Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Spacecraft Flight Software”

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 NTRS2004

The HiVY Tool Set

Our aim is to validate mission-specific components of spacecraft flight software designs that are specified using state-charts and translated automatically to the final flight code for the mission. We established an automatic translation tool set from state-charts to SPIN for the validation of such mission-specific components. To guarantee compliance with autogenerated flight code, our translation tool set preserves the StateFlow@ semantics. We are now able to specify and validate portions of mission-critical software design and implementation using the exhaustive exploration techniques of model checking.

stateflow↗
NASA NTRS2023

Autonomous Maneuver Planning and Execution for GeoXO Station Keeping and Momentum Management

GOES-16 was launched in 2016 using GPS at GEO, a first for civil space. With the subsequent launch of GOES-17 in 2018, followed by GOES-18 in 2022, we have accumulated over a decade of error free GPS navigation experience at GEO. Confident in GPS performance at GEO, the next generation/NASA geosynchronous weather satellite program GeoXO will require the spacecraft flight software to automate station keeping and momentum management maneuver planning and execution. Coupled with low thrust propulsion, it gives us assurance that on-board maneuver planning and execution can be implemented at a very low risk, allowing instruments to operate through maneuvers while maintaining a more accurate orbital slot and reducing operational costs. In this paper, we discuss how GOES-R maneuver planning is currently performed on the ground and contrast this with our vision of how it might be automated on-board.

GeoXO↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rapid Spacecraft Payload Development: In-Orbit Demonstration of Flight Software Reuse, Scalability, and Dependability

As space mission design trends towards shared, multi-mission platforms and high-performance onboard computing architectures, the number of spacecraft launched into operation is also steadily rising. Through ridesharing, spacecraft miniaturization, and other cost-reduction measures, the barriers to space are lowering, resulting in compounded growth in the amount of flight software being deployed. To meet the needs of both the growing quantity and evolving nature of spacecraft, flight software design must accordingly adapt to support more efficient development, solutions to computational resource-sharing, and software reusability. This paper focuses on a software payload demonstrating several core technologies that improve the state-of-the-art in these identified areas. Launched into low-earth orbit in January 2022, our software payload was conceived, designed, and delivered in a span of merely two months. It was developed on top of the NASA core Flight System (cFS) framework and the Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy (DSA) Comm cFS application, which translates cFS software bus messages across a Data Distribution Service (DDS) network. The flight software, packaged in Linux container images, was deployed as one of 18 flight applications managed through the Unibap SpaceCloud Framework. The applications were run on a Unibap iX5-102 radiation-tolerant payload computer, hosted on the D-Orbit SCV-004 spacecraft as part of an ESA-sponsored in-orbit technology test. Our payload, referred to as the DSA D-Orbit software, demonstrates the reusability of the DSA Comm app in a substantially different context and purpose as its original mission. Comm’s original design goal was to reliably distribute messages between spacecraft swarms of arbitrary size and dynamic network topology. However, we leverage this same functionality to introduce redundancy and opportunistic parallel data processing in the context of a representative onboard image processing workload. This adaptive mission architecture was enabled in part by the SpaceCloud Framework’s use of container virtualization as the payload integration interface. By using a base container image with common high-level language runtimes and libraries, we were able to rapidly design, develop, and validate our image processing application without many of the technological barriers common to flight software development. We present details the goals, approach, results, and lessons learned through this technology demonstration experiment and contextualize those observations against present and future challenges in spacecraft software development.

computer programming↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Cassini spacecraft: Object oriented flight control software

The Cassini Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem (AACS) is responsible for determining and controlling the spacecraft attitude including instrument pointing, antenna pointing, and thrust vector pointing during velocity change maneuvers. The 12 year mission life, long round-trip light time, and extended periods of coast without continuous ground control drive the AACS flight software design in the directions of autonomy, fault tolerance, and modularity to accommodate planned upgrades in flight. The Cassini AACS Flight Software is depicted in increasing levels of detail using a Context Diagram, Architecture Diagrams (i.e., Dependency Diagrams), an Object Diagram for each object, and a Statechart (i.e., State Transition Diagram) for each object. The detail contained in the diagrams is enhanced and refined during the Requirements and Design Phases of both Subsystem and Software Development. Examples of all the diagrams as well as the criteria for object selection, the advantages of statecharts, and the ease of modifying the design to accommodate changes in scope are described.

Hackney, John C.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Validation and Verification of LADEE Models and Software

The Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission will orbit the moon in order to measure the density, composition and time variability of the lunar dust environment. The ground-side and onboard flight software for the mission is being developed using a Model-Based Software methodology. In this technique, models of the spacecraft and flight software are developed in a graphical dynamics modeling package. Flight Software requirements are prototyped and refined using the simulated models. After the model is shown to work as desired in this simulation framework, C-code software is automatically generated from the models. The generated software is then tested in real time Processor-in-the-Loop and Hardware-in-the-Loop test beds. Travelling Road Show test beds were used for early integration tests with payloads and other subsystems. Traditional techniques for verifying computational sciences models are used to characterize the spacecraft simulation. A lightweight set of formal methods analysis, static analysis, formal inspection and code coverage analyses are utilized to further reduce defects in the onboard flight software artifacts. These techniques are applied early and often in the development process, iteratively increasing the capabilities of the software and the fidelity of the vehicle models and test beds.

Gundy-Burlet, Karen↗
NASA NTRS1999

Spacecraft Software Maintenance: An Effective Approach to Reducing Costs and Increasing Science Return

Flight software is a mission critical element of spacecraft functionality and performance. When ground operations personnel interface to a spacecraft, they are typically dealing almost entirely with the capabilities of onboard software. This software, even more than critical ground/flight communications systems, is expected to perform perfectly during all phases of spacecraft life. Due to the fact that it can be reprogrammed on-orbit to accommodate degradations or failures in flight hardware, new insights into spacecraft characteristics, new control options which permit enhanced science options, etc., the on- orbit flight software maintenance team is usually significantly responsible for the long term success of a science mission. Failure of flight software to perform as needed can result in very expensive operations work-around costs and lost science opportunities. There are three basic approaches to maintaining spacecraft software--namely using the original developers, using the mission operations personnel, or assembling a center of excellence for multi-spacecraft software maintenance. Not planning properly for flight software maintenance can lead to unnecessarily high on-orbit costs and/or unacceptably long delays, or errors, in patch installations. A common approach for flight software maintenance is to access the original development staff. The argument for utilizing the development staff is that the people who developed the software will be the best people to modify the software on-orbit. However, it can quickly becomes a challenge to obtain the services of these key people. They may no longer be available to the organization. They may have a more urgent job to perform, quite likely on another project under different project management. If they havn't worked on the software for a long time, they may need precious time for refamiliarization to the software, testbeds and tools. Further, a lack of insight into issues related to flight software in its on-orbit environment, may find the developer unprepared for the challenges. The second approach is to train a member of the flight operations team to maintain the spacecraft software. This can prove to be a costly and inflexible solution. The person assigned to this duty may not have enough work to do during a problem free period and may have too much to do when a problem arises. If the person is a talented software engineer, he/she may not enjoy the limited software opportunities available in this position; and may eventually leave for newer technology computer science opportunities. Training replacement flight software personnel can be a difficult and lengthy process. The third approach is to assemble a center of excellence for on-orbit spacecraft software maintenance. Personnel in this specialty center can be managed to support flight software of multiple missions at once. The variety of challenges among a set of on-orbit missions, can result in a dedicated, talented staff which is fully trained and available to support each mission's needs. Such staff are not software developers but are rather spacecraft software systems engineers. The cost to any one mission is extremely low because the software staff works and charges, minimally on missions with no current operations issues; and their professional insight into on-orbit software troubleshooting and maintenance methods ensures low risk, effective and minimal-cost solutions to on-orbit issues.

Shell, Elaine M.↗
NASA NTRS1997

FMT (Flight Software Memory Tracker) For Cassini Spacecraft-Software Engineering Using JAVA

The software engineering design of the Flight Software Memory Tracker (FMT) Tool is discussed in this paper. FMT is a ground analysis software set, consisting of utilities and procedures, designed to track the flight software, i.e., images of memory load and updatable parameters of the computers on-board Cassini spacecraft. FMT is implemented in Java.

Flight Software Cassini↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Cassini Spacecraft: Object Oriented Flight Control Software

The Cassini AACS object-oriented Flight Software is depicted in increasing levels of detail using a Context Diagram, Architecture Diagrams, an Object Diagram for each object, and a Statechart for each object. The detail contained in the diagrams is enhanced and refined during the Requirements and Design Phases of both Subsystem and Software Development. Examples of all the diagrams as well as the criteria for object selection, the advantages of statecharts, and the ease of modifying the design to accommodate changes in scope are described.

object-oriented↗
NASA NTRS2021

MBSE Validation and Verification: Case Study for LADEE

The Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission orbited the moon in order to measure the density, composition, and time variability of the lunar dust environment. The successful mission launched September 7, 2013 and was de-orbited and impacted the moon's surface on April 17, 2014. The ground-side and onboard flight software for the mission was developed using a “Model-Based Software Engineering” (MBSE) methodology combined with strong reuse of Government and Commercial Off-The Shelf (G/COTS) components. Models of the spacecraft and flight software were developed in a graphical dynamics modeling package. Flight Software requirements were prototyped and refined using the simulated models. After the model was shown to work as desired in the simulation framework, C-code software was automatically generated from the models. The auto-generated software was then tested in real-time Processor-in-the-Loop and Hardware-in-the-Loop test beds. “Traveling Road Show” test beds were used for early integration tests with payloads and other subsystems. Traditional techniques for verifying computational sciences models were used to characterize the spacecraft simulation. A lightweight set of formal methods analysis, static analysis, formal inspection, and code coverage analyses were utilized to further reduce defects in the onboard flight software artifacts. These techniques were applied early and often in the development process, iteratively increasing the capabilities of software and fidelity of vehicle models and test beds.

Model-Based Software Engineering, Validation and V↗
NASA NTRS2016

Transitioning Autonomous Systems Technology Research to a Flight Software Environment

NASA has developed methods and algorithms for autonomous spacecraft operations,including automated planning and scheduling, fault diagnostics and impact determination,procedure management and display. Making the transition from technology research tooperational flight software requires overcoming significant technical, programmatic andcultural challenges. Technology research is aimed at developing methods that performspecific functions correctly, but the resulting software may not be designed for flightprocessors with limited CPU, memory and network resources, and may not be easilyintegrated into spacecraft flight software. Our objective in the Autonomous Systems andOperations Project is to make significant strides toward the transformation from technologyto operational use. Our focus was twofold: maturing research grade autonomy software intoa flight software environment using broadly accepted languages and tools; and integratingautonomy applications with each other and with representative systems and their data andcommand interfaces. For a target flight software environment, we chose Core FlightSoftware, developed by Goddard Space Flight Center as a common operating systemindependent framework. Our hardware integration environment was provided by theIntegrated Power and Avionics Systems (iPAS) Lab at Johnson Space Center, in whichvarious subsystem development has been conducted to address engineering challenges forthe vehicles and systems required for long-duration missions into the solar system. The iPASand its network of connected facilities provides realistic subsystem hardware or simulationsof spacecraft power, life support, guidance, navigation and control, and command and datahandling subsystems. Interfaces between autonomy applications and the subsystems beingassessed and controlled were developed, assessed and refined. The hardware and softwareenvironment using CFS and the iPAS facility has proven to be a highly flexible and realisticenvironment in which to rapidly integrate applications in an iterative, low cost setting. Usingthe integration environment we have developed, we will turn our focus to performance andsizing analysis to determine the computational requirements for full-scale deployment ofautonomy technology. Scalability of reasoners and the spacecraft models upon which theyoperate, and robustness across the full range of spacecraft conditions and environments willbe explored and improved. We are making significant contributions to the future programsthat will build the spacecraft that will take humans beyond the Earth-Moon system, in whichprogram Systems Engineers will be able to accurately and confidently design in accurate,robust and mature autonomous operations systems.

Flight Software↗
NASA NTRS2014

IRIS Mission Operations Director's Colloquium

Pursuing the Mysteries of the Sun: The Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) Mission. Flight controllers from the IRIS mission will present their individual experiences on IRIS from development through the first year of flight. This will begin with a discussion of the unique nature of IRISs mission and science, and how it fits into NASA's fleet of solar observatories. Next will be a discussion of the critical roles Ames contributed in the mission including spacecraft and flight software development, ground system development, and training for launch. This will be followed by experiences from launch, early operations, ongoing operations, and unusual operations experiences. The presentation will close with IRIS science imagery and questions.

Mission Operations↗
NASA NTRS1981

LANDSAT-D flight segment operations manual. Appendix B: OBC software operations

The LANDSAT 4 satellite contains two NASA standard spacecraft computers and 65,536 words of memory. Onboard computer software is divided into flight executive and applications processors. Both applications processors and the flight executive use one or more of 67 system tables to obtain variables, constants, and software flags. Output from the software for monitoring operation is via 49 OBC telemetry reports subcommutated in the spacecraft telemetry. Information is provided about the flight software as it is used to control the various spacecraft operations and interpret operational OBC telemetry. Processor function descriptions, processor operation, software constraints, processor system tables, processor telemetry, and processor flow charts are presented.

Talipsky, R.↗