Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “mission software”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

3D Orbit Visualization for Earth-Observing Missions

This software visualizes orbit paths for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), but was designed to be general and applicable to any Earth-observing mission. The software uses the Google Earth user interface to provide a visual mechanism to explore spacecraft orbit paths, ground footprint locations, and local cloud cover conditions. In addition, a drill-down capability allows for users to point and click on a particular observation frame to pop up ancillary information such as data product filenames and directory paths, latitude, longitude, time stamp, column-average dry air mole fraction of carbon dioxide, and solar zenith angle. This software can be integrated with the ground data system for any Earth-observing mission to automatically generate daily orbit path data products in Google Earth KML format. These KML data products can be directly loaded into the Google Earth application for interactive 3D visualization of the orbit paths for each mission day. Each time the application runs, the daily orbit paths are encapsulated in a KML file for each mission day since the last time the application ran. Alternatively, the daily KML for a specified mission day may be generated. The application automatically extracts the spacecraft position and ground footprint geometry as a function of time from a daily Level 1B data product created and archived by the mission s ground data system software. In addition, ancillary data, such as the column-averaged dry air mole fraction of carbon dioxide and solar zenith angle, are automatically extracted from a Level 2 mission data product. Zoom, pan, and rotate capability are provided through the standard Google Earth interface. Cloud cover is indicated with an image layer from the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) aboard the Aqua satellite, which is automatically retrieved from JPL s OnEarth Web service.

Jacob, Joseph C.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Agile Approach to Adding Assurance and Mitigating Overall Mission Risk for Orion Software on EM-1

Human-rated missions like Orion are becoming exceedingly complex in terms of software contribution to achieving mission objectives, and this creates a resource challenge for everyone whose job is to add assurance that the mission is going to fly safely. Orion IV&V has addressed this challenge by providing focused assurance results of critical mission capabilities prioritized by a dynamic assessment of risk level. Prior to this approach, Orion IV&V was evaluating areas of risk in much broader, and more static, terms. Due to the Agile software development cycle that Orion follows, IV&V findings were often reported months out of phase with the developer. As a result of evolving the approach to providing assurance on Orion, IV&V is able to incrementally deliver high-priority assurance data and more impactful issues more in phase with the developer activities, thereby increasing the value of the findings to the project. The agile IV&V approach employed by the Orion IV&V team strives to achieve a cadence of delivery that matches the pace of development. This agile approach provides increased flexibility for the assurance provider to become more efficient in reporting assurance conclusions and issues. This presentation will discuss the principles which drive the design of our approach, results to date, and aspirations for long-term performance.

Assurance↗
NASA NTRS2024

2024 Software for NASA Science Mission Directorate Workshop Report

The 2024 Software for the NASA Science Mission Directorate Workshop was the first workshop of its kind in over 10 years. The numerous attendees and high level of interaction in this hybrid workshop portrayed the untapped interest and energy in the NASA SMD community about software. Over 100 takeaways were collected from the hosted discussions in four key areas - Communication, Communities, Funding and Clarity - as summarized in this report. One takeaway was representative of all four categories: “Software is not hardware; it is organic and needs a different model. You often don't know which components will be Open-Source reusable until later in the development cycle.” For the communication category, this takeaway motivates the reduction of silos by shifting towards a model that better supports community collaboration on common challenges and a more streamlined and improved software release process. For the communities category, the same statement points to forming communities of practice with varying scopes and a new approach to recognition and incentives for open-source software contributions. Concerning funding, this statement motivates a more sustained and flexible funding model that better supports the software foundation needed for NASA’s long-term success, including the collaboration and infrastructure a good foundation requires. The new approach to clarity motivated by this statement calls for significant changes to the software release process and related policies to streamline compliance, align those policies with the open-source science culture NASA is promoting and with each other, and simplify use of the cloud. It is time to recognize software as a foundational component of NASA with an organic nature not properly supported by current approaches. Different models are needed in all four areas to shift the NASA SMD software community and governance structures into a more efficient, open, and collaborative ecosystem - one that enables ground-breaking science and daring exploration into the coming decades

science↗
NASA NTRS1991

An evaluation of software testing metrics for NASA's mission control center

Software metrics are used to evaluate the software development process and the quality of the resulting product. Five metrics were used during the testing phase of the Shuttle Mission Control Center Upgrade at the NASA Johnson Space Center. All but one metric provided useful information. Based on the experience, it is recommended that metrics be used during the test phase of software development and additional candidate metrics are proposed for further study.

Stark, George E.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Risk-Informed Safety Assurance and Probabilistic Assessment of Mission-Critical Software-Intensive Systems

This report validates and documents the detailed features and practical application of the framework for software intensive digital systems risk assessment and risk-informed safety assurance presented in the NASA PRA Procedures Guide for Managers and Practitioner. This framework, called herein the "Context-based Software Risk Model" (CSRM), enables the assessment of the contribution of software and software-intensive digital systems to overall system risk, in a manner which is entirely compatible and integrated with the format of a "standard" Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), as currently documented and applied for NASA missions and applications. The CSRM also provides a risk-informed path and criteria for conducting organized and systematic digital system and software testing so that, within this risk-informed paradigm, the achievement of a quantitatively defined level of safety and mission success assurance may be targeted and demonstrated. The framework is based on the concept of context-dependent software risk scenarios and on the modeling of such scenarios via the use of traditional PRA techniques - i.e., event trees and fault trees - in combination with more advanced modeling devices such as the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology (DFM) or other dynamic logic-modeling representations. The scenarios can be synthesized and quantified in a conditional logic and probabilistic formulation. The application of the CSRM method documented in this report refers to the MiniAERCam system designed and developed by the NASA Johnson Space Center.

Guarro, Sergio B.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Spacecraft Trajectory Analysis and Mission Planning Simulation (STAMPS) Software

STAMPS simulates either three- or six-degree-of-freedom cases for all spacecraft flight phases using translated HAL flight software or generic GN&C models. Single or multiple trajectories can be simulated for use in optimization and dispersion analysis. It includes math models for the vehicle and environment, and currently features a "C" version of shuttle onboard flight software. The STAMPS software is used for mission planning and analysis within ascent/descent, rendezvous, proximity operations, and navigation flight design areas.

Puckett, Nancy↗
NASA NTRS1975

Star tracker constraint violations digital capability description and analysis results. Mission planning, mission analysis, and software formulation

Results of star tracker constraint violation analyses performed with the digital computer program Shuttle Attitude and Pointing Time Line Processor (SAPT) are presented. Results are typical of those utilized to provide the information required to update Baseline Reference Mission Attitude and Pointing Time Lines. Descriptions of SAPT modifications implemented to perform these analyses are also presented.

Poston, P. L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A History of Orion Mission Design, Copernicus Software Development, and the Artemis I Trajectory

This paper describes the history of the on-orbit trajectory design and optimization for the Orion spacecraft at NASA JSC, from the initial design through the execution of the Artemis I test flight. In parallel, the Copernicus trajectory optimization tool was also being developed and was the main tool used for Orion trajectory design during this period. Finally, the paper gives an overview of the Artemis I trajectory that was flown during the Artemis I mission from November 16 - December 11, 2022.

Orion↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek A Whitman↗
NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek Whitman↗
NASA NTRS1976

Abort Region Determinator (ARD) module feasibility report. Mission planning, mission analysis and software formulation

A detailed performance evaluation of the Abort Region Determinator (ARD) module design was provided in support of OFT-1 ascent and OFT-1 intact launch aborts. The evaluation method used compared ARD results against results obtained using the full-up Space Vehicle Dynamic Simulations program under the same conditions. Results were presented for each of the three major ARD math models: (1) the ascent numerical integrator; (2) the mass model, and (3) the second stage predictor as well as the total ARD module. These results demonstrate that the baselined ARD module meets all design objectives for mission control center orbital flight test launch/abort support.

Draeger, B. G.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Maximization of orbiter altitude at ALT interface airspeed, mission planning, mission analysis and software

The determination of the separation initial conditions (i.e. incidence angle) that maximize orbiter altitude at the ALT interface airspeed is considered. Optimum altitude airspeed profiles are generated for each orbiter incidence angle and tailcone configuration. Results show that the highest separation altitude does not result in the highest altitude at ALT interface airspeed. The altitude attainable at ALT interface airspeed should therefore be considered in the selection of the initial conditions (i.e. incidence angle). Without violating any known constraints, the incidence angles that maximize orbiter altitude at the ALT interface airspeeds are 7.0 deg for ALT free flight 1 and 5.5 deg for ALT free flight 6.

Glenn, G. M.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Proposed powered explicit guidance thrust integrals derivation/implementation. Mission planning, mission analysis and software formulation

A new exoatmospheric, powered explicit guidance (PEG) thrust integral formulation and a simple method of implementation are presented. The new thrust integral formulation is significantly simpler than that currently used in PEG. Preliminary estimates indicate a computer storage savings of 220 words, which is approximately 10 percent of the current PEG ascent program. Alternate methods of implementation that could produce even more savings are noted.

Jaggers, R. F.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Orbiter/carrier separation for the ALT free flight no. 1 reference trajectories. Mission planning, mission analysis and software formulation

Details of the generation of the separation trajectories are discussed. The analysis culminated in definition of separation trajectories between physical separation and orbiter/carrier vortex clearance. Specifications, assumptions and analytical approach used to generate the separation trajectories are presented. Results of the analytical approach are evaluated. Conclusions and recommendations are summarized. Supporting references are listed.

Glenn, G. M.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Orbiter altitude at ALT interface based on ALSES (Approach and Landing Shuttle Engineering Simulation) analyses. Mission planning, mission analysis and software formulation

The details of the orbiter altitude attainable at the approach and landing tests (ALT) interface determined by the approach and landing shuttle engineering simulation (manned) were documented. The analysis culminated in the verification of the trends observed in a similar analysis performed previously on the space vehicle dynamics simulation (unmanned). Altitude variations attributable to pilot steering variability ranged between 492 ft higher to 383 ft lower. The requirement for this parametric analysis is first elaborated. The specifications, assumptions, and analytical approach used to determine the orbiter altitude at the ALT interface are then presented, followed by the results of the analytical approach and the conclusions and recommendations.

Colwell, C. L.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Error Analysis of the Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System P-V-T Propellant Gaging Module. Mission Planning, Mission Analysis and Software Formulation

An investigation of the shuttle orbital maneuvering system (OMS) pressure-volume-temperature (P-V-T) propellant gaging module has revealed that the gaging errors due to the combined effects of random instrumentation measurement errors, propellant loading uncertainties, and simplifying assumptions in the software are non-linear over the range of the usable propellant quantity gage (0-100%), with the largest error being at the zero point. When the OMS propellant tanks in the orbiter vehicle pods are filled to contain 100% of the maximum usable propellant, the gaging error at the zero point was determined to be 9.5% for the fuel and 9.5% for the oxidizer. When the OMS propellant tanks initially contain 50% of the maximum usable propellant, the largest gaging error is still 9.5% for the fuel and 9.5% for the oxidizer.

Duhon, D. D.↗