Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Ground 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 577 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Modeling in the State Flow Environment to Support Launch Vehicle Verification Testing for Mission and Fault Management Algorithms in the NASA Space Launch System

Analysis methods and testing processes are essential activities in the engineering development and verification of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS). Central to mission success is reliable verification of the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the SLS launch vehicle (LV) flight software. This is particularly difficult because M&FM algorithms integrate and operate LV subsystems, which consist of diverse forms of hardware and software themselves, with equally diverse integration from the engineering disciplines of LV subsystems. M&FM operation of SLS requires a changing mix of LV automation. During pre-launch the LV is primarily operated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) organization with some LV automation of time-critical functions, and much more autonomous LV operations during ascent that have crucial interactions with the Orion crew capsule, its astronauts, and with mission controllers at the Johnson Space Center. M&FM algorithms must perform all nominal mission commanding via the flight computer to control LV states from pre-launch through disposal and also address failure conditions by initiating autonomous or commanded aborts (crew capsule escape from the failing LV), redundancy management of failing subsystems and components, and safing actions to reduce or prevent threats to ground systems and crew. To address the criticality of the verification testing of these algorithms, the NASA M&FM team has utilized the State Flow environment6 (SFE) with its existing Vehicle Management End-to-End Testbed (VMET) platform which also hosts vendor-supplied physics-based LV subsystem models. The human-derived M&FM algorithms are designed and vetted in Integrated Development Teams composed of design and development disciplines such as Systems Engineering, Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), liquid engines, and the astronaut crew office. Since the algorithms are realized using model-based engineering (MBE) methods from a hybrid of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), SFE methods are a natural fit to provide an in depth analysis of the interactive behavior of these algorithms with the SLS LV subsystem models. For this, the M&FM algorithms and the SLS LV subsystem models are modeled using constructs provided by Matlab which also enables modeling of the accompanying interfaces providing greater flexibility for integrated testing and analysis, which helps forecast expected behavior in forward VMET integrated testing activities. In VMET, the M&FM algorithms are prototyped and implemented using the same C++ programming language and similar state machine architectural concepts used by the FSW group. Due to the interactive complexity of the algorithms, VMET testing thus far has verified all the individual M&FM subsystem algorithms with select subsystem vendor models but is steadily progressing to assessing the interactive behavior of these algorithms with LV subsystems, as represented by subsystem models. The novel SFE applications has proven to be useful for quick look analysis into early integrated system behavior and assessment of the M&FM algorithms with the modeled LV subsystems. This early MBE analysis generates vital insight into the integrated system behaviors, algorithm sensitivities, design issues, and has aided in the debugging of the M&FM algorithms well before full testing can begin in more expensive, higher fidelity but more arduous environments such as VMET, FSW testing, and the Systems Integration Lab7 (SIL). SFE has exhibited both expected and unexpected behaviors in nominal and off nominal test cases prior to full VMET testing. In many findings, these behavioral characteristics were used to correct the M&FM algorithms, enable better test coverage, and develop more effective test cases for each of the LV subsystems. This has improved the fidelity of testing and planning for the next generation of M&FM algorithms as the SLS program evolves from non-crewed to crewed flight, impacting subsystem configurations and the M&FM algorithms that control them. SFE analysis has improved robustness and reliability of the M&FM algorithms by revealing implementation errors and documentation inconsistencies. It is also improving planning efficiency for future VMET testing of the M&FM algorithms hosted in the LV flight computers, further reducing risk for the SLS launch infrastructure, the SLS LV, and most importantly the crew.

Trevino, Luis↗
NASA NTRS2018

Hybridized Agile Software Development of Flight Control Team Tools for International Space Station's Payload Operations Integration Center

Ground systems operations at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Payload Operations and Integration Function (POIF) is increasing, via the High Operations Tempo (HOT) initiative, its ability to support more science activities with a fourth crew member on the International Space Station (ISS). The Flight Control Team's need to support this increased crew presence mandated the need for a series of software tools to better handle the increasing pace of payload science operations. The overall need was clear from the outset, but the full scope and user experience for each tool, were not as well understood, so establishing a fixed set of initial requirements was not feasible. An Agile Software Development (ASD) paradigm takes advantage of uncertainty, and plans for it, so it was deemed the most appropriate approach to create room for exploring novel concepts, and to mount a rapid and flexible response to inevitiably changing requirements. It facilitated the need for unprecedented collaboration between the Product Team (i.e. users from the Flight Control Team) and the Development Team (i.e. POIC systems engineers, developers, testers). This is a process shift in the development, test, and release of software from one that is prescriptive to one that is adaptive, which is necessary for these tools to have longevity. The application of ASD to the product development lifecycle permitted the timely incorporation of customer feedback, and, allowed for continuous quality improvements. This resulted in a suite of tools that are efficient, user-friendly, and enable POIF ground systems to support the increasing pace of payload science operations. ASD is not as much a set of prescriptive processes as it is a shift in mindset; one that moves from planning against change, to planning for change, thereby iteratively growing software towards user-defined value.

Albers, Cerese M.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Testing Enabling Technologies for Safe UAS Urban Operations

A set of more than 100 flight operations were conducted at NASA Langley Research Center using small UAS (sUAS) to demonstrate, test, and evaluate a set of technologies and an overarching air-ground system concept aimed at enabling safety. The research vehicle was tracked continuously during nominal traversal of planned flight paths while autonomously operating over moderately populated land. For selected flights, off-nominal risks were introduced, including vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) encounters. Three contingency maneuvers were demonstrated that provide safe responses. These maneuvers made use of an integrated air/ground platform and two on-board autonomous capabilities. Flight data was monitored and recorded with multiple ground systems and was forwarded in real time to a UAS traffic management (UTM) server for airspace coordination and supervision.

Moore, Andrew J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Software Assists in Responding to Anomalous Conditions

Fault Induced Document Retrieval Officer (FIDO) is a computer program that reduces the need for a large and costly team of engineers and/or technicians to monitor the state of a spacecraft and associated ground systems and respond to anomalies. FIDO includes artificial-intelligence components that imitate the reasoning of human experts with reference to a knowledge base of rules that represent failure modes and to a database of engineering documentation. These components act together to give an unskilled operator instantaneous expert assistance and access to information that can enable resolution of most anomalies, without the need for highly paid experts. FIDO provides a system state summary (a configurable engineering summary) and documentation for diagnosis of a potentially failing component that might have caused a given error message or anomaly. FIDO also enables high-level browsing of documentation by use of an interface indexed to the particular error message. The collection of available documents includes information on operations and associated procedures, engineering problem reports, documentation of components, and engineering drawings. FIDO also affords a capability for combining information on the state of ground systems with detailed, hierarchically-organized, hypertext- enabled documentation.

James, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2012

The Next Landsat Satellite: The Landsat Data Continuity Mission

The Landsat program is one of the longest running satellite programs for Earth observations from space. The program was initiated by the launch of Landsat 1 in 1972. Since then a series of six more Landsat satellites were launched and at least one of those satellites has been in operations at all times to continuously collect images of the global land surface. The Department of Interior (DOI) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) preserves data collected by all of the Landsat satellites at their Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. This 40-year data archive provides an unmatched record of the Earth's land surface that has undergone dramatic changes in recent decades due to the increasing pressure of a growing population and advancing technologies. EROS provides the ability for anyone to search the archive and order digital Landsat images over the internet for free. The Landsat data are a public resource for observing, characterizing, monitoring, trending, and predicting land use change over time providing an invaluable tool for those addressing the profound consequences of those changes to society. The most recent launch of a Landsat satellite occurred in 1999 when Landsat 7 was placed in orbit. While Landsat 7 remains in operation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the DOI/ USGS are building its successor satellite system currently called the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). NASA has the lead for building and launching the satellite that will carry two Earth-viewing instruments, the Operational Land Imager (OLI) and the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS). The OLI will take images that measure the amount of sunlight reflected by the land surface at nine wavelengths of light with three of those wavelengths beyond the range of human vision. T1RS will collect coincident images that measure light emitted by the land surface as a function of surface temperature at two longer wavelengths well beyond the range of human vision. The DOI/USGS is developing the ground system that will command and control the LDCM satellite in orbit and manage the OLI and TIRS data transmitted by the satellite. DOI/USGS will thus operate the satellite and collect, archive, and distribute the image data as part of the EROS archive. DOI/USGS has committed to renaming LDCM as Landsat 8 following launch. By either name the satellite and its sensors will extend the 40-year archive with images sufficiently consistent with data from earlier Landsat satellites to allow multi-decadal, broad-area studies of our dynamic landscapes. The next Landsat satellite and ground system are on schedule for a January, 2013 launch.

Rons, James R.↗
NASA NTRS2010

EDOS Evolution to Support NASA Future Earth Sciences Missions

This paper presents a ground system architecture to service future NASA decadal missions and in particular, the high rate science data downlinks, by evolving EDOS current infrastructure and upgrading high rate network lines. The paper will also cover EDOS participation to date in formulation and operations concepts for the respective missions to understand the particular mission needs and derived requirements such as data volumes, downlink rates, data encoding, and data latencies. Future decadal requirements such as onboard data recorder management and file protocols drive the need to emulate these requirements within the ground system. The EDOS open system modular architecture is scalable to accommodate additional missions using the current sites antennas and future sites as well and meet the data security requirements and fulfill mission's objectives

Cordier, Guy R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Overview of the Ares I Scale Model Acoustic Test Program

Launch environments, such as lift-off acoustic (LOA) and ignition overpressure (IOP), are important design factors for any vehicle and are dependent upon the design of both the vehicle and the ground systems. LOA environments are used directly in the development of vehicle vibro-acoustic environments and IOP is used in the loads assessment. The NASA Constellation Program had several risks to the development of the Ares I vehicle linked to LOA. The risks included cost, schedule and technical impacts for component qualification due to high predicted vibro-acoustic environments. One solution is to mitigate the environment at the component level. However, where the environment is too severe for component survivability, reduction of the environment itself is required. The Ares I Scale Model Acoustic Test (ASMAT) program was implemented to verify the Ares I LOA and IOP environments for the vehicle and ground systems including the Mobile Launcher (ML) and tower. An additional objective was to determine the acoustic reduction for the LOA environment with an above deck water sound suppression system. ASMAT was a development test performed at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) East Test Area (ETA) Test Stand 116 (TS 116). The ASMAT program is described in this presentation.

Counter, Douglas D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRS2000

Lessons Learned on Operating and Preparing Operations for a Technology Mission from the Perspective of the Earth Observing-1 Mission

The New Millennium Program's first Earth-observing mission (EO-1) is a technology validation mission. It is managed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and is scheduled for launch in the summer of 2000. The purpose of this mission is to flight-validate revolutionary technologies that will contribute to the reduction of cost and increase of capabilities for future land imaging missions. In the EO-1 mission, there are five instrument, five spacecraft, and three supporting technologies to flight-validate during a year of operations. EO-1 operations and the accompanying ground system were intended to be simple in order to maintain low operational costs. For purposes of formulating operations, it was initially modeled as a small science mission. However, it quickly evolved into a more complex mission due to the difficulties in effectively integrating all of the validation plans of the individual technologies. As a consequence, more operational support was required to confidently complete the on-orbit validation of the new technologies. This paper will outline the issues and lessons learned applicable to future technology validation missions. Examples of some of these include the following: (1) operational complexity encountered in integrating all of the validation plans into a coherent operational plan, (2) initial desire to run single shift operations subsequently growing to 6 "around-the-clock" operations, (3) managing changes in the technologies that ultimately affected operations, (4) necessity for better team communications within the project to offset the effects of change on the Ground System Developers, Operations Engineers, Integration and Test Engineers, S/C Subsystem Engineers, and Scientists, and (5) the need for a more experienced Flight Operations Team to achieve the necessary operational flexibility. The discussion will conclude by providing several cost comparisons for developing operations from previous missions to EO-1 and discuss some details that might be done differently for future technology validation missions.

Mandl, Dan↗
NASA NTRS2000

Overview of the Preliminary Design of the Optical Communication Demonstration and High-Rate Link Facility

Tlis paper presents an overview of the preliminary design of both the flight and ground systems of the Optical Communication Demonstration and High-Rate Link Facility which will demonstrate optical communication from the International Space Station to ground after its deployment in October 2002. The overview of the preliminary design of the Flight System proceeds by contrasting it with the design of the laboratory-model unit, emphasizing key changes and the rationale behind the design choices. After presenting the preliminary design of the Ground System, the timetable for the construction and deployment of the flight and ground systems is outlined.

Sandusky, John V.↗