NASA NTRS2010
Virtually every NASA space-exploration mission represents a compromise between the interests of two expert, dedicated, but very different communities: scientists, who want to go quickly to the places that interest them most and spend as much time there as possible conducting sophisticated experiments, and the engineers and designers charged with maximizing the probability that a given mission will be successful and cost-effective. Recent work at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) seeks to enhance communication between these two groups, and to help them reconcile their interests, by developing advanced modeling capabilities with which they can analyze the achievement of science goals and objectives against engineering design and operational constraints. The analyses conducted prior to this study have been point-design driven. Each analysis has been of one hypothetical case which addresses the question: Given a set of constraints, how much science can be done? But the constraints imposed by the architecture team-e.g., rover speed, time allowed for extravehicular activity (EVA), number of sites at which science experiments are to be conducted- are all in early development and carry a great deal of uncertainty. Variations can be incorporated into the analysis, and indeed that has been done in sensitivity studies designed to see which constraint variations have the greatest impact on results. But if a very large number of variations can be analyzed all at once, producing a table that includes virtually the entire trade space under consideration, then we have a tool that enables scientists and mission architects to ask the inverse question: For a given desired level of science (or any other objective), what is the range of constraints that would be needed? With this tool, mission architects could determine, for example, what combinations of rover speed, EVA duration, and other constraints produce the desired results. Further, this tool would help them identify which technology-improvement investments would be likely to produce the largest or most important return. However, the number of variations that need to be considered for such analysis quickly balloons to an unwieldy size. If three variations are considered for each of six constraints-a very modest example-there are a total of 243 variations to consider. If it takes 40 minutes to compute each variation, as it does with HURON, our automated optimization system, then it would take 162 hours or nearly 7 days of round-the-clock computing to calculate the results. Adding further constraints or variations exponentially increases the amount of time that is needed.