents that interleave planning and execution must reach consensus on their commitments to each other. In domains where agents have varying degrees of interaction and different constraints on communication and computation, agents will require different coordination protocols in order to efficiently reach consensus. ShAC (Shared Activity Coordination) is a framework for designing coordination protocols with an algorithm for continually coordinating agents using these protocols during execution. We show how to construct a wide range of protocols using this framework and describe how ShAC coordinates two rovers and an orbiter in a simulated Mars scenario.
Multiple agents coordination planning scheduling M↗
From Prime to Extended Mission: Evolution of the MER Tactical Uplink Process
To support a 90-day surface mission for two robotic rovers, the Mars Exploration Rover mission designed and implemented an intensive tactical operations process, enabling daily commanding of each rover. Using a combination of new processes, custom software tools, a Mars-time staffing schedule, and seven-day-a-week operations, the MER team was able to compress the traditional weeks-long command-turnaround for a deep space robotic mission to about 18 hours. However, the pace of this process was never intended to be continued indefinitely. Even before the end of the three-month prime mission, MER operations began evolving towards greater sustainability. A combination of continued software tool development, increasing team experience, and availability of reusable sequences first reduced the mean process duration to approximately 11 hours. The number of workshifts required to perform the process dropped, and the team returned to a modified 'Earth-time' schedule. Additional process and tool adaptation eventually provided the option of planning multiple Martian days of activity within a single workshift, making 5-day-a-week operations possible. The vast majority of the science team returned to their home institutions, continuing to participate fully in the tactical operations process remotely. MER has continued to operate for over two Earth-years as many of its key personnel have moved on to other projects, the operations team and budget have shrunk, and the rovers have begun to exhibit symptoms of aging.
mission operations↗
From Prime to Extended Mission: Evolution of the MER Tactical Uplink Process
To support a 90-day surface mission for two robotic rovers, the Mars Exploration Rover mission designed and implemented an intensive tactical operations process, enabling daily commanding of each rover. Using a combination of new processes, custom software tools, a Mars-time staffing schedule, and seven-day-a-week operations, the MER team was able to compress the traditional weeks-long command-turnaround for a deep space robotic mission to about 18 hours. However, there was never an intention of maintaining the pace of this process indefinitely. Even before the end of the three-month prime mission, MER operations began evolving towards greater sustainability. A combination of continued software tool development, increasing team experience, and availability of reusable sequences first reduced the mean process duration to approximately 11 hours. The number of workshifts required to perform the process dropped, and the team returned to a modified 'Earth-time' schedule. Additional process and tool adaptation eventually provided the option of planning multiple Martian days of activity within a single workshift, making 5- day-a-week operations possible. The vast majority of the science team returned to their home institutions, continuing to participate fully in the tactical operations process remotely. MER has continued to operate for over two Earth-years as many of its key personnel have moved on to other projects, the operations team and budget have shrunk, and the rovers have begun to exhibit symptoms of aging.
Mars exploration↗
Autonomy Architectures for a Constellation of Spacecraft
Until the past few years, missions typically involved fairly large expensive spacecraft. Such missions have primarily favored using older proven technologies over more recently developed ones, and humans controlled spacecraft by manually generating detailed command sequences with low-level tools and then transmitting the sequences for subsequent execution on a spacecraft controller. This approach toward controlling a spacecraft has worked spectacularly on previous missions, but it has limitations deriving from communications restrictions - scheduling time to communicate with a particular spacecraft involves competing with other projects due to the limited number of deep space network antennae. This implies that a spacecraft can spend a long time just waiting whenever a command sequence fails. This is one reason why the New Millennium program has an objective to migrate parts of mission control tasks onboard a spacecraft to reduce wait time by making spacecraft more robust. The migrated software is called a "remote agent" and has 4 components: a mission manager to generate the high level goals, a planner/scheduler to turn goals into activities while reasoning about future expected situations, an executive/diagnostics engine to initiate and maintain activities while interpreting sensed events by reasoning about past and present situations, and a conventional real-time subsystem to interface with the spacecraft to implement an activity's primitive actions. In addition to needing remote planning and execution for isolated spacecraft, a trend toward multiple-spacecraft missions points to the need for remote distributed planning and execution. The past few years have seen missions with growing numbers of probes. Pathfinder has its rover (Sojourner), Cassini has its lander (Huygens), and the New Millenium Deep Space 3 (DS3) proposal involves a constellation of 3 spacecraft for interferometric mapping. This trend is expected to continue to progressively larger fleets. For example, one mission proposed to succeed DS3 would have 18 spacecraft flying in formation in order to detect earth-sized planets orbiting other stars. A proposed magnetospheric constellation would involve 5 to 500 spacecraft in Earth orbit to measure global phenomena within the magnetosphere. This work describes and compares three autonomy architectures for a system that continuously plans to control a fleet of spacecraft using collective mission goals instead of goals or command sequences for each spacecraft. A fleet of self-commanding spacecraft would autonomously coordinate itself to satisfy high level science and engineering goals in a changing partially-understood environment making feasible the operation of tens or even a hundred spacecraft (such as for interferometry or plasma physics missions). The easiest way to adapt autonomous spacecraft research to controlling constellations involves treating the constellation as a single spacecraft. Here one spacecraft directly controls the others as if they were connected. The controlling "master" spacecraft performs all autonomy reasoning, and the slaves only have real-time subsystems to execute the master's commands and transmit local telemetry/observations. The executive/diagnostics module starts actions and the master's real-time subsystem controls the action either locally or remotely through a slave. While the master/slave approach benefits from conceptual simplicity, it relies on an assumption that the master spacecraft's executive can continuously monitor the slaves' real-time subsystems, and this relies on high-bandwidth highly-reliable communications. Since unintended results occur fairly rarely, one way to relax the bandwidth requirements involves only monitoring unexpected events in spacecraft. Unfortunately, this disables the ability to monitor for unexpected events between spacecraft and leads to a host of coordination problems among the slaves. Also, failures in the communications system can result in losing slaves. The other two architectures improve robustness while reducing communications by progressively distributing more of the other three remote agent components across the constellation. In a teamwork architecture, all spacecraft have executives and real-time subsystems - only the leader has the planner/scheduler and mission manager. Finally, distributing all remote agent components leads to a peer-to-peer approach toward constellation control.
Barrett, Anthony↗
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↗
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 prime mission of four 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.
Larsen, Barbara↗
A Deployable 40 kWe Lunar Fission Surface Power Concept
Continuous power at the kilowatt level will be imperative for future lunar users including crew infrastructure, future science, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). The Compass Team explored both 10 kWe and 40 kWe concepts, assuming planned lander and rover capabilities. Both concepts found that a crew pressurized rover chassis, repurposed for deploying reactor power components, could place a fission surface power system (FSPS) at least one km from users. While the 10 kWe fission power system (FPS) could be deployed as a single unit, the 40 kWe system was too large and had to be deployed in multiple trips with the same rover. Key technologies and design approaches included a high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), yttrium hydride (YH) moderated heat pipe reactor, Stirling convertors, deployable radiators based on International Space Station (ISS) designs, and power conversion/transmission at ±2800 VDC for a one km remote distance.
Fission Power↗
NASA Tech Briefs, October 2003
Topics covered include: Cryogenic Temperature-Gradient Foam/Substrate Tensile Tester; Flight Test of an Intelligent Flight-Control System; Slat Heater Boxes for Thermal Vacuum Testing; System for Testing Thermal Insulation of Pipes; Electrical-Impedance-Based Ice-Thickness Gauges; Simulation System for Training in Laparoscopic Surgery; Flasher Powered by Photovoltaic Cells and Ultracapacitors; Improved Autoassociative Neural Networks; Toroidal-Core Microinductors Biased by Permanent Magnets; Using Correlated Photons to Suppress Background Noise; Atmospheric-Fade-Tolerant Tracking and Pointing in Wireless Optical Communication; Curved Focal-Plane Arrays Using Back-Illuminated High-Purity Photodetectors; Software for Displaying Data from Planetary Rovers; Software for Refining or Coarsening Computational Grids; Software for Diagnosis of Multiple Coordinated Spacecraft; Software Helps Retrieve Information Relevant to the User; Software for Simulating a Complex Robot; Software for Planning Scientific Activities on Mars; Software for Training in Pre-College Mathematics; Switching and Rectification in Carbon-Nanotube Junctions; Scandia-and-Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia for Thermal Barriers; Environmentally Safer, Less Toxic Fire-Extinguishing Agents; Multiaxial Temperature- and Time-Dependent Failure Model; Cloverleaf Vibratory Microgyroscope with Integrated Post; Single-Vector Calibration of Wind-Tunnel Force Balances; Microgyroscope with Vibrating Post as Rotation Transducer; Continuous Tuning and Calibration of Vibratory Gyroscopes; Compact, Pneumatically Actuated Filter Shuttle; Improved Bearingless Switched-Reluctance Motor; Fluorescent Quantum Dots for Biological Labeling; Growing Three-Dimensional Corneal Tissue in a Bioreactor; Scanning Tunneling Optical Resonance Microscopy; The Micro-Arcsecond Metrology Testbed; Detecting Moving Targets by Use of Soliton Resonances; and Finite-Element Methods for Real-Time Simulation of Surgery.
Source record↗
40kW Fission Surface Power System (FSPS) Deployability
Continuous power at the kilowatt level will be imperative for future lunar users including crew infrastructure, future science, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). The Compass Team explored both 10 kilowatt electric (kWe) and 40 kWe concepts, assuming planned lander and rover capabilities. Both concepts found that a crew pressurized rover chassis, repurposed for deploying reactor power components, could place a fission surface power system (FSPS) at least one kilometer from users. While the 10 kWe fission power system (FPS) could be deployed as a single unit, the 40 kWe system was too large and had to be deployed in multiple trips with the same rover. Key technologies and design approaches included a high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), yttrium hydride (YH) moderated heat pipe reactor, Stirling convertors, deployable radiators based on International Space Station (ISS) designs, and power conversion/transmission at ±2800 volts of direct current (VDC).
Lunar reactor 40kW fission deployable↗
Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies
Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.
LTV↗
Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies
Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.
LTV↗
Lunar Outpost Life Support Architecture Study Based on a High Mobility Exploration Scenario
As scenarios for lunar surface exploration and habitation continue to evolve within NASA s Constellation program, so must studies of optimal life support system architectures and technologies. This paper presents results of a life support architecture study based on a 2009 NASA scenario known as Scenario 12. Scenario 12 represents a consolidation of ideas from earlier NASA scenarios and includes an outpost near the Lunar South Pole comprised of three larger fixed surface elements and four attached pressurized rovers. The scenario places a high emphasis on surface mobility, with planning assuming that all four crewmembers spend roughly 50% of the time away from the outpost on 3-14 day excursions in two of the pressurized rovers. Some of the larger elements can also be mobilized for longer duration excursions. This emphasis on mobility poses a significant challenge for a regenerative life support system in terms of cost-effective waste collection and resource recovery across multiple elements, including rovers with very constrained infrastructure resources. The current study considers pressurized rovers as part of a distributed outpost life support architecture in both stand-alone and integrated configurations. A range of architectures are examined reflecting different levels of closure and distributed functionality. Different lander propellant scavenging options are also considered involving either initial conversion of residual oxygen and hydrogen propellants to water or initial direct oxygen scavenging. Monte Carlo simulations are used to assess the sensitivity of results to volatile high-impact mission variables, including the quantity of residual lander propellants available for scavenging, the fraction of crew time away from the outpost on excursions, total extravehicular activity hours, and habitat leakage. Architectures are evaluated by estimating surpluses or deficits of water and oxygen per 180-day mission and differences in fixed and 10-year-total equivalent system mass (ESM) relative to a reference case. Results are presented based on current assumptions for Scenario 12 and based on Monte Carlo simulations with assumed probability distributions for the high-impact mission variables. The calculated probability of no water or oxygen resupply from Monte Carlo simulations provides a quantitative measure of system robustness that can be used for cost/benefit analyses to identify leading architecture candidates. Areas of technology improvement that are likely to have a significant impact are also suggested.
Lange, Kevin E.↗
RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Space Radiation Data
RadLab, a component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), is a database of radiation measurements from multiple instruments and spacecraft that provides visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation and retrieval of these data. The attributes of data available through RadLab include spacecraft, types of radiation sensing instruments, locations within the spacecraft (e.g. ISS modules), associated celestial bodies, trajectories, and spacecraft coordinates; the primary type of data is the absorbed dose rate, as well as flux and dose equivalent rate where available. The application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax for retrieval of timestamped data filtered by various combinations of such attributes; the graphical user interface (GUI) extends this functionality with visualizations (time series plots, comparison plots, geospatial visualizations) which provide easy means to assess data availability, iteratively refine search parameters, interactively inspect the data, and export target data subsets. Datasets are continuously being added to the RadLab database as part of the rolling release process. Investigators from multiple countries, including the US, Canada, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia and the Czech Republic, have committed to provide data from their instruments in and beyond low Earth orbit. The current release contains datasets provided by US and international collaborators and includes readings from multiple modules of the ISS, the BioSentinel CubeSat, Chang’e 4, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the ExoMars Orbiter, and the Curiosity rover. Datasets are associated with respective RadLab knowledgebase articles which include instrument descriptions and provide bibliographical references. RadLab aims to provide a comprehensive, dynamic compendium of space radiation data, enabling the scientific community to perform analyses of data from multiple detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions and experiments. Some of its applications include inference of absorbed radiation dose for NASA GeneLab payloads, and training predictive models as part of the 2024 FDL-X challenge. The platform is actively expanding and seeking additional data, with plans to also cover past (e.g. Shuttle, Mir) and future (e.g. Artemis) missions. The RadLab Working Group has been created to aid in this process as well as to foster collaborations among data contributors and users, to develop standards for data harmonization, and to guide the development of the platform, with the goal to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation research and to advance our understanding of the radiation environment in outer space.
Kirill Grigorev↗
RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Space Radiation Data
RadLab, a component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), is a database of radiation measurements from multiple instruments and spacecraft that provides visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation and retrieval of these data. The attributes of data available through RadLab include spacecraft, types of radiation sensing instruments, locations within the spacecraft (e.g. ISS modules), associated celestial bodies, trajectories, and spacecraft coordinates; the primary type of data is the absorbed dose rate, as well as flux and dose equivalent rate where available. The application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax for retrieval of timestamped data filtered by various combinations of such attributes; the graphical user interface (GUI) extends this functionality with visualizations (time series plots, comparison plots, geospatial visualizations) which provide easy means to assess data availability, iteratively refine search parameters, interactively inspect the data, and export target data subsets. Datasets are continuously being added to the RadLab database as part of the rolling release process. Investigators from multiple countries, including the US, Canada, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia and the Czech Republic, have committed to provide data from their instruments in and beyond low Earth orbit. The current release contains datasets provided by US and international collaborators and includes readings from multiple modules of the ISS, the BioSentinel CubeSat, Chang’e 4, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the ExoMars Orbiter, and the Curiosity rover. Datasets are associated with respective RadLab knowledgebase articles which include instrument descriptions and provide bibliographical references. RadLab aims to provide a comprehensive, dynamic compendium of space radiation data, enabling the scientific community to perform analyses of data from multiple detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions and experiments. Some of its applications include inference of absorbed radiation dose for NASA GeneLab payloads, and training predictive models as part of the 2024 FDL-X challenge. The platform is actively expanding and seeking additional data, with plans to also cover past (e.g. Shuttle, Mir) and future (e.g. Artemis) missions. The RadLab Working Group has been created to aid in this process as well as to foster collaborations among data contributors and users, to develop standards for data harmonization, and to guide the development of the platform, with the goal to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation research and to advance our understanding of the radiation environment in outer space.
Kirill Grigorev↗