Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Mission Control”

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 775 records · Page 43
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1985

Infrared horizon sensor modeling for attitude determination and control: Analysis and mission experience

The work performed by the Attitude Determination and Control Section at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Space Flight Center in analyzing and evaluating the performance of infrared horizon sensors is presented. The results of studies performed during the 1960s are reviewed; several models for generating the Earth's infrared radiance profiles are presented; and the Horizon Radiance Modeling Utility, the software used to model the horizon sensor optics and electronics processing to computer radiance-dependent attitude errors, is briefly discussed. Also provided is mission experience from 12 spaceflight missions spanning the period from 1973 to 1984 and using a variety of horizon sensing hardware. Recommendations are presented for future directions for the infrared horizon sensing technology.

Phenneger, M. C.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Operating and Managing a Backup Control Center

Due to the criticality of continuous mission operations, some control centers must plan for alternate locations in the event an emergency shuts down the primary control center. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas is the Mission Control Center (MCC) for the International Space Station (ISS). Due to Houston s proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, JSC is prone to threats from hurricanes which could cause flooding, wind damage, and electrical outages to the buildings supporting the MCC. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has the capability to be the Backup Control Center for the ISS if the situation is needed. While the MSFC Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) does house the BCC, the prime customer and operator of the ISS is still the JSC flight operations team. To satisfy the customer and maintain continuous mission operations, the BCC has critical infrastructure that hosts ISS ground systems and flight operations equipment that mirrors the prime mission control facility. However, a complete duplicate of Mission Control Center in another remote location is very expensive to recreate. The HOSC has infrastructure and services that MCC utilized for its backup control center to reduce the costs of a somewhat redundant service. While labor talents are equivalent, experiences are not. Certain operations are maintained in a redundant mode, while others are simply maintained as single string with adequate sparing levels of equipment. Personnel at the BCC facility must be trained and certified to an adequate level on primary MCC systems. Negotiations with the customer were done to match requirements with existing capabilities, and to prioritize resources for appropriate level of service. Because some of these systems are shared, an activation of the backup control center will cause a suspension of scheduled HOSC activities that may share resources needed by the BCC. For example, the MCC is monitoring a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. As the threat to MCC increases, HOSC must begin a phased activation of the BCC, while working resource conflicts with normal HOSC activities. In a long duration outage to the MCC, this could cause serious impacts to the BCC host facility s primary mission support activities. This management of a BCC is worked based on customer expectations and negotiations done before emergencies occur. I.

Marsh, Angela L.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Verification and Implementation of Operations Safety Controls for Flight Missions

There are several engineering disciplines, such as reliability, supportability, quality assurance, human factors, risk management, safety, etc. Safety is an extremely important engineering specialty within NASA, and the consequence involving a loss of crew is considered a catastrophic event. Safety is not difficult to achieve when properly integrated at the beginning of each space systems project/start of mission planning. The key is to ensure proper handling of safety verification throughout each flight/mission phase. Today, Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) operations engineers continue to conduct these flight product reviews across all open flight products. As such, these reviews help ensure that each mission is accomplished with safety requirements along with controls heavily embedded in applicable flight products. Most importantly, the S&MA operations engineers are required to look for important design and operations controls so that safety is strictly adhered to as well as reflected in the final flight product.

Smalls, James R.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Candidate Mission from Planet Earth control and data delivery system architecture

Using a structured, experienced-based approach, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) has assessed the generic functional requirements for a lunar mission control and data delivery (CDD) system. This analysis was based on lunar mission requirements outlined in GSFC-developed user traffic models. The CDD system will facilitate data transportation among user elements, element operations, and user teams by providing functions such as data management, fault isolation, fault correction, and link acquisition. The CDD system for the lunar missions must not only satisfy lunar requirements but also facilitate and provide early development of data system technologies for Mars. Reuse and evolution of existing data systems can help to maximize system reliability and minimize cost. This paper presents a set of existing and currently planned NASA data systems that provide the basic functionality. Reuse of such systems can have an impact on mission design and significantly reduce CDD and other system development costs.

Shapiro, Phillip↗
NASA NTRS2016

Using Natural Language to Enable Mission Managers to Control Multiple Heterogeneous UAVs

The availability of highly capable, yet relatively cheap, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is opening up new areas of use for hobbyists and for commercial activities. This research is developing methods beyond classical control-stick pilot inputs, to allow operators to manage complex missions without in-depth vehicle expertise. These missions may entail several heterogeneous UAVs flying coordinated patterns or flying multiple trajectories deconflicted in time or space to predefined locations. This paper describes the functionality and preliminary usability measures of an interface that allows an operator to define a mission using speech inputs. With a defined and simple vocabulary, operators can input the vast majority of mission parameters using simple, intuitive voice commands. Although the operator interface is simple, it is based upon autonomous algorithms that allow the mission to proceed with minimal input from the operator. This paper also describes these underlying algorithms that allow an operator to manage several UAVs.

Trujillo, Anna C.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Evaluation of a Drag-Free Control Concept for Missions in Low Earth Orbit

Atmospheric drag causes the greatest uncertainty in the equations of motion for spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). If atmospheric drag eflects can be continuously and autonomously counteracted through the use of a drag-fee control system, drag may essentially be eliminated from the equations of motion for the spacecraft. The main perturbations on the spacecraft will then be those due to the gravitational field, which are much more easily predicted Through dynamical analysis and numerical simulation, this paper presents some potential costs and benefits associated with the fuel used during continuous drag compensation. In light of this cost-benefit analysis, simulation results are used to validate the concept of drag-free control for LEO spacecraft missions having certain characteristics.

Fleck, Melissa E.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Management and control of Skylab missions

The flight operations task, as developed in support of the Skylab Program, was evolutionary in nature and, to a great extent, was an orderly extension of the flight control concepts used in the Apollo Program, tempered by the nature of the Skylab Program. During the terminal portion of the Apollo Program, many of the operating concepts proposed for Skylab were tested and used for Apollo support to obtain a realistic evaluation of these new techniques. The principal concept developed in the Apollo Program and augmented in support of the Skylab Program was one wherein a professional operations team would provide support to the scientists in the areas of mission integration, experiment, and experiment support systems, monitoring and control, and data retrieval.

Roach, J. W.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Multi-Objective Hybrid Optimal Control for Interplanetary Mission Planning

Preliminary design of low-thrust interplanetary missions is a highly complex process. The mission designer must choose discrete parameters such as the number of flybys, the bodies at which those flybys are performed and in some cases the final destination. In addition, a time-history of control variables must be chosen which defines the trajectory. There are often many thousands, if not millions, of possible trajectories to be evaluated. The customer who commissions a trajectory design is not usually interested in a point solution, but rather the exploration of the trade space of trajectories between several different objective functions. This can be a very expensive process in terms of the number of human analyst hours required. An automated approach is therefore very diserable. This work presents such as an approach by posing the mission design problem as a multi-objective hybrid optimal control problem. The method is demonstrated on a hypothetical mission to the main asteroid belt.

Optimization↗
NASA NTRS1994

An intelligent automated command and control system for spacecraft mission operations

The Intelligent Command and Control (ICC) System research project is intended to provide the technology base necessary for producing an intelligent automated command and control (C&C) system capable of performing all the ground control C&C functions currently performed by Mission Operations Center (MOC) project Flight Operations Team (FOT). The ICC research accomplishments to date, details of the ICC, and the planned outcome of the ICC research, mentioned above, are discussed in detail.

Stoffel, A. William↗
DOE OSTI2020

Accelerating Nuclear Facility Mission Completion Through an Improved Chemical Hazard Control Strategy - 20460

Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management [1], explicitly identifies hazardous materials in addition to radioactive materials when establishing the scope of materials that must be evaluated in Hazard Category (HC) 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. This inclusion has led to a near decade-long progression of more and more rigorous application of chemical hazard controls in these facilities. The progressive addition of more rigorous chemical hazard controls has occurred across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex, having been driven by contractors and regulators alike. However, chemical hazards in other DOE facilities have been, and continue to be, controlled using traditional industrial safety centered strategies. Thus, identical chemical hazards are controlled using dramatically different approaches based solely on the facility type. Not only are the controls different, the analysis and derivation rigor and requirements are also significantly different. In particular, chemical control derivation and application in non-nuclear facilities are much less onerous than the comprehensive hazard analysis process used in nuclear facilities, even in circumstances in which chemicals are not initiators to, or do not exacerbate a nuclear event. While the derivation and control approaches used in these two types of facilities are disparate, the safety results are similarly effective based on a review of reported chemical events from 2014 through 2018. While both approaches achieve comparable safety outcomes, the approach used in nuclear facilities results in significantly greater preparation costs and implementation costs. Furthermore, the problem with the differing approach is not relegated to the control preparation and implementation burden. The operational impact of potentially unnecessary controls slows mission completion without a corresponding increase in safety, not to mention the dilution of the importance of Technical Safety Requirements. The proposed solution must first include a critical and thorough examination of DOE Complex and top-tier chemical industry chemical hazard control practices, coupled with a similar examination of the driving facility regulatory requirements. Results from the examination can then be used to fuel a bold departure from current chemical control practices in Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. Development of an improved and consistent chemical hazard control process would follow, one that continues to ensure safety while accelerating mission completion and significantly reducing the burden associated with chemical hazard control development and implementation. The improved process must establish a hierarchy where radiological hazards are addressed using safety class and safety significant controls and chemical hazards are addressed using overarching safety management programs (with limited unique exceptions). The improved Hazard Category 1,2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy, while compliant with 10 CFR 830 [1], would be founded on the requirements in 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program [2], and the complementary DOE O 151.1D, Comprehensive Emergency Management System [3]. In this way, the Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy would, wherever appropriate, be the same process used at other DOE Complex facilities. Ultimately, the improved process will maintain safety and significantly reduce costs and life cycle risk through faster mission completion. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2015

Multi-Objective Hybrid Optimal Control for Interplanetary Mission Planning

Preliminary design of low-thrust interplanetary missions is a highly complex process. The mission designer must choose discrete parameters such as the number of flybys, the bodies at which those flybys are performed, and in some cases the final destination. Because low-thrust trajectory design is tightly coupled with systems design, power and propulsion characteristics must be chosen as well. In addition, a time-history of control variables must be chosen which defines the trajectory. There are often many thousands, if not millions, of possible trajectories to be evaluated. The customer who commissions a trajectory design is not usually interested in a point solution, but rather the exploration of the trade space of trajectories between several different objective functions. This can be very expensive process in terms of the number of human analyst hours required. An automated approach is therefore very desirable. This work presents such an approach by posing the mission design problem as a multi-objective hybrid optimal control problem. The methods is demonstrated on hypothetical mission to the main asteroid belt and to Deimos.

Trajectory Design↗
NASA NTRS2014

Multi-Objective Hybrid Optimal Control for Interplanetary Mission Planning

Preliminary design of low-thrust interplanetary missions is a highly complex process. The mission designer must choose discrete parameters such as the number of flybys, the bodies at which those flybys are performed, and in some cases the final destination. Because low-thrust trajectory design is tightly coupled with systems design, power and propulsion characteristics must be chosen as well. In addition, a time-history of control variables must be chosen which defines the trajectory. There are often may thousands, if not millions, of possible trajectories to be evaluated. The customer who commissions a trajectory design is not usually interested in a point solution, but rather the exploration of the trade space of trajectories between several different objective functions. This can be a very expensive process in terms of the number of human analyst hours required. An automated approach is therefore very desirable. This work presents such an approach by posing the mission design problem as a multi-objective hybrid optimal control problem. The method is demonstrated on hypothetical mission to the main asteroid belt and to Deimos.

Low Thrust↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extreme Problem Solving II: How Can 4 Astronauts do the Jobs of 80 Experts?

On past and present space missions, resilience is largely dependent on the problem-solving expertise of flight controllers at Mission Control on the ground. Missions to Mars will instead experience long communication delays and blackouts that require a small crew to detect, diagnose, and respond to critical events with only intermittent and limited real-time ground support. Our 2021 SpaceCHI paper “Extreme Problem Solving: The New Challenges of Deep Space Exploration” introduced the paradigm shift of increasingly Earth-independent mission operations and identified the capabilities that are not currently available on-board but will be needed to enable safe exploration beyond low-Earth orbit [1]. This paper investigates how the ground team achieves resilience today to inform what will be needed to achieve human-systems resilience on future long duration exploration missions – how can a crew of four generalists achieve the same outcomes as a team of 80+ experts? An actual ISS anomaly is analyzed and then reimagined under Mars transit conditions, to reveal critical decision-points and the onboard capabilities that will be needed for successful resolution. This paper also presents criteria for what makes urgent, unanticipated events so challenging to resolve.

human-systems integration architecture↗
NASA NTRS2008

A Flexible Evolvable Architecture for Constellation Mission Systems User Applications

While simulating a complex set of repair tasks to be performed by EVA crewmembers on an upcoming mission, flight controllers and astronauts determine that the repair will take much longer than originally anticipated. All equipment in the vicinity of the worksite must be powered off to maintain a safe environment for the astronauts. Because heater power will be unavailable, several critical components will now be at risk of freezing and permanent damage. If an impending thermal violation is detected, Mission Control will have very limited time to react. Therefore, flight controllers must not only modify their procedures to account for these risks, they must also incorporate into their displays outputs from thermal models, alternate temperature measurements, new alarm limits, and emergency power-on commands to enable the detection and response to freezing conditions. Current software for mission control systems makes scenarios like this difficult to address. Given the time frame for modifying software, operations teams are left with labor-intensive operational workarounds as their only options. NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) and NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) are collaborating on the development of a flexible software system for mission operations that will enable greater user flexibility than has been available to date. Using composable software, end users in the scenario described above could recompose procedures and command and control displays to allow flight controllers to monitor temperature measurements, identify time-critical conditions, and execute the procedures required to respond to these conditions before flight hardware is permanently damaged.

Trimble, Jay P.↗