Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Mission 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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

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

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

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cold Stowage Kickoff

Cold Stowage consists of hardware, both active and passive, that transports science to/from and stows science on the International Space Station (ISS) in a temperature-controlled environment - Active and passive systems provide more flexibility and redundancy - Cold Stowage will assign experiments to assets based on mission requirements and best use of space. - Temperature range for science support is -160°C to +48°C on ISS and -95°C to +40°C for launch and return - All hardware is compatible with SpaceX and Northrop Grumman (NG) vehicles. - Cold Stowage hardware is maintained by a joint effort between ESA, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and the JSC Cold Stowage Team which prepares the hardware for flight, including launch and landing support. - The Cold Stowage team is based out of Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. - The Cold Stowage team also works in and maintains the Cold Stowage lab at KSC and Wallops.

Cold Stowage↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cold Stowage Kickoff

Cold Stowage consists of hardware, both active and passive, that transports science to/from and stows science on the International Space Station (ISS) in a temperature-controlled environment. - Active and passive systems provide more flexibility and redundancy - Cold Stowage will assign experiments to assets based on mission requirements and best use of space. - Temperature range for science support is -160°C to +48°C on ISS and -95°C to +40°C for launch and return - All hardware is compatible with SpaceX and Northrop Grumman (NG) vehicles. - Cold Stowage hardware is maintained by a joint effort between ESA, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and the JSC Cold Stowage Team which prepares the hardware for flight, including launch and landing support. - The Cold Stowage team is based out of Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. - The Cold Stowage team also works in and maintains the Cold Stowage lab at KSC and Wallops.

Cold Stowage↗
NASA NTRS1975

IUS/TUG orbital operations and mission support study. Volume 3: Space tug operations

A study was conducted to develop space tug operational concepts and baseline operations plan, and to provide cost estimates for space tug operations. Background data and study results are presented along with a transition phase analysis (the transition from interim upper state to tug operations). A summary is given of the tug operational and interface requirements with emphasis on the on-orbit checkout requirements, external interface operational requirements, safety requirements, and system operational interface requirements. Other topics discussed include reference missions baselined for the tug and details for the mission functional flows and timelines derived for the tug mission, tug subsystems, tug on-orbit operations prior to the tug first burn, spacecraft deployment and retrieval by the tug, operations centers, mission planning, potential problem areas, and cost data.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2022

Mission Planning for Trident: Discovery proposal to Neptune’s moon, Triton

Trident was one of the four Discovery-class Step-1 mission proposals selected by NASA in 2020 for further development and study; however, in 2021, the Step-2 proposal was not down-selected to transition into the next phase of mission development, i.e., a mission for flight.Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, was the primary focus of study for Trident. Triton’s physical and orbital characteristics make it a unique planetary target for scientific exploration, providing opportunities for investigations in a wide variety of scientific fields, including geomorphological, atmospheric, geophysical, magnetospheric, and ionospheric studies. The science objectives of the Trident mission encompassed an in-depth interior-to-exterior set of objectives, focused on multiple outstanding questions resulting from the 1989 encounter of Voyager 2, and subsequent analysis.Ball Aerospace Corp. was tasked with building the Trident spacecraft, with JPL responsible for providing Engineering Support (Mission Design & Navigation, Mission Planning, Flight Operations, Ground Data Systems, Systems Engineering) and leading Project Management. The observatory would carry a wide-ranging suite of scientific instruments onboard, including an Infrared Spectrometer (IRS) and Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) to be provided by Ball Aerospace Corp., a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) from JPL, a Magnetometer from UCLA, a contributed Plasma Science Suite from IRF (Sweden), and a contributed Radio Science instrument from ASI (Italy). All of these instruments would be used to collect unique datasets during the Triton encounter. Trident would have taken advantage of an ~13-yr, nearly-ballistic trajectory to Triton, utilizing a timely Jupiter Gravity Assist, to execute a 10-day long encounter in the Neptunian system. Launch was planned for October 2025, with Triton arrival scheduled for December 2038. The timeline for this mission would have been sub-divided into seven major phases: Launch, Commissioning, Inner Planet Cruise, Outer Planet Cruise, Approach, Encounter, and Science Data Return. Multiple planetary flybys were planned to be performed during the cruise, including three Earth flybys and one Venus flyby in the Inner Planet Cruise phase, and one Jupiter flyby in the Outer Planet Cruise phase. Along with conventional (Range and Doppler) tracking data, Delta-DOR and Optical Navigation data were also to be acquired to assist with spacecraft navigation during the Approach and Encounter phases. A 3 meter X-Band High Gain Antenna would allow playback of all science data at 1 kbps within 1 year after the Triton Encounter. The Mission Planning element on Trident encompassed and informed multiple aspects of this proposal, ranging from science observation planning during the Triton Encounter phase, to generation of activity timelines for all mission phases; performing ground coverage analysis for science observations to be acquired by all instruments and tracing them to science requirements; evaluation of spacecraft resources including data volume stored onboard, power/energy consumption, telecom (commanding/telemetry) requirements, and overall, working at the interface of science and engineering teams on the mission. All of these functions that were performed by the Mission Planning team on this proposal are discussed in this paper.

Prockter, Louise↗
NASA NTRS2015

Overview of the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA)

In 2013, the Human Research Program at NASA began developing a new confinement analog specifically for conducting research to investigate the effects of confinement on the human system. The HERA (Human Exploration Research Analog) habitat has been used for both 7 and 14 day missions to date to examine and mitigate exploration risks to enable safe, reliable and productive human space exploration. This presentation will describe how the Flight Analogs Project developed the HERA facility and the infrastructure to suit investigator requirements for confinement research and in the process developed a new approach to analog utilization and a new state of the art analog facility. Details regarding HERA operations will be discussed including specifics on the mission simulation utilized for the current 14-day campaign, the specifics of the facility (total volume, overall size, hardware), and the capabilities available to researchers. The overall operational philosophy, mission fidelity including timeline, schedule pressures and cadence, and development and implementation of mission stressors will be presented. Research conducted to date in the HERA has addressed risks associated with behavioral health and performance, human physiology, as well as human factors. This presentation will conclude with a discussion of future research plans for the HERA, including infrastructure improvements and additional research capabilities planned for the upcoming 30-day missions in 2016.

Neigut, J.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Discrete Event Simulation-Based Timeline Validation Using R2U2

The Gateway Vehicle Systems Manager (VSM), the top-level software control system in a distributed, hierarchical Autonomous System Management Architecture is, like most modern spacecraft software control systems, heavily data-driven. For example, schedules (timelines) will be developed on the ground and, due to the high degree of autonomy, contain complex procedures involving conditional branching, variable timing, and resource contention resolution. In order to verify that an uploaded timeline will function correctly, it is necessary to explore the feasible set of possible executions. While it is possible to test a timeline using a mission simulation, the complexity of the system and duration of a timeline limits the number of trials and therefore the test coverage. To address this problem, the VSM team is using a discrete event system model that can rapidly generate from a timeline sets of event sequences using Monte Carlo techniques. To achieve rapid and trustworthy checking of the event sequences, we use an offline version of the runtime model checking tool R2U2. This presentation describes the approach the VSM team is using to implement the discrete event simulation and evaluate event sequences using R2U2. The presentation will discuss: 1. Description of the timelines by VSM in the context of VSM operations 2. Expansion of a timeline into a sequence of atomic events 3. Adjustment, in the Monte Carlo environment, of an event sequence to account for uncertainty, external events, and failures 4. Definition of R2U2 input and mission-time linear temporal logic files 5. Generation and use of R2U2 verdict sequences 6. Lessons learned and future work

Verification↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sample Return and Preliminary Examination Timeline for the OSIRIS-REx Mission

NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft collected a sample of asteroid (101955) Bennu on October 20, 2020, using the Touch-and-Go Sample Acquisition Mechanism (TAGSAM) [1,2,3]. After sample acquisition, the TAGSAM collection head was stowed in the Sample Return Capsule (SRC; Fig. 1) for transport back to Earth. On September 24, 2023, the OSIRIS-Rex spacecraft will fly by Earth and release the SRC, which will land at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). The sample will be transported to the OSIRIS-REx curation facility, located within NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC), where it will be examined, cataloged, and allocated for scientific analyses. Here we describe the timeline of operations for the return, recovery, and initial characterization of the Bennu sample.

Asteroid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Updated Human Mars Ascent Vehicle Concept in Support of NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021

The NASA Artemis program has brought significant change to the agency’s human exploration strategy over the last several years. The human exploration of Mars remains an ultimate objective of the overall human exploration strategy. However, how the agency intends to execute initial human exploration of Mars has shifted to better align with current policy. These changes find their way into the design of key architecture elements, such as the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). Of the numerous changes in the conceptual human Mars architecture, two in particular have had significant impact on the design of the human MAV: the desire for minimal surface infrastructure for initial human Mars missions, and technology investment timelines in support of initial human missions to Mars. The first leads to a surface mission architecture targeting a 30-day surface duration with two crewmembers. The second drives out in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) from the initial sortie. As a result, the reference MAV design for initial human Mars missions in the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) is based around supporting the return of 2 crew from the surface of Mars, without surface ISRU. This has led to several design changes since 2019, when details of a reference human MAV were last published. The MAV concept for SAC21 consists of a two-stage vehicle capable of supporting two crew for 84 hours. This duration is derived from a baseline ascent trajectory targeting an apoapsis rendezvous with the habitation element in a nominal 5-sol Mars aggregation orbit. With the goal of minimizing technology investments for the initial surface sortie removing ISRU from the trade space, the MAV must now be landed either fully loaded with propellant, or with some portion of the propellant off-loaded. Landing a partially-fueled MAV will require additional surface assets to perform robotic propellant transfer on the surface of Mars from a pre-emplaced propellant depot. Furthermore, cryogenic fluid management and storage for extended duration with no losses represents additional technology investment that would have to be made to support cryogenic-based propellant concepts that have been the baseline in past architectures. As a result, the SAC21 architecture utilizes a storable propellant-based MAV propulsion system to minimize these potential technology investments incurred by cryogenic-based propulsion systems. Recent efforts also focused on evaluating the sensitivity of key design parameters, such as landing site latitude, elevation, and local atmospheric conditions. All play a large role in determining the predicted propellant requirements of the MAV. Understanding their potential impacts is important because of the rippling effects of changes to the MAV design on other architecture elements, such as entry, descent, landing, and transportation systems. Results indicate up to +2% to -4% wet mass variation due to landing site latitude, with higher latitudes greater than 70 degrees North resulting in greater than 6% wet mass increases. The MAV saw reduced impact due to atmospheric design parameters, which only accounting for -0.6% to +0.4% wet mass variation.

Douglas J. Trent↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling Communication Between Astronauts and Ground Teams for Space Exploration Missions

Over the last four years, Playbook’s Mission Log has evolved to become an enabling capability for analog missions that simulate deep space, exploration missions with communication transmission latency. Playbook is a planning and execution web-application for mission operations, aggregating multiple sources of information for astronauts to execute the mission in one place: timeline, procedures, chat interface. Playbook’s Mission Log provides a multimedia chat software interface with unique features and functionalities that support asynchronous communication between analog astronauts and ground support teams. This paper describes the iterative design the Mission Log has undergone based on user observations and solicited feedback. Key features include indicators that help users cope with asynchronous communication as well as aids that assist teams coordinate work. Future work and capabilities are outlined, which build upon the increased use of the Mission Log as a communication and coordination tool for space exploration.

communication↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRS1999

Human Mars Mission Performance Crew Taxi Profile

This timeline was generated on the Integrated Mission Program (IMP). All burn events over 2 seconds are finite with IMP solving a two point boundary value setup for begin burn time, burn time and control angles. Perigee and apogee shown above are mean orbital values. Significant events are listed. Each finite thrust event has two lines. The first is the beginning time showing the initial conditions, thrust and ISP used. The second has the end burn conditions and the delta v and time of burn. This case is an abort from the 750 x 750 phasing abort, using the taxi's main engines. An abort using the Reaction Control System (RCS) was also investigated but required a large increase in RCS propellant and was abandoned.

Duaro, Vince A.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Advanced Technologies for Future Spacecraft Cockpits and Space-based Control Centers

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a new era of Space Exploration, aimed at sending crewed spacecraft beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), in medium and long duration missions to the Lunar surface, Mars and beyond. The challenges of such missions are significant and will require new technologies and paradigms in vehicle design and mission operations. Current roles and responsibilities of spacecraft systems, crew and the flight control team, for example, may not be sustainable when real-time support is not assured due to distance-induced communication lags, radio blackouts, equipment failures, or other unexpected factors. Therefore, technologies and applications that enable greater Systems and Mission Management capabilities on-board the space-based system will be necessary to reduce the dependency on real-time critical Earth-based support. The focus of this paper is in such technologies that will be required to bring advance Systems and Mission Management capabilities to space-based environments where the crew will be required to manage both the systems performance and mission execution without dependence on the ground. We refer to this concept as autonomy. Environments that require high levels of autonomy include the cockpits of future spacecraft such as the Mars Exploration Vehicle, and space-based control centers such as a Lunar Base Command and Control Center. Furthermore, this paper will evaluate the requirements, available technology, and roadmap to enable full operational implementation of onboard System Health Management, Mission Planning/re-planning, Autonomous Task/Command Execution, and Human Computer Interface applications. The technology topics covered by the paper include enabling technology to perform Intelligent Caution and Warning, where the systems provides directly actionable data for human understanding and response to failures, task automation applications that automate nominal and Off-nominal task execution based on human input or integrated health state-derived conditions. Shifting from Systems to Mission Management functions, we discuss the role of automated planning applications (tactical planning) on-board, which receive data from the other cockpit automation systems and evaluate the mission plan against the dynamic systems and mission states and events, to provide the crew with capabilities that enable them to understand, change, and manage the timeline of their mission. Lastly, we discuss the role of advanced human interface technologies that organize and provide the system md mission information to the crew in ways that maximize their situational awareness and ability to provide oversight and control of aLl the automated data and functions.

Garcia-Galan, Carlos↗
NASA NTRS2023

Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2022 Test Report

The primary purpose of the 2022 Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS 22) analog mission field test was to provide data and recommendations regarding how pressurized rover (PR) design, cabin configuration, driving modes, timeline constraints, and mission operations can be acceptably implemented to support future Artemis missions that include a PR. The goal of these evaluations was to provide first order feedback and data on design concepts currently being traded as options for future pressurized rover flight prototypes. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) may provide a PR for future Artemis missions. One of the primary objectives of D-RATS 2022 was to share with the JAXA PR team the processes and protocols by which NASA has learned to successfully evaluate rover concepts through integrated HITL evaluations over the past 20+ years, so that JAXA could apply any applicable lessons learned to their PR design, development, testing, and evaluation.

analog↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Generalized Timeline Representation, Services, and Interface for Automating Space Mission Operations

Numerous automated and semi-automated planning & scheduling systems have been developed for space applications. Most of these systems are model-based in that they encode domain knowledge necessary to predict spacecraft state and resources based on initial conditions and a proposed activity plan. The spacecraft state and resources as often modeled as a series of timelines, with a timeline or set of timelines to represent a state or resource key in the operations of the spacecraft. In this paper, we first describe a basic timeline representation that can represent a set of state, resource, timing, and transition constraints. We describe a number of planning and scheduling systems designed for space applications (and in many cases deployed for use of ongoing missions) and describe how they do and do not map onto this timeline model.

Chien, Steve A.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Designing Mission Operations for the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory Mission

NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission, to understand the internal structure and thermal evolution of the Moon, offered unique challenges to mission operations. From launch through end of mission, the twin GRAIL orbiters had to be operated in parallel. The journey to the Moon and into the low science orbit involved numerous maneuvers, planned on tight timelines, to ultimately place the orbiters into the required formation-flying configuration necessary. The baseline GRAIL mission is short, only 9 months in duration, but progressed quickly through seven very unique mission phases. Compressed into this short mission timeline, operations activities and maneuvers for both orbiters had to be planned and coordinated carefully. To prepare for these challenges, development of the GRAIL Mission Operations System began in 2008. Based on high heritage multi-mission operations developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Lockheed Martin, the GRAIL mission operations system was adapted to meet the unique challenges posed by the GRAIL mission design. This paper describes GRAIL's system engineering development process for defining GRAIL's operations scenarios and generating requirements, tracing the evolution from operations concept through final design, implementation, and validation.

MOS↗
NASA NTRS2017

A CubeSat-Payload Radiation-Reliability Assurance Case using Goal Structuring Notation

CubeSats have become an attractive platform for universities, industry, and government space missions because they are cheaper and quicker to develop than full-scale satellites. One way CubeSats keep costs low is by using commercial off-the-shelf parts (COTS) instead of space-qualified parts. Space-qualified parts are often costlier, larger, and consume more power than their commercial counterparts precluding their use within the CubeSat form-factor. Given typical power budgets, monetary budgets, and timelines for CubeSat missions, conventional radiation hardness assurance, like the use of space-qualified parts and radiation testing campaigns of COTS parts, is not practical. Instead, a system-level approach to radiation effects mitigation is needed. In this paper an assurance case for a system-level approach to mitigate radiation effects of a CubeSat science experiment is expressed using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), a graphical argument standard. The case specifically looks at three main mitigation strategies for the radiation environment: total ionizing dose (TID) screening of parts, detection and recovery from single-event latch-ups (SEL) and single-event functional interrupts (SEFI). The graphical assurance case presented makes a qualitative argument for the radiation reliability of the CubeSat experiment using part and system-level mitigation strategies.

COTS↗