Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Missions”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1988

Mars Exploration: Mission and System Analysis of the Split Sprint Mission

The information presented in this report provides detailed mission and system analysis of the Split Sprint Mission to Mars. These data were generated from September 1987 through July 1988 and involved numerous individuals within Program Development. This mission derives its name from the fact that the total mission payload is split between two vehicles, a cargo vehicle, and a piloted vehicle. The cargo vehicle carries the Mars lander and propellant for the piloted vehicle return to Earth. Then approximately 1 1/2 years later, the piloted vehicle carries the crew on a higher energy "sprint” trajectory to Mars. The advantages of the Split Sprint Mission is that the payload for the piloted vehicle is minimized and the crew would be in space for only 14 months. Mission and system data are presented for a Sprint Mission in the year 2004. Many important aspects of the mission were studied in detail. These include orbital lighting and lifetime analysis, Mars parking orbit selection, Earth departure window analysis, lander descent and ascent performance, vehicle aerobraking requirements, mission orbital maneuvers, and many other analyses listed in the Table of Contents. Emphasis was placed on vehicle performance analysis which ranged from recovery of the Earth departure stages to aerocapture of the Earth Return Capsule. There is also a section describing the computer programs that were used for this study. These programs provide many useful tools for future studies of manned planetary missions. This introductory section will give an overall view of the Split Sprint Mission and describe the orbital operations and vehicles that were studied.

Mars Architecture Team↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Supporting Exploration Missions by Enabling Exploration Mission System Software

Future exploration missions will consist of a multitude of data sources, systems, and operators collaborating to complete mission objectives. Presently, NASA is instantiating the contractual mechanisms, such as the xEVAS and HLS contracts, to produce these mission assets. Architectural planning is also underway to establish the networking protocols and infrastructure to digitally create and connect mission elements, such as LunaNET. However, without new horizontally integrated data systems, these advancements will be limited in their ability to get mission data appropriately integrated into the plan, train, fly, explore workflow of the operations workforce. Here we describe several mission system software development efforts underway that are designed to support human spaceflight missions. We describe the current iterations of a suite of tools to support EVA procedure authoring and execution, for both ISS and Artemis missions, as well as a software solution to establish and interact with mission context and data products. These tools have been developed iteratively and continue to be tested in several NASA facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL), Artemis field testing, and in present-day International Space Station (ISS) operations on orbit. Our solutions demonstrate how software development can be aligned with ongoing operations development activities to discover the features that best support future human spaceflight missions.

EVA Mission System Software↗
NASA NTRS2012

Re-Engineering the Mission Operations System (MOS) for the Prime and Extended Mission

One of the most challenging tasks in a space science mission is designing the Mission Operations System (MOS). Whereas the focus of the project is getting the spacecraft built and tested for launch, the mission operations engineers must build a system to carry out the science objectives. The completed MOS design is then formally assessed in the many reviews. Once a mission has completed the reviews, the Mission Operation System (MOS) design has been validated to the Functional Requirements and is ready for operations. The design was built based on heritage processes, new technology, and lessons learned from past experience. Furthermore, our operational concepts must be properly mapped to the mission design and science objectives. However, during the course of implementing the science objective in the operations phase after launch, the MOS experiences an evolutional change to adapt for actual performance characteristics. This drives the re-engineering of the MOS, because the MOS includes the flight and ground segments. Using the Spitzer mission as an example we demonstrate how the MOS design evolved for both the prime and extended mission to enhance the overall efficiency for science return. In our re-engineering process, we ensured that no requirements were violated or mission objectives compromised. In most cases, optimized performance across the MOS, including gains in science return as well as savings in the budget profile was achieved. Finally, we suggest a need to better categorize the Operations Phase (Phase E) in the NASA Life-Cycle Phases of Formulation and Implementation

Extended Mission↗
NASA NTRS1979

Mission specification for three generic mission classes

Mission specifications for three generic mission classes are generated to provide a baseline for definition and analysis of data acquisition platform system concepts. The mission specifications define compatible groupings of sensors that satisfy specific earth resources and environmental mission objectives. The driving force behind the definition of sensor groupings is mission need; platform and space transportation system constraints are of secondary importance. The three generic mission classes are: (1) low earth orbit sun-synchronous; (2) geosynchronous; and (3) non-sun-synchronous, nongeosynchronous. These missions are chosen to provide a variety of sensor complements and implementation concepts. Each mission specification relates mission categories, mission objectives, measured parameters, and candidate sensors to orbits and coverage, operations compatibility, and platform fleet size.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

A mission to Mercury and a mission to the moons of Mars

Two Advanced Design Projects were completed this academic year at Penn State - a mission to the planet Mercury and a mission to the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos). At the beginning of the fall semester the students were organized into six groups and given their choice of missions. Once a mission was chosen, the students developed conceptual designs. These designs were then evaluated at the end of the fall semester and combined into two separate mission scenarios. To facilitate the work required for each mission, the class was reorganized in the spring semester by combining groups to form two mission teams. An integration team consisting of two members from each group was formed for each mission team so that communication and exchange of information would be easier among the groups. The types of projects designed by the students evolved from numerous discussions with Penn State faculty and mission planners at the Lewis Research Center Advanced Projects Office. Robotic planetary missions throughout the solar system can be considered valuable precursors to human visits and test beds for innovative technology. For example, by studying the composition of the Martian moons, scientists may be able to determine if their resources may be used or synthesized for consumption during a first human visit.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

STS-61 mission director's post-mission report

To ensure the success of the complex Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, STS-61, NASA established a number of independent review groups to assess management, design, planning, and preparation for the mission. One of the resulting recommendations for mission success was that an overall Mission Director be appointed to coordinate management activities of the Space Shuttle and Hubble programs and to consolidate results of the team reviews and expedite responses to recommendations. This report presents pre-mission events important to the experience base of mission management, with related Mission Director's recommendations following the event(s) to which they apply. All Mission Director's recommendations are presented collectively in an appendix. Other appendixes contain recommendations from the various review groups, including Payload Officers, the JSC Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Section, JSC EVA Management Office, JSC Crew and Thermal Systems Division, and the STS-61 crew itself. This report also lists mission events in chronological order and includes as an appendix a post-mission summary by the lead Payload Deployment and Retrieval System Officer. Recommendations range from those pertaining to specific component use or operating techniques to those for improved management, review, planning, and safety procedures.

Newman, Ronald L.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Lessons Learned on Operating and Preparing Operations for a Technology Mission from the Perspective of the Earth Observing-1 Mission

The New Millennium Program's first Earth-observing mission (EO-1) is a technology validation mission. It is managed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and is scheduled for launch in the summer of 2000. The purpose of this mission is to flight-validate revolutionary technologies that will contribute to the reduction of cost and increase of capabilities for future land imaging missions. In the EO-1 mission, there are five instrument, five spacecraft, and three supporting technologies to flight-validate during a year of operations. EO-1 operations and the accompanying ground system were intended to be simple in order to maintain low operational costs. For purposes of formulating operations, it was initially modeled as a small science mission. However, it quickly evolved into a more complex mission due to the difficulties in effectively integrating all of the validation plans of the individual technologies. As a consequence, more operational support was required to confidently complete the on-orbit validation of the new technologies. This paper will outline the issues and lessons learned applicable to future technology validation missions. Examples of some of these include the following: (1) operational complexity encountered in integrating all of the validation plans into a coherent operational plan, (2) initial desire to run single shift operations subsequently growing to 6 "around-the-clock" operations, (3) managing changes in the technologies that ultimately affected operations, (4) necessity for better team communications within the project to offset the effects of change on the Ground System Developers, Operations Engineers, Integration and Test Engineers, S/C Subsystem Engineers, and Scientists, and (5) the need for a more experienced Flight Operations Team to achieve the necessary operational flexibility. The discussion will conclude by providing several cost comparisons for developing operations from previous missions to EO-1 and discuss some details that might be done differently for future technology validation missions.

Mandl, Dan↗
NASA NTRS2012

Designing Mission Operations for the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory Mission

NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission, to understand the internal structure and thermal evolution of the Moon, offered unique challenges to mission operations. From launch through end of mission, the twin GRAIL orbiters had to be operated in parallel. The journey to the Moon and into the low science orbit involved numerous maneuvers, planned on tight timelines, to ultimately place the orbiters into the required formation-flying configuration necessary. The baseline GRAIL mission is short, only 9 months in duration, but progressed quickly through seven very unique mission phases. Compressed into this short mission timeline, operations activities and maneuvers for both orbiters had to be planned and coordinated carefully. To prepare for these challenges, development of the GRAIL Mission Operations System began in 2008. Based on high heritage multi-mission operations developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Lockheed Martin, the GRAIL mission operations system was adapted to meet the unique challenges posed by the GRAIL mission design. This paper describes GRAIL's system engineering development process for defining GRAIL's operations scenarios and generating requirements, tracing the evolution from operations concept through final design, implementation, and validation.

MOS↗
NASA NTRS2018

Ground Software Technologies – Embracing Change: Mission Drivers and Technology Opportunities to Enable Long Lived Missions

Mission lifecycles have proven to extend well beyond their original design. The benefits to this are countless but introduce challenges in today’s rapidly changing ground infrastructure and software technologies used to enable mission success. What remains constant is the risk posture missions maintain when accepting change and the use of new technologies. Larger missions are ready for change in early lifecycle development but near launch and especially in operations, few continue to evolve beyond what is set in place in phase C. This paper will discuss how the Advance Multi-Mission Operations System (AMMOS) intends to address, three driving missions concerns: Maintaining functionality (hardware/software) for decades, rapidly responding to security vulnerabilities in software, and finally the ability to quickly evolve infrastructure and software changes. These driving concerns are briefly described below: 1. Maintaining functionality (hardware/software) for decades. Hardware updates considerably faster than 10 years ago. Expectations that a system can remain in place for more than 10 years is no longer valid. Expecting to find hardware replacements for a system older than 5 years will increasingly become more and more challenging. How than do missions plan for hardware changes for long lived missions? Principle Objective: Provide abstraction by virtualizing and containerizing software abstract away any hardware dependencies and package up the application lightweight units. 2. Rapidly responding to security vulnerabilities in software. Cost is often the main impediment and largely driven by the revalidation and testing of system that undergo change. In todays, environment security updates are a major diver demanding systems remain up to date. How then do missions accept these changes and avoid large testing efforts? Principle Objective: Help reduce the cost of re-testing by automation of testing, deployment, and compartmentalizing change. 3. Ability to quickly evolve infrastructure and software changes. Responding quickly to change is similar to the second concern in this paper regarding security vulnerabilities. In this case, it address broader concerns of updating software and infrastructure on a more realistic timeline. How do missions stay up to date with the most recent versions of software and allowing for improved functionality? Principle Objective: Use continuous integration techniques at the system level to ensure rapid turnaround. This paper explores each of these concerns in more detail. It focuses the AMMOS’s current plans, challenges and current roadmap.

Giovannoni, Brian J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mission Design & Operations Approach for the HelioSwarm Mission

HelioSwarm: The Nature of Turbulence in Space Plasmas is a transformational mission to explore the dynamic three-dimensional mechanisms controlling the physics of plasma turbulence, a ubiquitous process occurring in the heliosphere and plasmas throughout the universe. Turbulence is the process by which energy contained in fluctuating magnetic fields and plasma motion cascades from large to smaller spatial scales. HelioSwarm achieves its science goals by making simultaneous measurements across a wide range of measurement baselines, spanning magnetohydrodynamic scales (1000’s of km) to sub-ion heating scales (10’s of km), using a novel nine-spacecraft swarm. The swarm operates in a high-altitude lunar resonant Earth orbit (two-week period, ~63 RE apogee, ~13 RE perigee), giving it access to both the pristine solar wind and regions of strongly driven turbulence (specifically the magnetosphere and foreshock), and utilizes customized relative orbital motion of the swarm members to produce the range of measurement baselines and configurations. The swarm comprises eight “node” spacecraft, manufactured by Blue Canyon Technologies, and a “hub” spacecraft produced by Northrop Grumman Corp. The hub serves as a communications relay, with all communications between the ground and the nodes flowing through it. Mission operations are conducted within the Multi-Mission Operations Center at the NASA Ames Research Center and science operations at the University of New Hampshire, Durham. HelioSwarm was selected in 2022 as one of NASA’s newest Heliophysics Explorer missions to proceed from mission concept into mission implementation, with a target launch in 2029. This paper provides an overview of the mission’s science goals and objectives, the mission design, and the concept of operations, with an emphasis on how the swarm aspects of the mission both enable the science measurements and present unique operational challenges. The paper then describes the proposed development approach for the mission operations system and ground data system which relies on a selective combination of scaling strategies to meet the challenges.

HelioSwarm↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Supporting Exploration Missions by Enabling Exploration Mission System Software

Future exploration missions will consist of a multitude of data sources, systems, and operators collaborating to complete mission objectives. Presently, NASA is instantiating the contractual mechanisms, such as the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) and Human Landing System (HLS) contracts, to produce these mission assets. Architectural planning is also underway to establish the networking protocols and infrastructure to digitally create and connect mission elements, such as LunaNET. However, without new horizontally integrated data systems, these advancements will be limited in their ability to get mission data appropriately integrated into the plan, train, fly, explore workflow of the flight operations workforce. Here we describe several mission system software development efforts underway that are designed to support human spaceflight missions. This paper describes the current iterations of a suite of tools to support EVA procedure authoring and execution, and mission context creation for both International Space Station (ISS) and Artemis missions. These tools have been developed iteratively and continue to be used in present-day ISS operations on orbit and in several NASA facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) and Artemis field testing. These solutions demonstrate how software development can be aligned with ongoing operations development activities to discover the features that best support both current and future human spaceflight missions.

Matthew J. Miller↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Supporting Exploration Missions by Enabling Exploration Mission System Software

Future exploration missions will consist of a multitude of data sources, systems, and operators collaborating to complete mission objectives. Presently, NASA is instantiating the contractual mechanisms, such as the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) and Human Landing System (HLS) contracts, to produce these mission assets. Architectural planning is also underway to establish the networking protocols and infrastructure to digitally create and connect mission elements, such as LunaNET. However, without new horizontally integrated data systems, these advancements will be limited in their ability to get mission data appropriately integrated into the plan, train, fly, explore workflow of the flight operations workforce. Here we describe several mission system software development efforts underway that are designed to support human spaceflight missions. This paper describes the current iterations of a suite of tools to support EVA procedure authoring and execution, and mission context creation for both International Space Station (ISS) and Artemis missions. These tools have been developed iteratively and continue to be used in present-day ISS operations on orbit and in several NASA facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) and Artemis field testing. These solutions demonstrate how software development can be aligned with ongoing operations development activities to discover the features that best support both current and future human spaceflight missions.

Matthew Miller↗
NASA NTRS1973

Mission requirements: Skylab rescue mission SL-R

The Skylab Program includes three low earth orbit missions. These missions are designated SL-1/SL-2,SL-3 and SL-4. In addition to the three nominal Skylab missions, the program includes the Skylab Rescue Mission (SL-R). The SL-R mission is designed to provide a safe return of the Skylab crew in the event the Command Service Module (CSM) becomes disabled while docked to the Saturn Workshop (SWS). Mission requirements for the SL-R mission only are presented. SL-R mission configuration will be a CSM (modified with a field installed kit) manned by two crewmen launched on a Saturn IB Launch Vechicle. The SL-R CSM will rendezvous and dock with the SWS (or Orbital Assembly (OA), consisting of the SWS and disabled CSM, if the disabled CSM has not previously been jettisoned). The SWS configuration includes a Multiple Docking Adapter (MDA), Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM), Airlock Module (AM), and an S-IVB stage (modified as an Orbital Workshop (OWS), previously launched and inserted into orbit on a two-stage Saturn V Launch Vehicle for the SL-1/SL-2 mission.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

Predicting Mission Success in Small Satellite Missions

In our global society with its increasing international competition and tighter financial resources, governments, commercial entities and other organizations are becoming critically aware of the need to ensure that space missions can be achieved on time and within budget. This has become particularly true for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Office of Space Science (OSS) which has developed their Discovery and Explorer programs to meet this need. As technologies advance, space missions are becoming smaller and more capable than their predecessors. The ability to predict the mission success of these small satellite missions is critical to the continued achievement of NASA science mission objectives. The NASA Office of Space Science, in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center, has implemented a process to predict the likely success of missions proposed to its Discovery and Explorer Programs. This process is becoming the basis for predicting mission success in many other NASA programs as well. This paper describes the process, methodology, tools and synthesis techniques used to predict mission success for this class of mission.

Saunders, Mark↗
NASA NTRS1999

Grand Challenge Problems in Real-Time Mission Control Systems for NASA's 21st Century Missions

Space missions of the 21st Century will be characterized by constellations of distributed spacecraft, miniaturized sensors and satellites, increased levels of automation, intelligent onboard processing, and mission autonomy. Programmatically, these missions will be noted for dramatically decreased budgets and mission development lifecycles. Current progress towards flexible, scaleable, low-cost, reusable mission control systems must accelerate given the current mission deployment schedule, and new technology will need to be infused to achieve desired levels of autonomy and processing capability. This paper will discuss current and future missions being managed at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. It will describe the current state of mission control systems and the problems they need to overcome to support the missions of the 21st Century.

Pfarr, Barbara B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Predicting Mission Success in Small Satellite Missions

In our global society with its increasing international competition and tighter financial resources, governments, commercial entities and other organizations are becoming critically aware of the need to ensure that space missions can be achieved on time and within budget. This has become particularly true for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Office of Space Science (OSS) which has developed their Discovery and Explorer programs to meet this need. As technologies advance, space missions are becoming smaller and more capable than their predecessors. The ability to predict the mission success of these small satellite missions is critical to the continued achievement of NASA science mission objectives. The NASA Office of Space Science, in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center, has implemented a process to predict the likely success of missions proposed to its Discovery and Explorer Programs. This process is becoming the basis for predicting mission success in many other NASA programs as well. This paper describes the process, methodology, tools and synthesis techniques used to predict mission success for this class of mission.

Saunders, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2012

Recent Results from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission and Plans for the Extended Mission

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft (LRO), launched on June 18, 2009, began with the goal of seeking safe landing sites for future robotic missions or the return of humans to the Moon as part of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). In addition, LRO's objectives included the search for surface resources and to investigate the Lunar radiation environment. After spacecraft commissioning, this phase of the mission began on September 15, 2009, completed on September 15, 2010 when operational responsibility for LRO was transferred to NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD). The SMD mission is scheduled for 2 years and will be completed in 2012 with an opportunity for an extended mission beyond 2012. Under SMD, the mission focuses on a new set of goals related to understanding the geologic history of the Moon, its current state, and what it can tell us about the evolution of the Solar System. Having marked the two year anniversary will review here the major results from the LRO mission for both exploration and science and discuss plans and objectives going forward including a proposed 2-year extended mission. These objectives include: 1) understanding the bombardment history of the Moon, 2) interpreting Lunar geologic processes, 3) mapping the global Lunar regolith, 4) identifying volatiles on the Moon, and 5) measuring the Lunar atmosphere and radiation environment.

Keller, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Mission Architecture and Technology Options for a Flagship Class Venus In Situ Mission

Venus, as part of the inner triad with Earth and Mars, represents an important exploration target if we want to learn more about solar system formation and evolution. Comparative planetology could also elucidate the differences between the past, present, and future of these three planets, and can help with the characterization of potential habitable zones in our solar system and, by extension, extrasolar systems. A long lived in situ Venus mission concept, called the Venus Mobile Explorer, was prominently featured in NASA's 2006 SSE Roadmap and supported in the community White Paper by the Venus Exploration Analysis Group (VEXAG). Long-lived in situ missions are expected to belong to the largest (Flagship) mission class, which would require both enabling and enhancing technologies beside mission architecture options. Furthermore, extreme environment mitigation technologies for Venus are considered long lead development items and are expected to require technology development through a dedicated program. To better understand programmatic and technology needs and the motivating science behind them, in this fiscal year (FY08) NASA is funding a Venus Flaghip class mission study, based on key science and technology drivers identified by a NASA appointed Venus Science and Technology Definition Team (STDT). These mission drivers are then assembled around a suitable mission architecture to further refine technology and cost elements. In this paper we will discuss the connection between the final mission architecture and the connected technology drivers from this NASA funded study, which - if funded - could enable a future Flagship class Venus mission and potentially drive a proposed Venus technology development program.

Balint, Tibor S.↗