Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Timeline”

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 1,261 records · Page 70

The Current State and Future of the Former Central Nervous System Risk Managed by Space Radiation Element Part of NASA’s Human Research Program

Historically, the Space Radiation Element, as part of the NASA Human Research Program, was responsible for the scientific strategy and funding of research focused on characterizing and mitigating the effects of space radiation exposure on the central nervous system (CNS). During the past few years, there have been two major changes that have affected the management of the science associated with the CNS risk. The first major change was the integration of several related risks: CNS (C), behavioral medicine (B), and sensorimotor (S) to be managed as an integrated effort called CBS. CBS was formed to accelerate research on combined spaceflight stressors, specifically space radiation, microgravity, isolation, and confinement. CBS was managed by Human Factors and Behavioral Performance (HFBP) with support and inputs from Space Radiation as well as Human Health Countermeasures. Secondly, and more recently, the CNS risk was absorbed by the behavioral medicine risk currently also held by HFPB. As a result, the gaps associated with CNS were removed and aspects of them are represented in the BMED gaps (link). However, due to recent changes in element leadership, budget, and timeline, extensive restructuring of CBS is in progress. In addition, in an effort to harmonize datasets to be used in modeling efforts, an Animal Standardization TIM was held in June 2021 to standardize the type of behavioral and cognitive tasks as well as experimental set-ups used in animal models of future funded research. This presentation is an effort to communicate with the radiation research community concerning the strategy, management, and future of the former central nervous system risk and the role of the Space Radiation Element.

Janice A Zawaski↗

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat that uses the Space Launch System core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The primary consideration applied for down-selection was the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments was performed to compare the four variants. A stowage assessment developed a standard logistics module and then considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. It then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the four habitat, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the four variants and also ranked the variants for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond was predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response was evaluated, comparing the four variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data was shown to favor the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full SLS liquid oxygen tank.

Habitability↗

Genesis Solar Wind Sample Curation Documentation

Introduction: A scientist with experience as a sample science analyst, provider of flight hardware for multiple missions, and senior engineer in an ISO 2000-rated manufacturing plant has described the timeline of key participants in any PI-led sample return mission, the breadth of the organizations involved [1,2], and, of interest to this meeting, choosing the types of data to preserve and issues of future data accessibility. This work broadens that perspective by giving similar lessons from Genesis sample curation point-of-view. Curation participation regarding data gathering was part of the mission review process from the beginning. Genesis’ story illustrates outcome of several choices about types of data to record and preserve. Precision analysis of solar wind atoms captured in pure, ultraclean substrates is the driving science goal; therefore, detailed documentation was captured from all mission and curation phases and from investigator laboratories because these processes affect the final analytical results [3]. Pre-flight: Design and fabrication of the spacecraft. Like many modern small sample return missions, Genesis was a tightly managed team integrated across science, engineering and curation. Communication across the team was excellent, and, for the most part, the hands-on engineering technicians understood the impacts of “small choices” they routinely make, and the eyes-on oversight of manufacturing processes by scientists was mindful of details. The payload was designed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the spacecraft by Lockheed Martin. Solar wind collectors and instruments were fabricated by multiple vendors and laboratories. The main portion of the payload was assembled at JSC. Fabrication procedures and contamination-control data (with witness coupons) were stored primarily at JSC. The original composition, dimensions and configuration of components, results of thermal testing, etc. are still needed for interpretation of analytical data. At times, these must be estimated from secondary information acquired pre-flight. Moreover, some files (e.g., original 3-D models and early Powerpoint) cannot be opened using software. Archived curation data includes 2-D drawings, material usage lists, QA documentation and analyses of consumables used during fabrication. Important chemical information still resides in archived hardware, paints and lubricants, material coupons, cleaning coupons, environmental witness plates and reference materials from manufacturing facilities. Purity and cleanliness of collector substrates. Semi-conductor vendors provided surface cleanliness data and some purity data. Purity for specific elements of interest was verified by science team members in their laboratories [4]. Curation archived procurement and shipping records, analysis reports, and non-proprietary fabrication data. A physical archive of flight collector reference materials is maintained for future use so additional data can be collected as analytical techniques improve. These are of increased value due to the hard landing upon re-entry. Cleaning and cleanliness assessments of flight hardware. Cleaning of the science canister payload was performed at JSC in a dedicated ISO 4 cleanroom using ultrapure water (UPW). The cleanliness of this UPW was monitored throughout processing. The archive for the clean lab also includes airborne particle counts, airborne molecular and inorganic contamination measurements as well as cleanroom construction material coupons and witness coupons. Hardware cleanliness was assessed by particle counts in rinse water batches. This information is recorded in batch cleaning forms and logbooks, and are, perhaps, of decreased value due to the hard landing. Post-flight: Curation-generated data. The curation handling history of each Genesis sample is documented in a typical astromaterials sample database which captures sample location, physical description and characterization data. Samples have a “shelf life”. Crucial to the preservation of samples is ongoing documentation of the sample environment, initially under curatorial control but is now a separate facility function with requires coordination. PI-generated data. Data on sample characterization and cleaning techniques continues to be generated by sample users [5]. These are often captured in LPSC abstracts, but these “engineering” results often are not publishable as stand-alone papers. We are actively looking for ways to make this information more accessible to users. Ion implants into samples have aided science return and can be shared among investigators. These (and similar) materials should be added to the curatorial collection with appropriate process and characterization data generated externally. Summary: Complete data archives for returned astromaterial samples must be broad in types and formats, and inclusive of environmental monitoring.

Genesis↗

Risk-Reduction Autonomy Implementation to Enable NASA Artemis Missions

To achieve NASA’s Artemis program mission objectives a high level of autonomy that is ubiquitous throughout the systems that are being developed will be necessary. The autonomous systems of Artemis will require a distributed autonomy capability, with autonomous systems organized functionally in a hierarchical architecture, where systems at higher levels of the hierarchy have authority over systems at lower levels. The challenge of developing autonomy technologies and Concepts of Operations (ConOps) for Artemis has been undertaken by the NASA Gateway Working Group. This group has developed requirements, architectures, ConOps, and interface control documents (ICDs), in the context of a hierarchical distributed architecture that includes the following: a Vehicle System Manager (VSM) that autonomously manages the entire Gateway; Module System Managers (MSMs) that autonomously manage each module; and System Managers (SMs) that autonomously manage systems within a module (i.e. ECLSS). A substantially high level of autonomy needs to be achieved by each element of the hierarchy (VSM, MSM, SM) to meet requirements for uncrewed operations; this includes conditions that will have minimal and/or delayed ground intervention (i.e. requirements for sustainability for months of operation without crew or ground support). To advance an implementation of this autonomy design (Gateway Autonomy Design – GAD), a collaboration was established between the Autonomous Systems Laboratory (ASL) at NASA Stennis Space Center and Lockheed Martin. The objectives of this partnership were the following: (1) to implement autonomy at the VSM, MSM, and SM levels; (2) to implement communications among a VSM, 2 MSMs, ORION (a visiting vehicle somewhat equivalent to a module) and 1 SM (a power system), and (3) test autonomous operations with representative use cases. A SM backed by a high-fidelity simulation was created to facilitate demonstrations of use cases that originated in a system of a module. Communication between the VSM and MSMs was implemented according to Concepts of Operations and Interface Control Documents (ICDs). Demonstrations were conducted to address nominal and off-nominal operations and multi-module interactions with the VSM. Additionally, user interfaces were created to provide awareness about ongoing processes and results while enhancing the demonstration. Demonstrations included the following use cases: (1) Orion as visiting vehicle registers with VSM; (2) VSM reschedules a module’s timelines when another module’s MSM task fails; and (3) a module’s Power System Manager (PSM) demonstration that included component failure diagnostics, tracing component failure to effected components, which in turn, reports failure information up to the VSM for acknowledgement and display. This paper will describe the detailed technology and autonomous systems developed, and the integrated multi-module demonstrations conducted. Also, challenges that must be met to fully implement the GAD defined by Gateway will be addressed.

Fernando Figueroa↗

Preparation for and Performance of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Experiment On Board the International Space Station

Biofilms are a problem on Earth given their ability to degrade the materials upon which they grow and due to their relevance to infections. Remarkably, 65% and 80% of infections and chronic diseases on Earth are associated with biofilms, respectively. In space, these problems' impact is higher because the crew's lives and mission success depend on nominal operation of mechanical systems. Furthermore, the isolated confined environment nature of spaceflight may increase the rates of disease transmission. In the case of the International Space Station (ISS), biofilms are an identified problem on the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS), namely on the water processor assembly (WPA). In late 2019, the Space Biofilms experiment launched towards ISS to (i) characterize the mass, thickness, morphology, and gene expression of biofilms formed in space with respect to matched Earth controls, (ii) interrogate the expression of antimicrobial resistance genes, and (iii) test novel materials as potential biofilm control strategies for future ECLSS components. For this, 288 bacterial samples were prepared prior to the launch of the Northrop Grumman CRS-12 mission from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. The samples were integrated into the spaceflight hardware, BioServe's Fluid Processing Apparatus (FPA) packed in sets of eight in Group Activation Packs (GAP). Half of these samples were activated and terminated on orbit by NASA astronauts Jessica Meir and Christina Koch, while the remaining half were processed equivalently on Earth. The spaceflight bacterial samples of Space Biofilms returned on board SpaceX' CRS-19 Dragon spacecraft, in early 2020. We here describe the test campaign implemented to verify the experiment design and confirm it would enable us to achieve the project's scientific goals. This campaign ended with the Experiment Verification Test (EVT), from which we here present example morphology and transcriptomic results. We describe in detail the sample preparation prior to flight, including cleaning and sterilization of the coupons of six materials (SS316, passivated-SS316, lubricant impregnated surface, catheter-grade silicone with and without a nanotopography, and cellulose membrane), loading and integration of growth media, bacterial inoculum, fixative and preservative to enable experiment termination on orbit. Additionally, we describe the performance of the experiment on board the ISS, including crew activities, use of assets, temperature profile, and experiment timeline; all leading to a successful spaceflight experiment.

Pamela Flores↗

Space Radiation Technologies for Human Missions beyond Low-Earth-Orbit

Ionizing radiation exposure is a pervasive occupational risk to astronauts and remains a major health risk associated with human exploration beyond low-Earth-orbit. Sustained lunar and Mars exploration crew will be at increased risk of radiogenic cancers and cardiovascular disease, as well as, the potential for in-mission performance decrements, immune system decrements, and late neurodegenerative conditions impacting crew health. Optimizing astronaut space radiation protection will incorporate both physical and biological radiological aspects and will implement protection strategies that span pre-mission, in-flight, and post mission timelines. Major facets of physical risk mitigation include accuracy in predicting the space radiation solar environment, monitoring environmental and human exposures, and minimizing exposure through vehicle shielding and design. Biological mitigation facets include understanding and predicting biological response to the space environment, developing advanced medical countermeasures, and identifying appropriate surveillance strategies to preserve long-term health. Coordinated investments in these major capability areas will support development of an integrated radiation protection solution to minimize astronaut risk for moon to Mars exploration missions.

Lisa C Simonsen↗

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in technology development, ground testing, and ISS technology demonstrations within the NASA Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) community. This paper provides a technology development update in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. Technologies for exploration missions must be reliable in their operation which support crewed mission phases. However, they also need to be put into a reduced use or dormant states to support uncrewed mission phases and then successfully and reliably returned to a nominal state to support crew. Multi-year demonstration of systems operation across this range of conditions are essential to mission success. Project overviews will include how the current activity supports the goal of multi-year demonstrations, planned follow-on activities, and what type of exploration mission elements are targeted for infusion. Technologies must be demonstrated and validated early enough to inform early exploration element milestone reviews (mission concept reviews, systems requirement reviews and no later than preliminary design reviews) so that supporting vehicle systems can also be matured. Consequently, for low technology readiness activities, it is important to also identify which mission elements they might infuse into and how they may offer potential operational, dormancy, or mass benefits. While low TRL technology timelines may not support initial mission needs, early infusion is still reasonable with sufficient testing to validate performance and reliability.

Life Support↗

Community Integration of Advanced Air Mobility

This presentation was given on November 8, 2021 at a pre-Showcase Webinar prior to the November 10, 2021 Ohio AAM Showcase. Topics covered in the presentation include NASA's AAM Partnership Strategy including the AAM partnerships, NASA's AAM National Campaign Timeline, and how NASA is working with Community Partners to integrated AAM into their communities.

Nancy Mendonca↗

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. In many cases, research is required to characterize those risks and help identify risk mitigation strategies. Where new capabilities are necessary to maintain crew health and performance (CHP) during exploration missions, a multi-step process is followed: 1) a Capability Gap is defined; 2) a plan or “roadmap” to develop that capability is established based on agency priorities and anticipated mission development timelines; and 3) work defined on the roadmap is then initiated as resources allow, with the objective that the capability will be available in time to support the future mission. Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in CHP technology development, ground testbed development, ground-based testing, and in preparations for ISS technology demonstrations. This paper provides a development update in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures, EVA physiology and performance, food and nutrition, exploration medical capabilities, and radiation. Project overviews will include descriptions of CHP development activities over the past year, the human system risks and capability gaps being targeted, as well as planned follow-on activities and anticipated program infusion points.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗

Concept of Operations for OSIRIS-REx Optical Navigation Image Planning

Optical navigation (OpNav) is a critical subsystem of the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample return mission, which operated in the vicinity of near-Earth asteroid (101955) Bennu from August 2018 through April 2021. A substantial amount of mission resources across multiple subsystems and institutions is required to ensure that the OpNav data are successfully acquired. The KinetX OpNav team, part of the Flight Dynamics System (FDS), is responsible for performing required analysis to develop the OpNav operations plans; requesting, reviewing and verifying the plans; and ultimately using the image data for critical navigation operations. The FDS team, responsible for the mission navigation, is operated by KinetX Aerospace with management and operations support from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The Science Processing and Operations Center (SPOC), located at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, is responsible for generating the planning products for all science and most OpNav data. These plans are integrated into the spacecraft sequences, tested, and commanded by the Mission Support Area (MSA) at Lockheed Martin Space. To ensure mission-critical navigation image data are successfully acquired, the plan is developed through a waterfall of planning cycles over the course of 3 months prior to onboard plan execution. During the initial strategic planning for a mission phase, detailed analysis is performed by the OpNav team to conceptualize the concept of operations (ConOps) for image data collection. This phase OpNav Narrative is included along with other strategic planning documents for the key ground segment stakeholders to review and provide feedback. The detailed OpNav plans get defined in the tactical planning cycle, which spans 8 to 3 weeks before the week-long integrated sequence is executed on-board the spacecraft. During the tactical cycle, the initial OpNav Request is submitted along with the science requests, kicking off development of the science and OpNav plans. Once the initial plan is drafted, interfaces are exercised so that the plan can be reviewed and iterated, if necessary. A rigorous schedule is followed by the planning teams during the implementation cycle, spanning the last 18 days before uplink, to ensure all the necessary integration, testing, and reviewing can occur on time. The development of the OpNav planning ConOps, including responsibilities, interfaces, timelines, and procedures, took extensive collaboration across mission elements and institutions. The process was robust throughout the 137 weeks of continuous Optical Navigation Operations at Bennu, which concluded on April 9th, 2021.

Coralie D. Adam↗

Towards a Characterization of Scheduling Task Complexity

Future long-duration missions will require astronauts to act more autonomously, manage their schedules, and replan timelines as anomalies and discoveries occur. Astronauts are not professional planners, however, and the complexity of schedules that novice planners can complete successfully is not fully understood. To identify the primary factors which contribute to scheduling task complexity, we conducted a human-in-the-loop study and developed planning algorithms to investigate how the type and amount of constraints affect the difficulty of scheduling and rescheduling. We created rankings of difficulty using a combination of human performance metrics from experimental planning tasks and metrics describing the final plans that participants scheduled. Using the results of our scheduling and rescheduling algorithm algorithms, we created a similar ranking with which to compare. We created rankings which compared well between the experimental and algorithm results for the scheduling task, but the rescheduling task proved more difficult to estimate.

scheduling↗

Towards a Characterization of Scheduling Task Complexity

Future long-duration missions will require astronauts to act more autonomously, manage their schedules, and replan timelines as anomalies and discoveries occur. Astronauts are not professional planners, however, and the complexity of schedules that novice planners can complete successfully is not fully understood. To identify the primary factors which contribute to scheduling task complexity, we conducted a human-in-the-loop study and developed planning algorithms to investigate how the type and amount of constraints affect the difficulty of scheduling and rescheduling. We created rankings of difficulty using a combination of human performance metrics from experimental planning tasks and metrics describing the final plans that participants scheduled. Using the results of our scheduling and rescheduling algorithm algorithms, we created a similar ranking with which to compare. We created rankings which compared well between the experimental and algorithm results for the scheduling task, but the rescheduling task proved more difficult to estimate.

scheduling↗

OSIRIS-REx Off-Nominal Re-entry Breakup Analysis

The Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) is a NASA asteroid sampling mission that launched on September 8, 2016. Its objectives are to study the asteroid Bennu for up to 505 days and obtain at least 60 grams of pristine regolith. The sample return to Earth is planned for September 2023. For contingency planning and risk assessment of a potential off-nominal Earth-return trajectory, a re-entry breakup analysis was performed to determine the response of the spacecraft to the environment and predict the breakup sequence and timeline, debris survival, and debris impact conditions. The failure scenario assumed a failure to separate between the bus and the sample return capsule (SRC), resulting in the combined bus+SRC configuration for the re-entry vehicle. Furthermore, consistent overburns or underburns were considered to produce three sets of initial conditions for the analysis consisting of nominal, steep, and shallow entry flight path angles. The results were compared to the breakup analysis performed for a similar vehicle, the Stardust spacecraft, which returned samples from the comet Wild 2 in 2006. This paper describes the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft and presents the results of the re-entry breakup analysis.

reentry breakup analysis↗

Artemis III EVA Mission Capability for de Gerlache-Shackleton Ridge

NASA has committed to sending humans to the Moon no earlier than 2025. The Artemis III mission will include scientific, technology demonstrations, commercial, inspirational, and explorational objectives. Achieving these goals will depend upon balancing priorities and mission constraints. A landing location needs to meet terrain conditions suitable for the lander with acceptable thermal and lighting conditions. This location must also allow access to geological areas of interest within traverse range and capability of walking astronauts. A representative EVA timeline is then developed for an example location on the de Gerlache-Shackleton ridge and used to examine the location’s acceptability as a candidate site for Artemis III. Similar studies are being conducted to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and Flight Operations.

EVA↗

Reference Surface Activities for Crewed Mars Mission Systems and Utilization

This document details constraints and considerations in planning daily activity timelines for crewed exploration on Mars. This work was done for the purpose of estimating how much time during each Martian day (hereafter referred to as a sol) might be available for exploration activities, (also referred to as utilization activities in this document), after accounting for crew and equipment care. These results become part of the factors taken into consideration as specific goals and objectives are assembled into a mission plan.

Stephen J Hoffman↗

Human Autonomy Teaming - m:N Operations

The principles and reasons for employing Human Autonomy Teaming is discussed. Application of these techniques to multi-vehicle control is described. In several operational environments from small drone delivery to air taxi to autonomous cargo, many companies will need technologies that will allow for the operation of an unmanned aircraft (UAS or eVTOL) by a small crew of individuals that are located in a remote network operations center. That is, Multiple operators supervising an increasing Number of vehicles (M:N). This will require a new control/supervisory paradigm where the supervisors team with automation to achieve their joint tasks; Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT). This task will follow the HAT philosophy and tenants (e.g., trust, bi-directional communication, pilot directed interfaces). It will also develop and employ specific HAT tools (e.g., playbook, working agreements, predictive timeline displays, transparent interfaces to build trust).

multi-vehicle control↗

Mars Sample Return Mission Concept Status

This paper will provide an overview of current concepts and options for the architecture and design of a Mars Sample Return Mission, including the Sample Retrieval Lander (SRL) (developed by NASA) and the Earth Return Orbiter (ERO) (developed by ESA) . Key mission objectives and the overall campaign will be described, including the mission’s concept of operations and a notional timeline from launch to entry, through surface operations, to delivery of the samples to Mars orbit and return to Earth. The overall SRL lander vehicle concept will be described, including current options being evaluated. Key lander element options that have been studied will be discussed, including the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), Sample Fetch Rover (provided by ESA), Orbiting Sample container (OS), and sample tube transfer robotics systems. For the ERO the vehicle concept will be described including key interfaces with the Capture/Containment and Return System (CCRS). Specific challenges and approaches for addressing those challenges will be discussed, including key technical margins and backward planetary protection. The information provided about possible Mars sample return architectures is for planning and discussion purposes only. NASA has made no official decision to implement Mars sample return.

Muirhead, Brian K↗

Neighbors on the Red Planet: Mars Science Laboratory Relay Coordination Post InSight Arrival

The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) strategic communications planning toolset selects orbiter relay opportunities that the rover will use for transmitting data back to Earth. The toolset was extensively reworked in preparation for the Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport's (InSight) arrival at Mars in November 2018 and the regular use of Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) and Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) orbiters as relay assets in addition to Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) and 2001 Mars Odyssey (ODY). Overflight selection criteria was automated in the new toolset to take into account overflight deconfliction and down-selection as well as tactical timeline planning impacts and total data return. This was done while remaining flexible and configurable for changing mission priorities. As the Curiosity rover ages, the MSL planning team must overcome issues such as reduced budgets, memory bank anomalies, and reduced power availability. These are some examples of factors that affect the strategic communications planning toolset. In addition to adapting to evolving internal mission needs, the toolset must also be flexible to changes in the relay planning interface with other landers. The concept of shared relay or “split passes” was introduced when InSight began operating on Mars just 600 kilometers away and at the same longitude as MSL. This proximity meant that orbiters could now communicate with two landers during the same relay session. Over time, this new operational use-case became common practice as InSight and MSL settled into relay planning negotiations. Today, many TGO relay sessions are shared between MSL and InSight. As more orbiters pursue integrating this capability into nominal relay operations, and more landers arrive on Mars, the strategic communications process and toolsets increases in complexity. Development of a single tool that schedules relay sessions for all orbiters and landers simultaneously may become necessary as the number of Martian spacecraft increases. Examples of how toolset selection criteria and capabilities have helped or hindered MSL planning will be presented. Ongoing improvements to MSL toolsets and processes, as well as to shared relay tools such as Mars Relay Operations Service (MaROS) and General Telecom Predictor (GTP) are also discussed in this paper. Examples of how toolset selection criteria and capabilities have helped or hindered MSL planning will be presented. Ongoing improvements to MSL toolsets and processes, as well as to shared relay tools such as Mars Relay Operations Service (MaROS) and General Telecom Predictor (GTP) are also discussed in this paper.

Vandermey, Nancy↗