Cryosphere Sciences Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) Science
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Sandra O. Brugger↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Science”
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.
An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration
Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.
Science Operations↗
NASA's Earth Science Flight Program Meets the Challenges of Today and Tomorrow
NASA's Earth science flight program is a dynamic undertaking that consists of a large fleet of operating satellites, an array of satellite and instrument projects in various stages of development, a robust airborne science program, and a massive data archiving and distribution system. Each element of the flight program is complex and present unique challenges. NASA builds upon its successes and learns from its setbacks to manage this evolving portfolio to meet NASA's Earth science objectives. NASA fleet of 16 operating missions provide a wide range of scientific measurements made from dedicated Earth science satellites and from instruments mounted to the International Space Station. For operational missions, the program must address issues such as an aging satellites operating well beyond their prime mission, constellation flying, and collision avoidance with other spacecraft and orbital debris. Projects in development are divided into two broad categories: systematic missions and pathfinders. The Earth Systematic Missions (ESM) include a broad range of multi-disciplinary Earth-observing research satellite missions aimed at understanding the Earth system and its response to natural and human-induced forces and changes. Understanding these forces will help determine how to predict future changes, and how to mitigate or adapt to these changes. The Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program provides frequent, regular, competitively selected Earth science research opportunities that accommodate new and emerging scientific priorities and measurement capabilities. This results in a series of relatively low-cost, small-sized investigations and missions. Principal investigators whose scientific objectives support a variety of studies lead these missions, including studies of the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, polar ice regions, or solid Earth. This portfolio of missions and investigations provides opportunity for investment in innovative Earth science that enhances NASA's capability for better understanding the current state of the Earth system. ESM and ESSP projects often involve partnerships with other US agencies and/or international organizations. This adds to the complexity of mission development, but allows for a greater scientific return on NASA's investments. The Earth Science Airborne Science Program provides manned and unmanned aircraft systems that further science and advance the use of satellite data. NASA uses these assets worldwide in campaigns to investigate extreme weather events, observe Earth system processes, obtain data for Earth science modeling activities, and calibrate instruments flying aboard Earth science spacecraft. The Airborne Science Program has six dedicated aircraft and access to many other platforms. The Earth Science Multi-Mission Operations program acquires, preserves, and distributes observational data from operating spacecraft to support Earth Science research focus areas. The Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS), which has been in operations since 1994, primarily accomplishes this. EOSDIS acquires, processes, archives, and distributes Earth Science data and information products. The archiving of NASA Earth Science information happens at eight Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) and four disciplinary data centers located across the United States. The DAACs specialize by topic area, and make their data available to researchers around the world. The DAACs currently house over 9 petabytes of data, growing at a rate of 6.4 terabytes per day. NASA's current Earth Science portfolio is responsive to the National Research Council (NRC) 2007 Earth Science Decadal Survey and well as the 2010 NASA Response to President Obama's Climate Plan. As the program evolves into the future it will leverage the lessons learned from the current missions in operations and development, and plan for adjustments to future objectives in response to the anticipated 2017 NRC Decadal Survey.
Flight Program↗
Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team
The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.
Ziemer, John K.↗
Summary of the Science Performed Onboard the International Space Station within the United States Orbital Segment during Increments 16 and 17
With the launch of the STS-122 on February 7, 2008, which delivered the European Columbus science module and the upcoming STS-124 flight, which will deliver the Japanese Kibo science module in May 2008, the International Space Station will become truly International with Europe and Japan joining the United States of America and Russia to perform science on a continuous basis in a wide spectrum of science disciplines. The last science module, Kibo, of the United States Orbital Segment (USOS) will be mated to the station on time to celebrate its first decade in low Earth orbit in October 2008 (end of Increment 17), thus ushering in the second decade of the station with all the USOS science modules mated and performing science. The arrival of the Kibo science module will also mark continuous human presence on the station for eighty eight (88) months, and, with the addition of the ESA science module during the STS-122 flight, the USOS will be made up of four space agencies: CSA, ESA, JAXA and NASA, spanning three continents. With the additional partners coming onboard with different research needs, every effort is being made to coordinate science across the USOS segment in an integrated manner for the benefit of all parties. One of the objectives of this paper is to discuss the integrated manner in which science planning/replanning and prioritization during the execution phase of an increment is being done. The main focus, though, of this paper is to summarize and to discuss the science performed during Increments 16 and 17 (October 2007 to October 2008). The discussion will focus mainly on the primary objectives of each investigation and their associated hypotheses that were investigated during these two Increments. Also, preliminary science results will be discussed for each of the investigation as science results availability permit. Additionally, the paper will briefly touch on what the science complement for these two increments was and what was actually accomplished due to real time science implementation and constraints. Finally, the paper will briefly discuss the science research complements for the next three Increments: Increments 18 to 20, in order to preview how much science might be accomplished during these three upcoming Increments of the station next decade.
Jules, Kenol↗
Planetary Balloon-Based Science Platform Evaluation and Program Implementation
This report describes a study evaluating the potential for a balloon-based optical telescope as a planetary science asset to achieve decadal class science. The study considered potential science achievable and science traceability relative to the most recent planetary science decadal survey, potential platform features, and demonstration flights in the evaluation process. Science Potential and Benefits: This study confirms the cost the-benefit value for planetary science purposes. Forty-four (44) important questions of the decadal survey are at least partially addressable through balloon based capabilities. Planetary science through balloon observations can provide significant science through observations in the 300 nm to 5 m range and at longer wavelengths as well. Additionally, balloon missions have demonstrated the ability to progress from concept to observation to publication much faster than a space mission increasing the speed of science return. Planetary science from a balloon-borne platform is a relatively low-cost approach to new science measurements. This is particularly relevant within a cost-constrained planetary science budget. Repeated flights further reduce the cost of the per unit science data. Such flights offer observing time at a very competitive cost. Another advantage for planetary scientists is that a dedicated asset could provide significant new viewing opportunities not possible from the ground and allow unprecedented access to observations that cannot be realized with the time allocation pressures faced by current observing assets. In addition, flight systems that have a relatively short life cycle and where hardware is generally recovered, are excellent opportunities to train early career scientists, engineers, and project managers. The fact that balloon-borne payloads, unlike space missions, are generally recovered offers an excellent tool to test and mature instruments and other space craft systems. Desired Gondola Features: Potential gondola characteristics are assessed in this study and a concept is recommended, the Gondola for High-Altitude Planetary Science (GHAPS). This first generation platform is designed around a 1 m or larger aperture, narrow-field telescope with pointing accuracies better than one arc-second. A classical Cassegrain, or variant like Ritchey-Chretien, telescope is recommended for the primary telescope. The gondola should be designed for multiple flights so it must be robust and readily processed at recovery. It must be light-weighted to the extent possible to allow for long-duration flights on super-pressure balloons. Demonstration Flights: Recent demonstration flights achieved several significant accomplishments that can feed forward to a GHAPS gondola project. Science results included the first ever Earth-based measurements for CO2 in a comet, first measurements for CO2 and H2O in an Oort cloud comet, and the first measurement of 1 Ceres at 2.73 m to refine the shape of the infrared water absorption feature. The performance of the Fine Steering Mirror (FSM) was also demonstrated. The BOPPS platform can continue to be leveraged on future flights even as GHAPS is being developed. The study affirms the planetary decadal recommendations, and shows that a number of Top Priority science questions can be achieved. A combination GHAPS and BOPPS would provide the best value for PSD for realizing that science.
Dankanich, John W.↗
Summary of the Science performed onboard the International Space Station during Increments 12 and 13
By September of 2007, continuous human presence on the International Space Station will reach a milestone of eighty months. The many astronauts and cosmonauts, who live onboard the station during the last fourteen Increments over that time span, spend their time building the station as well as performing science on a daily basis. Over those eighty months, the U.S astronauts crew members logged over 2954 hours of research time. Far more research time has been accumulated by experiments controlled by investigators on the ground. The U.S astronauts conducted over one hundred and twenty six (126) science investigations. From these hundred and twenty six science investigations, many were operated across multiple Increments. The crew also installed, activated and operated nine (9) science racks that supported six science disciplines ranging from material sciences to life science. By the end of Increment 14, a total of 5083 kg of research rack mass were ferried to the station as well as 5021 kg of research mass. The objectives of this paper are three-fold. (1) To briefly review the science conducted on the International Space Station during the previous eleven Increments; (2) to discuss in detail the science investigations that were conducted on the station during Increments 12 and 13. The discussion will focus mainly on the primary objectives of each investigation and their associated hypotheses that were investigated during these two Increments. Also, some preliminary science results will be discussed for each of the investigation as science results availability permit. (3) The paper will briefly touch on what the science complement planning was and what was actually accomplished due to real time science implementation and challenges during these two Increments in question to illustrate the challenges of daily science activity while the science platform is under construction. Finally, the paper will briefly discuss the science research complements for the other two Increments, Increments 14 and 15, to preview how much science might be accomplished during these two Increments.
Jules, Kenol↗
Advancing Open Science in Atmospheric Research: Integrating Data Usability and Machine Learning
In the dynamic realm of atmospheric sciences, the convergence of data science methodologies and open data marks a transformative era, driving research advancements and nurturing aspiring scientists. This abstract highlights two pivotal projects that epitomize open science principles, aligning seamlessly with the session's objective of interdisciplinary synergy and the cultivation of emerging talent. As a NASA-certified data center, our foremost endeavor focuses on enhancing the visibility and traceability of NASA datasets within atmospheric science research. This initiative not only elevates these datasets' prominence but also establishes a robust framework ensuring their credibility in scholarly discourse. By bridging the gap between data sources and research publications, this project serves as an educational catalyst, nurturing a new generation of scholars in open collaboration and dataset authenticity. Concurrently, our second project pioneers an early warning system for flooding events, utilizing machine learning algorithms to predict flooded fractions. Through multi-source data fusion and predictive modeling, this initiative goes beyond forecasting; it embodies the core of open science by enabling proactive risk mitigation strategies. This project not only advances atmospheric sciences but also fosters an environment where young scholars engage in practical, data-driven solutions. These intertwined projects exemplify the fusion of data science with open data solutions, ensuring both the usability of quality datasets and the cultivation of scientific knowledge among emerging scholars. By spotlighting these impactful use cases, our aim is to foster discussions emphasizing the importance of open collaboration, data integrity, and the nurturing of scientific talent in atmospheric sciences." "In the dynamic realm of atmospheric sciences, the convergence of data science methodologies and open data marks a transformative era, driving research advancements and nurturing aspiring scientists. This abstract highlights two pivotal projects that epitomize open science principles, aligning seamlessly with the session's objective of interdisciplinary synergy and the cultivation of emerging talent. As a NASA-certified data center, our foremost endeavor focuses on enhancing the visibility and traceability of NASA datasets within atmospheric science research. This initiative not only elevates these datasets' prominence but also establishes a robust framework ensuring their credibility in scholarly discourse. By bridging the gap between data sources and research publications, this project serves as an educational catalyst, nurturing a new generation of scholars in open collaboration and dataset authenticity. Concurrently, our second project pioneers an early warning system for flooding events, utilizing machine learning algorithms to predict flooded fractions. Through multi-source data fusion and predictive modeling, this initiative goes beyond forecasting; it embodies the core of open science by enabling proactive risk mitigation strategies. This project not only advances atmospheric sciences but also fosters an environment where young scholars engage in practical, data-driven solutions. These intertwined projects exemplify the fusion of data science with open data solutions, ensuring both the usability of quality datasets and the cultivation of scientific knowledge among emerging scholars. By spotlighting these impactful use cases, our aim is to foster discussions emphasizing the importance of open collaboration, data integrity, and the nurturing of scientific talent in atmospheric sciences.
Jennifer Wei↗
Real-Time Science Decisioning During High Tempo-High Intensity Mission Operations and the Role of Analogs
Introduction: NASA’s VIPER mission presents a unique operational paradigm within the history of robotic spaceflight. The proximity of the Moon to the Earth and the terrain elements (surface characteristics, light/shadow dynamics, communication links) of the lunar South Polar landing site create unprecedented operational conditions between these two planetary bodies. Apollo era lunar science and exploration included humans in situ to operate instruments and assimilate observational inputs in real-time. Previous lunar orbital missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges, that were weeks in length. Mars rover missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges between Mars and Earth, that were hours, days, and weeks in length. In the case of the VIPER mission, our operational decisioning for rover driving and instrument commanding will be compressed to minute-scale timeframes. These operational conditions directly impact the manner and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) is required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations. The VST shall provide mission enhancing scientific input to guide rover traverse planning and drill site confirmation and selection throughout surface operations. Further, the VST input will be of vital importance to the mission’s ability to maximize science return and to meet broader NASA objectives for future lunar in-situ resource utilization (ISRU)and exploration activities. The VST co-located in the Mission Science Center (MSC) will be responsive to the tactical operational cadence of the Mission Operations Center (MOC) and will provide further strategic and Long-Term Planning (LTP) guidance to the mission. The VIPER Science Operations & Integration(SO&I)team has developed an architecture that is focused on the infusion of science-decisioning into the operational framework and execution cadence of VIPER. NASA analog research has played a significant role in the construction of the VIPER science operations systems. As an example, the SO&I team has led analog missions that have focused on bringing together expertise in the sciences (natural, applied and social) and in operations in service of learning how to build and hold together interdisciplinary work environments and what tools are needed to support high tempo, high intensity integrated decisioning. These experiences have provided an essential foundation of knowledge to the VIPER team. Those analogs that specifically influenced the VIPER science operations construct were identified through a process of comparative analysis to prioritize those that offered relevance in whole or in part, and those that did not. The analog research output that provided extensibility to the VIPER science operations architecture included remote teams of humans and robots in cooperation (synchronous and asynchronous) with simulated earthbound systems, engineering and science teams, and the integrated assembly of tools that supported scientific analysis and data synthesis and provided infrastructure for the remote testing framework. Analogs which included real-time data monitoring, synthesis, visualization and access in a democratized and operationalized manner were of particular interest to the development of the VIPER MSC toolset both in terms of the technology and the processes used to develop the supporting infrastructure. We anticipate that each subsequent mission to the lunar south pole, whether with robots or humans, will be able to optimize science and exploration return by evolving strategies to infuse real-time collaborative science-decisioning. Furthermore, these efforts will result in a foundation for science operations development in support of human-robotic exploration of deep space and Mars. NASA analogs can continue to provide the opportunity to prepare, test and iterate on the operational concepts and tools that will support these ever-expanding space exploration efforts. Our presentation will include an overview of the VIPER Science Operations & Integration development process and specifics on what aspects of analog research have had a significant impact on our work systems.
D S S Lim↗
Balancing Predictive and Reactive Science Planning for Mars 2020 Perseverance
The design of the science planning process for a space science mission needs to find a balance between operational and resource constraints and scientific decision-making. Science planning has previously been characterized as either predictive or reactive. Predictive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned far in advance. For example, a combination of long one-way light time plus high-stakes science decisions drove the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn to have an extremely predictive planning process. On the other extreme, reactive science planning is needed when constraints drive science activities to be planned based on the results of the previous plan. For example, the Mars Exploration Rover mission interacted with the surface of Mars, and so the planning team needed to know the state of the rover at the end of each planning cycle before starting the next cycle. Operational and resource constraints that require management on intermediate timescales has led to the development of a science planning process between these two extremes. For example, the Mars Science Laboratory is a technically complex rover and has a parallel predictive process that allows the operations team to manage engineering constraints several days in advance while maintaining the reactive tactical planning process similar to that of MER. The Mars 2020 Perseverance rover is a technically complex rover in the MSL style, but has an added layer of science complexity: it is tasked with collecting a returnable cache of scientifically valuable samples of Mars within prime mission. Thus, the science planning process also needs to accommodate high-stakes longer-term science decisions in the style of Cassini. In order to balance the push-pull of these constraints, we have developed a science campaign-focused operational paradigm for Mars 2020 Perseverance that allows for both predictive planning to accommodate technological complexity and high-stakes science decisions as well as reactive planning to accommodate the realities of interacting with the martian surface. This paradigm influenced the design of operational processes and operational tools.
Spanovich, Nicole↗
Cassini science planning process
The mission design for Cassini-Huygens calls for a four-year orbital survey of the Saturnian system and the descent into the Titan atmosphere and eventual soft-landing of the Huygens probe. The Cassini orbiter tour consists of 76 orbits around Saturn with 44 close Titan flybys and 8 targeted icy satellite flybys. The Cassini orbiter spacecraft carries twelve scientific instruments that will perform a wide range of observations on a multitude of designated targets. The science opportunities, frequency of encounters, the length of the Tour, and the use of distributed operations pose significant challenges for developing the science plan for the orbiter mission. The Cassini Science Planning Process is the process used to develop and integrate the science and engineering plan that incorporates an acceptable level of science required to meet the primary mission objectives far the orbiter. The bulk of the integrated science and engineering plan will be developed prior to Saturn Orbit Insertion (Sol). The Science Planning Process consists of three elements: 1) the creation of the Tour Atlas, which identifies the science opportunities in the tour, 2) the development of the Science Operations Plan (SOP), which is the conflict-free timeline of all science observations and engineering activities, a constraint-checked spacecraft pointing profile, and data volume allocations to the science instruments, and 3) an Aftermarket and SOP Update process, which is used to update the SOP while in tour with the latest information on spacecraft performance, science opportunities, and ephemerides. This paper will discuss the various elements of the Science Planning Process used on the Cassini Mission to integrate, implement, and adapt the science and engineering activity plans for Tour.
Cassini↗
Planetary Science with Balloon-Borne Telescopes
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the planetary science community have recently been exploring the potential contributions of stratospheric balloons to the planetary science field. A study that was recently concluded explored the roughly 200 or so science questions raised in the Planetary Decadal Survey report and found that about 45 of those questions are suited to stratospheric balloon based observations. In September of 2014, a stratospheric balloon mission called BOPPS (which stands for Balloon Observation Platform for Planetary Science) was flown out of Fort Sumner, New Mexico. The mission had two main objectives, first, to observe a number of planetary targets including one or more Oort cloud comets and second, to demonstrate the applicability and performance of the platform, instruments, and subsystems for making scientific measurements in support planetary science objectives. BOPPS carried two science instruments, BIRC and UVVis. BIRC is a cryogenic infrared multispectral imager which can image in the.6-5 m range using an HgCdTe detector. Narrow band filters were used to allow detection of water and CO2 emission features of the observed targets. The UVVis is an imager with the science range of 300 to 600 nm. A main feature of the UVVis instrument is the incorporation of a guide camera and a Fine Steering Mirror (FSM) system to reduce image jitter to less than 100 milliarcseconds. The BIRC instrument was used to image targets including Oort cloud comets Siding Spring and Jacques, and the dwarf planet 1 Ceres. BOPPS achieved the first ever earth based CO2 observation of a comet and the first images of water and CO2 of an Oort cloud comet (Jacques). It also made the first ever measurement of 1Ceres at 2.73 m to refine the shape of the infrared water absorption feature on that body. The UVVis instrument, mounted on its own optics bench, demonstrated the capability for image correction both from atmospheric disturbances as well as some of the residual motion from the gondola that was not addressed by the gondolas coarse pointing systems. The mission met its primary science and engineering objectives. The results of the BOPPS mission will feed into the body of science knowledge but also feed into future planning for more science from balloon-borne platforms. A notional platform called Gondola for High-Altitude Planetary Science (GHAPS) has been explored and this concept platform can address a number of important decadal questions. This paper provides a summary of the assessment of potential balloon borne observations for planetary science purposes including where potential science contributions can be expected, the necessary performance characteristics of the platform, and other features required or desired. The BOPPS mission is summarized including descriptions of the main elements and key science and engineering results. The paper then briefly describes GHAPS, and the salient features that can make it a valuable tool for future planetary observations.
Telescope↗
Earth Science Data Analytics: Preparing for Extracting Knowledge from Information
Data analytics is the process of examining large amounts of data of a variety of types to uncover hidden patterns, unknown correlations and other useful information. Data analytics is a broad term that includes data analysis, as well as an understanding of the cognitive processes an analyst uses to understand problems and explore data in meaningful ways. Analytics also include data extraction, transformation, and reduction, utilizing specific tools, techniques, and methods. Turning to data science, definitions of data science sound very similar to those of data analytics (which leads to a lot of the confusion between the two). But the skills needed for both, co-analyzing large amounts of heterogeneous data, understanding and utilizing relevant tools and techniques, and subject matter expertise, although similar, serve different purposes. Data Analytics takes on a practitioners approach to applying expertise and skills to solve issues and gain subject knowledge. Data Science, is more theoretical (research in itself) in nature, providing strategic actionable insights and new innovative methodologies. Earth Science Data Analytics (ESDA) is the process of examining, preparing, reducing, and analyzing large amounts of spatial (multi-dimensional), temporal, or spectral data using a variety of data types to uncover patterns, correlations and other information, to better understand our Earth. The large variety of datasets (temporal spatial differences, data types, formats, etc.) invite the need for data analytics skills that understand the science domain, and data preparation, reduction, and analysis techniques, from a practitioners point of view. The application of these skills to ESDA is the focus of this presentation. The Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) Federation Earth Science Data Analytics (ESDA) Cluster was created in recognition of the practical need to facilitate the co-analysis of large amounts of data and information for Earth science. Thus, from a to advance science point of view: On the continuum of ever evolving data management systems, we need to understand and develop ways that allow for the variety of data relationships to be examined, and information to be manipulated, such that knowledge can be enhanced, to facilitate science. Recognizing the importance and potential impacts of the unlimited ways to co-analyze heterogeneous datasets, now and especially in the future, one of the objectives of the ESDA cluster is to facilitate the preparation of individuals to understand and apply needed skills to Earth science data analytics. Pinpointing and communicating the needed skills and expertise is new, and not easy. Information technology is just beginning to provide the tools for advancing the analysis of heterogeneous datasets in a big way, thus, providing opportunity to discover unobvious scientific relationships, previously invisible to the science eye. And it is not easy It takes individuals, or teams of individuals, with just the right combination of skills to understand the data and develop the methods to glean knowledge out of data and information. In addition, whereas definitions of data science and big data are (more or less) available (summarized in Reference 5), Earth science data analytics is virtually ignored in the literature, (barring a few excellent sources).
data analytics↗
Teaching planetary sciences to elementary school teachers: Programs that work
Planetary sciences can be used to introduce students to the natural world which is a part of their lives. Even children in an urban environment are aware of such phenomena as day and night, shadows, and the seasons. It is a science that transcends cultures, has been prominent in the news in recent years, and can generate excitement in young minds as no other science can. Planetary sciences also provides a useful tool for understanding other sciences and mathematics, and for developing problem solving skills which are important in our technological world. However, only 15 percent of elementary school teachers feel very well qualified to teach earth/space science, while better than 80 percent feel well qualified to teach reading; many teachers avoid teaching science; very little time is actually spent teaching science in the elementary school: 19 minutes per day in K-3 and 38 minutes per day in 4-6. While very little science is taught in elementary and middle school, earth/space science is taught at the elementary level in less than half of the states. It was pointed out that science is not generally given high priority by either teachers or school districts, and is certainly not considered on a par with language arts and mathematics. Therefore, in order to teach science to our youth, we must empower our teachers, making them familiar and comfortable with existing materials. In our earlier workshops, several of our teachers taught in classrooms where the majority of the students were Hispanic (over 90 percent). However, few space sciences materials existed in Spanish. Therefore, most of our materials could not be used effectively in the classroom. To address this issue, NASA materials were translated into Spanish and a series of workshops for bilingual classroom teachers from Tucson and surrounding cities was conducted. Our space sciences workshops and our bilingual classroom workshops and how they address the needs of elementary school teachers in Arizona are addressed in detail.
Lebofsky, Larry A.↗
SIRTF Science Operations System Design
SIRTF Science Operations System Design William B. Green Manager, SIRTF Science Center California Institute of Technology M/S 310-6 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125 (626) 395 8572 Fax (626) 568 0673 bgreen@ipac.caltech.edu. The Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) will be launched in December 2001, and perform an extended series of science observations at wavelengths ranging from 20 to 160 microns for five years or more. The California Institute of Technology has been selected as the home for the SIRTF Science Center (SSC). The SSC will be responsible for evaluating and selecting observation proposals, providing technical support to the science community, performing mission planning and science observation scheduling activities, instrument calibration during operations and instrument health monitoring, production of archival quality data products, and management of science research grants. The science payload consists of three instruments delivered by instrument Principal Investigators located at University of Arizona, Cornell, and Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. The SSC is responsible for design, development, and operation of the Science Operations System (SOS) which will support the functions assigned to the SSC by NASA. The SIRTF spacecraft, mission profile, and science instrument design have undergone almost ten years of refinement. SIRTF development and operations activities are highly cost constrained. The cost constraints have impacted the design of the SOS in several ways. The Science Operations System has been designed to incorporate a set of efficient, easy to use tools which will make it possible for scientists to propose observation sequences in a rapid and automated manner. The use of highly automated tools for requesting observations will simplify the long range observatory scheduling process, and the short term scheduling of science observations. Pipeline data processing will be highly automated and data-driven, utilizing a variety of tools developed at JPL, the instrument development teams, and Space Telescope Science Institute to automate processing. An incremental ground data system development approach has been adopted, featuring periodic deliveries that are validated with the flight hardware throughout the various phases of system level development and testing. This approach minimizes development time and decreases operations risk. This paper will describe the top level architecture of the SOS and the basic design concepts. A summary of the incremental development approach will be presented. Examples of the unique science user tools now under final development prior to the first proposal call scheduled for mid-2000 will be shown.
Green, William↗
Remote Science at Sea With Remotely Operated Vehicles
Conducting sea-going ocean science no longer needs to be limited to the number of berths on a ship given that telecommunications, computing, and networking technologies onboard ships have become familiar mechanisms for expanding scientists’ reach from onshore. The oceanographic community routinely works with remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and pilots to access real-time video and data from the deep sea, while onboard a ship. The extension of using an ROV and its host vessel’s live-streaming capabilities has been popularized for almost 3 decades as a telepresence technology. Telepresence-enabled vessels with ROVs have been employed for science, education, and outreach, giving a greater number of communities viewing access to ocean science. However, the slower development of technologies and social processes enabling sustained real-time involvement between scientists on-ship and onshore undermines the potential for broader access, which limits the possibility of increasing inclusivity and discoveries through a diversity of knowledge and capabilities. This article reviews ocean scientists’ use of telepresence for ROV-based deep-sea research and funded studies of telepresence capabilities. The authors summarize these studies findings and conditions that lead to defining the use of telepresence-enabled vessels for “remote science at sea.” Authors define remote science at sea as a type of ocean expedition, an additional capability, not a replacement for all practices by which scientists conduct ocean research. Remote science for ocean research is an expedition at-sea directed by a distributed science team working together from at least two locations (on-ship and onshore) to complete their science objectives for which primary data is acquired by robotic technologies, with connectivity supported by a high-bandwidth satellite and the telepresence-enabled ship’s technologies to support the science team actively engaged before, during, and after dives across worksites. The growth of productive ocean expeditions with remote science is met with social, technical, and logistical challenges that impede the ability of remote scientists to succeed. In this article, authors review telepresence-enabled ocean science, define and situate the adjoined model of remote science at sea, and some infrastructural, technological and social considerations for conducting and further developing remote science at sea.
marine technology↗
Science Capabilities of the Common Habitat
The Common Habitat is the primary habitable element in a conceptual architecture feasibility study for long-duration space exploration with an eight-person crew size. On lunar or planetary surfaces, the Common Habitat forms the core of a Surface Base Camp. In microgravity, the Common Habitat is the core of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle (DSEV), an in-space transportation spacecraft. The Common Habitat employs a horizontal orientation that is divided internally into a lower deck, mid deck, and upper deck, roughly separating outfitting into individual, work, and group functions. On a planetary surface, the habitat is incorporated into a base camp, located near the south pole in the case of the Moon. The Mars base camp is currently location agnostic. Each base camp is divided into habitation, landing, resource production, and power zones. In microgravity, the habitat is incorporated into the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle, a vessel capable of transporting the crew within the inner solar system. In addition to crew and teleoperated control of external science assets, the Common Habitat employs a suite of life and physical science laboratory systems to enable it to support science investigations across a variety of destination environments, primarily featuring the Moon and Mars, along with the intervening interplanetary space. Other potential destinations include Near Earth Asteroids and Venus and Earth orbits. Located in the aft starboard section of the Common Habitat mid deck, the life science laboratory supports primarily biology and human research. In its baseline configuration, the laboratory includes horizontal work surfaces, freezers, multiple gloveboxes, sample transfer/exposure capability, large instruments, and reconfigurable ISPR-compatible payload bays. The Medical Care Facility and exercise facility can also support life science research. In the aft port section of the mid deck, the physical science laboratory supports physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, and remote sensing (including astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and meteorology). It provides a baseline of similar ISPR-compatible payload bays and adds additional freezers, including those for cryogenic sample storage, a remote sensing workstation, more gloveboxes, also with sample transfer/exposure, combustion chambers, fluid mechanics chambers, and a gas chromatograph. It leverages the Command & Control Center for teleoperations of mobile science assets. Both laboratories are highly modular, with the ability to swap out both payloads and instruments on an as-needed basis. The integrated science outfitting of the Common Habitat positions its crew to contribute to all of NASA’s Moon to Mars science objectives and extend human understanding into the inner solar system.
Lunar Suface↗
Human Mars Surface Science Operations
Human missions to the surface of Mars will have challenging science operations. This paper will explore some of those challenges, based on science operations considerations as part of more general operational concepts being developed by NASA's Human Spaceflight Architecture (HAT) Mars Destination Operations Team (DOT). The HAT Mars DOT has been developing comprehensive surface operations concepts with an initial emphasis on a multi-phased mission that includes a 500-day surface stay. This paper will address crew science activities, operational details and potential architectural and system implications in the areas of (a) traverse planning and execution, (b) sample acquisition and sample handling, (c) in-situ science analysis, and (d) planetary protection. Three cross-cutting themes will also be explored in this paper: (a) contamination control, (b) low-latency telerobotic science, and (c) crew autonomy. The present traverses under consideration are based on the report, Planning for the Scientific Exploration of Mars by Humans1, by the Mars Exploration Planning and Analysis Group (MEPAG) Human Exploration of Mars-Science Analysis Group (HEM-SAG). The traverses are ambitious and the role of science in those traverses is a key component that will be discussed in this paper. The process of obtaining, handling, and analyzing samples will be an important part of ensuring acceptable science return. Meeting planetary protection protocols will be a key challenge and this paper will explore operational strategies and system designs to meet the challenges of planetary protection, particularly with respect to the exploration of "special regions." A significant challenge for Mars surface science operations with crew is preserving science sample integrity in what will likely be an uncertain environment. Crewed mission surface assets -- such as habitats, spacesuits, and pressurized rovers -- could be a significant source of contamination due to venting, out-gassing and cleanliness levels associated with crew presence. Low-latency telerobotic science operations has the potential to address a number of contamination control and planetary protection issues and will be explored in this paper. Crew autonomy is another key cross-cutting challenge regarding Mars surface science operations, because the communications delay between earth and Mars could as high as 20 minutes one way, likely requiring the crew to perform many science tasks without direct timely intervention from ground support on earth. Striking the operational balance between crew autonomy and earth support will be a key challenge that this paper will address.
Bobskill, Marianne R.↗