Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Mission Operations”

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 865 records · Page 48
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operating a Crewed Spacecraft in the Age of Commercial Space Using Private/Government Partnership

Fifty years after humans completed a large-scale United States government-funded and government-engineered effort of landing humans on the moon, human spaceflight has entered a new paradigm. Private companies are now investing their own money and taking on an ever-increasing role in human spaceflight, in partnership with the U.S. government. This paper will describe the development of one of these partnerships through the lens of its mission operations team. As part of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), NASA selected Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner as one of the next generation of crewed vehicles. Boeing opted to partner with the US Government for their Starliner operations by contracting with NASA’s Mission Control teams in the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) at the Johnson Space Center to create its own Mission Operations (MO) flight controllers. Partnering with FOD provided benefits to both Boeing and NASA while also creating new challenges. MO brought over 60 years of crewed spaceflight experience and infrastructure to Boeing’s new program. Within certain legal constraints, MO was able to work closely and efficiently with their FOD counterparts who were performing both integration duties and, under the auspices of the CCP, insight of the contractors, in this case Boeing. Involvement of NASA as the Boeing operations agent did lead to what management deemed a ‘healthy tension’ within FOD, challenging old processes and often creating better, more robust teamwork. Successful development of the framework and boundaries of both the legal aspects and the oversight tensions has been one of the keys to developing a successful corporate/government partnership. Due to the highly automated nature of the Starliner, the MO organization was designed to be much smaller than previous NASA’s flight control teams for past programs. NASA has learned through the decades that spacecraft design and operations need to be as flexible and forgiving as possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was established to sponsor corporate development of economical vehicles that could get humans to and from low Earth orbit. These companies, of course, need to meet contractual obligations in providing a safe means of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), but also need to do so in a manner that leads to the venture resulting in a profit at the same time. Through MO’s involvement in the development of this spaceflight paradigm shift, there are ample lessons to be conveyed to future teams and programs working to develop similar missions.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to Enhance Mission Design and Operations of the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO)

One key aspect in the development of HWO is the early deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to enhance mission science and operations. Our subtask group is part of the HWO AI/ML working group and focuses on AI and ML for mission operations. Our task group seeks to educate other HWO working groups about AI and ML capabilities for mission operations, investigate how to bridge technology gaps, and enable new capabilities particularly in the areas of observational scheduling, instrument health monitoring, and downlink operations. We focus on mission tasking / scheduling both for mission analysis in development and operations. AI and ML for mission scheduling includes: tools to support proposal calls and review, ensuring fairness in calls for proposals, community peer reviews and ease workloads, as well as in-flight and ground software development (e.g., using natural language processing (NLP) to support process automation from requirements). AI and ML for the mission’s development and operations include 1) anomaly detection and prediction (from onboard and ground based tools) to monitor the spacecraft’s health, 2) ground-based automated scheduling for mission operations including long-term and short-term planning and maintenance, and 3) flight system flexible execution (as flight proven for Spitzer and JWST) to enable robust execution despite execution variations, and 4) data analysis for prioritization (e.g., real-time data evaluation leading to autonomous actions and adjustments, high-priority identification, onboard data compression, etc.). Incorporation of ML and AI will enable HWO to address the major science questions related to exoplanet characterization, general astrophysics, and solar system exploration and also extend the boundaries of space mission technologies.

Mark Moussa↗
NASA NTRS2005

Preliminary Report on Mission Design and Operations for Critical Events

Mission-critical events are defined in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory s Flight Project Practices as those sequences of events which must succeed in order to attain mission goals. These are dependent on the particular operational concept and design reference mission, and are especially important when committing to irreversible events. Critical events include main engine cutoff (MECO) after launch; engine cutoff or parachute deployment on entry, descent, and landing (EDL); orbital insertion; separation of payload from vehicle or separation of booster segments; maintenance of pointing accuracy for power and communication; and deployment of solar arrays and communication antennas. The purpose of this paper is to report on the current practices in handling mission-critical events in design and operations at major NASA spaceflight centers. The scope of this report includes NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), with staff at each center consulted on their current practices, processes, and procedures.

Hayden, Sandra C.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRS1998

NASA/Mir Phase 1: A Lesson Learned in Long Duration Mission Planning and Operations

The NASA/Mir Phase I Program is a precursor to the assembly and operations of the International Space Station (ISS). The Phase I Program covers a four-year period and encompasses over ten shuttle flights to the Mir, culminating with the flight of STS-91 in June 1998. The Mir-Orbiting Station (Mir-OS) provides an excellent environment, both onboard and on the ground, for learning and studying the characteristics associated with crew-tended operations on long duration missions. By the end of the Phase I program, NASA astronauts will have accumulated over two years of continuous operations experience working and living onboard the Mir-OS. Ground controllers, working in Russia and at remote sites in the United States, will have gained valuable experience in the generation, maintenance, and coordination of the information and products required to support the long duration crew members onboard the Mir-OS. The experience gained by the crew and ground support personnel in the area of long duration mission operations has resulted in a number of factors that need to be considered in the definition and implementation of the processes and products for the ISS. While there are many areas in which experience has been gained, this paper focuses on the lessons learned regarding the level of detail and flexibility of crew timelines. Provided in this paper is an overview of the characteristics associated with long duration mission timeline development and execution, a summary of applicable lessons learned identified and documented through participation in the NASA/Mir Phase I Program, a detailed discussion of "Gross Timelines" as implementation which addresses the lessons learned. Also discussed are the challenges that must be overcome in getting the ISS program to recognize, evaluate, and learn from the crew and ground controller experience gained through participation in the NASA/Mir Phase I Program.

Hagopian, Jeff↗
NASA NTRS2008

The International Lunar Network

A new lunar science flight projects line has been introduced within NASA s Science Mission Directorate's (SMDs) proposed 2009 budget, including two new robotic missions designed to accomplish key scientific objectives and, when possible, provide results useful to the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) as those organizations grapple with the challenges of returning humans to the Moon. The first mission in this line will be the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, an ESMD mission that will acquire key information for human return to the moon activities, which will transition after one year of operations to the SMD Lunar Science Program for a 2-year nominal science mission. The second mission, the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) will be launch in 2011 along with the GRAIL Discovery mission to the moon. The third is delivery of two landed payloads as part of the International Lunar Network (ILN). This flight projects line provides a robust robotic lunar science program for the next 8 years and beyond, complements SMD s initiatives to build a robust lunar science community through R&A lines, and increases international participation in NASA s robotic exploration plans. The International Lunar Network is envisioned as a global lunar geophysical network, which fulfills many of the stated recommendations of the recent National Research Council report on The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon [2], but is difficult for any single space agency to accomplish on its own. The ILN would provide the necessary global coverage by involving US and international landed missions as individual nodes working together. Ultimately, this network could comprise 8-10 or more nodes operating simultaneously, while minimizing the required contribution from each space agency. Indian, Russian, Japanese, and British landed missions are currently being formulated and SMD is actively seeking partnership with these and other space agencies to establish the ILN.

Cohen, Barbara A.↗
NASA NTRS1999

WEDDS: The WITS Encrypted Data Delivery System

WEDDS, the WITS Encrypted Data Delivery System, is a framework for supporting distributed mission operations by automatically transferring sensitive mission data in a secure and efficient manner to and from remote mission participants over the internet.

public key cryptography encryption authentication ↗
NASA NTRS2010

Evolving from Planning and Scheduling to Real-Time Operations Support: Design Challenges

Versions of Scheduling and Planning Interface for Exploration (SPIFe) have supported a variety of mission operations across NASA. This software tool has evolved and matured over several years, assisting planners who develop intricate schedules. While initially conceived for surface Mars missions, SPIFe has been deployed in other domains, where people rather than robotic explorers, execute plans. As a result, a diverse set of end-users has compelled growth in a new direction: supporting real-time operations. This paper describes the new needs and challenges that accompany this development. Among the key features that have been built for SPIFe are current time indicators integrated into the interface and timeline, as well as other plan attributes that enable execution of scheduled activities. Field tests include mission support for the Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) and Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) campaigns.

Marquez, Jessica J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Using Web 2.0 Techniques in NASA's Ares Engineering Operations Network (AEON) Environment - First Impressions

The Mission Operations Laboratory (MOL) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is responsible for Engineering Support capability for NASA s Ares rocket development and operations. In pursuit of this, MOL is building the Ares Engineering and Operations Network (AEON), a web-based portal to support and simplify two critical activities: Access and analyze Ares manufacturing, test, and flight performance data, with access to Shuttle data for comparison Establish and maintain collaborative communities within the Ares teams/subteams and with other projects, e.g., Space Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS). AEON seeks to provide a seamless interface to a) locally developed engineering applications and b) a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) collaborative environment that includes Web 2.0 capabilities, e.g., blogging, wikis, and social networking. This paper discusses how Web 2.0 might be applied to the typically conservative engineering support arena, based on feedback from Integration, Verification, and Validation (IV&V) testing and on searching for their use in similar environments.

Scott, David W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Manned Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C. Dempsey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Software for Crewed Spacecraft - Bridging the Gap from Sci Fi to Reality

With a voice command or a few taps on the console, the spacecraft pivots on a dime at high velocity and gently docks to an orbiting space platform. This is the image most people have of the complex software computations and integrated hardware performance necessary for a spacecraft to successfully perform an automated launch, rendezvous, and docking. Today’s reality is that while computer operations are advancing rapidly, science fiction over-simplifies and over-sells current capabilities. This paper discusses the integration of spacecraft computer automation into the operation of one of the United States’ new Commercial Crew vehicles - the Boeing CST-100 Starliner. Lessons learned by the Boeing Mission Operations team, a private-public partnership with NASA, from conceptual design through real-time operation of the first test flight will be discussed. Focus will center on how operations has learned to use the automated software to their advantage while also knowing how to adjust the automation in response to spacecraft or mission anomalies. One goal of advanced spacecraft automation is the ability to reduce both the crew workload and the ground control footprint while at the same time increasing spacecraft and mission flexibility. Historically, crewed spacecraft required a large number of operators on the ground to use a plethora of tools to compute nominal and contingency mission trajectories. Moving those sophisticated software tools to being onboard the vehicle can reduce the need for such complex ground support. Given that today’s spacecraft software is not yet as capable or as flexible in all circumstances as the computers depicted in movies, there is usually a trade-off between software automation cost and the flexibility of that software resulting in a trade-off between what is performed on the spacecraft and what is left to onboard crew or ground control. For missions that go beyond the Moon, software that autonomously controls nearly every aspect of a crewed mission will become a necessity given the long time delays between the spacecraft and Earth’s ground control teams. The lessons learned by Boeing and its Mission Operations team, through the design and implementation of Starliner’s hardware and software automation, will be able to inform future public and private spacecraft design. As the technologies and capabilities evolve, incorporating lessons learned in successful low Earth orbit commercial crew vehicle missions, spacecraft designs will continue to improve and be able to better enable safe execution of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

Robert C Dempsey↗
NASA NTRS2018

Radio-hosted Flight / Ground Interface for Operations Standardization

The interface between a spacecraft and its ground operations segment includes the flow of commands, configuration, and sequencing elements to the spacecraft, and the flow of telemetry and data products from the spacecraft. Creating and implementing a complete definition of this interface simplifies and standardizes mission operations, allowing easy sharing of operations personnel across missions. Early spacecraft featured a simple flight / ground interface (FGI) using hardware command decoding in the radio, driven by technological limitations of the time. Modern spacecraft use command and data handling (CDH) avionics on which flight software executes, which in turn controls and configures the mission, executes subsystem and instrument instructions, and implements critical fault protection actions. Deep space missions feature advanced operations software for running sequenced activities over a period of weeks, which allows them to function with only infrequent ground contact. This approach comes at the cost of increased complexity in the FGI, requiring expensive modifications to heritage flight software and ground systems. By hosting the interface in the radio instead of the CDH avionics, modern missions can approximate the FGI design simplicity of early spacecraft, with significant advantages for vendor competition, lowered costs, standardization of operations, and reduction of implementation risk.

Lock, Patricia D.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Space station needs, attributes and architectural options. Volume 1, attachment 1: Executive summary NASA

User alignment plan, physical and life sciences and applications, commercial requirements national security, space operations, user needs, foreign contacts, mission scenario analysis and architectural concepts, alternative systems concepts, mission operations architectural development, architectural analysis trades, evolution, configuration, and technology development are discussed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1984

The Planetary Observer Program

An overview is presented of NASA's plans for the Planetary Observer Program, whose key element is to control the cost of each mission while establishing a long-term, stable base for the planetary sciences. The SSEC (Solar System Exploration Committee) has endorsed the view that many high science priority inner solar system missions are possible through the use of spacecraft derived from existing earth-orbital spacecraft. It has also recommended the application of space hardware such as that used on the Voyager and Galileo missions, development of both a new modular spacecraft for outer planet, comet, and main-belt asteroid missions (Mariner Mark II Program), and a multi-mission operations system to support future missions after the Venus Radar Mapper (VRM), and Galileo. A set of missions for the SSEC's Core Program has been recommended; they include: the VRM, the Mars Geoscience/Climatology Observer, the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby, the Lunar Geoscience Orbiter, the Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous, the Venus Atmosphere Probe, the Mars Aeronomy Orbiter, the Mars Surface Probe, and the Comet Intercept Sample Return.

Blume, W. H.↗