Engineering topics
Kelly, Angelita C.
Publications and source records attributed to Kelly, Angelita C..
NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS): Delivering on the Dream, Today and Tomorrow
This paper describes the successful operations of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites over the past 10 years and the plans for the future. Excellent operations performance has been a key factor in the overall success of EOS. The EOS Program was conceived in the 1980s and began to take shape in the early 1990s. EOS consists of a series of satellites that study the Earth as an interrelated system. It began with the launch of Terra in December 1999, followed by Aqua in May 2002, and Aura in July 2004. A key EOS goal is to provide a long-term continuous data set to enable the science community to develop a better understanding of land, ocean, and atmospheric processes and their interactions. EOS has produced unprecedented amounts of data which are used all over the world free of charge. Mission operations have resulted in data recovery for Terra, Aqua, and Aura that have consistently exceeded mission requirements. The paper describes the ground systems and organizations that control the EOS satellites, capture the raw data, and distribute the processed science data sets. The paper further describes how operations have evolved since 1999. Examples of this evolution include (a) the implementation of new mission safety requirements for orbital debris monitoring; (b) technology upgrades to keep facilities at the state of the art; (c) enhancements to meet changing security requirements; and (d) operations management of the 2 international Earth Observing Constellations of 11 satellites known as the "Morning Constellation" and the "A-Train". The paper concludes with a view into the future based on the latest spacecraft status, lifetime projections, and mission plans.
Terra, Aqua, and Aura Direct Broadcast - Providing Earth Science Data for Realtime Applications
The need for realtime data to aid in disaster management and monitoring has been clearly demonstrated for the past several years, e.g., during the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004, the hurricane Katrina in 2005, fires, etc. Users want (and often require) the means to get earth observation data for operational regional use as soon as they are generated by satellites. This is especially true for events that can cause loss of human life and/or property. To meet this need, NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites, Terra and Aqua, provide realtime data useful to disaster management teams. This paper describes the satellites, their Direct Broadcast (DB) capabilities, the data uses, what it takes to deploy a DB ground station, and the future of the DB.
Small Earth Observing Satellites Flying with Large Satellites in the A-Train
This paper/poster presents a real-life example of the benefits of flying small satellites with other satellites, large or small, and vice versa. Typically, most small satellites fly payloads consisting of one or two instruments and fly in orbits that are independent from that of other satellites. The science data from these satellites are either used in isolation or correlated with instrument data from other satellites. Data correlation with other satellites is greatly improved when the measurements of the same point or air mass are taken at approximately the same time. Scientists worldwide are beginning to take advantage of the opportunities for improved data correlation, or coincidental science, offered by the international Earth Observing Constellation known as the A-Train (sometimes referred to as the Afternoon Constellation). Most of the A-Train satellites are small - the A-Train is anchored by two large NASA satellites (EOS-Aqua and EOS-Aura), but consists also of 5 small satellites (CloudSat, CALIPSO, PARASOL, OCO and Glory these last two will join in 2009). By flying in a constellation, each mission benefits from coincidental observations from instruments on the other satellites in the constellation. Essentially, from a data point of view, the A-Train can be envisioned as a single, virtual science platform with multiple instruments. Satellites in the A-Train fly at 705 km in sun-synchronous orbits. Their mean local times at the equator are within seconds to a few minutes of each other. This paper describes the challenges of operating an international constellation of independent satellites from the U.S. and Europe to maximize the coincidental science opportunities while at the same time minimizing the level of operational interactions required between team members. The A-Train mission teams have been able to demonstrate that flying as members of an international constellation does not take away the flexibility to accommodate new requirements. Specific examples will be cited, including CloudSat's relocation (to accommodate a new viewing angle for the CALIPSO satellite), Glory's replan to move closer to PARASOL, and OCO's long term plans to minimize on-orbit operations costs while maintaining safety. In all cases, safety is ensured, science returns are enhanced, and operational flexibility is retained to the maximum extent possible.
Constellations: A New Paradigm for Earth Observations
The last decade has seen a significant increase in the number and the capabilities of remote sensing satellites launched by the international community. A relatively new approach has been the launching of satellites into heterogeneous constellations. Constellations provide the scientists a capability to acquire science data, not only from specific instruments on a single satellite, but also from instruments on other satellites that fly in the same orbit. Initial results from the A-Train (especially following the CALIPSO/CloudSat launch) attest to the tremendous scientific value of constellation flying. This paper provides a history of the constellations (particularly the A-Train) and how the A-Train mission design was driven by science requirements. The A-Train has presented operational challenges which had not previously been encountered. Operations planning had to address not only how the satellites of each constellation operate safely together, but also how the two constellations fly in the same orbits without interfering with each other when commands are uplinked or data are downlinked to their respective ground stations. This paper discusses the benefits of joining an on-orbit constellation. When compared to a single, large satellite, a constellation infrastructure offers more than just the opportunities for coincidental science observations. For example, constellations reduce risks by distributing observing instruments among numerous satellites; in contrast, a failed launch or a system failure in a single satellite would lead to loss of all observations. Constellations allow for more focused, less complex satellites. Constellations distribute the development, testing, and operations costs among various agencies and organizations for example, the Morning and Afternoon Constellations involve several agencies within the U.S. and in other countries. Lastly, this paper addresses the need to plan for the long-term evolution of a constellation. Agencies need to have a replenishment strategy as some satellites age and eventually leave the constellation. This will ensure overlap of observations, thus providing continuous, calibrated science data over a much longer time period. Thoughts on the evolution of the A-Train will also be presented.
Constellation Operations: Lessons Learned For Future Exploration
The Earth science community has long advocated placing numerous instruments in space to study the Earth and its environment. Space agencies from many countries have responded to this call with a wide range of orbiting satellites. Scientists also envisioned placing some satellites in constellations, to enable diverse remote sensing instruments to observe the same part of the Earth (or its atmosphere) at about the same time, thereby increasing the opportunities for coincident science observations. The Earth Science Afternoon Constellation is answering this call, but there have been unique challenges on the way to its deployment. Currently, the Afternoon Constellation is to comprise six satellites. Three are currently on orbit: NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS)-Aqua (2002) and EOS-Aura (2004), and CNES's Polarization & Anisotropy of Reflectances for Atmospheric Sciences coupled with Observations from a Lidar (PARASOL) (2004). Two more satellites, the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) and Cloudsat, are to be jointly launched in late 2005, followed by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) in 2008. The Afternoon Constellation is unlike most satellite constellations in that: 1) It is not a homogenous mix of identical satellites; rather it comprises several satellites with complementary observational capabilities; 2) The satellites are not spaced around the Earth to provide instantaneous, global coverage (as for a communications satellite constellation); rather they orbit in close proximity so observations occur at about the same time over approximately the same region; and 3) Lastly, the satellites are not managed and controlled by one organization; rather the list of organizations is diverse: CNES in France, NASA Centers at Goddard, Langley, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the US Air Force facility in New Mexico. The PARASOL launch and early orbit (L&EO) phase proved to be a learning experience for constellation members (including Constellation management). Prior to launch, all members signed an operations coordination document that spelled out basic requirements for keeping the constellation safe and resolving non-nominal events. Once PARASOL reached orbit and the mission teams gained experience using the newly-developed constellation monitoring tools, it became clear that some of the guidelines in the signed agreements had to be adjusted. This paper presents the L&EO lessons learned and how they were used to prepare for the next phase - the period following the CloudSat/CALIPSO launch.
The Earth Science Afternoon Constellation: Preparing for Autonomous but Coordinated Operations
This paper describes how the challenges of coordinating the autonomous operations of geographically dispersed mission control centers for several small and large satellites are being overcome. The Earth Science Afternoon Constellation, also referred to as the "A-Train", is an international grouping of five NASA satellites (two major NASA EOS missions and three NASA/Earth System Science Pathfinder missions) and one French satellite orbiting in close proximity. This grouping of satellites provides scientists with the opportunity to perform coincident observations using data from two or more instruments on various satellites with measurements taken at approximately the same time. Three of the six missions are currently on-orbit, with the two missions expected to join the constellation later this year and one mission in 2007. The operational challenges are daunting for several reasons. There are several Mission Control Centers (widely separated on two continents), operating autonomously under tight budget constraints. All of the Mission Control Centers have reasons to be concerned about safety while flying in close proximity to other satellites, but most Centers did not have the resources or the desire to address this concern alone - the interfaces are too numerous and anticipated operations too costly. Clearly, an efficient approach was needed. This paper describes the steps taken to make this Earth science constellation a reality. Agreements were forged to allow the Mission Control Centers to maintain their autonomy, while ensuring their satellite's safety. Each member mission in the constellation operates independently in accordance with its own mission requirements, but the member missions have agreed to coordinate their operations, i.e., orbital positions and control to ensure the safety of the entire constellation. A centralized system was developed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center to collect, analyze, and distribute ephemeris data used by each of the mission teams to determine the positions of the satellites in the constellation. The system issues warnings regarding possible dangerous configurations, eliminating the need for redundant capabilities at each Mission Control Center. On-orbit contingency situations were identified and analyzed; agreements were reached in advance of contingency operations to ensure that coordination between the Mission Control Centers can be handled expeditiously and fairly. In this manner, recovery from anomalous situations can be more quickly realized, thereby increasing the science return and reducing costs. The process used to develop these contingency procedures and the systems used to facilitate the contingency resolution are described as well.
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.
The Road to a TERRA Operational System
EOS-Terra (formerly known as AM-1) is the first in a series of NASA Earth Observing System (EOS) spacecraft. This paper describes what it took to get ready for Terra, the problems encountered along the way, and the challenge of making an integrated system and integrated team out of many diverse systems and groups, including the international partners and agencies. This paper describes how the coordination role for system resources scheduling, system configuration management, and status reporting was implemented, and the vital role this coordination effort played for enhanced productivity and improved communication across the teams. Lessons which can be learned from this major effort are presented.
Re-engineering NASA's space communications to remain viable in a constrained fiscal environment
Along with the Red and Blue Teams commissioned by the NASA Administrator in 1992, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Communications commissioned a Blue Team to review the Office of Space Communications (Code O) Core Program and determine how the program could be conducted faster, better, and cheaper. Since there was no corresponding Red Team for the Code O Blue Team, the Blue Team assumed a Red Team independent attitude and challenged the status quo, including current work processes, functional distinctions, interfaces, and information flow, as well as traditional management and system development practices. The Blue Team's unconstrained, non-parochial, and imaginative look at NASA's space communications program produced a simplified representation of the space communications infrastructure that transcends organizational and functional boundaries, in addition to existing systems and facilities. Further, the Blue Team adapted the 'faster, better, cheaper' charter to be relevant to the multi-mission, continuous nature of the space communications program and to serve as a gauge for improving customer services concurrent with achieving more efficient operations and infrastructure life cycle economies. This simplified representation, together with the adapted metrics, offers a future view and process model for reengineering NASA's space communications to remain viable in a constrained fiscal environment. Code O remains firm in its commitment to improve productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency. In October 1992, the Associate Administrator reconstituted the Blue Team as the Code O Success Team (COST) to serve as a catalyst for change. In this paper, the COST presents the chronicle and significance of the simplified representation and adapted metrics, and their application during the FY 1993-1994 activities.
A systems engineering initiative for NASA's space communications
In addition to but separate from the Red and Blue Teams commissioned by the NASA Administrator, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Communications commissioned a Blue Team to review the Office of Space Communications (Code O) Core Program and determine how the program could be conducted faster, better, and cheaper, without compromising safety. Since there was no corresponding Red Team for the Code O Blue Team, the Blue Team assumed a Red Team independent attitude and challenged the status quo. The Blue Team process and results are summarized. The Associate Administrator for Space Communications subsequently convened a special management session to discuss the significance and implications of the Blue Team's report and to lay the groundwork and teamwork for the next steps, including the transition from engineering systems to systems engineering. The methodology and progress toward realizing the Code O Family vision and accomplishing the systems engineering initiative for NASA's space communications are presented.
Mission operations concepts for Earth Observing System (EOS)
Mission operation concepts are described which are being used to evaluate and influence space and ground system designs and architectures with the goal of achieving successful, efficient, and cost-effective Earth Observing System (EOS) operations. Emphasis is given to the general characteristics and concepts developed for the EOS Space Measurement System, which uses a new series of polar-orbiting observatories. Data rates are given for various instruments. Some of the operations concepts which require a total system view are also examined, including command operations, data processing, data accountability, data archival, prelaunch testing and readiness, launch, performance monitoring and assessment, contingency operations, flight software maintenance, and security.
CCSDS transfer frames in the realtime NASA/DLR link for the Spacelab-D2 mission
The German Space Operations Center (GSOC) Spacelab D2 mission system is a forerunner of the GSOC system which will accept 'virtual channel' transfer frame data directly from the NASA Consumer Data and Operations System (and/or the equivalent European and Japanese ground data handling systems). This experience with the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) will prepare GSOC to implement an effective and efficient system for control of payloads and for the handling of CCSDS-format data well into the 21st century.
Spacelab Data Processing Facility (SLDPF) quality assurance expert systems development
The Spacelab Data Processing Facility (SLDPF) is an integral part of the Space Shuttle data network for missions that involve attached scientific payloads. Expert system prototypes were developed to aid in the performance of the quality assurance function of the Spacelab and/or Attached Shuttle Payloads processed telemetry data. The Spacelab Input Processing System (SIPS) and the Spacelab Output Processing System (SOPS), two expert systems, were developed to determine their feasibility and potential in the quality assurance of processed telemetry data. The capabilities and performance of these systems are discussed.
Spacelab Data Processing Facility (SLDPF) quality assurance expert systems development
Spacelab Data Processing Facility (SLDPF) expert system prototypes have been developed to assist in the quality assurance of Spacelab and/or Attached Shuttle Payload (ASP) processed telemetry data. SLDPF functions include the capturing, quality monitoring, processing, accounting, and forwarding of mission data to various user facilities. Prototypes for the two SLDPF functional elements, the Spacelab Output Processing System and the Spacelab Input Processing Element, are described. The prototypes have produced beneficial results including an increase in analyst productivity, a decrease in the burden of tedious analyses, the consistent evaluation of data, and the providing of concise historical records.
Spacelab Data Processing Facility (SLDPF) quality assurance expert systems development
Spacelab Data Processing Facility (SLDPF) expert system prototypes were developed to assist in the quality assurance of Spacelab and/or Attached Shuttle Payload (ASP) processed telemetry data. The SLDPF functions include the capturing, quality monitoring, processing, accounting, and forwarding of mission data to various user facilities. Prototypes for the two SLDPF functional elements, the Spacelab Output Processing System and the Spacelab Input Processing Element, are described. The prototypes have produced beneficial results including an increase in analyst productivity, a decrease in the burden of tedious analyses, the consistent evaluation of data, and the providing of concise historical records.