Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Operations coordination plan”

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
DOE OSTI2020

Multicarrier Energy Systems: Shaping Our Energy Future

Multicarrier energy systems (MCESs) are characterized by strong coordination in operation and planning across multiple energy vectors and/or sectors to deliver reliable, cost-effective energy services to end users/customers with minimal impact on the environment. They have efficiency and flexibility benefits and are deployed in large and small scales on the supply and demand sides and at the network level but are more complex to control and manage. Here, MCESs are reviewed in the context of future low carbon energy systems based on electrification and very high variable renewable energy penetrations. Fully exploiting these systems requires some cost reductions, more sophisticated operations enabled by standardized communications and control capabilities detailed planning paradigms, and addressing their corresponding economic challenges. All these point toward the direction of analysis, markets, and technology research and development coupled with better policy and regulatory frameworks. One futuristic vision of a very low carbon energy system is proposed that illustrates potential pathways to an MCES-dominated energy future.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2017

Unlocking Flexibility: Energy Systems Integration [Guest Editorial]

The articles in this special section focus on energy systems integration (ESI). Electric power systems around the world are experiencing great changes, including the retirement of coal and nuclear plants along with a rapid increase in the use of natural gas turbines and variable renewable technologies such as wind and solar. There is also much more use of information and communications technologies to enhance the visibility and controllability of the grid. Flexibility of operation, the ability of a power system to respond to change in demand and supply, is critical to enable higher levels of variable generation. One way to unlock this potential flexibility is to tap into other energy domains. This concept of interconnecting energy domains is called ESI. ESI is the process of coordinating the operation and planning of energy systems across multiple pathways and/or geographical scales to deliver reliable, cost-effective energy services with minimal impact on the environment. Integrating energy domains adds flexibility to the electrical power system. ESI includes interactions among energy vectors and with other large-scale infrastructures including water, transport, and data and communications networks, which are an enabling technology for ESI.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Water & Energy Interdependencies Across Economic Sectors of the United States

The motivation of the Integrated Water Power Resilience Project is to identify and develop opportunities for improving resilience in the water and power sectors through coordinated planning, investment, and operations and thereby provide benefits to power and water utilities, consumers, and the environment. Water and power systems are interdependent, subject to many of the same natural and manmade hazards, and are critical for the well-being of communities and society. Because of the interconnectedness of water and power systems, there are substantial economic, social, and environmental benefits to co-managing the market sectors for resilience instead of managing them separately. To support this initiative and future research in this area, a county level water and energy flow dataset was developed to build, calculate, and visualize interconnections in water and energy between various sectors. This report presents county and regional water and energy visualizations across nine economic sectors of the United States: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, industrial, mining, public water supply, residential, transportation, and wastewater treatment.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Simulation Activities for Evaluating UAM Concept of Operations

NASA’s vision for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is to help emerging aviation markets to safely develop an air transportation system that moves people and cargo between places previously not served or underserved by aviation using revolutionary new aircraft types. Urban Air Mobility (UAM), the concept of expanding transportation networks by serving short flights to transport people and goods around metropolitan areas, is part of a larger paradigm shift toward AAM, in which new technologies and business models are enabling transformational applications of aviation. In NASA’s Concept of Operations for UAM, Providers of Services for UAM (PSU) play a key role to enable safe and efficient UAM operations by sharing operational data among UAM operators. PSUs provide a pre-departure strategic conflict management service that establishes operational plans for new flights and coordinates them with all relevant operations in shared airspace. The strategic conflict management aims to minimize the need for tactical separation provision, while considering anticipated traffic demand, vertiport capacity and availability, forecasted weather, and airspace restrictions. NASA is currently preparing a new lab evaluation activity with aviation industry partners, called the X4 simulation, to demonstrate their airspace services and capabilities and test new information exchange requirements for UAM operations. This simulation activity will support NASA’s National Campaign (NC) flight tests which are planned over the next several years to guide the collective community and stakeholders through a series of scenario-based test activities that involve vehicles and airspace management services operating in a live test environment. This presentation will provide an overview of the X4 simulation, including objectives, scenarios, assumptions, system architecture, and test schedule. The X4 simulation will evaluate the interconnectivity and operational intent sharing between PSUs for multiple operators, as well as the performance of strategic conflict management.

Urban Air Mobility, Simulation, Advanced Air Mobil↗
NASA NTRS2004

Flying the Earth Observing Constellations

Prior to the launch of the Earth Observing System (EOS) Terra and Landsat-7 satellites in 1999, the Project Scientists for the two missions and the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project at the Goddard Space Flight Center signed an inter-project agreement document describing their plan to fly in loose formation, approximately 20 minutes within each other. In November 2000, a technology demonstration satellite, Earth Observer-1 (EO-1), was launched into the same orbit as that of Landsat-7 and Terra, with a goal of flying within a minute from Landsat-7. The SAC-C satellite, developed and operated by the government of Argentina, was launched along with EO-1, with a goal of flying near both Terra and Landsat-7. This formation enables the scientists to make use of the scientific synergy among the instruments on the different spacecraft. This group of satellites constitutes the morning constellation, which is led by the Landsat-7, which has a mean local time (MLT) at 10:00 a.m. In May 2002, the EOS Aqua satellite was launched into an orbit with an altitude of 705 km. and a 1:30 p.m. MLT. Two smaller satellites, CALIPSO (a joint U.S./French mission), and CloudSat (a joint NASA/Colorado State University/Air Force mission), plan to fly in tight formation, within 15 seconds of each other. In addition, CALIPSO and CloudSat also plan to be within 30 to 60 seconds of the Aqua satellite. A third satellite, PARASOL, managed by the French Space Agency, CNES, will be placed within a minute of the CALIPSO satellite. In 2004, the Aura satellite will be launched and phased in relation to the Aqua satellite, such that the instruments on Aura will be able to view the same mass of air no later than 8 minutes after the instruments on Aqua have observed it. Representatives from each mission are currently documenting a plan on how they will coordinate on-orbit operations. Why are all these satellites planning to fly as a constellation? The answer is that as a constellation. the scientists will be able to acquire science data not only from their specific instruments on a single satellite, but science data from the other satellites which will have been taken at approximately the same time, thus resulting in coordinated science observation data. This leads to better quality science. This paper describes how the mission design has been driven by the science requirements. The morning and the afternoon constellations present operational challenges, which had not previously been encountered. Operations planning must address not only how the satellites of each constellation operate safely together, but also, how the two constellations fly on the same orbits without interfering with each other as they downlink data to their respective ground stations. This paper describes the operations experience gained from the morning constellation and the planning for the afternoon constellation.

Kelly, Angelita C.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned In Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The "pieces" are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned in Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The pieces are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
DOE OSTI2014

Definition of Capabilities Needed for a Single Event Effects Test Facility

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is contemplating new regulations mandating testing of the vulnerability of flight-critical avionics to single event effects (SEE). A limited number of high-energy neutron test facilities currently serve the SEE industrial and institutional research community. The FAA recognizes that existing facilities have insufficient test capacity to meet new demand from such mandates; it desires more flexible irradiation capabilities to test complete, large systems and would like capabilities to address greater concerns for thermal neutrons. For this reason, the FAA funded this study by Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) staff with the ultimate aim of developing options for SEE test facilities using high-energy neutrons at the SNS complex. After an investigation of current SEE test practices and assessment of future testing requirements, three concepts were identified covering a range of test functionality, neutron flux levels, and fidelity to the atmospheric neutron spectrum. The costs and times required to complete each facility were also estimated. SEE testing is generally performed by accelerating the event rate to a point where the effects are still dominated by single events and double event causes of failures are negligible. In practice, acceleration factors of as high as 10 6 are applicable for component testing, whereas for systems testing acceleration factors of 10 4 seem to be the upper limit. It is strongly desirable that the irradiation facility be tunable over a large range of high-energy neutron fluxes of 10 2 - 10 4 n/cm²/s for systems testing and from 10 4 - 10 7 n/cm²/s for components testing. The most capable, most flexible, and highest-test-capacity option is a new stand-alone target station named the High-Energy neutron Test Station (HETS). It is also the most expensive option, with a cost to complete of approximately $100 million. Dual test enclosures would allow for simultaneous testing activity effectively doubling overall test capacity per HETS operating hour. Using about 1 kilowatt (kW) of proton power extracted from the accelerator before injection in the accumulator ring, its operation would be unnoticeable by neutron scattering users at the SNS target station. The H beam laser stripping technique would allow for control of beam power on the HETS target independent from power delivered to the SNS. Large systems with frontal areas of up to 1 x 2 m² could be accommodated with integral high-energy flux values (above 10 megaelectron-volt, or MeV) to at most 10 4 n/cm²/s; components could also be tested with flux levels to at most 10 7 n/cm²/s on beam sizes of up to 0.2 x 0.2 m². Selectable moderating material and neutron filters would allow tailoring of the neutron spectrum to user demands; charged particle deflectors could be switched to allow or deflect protons, pions, and muons. It is estimated that HETS would take 5 years to complete after award of contract, including engineering design and construction. Commissioning would take at least another 6 months. Interference with SNS principal operations was not considered in the construction time estimate; connection of the proton transport line and tunnel from the accelerator high energy beam transport (HEBT) and construction around existing site utilities would require careful planning and coordination with beam operations at the SNS. A high-energy (HE) neutron test facility using an available beam line on the SNS target station is a technically and financially attractive option. Inspired by the new ChipIR instrument on the ISIS TS 2 spallation source in the UK, a similar facility could be placed on an unused beam line in the SNS instrument hall [e.g., on beam line 8 (both A and B channels would be needed) or on beam line 10]. The performance would approach that of an HETS (~80%), but it would be operationally more limited, with only a single user at a time. Space is more limited, so the maximum system size would be about half of that in an HETS. Flexibility to tailor the spectrum would be somewhat more limited. While this concept was not as fully developed and characterized, preliminary work indicates very high HE flux levels should be possible, with ample thermal neutrons as well. Flux control would be more difficult than at HETS because proton power on target be whatever the SNS was operating at for neutron scattering. Neutron attenuation devices would have to be employed with as-yet undetermined control resolution. However, no new buildings would be needed, and the necessary utilities are already present in the SNS Experiment Hall. The estimated cost for a beam line option is around $15 million; the time to complete would be 3 years after award of contract, plus at least 6 months for commissioning. Interference of construction activities with SNS operations should be negligible. This option would require negotiation with the Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences (BES) office -- the primary stakeholder of SNS -- for an application outside the usual scope of neutron scattering sciences. Furthermore, these presently open beam lines are highly desirable locations for proposed neutron scattering instruments and obtaining one of them for an SEE test facility will come only with persuasive and timely arguments to SNS leadership and the DOE BES. The third option is a tunnel extension/target cave facility providing the most basic system-level irradiation capability with minimal flexibility. Again not as well developed a concept as HETS, it would use a laser-stripping technique like an HETS, redirecting protons to a tunnel similar to the initial HETS proton transport tunnel. Indeed, this concept is intended to be upgradable to a full HETS facility. Only a small fraction of a watt of proton power would be used in this basic configuration, though. An uncooled target and primitive shielding arrangement would provide beam on modestly sized systems that must be placed in close proximity to the target. The neutron fluence would be less uniform over the system than with the HETS or the beam line option. A data acquisition room and support area would be located on the ground level; access to the target cave would be via elevator and/or stairway. As a result of the required excavation, new tunnel construction, shielding, data acquisition building, utilities, and other items, the estimated cost is $30 million. The time to complete is expected be more than 3 years; here again construction interference with SNS operations has not been accounted for, but it could have a significant impact.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
NASA NTRS2016

NEEMO 20: Science Training, Operations, and Tool Development

The 20th mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) was a highly integrated evaluation of operational protocols and tools designed to enable future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. NEEMO 20 was conducted from the Aquarius habitat off the coast of Key Largo, FL in July 2015. The habitat and its surroundings provide a convincing analog for space exploration. A crew of six (comprised of astronauts, engineers, and habitat technicians) lived and worked in and around the unique underwater laboratory over a mission duration of 14-days. Incorporated into NEEMO 20 was a diverse Science Team (ST) comprised of geoscientists from the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES/XI) Division from the Johnson Space Center (JSC), as well as marine scientists from the Department of Biological Sciences at Florida International University (FIU). This team trained the crew on the science to be conducted, defined sampling techniques and operational procedures, and planned and coordinated the science focused Extra Vehicular Activities (EVAs). The primary science objectives of NEEMO 20 was to study planetary sampling techniques and tools in partial gravity environments under realistic mission communication time delays and operational pressures. To facilitate these objectives two types of science sites were employed 1) geoscience sites with available rocks and regolith for testing sampling procedures and tools and, 2) marine science sites dedicated to specific research focused on assessing the photosynthetic capability of corals and their genetic connectivity between deep and shallow reefs. These marine sites and associated research objectives included deployment of handheld instrumentation, context descriptions, imaging, and sampling; thus acted as a suitable proxy for planetary surface exploration activities. This abstract briefly summarizes the scientific training, scientific operations, and tool development conducted during NEEMO 20 with an emphasis on the primary lessons learned.

Graff, T.↗
NASA NTRS1994

The SILEX experiment system operations

The European Space Agency is going to conduct an inter orbit link experiment which will connect a low Earth orbiting satellite and a Geostationary satellite via optical terminals. This experiment has been called SILEX (Semiconductor Inter satellite Link EXperiment). Two payloads will be built. One called PASTEL (PASsager de TELecommunication) will be embarked on the French Earth observation satellite SPOT4. The future European experimental data relay satellite ARTEMIS (Advanced Relay and TEchnology MISsion) will carry the OPALE terminal (Optical PAyload Experiment). The principal characteristic of the mission is a 50 Megabits flow of data transmitted via the optical satellite link. The relay satellite will route the data via its feeder link thus permitting a real time reception in the European region of images taken by the observation satellite. The PASTEL terminal has been designed to cover up to 9 communication sessions per day with an average of 5. The number of daily contact opportunities with the low earth orbiting satellite will be increased and the duration will be much longer than the traditional passes over a ground station. The terminals have an autonomy of 24 hours with respect to ground control. Each terminal will contain its own orbit model and that of its counter terminal for orbit prediction and for precise computation of pointing direction. Due to the very narrow field of view of the communication laser beam, the orbit propagation calculation needs to be done with a very high accuracy. The European Space Agency is responsible for the operation of both terminals. A PASTEL Mission Control System (PMCS) is being developed to control the PASTEL terminal on board SPOT4. The PMCS will interface with the SPOT4 Control Centre for the execution of the PASTEL operations. The PMCS will also interface with the ARTEMIS Mission Control System for the planning and the coordination of the operation. It is the first time that laser technology will be used to support inter-satellite links in Europe. Due to the complexity and experimental character of this new optical technology, the SILEX experiment control facilities will be designed to allow as much operational flexibility as possible.

Demelenne, B.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Targeting and Localization for Mars Rover Operations

A design and a partially developed application framework were presented for improving localization and targeting for surface spacecraft. The program has value for the Mars Science Laboratory mission, and has been delivered to support the Mars Exploration Rovers as part of the latest version of the Maestro science planning tool. It also has applications for future missions involving either surface-based or low-altitude atmospheric robotic vehicles. The targeting and localization solutions solve the problem of how to integrate localization estimate updates into operational planning tools, operational data product generalizations, and flight software by adding expanded flexibility to flight software, the operations data product pipeline, and operations planning tools based on coordinate frame updates during a planning cycle.

Powell, Mark W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Research to Expand UAS Operations for Disaster Response

Natural disasters can result in the loss of life and cost governments and private industry billions to recover each year. Over the past decade the rate and severity of natural disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes have resulted in increasingly negative impacts to communities, public health, natural ecosystems, and the economy. To help reduce these impacts, NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is working to advance technologies and enable the safe and efficient inclusion of novel aviation applications to better assist in disaster response. To execute on these efforts, NASA’s Advanced Capabilities for Emergency Response Operations (ACERO) and System-Wide Safety (SWS) projects have developed coordinated strategic research plans focused on aviation operations for disaster response. The ACERO project will be a multi-year effort that focuses on enabling the use of uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) to improve firefighter safety and efficiency and enable the use of UAS to conduct new missions such as logistics and aerial suppression. The ACERO project will demonstrate technologies that support the Second Shift concept, enabling UAS and ground technologies to support aerial suppression in degraded visual conditions (e.g., heavy smoke, nighttime). The SWS project will be a multi-year effort that focuses on addressing the key safety barriers that are preventing the authorization of UAS operations in a variety of increasingly complex disaster response applications: post-hurricane response, medical courier, and urban disaster response. The SWS project will demonstrate an In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS) designed to effectively monitor, assess, and mitigate safety risks associated with hazards to UAS operations for disaster response. This paper will provide a deeper insight into NASA’s research and development plans and discuss how solutions developed in partnership with industry stakeholders and federal agencies will improve disaster response across the globe.

disaster response↗
DOE OSTI2024

Interregional Transmission Operational Coordination

This presentation will discuss challenges and opportunities on interregional coordination in the areas of interchange transaction, congestion management, reserve sharing and deliverability across multi-stage operational processes. It will then provide an overview of the interregional transmission operational coordination (IRTOC) project that currently focuses on congestion management, including Inter-regional transmission coordination in real time operations and operational planning, HVDC optimization (intra- and interregional), ancillary service deliverability (intra- and interregional). In addition, it will discuss the Sienna-Decomposition tool development to systematically study interregional coordination methods.

congestion management↗
NASA NTRS2017

Flight Deck Surface Trajectory-Based Operations

Surface Trajectory-Based Operations (STBO) is a future concept for surface operations where time requirements are incorporated into taxi operations to support surface planning and coordination. Pilot-in-the-loop flight deck simulations have been conducted to study flight deck displays algorithms to aid pilots in complying with the time requirements of time-based taxi operations (i.e., at discrete locations in 3 12 D operations or at all points along the route in 4DT operations). The results of these studies (conformance, time-of-arrival error, eye-tracking data, and safety ratings) are presented. Flight deck simulation work done in collaboration with DLR is described. Flight deck research issues in future auto-taxi operations are also introduced.

flight deck↗
NASA NTRS1982

NASA deep space network operations planning and preparation

The responsibilities and structural organization of the Operations Planning Group of NASA Deep Space Network (DSN) Operations are outlined. The Operations Planning group establishes an early interface with a user's planning organization to educate the user on DSN capabilities and limitations for deep space tracking support. A team of one or two individuals works through all phases of the spacecraft launch and also provides planning and preparation for specific events such as planetary encounters. Coordinating interface is also provided for nonflight projects such as radio astronomy and VLBI experiments. The group is divided into a Long Range Support Planning element and a Near Term Operations Coordination element.

Jensen, W. N.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Contribution of Pilots to Resilience in Normal Operations. Part II: A closer look at briefings: Anticipation and Monitoring Also Known as Planning and Coordination

Much of our knowledge about human performance in flight safety has come from the analysis of undesired events, whether accidents, incidents, or crew behaviors identified via flight exceedance monitoring or observational techniques. In recent years, there has been an acknowledgement that operational personnel are not merely sources of “human error”, but also make a unique human contribution to safe outcomes. In a few celebrated cases, this takes the form of “heroic saves”, but on many more occasions, operational personnel contribute to safety through everyday, often-unnoticed actions that turn potentially hazardous situations into non-events. An emerging approach to safety, frequently referred to as “Safety II,” proposes that the positive human contribution is an important and largely untapped source of safety information. Some airlines have successfully trained observers to identify and record the positive behaviors exhibited by the crew over the course of a flight. In other cases, flight crew are interviewed about good practices or positive behaviors. However, each of these methods are relatively limited in scale and resource intensive. A survey could provide a relatively low-cost approach to systematically gather this information on a larger scale. The primary purpose of the research was to develop and assess a surveys methodology for assessing crews' activities in normal flights and the operational perturbations encountered during normal operations. We hope that such a survey could be both a research tool as well as a safety management aid for the aviation industry. We collected responses concerning revenue flights from two groups of airline pilots (N = 25 & N= 65). The results indicated that relatively few flights proceeded exactly as in the original flight plan. Pilots routinely anticipated and adapted to changing circumstances. We will review the challenges encountered in developing the survey and summarize preliminary findings from two administrations of the survey to airline pilots.

human contribution safety↗
NASA NTRS2008

Automated and Adaptive Mission Planning for Orbital Express

The Orbital Express space mission was a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) lead demonstration of on-orbit satellite servicing scenarios, autonomous rendezvous, fluid transfers of hydrazine propellant, and robotic arm transfers of Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) components. Boeing's Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Operations (ASTRO) vehicle provided the servicing to the Ball Aerospace's Next Generation Serviceable Satellite (NextSat) client. For communication opportunities, operations used the high-bandwidth ground-based Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) along with the relatively low-bandwidth GEO-Synchronous space-borne Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) network. Mission operations were conducted out of the RDT&E Support Complex (RSC) at the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. All mission objectives were met successfully: The first of several autonomous rendezvous was demonstrated on May 5, 2007; autonomous free-flyer capture was demonstrated on June 22, 2007; the fluid and ORU transfers throughout the mission were successful. Planning operations for the mission were conducted by a team of personnel including Flight Directors, who were responsible for verifying the steps and contacts within the procedures, the Rendezvous Planners who would compute the locations and visibilities of the spacecraft, the Scenario Resource Planners (SRPs), who were concerned with assignment of communications windows, monitoring of resources, and sending commands to the ASTRO spacecraft, and the Mission planners who would interface with the real-time operations environment, process planning products and coordinate activities with the SRP. The SRP position was staffed by JPL personnel who used the Automated Scheduling and Planning ENvironment (ASPEN) to model and enforce mission and satellite constraints. The lifecycle of a plan began three weeks outside its execution on-board. During the planning timeframe, many aspects could change the plan, causing the need for re-planning. These variable factors, ranging from shifting contact times to ground-station closures and required maintenance times, are discussed along with the flexibility of the ASPEN tool to accommodate changes to procedures and the daily or long-range plan, which contributed to the success of the mission. This paper will present an introduction to ASPEN, a more in-depth discussion on its use on the Orbital Express mission, and other relative work. A description of ground operations after the SRP deliveries were made is included, and we briefly discuss lessons learned from the planning perspective and future work.

scheduling↗
NASA NTRS1993

Navigation of space VLBI missions: Radioastron and VSOP

In the mid-1990s, Russian and Japanese space agencies will each place into highly elliptic earth orbit a radio telescope consisting of a large antenna and radio astronomy receivers. Very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) techniques will be used to obtain high resolution images of radio sources observed by the space and ground based antennas. Stringent navigation accuracy requirements are imposed on the space VLBI missions by the need to transfer an ultra-stable ground reference frequency standard to the spacecraft and by the demands of the VLBI correlation process. Orbit determination for the mission will be the joint responsibility of navigation centers in the U.S., Russia, and Japan with orbit estimates based on combining tracking data from NASA, Russian, and Japanese sites. This paper describes the operational plans, the inter-agency coordination, and data exchange between the navigation centers required for space VLBI navigation.

Ellis, Jordan↗