Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “cost missions system”

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

Autonomy and the human element in space

NASA is contemplating the next logical step in the U.S. space program - the permanent presence of humans in space. As currently envisioned, the initial system, planned for the early 1990's, will consist of manned and unmanned platforms situated primarily in low Earth orbit. The manned component will most likely be inhabited by 6-8 crew members performing a variety of tasks such as materials processing, satellite servicing, and life science experiments. The station thus has utility in scientific and commercial enterprises, in national security, and in the development of advanced space technology. The technical foundations for this next step have been firmly established as a result of unmanned spacecraft missions to other planets, the Apollo program, and Skylab. With the shuttle, NASA inaugurates a new era of frequent flights and more routine space operations supporting a larger variety of missions. A permanently manned space system will enable NASA to expand the scope of its activities still further. Since NASA' s inception there has been an intense debate over the relative merits of manned and unmanned space systems. Despite the generally higher costs associated with manned components, astronauts have accomplished numerous essential, complex tasks in space. The unique human talent to evaluate and respond inventively to unanticipated events has been crucial in many missions, and the presence of crews has helped arouse and sustain public interest in the space program. On the other hand, the hostile orbital environment affects astronaut physiology and productivity, is dangerous, and mandates extensive support systems. Safety and cost factors require the entire station complex, both space and ground components, to be highly automated to free people from mundane operational chores. Recent advances in computer technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and robotics have the potential to greatly extend space station operations, offering lower costs and superior productivity. Extended operations can in turn enhance critical technologies and contribute to the competitive economic abilities of the United States. A high degree of automation and autonomy may be required to reduce dependence on ground systems, reduce mission costs, diminish complexity as perceived by the crew, increase mission lifetime and expand mission versatility. However, technologies dealing with heavily automated, long duration habitable spacecraft have not yet been thoroughly investigated by NASA. A highly automated station must amalgamate the diverse capabilities of people, machines, and computers to yield an efficient system which capitalizes on unique human characteristics. The station also must have an initial design which allows evolution to a larger and more sophisticated space presence. In the early years it is likely that AI-based subsystems will be used primarily in an advisory or planning capacity. As human confidence in automated systems grows and as technology advances, machines will take on more critical and interdependent roles. The question is whether, and how much, system autonomy will lead to improved station effectiveness.

Source record↗

Reducing costs of the modified Antarctic Mapping mission through automated planning

This paper describes the automated mission planning system for MAMM, which dramatically reduced mission-planning costs to just a few workweeks, and enabled rapid generation of 'what-if' scenarios for evaluating mission-design trades. This latter capability informed several critical design decisions and was instrumental in accurately costing the mission.

reduce mission costs↗

Proven Innovations and New Initiatives in Ground System Development

The state-of-the-practice for engineering and development of Ground Systems has evolved significantly over the past half decade. Missions that challenge ground system developers with significantly reduced budgets in spite of requirements for greater and previously unimagined functionality are now the norm. Making the right trades early in the mission lifecycle is one of the key factors to minimizing ground system costs. The Mission Operations Strategic Leadership Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has spent the last year collecting and working through successes and failures in ground systems for application to future missions.

Mission Operations System (MOS)↗

A Systems Approach to Lower Cost Missions: Following the Rideshare Paradigm

Small-satellite rideshare capabilities and opportunities for low-cost access to space have been evolving over the past 10 years. Small space launch vehicle technology is rapidly being developed and demonstrated, including the Minotaur series and the Space X Falcon, among others, along with the lower cost launch facilities at Alaska's Kodiak Launch Complex, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, and the Reagan Test Site in the Pacific. Demonstrated capabilities for the launch of multiple payloads have increased (and continue to increase) significantly. This will allow more efficient and cost-effective use of the various launch opportunities, including utilizing the excess capacity of the emerging Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-based missions. The definition of standardized interfaces and processes, along with various user guides and payload implementation plans, has been developed and continues to be refined. Top-level agency policies for the support of low-cost access to space for small experimental payloads, such as the DoD policy structure on auxiliary payloads, have been defined and provide the basis for the continued refinement and implementation of these evolving technologies. Most importantly, the coordination and cooperative interfaces between the various stakeholders continues to evolve. The degree of this coordination and technical interchange is demonstrated by the wide stakeholder participation at the recent 2008 Small Payload Rideshare Workshop, held at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. This annual workshop has been the major platform for coordination and technical interchange within the rideshare community and with the various sponsoring agencies. These developments have provided the foundation for a robust low-cost small payload rideshare capability. However, the continued evolution, sustainment, and utilization of these capabilities will require continued stakeholder recognition, support, and nourishing. Ongoing, coordinated effort, partnering, and support between stakeholders is essential to acquire the improved organizational processes and efficiencies required to meet the needs of the growing small payload community for low-cost access to space. Further, a mix of capabilities developed within the space community for Operationally Responsive Space, an international committee investigating space systems cross-compatibility, and an industry-based organization seeking small satellite "standardization" all work toward a new paradigm: sharing or leveraging resources amongst multiple users. The challenge: where are those users, and what is the best way to leverage them? What is leveraged-mass, power, cost-sharing? And how does one sort through these options? What policies may prevent the use of some options? Who are the "other users" that might share or leverage capabilities? This paper presents a systematic look at both the users and the launch options, and suggests a way forward.

access to space↗

Pluto Express: Advanced Technologies Enable Lower Cost Missions to the Outer Solar System and Beyond

Missions to Pluto and the outer Solar System are typically driven by factors which tend to increase cost, such as: long life, high radiation exposure, a large power source, high (delta)V requirements, difficult telecommunications links, low solar illumination at the destination, and demanding science measurements. Advanced technology is a central part of responding to such challenges in a manner which permits the cost of development and operations to be an order of magnitude less than for prior outer planet missions...This paper summarizes the curent technology development plan which is tightly coupled to the New Millenium Program (NMP) Deep Space 1 technology validation flight. Specific details will be presented about advanced microelectronics technology.

New↗

Pi-Sat: A Low Cost Small Satellite and Distributed Spacecraft Mission System Test Platform

Current technology and budget trends indicate a shift in satellite architectures from large, expensive single satellite missions, to small, low cost distributed spacecraft missions. At the center of this shift is the SmallSatCubesat architecture. The primary goal of the Pi-Sat project is to create a low cost, and easy to use Distributed Spacecraft Mission (DSM) test bed to facilitate the research and development of next-generation DSM technologies and concepts. This test bed also serves as a realistic software development platform for Small Satellite and Cubesat architectures. The Pi-Sat is based on the popular $35 Raspberry Pi single board computer featuring a 700Mhz ARM processor, 512MB of RAM, a flash memory card, and a wealth of IO options. The Raspberry Pi runs the Linux operating system and can easily run Code 582s Core Flight System flight software architecture. The low cost and high availability of the Raspberry Pi make it an ideal platform for a Distributed Spacecraft Mission and Cubesat software development. The Pi-Sat models currently include a Pi-Sat 1U Cube, a Pi-Sat Wireless Node, and a Pi-Sat Cubesat processor card.The Pi-Sat project takes advantage of many popular trends in the Maker community including low cost electronics, 3d printing, and rapid prototyping in order to provide a realistic platform for flight software testing, training, and technology development. The Pi-Sat has also provided fantastic hands on training opportunities for NASA summer interns and Pathways students.

Software↗

Estimating the Life Cycle Cost of Space Systems

A space system's Life Cycle Cost (LCC) includes design and development, launch and emplacement, and operations and maintenance. Each of these cost factors is usually estimated separately. NASA uses three different parametric models for the design and development cost of crewed space systems; the commercial PRICE-H space hardware cost model, the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM), and the Advanced Missions Cost Model (AMCM). System mass is an important parameter in all three models. System mass also determines the launch and emplacement cost, which directly depends on the cost per kilogram to launch mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The launch and emplacement cost is the cost to launch to LEO the system itself and also the rockets, propellant, and lander needed to emplace it. The ratio of the total launch mass to payload mass depends on the mission scenario and destination. The operations and maintenance costs include any material and spares provided, the ground control crew, and sustaining engineering. The Mission Operations Cost Model (MOCM) estimates these costs as a percentage of the system development cost per year.

Life cycle cost↗

Technology advancements for on-board propulsion systems

On-board propulsion systems are required for all classes of space missions and usually represent a predominant fraction of the mass delivered to space by launch systems. Significant mission cost and performance benefits may, therefore, be gained via use of advanced on-board propulsion and strong international programs are in place to develop new technologies. The NASA Office of Space Access and Technology (OSAT) sponsors a program to identify, develop, and transfer on-board electric and low thrust chemical propulsion systems with potential for major impacts on the performance and competitiveness of U.S. space systems. The paper will briefly describe the overall content of the on-board propulsion program and then highlight some critical technologies with potentials for long term impacts.

Byers, David↗

Test Results for the Automated Rendezvous and Capture System

The Automated Rendezvous and Capture (AR&C) system was designed and tested at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) to demonstrate technologies and mission strategies for automated rendezvous and docking of spacecraft in Earth orbit, The system incorporates some of the latest innovations in Global Positioning, System space navigation, laser sensor technologies and automated mission sequencing algorithms. The system's initial design and integration was completed in 1998 and has undergone testing at MSFC. This paper describes the major components of the AR&C system and presents results from the official system tests performed in MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory with digital simulations and hardware in the loop tests. The results show that the AR&C system can safely and reliably perform automated rendezvous and docking missions in the absence of system failures with 100 percent success. When system failures are included, the system uses its automated collision avoidance maneuver logic to recover in a safe manner. The primary objective of the AR&C project is to prove that by designing a safe and robust automated system, mission operations cost can be reduced by decreasing the personnel required for mission design, preflight planning and training required for crewed rendezvous and docking missions.

Cruzen, Craig↗

Autonomous Navigation Using Celestial Objects

In the twenty-first century, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Enterprises envision frequent low-cost missions to explore the solar system, observe the universe, and study our planet. Satellite autonomy is a key technology required to reduce satellite operating costs. The Guidance, Navigation, and Control Center (GNCC) at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) currently sponsors several initiatives associated with the development of advanced spacecraft systems to provide autonomous navigation and control. Autonomous navigation has the potential both to increase spacecraft navigation system performance and to reduce total mission cost. By eliminating the need for routine ground-based orbit determination and special tracking services, autonomous navigation can streamline spacecraft ground systems. Autonomous navigation products can be included in the science telemetry and forwarded directly to the scientific investigators. In addition, autonomous navigation products are available onboard to enable other autonomous capabilities, such as attitude control, maneuver planning and orbit control, and communications signal acquisition. Autonomous navigation is required to support advanced mission concepts such as satellite formation flying. GNCC has successfully developed high-accuracy autonomous navigation systems for near-Earth spacecraft using NASA's space and ground communications systems and the Global Positioning System (GPS). Recently, GNCC has expanded its autonomous navigation initiative to include satellite orbits that are beyond the regime in which use of GPS is possible. Currently, GNCC is assessing the feasibility of using standard spacecraft attitude sensors and communication components to provide autonomous navigation for missions including: libration point, gravity assist, high-Earth, and interplanetary orbits. The concept being evaluated uses a combination of star, Sun, and Earth sensor measurements along with forward-link Doppler measurements from the command link carrier to autonomously estimate the spacecraft's orbit and reference oscillator's frequency. To support autonomous attitude determination and control and maneuver planning and control, the orbit determination accuracy should be on the order of kilometers in position and centimeters per second in velocity. A less accurate solution (one hundred kilometers in position) could be used for acquisition purposes for command and science downloads. This paper provides performance results for both libration point orbiting and high Earth orbiting satellites as a function of sensor measurement accuracy, measurement types, measurement frequency, initial state errors, and dynamic modeling errors.

Folta, David↗