Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “distributed 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.

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

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Distributed Schemes for Integrated Arrival Departure Surface (IADS) Scheduling

The objective of the NRA is to investigate and develop integrated scheduling solutions for arrival, departure and surface operations. The option year briefing summarizes simulation-based analyses of the departure metering process to investigate strategic queue management strategies and their robustness to uncertainty, assess the impact of delaying departures at their gates on blocking the arrivals destined for the same gates, and evaluate the effects and benefits of relaxing current-day MIT constraints when ATD-2 is in operation.

ATD-2↗
NASA NTRS1991

User interface issues in supporting human-computer integrated scheduling

The topics are presented in view graph form and include the following: characteristics of Operations Mission Planner (OMP) schedule domain; OMP architecture; definition of a schedule; user interface dimensions; functional distribution; types of users; interpreting user interaction; dynamic overlays; reactive scheduling; and transitioning the interface.

Cooper, Lynne P.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned In Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The "pieces" are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned in Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The pieces are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Augmentation of the space station module power management and distribution breadboard

The space station module power management and distribution (SSM/PMAD) breadboard models power distribution and management, including scheduling, load prioritization, and a fault detection, identification, and recovery (FDIR) system within a Space Station Freedom habitation or laboratory module. This 120 VDC system is capable of distributing up to 30 kW of power among more than 25 loads. In addition to the power distribution hardware, the system includes computer control through a hierarchy of processes. The lowest level consists of fast, simple (from a computing standpoint) switchgear that is capable of quickly safing the system. At the next level are local load center processors, (LLP's) which execute load scheduling, perform redundant switching, and shed loads which use more than scheduled power. Above the LLP's are three cooperating artificial intelligence (AI) systems which manage load prioritizations, load scheduling, load shedding, and fault recovery and management. Recent upgrades to hardware and modifications to software at both the LLP and AI system levels promise a drastic increase in speed, a significant increase in functionality and reliability, and potential for further examination of advanced automation techniques. The background, SSM/PMAD, interface to the Lewis Research Center test bed, the large autonomous spacecraft electrical power system, and future plans are discussed.

Walls, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS1993

Study and Demonstration of Planning and Scheduling Concepts for the Earth Observing System Data and Information System

The University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (CU/LASP) along with the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) designed, implemented, tested, and demonstrated a prototype of the distributed, hierarchical planning and scheduling system comtemplated for the Earth Observing System (EOS) project. The planning and scheduling prototype made use of existing systems: CU/LASP's Operations and Science Instrument Support Planning and Scheduling (OASIS-PS) software package; GSFC's Request Oriented Scheduling Engine (ROSE); and JPL's Plan Integrated Timeliner 2 (Plan-It-2). Using these tools, four scheduling nodes were implemented and tied together using a new communications protocol for scheduling applications called the Scheduling Applications Interface Language (SAIL). An extensive and realistic scenario of EOS satellite operations was then developed and the prototype scheduling system was tested and demonstrated using the scenario. Two demonstrations of the system were given to NASA personnel and EOS core system (ECS) contractor personnel. A comprehensive volume of lessons learned was generated and a meeting was held with NASA and ECS representatives to review these lessons learned. A paper and presentation on the project's final results was given at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Computing in Aerospace 9 conference.

Davis, Randal↗
NASA NTRS2004

Coordinating Shared Activities

Shared Activity Coordination (ShAC) is a computer program for planning and scheduling the activities of an autonomous team of interacting spacecraft and exploratory robots. ShAC could also be adapted to such terrestrial uses as helping multiple factory managers work toward competing goals while sharing such common resources as floor space, raw materials, and transports. ShAC iteratively invokes the Continuous Activity Scheduling Planning Execution and Replanning (CASPER) program to replan and propagate changes to other planning programs in an effort to resolve conflicts. A domain-expert specifies which activities and parameters thereof are shared and reports the expected conditions and effects of these activities on the environment. By specifying these conditions and effects differently for each planning program, the domain-expert subprogram defines roles that each spacecraft plays in a coordinated activity. The domain-expert subprogram also specifies which planning program has scheduling control over each shared activity. ShAC enables sharing of information, consensus over the scheduling of collaborative activities, and distributed conflict resolution. As the other planning programs incorporate new goals and alter their schedules in the changing environment, ShAC continually coordinates to respond to unexpected events.

Clement, Bradley↗
NASA NTRS1975

Manned orbital systems concept study. Book 4: Programmatics for extended-duration missions

The cost estimates, schedule data, and funding distributions generated in the Manned Orbital Systems Concepts (MOSC) study are presented. The overall objectives were to examine the requirements for, and to describe, a cost-effective concept for an orbital facility capable of supporting manned operations in earth orbit beyond the 7-to-30-day mission duration provided by the Shuttle/Spacelab system. The cost, schedule, and other programmatic data were developed to provide information useful for their long-range planning activities. The major portion of the data documented and discussed consists of project- and system-level schedule and funding information and also project-, system-, and subsystem-level cost summaries.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1990

Schedule-Organizer Computer Program

Schedule Organizer provides simple method for generating distribution lists. Contains readers' names for each task schedule defined by input files. Schedule Organizer (SO), Schedule Tracker (ST) (COSMIC program MSC-21526), and Schedule Report Generator (SRG) (COSMIC program MSC-21527) computer programs manipulating data-base files in ways advantageous in scheduling. Written in PL/1 and DEC Command Language (DCL).

Collazo, Fernando F.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-11456-DND

NASA’s precision scheduling and spacing research has matured to show the high potential of merging efficient flows in high density operations - Precision scheduling and efficient delay distribution minimizes early descent from enroute altitude and low-altitude vectoring - Precision merging and spacing control improves throughput - Enables the extended use of flight path optimization based procedures FAA/NASA/Industry collaboration is needed to accelerate implementation of ADS-B applications in a way that achieves the full benefit of NextGen operations to those that equip in high density airspace Integrated precision scheduling and spacing will to offer immediate and systematic benefits to airlines in many environments, even with different equipage levels and traffic densities

Harry Swenson↗
NASA NTRS1974

Zero-gravity atmospheric Cloud Physics Experiment Laboratory; Programmatics report

The programmatics effort included comprehensive analyses in four major areas: (1) work breakdown structure, (2) schedules, (3) costs, and (4) supporting research and technology. These analyses are discussed in detail in the following sections which identify and define the laboratory project development schedule, cost estimates, funding distributions and supporting research and technology requirements. All programmatics analyses are correlated among themselves and with the technical analyses by means of the work breakdown structure which serves as a common framework for program definition. In addition, the programmatic analyses reflect the results of analyses and plans for reliability, safety, test, and maintenance and refurbishment.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1976

Phase B: Final definition and preliminary design study for the initial Atmospheric Cloud Physics Laboratory (ACPL): A spacelab mission payload. Final review (DR-MA-03)

Systems design for an initial atmospheric cloud physics laboratory to study microphysical processes in zero gravity is presented. Included are descriptions of the fluid, thermal, mechanical, control and data, and electrical distribution interfaces with Spacelab. Schedule and cost analysis are discussed.

Clausen, O. W.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Managing Information On Costs

Cost Management Model, CMM, software tool for planning, tracking, and reporting costs and information related to costs. Capable of estimating costs, comparing estimated to actual costs, performing "what-if" analyses on estimates of costs, and providing mechanism to maintain data on costs in format oriented to management. Number of supportive cost methods built in: escalation rates, production-learning curves, activity/event schedules, unit production schedules, set of spread distributions, tables of rates and factors defined by user, and full arithmetic capability. Import/export capability possible with 20/20 Spreadsheet available on Data General equipment. Program requires AOS/VS operating system available on Data General MV series computers. Written mainly in FORTRAN 77 but uses SGU (Screen Generation Utility).

Taulbee, Zoe A.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The application of automated operations at the Institutional Processing Center

The JPL Institutional and Mission Computing Division, Communications, Computing and Network Services Section, with its mission contractor, OAO Corporation, have for some time been applying automation to the operation of JPL's Information Processing Center (IPC). Automation does not come in one easy to use package. Automation for a data processing center is made up of many different software and hardware products supported by trained personnel. The IPC automation effort formally began with console automation, and has since spiraled out to include production scheduling, data entry, report distribution, online reporting, failure reporting and resolution, documentation, library storage, and operator and user education, while requiring the interaction of multi-vendor and locally developed software. To begin the process, automation goals are determined. Then a team including operations personnel is formed to research and evaluate available options. By acquiring knowledge of current products and those in development, taking an active role in industry organizations, and learning of other data center's experiences, a forecast can be developed as to what direction technology is moving. With IPC management's approval, an implementation plan is developed and resources identified to test or implement new systems. As an example, IPC's new automated data entry system was researched by Data Entry, Production Control, and Advance Planning personnel. A proposal was then submitted to management for review. A determination to implement the new system was made and elements/personnel involved with the initial planning performed the implementation. The final steps of the implementation were educating data entry personnel in the areas effected and procedural changes necessary to the successful operation of the new system.

Barr, Thomas H.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Multidisciplinary Design Technology Development: A Comparative Investigation of Integrated Aerospace Vehicle Design Tools

This research effort is a joint program between the Departments of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering and the Computer Science and Engineering Department at the University of Notre Dame. The purpose of the project was to develop a framework and systematic methodology to facilitate the application of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) to a diverse class of system design problems. For all practical aerospace systems, the design of a systems is a complex sequence of events which integrates the activities of a variety of discipline "experts" and their associated "tools". The development, archiving and exchange of information between these individual experts is central to the design task and it is this information which provides the basis for these experts to make coordinated design decisions (i.e., compromises and trade-offs) - resulting in the final product design. Grant efforts focused on developing and evaluating frameworks for effective design coordination within a MDO environment. Central to these research efforts was the concept that the individual discipline "expert", using the most appropriate "tools" available and the most complete description of the system should be empowered to have the greatest impact on the design decisions and final design. This means that the overall process must be highly interactive and efficiently conducted if the resulting design is to be developed in a manner consistent with cost and time requirements. The methods developed as part of this research effort include; extensions to a sensitivity based Concurrent Subspace Optimization (CSSO) NMO algorithm; the development of a neural network response surface based CSSO-MDO algorithm; and the integration of distributed computing and process scheduling into the MDO environment. This report overviews research efforts in each of these focus. A complete bibliography of research produced with support of this grant is attached.

Renaud, John E.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Multidisciplinary Design Technology Development: A Comparative Investigation of Integrated Aerospace Vehicle Design Tools

This research effort is a joint program between the Departments of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering and the Computer Science and Engineering Department at the University of Notre Dame. Three Principal Investigators; Drs. Renaud, Brockman and Batill directed this effort. During the four and a half year grant period, six Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Ph.D. students and one Masters student received full or partial support, while four Computer Science and Engineering Ph.D. students and one Masters student were supported. During each of the summers up to four undergraduate students were involved in related research activities. The purpose of the project was to develop a framework and systematic methodology to facilitate the application of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (N4DO) to a diverse class of system design problems. For all practical aerospace systems, the design of a systems is a complex sequence of events which integrates the activities of a variety of discipline "experts" and their associated "tools". The development, archiving and exchange of information between these individual experts is central to the design task and it is this information which provides the basis for these experts to make coordinated design decisions (i.e., compromises and trade-offs) - resulting in the final product design. Grant efforts focused on developing and evaluating frameworks for effective design coordination within a MDO environment. Central to these research efforts was the concept that the individual discipline "expert", using the most appropriate "tools" available and the most complete description of the system should be empowered to have the greatest impact on the design decisions and final design. This means that the overall process must be highly interactive and efficiently conducted if the resulting design is to be developed in a manner consistent with cost and time requirements. The methods developed as part of this research effort include; extensions to a sensitivity based Concurrent Subspace Optimization (CSSO) MDO algorithm; the development of a neural network response surface based CSSO-MDO algorithm; and the integration of distributed computing and process scheduling into the MDO environment. This report overviews research efforts in each of these focus. A complete bibliography of research produced with support of this grant is attached.

Renaud, John E.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Onboard planning for geological investigations using a rover team

This paper describes an integrated system for coordinating multiple rover behavior with the overall goal of collecting planetary surface data. The Multi-Rover Integrated Science Understanding System (MISUS) combines techniques from planning and scheduling with machine learning to perform autonomous scientific exploration with cooperating rovers.

scheduling↗
NASA NTRS2008

Proceedings of the Sixth NASA Langley Formal Methods (LFM) Workshop

Today's verification techniques are hard-pressed to scale with the ever-increasing complexity of safety critical systems. Within the field of aeronautics alone, we find the need for verification of algorithms for separation assurance, air traffic control, auto-pilot, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), adaptive avionics, automated decision authority, and much more. Recent advances in formal methods have made verifying more of these problems realistic. Thus we need to continually re-assess what we can solve now and identify the next barriers to overcome. Only through an exchange of ideas between theoreticians and practitioners from academia to industry can we extend formal methods for the verification of ever more challenging problem domains. This volume contains the extended abstracts of the talks presented at LFM 2008: The Sixth NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop held on April 30 - May 2, 2008 in Newport News, Virginia, USA. The topics of interest that were listed in the call for abstracts were: advances in formal verification techniques; formal models of distributed computing; planning and scheduling; automated air traffic management; fault tolerance; hybrid systems/hybrid automata; embedded systems; safety critical applications; safety cases; accident/safety analysis.

Rozier, Kristin Yvonne↗