SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “tactical planning”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 109 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

The Traverse Planning Process for the Drats 2010 Analog Field Simulations

Traverse planning concentrates on optimizing the science return within the overall objectives of planetary surface missions or their analog field simulations. Such simulations were conducted in the San Francisco Volcanic Field, northern Arizona, from Aug. 26 to Sept 17, 2010 and involved some 200 individuals in the field, with some 40 geoscientists composing the science team. The purpose of these Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) is to exercise and evaluate developmental hardware, software and operational concepts in a mission-like, fully-integrated, setting under the direction of an onsite Mobile Mission Control Center(MMCC). DRATS 2010 focused on the simultaneous operation of 2 rovers, a historic first. Each vehicle was manned by an astronaut-commander and an experienced field geologist. Having 2 rovers and crews in the field mandated substantially more complex science and mission control operations compared to the single rover DRATS tests of 2008 and 2009, or the Apollo lunar missions. For instance, the science support function was distributed over 2 "back rooms", one for each rover, with both "tactical" teams operating independently and simultaneously during the actual traverses. Synthesis and integration of the daily findings and forward planning for the next day(s) was accomplished overnight by yet another "strategic" science team.

Horz, Friedrich↗

NASA NTRS2013

Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC) Final Report

After takeoff, aircraft must merge into en route (Center) airspace traffic flows that may be subject to constraints that create localized demand/capacity imbalances. When demand exceeds capacity, Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) and Frontline Managers (FLMs) often use tactical departure scheduling to manage the flow of departures into the constrained Center traffic flow. Tactical departure scheduling usually involves a Call for Release (CFR) procedure wherein the Tower must call the Center to coordinate a release time prior to allowing the flight to depart. In present-day operations release times are computed by the Center Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) decision support tool, based upon manual estimates of aircraft ready time verbally communicated from the Tower to the Center. The TMA-computed release time is verbally communicated from the Center back to the Tower where it is relayed to the Local controller as a release window that is typically three minutes wide. The Local controller will manage the departure to meet the coordinated release time window. Manual ready time prediction and verbal release time coordination are labor intensive and prone to inaccuracy. Also, use of release time windows adds uncertainty to the tactical departure process. Analysis of more than one million flights from January 2011 indicates that a significant number of tactically scheduled aircraft missed their en route slot due to ready time prediction uncertainty. Uncertainty in ready time estimates may result in missed opportunities to merge into constrained en route flows and lead to lost throughput. Next Generation Air Transportation System plans call for development of Tower automation systems capable of computing surface trajectory-based ready time estimates. NASA has developed the Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC) concept that improves tactical departure scheduling by automatically communicating surface trajectory-based ready time predictions and departure runway assignments to the Center scheduling tool. The PDRC concept also incorporates earlier NASA and FAA research into automation-assisted CFR coordination. The PDRC concept reduces uncertainty by automatically communicating coordinated release times with seconds-level precision enabling TMCs and FLMs to work with target times rather than windows. NASA has developed a PDRC prototype system that integrates the Center's TMA system with a research prototype Tower decision support tool. A two-phase field evaluation was conducted at NASA's North Texas Research Station in Dallas/Fort Worth. The field evaluation validated the PDRC concept and demonstrated reduced release time uncertainty while being used for tactical departure scheduling of more than 230 operational flights over 29 weeks of operations. This paper presents research results from the PDRC research activity. Companion papers present the Concept of Operations and a Technology Description.

tactical departure scheduling↗

NASA NTRS2013

Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC): NASA to FAA Research Transition

After takeoff, aircraft must merge into en route (Center) airspace traffic flows which may be subject to constraints that create localized demand-capacity imbalances. When demand exceeds capacity, Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) and Frontline Managers (FLMs) often use tactical departure scheduling to manage the flow of departures into the constrained Center traffic flow. Tactical departure scheduling usually involves use of a Call for Release (CFR) procedure wherein the Tower must call the Center to coordinate a release time prior to allowing the flight to depart. In present-day operations release times are computed by the Center Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) decision support tool based upon manual estimates of aircraft ready time verbally communicated from the Tower to the Center. The TMA-computed release time is verbally communicated from the Center back to the Tower where it is relayed to the Local controller as a release window that is typically three minutes wide. The Local controller will manage the departure to meet the coordinated release time window. Manual ready time prediction and verbal release time coordination are labor intensive and prone to inaccuracy. Also, use of release time windows adds uncertainty to the tactical departure process. Analysis of more than one million flights from January 2011 indicates that a significant number of tactically scheduled aircraft missed their en route slot due to ready time prediction uncertainty. Uncertainty in ready time estimates may result in missed opportunities to merge into constrained en route flows and lead to lost throughput. Next Generation Air Transportation System plans call for development of Tower automation systems capable of computing surface trajectory-based ready time estimates. NASA has developed the Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC) concept that improves tactical departure scheduling by automatically communicating surface trajectory-based ready time predictions and departure runway assignments to the Center scheduling tool. The PDRC concept also incorporates earlier NASA and FAA research into automation-assisted CFR coordination. The PDRC concept reduces uncertainty by automatically communicating coordinated release times with seconds-level precision enabling TMCs and FLMs to work with target times rather than windows. NASA has developed a PDRC prototype system that integrates the Center's TMA system with a research prototype Tower decision support tool. A two-phase field evaluation was conducted at NASA's North Texas Research Station in Dallas-Fort Worth. The field evaluation validated the PDRC concept and demonstrated reduced release time uncertainty while being used for tactical departure scheduling of more than 230 operational flights over 29 weeks of operations.

ATM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Simulation Activities for Evaluating UAM Concept of Operations

NASA’s vision for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is to help emerging aviation markets to safely develop an air transportation system that moves people and cargo between places previously not served or underserved by aviation using revolutionary new aircraft types. Urban Air Mobility (UAM), the concept of expanding transportation networks by serving short flights to transport people and goods around metropolitan areas, is part of a larger paradigm shift toward AAM, in which new technologies and business models are enabling transformational applications of aviation. In NASA’s Concept of Operations for UAM, Providers of Services for UAM (PSU) play a key role to enable safe and efficient UAM operations by sharing operational data among UAM operators. PSUs provide a pre-departure strategic conflict management service that establishes operational plans for new flights and coordinates them with all relevant operations in shared airspace. The strategic conflict management aims to minimize the need for tactical separation provision, while considering anticipated traffic demand, vertiport capacity and availability, forecasted weather, and airspace restrictions. NASA is currently preparing a new lab evaluation activity with aviation industry partners, called the X4 simulation, to demonstrate their airspace services and capabilities and test new information exchange requirements for UAM operations. This simulation activity will support NASA’s National Campaign (NC) flight tests which are planned over the next several years to guide the collective community and stakeholders through a series of scenario-based test activities that involve vehicles and airspace management services operating in a live test environment. This presentation will provide an overview of the X4 simulation, including objectives, scenarios, assumptions, system architecture, and test schedule. The X4 simulation will evaluate the interconnectivity and operational intent sharing between PSUs for multiple operators, as well as the performance of strategic conflict management.

Urban Air Mobility, Simulation, Advanced Air Mobil↗

NASA NTRS1999

Experimental Evaluation of CTAS/FMS Integration in TRACON Airspace

A CTAS/FMS integration project at Ames Research Center addresses extensions to the CTAS air traffic management concept, among them the introduction of arrival routes specially designed for the use with a Flight Management System. These FMS arrival routes shall allow for the use of the INS' lateral and vertical navigation capabilities throughout the arrival until final approach. For the use in this project CTAS controller support tools that compliment the concept have been created. These tools offer controllers access to CTAS' prediction and planning capabilities in terms of speed and route advisories. The objective is to allow for a more strategic way of controlling aircraft. Expected benefits are an increase in arrival rate and a reduction of average travel times through TRACER airspace. A real time simulation is being conducted at Ames to investigate how FMS arrivals and approach transitions - with and without the support of CTAS tools - effect the flow of arriving traffic within TRACER airspace and the controllers' task performance. Four conditions will be investigated and compared to today's technique of controlling traffic with tactical vectoring: 1. FMS arrivals and approach transitions are available for controllers to issue to equipped aircraft - traffic permitting; 2. Speed advisories that match CTAS' runway balancing and sequencing plan are displayed to Feeder controllers; 3. Approach transition advisories (e.g., location of the base turn point) are displayed to Final controllers for tactical clearances ("Turn base now"); and 4. Approach transition advisories (voice and data link) are generated by CTAS and displayed to final controllers for strategic voice clearances ("Turn base five miles after waypoint xyz") or prepared in terms of a trajectory description for strategic data link clearance. Scenarios used in the study will represent current traffic and vary in density of arriving traffic and the kind and mix of equipage of arriving aircraft. Data will be collected from experiment runs with active TRACON controllers on the final approach spacing, the aircraft's speed profiles, the controllers interaction with CTAS tools, and number and timing of pilot controllers communications under the described conditions.

Romahn, Stephen↗

NASA NTRS2002

ANTS: Applying A New Paradigm for Lunar and Planetary Exploration

ANTS (Autonomous Nano- Technology Swarm), a mission architecture consisting of a large (1000 member) swarm of picoclass (1 kg) totally autonomous spacecraft with both adaptable and evolvable heuristic systems, is being developed as a NASA advanced mission concept, and is here examined as a paradigm for lunar surface exploration. As the capacity and complexity of hardware and software, demands for bandwidth, and the sophistication of goals for lunar and planetary exploration have increased, greater cost constraints have led to fewer resources and thus, the need to operate spacecraft with less frequent human contact. At present, autonomous operation of spacecraft systems allows great capability of spacecraft to 'safe' themselves and survive when conditions threaten spacecraft safety. To further develop spacecraft capability, NASA is at the forefront of development of new mission architectures which involve the use of Intelligent Software Agents (ISAs), performing experiments in space and on the ground to advance deliberative and collaborative autonomous control techniques. Selected missions in current planning stages require small groups of spacecraft weighing tens, instead of hundreds, of kilograms to cooperate at a tactical level to select and schedule measurements to be made by appropriate instruments onboard. Such missions will be characterizing rapidly unfolding real-time events on a routine basis. The next level of development, which we are considering here, is in the use of autonomous systems at the strategic level, to explore the remote terranes, potentially involving large surveys or detailed reconnaissance.

Clark, P. E.↗

NASA NTRS2021

Practical Operational Readiness Gambits: Operations Training Simulations for the Curiosity Rover

The Mars Science Laboratory team had been puttingin effort to make a Training Venue to allow for parallel shadowtactical operations for trainees to actively work alongside theprime tactical operations personnel without affecting operations,since staffing constraints and shortened operations timelineswere straining the tactical process in supporting operationstrainees in the traditional way. The COVID- 19 Pandemic presentedfurther challenges in continuing on-console training forMSL operations trainees. The MSL operations team switched tofully remote operations, thus hampering the direct mentorshipa trainee would normally receive while on site at JPL. TheMars 2020 training team had developed a concept for roveroperations training simulations based on Johnson Space Center’sextensive simulations training program for astronauts andflight controllers. The MSL team borrowed this idea, and implementedthese training simulations which are called PracticalOperational Readiness Gambits (PORGs). The PORGs so farhave focused on the Science Planner and Rover Planner roles,which are two crucial roles in tactical operations that engagein key interactions throughout a shift. PORGs are based onactual sol scenarios that have occurred on Mars and follow thetactical operations process and timeline as closely as possible.However, unlike an operations shift, PORGs can slow down orpause to allow for more mentoring time. PORGs can focus onparticular skills to test the trainees on their understanding ofa concept. PORGs increase in complexity with each scenario toease the trainees into more typical tactical operations workloads.As more trainees join the MSL operations team, more roles arebeing incorporated into PORGs. There are plans to incorporatecertified operations personnel into PORGs to practice anomalyresponse situations. PORGs have become an essential part of theMSL operations training program and will continue even afterthe return to on-site operations at JPL.

Gajeway, Jocelyn↗

NASA NTRS2013

Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC) Technology Description

After takeoff, aircraft must merge into en route (Center) airspace traffic flows which may be subject to constraints that create localized demand-capacity imbalances. When demand exceeds capacity, Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) often use tactical departure scheduling to manage the flow of departures into the constrained Center traffic flow. Tactical departure scheduling usually involves use of a Call for Release (CFR) procedure wherein the Tower must call the Center TMC to coordinate a release time prior to allowing the flight to depart. In present-day operations release times are computed by the Center Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) decision support tool based upon manual estimates of aircraft ready time verbally communicated from the Tower to the Center. The TMA-computed release is verbally communicated from the Center back to the Tower where it is relayed to the Local controller as a release window that is typically three minutes wide. The Local controller will manage the departure to meet the coordinated release time window. Manual ready time prediction and verbal release time coordination are labor intensive and prone to inaccuracy. Also, use of release time windows adds uncertainty to the tactical departure process. Analysis of more than one million flights from January 2011 indicates that a significant number of tactically scheduled aircraft missed their en route slot due to ready time prediction uncertainty. Uncertainty in ready time estimates may result in missed opportunities to merge into constrained en route flows and lead to lost throughput. Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) plans call for development of Tower automation systems capable of computing surface trajectory-based ready time estimates. NASA has developed the Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC) concept that uses this technology to improve tactical departure scheduling by automatically communicating surface trajectory-based ready time predictions to the Center scheduling tool. The PDRC concept also incorporates earlier NASA and FAA research into automation-assisted CFR coordination. The PDRC concept helps reduce uncertainty by automatically communicating coordinated release times with seconds-level precision enabling TMCs to work with target times rather than windows. NASA has developed a PDRC prototype system that integrates the Center's TMA system with a research prototype Tower decision support tool. A two-phase field evaluation was conducted at NASA's North Texas Research Station (NTX) in Dallas-Fort Worth. The field evaluation validated the PDRC concept and demonstrated reduced release time uncertainty while being used for tactical departure scheduling of more than 230 operational flights over 29 weeks of operations. This paper presents the Technology Description. Companion papers include the Final Report and a Concept of Operations.

tactical departure scheduling↗

NASA NTRS2013

Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC) Concept of Operations

After takeoff, aircraft must merge into en route (Center) airspace traffic flows which may be subject to constraints that create localized demandcapacity imbalances. When demand exceeds capacity Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) often use tactical departure scheduling to manage the flow of departures into the constrained Center traffic flow. Tactical departure scheduling usually involves use of a Call for Release (CFR) procedure wherein the Tower must call the Center TMC to coordinate a release time prior to allowing the flight to depart. In present-day operations release times are computed by the Center Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) decision support tool based upon manual estimates of aircraft ready time verbally communicated from the Tower to the Center. The TMA-computed release is verbally communicated from the Center back to the Tower where it is relayed to the Local controller as a release window that is typically three minutes wide. The Local controller will manage the departure to meet the coordinated release time window. Manual ready time prediction and verbal release time coordination are labor intensive and prone to inaccuracy. Also, use of release time windows adds uncertainty to the tactical departure process. Analysis of more than one million flights from January 2011 indicates that a significant number of tactically scheduled aircraft missed their en route slot due to ready time prediction uncertainty. Uncertainty in ready time estimates may result in missed opportunities to merge into constrained en route flows and lead to lost throughput. Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) plans call for development of Tower automation systems capable of computing surface trajectory-based ready time estimates. NASA has developed the Precision Departure Release Capability (PDRC) concept that uses this technology to improve tactical departure scheduling by automatically communicating surface trajectory-based ready time predictions to the Center scheduling tool. The PDRC concept also incorporates earlier NASA and FAA research into automation-assisted CFR coordination. The PDRC concept helps reduce uncertainty by automatically communicating coordinated release times with seconds-level precision enabling TMCs to work with target times rather than windows. NASA has developed a PDRC prototype system that integrates the Center's TMA system with a research prototype Tower decision support tool. A two-phase field evaluation was conducted at NASA's North Texas Research Station (NTX) in DallasFort Worth. The field evaluation validated the PDRC concept and demonstrated reduced release time uncertainty while being used for tactical departure scheduling of more than 230 operational flights over 29 weeks of operations. This paper presents the Concept of Operations. Companion papers include the Final Report and a Technology Description. ? SUBJECT:

tactical departure scheduling↗

NASA NTRS2006

Implementing Distributed Operations: A Comparison of Two Deep Space Missions

Two very different deep space exploration missions--Mars Exploration Rover and Cassini--have made use of distributed operations for their science teams. In the case of MER, the distributed operations capability was implemented only after the prime mission was completed, as the rovers continued to operate well in excess of their expected mission lifetimes; Cassini, designed for a mission of more than ten years, had planned for distributed operations from its inception. The rapid command turnaround timeline of MER, as well as many of the operations features implemented to support it, have proven to be conducive to distributed operations. These features include: a single science team leader during the tactical operations timeline, highly integrated science and engineering teams, processes and file structures designed to permit multiple team members to work in parallel to deliver sequencing products, web-based spacecraft status and planning reports for team-wide access, and near-elimination of paper products from the operations process. Additionally, MER has benefited from the initial co-location of its entire operations team, and from having a single Principal Investigator, while Cassini operations have had to reconcile multiple science teams distributed from before launch. Cassini has faced greater challenges in implementing effective distributed operations. Because extensive early planning is required to capture science opportunities on its tour and because sequence development takes significantly longer than sequence execution, multiple teams are contributing to multiple sequences concurrently. The complexity of integrating inputs from multiple teams is exacerbated by spacecraft operability issues and resource contention among the teams, each of which has their own Principal Investigator. Finally, much of the technology that MER has exploited to facilitate distributed operations was not available when the Cassini ground system was designed, although later adoption of web-based and telecommunication tools has been critical to the success of Cassini operations.

Cassini Mission↗

NASA NTRS2006

Implementing distributed operations : a comparison of two Deep Space Missions

Two very different deep space exploration missions—Mars Exploration Rover and Cassini—have made use of distributed operations for their science teams. In the case of MER, the distributed operations capability was implemented only after the prime mission was completed, as the rovers continued to operate well in excess of their expected mission lifetimes; Cassini, designed for a prime mission of four years, had planned for distributed operations from its inception. The rapid command turnaround timeline of MER, as well as many of the operations features implemented to support it, have proven to be conducive to distributed operations. These features include: a single science team leader during the tactical operations timeline, highly integrated science and engineering teams, processes and file structures designed to permit multiple team members to work in parallel to deliver sequencing products, web-based spacecraft status and planning reports for team-wide access, and near-elimination of paper products from the operations process.

Larsen, Barbara↗

NASA NTRS1984

The space station program plan

The strategy that has been adopted for the NASA permanent manned space station development program is to provide a source of different modular components. Virtually any tactical requirements can then be accommodated through the specification of the appropriate inventory of orbitally assembled modular components. Some of the space station's subsystems are common to several elements, and must therefore be generally compatible, offering consistent interfaces with, for example, the Space Shuttle Orbiter. Tethered systems, including small platforms for controlled micro-g experiments, will be incorporated, and the occasional presence of two docked Space Shuttle Orbiters will be allowed for.

Hodge, J. D.↗

NASA NTRS1990

An innovative approach for distributed and integrated resources planning for the Space Station Freedom

This paper presents a planning approach to the Space Station Freedom program which takes into account the widely distributed nature of that program. The program management structure is organized into three major levels: a strategic level, a tactical level, and an execution level. For each level, resource availabilities are determined, the resources are distributed, schedules are built independently within the resource limits, the schedules are integrated into a single schedule, and conflicts are resolved by negotiating requirements and/or relaxing contraints. This approach distributes resources to multiple planning entities in such a way that when the multiple plans are collected, they fit together with minimal modification. The up-front distribution is planned in such a way and to a sufficient degree that a fit is virtually assured.

Hornstein, Rhoda S.↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Tech Briefs, Februrary 2013

Topics covered include: Measurements of Ultra-Stable Oscillator (USO) Allan Deviations in Space; Gaseous Nitrogen Orifice Mass Flow Calculator; Validation of Proposed Metrics for Two-Body Abrasion Scratch Test Analysis Standards; Rover Low Gain Antenna Qualification for Deep Space Thermal Environments; Automated, Ultra-Sterile Solid Sample Handling and Analysis on a Chip; Measuring and Estimating Normalized Contrast in Infrared Flash Thermography; Spectrally and Radiometrically Stable, Wideband, Onboard Calibration Source; High-Reliability Waveguide Vacuum/Pressure Window; Methods of Fabricating Scintillators With Radioisotopes for Beta Battery Applications; Magnetic Shield for Adiabatic Demagnetization Refrigerators (ADR); CMOS-Compatible SOI MESFETS for Radiation-Hardened DC-to-DC Converters; Silicon Heat Pipe Array; Adaptive Phase Delay Generator; High-Temperature, Lightweight, Self-Healing Ceramic Composites for Aircraft Engine Applications; Treatment to Control Adhesion of Silicone-Based Elastomers; High-Temperature Adhesives for Thermally Stable Aero-Assist Technologies; Rockballer Sample Acquisition Tool; Rock Gripper for Sampling, Mobility, Anchoring, and Manipulation; Advanced Magnetic Materials Methods and Numerical Models for Fluidization in Microgravity and Hypogravity; Data Transfer for Multiple Sensor Networks Over a Broad Temperature Range; Using Combustion Synthesis to Reinforce Berms and Other Regolith Structures; Visible-Infrared Hyperspectral Image Projector; Three-Axis Attitude Estimation With a High-Bandwidth Angular Rate Sensor Change_Detection.m; AGATE: Adversarial Game Analysis for Tactical Evaluation; Ionospheric Simulation System for Satellite Observations and Global Assimilative; Modeling Experiments (ISOGAME); An Extensible, User- Modifiable Framework for Planning Activities; Mission Operations Center (MOC) - Precipitation Processing System (PPS) Interface Software System (MPISS); Automated 3D Damaged Cavity Model Builder for Lower Surface Acreage Tile on Orbiter; Mixed Linear/Square-Root Encoded Single-Slope Ramp Provides Low-Noise ADC with High Linearity for Focal Plane Arrays; RUSHMAPS: Real-Time Uploadable Spherical Harmonic Moment Analysis for Particle Spectrometers; Powered Descent Guidance with General Thrust-Pointing Constraints; X-Ray Detection and Processing Models for Spacecraft Navigation and Timing; and Extreme Ionizing-Radiation-Resistant Bacterium

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Simulations of Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) aims to offer air taxi service as an alternative to driving on the congested roads. Integration of UAM operations into the National Airspace System (NAS) has been the focus of the research conducted at NASA Ames Research Center. In this talk, I present results from simulations performed during FY2019 to investigate if NASA’s UAS Traffic Management (UTM) architecture and its implementation are extensible for UAM operations. These simulations also tested a set of core airspace management services tailored to controlled airspace access. In the latter half of this talk, I present the efforts made towards the integration of two such services – a strategic scheduling and a tactical separation service – in a simulation environment under ideal conditions. I will conclude this talk by presenting the future work planned towards enabling UAM operations

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRS2021

Simulations of Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRS2013

Adams-Based Rover Terramechanics and Mobility Simulator - ARTEMIS

The Mars Exploration Rovers (MERs), Spirit and Opportunity, far exceeded their original drive distance expectations and have traveled, at the time of this reporting, a combined 29 kilometers across the surface of Mars. The Rover Sequencing and Visualization Program (RSVP), the current program used to plan drives for MERs, is only a kinematic simulator of rover movement. Therefore, rover response to various terrains and soil types cannot be modeled. Although sandbox experiments attempt to model rover-terrain interaction, these experiments are time-intensive and costly, and they cannot be used within the tactical timeline of rover driving. Imaging techniques and hazard avoidance features on MER help to prevent the rover from traveling over dangerous terrains, but mobility issues have shown that these methods are not always sufficient. ARTEMIS, a dynamic modeling tool for MER, allows planned drives to be simulated before commands are sent to the rover. The deformable soils component of this model allows rover-terrain interactions to be simulated to determine if a particular drive path would take the rover over terrain that would induce hazardous levels of slip or sink. When used in the rover drive planning process, dynamic modeling reduces the likelihood of future mobility issues because high-risk areas could be identified before drive commands are sent to the rover, and drives planned over these areas could be rerouted. The ARTEMIS software consists of several components. These include a preprocessor, Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), Adams rover model, wheel and soil parameter files, MSC Adams GUI (commercial), MSC Adams dynamics solver (commercial), terramechanics subroutines (FORTRAN), a contact detection engine, a soil modification engine, and output DEMs of deformed soil. The preprocessor is used to define the terrain (from a DEM) and define the soil parameters for the terrain file. The Adams rover model is placed in this terrain. Wheel and soil parameter files can be altered in the respective text files. The rover model and terrain are viewed in Adams View, the GUI for ARTEMIS. The Adams dynamics solver calls terramechanics subroutines in FORTRAN containing the Bekker-Wong equations.

Trease, Brian P.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technologies Program Material Development Plan

In this viewgraph presentation, IMWG (IHPRPT Materials Working Group) government and industry members, together with the IHPRPT (Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technologies Program Material Development Plan) National Component Leads, have developed a materials plan to address the critical needs of the IHPRPT community: (1) liquids boost and orbit transfer; (2) solids boost and orbit transfer; (3) tactical propulsion; and (4) spacecraft propulsion. Criticality of materials' role in achieving IHPRPT goals is evidenced by the significant investment over the next five years.

Clinton, R. G., Jr.↗