Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Scheduling and planning”

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 379 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Promoting Crew Autonomy in a Human Spaceflight Earth Analog Mission through Self-Scheduling

Deep space exploration missions face the challenge of communication transmission latencies between ground stations and astronaut crews due to increasing distance between the Earth and spacecraft in transit. To address this, research at NASA has aimed toward supporting crew autonomy by enabling astronauts to schedule their own timelines with minimal oversight from Mission Control. While self-scheduling has been shown to be feasible, it is yet to be studied as an integral part of autonomous crew operations. The current paper reviews the operationalization of self-scheduling and a number of related objectives during Campaign 6 of HERA, a Human Exploration Research Analog. Research objectives include studying the effects of phasic autonomy over the course of a 45-day mission, evaluating differences in scheduling performance produced by software interface aids, and deploying a novel measure of crew attitudes toward self-scheduling and plan execution.

crew autonomy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Promoting Crew Autonomy in a Human Spaceflight Earth Analog Mission through Self-Scheduling

Deep space exploration missions face the challenge of communication transmission latencies between ground stations and astronaut crews due to increasing distance between the Earth and spacecraft in transit. To address this, research at NASA has aimed toward supporting crew autonomy by enabling astronauts to schedule their own timelines with minimal oversight from Mission Control. While self-scheduling has been shown to be feasible, it is yet to be studied as an integral part of autonomous crew operations. The current paper reviews the operationalization of self-scheduling and a number of related objectives during Campaign 6 of HERA, a Human Exploration Research Analog. Research objectives include studying the effects of phasic autonomy over the course of a 45-day mission, evaluating differences in scheduling performance produced by software interface aids, and deploying a novel measure of crew attitudes toward self-scheduling and plan execution.

crew autonomy↗
NASA NTRS1988

Automated generation of spacecraft activity plans

An expert system is described which is currently in place in the ground support system of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Known as the Transformation system, it is used to process proposals submitted by the HST's world wide user community, converting the scientific descriptions of the astronomical observations into detailed spacecraft activities which are linked in time. These detailed activities are formatted to be both readable by the telescope operations staff and directly schedulable by the planning and scheduling portion of the ground system. The implementation of the Transformation system is particularly interesting as the system was developed at the same time that its target system (the planning and scheduling system) was being built.

Rosenthal, Donald A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

SLS-PLAN-IT: A knowledge-based blackboard scheduling system for Spacelab life sciences missions

The primary scheduling tool in use during the Spacelab Life Science (SLS-1) planning phase was the operations research (OR) based, tabular form Experiment Scheduling System (ESS) developed by NASA Marshall. PLAN-IT is an artificial intelligence based interactive graphic timeline editor for ESS developed by JPL. The PLAN-IT software was enhanced for use in the scheduling of Spacelab experiments to support the SLS missions. The enhanced software SLS-PLAN-IT System was used to support the real-time reactive scheduling task during the SLS-1 mission. SLS-PLAN-IT is a frame-based blackboard scheduling shell which, from scheduling input, creates resource-requiring event duration objects and resource-usage duration objects. The blackboard structure is to keep track of the effects of event duration objects on the resource usage objects. Various scheduling heuristics are coded in procedural form and can be invoked any time at the user's request. The system architecture is described along with what has been learned with the SLS-PLAN-IT project.

Kao, Cheng-Yan↗
NASA NTRS1990

Automated Platform Management System Scheduling

The Platform Management System was established to coordinate the operation of platform systems and instruments. The management functions are split between ground and space components. Since platforms are to be out of contact with the ground more than the manned base, the on-board functions are required to be more autonomous than those of the manned base. Under this concept, automated replanning and rescheduling, including on-board real-time schedule maintenance and schedule repair, are required to effectively and efficiently meet Space Station Freedom mission goals. In a FY88 study, we developed several promising alternatives for automated platform planning and scheduling. We recommended both a specific alternative and a phased approach to automated platform resource scheduling. Our recommended alternative was based upon use of exactly the same scheduling engine in both ground and space components of the platform management system. Our phased approach recommendation was based upon evolutionary development of the platform. In the past year, we developed platform scheduler requirements and implemented a rapid prototype of a baseline platform scheduler. Presently we are rehosting this platform scheduler rapid prototype and integrating the scheduler prototype into two Goddard Space Flight Center testbeds, as the ground scheduler in the Scheduling Concepts, Architectures, and Networks Testbed and as the on-board scheduler in the Platform Management System Testbed. Using these testbeds, we will investigate rescheduling issues, evaluate operational performance and enhance the platform scheduler prototype to demonstrate our evolutionary approach to automated platform scheduling. The work described in this paper was performed prior to Space Station Freedom rephasing, transfer of platform responsibility to Code E, and other recently discussed changes. We neither speculate on these changes nor attempt to predict the impact of the final decisions. As a consequence some of our work and results may be outdated when this paper is published.

Hull, Larry G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy through Self-Scheduling: Guidelines for Crew Scheduling Performance Envelope and Mitigation Strategies

Future long duration exploration missions (LDEMs) bring new challenges to astronaut crews in deep space, one of which is increased communication latencies with ground stations. As a result, crews will have to behave more autonomously by self-scheduling their own operational timelines in an efficient and effective manner. To support crew autonomy, our team has spent the last few years developing Playbook, a mission planning and scheduling tool. Our research focuses on investigating scheduling performance using Playbook to inform the deployment of novel aids that streamline the timeline creation process and proposing relevant standards and guidelines for autonomous crews in LDEMs. Summarizing yearly progress of research analysis and experiment in HERA.

user experience↗
NASA NTRS2003

Interleaved Observation Execution and Rescheduling on Earth Observing Systems

Observation scheduling for Earth orbiting satellites solves the following problem: given a set of requests for images of the Earth, a set of instruments for acquiring those images distributed on a collecting of orbiting satellites, and a set of temporal and resource constraints, generate a set of assignments of instruments and viewing times to those requests that satisfy those constraints. Observation scheduling is often construed as a constrained optimization problem with the objective of maximizing the overall utility of the science data acquired. The utility of an image is typically based on the intrinsic importance of acquiring it (for example, its importance in meeting a mission or science campaign objective) as well as the expected value of the data given current viewing conditions (for example, if the image is occluded by clouds, its value is usually diminished). Currently, science observation scheduling for Earth Observing Systems is done on the ground, for periods covering a day or more. Schedules are uplinked to the satellites and are executed rigorously. An alternative to this scenario is to do some of the decision-making about what images are to be acquired on-board. The principal argument for this capability is that the desirability of making an observation can change dynamically, because of changes in meteorological conditions (e.g. cloud cover), unforeseen events such as fires, floods, or volcanic eruptions, or un-expected changes in satellite or ground station capability. Furthermore, since satellites can only communicate with the ground between 5% to 10% of the time, it may be infeasible to make the desired changes to the schedule on the ground, and uplink the revisions in time for the on-board system to execute them. Examples of scenarios that motivate an on-board capability for revising schedules include the following. First, if a desired visual scene is completely obscured by clouds, then there is little point in taking it. In this case, satellite resources, such as power and storage space can be better utilized taking another image that is higher quality. Second, if an unexpected but important event occurs (such as a fire, flood, or volcanic eruption), there may be good reason to take images of it, instead of expending satellite resources on some of the lower priority scheduled observations. Finally, if there is unexpected loss of capability, it may be impossible to carry out the schedule of planned observations. For example, if a ground station goes down temporarily, a satellite may not be able to free up enough storage space to continue with the remaining schedule of observations. This paper describes an approach for interleaving execution of observation schedules with dynamic schedule revision based on changes to the expected utility of the acquired images. We describe the problem in detail, formulate an algorithm for interleaving schedule revision and execution, and discuss refinements to the algorithm based on the need for search efficiency. We summarize with a brief discussion of the tests performed on the system.

Khatib, Lina↗
NASA NTRS2005

Considerations for Using an Incremental Scheduler for Human Exploration Task Scheduling

As humankind embarks on longer space missions farther from home, the requirements and environments for scheduling the activities performed on these missions are changing. As we begin to prepare for these missions it is appropriate to evaluate the merits and applicability of the different types of scheduling engines. Scheduling engines temporally arrange tasks onto a timeline so that all constraints and objectives are met and resources are not overbooked. Scheduling engines used to schedule space missions fall into three general categories: batch, mixed-initiative, and incremental. This paper presents an assessment of the engine types, a discussion of the impact of human exploration of the moon and Mars on planning and scheduling, and the applicability of the different types of scheduling engines. This paper will pursue the hypothesis that incremental scheduling engines may have a place in the new environment; they have the potential to reduce cost, to improve the satisfaction of those who execute or benefit from a particular timeline (the customers), and to allow astronauts to plan their own tasks.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2005

Incremental Scheduling Engines: Cost Savings through Automation

As humankind embarks on longer space missions farther from home, the requirements and environments for scheduling the activities performed on these missions are changing. As we begin to prepare for these missions it is appropriate to evaluate the merits and applicability of the different types of scheduling engines. Scheduling engines temporally arrange tasks onto a timeline so that all constraints and ob.jectives are met and resources are not over-booked. Scheduling engines used to schedule space missions fall into three general categories: batch, mixed-initiative, and incremental. This paper, presents an assessment of the engine types, a discussion of the impact of human exploration of the moon and Mars on planning and scheduling, and the applicability of the different types of scheduling engines. This paper will pursue the hypothesis that incremental scheduling engines may have a place in the new environment; they have the potential to reduce cost, to improve the satisfaction of those who execute or benefit from a particular timeline (the customers), and to allow astronauts to plan their own tasks and those of their companion robots.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2005

Incremental Scheduling Engines for Human Exploration of the Cosmos

As humankind embarks on longer space missions farther from home, the requirements and environments for scheduling the activities performed on these missions are changing. As we begin to prepare for these missions it is appropriate to evaluate the merits and applicability of the different types of scheduling engines. Scheduling engines temporally arrange tasks onto a timeline so that all constraints and objectives are met and resources are not overbooked. Scheduling engines used to schedule space missions fall into three general categories: batch, mixed-initiative, and incremental. This paper presents an assessment of the engine types, a discussion of the impact of human exploration of the moon and Mars on planning and scheduling, and the applicability of the different types of scheduling engines. This paper will pursue the hypothesis that incremental scheduling engines may have a place in the new environment; they have the potential to reduce cost, to improve the satisfaction of those who execute or benefit from a particular timeline (the customers), and to allow astronauts to plan their own tasks and those of their companion robots.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS1977

Formulation of consumables management models: Mission planning processor payload interface definition

Consumables models required for the mission planning and scheduling function are formulated. The relation of the models to prelaunch, onboard, ground support, and postmission functions for the space transportation systems is established. Analytical models consisting of an orbiter planning processor with consumables data base is developed. A method of recognizing potential constraint violations in both the planning and flight operations functions, and a flight data file storage/retrieval of information over an extended period which interfaces with a flight operations processor for monitoring of the actual flights is presented.

Torian, J. G.↗
NASA NTRS1999

A Planning Revolution

The traditional centralized planning and scheduling of complex fast moving projects are value-added activites. However, centralized scheduling has some severe deficiencies that have plagued managers since the Polaris project when PERT analysis was invented.

planning project control receivables delivarables ↗
NASA NTRS2010

Project M: Scale Model of Lunar Landing Site of Apollo 17

The basis of the project was creating a scale model representation of the Apollo 17 lunar landing site. Vital components included surface slope characteristics, crater sizes and locations, prominent rocks, and lighting conditions. The model was made for Project M support when evaluating approach and terminal descent as well as when planning surface operations with respect to the terrain. The project had five main mi lestones during the length of the project. The first was examining the best method to use to re-create the Apollo 17 landing site and then reviewing research fmdings with Dr. Tim Crain and EO staff which occurred on June 25, 2010 at a meeting. The second step was formulating a construction plan, budget, and schedule and then presenting the plan for authority to proceed which occurred on July 6,2010. The third part was building a prototype to test materials and building processes which were completed by July 13, 2010. Next was assembling the landing site model and presenting a mid-term construction status report on July 29, 2010. The fifth and final milestone was demonstrating the model and presenting an exit pitch which happened on August 4, 2010. The project was very technical: it needed a lot of research about moon topography, lighting conditions and angles of the sun on the moon, Apollo 17, and Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology (ALHAT), before starting the actual building process. This required using Spreadsheets, searching internet sources and conducting personal meetings with project representatives. This information assisted the interns in deciding the scale of the model with respect to cracks, craters and rocks and their relative sizes as the objects mentioned could interfere with any of the Lunar Landers: Apollo, Project M and future Landers. The project concluded with the completion of a three dimensional scale model of the Apollo 17 Lunar landing site. This model assists Project M members because they can now visualize approach phase, terminal descent phase, and surface phase operations on the physical model. The project had an additional requirement that was also satisfied: the granite table the model was placed on must be returnable to its original condition if needed in the future.

O'Brien, Hollie↗
NASA NTRS1989

Space applications of artificial intelligence; Proceedings of the Annual Goddard Conference, Greenbelt, MD, May 16, 17, 1989

Theoretical and implementation aspects of AI systems for space applications are discussed in reviews and reports. Sections are devoted to planning and scheduling, fault isolation and diagnosis, data management, modeling and simulation, and development tools and methods. Particular attention is given to a situated reasoning architecture for space repair and replace tasks, parallel plan execution with self-processing networks, the electrical diagnostics expert system for Spacelab life-sciences experiments, diagnostic tolerance for missing sensor data, the integration of perception and reasoning in fast neural modules, a connectionist model for dynamic control, and applications of fuzzy sets to the development of rule-based expert systems.

Rash, James L.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Coordinated Science Campaign Scheduling for Sensor Webs

Future Earth observing missions will study different aspects and interacting pieces of the Earth's eco-system. Scientists are designing increasingly complex, interdisciplinary campaigns to exploit the diverse capabilities of multiple Earth sensing assets. In addition, spacecraft platforms are being configured into clusters, trains, or other distributed organizations in order to improve either the quality or the coverage of observations. These simultaneous advances in the design of science campaigns and in the missions that will provide the sensing resources to support them offer new challenges in the coordination of data and operations that are not addressed by current practice. For example, the scheduling of scientific observations for satellites in low Earth orbit is currently conducted independently by each mission operations center. An absence of an information infrastructure to enable the scheduling of coordinated observations involving multiple sensors makes it difficult to execute campaigns involving multiple assets. This paper proposes a software architecture and describes a prototype system called DESOPS (Distributed Earth Science Observation Planning and Scheduling) that will address this deficiency.

Edgington, Will↗
NASA NTRS2006

Scheduling with Automatic Resolution of Conflicts

DSN Requirement Scheduler is a computer program that automatically schedules, reschedules, and resolves conflicts for allocations of resources of NASA s Deep Space Network (DSN) on the basis of ever-changing project requirements for DSN services. As used here, resources signifies, primarily, DSN antennas, ancillary equipment, and times during which they are available. Examples of project-required DSN services include arraying, segmentation, very-long-baseline interferometry, and multiple spacecraft per aperture. Requirements can include periodic reservations of specific or optional resources during specific time intervals or within ranges specified in terms of starting times and durations. This program is built on the Automated Scheduling and Planning Environment (ASPEN) software system (aspects of which have been described in previous NASA Tech Briefs articles), with customization to reflect requirements and constraints involved in allocation of DSN resources. Unlike prior DSN-resource- scheduling programs that make single passes through the requirements and require human intervention to resolve conflicts, this program makes repeated passes in a continuing search for all possible allocations, provides a best-effort solution at any time, and presents alternative solutions among which users can choose.

Clement, Bradley↗