SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “timeline”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: Artemis astronauts will be required to complete more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedules than during ever before. While new spacesuits are designed to sustain high physical workloads during exploration EVAs (xEVA), crewmembers must also sustain cognitive performance throughout xEVA timelines. It is therefore necessary to characterize the effects of surface xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue. Methods: This study utilized NASA Johnson Space Center’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate lunar gravity and assess xEVA tasks and cognitive performance. Two subjects completed two ~5-hour EVAs in a pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverses. Subjects completed two cognitive assessments (Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT)) before the first and after the second simulated EVA to assess effects of xEVA tasks on processing speed and vigilant attention. Additionally, sleep (e.g., quality, duration, and efficiency) was monitored (Oura Ring) for ≥7 days prior to the simulated EVAs, as well as between each EVA, to account for possible effects of sleep decrements on cognitive metrics. Results: Cognitive performance changed minimally from pre to post EVA for both DSST (response time (RT): S1 Δ129.1ms, S2 Δ40.7ms; Accuracy: S1 preEVA = 1.0, S1 postEVA = 0.98, S2 preEVA = 1.0, S2 postEVA = 1.0) and PVT (S1 PVT RT Δ17.7 ms, S2 PVT RT Δ-2.7 ms). Subjects’ sleep duration immediately prior to EVA showed minimal deviation from baseline (Δhrs; S1 preEVA1= + 0.67, S1 preEVA2 = -.03, S2 preEVA1 = - 1.1, S2 preEVA2 = -1.39) and efficiency (Δ%; S1 preEVA1 = 0.09, S1 preEVA2 = 9.54, S2 preEVA1 = 0, S2 preEVA2= 12). Notably, sleep waketime shifted earlier for one subject by ~1 hr which may have impacted performance. Conclusion: Understanding the impacts of xEVA workloads on cognitive performance will be instrumental to future exploration mission planning and success. Future work will expand the subject pool and test new spacesuit designs to better characterize cognitive performance and impacts of sleep during simulated xEVA and inform modeling and prediction capabilities for future Artemis xEVA planning.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy through Self-Scheduling: Guidelines for Crew Scheduling Performance Envelope and Mitigation Strategies

Future long duration exploration missions (LDEMs) bring new challenges to astronaut crews in deep space, one of which is increased communication latencies with ground stations. As a result, crews will have to behave more autonomously by self-scheduling their own operational timelines in an efficient and effective manner. To support crew autonomy, our team has spent the last few years developing Playbook, a mission planning and scheduling tool. Our research focuses on investigating scheduling performance using Playbook to inform the deployment of novel aids that streamline the timeline creation process and proposing relevant standards and guidelines for autonomous crews in LDEMs. Summarizing yearly progress of research analysis and experiment in HERA.

user experience↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗

NASA NTRS2022

Metrics for Flight Operations: Application to Europa Clipper Tour Selection

Objective measures are ubiquitous in the formulation, design and implementation of deep space missions. Tour durations, flyby altitudes, propellant budgets, power consumption, and other metrics are essential to developing and managing NASA missions. But beyond the simple metrics of cost and workforce, it has been difficult to identify objective, quantitative measures that assist in evaluating choices made during formulation or implementation phases in terms of their impact on flight operations. As part of the development of the Europa Clipper Mission system, a set of operations metrics have been defined along with the necessary design information and software tooling to calculate them. We have applied these methods and metrics to help assess the impact to the flight team on the six options for the Clipper Tour that are currently being vetted for selection in the fall of 2021. To generate these metrics, the Clipper MOS team first designed the set of essential processes by which flight operations will be conducted, using a standard approach and template to identify (among other aspects) timelines for each process, along with their time constraints (e.g., uplinks for sequence execution). Each of the resulting 50 processes is documented in a common format and concurred by stakeholders. Process timelines were converted into generic schedules and workforce-loaded using COTS scheduling software, based on the inputs of the process authors and domain experts. Custom code was generated to create an operations schedule for a specific portion of Clipper's prime mission, with instances of a given process scheduled based on specific timing rules (e.g., process X starts once per week on Thursdays) or relative to mission events (e.g., sequence generation process begins on a Monday, at least three weeks before each Europa closest approach). Over a 5-month period, and for each of six Clipper candidate tours, the result was a 20,000+ line, workforce-loaded schedule that documents all of the process-driven work effort at the level of individual roles, along with a significant portion of the level-of-effort work. Post-processing code calculated the absolute and relative number of work hours during a nominal 5 day / 40 hour work week, the work effort during 2nd and 3rd shift, as well as 1st shift on weekends. The resultant schedules and shift tables were used to generate objective measures that can be related to both human factors and to operational risk and showed that Clipper tours which utilize 6:1 resonant (21.25 day) orbits instead of 4:1 resonant (14.17 day) orbits during the first dozen or so Europa flybys are advantageous to flight operations. A similar approach can be extended to assist missions in more objective assessments of a number of mission issues and trades, including tour selection and spacecraft design for operability.

Sarrel, Marc↗

NASA NTRS2022

Mission Planning for Trident: Discovery proposal to Neptune’s moon, Triton

Trident was one of the four Discovery-class Step-1 mission proposals selected by NASA in 2020 for further development and study; however, in 2021, the Step-2 proposal was not down-selected to transition into the next phase of mission development, i.e., a mission for flight.Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, was the primary focus of study for Trident. Triton’s physical and orbital characteristics make it a unique planetary target for scientific exploration, providing opportunities for investigations in a wide variety of scientific fields, including geomorphological, atmospheric, geophysical, magnetospheric, and ionospheric studies. The science objectives of the Trident mission encompassed an in-depth interior-to-exterior set of objectives, focused on multiple outstanding questions resulting from the 1989 encounter of Voyager 2, and subsequent analysis.Ball Aerospace Corp. was tasked with building the Trident spacecraft, with JPL responsible for providing Engineering Support (Mission Design & Navigation, Mission Planning, Flight Operations, Ground Data Systems, Systems Engineering) and leading Project Management. The observatory would carry a wide-ranging suite of scientific instruments onboard, including an Infrared Spectrometer (IRS) and Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) to be provided by Ball Aerospace Corp., a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) from JPL, a Magnetometer from UCLA, a contributed Plasma Science Suite from IRF (Sweden), and a contributed Radio Science instrument from ASI (Italy). All of these instruments would be used to collect unique datasets during the Triton encounter. Trident would have taken advantage of an ~13-yr, nearly-ballistic trajectory to Triton, utilizing a timely Jupiter Gravity Assist, to execute a 10-day long encounter in the Neptunian system. Launch was planned for October 2025, with Triton arrival scheduled for December 2038. The timeline for this mission would have been sub-divided into seven major phases: Launch, Commissioning, Inner Planet Cruise, Outer Planet Cruise, Approach, Encounter, and Science Data Return. Multiple planetary flybys were planned to be performed during the cruise, including three Earth flybys and one Venus flyby in the Inner Planet Cruise phase, and one Jupiter flyby in the Outer Planet Cruise phase. Along with conventional (Range and Doppler) tracking data, Delta-DOR and Optical Navigation data were also to be acquired to assist with spacecraft navigation during the Approach and Encounter phases. A 3 meter X-Band High Gain Antenna would allow playback of all science data at 1 kbps within 1 year after the Triton Encounter. The Mission Planning element on Trident encompassed and informed multiple aspects of this proposal, ranging from science observation planning during the Triton Encounter phase, to generation of activity timelines for all mission phases; performing ground coverage analysis for science observations to be acquired by all instruments and tracing them to science requirements; evaluation of spacecraft resources including data volume stored onboard, power/energy consumption, telecom (commanding/telemetry) requirements, and overall, working at the interface of science and engineering teams on the mission. All of these functions that were performed by the Mission Planning team on this proposal are discussed in this paper.

Prockter, Louise↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Autonomy for Enabling Deep Space Exploration

The Gateway spacecraft is an important stepping-stone to exploration of the solar system, integrating commercial and international partners into a tightly coupled system, enabling cislunar activities, and implementing key technologies for missions to Mars. Autonomy is a capability area necessary to handle long communication outages where intervention from Earth is impossible, to prepare to operate with long communication delays that will be common in interplanetary travel, and to make spaceflight more affordable and accessible by reducing sustaining operations costs. The Gateway Concept of Operations states that one of Gateway’s goals is to “focus on infrastructure and systems that will allow autonomous operations aboard the Gateway with robotics, automated systems, advanced communications, and distributed computing.” Gateway’s Vehicle Systems Manager (VSM) and associated Autonomous Spacecraft Management Architecture (ASMA) are key products towards delivering autonomous capability. The primary functions of the control architecture are Mission Management and Timeline Execution, Resource Management, Fault Management, and Vehicle Control and Operation (VCO). In each of these areas, there is an initial level of capability to be delivered at launch, with plans to continue development and grow to greater capability. The initial deployment of VSM will focus on maintaining vehicle safety by focusing on full fault management capabilities and deploying only enough resource and timeline planning functionality to support that. The final deployment of VSM will add significant planning and control optimization functionality to support nominal operations for up to 21 days without ground support, even accommodating fault and failure conditions. While the VSM is the vehicle-level representation of autonomous reasoning, distributed automation is essential to provide the right scope and abstraction of information to process. Module and system support of automation and simplicity of interfaces are two important design paradigms that Gateway is focusing on to garner a systems approach to autonomy. Distribution of reasoning can increase complexity, so Gateway is also taking a strict hierarchical approach to information flow and decision making. VSM is not the only capability necessary to achieve an autonomous spacecraft. Robotics support for maintenance of the spacecraft will be essential to provide continued vehicle functionality even when crew is not present. Technical and programmatic challenges exist when implementing autonomous robotics operations. These challenges include sufficient network flexibility to support data transfer to the rest of the vehicle to coordinate module-to-module robotic walk-offs and finding the proper interfaces to allow sufficient dexterity. Communication system upgrades planned for Gateway include Delay Tolerant Networking to best utilize the complex network of relays that will be part of mature cislunar operations. Distributed computing and management will provide failure tolerance, robustness, and growth of capabilities while still allowing significant reuse of heritage software on heritage systems as well as reuse of common applications across a spacecraft to minimize new development, but this requires adherence to key standards and interfaces. The Gateway program has demonstrated significant progress towards these capabilities and has identified challenges other spacecraft developers should be aware of from the start.

Molly Anderson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Human Research Program Grant Lifecycle & Data Integration Schedule: Infographic

The Human Research Program (HRP) Grant Lifecycle process can be described using information from several government authoritative sources with overlapping generalizations. It is the responsibility of the HRP Program Planning & Control (PP&C) Office and the Data Management Integration Office (DMIO)to interpret this information into a cohesive process that can be communicated to the human research organization. PP&C and DMIO have been exploring training opportunities to facilitate understanding through the form of infographics. This communication tool combines eye-catching visuals and text making complex information and data more digestible and shareable. The infographic poster tells a short story about a federally awarded grant and is intended to help both the new and experienced HRP workforce understand the timeline for a research procurement and where their specific tasks fall within the 4 phases of the grant lifecycle. The Pre-Award, Award, Post-Award, and Closeout phases are overlayed with business swimlanes so HRP stakeholders can see where they fit into the timeline rather than working in an isolated part. This includes the Chief Scientist Office (CSO), PP&C, the Data Management Integration Office (DMIO), the Principal Investigator (PI), the Element stakeholders, the LSDA Archivists, and the Research & Operations Integration (ROI) team along with the stakeholders in the Human Health and Performance Directorate. Additionally, the poster introduces (1) the HRP Data Integration Schedule identified in the HRP Data Management Plan HRP-48047, Table 8-2 and (2) a Smartsheet Solution to automate the grants tracking business process. Emphasis is given to the Data Integration Schedule which is the basis for the milestone tasks that are to be completed during the Post-Award phase in the grant lifecycle. The poster is also an opportunity to present the Smartsheet Solution, a software collaboration and work management tool used to assign tasks and track project progress. This PP&C FY24 effort will facilitate an end-to-end solution to track grants and provide insight to the health of HRP grant research procurements using metrics, reports, and dashboards.

J Peace↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Autonomy for Enabling Deep Space Exploration

Molly Anderson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Viper Science Operations: Lunar Dynamic Science Table and ‘Tracker’ Tool.

Introduction: The NASA VIPER lunar rover mission [1] 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 duration. 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 will directly impact the workflow and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) will be required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations [2]. The VST in the VIPER Mission Science Center (MSC) and the Mission Operations Center (MOC) shall provide mission-enhancing scientific input to guide traverse planning and drill site confirmation/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 ISRU and exploration activities. Specifically, the VST in the MSC and MOC will provide science-driven, consensus-based, timely input and decision-making to enhance mission operations and align mission science return with broader Agency goals. They will enable the characterization of the distribution (lateral and vertical extent, concentration, variability), form (chemical/physical state of these reservoirs of lunar water and key isotopes), and context (e.g., accessibility/overburden, environment, soil mechanics, trafficability, and temperatures) of lunar polar volatiles and water content for the VIPER mission. Additionally, the MSC will be selecting or reconfirming the location and path towards and from the third drill site (Drill Site Charlie) within each Science Station [6]. To enable scientific decision-making within the operational paradigm of the VIPER lunar rover mission requires detailed articulation of the VST’s scientific objectives and goals, and the operationalization of these objectives and goals through their association with specific data products, tasks, and decisional procedures. Further, defining and tracking scientific success metrics throughout surface operations will enable the VST to have a quantified understanding of the mission’s evolving ability to accomplish the stated scientific objectives and goals both during and after the mission. This abstract provides an overview of the methods and development activities towards defining, operationalizing, and tracking scientific objectives and goals throughout VIPER surface operations. Specifically, we focus on the VIPER Lunar Dynamic Science Table (LDST) and the VIPER “Tracker” tool.

Darlene Sze Shien Lim↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy Through Self-Scheduling: Guidelines for Crew Scheduling Performance Envelope and Mitigation Strategies

NASA’s future long duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will encounter increasing communication transmission delays as they move farther from Earth-based ground stations. Because crews can no longer rely on real-time support from ground planners, they will have to self-schedule their own operational timelines effectively and efficiently. To enable this, our team develops Playbook, a mission planning and scheduling tool. Our research focuses on quantifying scheduling performance using Playbook to inform the design and development of future features aimed at streamlining timeline creation. We also aim to propose standards and guidelines for autonomous crews in LDEMs. This year, we discuss preliminary results from HERA Campaign 6.

self-scheduling↗

NASA NTRS2024

An Integrated Architecture Study for Autonomous Lunar Construction

Lunar construction is an expanding field within NASA’s Moon to Mars objectives that presents many challenges and requires innovative and reliable forms of autonomous operations on the surface of the Moon to further the technologies needed for human space exploration. Marshal Space Flight Center’s (MSFC) Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) addressed Lunar Infrastructure Objective LI-4 l by developing a Pre-Phase A, integrated architecture to inform a demonstration for lunar construction operations. The ACO study traded three architectures that would survey and prepare a construction area to build a landing pad out of lunar regolith using MMPACT (Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technology) platforms, rovers, and navigation outposts. The main trades examined navigation for the system/architecture, options for rover navigation, battery vs continuous tether power for the MMPACT robotic arm, and assigning site prep functionality to the rovers vs the platforms. Results of the study determined that the best options for the scenario provided would be local navigation (more accurate and continuous), a combination of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) for initial site mapping with subsequent Smart Video Guidance Sensors (SVGS) to save power for construction, and using tethered power to decrease mission duration. The team also concluded that assigning site prep functionality to either the rovers or the platforms has benefits and challenges; future studies could explore having that functionality on both the rovers and platforms. Lastly, the team provided a Concept of Operations (ConOps) timeline that can be used in real-time ground demonstrations to explore the mission timeline, construction processes, autonomous operations, and communication systems that can be tested using MSFC’s lunar regolith field and Lunar Utilization Control Area (LUCA).

Sarah Triana↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

OSIRIS-REx Entry, Descent, and Landing Performance

The Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) was the third mission in NASA’s New Frontiers program. OSIRIS-REx launched out of Cape Canaveral, Florida on September 8, 2016, with a science goal to return a minimum of 60 g of a primitive asteroid’s surface, specifically the near-Earth asteroid Bennu. The sample return capsule (SRC) successfully touched down at UTTR on the morning of September 24, 2023. The entry, descent, and landing (EDL) sequence had an off-nominal deployment of the parachute, but the spacecraft safely landed within the pre-flight prediction of the landing ellipse and the payload was safely recovered. This paper discusses the pre-flight EDL modeling and simulation and focus on predictions for EDL operations. Flight observations such as timeline are compared to the predicted timeline produced by the EDL simulation.

EDL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

OSIRIS-REx Entry, Descent, and Landing Performance

EDL↗

DOE OSTI2014

Deploying Darter A Cray XC30 System

TheUniversityofTennessee,KnoxvilleacquiredaCrayXC30 supercomputer, called Darter, with a peak performance of 248.9 Ter- aflops. Darter was deployed in late March of 2013 with a very aggressive production timeline - the system was deployed, accepted, and placed into production in only 2 weeks. The Spring Experiment for the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS) largely drove the accelerated timeline, as the experiment was scheduled to start in mid-April. The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) project also needed access and was able to meet their tight deadlines on the newly acquired XC30. Darter s accelerated deployment and op- erations schedule resulted in substantial scientific impacts within the re- search community as well as immediate real-world impacts such as early severe tornado warnings

Fahey, Mark R↗

DOE OSTI2014

A Visual Analytics Approach to Structured Data Analysis to Enhance Nonproliferation and Arms Control Verification Activities

Analysis activities for Nonproliferation and Arms Control verification require the use of many types of data. Tabular structured data, such as Excel spreadsheets and relational databases, have traditionally been used for data mining activities, where specific queries are issued against data to look for matching results. The application of visual analytics tools to structured data enables further exploration of datasets to promote discovery of previously unknown results. This paper discusses the application of a specific visual analytics tool to datasets related to the field of Arms Control and Nonproliferation to promote the use of visual analytics more broadly in this domain. Visual analytics focuses on analytical reasoning facilitated by interactive visual interfaces (Wong and Thomas 2004). It promotes exploratory analysis of data, and complements data mining technologies where known patterns can be mined for. Also with a human in the loop, they can bring in domain knowledge and subject matter expertise. Visual analytics has not widely been applied to this domain. In this paper, we will focus on one type of data: structured data, and show the results of applying a specific visual analytics tool to answer questions in the Arms Control and Nonproliferation domain. We chose to use the T.Rex tool, a visual analytics tool developed at PNNL, which uses a variety of visual exploration patterns to discover relationships in structured datasets, including a facet view, graph view, matrix view, and timeline view. The facet view enables discovery of relationships between categorical information, such as countries and locations. The graph tool visualizes node-link relationship patterns, such as the flow of materials being shipped between parties. The matrix visualization shows highly correlated categories of information. The timeline view shows temporal patterns in data. In this paper, we will use T.Rex with two different datasets to demonstrate how interactive exploration of the data can aid an analyst with arms control and nonproliferation verification activities. Using a dataset from PIERS (PIERS 2014), we will show how container shipment imports and exports can aid an analyst in understanding the shipping patterns between two countries. We will also use T.Rex to examine a collection of research publications from the IAEA International Nuclear Information System (IAEA 2014) to discover collaborations of concern. We hope this paper will encourage the use of visual analytics structured data analytics in the field of nonproliferation and arms control verification. Our paper outlines some of the challenges that exist before broad adoption of these kinds of tools can occur and offers next steps to overcome these challenges.

arms control↗

DOE OSTI2017

Constant Rate Production: DOE Approach to Meeting NASA Needs for RPS for Nuclear-Enabled Launches.

The use of radioisotope power systems (RPS) for nuclear-enabled NASA missions is a long-standing arrangement between DOE and NASA. The requirements for the power system come from NASA, while DOE performs the procurement, fueling, testing and delivery. Recent examples include Mars Science Laboratory and New Horizons. A challenge has been interplay between the schedule for RPS availability from DOE versus the schedule NASA has for competitively selected missions. By mutual agreement, the actual operations to procure an RPS and prepare it for fueling, has always waited until the final selection of a mission. This timeline for a New Frontiers class mission leaves approximately 5-6 years from the time of final mission selection to the actual launch date. The number of RPS used for a Frontier class mission can be 1 to 3 units, i.e., the recent New Frontiers-2025 announcement of opportunity published in December 2016. If 1 or 2 units are needed for a specific mission, the timeline from the decision point to the launch date is a challenge, but doable. The activities taking place in this timeframe would include manufacturing the power system, producing the fuel, and performing the assembly/testing and delivery operations. If the mission selected requires 3 RPS the logistics of accomplishing all activities during the 5-6 years is problematic. The challenge involves appropriate resourcing for plutonium production, heat source production and assembly/testing operations. Typically, the time between RPS-enabled missions involve staffing attrition and reduction at the heat source production and the assembly/testing facilities that can be down to 60-75 percent of peak staffing levels to reduce costs. The duration for increasing staffing in these areas, which includes hiring, nuclear workforce training and obtaining the appropriate security clearance is 2 years. Taking account for this 2 years and the 6 months prior to launch arrival of the RPS at Kennedy Space Center erodes too much of the 5-6 years to comfortably support the use of 3 RPS on a mission and doesn't leave much schedule margin for a 2 RPS unit mission. To provide better support for NASA nuclear-enabled missions a different approach was devised, constant rate production. This involves a higher level of base capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to provide a stabilized work force. This will enable 10-15 heat sources to be produced annually at LANL, and subsequently shipped to the INL to be placed into a stable intermediate form that enables storage for up to several years that leads to quick production of general purpose heat source modules when a mission is selected. The up-front production of Pu-238 at ORNL is maintained so that there is material constantly in the pipeline. Production of key specialized components at ORNL is also maintained using this model. This allows for a reduction of risk to the nuclear-enabled missions, yet always having quantities of hardware available “on the shelf” to support production of RPS for NASA.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗