Roth, Brian | Engineering Papers

NASA NTRS2022

Cross-Cutting Flight Infrastructure Improvements on M2020

Mars2020 (M2020) was formulated as a mission that leveraged as much Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) heritage as possible, while focusing major new development efforts on the original and unique elements needed to accomplish the different mission objectives. Well publicized examples of high profile new developments include precision landing, the sampling and caching system, the specific instrument suite, improved mobility via Autonomous Navigation, and later the addition of the Ingenuity helicopter. Less well known are the refinements to the core flight infrastructure, primarily in the cross-cutting functions of Telecom, Avionics, Data Management, Communications Behaviors, and Parameter Management. These enhancements are introduced predominately via flight software, and represent increases in capability that justified their inclusion in an otherwise heritage-focused project environment.Perseverance’s cross-cutting flight infrastructure improvements fall into and across the following five categories. First is a trimming of the software footprint of infrastructure modules, in order to make room for memory demands elsewhere in the system. Second is the minimization of data volume to be downlinked, through various methods such as the incorporation of new compression options. Third is the maximization of the available downlink bandwidth for data, by curtailing content-less data (fill) and introducing an improved UHF proximity link protocol. Fourth is a reduction in vulnerabilities, through increased file system redundancy, robustness, and software process monitoring. Fifth is an increase in operations efficiency by lowering file system mount times, improving parallelism between simultaneous events, minimizing the time to recover from file system errors, streamlining the purging of obsolete data, and reducing the number of commands to service parameters by a factor of 100.Individually, none of the cross-cutting infrastructure improvements are likely to garner headlines, but collectively they appreciably improve the safety and operability of Perseverance over its predecessor. This paper will describe the improvements, their promise, and where applicable, their actual impact in operations.

Bohannon, Emily↗

NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover: System Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗

NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover- Systems Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗

NASA NTRS2021

Reducing Risk of InSight Surface Operations Through High-Fidelity Command Sequence Modeling

Simulating spacecraft behavior is crucial for the success of deep space missions, and failure to do so may result in damages to or the loss of the spacecraft. Many previous deep space missions have made use of ground-simulation of sequenced commanding, at speeds far greater than real time, to predict spacecraft state over time through the execution of onboard sequences. This type of modeling can be done at any fidelity, and most missions have opted to decrease fidelity to reduce cost and complexity. However, NASA’s Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) mission expanded the scope of ground modeling considerably, which has led to numerous benefits over past implementations. This paper will discuss the process and products that InSight created, as well as the lessons learned from successfully operating the spacecraft on Mars. InSight is the first JPL mission to expand the scope of ground modeling to include the uplink of files from Earth to the spacecraft, rather than making the simplification that any command sequences already exist onboard the spacecraft. The advantages of modeling the uplink of files are numerous. First, it allows for accurate modeling of the onboard filesystem of the spacecraft at all points in time, meaning that all file loads and deletions throughout the mission are modeled at the exact moment they are predicted to actually happen. Second, operators can be more certain that dependencies between sequences are not broken due to the dynamic nature of the filesystem as files are deleted, copied, and uplinked. Lastly, spacecraft filesystem tracking allows for management of sequences prior to uplink, limiting the uplink to only new sequences. The onboard filesystem model became crucial to mission success, emphasizing the importance of investing in accurate models before the need for them arises. During daily tactical operations of a spacecraft on Mars, a model is only useful if the results can be interpreted quickly. In this fast-paced environment, it is essential that command products are modeled and reviewed, errors are found and diagnosed, and new command products are redelivered, remodeled, re-reviewed in a timely manner. It is impossible to review the entire model and therefore the results of the model must be condensed and presented in a fashion that is intuitive, easy-to-navigate, complete, and trustworthy. InSight developed a number of innovative sequence review products that are designed to provide operators with the information required to quickly assess the validity of command products and diagnose potential issues. Together, these products provide a complete, yet succinct picture of the command and sequence model to the operators and facilitate a quick assessment of all sequence command products. This paper will cover planning and sequencing innovations made during InSight surface operations, and will compare the tools, processes, and results to those on other missions. Additionally, the paper will cover the flexible, yet robust nature of the planning and sequencing system architecture and how that flexibility allowed for rapid development and response to the unpredictability of Mars.

Cloutier, Kyle↗

NASA NTRS2011

Mars Science Laboratory Flight Software Boot Robustness Testing Project Report

On the surface of Mars, the Mars Science Laboratory will boot up its flight computers every morning, having charged the batteries through the night. This boot process is complicated, critical, and affected by numerous hardware states that can be difficult to test. The hardware test beds do not facilitate testing a long duration of back-to-back unmanned automated tests, and although the software simulation has provided the necessary functionality and fidelity for this boot testing, there has not been support for the full flexibility necessary for this task. Therefore to perform this testing a framework has been build around the software simulation that supports running automated tests loading a variety of starting configurations for software and hardware states. This implementation has been tested against the nominal cases to validate the methodology, and support for configuring off-nominal cases is ongoing. The implication of this testing is that the introduction of input configurations that have yet proved difficult to test may reveal boot scenarios worth higher fidelity investigation, and in other cases increase confidence in the robustness of the flight software boot process.

Mars Science Laboratory (MSL)↗