SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Scheduling”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2004

Enabling a New Planning and Scheduling Paradigm

The Flight Projects Directorate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is developing a new planning and scheduling environment and a new scheduling algorithm to enable a paradigm shift in planning and scheduling concepts. Over the past 33 years Marshall has developed and evolved a paradigm for generating payload timelines for Skylab, Spacelab, various other Shuttle payloads, and the International Space Station. The current paradigm starts by collecting the requirements, called "tasks models," from the scientists and technologists for the tasks that they want to be done. Because of shortcomings in the current modeling schema, some requirements are entered as notes. Next a cadre with knowledge of vehicle and hardware modifies these models to encompass and be compatible with the hardware model; again, notes are added when the modeling schema does not provide a better way to represent the requirements. Finally, another cadre further modifies the models to be compatible with the scheduling engine. This last cadre also submits the models to the scheduling engine or builds the timeline manually to accommodate requirements that are expressed in notes. A future paradigm would provide a scheduling engine that accepts separate science models and hardware models. The modeling schema would have the capability to represent all the requirements without resorting to notes. Furthermore, the scheduling engine would not require that the models be modified to account for the capabilities (limitations) of the scheduling engine. The enabling technology under development at Marshall has three major components. (1) A new modeling schema allows expressing all the requirements of the tasks without resorting to notes or awkward contrivances. The chosen modeling schema is both maximally expressive and easy to use. It utilizes graphics methods to show hierarchies of task constraints and networks of temporal relationships. (2) A new scheduling algorithm automatically schedules the models without the intervention of a scheduling expert. The algorithm is tuned for the constraint hierarchies and the complex temporal relationships provided by the modeling schema. It has an extensive search algorithm which can exploit timing flexibilities and constraint and relationship options. (3) A web-based architecture allows multiple remote users to simultaneously model science and technology requirements and other users to model vehicle and hardware characteristics. The architecture allows the users to submit scheduling requests directly to the scheduling engine and immediately see the results. These three components are integrated so that science and technology experts with no knowledge of the vehicle or hardware subsystems and no knowledge of the internal workings of the scheduling engine have the ability to build and submit scheduling requests and see the results. The immediate feedback will hone the users' modeling skills and ultimately enable them to produce the desired timeline. This paper summarizes the three components of the enabling technology and describes how this technology would make a new paradigm possible.

Jaap, John↗

NASA NTRS2012

Anchorage Arrival Scheduling Under Off-Nominal Weather Conditions

Weather can cause flight diversions, passenger delays, additional fuel consumption and schedule disruptions at any high volume airport. The impacts are particularly acute at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport in Anchorage, Alaska due to its importance as a major international portal. To minimize the impacts due to weather, a multi-stage scheduling process is employed that is iteratively executed, as updated aircraft demand and/or airport capacity data become available. The strategic scheduling algorithm assigns speed adjustments for flights that originate outside of Anchorage Center to achieve the proper demand and capacity balance. Similarly, an internal departure-scheduling algorithm assigns ground holds for pre-departure flights that originate from within Anchorage Center. Tactical flight controls in the form of airborne holding are employed to reactively account for system uncertainties. Real-world scenarios that were derived from the January 16, 2012 Anchorage visibility observations and the January 12, 2012 Anchorage arrival schedule were used to test the initial implementation of the scheduling algorithm in fast-time simulation experiments. Although over 90% of the flights in the scenarios arrived at Anchorage without requiring any delay, pre-departure scheduling was the dominant form of control for Anchorage arrivals. Additionally, tactical scheduling was used extensively in conjunction with the pre-departure scheduling to reactively compensate for uncertainties in the arrival demand. For long-haul flights, the strategic scheduling algorithm performed best when the scheduling horizon was greater than 1,000 nmi. With these long scheduling horizons, it was possible to absorb between ten and 12 minutes of delay through speed control alone. Unfortunately, the use of tactical scheduling, which resulted in airborne holding, was found to increase as the strategic scheduling horizon increased because of the additional uncertainty in the arrival times of the aircraft. Findings from these initial experiments indicate that it is possible to schedule arrivals into Anchorage with minimal delays under low-visibility conditions with less disruption to high-cost, international flights.

Grabbe, Shon↗

NASA NTRS2021

Human Performance of Novice Schedulers for Complex Spaceflight Operations Timelines

Objective: Investigate the effects on human performance as a function of scheduling task complexity for novice schedulers creating spaceflight timelines. Background: Future astronauts will be expected to self-schedule, yet will not be experts in creating timelines that meet complex constraints inherent to spaceflight operations. Method: Conducted a within-subject experiment to measure scheduling efficiency, effectiveness, workload and situation awareness while varying scheduling task complexity factors, namely number of constraints and types of constraints. Results: Fifteen participants completed various scheduling problems. Performance differences were identified between the independent variables. There was a main effect due to the number of constraints and type of constraint for efficiency, effectiveness, and workload. Significant interactions were observed in situation awareness and workload for certain types of constraints. Results also suggest that a lower number of constraints may be manageable by novice schedulers when compared to scheduling activities without constraints. Conclusion: Results suggest that novice schedulers performance decreases with high number of constraints and future scheduling aids may have to be targeted to type of constraint. Application: Knowledge on the effect of scheduling task complexity will help design scheduling systems that will enable self-scheduling for future astronauts. It will also inform other domains that conduct complex scheduling, such as nursing and manufacturing.

scheduling↗

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 NTRS2012

Automating Mid- and Long-Range Scheduling for NASA's Deep Space Network

NASA has recently deployed a new mid-range scheduling system for the antennas of the Deep Space Network (DSN), called Service Scheduling Software, or S(sup 3). This system is architected as a modern web application containing a central scheduling database integrated with a collaborative environment, exploiting the same technologies as social web applications but applied to a space operations context. This is highly relevant to the DSN domain since the network schedule of operations is developed in a peer-to-peer negotiation process among all users who utilize the DSN (representing 37 projects including international partners and ground-based science and calibration users). The initial implementation of S(sup 3) is complete and the system has been operational since July 2011. S(sup 3) has been used for negotiating schedules since April 2011, including the baseline schedules for three launching missions in late 2011. S(sup 3) supports a distributed scheduling model, in which changes can potentially be made by multiple users based on multiple schedule "workspaces" or versions of the schedule. This has led to several challenges in the design of the scheduling database, and of a change proposal workflow that allows users to concur with or to reject proposed schedule changes, and then counter-propose with alternative or additional suggested changes. This paper describes some key aspects of the S(sup 3) system and lessons learned from its operational deployment to date, focusing on the challenges of multi-user collaborative scheduling in a practical and mission-critical setting. We will also describe the ongoing project to extend S(sup 3) to encompass long-range planning, downtime analysis, and forecasting, as the next step in developing a single integrated DSN scheduling tool suite to cover all time ranges.

scheduling↗

NASA NTRS2015

Arrival Scheduling with Shortcut Path Options and Mixed Aircraft Performance

Previous work introduced the concept of using tactical shortcut options to improve schedule conformance in terminal airspace. When a scheduling point is congested, aircraft are scheduled to longer nominal paths, holding shortcut path options in reserve for tactical use if an aircraft is late, thereby improving the schedule conformance, reducing the required scheduling buffer, and increasing throughput. When the scheduling point is less congested, aircraft may be scheduled to the shorter path with original larger scheduling buffers. Previous work focused on a single generic merge point serving aircraft with uniform arrival precision. This paper extends the previous concept to enhance the performance of time-based arrival management and consider mixed aircraft performance. Aircraft equipped to achieve a high degree of schedule conformance may be scheduled to the shorter path under the same conditions that a less equipped aircraft would be scheduled to the longer path, giving the equipped aircraft an advantage that can be seamlessly integrated into the scheduler. The arrival scheduler with shortcut path options for mixed aircraft performance is applied to a model of first-come first-served terminal metering at Los Angeles International Airport. Whereas clear system benefits were found for tactical shortcut routing and higher percentages of equipped aircraft, very little advantage could be seen for equipped over unequipped aircraft that could be used to incentivize early equipage.

Equipage operations↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Autonomy Through Self-Scheduling: Operational Characterization

NASA’s future long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will encounter increasing communication transmission delays as they move farther from Earth-based ground stations. This necessitates a new approach, as crews can no longer rely on real-time support from ground planners and must self-schedule their own operational timelines effectively and efficiently. To enable this transition, our team has developed Playbook, a mission planning and scheduling tool. Our research focuses on quantifying scheduling performance using Playbook to inform the design and development of future features to streamline timeline creation. We also aim to propose standards and guidelines for autonomous crews in LDEMs. In the past year, we have focused on further validating and quantifying the effects of countermeasure aids on self-scheduling performance. There are two software aids in Playbook (self-scheduling platform): Suggested Fixes, which propose an edit to resolve violations within a timeline, and No-Go Zones, which highlight where activities should not be scheduled on a timeline. We have made significant progress in HERA Campaign 7 (C7) data collection, increasing the number of days crew must self-schedule from 4 to 8. As a result, almost 20% of the mission is self-scheduled by the analog astronauts. We have also started data collection on a controlled lab experiment designed to quantify performance effects due to the countermeasures. We expect to present the preliminary results from both efforts. Finally, we have conducted an exploratory analysis of NASA’s HERA Campaign 6 (C6), investigating the mission-level impacts of self-scheduling. We derived basic patterns and descriptive statistics to better characterize crew autonomy through self-scheduling. We also assessed if there are any individual indicators of preference for self-scheduling, such as experience or predilection for autonomy. Preliminary analysis indicates that the HERA C6 crew self-scheduled one out of four flexible activities, indicating unprompted adoption of self-scheduling as a concept of operation for crew autonomy.

analog↗

NASA NTRS1992

Scheduling lessons learned from the Autonomous Power System

The Autonomous Power System (APS) project at NASA LeRC is designed to demonstrate the applications of integrated intelligent diagnosis, control, and scheduling techniques to space power distribution systems. The project consists of three elements: the Autonomous Power Expert System (APEX) for Fault Diagnosis, Isolation, and Recovery (FDIR); the Autonomous Intelligent Power Scheduler (AIPS) to efficiently assign activities start times and resources; and power hardware (Brassboard) to emulate a space-based power system. The AIPS scheduler was tested within the APS system. This scheduler is able to efficiently assign available power to the requesting activities and share this information with other software agents within the APS system in order to implement the generated schedule. The AIPS scheduler is also able to cooperatively recover from fault situations by rescheduling the affected loads on the Brassboard in conjunction with the APEX FDIR system. AIPS served as a learning tool and an initial scheduling testbed for the integration of FDIR and automated scheduling systems. Many lessons were learned from the AIPS scheduler and are now being integrated into a new scheduler called SCRAP (Scheduler for Continuous Resource Allocation and Planning). This paper will service three purposes: an overview of the AIPS implementation, lessons learned from the AIPS scheduler, and a brief section on how these lessons are being applied to the new SCRAP scheduler.

Ringer, Mark J.↗

NASA NTRS2006

A COTS-Based Attitude Dependent Contact Scheduling System

The mission architecture of the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) requires a sophisticated ground system component for scheduling the downlink of science data. Contacts between the ````````````````` satellite and the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) are restricted by the limited field-of-view of the science data downlink antenna. In addition, contacts must be scheduled when permitted by the satellite s complex and non-repeating attitude profile. Complicating the matter further, the long lead-time required to schedule TDRSS services, combined with the short duration of the downlink contact opportunities, mandates accurate GLAST orbit and attitude modeling. These circumstances require the development of a scheduling system that is capable of predictively and accurately modeling not only the orbital position of GLAST but also its attitude. This paper details the methods used in the design of a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS)-based attitude-dependent. TDRSS contact Scheduling system that meets the unique scheduling requirements of the GLAST mission, and it suggests a COTS-based scheduling approach to support future missions. The scheduling system applies filtering and smoothing algorithms to telemetered GPS data to produce high-accuracy predictive GLAST orbit ephemerides. Next, bus pointing commands from the GLAST Science Support Center are used to model the complexities of the two dynamic science gathering attitude modes. Attitude-dependent view periods are then generated between GLAST and each of the supporting TDRSs. Numerous scheduling constraints are then applied to account for various mission specific resource limitations. Next, an optimization engine is used to produce an optimized TDRSS contact schedule request which is sent to TDRSS scheduling for confirmation. Lastly, the confirmed TDRSS contact schedule is rectified with an updated ephemeris and adjusted bus pointing commands to produce a final science downlink contact schedule.

DeGumbia, Jonathan D.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Interference Cognizant Network Scheduling

Systems and methods for interference cognizant network scheduling are provided. In certain embodiments, a method of scheduling communications in a network comprises identifying a bin of a global timeline for scheduling an unscheduled virtual link, wherein a bin is a segment of the timeline; identifying a pre-scheduled virtual link in the bin; and determining if the pre-scheduled and unscheduled virtual links share a port. In certain embodiments, if the unscheduled and pre-scheduled virtual links don't share a port, scheduling transmission of the unscheduled virtual link to overlap with the scheduled transmission of the pre-scheduled virtual link; and if the unscheduled and pre-scheduled virtual links share a port: determining a start time delay for the unscheduled virtual link based on the port; and scheduling transmission of the unscheduled virtual link in the bin based on the start time delay to overlap part of the scheduled transmission of the pre-scheduled virtual link.

Varadarajan, Srivatsan↗

NASA NTRS2021

Scheduling and Operations of the ECOSTRESS Mission

This paper describes the development and use of an automated scheduling system for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on Space Station (ECOSTRESS) mission. Key to the success of the ECOSTRESS mission has been the use of automated scheduling in mission analysis pre-launch, and in successful operations where automated scheduling was deployed to address several operational challenges. ECOSTRESS uses an adaptation of the Compressed Large-scale Activity Scheduling and Planning (CLASP) system to automatically select science observations respecting area and point target priorities as well as visibility, illumination, onboard storage, and radiation constraints to satisfy high-level prioritized science campaigns. The ECOSTRESS scheduler was used pre-launch to predict the effectiveness of alternative formulations of science campaign definitions accounting for the impact of data volume, keepout, and orbit/illumination/visibility constraints to derive the initial operational science campaign definitions and priorities. The scheduler was then used after instrument checkout for operations. ECOSTRESS has faced multiple operational challenges relating to instrument firmware and hardware, and the scheduler has been updated several times to address these challenges. The instrument Mass Storage Units (MSUs) had operational issues, requiring the scheduler to plan for and schedule commands to handle intricacies of data management. After many months of operations, both MSUs on the instrument became non-functioning and the firmware of the instrument was updated to bypass the MSUs. A further update to the ECOSTRESS scheduler enabled the scheduler to operate in this new operations mode. The ECOSTRESS scheduler has also been updated to improve handling of along-track uncertainty inherent in International Space Station operations. The flexibility and ease of updating of the automated scheduler has been a significant contributor to successful operations of the ECOSTRESS mission.

Padams, Jordan↗

NASA NTRS2015

Scheduling and Delivering Aircraft to Departure Fixes in the NY Metroplex with Controller-Managed Spacing Tools

In this paper, successful Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) scheduling systems for arrivals are considered and adapted to apply to departures. We present a concept of operations that integrates Controller-Managed Spacing tools for departures (CMS-D) with existing tactical departure scheduling tools to coordinate demand at departure fixes in a metroplex environment. We tested our concept in a Human-in-the-Loop simulation and compared the effect of two scheduling conditions: 1) "Departure Scheduling" consisting of an emulation of the Integrated Departure and Arrival Capability (IDAC) where Towers and a Planner (Traffic Management Coordinator at the appropriate facility) coordinate aircraft scheduled takeoff times to departure fixes; and 2) "Arrival Sensitive Departure Scheduling" where, in addition, the Tower and Planner also consider arrival Scheduled Time of Arrivals (STAs) at the airport's dependent runway. Results indicate little difference between the two scheduling conditions, but a large difference between the No Tools and the two scheduling conditions with CMS-D tools. The scheduling/CMS-D tools conditions markedly reduced heading, speed clearances, and workload for controllers who were merging flows at the departure fixes. In the tool conditions, departure controllers conditioned departures earlier rather than later when aircraft were tied near the departure fixes. In the scheduling/CMS-D tools conditions, departures crossed the departure fixes 50 seconds earlier and with an 8% error rate (consisting of time ahead or behind desired time of arrival) compared to a 19% error rate in the No Tool condition. Two exploratory runs showed that similar beneficial effects can be obtained only with the CMS-D tools without scheduling takeoff times, but at the cost of a somewhat higher workload for controllers, indicating the benefits of pre-departure scheduling of aircraft with minimal delays. Hence, we found that CMS-D tools were very beneficial in the metroplex environment we tested but that further research is needed to clarify the benefits of the various scheduling approaches.

terminal airspace↗

NASA NTRS2006

Conflict-Aware Scheduling Algorithm

conflict-aware scheduling algorithm is being developed to help automate the allocation of NASA s Deep Space Network (DSN) antennas and equipment that are used to communicate with interplanetary scientific spacecraft. The current approach for scheduling DSN ground resources seeks to provide an equitable distribution of tracking services among the multiple scientific missions and is very labor intensive. Due to the large (and increasing) number of mission requests for DSN services, combined with technical and geometric constraints, the DSN is highly oversubscribed. To help automate the process, and reduce the DSN and spaceflight project labor effort required for initiating, maintaining, and negotiating schedules, a new scheduling algorithm is being developed. The scheduling algorithm generates a "conflict-aware" schedule, where all requests are scheduled based on a dynamic priority scheme. The conflict-aware scheduling algorithm allocates all requests for DSN tracking services while identifying and maintaining the conflicts to facilitate collaboration and negotiation between spaceflight missions. These contrast with traditional "conflict-free" scheduling algorithms that assign tracks that are not in conflict and mark the remainder as unscheduled. In the case where full schedule automation is desired (based on mission/event priorities, fairness, allocation rules, geometric constraints, and ground system capabilities/ constraints), a conflict-free schedule can easily be created from the conflict-aware schedule by removing lower priority items that are in conflict.

Wang, Yeou-Fang↗

NASA NTRS2021

Ground-based Automated Scheduling for Operations of the Mars 2020 Rover Mission

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Mars 2020 Rover, named Perseverance, landed on the surface of Mars in Jezero Crater on February 18, 2021. Since the landing, the rover’s activities have been planned with the aid of a ground-based automated scheduling system called Copilot. Automated scheduling is very rare for planetary rover missions. Historically humans have created a schedule manually and ensured that the schedule satisfied all constraints. Higher levels of automation in the system allows science planners to produce schedules for the rover more quickly. In addition to scheduling user-provided activities, Copilot generates and schedules two types of support activities: sleep activities and heating activities. Some activities require the CPU to be on as they execute, so Copilot schedules wakeups and shutdowns of the CPU at the appropriate times. Some activities require areas of the rover to be heated before they can execute, and that heating must be maintained throughout the duration of the activity. Copilot schedules the preheat and maintenance heating activities for the user-provided activities that require them. To facilitate Copilot usage, the Crosscheck tool shows the science planners how Copilot constructed a schedule. For activities that fail to be scheduled, Crosscheck gives information on the constraints that the activity would have violated. This gives the users insight into how to change the input activities and constraints in order to achieve a schedule that satisfies their goals.

Towey, Shannon↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Crew Scheduling Performance

As NASA considers long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs), it is envisioned that crew will behave more autonomously as compared to low-Earth orbit missions. The necessary shift of Ops Planners’ complete management of scheduling and planning to provide flexibility for crew to manage their own schedule in real-time requires significant research and investigation in evaluation of concepts of operations, of software tools to support tasks, and of crew performance to complete scheduling tasks. Our research objective is to characterize the human performance envelope for the task of planning and scheduling (crew self-scheduling), develop countermeasures to mitigate adverse performance effects due to plan complexity, and inform performance standards and guidelines based on research results. In our efforts to understand and characterize scheduling performance of crew members, we have conducted subject matter expert interviews to obtain feedback on scheduling plan complexity drivers and plan goodness. Following the pilot study conducted last year, we designed a study and have begun remote human subject testing to evaluate non-expert human performance, workload, and situational awareness for the task of planning and scheduling. This study investigates the effects of the number and type of constraints on human performance, and the differences in scheduling metrics between scheduling and rescheduling tasks. Subject testing is currently in progress, and we aim to collect data from approximately thirty subjects. We will summarize the methods used and impacts of the number and type of scheduling constraints. We will also present lessons learned as well as relevant results of the study.

crew scheduling↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Scheduling Position, Navigation and Time Service Requests from Non-dedicated Lunar Constellations

This paper presents a centralized scheduler that satisfies user requests for Position, Navigation, and Time (PNT) services from an ad-hoc, non-dedicated orbital constellation around the Moon. Traditional, dedicated GNSS networks provide service 24/7, which allows users to acquire localization services at-will. For ad-hoc networks, a coordinated schedule is needed to ensure Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees for user localization, while satisfying non-dedicated assets’ usage constraints. This scheduler bridges this coordination gap by leveraging Mixed Integer-Linear Programming (MILP) to schedule this “as-needed” localization service while respecting the constraints on each asset. In upcoming decades there is expected to be a substantial increase in Lunar missions. Many of these missions will feature low-cost surface assets near the moon’s polar regions and small-sat science missions in orbit. Most missions need PNT capabilities to ensure safe operations and meet their science objectives, but low-cost missions may not be able to support the large power, mass, and weight that a weak GNSS or DSN based navigation solution would entail. Asset localization has been demonstrated using a decentralized extended Kalman Filter (DEKF) in the previously presented Lunar Autonomous PNT System (LAPS). Within the LAPS simulation environment, a module has been developed to generate the coordinated user-asset schedules described above; this Service Scheduler Module (SSM) allows for complete end-to-end testing of the entire system. Within SSM, a user service request consists of a location on the Lunar surface, a cumulative service duration, and a window in which service must occur. SSM takes as input these requests and the LAPS-predicted positional degree of precision as the QoS for each available set of orbital assets. A simple, baseline MILP model is formulated to provide the highest-precision service balanced across all requests. To reflect the non-dedicated nature of the constellation, this baseline model is augmented with additional asset-specific load capacity constraints or availability constraints. The load capacity constraints limit total time spent providing service, and the availability constraints reflect blockout times or availability windows when the assets are not otherwise occupied. SSM outputs two schedules: the user schedule to indicate their service times and expected QoS, and a satellite schedule to be transmitted to the orbiting constellation, describing when each non-dedicated asset provides PNT service. SSM is predominantly implemented in MATLAB and allows the use of any MILP solver to generate the resulting schedules. This paper describes the SSM - LAPS interface, how the output of LAPS is used to construct the MILP, and how SSM provides user localization service while satisfying constraints. It will also demonstrate the tool’s flexibility for formulating schedules for the end user and the constellation, focusing on scenarios that match real-world proposed missions. It will detail how SSM can be used to compare the addition of load capacity constraints, satellite availability constraints, and QoS guarantees for the users. Finally, we describe how SSM can be used to support the design of the ad-hoc constellation itself. The resulting integrated capability will support the design of future ad-hoc Lunar PNT networks, enabling high-quality, low-cost Lunar exploration

Swarm↗

NASA NTRS1988

Space station payload operations scheduling with ESP2

The Mission Analysis Division of the Systems Analysis and Integration Laboratory at the Marshall Space Flight Center is developing a system of programs to handle all aspects of scheduling payload operations for Space Station. The Expert Scheduling Program (ESP2) is the heart of this system. The task of payload operations scheduling can be simply stated as positioning the payload activities in a mission so that they collect their desired data without interfering with other activities or violating mission constraints. ESP2 is an advanced version of the Experiment Scheduling Program (ESP) which was developed by the Mission Integration Branch beginning in 1979 to schedule Spacelab payload activities. The automatic scheduler in ESP2 is an expert system that embodies the rules that expert planners would use to schedule payload operations by hand. This scheduler uses depth-first searching, backtracking, and forward chaining techniques to place an activity so that constraints (such as crew, resources, and orbit opportunities) are not violated. It has an explanation facility to show why an activity was or was not scheduled at a certain time. The ESP2 user can also place the activities in the schedule manually. The program offers graphical assistance to the user and will advise when constraints are being violated. ESP2 also has an option to identify conflict introduced into an existing schedule by changes to payload requirements, mission constraints, and orbit opportunities.

Stacy, Kenneth L.↗

NASA NTRS1992

The application of artificial intelligence to astronomical scheduling problems

Efficient utilization of expensive space- and ground-based observatories is an important goal for the astronomical community; the cost of modern observing facilities is enormous, and the available observing time is much less than the demand from astronomers around the world. The complexity and variety of scheduling constraints and goals has led several groups to investigate how artificial intelligence (AI) techniques might help solve these kinds of problems. The earliest and most successful of these projects was started at Space Telescope Science Institute in 1987 and has led to the development of the Spike scheduling system to support the scheduling of Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The aim of Spike at STScI is to allocate observations to timescales of days to a week observing all scheduling constraints and maximizing preferences that help ensure that observations are made at optimal times. Spike has been in use operationally for HST since shortly after the observatory was launched in Apr. 1990. Although developed specifically for HST scheduling, Spike was carefully designed to provide a general framework for similar (activity-based) scheduling problems. In particular, the tasks to be scheduled are defined in the system in general terms, and no assumptions about the scheduling timescale are built in. The mechanisms for describing, combining, and propagating temporal and other constraints and preferences are quite general. The success of this approach has been demonstrated by the application of Spike to the scheduling of other satellite observatories: changes to the system are required only in the specific constraints that apply, and not in the framework itself. In particular, the Spike framework is sufficiently flexible to handle both long-term and short-term scheduling, on timescales of years down to minutes or less. This talk will discuss recent progress made in scheduling search techniques, the lessons learned from early HST operations, the application of Spike to other problem domains, and plans for the future evolution of the system.

Johnston, Mark D.↗