SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “program objectives missions information systems”

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.

304 records · Page 17

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2017

The Juno Magnetic Field Investigation

The Juno Magnetic Field investigation (MAG) characterizes Jupiter's planetary magnetic field and magnetosphere, providing the first globally distributed and proximate measurements of the magnetic field of Jupiter. The magnetic field instrumentation consists of two independent magnetometer sensor suites, each consisting of a tri-axial Fluxgate Magnetometer (FGM) sensor and a pair of co-located imaging sensors mounted on an ultra-stable optical bench. The imaging system sensors are part of a subsystem that provides accurate attitude information (to approx. 20 arcsec on a spinning spacecraft) near the point of measurement of the magnetic field. The two sensor suites are accommodated at 10 and 12 m from the body of the spacecraft on a 4 m long magnetometer boom affixed to the outer end of one of 's three solar array assemblies. The magnetometer sensors are controlled by independent and functionally identical electronics boards within the magnetometer electronics package mounted inside Juno's massive radiation shielded vault. The imaging sensors are controlled by a fully hardware redundant electronics package also mounted within the radiation vault. Each magnetometer sensor measures the vector magnetic field with 100 ppm absolute vector accuracy over a wide dynamic range (to 16 Gauss = 1.6 x 10(exp. 6) nT per axis) with a resolution of approx. 0.05 nT in the most sensitive dynamic range (+/-1600 nT per axis). Both magnetometers sample the magnetic field simultaneously at an intrinsic sample rate of 64 vector samples per second. The magnetic field instrumentation may be reconfigured in flight to meet unanticipated needs and is fully hardware redundant. The attitude determination system compares images with an on-board star catalog to provide attitude solutions (quaternions) at a rate of up to 4 solutions per second, and may be configured to acquire images of selected targets for science and engineering analysis. The system tracks and catalogs objects that pass through the imager field of view and also provides a continuous record of radiation exposure. A spacecraft magnetic control program was implemented to provide a magnetically clean environment for the magnetic sensors, and residual spacecraft fields andor sensor offsets are monitored in flight taking advantage of Juno's spin (nominally 2 rpm) to separate environmental fields from those that rotate with the spacecraft.

Juno spacecraft↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA System Safety Handbook: System Safety Framework and Concepts for Implementation - Volume 1

System safety assessment is defined in NPR 8715.3C, NASA General Safety Program Requirements as a disciplined, systematic approach to the analysis of risks resulting from hazards that can affect humans, the environment, and mission assets. Achievement of the highest practicable degree of system safety is one of NASA's highest priorities. Traditionally, system safety assessment at NASA and elsewhere has focused on the application of a set of safety analysis tools to identify safety risks and formulate effective controls.1 Familiar tools used for this purpose include various forms of hazard analyses, failure modes and effects analyses, and probabilistic safety assessment (commonly also referred to as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)). In the past, it has been assumed that to show that a system is safe, it is sufficient to provide assurance that the process for identifying the hazards has been as comprehensive as possible and that each identified hazard has one or more associated controls. The NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has made several statements in its annual reports supporting a more holistic approach. In 2006, it recommended that "... a comprehensive risk assessment, communication and acceptance process be implemented to ensure that overall launch risk is considered in an integrated and consistent manner." In 2009, it advocated for "... a process for using a risk-informed design approach to produce a design that is optimally and sufficiently safe." As a rationale for the latter advocacy, it stated that "... the ASAP applauds switching to a performance-based approach because it emphasizes early risk identification to guide designs, thus enabling creative design approaches that might be more efficient, safer, or both." For purposes of this preface, it is worth mentioning three areas where the handbook emphasizes a more holistic type of thinking. First, the handbook takes the position that it is important to not just focus on risk on an individual basis but to consider measures of aggregate safety risk and to ensure wherever possible that there be quantitative measures for evaluating how effective the controls are in reducing these aggregate risks. The term aggregate risk, when used in this handbook, refers to the accumulation of risks from individual scenarios that lead to a shortfall in safety performance at a high level: e.g., an excessively high probability of loss of crew, loss of mission, planetary contamination, etc. Without aggregated quantitative measures such as these, it is not reasonable to expect that safety has been optimized with respect to other technical and programmatic objectives. At the same time, it is fully recognized that not all sources of risk are amenable to precise quantitative analysis and that the use of qualitative approaches and bounding estimates may be appropriate for those risk sources. Second, the handbook stresses the necessity of developing confidence that the controls derived for the purpose of achieving system safety not only handle risks that have been identified and properly characterized but also provide a general, more holistic means for protecting against unidentified or uncharacterized risks. For example, while it is not possible to be assured that all credible causes of risk have been identified, there are defenses that can provide protection against broad categories of risks and thereby increase the chances that individual causes are contained. Third, the handbook strives at all times to treat uncertainties as an integral aspect of risk and as a part of making decisions. The term "uncertainty" here does not refer to an actuarial type of data analysis, but rather to a characterization of our state of knowledge regarding results from logical and physical models that approximate reality. Uncertainty analysis finds how the output parameters of the models are related to plausible variations in the input parameters and in the modeling assumptions. The evaluation of unrtainties represents a method of probabilistic thinking wherein the analyst and decision makers recognize possible outcomes other than the outcome perceived to be "most likely." Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the worth of an analysis product as a basis for making decisions related to safety and mission success. In line with these considerations the handbook does not take a hazard-analysis-centric approach to system safety. Hazard analysis remains a useful tool to facilitate brainstorming but does not substitute for a more holistic approach geared to a comprehensive identification and understanding of individual risk issues and their contributions to aggregate safety risks. The handbook strives to emphasize the importance of identifying the most critical scenarios that contribute to the risk of not meeting the agreed-upon safety objectives and requirements using all appropriate tools (including but not limited to hazard analysis). Thereafter, emphasis shifts to identifying the risk drivers that cause these scenarios to be critical and ensuring that there are controls directed toward preventing or mitigating the risk drivers. To address these and other areas, the handbook advocates a proactive, analytic-deliberative, risk-informed approach to system safety, enabling the integration of system safety activities with systems engineering and risk management processes. It emphasizes how one can systematically provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim that a system is safe to within an acceptable risk tolerance, and that safety has been achieved in a cost-effective manner. The methodology discussed in this handbook is part of a systems engineering process and is intended to be integral to the system safety practices being conducted by the NASA safety and mission assurance and systems engineering organizations. The handbook posits that to conclude that a system is adequately safe, it is necessary to consider a set of safety claims that derive from the safety objectives of the organization. The safety claims are developed from a hierarchy of safety objectives and are therefore hierarchical themselves. Assurance that all the claims are true within acceptable risk tolerance limits implies that all of the safety objectives have been satisfied, and therefore that the system is safe. The acceptable risk tolerance limits are provided by the authority who must make the decision whether or not to proceed to the next step in the life cycle. These tolerances are therefore referred to as the decision maker's risk tolerances. In general, the safety claims address two fundamental facets of safety: 1) whether required safety thresholds or goals have been achieved, and 2) whether the safety risk is as low as possible within reasonable impacts on cost, schedule, and performance. The latter facet includes consideration of controls that are collective in nature (i.e., apply generically to broad categories of risks) and thereby provide protection against unidentified or uncharacterized risks.

Dezfuli, Homayoon↗

NASA NTRS2014

Biomechanics of the Treadmill Locomotion on the International Space Station

Exercise prescriptions completed by International Space Station (ISS) crewmembers are typically based upon evidence obtained during ground-based investigations, with the assumption that the results of long-term training in weightlessness will be similar to that attained in normal gravity. Coupled with this supposition are the assumptions that exercise motions and external loading are also similar between gravitational environments. Normal control of locomotion is dependent upon learning patterns of muscular activation and requires continual monitoring of internal and external sensory input [1]. Internal sensory input includes signals that may be dependent on or independent of gravity. Bernstein hypothesized that movement strategy planning and execution must include the consideration of segmental weights and inertia [2]. Studies of arm movements in microgravity showed that individuals tend to make errors but that compensation strategies result in adaptations, suggesting that control mechanisms must include peripheral information [3-5]. To date, however, there have been no studies examining a gross motor activity such as running in weightlessness other than using microgravity analogs [6-8]. The objective of this evaluation was to collect biomechanical data from crewmembers during treadmill exercise before and during flight. The goal was to determine locomotive biomechanics similarities and differences between normal and weightless environments. The data will be used to optimize future exercise prescriptions. This project addresses the Critical Path Roadmap risks 1 (Accelerated Bone Loss and Fracture Risk) and 11 (Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength, and Endurance). Data were collected from 7 crewmembers before flight and during their ISS missions. Before launch, crewmembers performed a single data collection session at the NASA Johnson Space Center. Three-dimensional motion capture data were collected for 30 s at speeds ranging from 1.5 to 9.5 mph in 0.5 mph increments with a 12-camera system. During flight, each crewmember completed up to 6 data collection sessions spread across their missions, performing their normal exercise prescription for the test day, resulting in varying data collection protocols between sessions. Motion data were collected by a single HD video camera positioned to view the crewmembers' left side, and tape markers were placed on their feet, legs, and neck on specific landmarks. Before data collection, the crewmembers calibrated the video camera. Video data were collected during the entire exercise session at 30 Hz. Kinematic data were used to determine left leg hip, knee, and ankle range of motion and contact time, flight time, and stride time for each stride. 129 trials in weightlessness were analyzed. Mean time-normalized strides were found for each trial, and cross-correlation procedures were used to examine the strength and direction of relationships between segment movement pattern timing in each gravitational condition. Cross-correlation analyses between gravitational conditions revealed highly consistent movement patterns at each joint. Peak correlation coefficients occurred at 0% phase, indicating there were no lags in movement timing. Joint ranges of motion were similar between gravitational conditions, with some slight differences between subjects. Motion patterns in weightlessness were highly consistent at a given speed with those occurring in 1G, indicating that despite differing sensory input, subjects maintain running kinematics. The data suggest that individuals are capable of compensating for loss of limb weight when creating movement strategies. These results have important implications for creating training programs for use in weightlessness as practitioners can have greater confidence in running motions transferring across gravitational environments. Furthermore, these results have implications for use by researchers investigating motor control mechanisms and investigating hypotheses related to movement strategies when using sensory input that is dependent upon gravity.

DeWitt, John↗

NASA NTRS1974

Pioneer Odyssey: Encounter with a Giant

Ancient peoples, perhaps thousands of years ago, undoubtedly conceived the idea of "reaching out" to Jupiter, the largest and most brilliant of the "wandering stars." But for mankind to stretch across the half billion miles to the giant planet of the Solar System many advances in technical and organizational fields of human endeavor had to be made. Outreach to Jupiter did not become a serious possibility until the Pioneer F and G Project was formed by NASA early in 1968. And then man began to design an extension of his senses that would probe the environs of the giant of the Solar System, a truly pioneer odyssey into the virtually unknown regions beyond the orbit of Mars. In the ensuing year. a dedicated and cooperative effort of several thousand people in Government, university, and private industrial organizations converted the idea into a reality. Less than twelve generations after Galileo first saw the banded disc of Jupiter and the flickering dots of its large satellites in the newly invented telescope, mankind sent a machine to make observations within that Jovian system. The two Pioneer spacecraft for the mission to Jupiter each weighed only about 570 pounds, yet carried eleven highly sophisticated instruments capable of operating unattended for many year in space. The spacecraft consumes less electrical power than a standard 100 watt lamp yet is able to accept instructions from Earth to control numerous operating modes of its scientific payload, process observations from these scientific instruments and format the observations into information usable on Earth. Even more remarkable. the spacecraft transmits a radio signal of only 8 watts power - equal to a nightlight - yet the information carried by the radio signal is received back on Earth from a distance of several billion miles. The Pioneer mission could not have been a success without the special engineering, scientific and management organization created for its accomplishment. This organization was rather unique in that it first had to meet a launch date target relatively quickly and then had to function for an extremely long mission operational time, far longer than any previous mission to planets. The first task was thus to organize so that the mission could be planned and the spacecraft designed and fabricated to be ready for launch within a few weeks of a 30-month target for completion. The program also produced an organization that planned mission operations to such detail that more than 16,000 commands were transmitted flawlessly to the distant spacecraft during Jupiter encounter. And each command reached the spacecraft within one second of the planned time despite the more than 90 minutes required for the radio message to travel from Earth to the spacecraft and for the spacecraft to return a confirmation to controllers back on Earth. The organization for Pioneer also determined the required flight path from Earth to Jupiter with such precision, and controlled the launch vehicle with such accuracy, that 21 months after launch the spacecraft was able to fly behind Jupiter's satellite lo, thereby providing the first measurement that indicated the possibility of a tenuous atmosphere about this large satellite. Finally, the Pioneer organization processed and analyzed each year sufficient information from the spacecraft to fill a book having about 3 million pages and reduced this avalanche of data from space into summaries of manageable size. And all this organization depended on people, consisted of people: the people who really made this whole mission possible. Pioneer has always depended on the dedication of many individuals from many organizations throughout the world to achieve its scientific objectives, and, as evidenced by the success of the Pioneer series, this dependence is completely justified. Relatively few individuals have an opportunity during their lives to participate in such a challenging, historic, pioneering effort; and still fewer are able to enjoy the rewards of such an activity. We who have worked on Pioneer 10 and its sister spacecraft, Pioneer 11, consider ourselves fortunate to be in both classes. For the opportunity we thank the people of the United States of America, who have supported our country's space effort and its spreading of human awareness of a vast and intriguing universe in which our own unique planet Earth is only one of myriads of worlds. This volume describing the mission to Jupiter and its results is one of the many rewards for our effort which we share with you, the reader.

Fimmel, Richard O.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Evaluation of a Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) for Cargo Transportation

In this new era of space exploration, a host of launch vehicles are being examined for possible use in transporting cargo and crew to low Earth orbit and beyond. Launch vehicles derived from the Space Shuttle Program (SSP), known as Shuttle Derived Vehicles (SDVs), are prime candidates for heavy-lift duty because of their potential to minimize non-recurring costs and because the Shuttle can leverage off proven high-performance flight systems with established ground and flight support. To determine the merits of SDVs, a detailed evaluation was performed. This evaluation included a trade study and risk assessment of options based on performance, safety reliability, cost, operations, and evolution. The purpose of this paper is to explain the approach, processes, and tools used to evaluate launch vehicles for heavy lift cargo transportation. The process included defining the trade space, characterizing the concepts, analyzing the systems, and scoring the options. The process also included a review by subject experts from NASA and industry to compare past and recent study data and assess the risks. A set of technical performance measures (TPMs) was generated based on the study requirements and constraints. Tools such as INTROS and POST were used to calculate performance, FIRST was used for prediction of reliability, and other software packages, both commercial and NASA-owned, were applied to study the trade space. By following a clear process and using the right tools a thorough assessment was performed. An SDV can be classified as either a side-mount vehicle (SMV) or an in-line vehicle OLV). An SMV is a Space Shuttle where the Orbiter is replaced by a cargo carrier. An ILV is comprised of a modified Shuttle External Tank (ET) with engines mounted to the bottom and cargo mounted atop. For both families of vehicles, Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are attached to the ET. The first derivate of Shuttle is defined as the vehicle with minimum changes necessary to transform the Space Shuttle into an SDV. Deltas from the first derivate were also formulated to study more SDV options. Examples of deltas include replacing the SRBs with larger and/or more SRBs, adding an upper stage, increasing the size of the ET, changing the engines, and modifying the elements. Challenges for SDV range from tailoring infrastructure to meeting the exploration schedule. Although SDV is based on the Space Shuttle, it still includes development risk for designing and building a Cargo Carrier. There are also performance challenges in that Shuttle is not optimized for cargo-only missions, but it is a robust system built on reusability. Balancing the strengths and weaknesses of the Shuttle to meet Lunar and Mars mission objectives provides the framework for an informative trade study. SDV was carefully analyzed and the results of the study provide invaluable data for use in the new exploration initiative.

Roman, Jose M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer

MISR views the sunlit Earth simultaneously at nine widely spaced angles and provides ongoing global coverage with high spatial detail. Its imagery is carefully calibrated to provide accurate measures of the brightness, contrast, and color of reflected sunlight. MISR provides new types of information for scientists studying Earth's climate, such as the regional and global distribution of different types of atmospheric particles and aerosols. The change in reflection at different view angles provides the means to distinguish aerosol types, cloud forms, and land surface cover. Combined with stereoscopic techniques, this enables construction of 3-D cloud models and estimation of the total amount of sunlight reflected by Earth's diverse environments. MISR was built for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. It is part of NASA's first Earth Observing System (EOS) spacecraft, the Terra spacecraft, which was launched into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base on December 18, 1999. MISR has been continuously providing data since February 24, 2000. [Mission Objectives] The MISR instrument acquires systematic multi-angle measurements for global monitoring of top-of-atmosphere and surface albedos and for measuring the shortwave radiative properties of aerosols, clouds, and surface scenes in order to characterize their impact on the Earth's climate. The Earth's climate is constantly changing -- as a consequence of both natural processes and human activities. Scientists care a great deal about even small changes in Earth's climate, since they can affect our comfort and well-being, and possibly our survival. A few years of below-average rainfall, an unusually cold winter, or a change in emissions from a coal-burning power plant, can influence the quality of life of people, plants, and animals in the region involved. The goal of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) is to increase our understanding of the climate changes that are occurring on our planet, and the reasons for these changes, so we are better equipped to anticipate and prepare for the future. The MISR instrument is a part of EOS. Its role is to measure the amount of sunlight scattered in different directions under natural conditions. These measurements will help quantify the amount of solar energy that heats the Earth's surface and atmosphere, and the changes that occur in them over the lifetime of the MISR instrument. From the MISR observations, we are also learning more about those components of the Earth's environment that scatter sunlight: particles in the atmosphere, the planet's surface, and clouds. MISR monitors changes in surface reflection properties, in atmospheric aerosol content and composition, and in cloudiness. Scientists use these data to study land use changes, air pollution, volcanic eruptions, as well as processes such as desertification, deforestation, and soil erosion. As part of the EOS program, computer models that predict future climate will be improved by the results of these studies. [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=2000-02-24; Stop_Date=] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180].

Diner, David J.↗

DOE OSTI2023

Digitalization Guiding Principles and Method for Nuclear Industry Work Processes

The commercial U.S. light-water reactor fleet has been operating at historical efficiency, reliability, and safety over the last decade. Nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of any other power generation technology while also serving as the largest baseload source for carbon-free energy. Despite this remarkable achievement, continued operations for many plants are threatened due to fierce electricity market competition and rising operations and maintenance costs of which continued maintenance of obsolete analog equipment is a contributor. The digital age and associated technologies are where the future lies in process control, and nuclear has yet to take full advantage of the capabilities offered therein. The Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program (LWRS) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), sponsored by the Department of Energy, has a mission to help the light-water reactor fleet manage its foundational capabilities to continue providing safe and reliable carbon-free power. LWRS helps support that mission by providing scientific, technology-based solutions for advanced concepts of operations with a more viable business model that will allow the fleet to continue to operate at peak levels through extended plant operation. The LWRS Digitalization Project at INL seeks to leverage digital technologies to synthesize and transform work processes. We provide a state-of-the-art analysis of digitalized work processes in nuclear power and investigate ways in which researchers at INL and the nuclear industry can work together to identify what data to access, how to access it, what to do with the data, and most importantly, how to use the insights for decision-making across all levels within the business. Borne from these considerations, we present four guiding principles for digitalization: develop a coherent digitalization plan, apply human factors engineering, establish data governance, and anticipate unintended consequences. Together, these principles form a method that plants can use to effectively to digitalize nuclear industry work processes. Our guiding principles are informed by multiple knowledge sources. First, we document activities from the Work Digitalization Initiative, which was conceived as a means for nuclear organizations to help define and standardize the industry’s approach to digitalizing work. Second, we detail primary research conducted with industry professionals regarding drivers and barriers to digitalization adoption. We present survey results that demonstrate what the industry hopes to get out of digitalization and the ways that INL can continue to support the industry’s digital transformation. Third, we present a digitalization use case with industry partners NextAxiom Technology and Xcel Energy. The project objective was to transform the current condition report work process from paper to digital, incorporating digitalized principles. We report the development of the application and lessons learned. The accomplishments achieved by this research and development serve to identify critical needs for plant guidance in support of digitalization implementation and contribute to the knowledge and strategies available for utilities considering or undertaking digitalization.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

NASA NTRS2015

AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station

NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Activation and deactivation of this facility is time consuming and operationally intensive, requiring coordination of three flight control positions, 47 nominal steps, 57 commands, 276 telemetry checks, and coordination of multiple ISS systems (both core and payload). Utilization of Draper Laboratory's Timeliner software, deployed on-board the ISS within the Command and Control (C&C) computers and the Payload computers, allowed development of the automated procedures specific to ISS without having to certify and employ novel software for procedure development and execution. The procedures contained the ground procedure logic and actions as possible to include fault detection and recovery capabilities. The autonomous operations concept includes a reduction of the amount of data a crew operator is required to verify during activation or de-activation, as well as integration of procedure execution status and relevant data in a single integrated display. During execution, the auto-procedures (via Timerliner) provide a step-by-step messaging paradigm and a high-level status upon termination. This messaging and high-level status is the only data generated for operator display. To enhance situational awareness of the operator, the Web-based Procedure Display (WebPD) provides a novel approach to the issues of procedure display and execution tracking. WebPD is a web based application that serves as the user interface for electronic procedure execution. It incorporates several aspects of the HTML5 standard. Procedures are written in a dialect of XML called Procedure Representation Language (PRL). WebPD tracks execution status in the procedure or procedures being displayed. WebPD aggregates and simplifies the auto-sequence execution status information, and formatted to be easily followed and understood by an operator who is not dedicated to actively monitoring the task. WebPD also provides an integrated data and control interface to pause or halt the execution in order to provide a check point of operation and to examine progress before starting the next sequence of activities. For this demonstration, the procedure was initiated and monitored from the ground. As the Timeliner sequences executed, their high-level execution status was written to PLMDM memory. This memory is read and downlinked via Ku-Band at a 1 Hz rate. The data containing the high-level execution status is de-commutated on the ground, and rebroadcast for WebPD consumption. A future demonstration will be performed onboard, with ISS astronauts initiating the operations instead of ground controllers. The AMO EXPRESS experiment demonstrated activation and de-activation of EXPRESS rack 7, providing the capability of future single button activations and deactivations of facility class racks. The experiment achieved numerous technical and operations 'firsts' for the ISS

Stetson, Howard K.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling a Voice Management System for Space Applications

The sustainable missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) envisioned for NASA’s Artemis program will require autonomous capabilities. Moreover, Artemis mission crews will need a means to efficiently interact with a spacecraft’s autonomous systems. This interaction can be facilitated by voice and speech communications because voice-based controls enable users to interact hands- and eyes-free, allowing the user to better focus on critical tasks. The goal of our project was to explore the knowledge and technology needed to successfully design effective Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) for autonomous systems utilizing Human Centered Design (HCD) principles. The focus of the human factors’ aspect of engineering, pays close attention to psychological and physiological principles in the development of autonomous crew operation systems. A main objective was to understand how a crew member, through voice interaction, could efficiently and intuitively communicate with a notional autonomous vehicle system manager. This project was a part of the NASA Moon to Mars eXploration Systems and Habitation (M2M X-Hab) 2020 Academic Innovation Challenge. The work from the BLiSS Team, at the University of Michigan, resulted in the design of a system persona, Diego, to which an astronaut may quickly build trust with autonomous systems, to alleviate known stressors on mental health expected during long duration space missions. Optimal software to facilitate integration of the system persona into a reference Lunar orbiting Gateway station was defined. Additionally, a Speech to Text (STT) system and a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that could be implemented in future missions was developed on an Internet of Things (IOT) platform. The Voice User Interface (VUI) design for the M2M X-Hab 2020 project leveraged previous technology developed by the BLiSS team to incorporate a voice-based interface into NASA’s Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS) software. This required technologies to convert voice to text, conduct semantic interpretations, and convert responses from the autonomous system to text and to speech; additionally, the spacecraft background noise environment was assessed, a noise mitigation technique was developed, and a relatable personality for the autonomous system was developed in order to facilitate human-like conversations. The success of our effort was largely due to the diversity of the team that included expertise in Space Systems Engineering, Human Computer Interaction, Aerospace Engineering, Computer Science, Biomedical Engineering, and Applied Physics. The diverse perspectives fostered elaborate discussions, resulting in the conception of three main subsystems: (1) User-System, (2) NPAS-System, and (3) Environment-System. The VUI was unique and had to be efficient and intuitive. For this project, 5 subteams were formed, each with a separate objective, Voice Design team, Background Noise Mitigation team, Software Integration team and Graphical User Interface team. The BLiSS team crafted a personality for the VUI to enable human-like conversation and drive user adoption and trust. User surveys were completed and used to help determine the required VUI system personality traits by capturing perspectives and expectations of prospective “Artemis Generation Astronauts”. To further simulate human-like conversations, the system had to be able to quickly interpret user speech and be able to integrate with NASA’s NPAS platform for quick and reliable information transfer. The outcomes of our research were: (1) a working prototype user interface, that is compatible with NASA’s NPAS platform; (2) software that demonstrates the ability of the VUI system to interpret user requests and respond appropriately; (3) the capability to implement fully expanded conversations between user and system using intuitive communication in four request categories; and (4) software and hardware recommendations that optimize the system’s ability to operate in a noisy environment. Our research has laid the foundation for the development of VUI’s for autonomy, and provides a baseline for future VUI developments.

Voice user interface↗

DOE OSTI2011

Southeastern Power Administration 2011 Annual Report

Dear Secretary Chu: I am pleased to submit Southeastern Power Administration’s (Southeastern) fiscal year (FY) 2011 Annual Report for your review. This report reflects our agency’s programs, accomplishments, operational, and financial activities for the 12-month period beginning October 1, 2010, and ending September 31, 2011. This past year, Southeastern marketed approximately 6.2 billion kilowatt-hours of energy to 489 wholesale customers in 10 southeastern states. Revenues from the sale of this power totaled more than $264 million. With the financial assistance and support of Southeastern’s customers, funding for capitalized equipment purchases and replacements at hydroelectric facilities operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) continued in FY 2011. This funding, which totaled more than $45 million, provided much needed repairs and maintenance for aging projects in Southeastern’s marketing area. Currently, there are more than 214 customers participating in the funding efforts in the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina, Kerr-Philpott, and Cumberland Systems of projects. Drought conditions continued in the southeastern region of the United States this past year, particularly in the Savannah River Basin. Lack of rain placed strains on our natural and financial resources. Power purchases for FY 2011 totaled approximately $38 million. About $9 million of this amount was for replacement power, which is purchased only during adverse water conditions in order to meet Southeastern’s customer contract requirements. Southeastern’s goal is to maximize the benefits of our region’s water resources. Competing uses of these resources will present another challenging year for Southeastern’s employees. With the cooperation and communication among the Department of Energy (DOE), preference customers, and Corps, I am certain Southeastern is positioned to meet these challenges in the future. We are committed to providing reliable hydroelectric power to preference customers, which ultimately serve more than 12 million consumers in the southeast.

2011↗

DOE OSTI2012

Southeastern Power Administration 2012 Annual Report

Dear Secretary Moniz: I am pleased to submit Southeastern Power Administration’s (Southeastern) fiscal year (FY) 2012 Annual Report for your review. This report reflects our agency’s programs, accomplishments, operational, and financial activities for the 12-month period beginning October 1, 2011, and ending September 30, 2012. This past year, Southeastern marketed approximately 5.4 billion kilowatt-hours of energy to 487 wholesale customers in 10 southeastern states. Revenues from the sale of this power totaled about $263 million. With the financial assistance and support of Southeastern’s customers, funding for capitalized equipment purchases and replacements at hydroelectric facilities operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) continued in FY 2012. Currently, there are more than 214 customers participating in funding infrastructure renewal efforts of powerplants feeding the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina, Kerr-Philpott, and Cumberland Systems. This funding, which totaled more than $71 million, provided much needed repairs and maintenance for aging projects in Southeastern’s marketing area. Drought conditions continued in the southeastern region of the United States this past year, particularly in the Savannah River Basin. Lack of rainfall strained our natural and financial resources. Power purchases for FY 2012 in the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System totaled approximately $29 million. About $8 million of this amount was for replacement power, which is purchased only during adverse water conditions in order to meet Southeastern’s customer contract requirements. Southeastern’s goal is to maximize the benefits of our region’s water resources. Competing uses of these resources will present another challenging year for Southeastern’s employees. With the cooperation and communication among the Department of Energy (DOE), preference customers, and Corps, I am certain Southeastern is positioned to meet these challenges in the future. We are committed to providing reliable hydroelectric power to preference customers, which ultimately serve more than 12 million consumers in the southeast. Sincerely, Kenneth E. Legg Administrator

Mississippi↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Supervisory Control with Dual Tasking in Post G-Transition Vehicle Landings

BACKGROUND Landing during exploration spaceflight may consist of both planned automated supervisory control and unplanned crew override. Supervisory control, particularly when performed under cognitive load with additional monitoring tasks, is essential for ensuring overall mission success during landing contingencies. Evaluating performance in a relevant Human Landing System (HLS) supervisory landing task after long-duration microgravity exposure can help identify potential risks from human error and sensorimotor alterations. Adaptive changes in the sensorimotor system can manifest during g-transitions as spatial disorientation. Although training and landing aids facilitate successful landings despite disorientation, these adaptive changes may heighten cognitive demand, which must be considered in the landing strategy. It is important to characterize these effects as soon as possible following the G-transition while the sensorimotor system remains in a state of adaptive flux to inform appropriate countermeasures. METHODS A Multi-attribute Lunar Table Battery (MALTB) task was developed for an iOS tablet device to provide flexible crew testing and training capabilities in-flight and on the ground. Elements of the tablet task were derived from the Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB, Cegarra et al. 2020). The task requires crew members to study a map of a planned landing site and memorizing the terrain and surface landmarks to inform potential divert maneuvers during landing. The user will oversee a series of approaches through touchdown simulations on the tablet with an external camera view of the Lunar surface. The primary responsibility of the crew member will be to execute a divert if the guidance recommended site is erroneous (e.g., the guidance projected landing target is not within 10m of the planned landing site center), or the projected landing site is no longer suitable due to surface obstacles. Considering vehicle maneuverability and fuel reserves, the divert capabilities will diminish as the task progresses. In cases where a divert is initiated, a new landing target will need to be designated by the user and will be evaluated for the proximity to the original pre-planned site. A secondary operational monitoring task will challenge the user's cognitive reserve by requiring the user to maintain several gauges within acceptable limits and respond to a visual indicator while completing the landing approach. Outcome measures include distance from the planned landing site to the user-initiate divert landing location, ground slope at the new landing site, time to divert, the ability to accomplish the secondary monitoring tasks, and perceived workload. The tablet task is being evaluated in a ground-based study to determine the learning effect of first-time users. The tablet task will be utilized in a flight study to test performance multiple times postflight. Future potential testing in-flight have been identified for capsules with iOS tablet devices. Multi-attribute Lunar Table Battery Task MALTB comprises video footage of thirty distinct landing conditions. The landing scenarios feature various landing sites (n = 3), hazardous object sizes (n = 6), sun azimuth degrees (n = 4), camera modes (i.e., fixed or gimbaled), and navigation bias (i.e., true or false). Each seventy second trial uses a sixty-degree constant glideslope trajectory. The application architecture and layout include user identification setup and data storing, a guided walkthrough of the task and interface components, practice mode for task familiarization, and a modified Bedford workload scale administered following task completion. The time-based dependent measures are saved locally to the iOS Files application and post-processing scripts have been developed to evaluate the remaining measures of performance. RELEVANCE This project will deliver an operational demonstration of crew monitoring capability following spaceflight and identify potential deficits that may require remediation. Comparison of individual vestibular and cognitive changes with crew performance will help better characterize the landing risks associated with sensorimotor alterations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This project is funded by NASA’s Human Research Program Human Health Countermeasures Element. REFERENCES Cegarra J, Valery B, Avril E, Calmettes C, Navarro J (2020) OpenMATB: A Multi-Attribute Task Battery promoting task customization, software extensibility and experiment replicability. Behav Res Methods 52:1980-1990 doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01364-w

Matthew McDonnell↗

DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Software Engineering Benchmarking Study

To identify best practices for the improvement of software engineering on projects, NASA's Offices of Chief Engineer (OCE) and Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) formed a team led by Heather Rarick and Sally Godfrey to conduct this benchmarking study. The primary goals of the study are to identify best practices that: Improve the management and technical development of software intensive systems; Have a track record of successful deployment by aerospace industries, universities [including research and development (R&D) laboratories], and defense services, as well as NASA's own component Centers; and Identify candidate solutions for NASA's software issues. Beginning in the late fall of 2010, focus topics were chosen and interview questions were developed, based on the NASA top software challenges. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the Benchmark Team interviewed a total of 18 organizations, consisting of five NASA Centers, five industry organizations, four defense services organizations, and four university or university R and D laboratory organizations. A software assurance representative also participated in each of the interviews to focus on assurance and software safety best practices. Interviewees provided a wealth of information on each topic area that included: software policy, software acquisition, software assurance, testing, training, maintaining rigor in small projects, metrics, and use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, as well as a number of special topics that came up in the discussions. NASA's software engineering practices compared favorably with the external organizations in most benchmark areas, but in every topic, there were ways in which NASA could improve its practices. Compared to defense services organizations and some of the industry organizations, one of NASA's notable weaknesses involved communication with contractors regarding its policies and requirements for acquired software. One of NASA's strengths was its software assurance practices, which seemed to rate well in comparison to the other organizational groups and also seemed to include a larger scope of activities. An unexpected benefit of the software benchmarking study was the identification of many opportunities for collaboration in areas including metrics, training, sharing of CMMI experiences and resources such as instructors and CMMI Lead Appraisers, and even sharing of assets such as documented processes. A further unexpected benefit of the study was the feedback on NASA practices that was received from some of the organizations interviewed. From that feedback, other potential areas where NASA could improve were highlighted, such as accuracy of software cost estimation and budgetary practices. The detailed report contains discussion of the practices noted in each of the topic areas, as well as a summary of observations and recommendations from each of the topic areas. The resulting 24 recommendations from the topic areas were then consolidated to eliminate duplication and culled into a set of 14 suggested actionable recommendations. This final set of actionable recommendations, listed below, are items that can be implemented to improve NASA's software engineering practices and to help address many of the items that were listed in the NASA top software engineering issues. 1. Develop and implement standard contract language for software procurements. 2. Advance accurate and trusted software cost estimates for both procured and in-house software and improve the capture of actual cost data to facilitate further improvements. 3. Establish a consistent set of objectives and expectations, specifically types of metrics at the Agency level, so key trends and models can be identified and used to continuously improve software processes and each software development effort. 4. Maintain the CMMI Maturity Level requirement for critical NASA projects and use CMMI to measure organizations developing software for NASA. 5.onsolidate, collect and, if needed, develop common processes principles and other assets across the Agency in order to provide more consistency in software development and acquisition practices and to reduce the overall cost of maintaining or increasing current NASA CMMI maturity levels. 6. Provide additional support for small projects that includes: (a) guidance for appropriate tailoring of requirements for small projects, (b) availability of suitable tools, including support tool set-up and training, and (c) training for small project personnel, assurance personnel and technical authorities on the acceptable options for tailoring requirements and performing assurance on small projects. 7. Develop software training classes for the more experienced software engineers using on-line training, videos, or small separate modules of training that can be accommodated as needed throughout a project. 8. Create guidelines to structure non-classroom training opportunities such as mentoring, peer reviews, lessons learned sessions, and on-the-job training. 9. Develop a set of predictive software defect data and a process for assessing software testing metric data against it. 10. Assess Agency-wide licenses for commonly used software tools. 11. Fill the knowledge gap in common software engineering practices for new hires and co-ops.12. Work through the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) program with universities in strengthening education in the use of common software engineering practices and standards. 13. Follow up this benchmark study with a deeper look into what both internal and external organizations perceive as the scope of software assurance, the value they expect to obtain from it, and the shortcomings they experience in the current practice. 14. Continue interactions with external software engineering environment through collaborations, knowledge sharing, and benchmarking.

Rarick, Heather L.↗

NASA NTRS1996

Evaluation of an Anthropometric Human Body Model for Simulated EVA Task Assessment

One of the more mission-critical tasks performed in space is extravehicular activity (EVA) which requires the astronaut to be external to the station or spacecraft, and subsequently at risk from the many threats posed by space. These threats include, but are not limited to: no significant atmosphere, harmful electromagnetic radiation, micrometeoroids, and space debris. To protect the astronaut from this environment, a special EVA suit is worn which is designed to maintain a sustainable atmosphere (at 1/3 atmosphere) and provide protection against the hazards of space. While the EVA suit serves these functions well, it does impose limitations on the astronaut as a consequence of the safety it provides. Since the astronaut is in a virtual vacuum, any atmospheric pressure inside the suit serves to pressurize the suit and restricts mobility of flexible joints (such as fabric). Although some of the EVA suit joints are fixed, rotary-style joints, most of the mobility is achieved by the simple flexibility of the fabric. There are multiple layers of fabric, each of which serves a special purpose in the safety of the astronaut. These multiple layers add to the restriction of motion the astronaut experiences in the space environment. Ground-based testing is implemented to evaluate the capability of EVA-suited astronauts to perform the various tasks in space. In addition to the restriction of motion imposed by the EVA suit, most EVA activity is performed in a micro-gravity (weight less) environment. To simulate weightlessness EVA-suited testing is performed in a neutral buoyancy simulator (NBS). The NBS is composed of a large container of water (pool) in which a weightless environment can be simulated. A subject is normally buoyant in the pressurized suit; however he/she can be made neutrally buoyant with the addition of weights. In addition, most objects the astronaut must interface with in the NBS sink in water and flotation must be added to render them "weightless". The implementation of NBS testing has proven to invaluable in the assessment of EVA activities performed with the Orbiter and is considered to be a key step in the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). While the NBS testing is extremely valuable, it does require considerable overhead to maintain and operate. It has been estimated that the cost of utilizing the facility is approximately $10,000 per day. Therefore it is important to maximize the utility of NBS testing for optimal results. One important aspect to consider in any human/worksite interface is the considerable wealth of anthropometric and ergonomic data available. A subset of this information specific to EVA activity is available in NASA standard 3000. The difficulty in implementing this data is that most of the anthropometric information is represented in a two-dimensional format. This poses some limitations in complete evaluation of the astronaut's capabilities in a three-dimensional environment. Advances in computer hardware and software have provided for three-dimensional design and implementation of hardware with the advance of computer aided design (CAD) software. There are a number of CAD products available and most companies and agencies have adopted CAD as a fundamental aspect of the design process. Another factor which supports the use of CAD is the implementation of computer aided manufacturing (CAM) software and hardware which provides for rapid prototyping and decreases the time to product in the design process. It is probable that most hardware to be accessed by astronauts in EVA or IVA (intravehicular activity) has been designed by a CAD system, and is therefore represented in three-dimensional space for evaluation. Because of the implementation of CAD systems and the movement towards early prototyping, a need has arisen in industry and government for tools which facilitate the evaluation of ergonomic consideration in a three-dimensional environment where the hardware has been designed by the CAD tools. One such product is Jack which was developed by the University of Pennsylvania with funding from several government agencies, including NASA. While the primary purpose of Jack is to model human figures in a ground-based (gravity) environment, it can be utilized to evaluate EVA-suited activities as well. The effects of simulated gravity must be turned off by turning off "behaviors". Although Jack provides human figures for manipulation, the primary instrument to be evaluated for EVA mobility is the work envelope provided by the EVA suit. An EVA Jack suit model has been developed by NASA-JSC and was utilized in this study. This suit model provided a more restrictive motion environment as expected for an EVA suited subject. As part of this study, the anthropometric dimensions for a 50th percentile male were compared with basic anthropometric data and were found to be representative for the population group expected in the NASA flight program. The joints for the suit were created in a manner which provided consistent performance with EVA reach envelopes published in NASA standard #3000.

Etter, Brad↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Localization of Ad-Hoc Lunar Constellations in Communication Failure Modes for Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

As lunar missions increase in complexity inspired by NASA’s Artemis Program, they will require reliable and sufficient capability of the Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) system to support their scientific objectives. In addition, NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program initiates the proliferation of public and private exploration partnerships using small satellites from commercial and private organizations, expanding traditionally confined low Earth orbit to be used for missions beyond geosynchronous orbit (Zucherman et al., 2022). Therefore, the Lunar PNT system is also required to provide navigation services compatible with the smaller platforms being sent by the public and private sectors, like CubeSats. However, traditional approaches to deep space missions’ navigation based on ground radio facilities have difficulties in providing sufficient support for the increasing number of users and communication at a distance from the Earth (Kaplev et al., 2022). In particular, the existing Lunar navigation technologies such as weak signal global positioning system (GPS) and deep space network (DSN) are not able to ensure operations of the upcoming small-scale Lunar missions due to their limitations in localization performance as well as capacity aspects. Another way to provide Lunar PNT service is to create a dedicated Lunar global navigation satellite system (GNSS) constellation, like GNSS systems on Earth. Space agencies like NASA, ESA, and JAXA are now developing the lunar communications relay and navigation systems (LCRNS) and Lunar navigation satellite systems (LNSS). In their systems, satellites will be deployed in moon orbits to provide the communication, positioning, navigation, and timing (CPNT) service at the lunar south pole region where the Artemis base camp will be expected (Murata et al., 2022). Meanwhile, common challenges considered in lunar PNT research arise from poor geometry of the terrestrial GNSS satellites when seen from the lunar user, highly perturbed lunar orbits, and limitations in power, size, and cost of the equipment on lunar satellites (Iiyama et al., 2023). It is also not clear if there will be enough Lunar users to support the cost and resources this would require as the Low-cost surface missions may not be able to support the large power, mass, and weight requirements that these navigation solutions entail (Niemoeller et al., 2022). As an alternative, existing Lunar science and exploration assets could be used to create a low-cost, autonomous, ad-hoc, and on-demand mission-centric Lunar PNT swarm capable of providing PNT services to these low-cost lunar missions (Hagenau et al., 2021). Introducing the non-dedicated and ad-hoc Lunar navigation constellation gives a way to provide PNT services on-demand. The non-dedicated swarm assets of Lunar constellations are designed to localize themselves with minimal interaction with Earth by adding cooperative autonomous localization to lunar missions, freeing up valuable bandwidth and ground segment resources. An autonomous localization of Lunar constellations is based on the concept of the decentralized PNT system with a distributed extended Kalman filter (DEKF) approach to state estimation for minimal onboard operating costs. In the distributed data processing algorithm, computation is broken down and assigned to each satellite, resulting in a considerably decreased computational amount while maintaining the accuracy of the orbit ephemeris and clock offsets as the result of centralized data processing (Wen et al., 2019). The DEKF requires spacecraft to perform two-way ranging operations with each other to communicate simultaneously, leveraging neighbor two-way intersatellite link (ISL) measurements such as pseudoranges to, and relative velocities between, visible satellites as sensor values (Frank et al., 2021). The Lunar autonomous PNT simulation (LAPS) demonstrated the feasibility of orbital asset localization among ad-hoc Lunar small-sat constellations based on the DEKF in Hagenau et al. (2021) and evaluated the matching algorithm proposed by Frank et al. (2021) in scheduling position estimation updates. In previous papers, all assets and measurements are assumed to be always available without consideration of the impact of intermittent and permanent communication failure. This study presents localization performance with increasing levels of network degradation for swarm assets and users to demonstrate the robustness of the decentralized Lunar PNT service in more realistic scenarios. Main issues arising from communication failure include spacecraft permanent or transient loss, antenna failures, message delays, etc. We tested four possible reasons for network degradation for 7 days in 21 satellites frozen with an altitude of 5500 km, evenly spaced around 3 circular, 40 inclination orbital planes where each spacecraft has two directional antennas. As anchor nodes with an independent estimate of their position are required in the DEKF approach, two ground nodes in each pole and one node in the gateway were implemented in the simulation. First, the most probable failure scenario involves the loss of a single spacecraft due to solar interference and technical malfunctions of the assets. Losing the availability of a single spacecraft means losing the two-way ISL measurement of the asset in the DEKF update. In order to provide the best possible quality of PNT service with limited time and resources, the distributed Lunar constellations must schedule the communication activities. The scheduler leverages mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) for the coordination and scheduling of the desired “as-needed” localization service (Niemoeller et al., 2022). We assume the scheduler has completely excluded the spacecraft information before the DEKF update in the failure scenario. When a random spacecraft has been turned off at a specific time, the robustness of the autonomous Lunar PNT system is evaluated. The simulation results give an 11.5% degradation in median position accuracy compared to the idealized performance excluding the asset loss. Second, a large number of assets may vanish due to major hardware problems or meteor strikes around the moon. A multiple spacecraft loss can degrade the localization performance very fast by losing the communication ability to do cross-plane measurements and in-plane measurements in a 3-plane constellation. When the matching-based scheduler is aware of ISL availability, we investigate a large number of in-plane and cross-plane asset vanishments both in close proximity and equally spaced throughout the orbital plane. According to the simulations, the loss of in-plane measurements gives 40.2% degradation while cross-plane measurements degrade 50.5% of asset localization performance among available assets. Therefore, it is concluded that cross-plane measurements are more important in improving the position estimation accuracy. Third, spacecraft failure information can be lost due to the internal message delay, resulting in the DEKF update scheduler to solve the matching problem with unavailable assets. The DEKF update cycle is comprised of network setup, communication, and computations where a global broadcast network and a 2-way ISL network setup take 6 minutes in total (Frank et al., 2021). Once the broadcast network successfully transmits and receives information, a random spacecraft may lose its availability right before solving the matching problem. This means the matching solution is no longer optimal, resulting in degradation in the localization performance. A numerical assessment shows the matching-based scheduler with knowing failure holds 11.5% of position accuracy degradation, whereas the scheduler without knowing failure gives 34% degraded localization performance without asset loss. Fourth, a transient loss of a single or multiple spacecraft may occur due to their antenna outages. After losing the two-way ISL availability for a few DEKF update cycles, the availability of spacecraft can easily be recovered as their states have been independently updated using measurements from anchor nodes. It is likely that the longer failure will result in worse localization performance. We have tested the transient failure of a random single asset for 30 min in the simulation, which is losing 3 update cycles in the DEKF system. From the simulation results, the position accuracy has been degraded to 4.84% which is better than the degraded localization performance of 11.5% from the permanent loss scenario among available assets. In conclusion, the autonomous Lunar PNT system based on the DEKF approach shows the ability to maintain resilience and robustness in the possible communication failure scenarios, ensuring that localization accuracy is preserved across various network degradation and outages. Future studies on investigating user localization performance near the South Pole and the broadcast network system will be continued in the following months.

Yeji Kim↗