Results for “START Program” — Page 97

NASA NTRS2015

AMO EXPRESS: A Command and Control Experiment for Crew Autonomy Onboard the International Space Station

NASA is investigating a range of future human spaceflight missions, including both Mars-distance and Near Earth Object (NEO) targets. Of significant importance for these missions is the balance between crew autonomy and vehicle automation. As distance from Earth results in increasing communication delays, future crews need both the capability and authority to independently make decisions. However, small crews cannot take on all functions performed by ground today, and so vehicles must be more automated to reduce the crew workload for such missions. NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program funded Autonomous Mission Operations (AMO) project conducted an autonomous command and control experiment on-board the International Space Station that demonstrated single action intelligent procedures for crew command and control. The target problem was to enable crew initialization of a facility class rack with power and thermal interfaces, and involving core and payload command and telemetry processing, without support from ground controllers. This autonomous operations capability is enabling in scenarios such as initialization of a medical facility to respond to a crew medical emergency, and representative of other spacecraft autonomy challenges. The experiment was conducted using the Expedite the Processing of Experiments for Space Station (EXPRESS) rack 7, which was located in the Port 2 location within the U.S Laboratory onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Activation and deactivation of this facility is time consuming and operationally intensive, requiring coordination of three flight control positions, 47 nominal steps, 57 commands, 276 telemetry checks, and coordination of multiple ISS systems (both core and payload). Utilization of Draper Laboratory's Timeliner software, deployed on-board the ISS within the Command and Control (C&C) computers and the Payload computers, allowed development of the automated procedures specific to ISS without having to certify and employ novel software for procedure development and execution. The procedures contained the ground procedure logic and actions as possible to include fault detection and recovery capabilities. The autonomous operations concept includes a reduction of the amount of data a crew operator is required to verify during activation or de-activation, as well as integration of procedure execution status and relevant data in a single integrated display. During execution, the auto-procedures (via Timerliner) provide a step-by-step messaging paradigm and a high-level status upon termination. This messaging and high-level status is the only data generated for operator display. To enhance situational awareness of the operator, the Web-based Procedure Display (WebPD) provides a novel approach to the issues of procedure display and execution tracking. WebPD is a web based application that serves as the user interface for electronic procedure execution. It incorporates several aspects of the HTML5 standard. Procedures are written in a dialect of XML called Procedure Representation Language (PRL). WebPD tracks execution status in the procedure or procedures being displayed. WebPD aggregates and simplifies the auto-sequence execution status information, and formatted to be easily followed and understood by an operator who is not dedicated to actively monitoring the task. WebPD also provides an integrated data and control interface to pause or halt the execution in order to provide a check point of operation and to examine progress before starting the next sequence of activities. For this demonstration, the procedure was initiated and monitored from the ground. As the Timeliner sequences executed, their high-level execution status was written to PLMDM memory. This memory is read and downlinked via Ku-Band at a 1 Hz rate. The data containing the high-level execution status is de-commutated on the ground, and rebroadcast for WebPD consumption. A future demonstration will be performed onboard, with ISS astronauts initiating the operations instead of ground controllers. The AMO EXPRESS experiment demonstrated activation and de-activation of EXPRESS rack 7, providing the capability of future single button activations and deactivations of facility class racks. The experiment achieved numerous technical and operations 'firsts' for the ISS

Stetson, Howard K.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) Mission Overview, Science Return, and Future Applications of This Technology

The Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) mission was the culmination of two decades of research and development for Hyper-sonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology. LOFTID was a project overseen by the Technology Demonstration Mission (TDM) program within NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. The success of the LOFTID mission could enable new NASA missions to Mars, Venus, and most solar-system destinations with atmospheres, as well as cost-effective payload returns to Earth, including in-space manufactured materials and launch vehicle asset recovery. LOFTID, with its unique inflatable heat shield, was the first-of-a-kind orbital reentry flight, and the largest blunt body atmospheric entry of any kind. On November 10, 2022, just over 10 years since the previous flight test of the smaller sub-orbital Inflatable Reentry Vehicle Experiment-3 (IRVE-3) [1], NASA Langley Research Center, with partner United Launch Alliance (ULA), successfully launched and achieved reentry and recovery of the LOFTID Reentry Vehicle (RV), further demonstrating the viability of the HIAD technology for large-diameter, inflatable heat shields to safely and accurately deliver large payloads through an atmosphere via a controlled descent and landing. Launching as a secondary payload with the Joint Polar Satellite System 2 (JPSS-2) from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, stowed inside an ex-tended payload adapter of the Atlas V 401 launch vehicle, the LOFTID mission officially began after the JPSS-2 payload was delivered to its orbit by the Centaur second stage. The LOFTID RV was flying solo on its spin-stabilized ballistic reentry trajectory about one hour after launch, and the flight ended approximately one hour later with a gentle splashdown under parachute in the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Hawaii, where the RV was recovered and later shipped back to NASA Langley. LOFTID endured the harsh environments of atmospheric reentry while demonstrating stable aerodynamics through the entire spectrum of hypersonic, supersonic, transonic, and subsonic flight. The LOFTID RV was exposed to an aeroheating environment representative of many Mars and LEO HIAD applications, while successfully demonstrating the ability of the heat-affected inflatable structure to with-stand aerodynamic forces that exceeded those expected at Mars. This flight demonstration of a 6m diameter HIAD confirmed the technology structural and thermal performance as it protected the 1100kg RV entering Earth’s atmosphere at 8 km/s, reaching Mach 30, and experiencing 9g deceleration before deploying parachutes and splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. HIAD technology involves an aeroshell that can be hard packed into a small volume for launch and then deployed prior to atmospheric entry for a controlled deceleration through the atmosphere. Large deployable heat shields enable spacecraft to carry bigger, heavier payloads, including scientific instruments and human support systems for planetary landing and exploration. Much larger than traditional fixed diameter aeroshells that are constrained by the size of launch vehicle shrouds, inflatable decelerators create more drag and start the deceleration process in the upper reaches of the atmosphere with greater efficiency and stability. LOFTID’s successful demonstration of the HIAD technology has greatly expanded NASA’s options for future planetary missions and opened new commercial opportunities for lower-cost mission pay-load recovery including recovery of launch vehicle assets, or as a delivery system to return cargo from the International Space Station or cislunar space. The developments for some of these applications are al-ready underway. While LOFTID was indeed a first-of-a-kind flight for an inflatable heatshield, the largest blunt-body entry ever, its remarkable performance assured that it will not be the last of its kind.

John DiNonno↗

NASA NTRS2013

Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management

The draft NASA Fault Management (FM) Handbook (2012) states that Fault Management (FM) is a "part of systems engineering", and that it "demands a system-level perspective" (NASAHDBK- 1002, 7). What, exactly, is the relationship between systems engineering and FM? To NASA, systems engineering (SE) is "the art and science of developing an operable system capable of meeting requirements within often opposed constraints" (NASA/SP-2007-6105, 3). Systems engineering starts with the elucidation and development of requirements, which set the goals that the system is to achieve. To achieve these goals, the systems engineer typically defines functions, and the functions in turn are the basis for design trades to determine the best means to perform the functions. System Health Management (SHM), by contrast, defines "the capabilities of a system that preserve the system's ability to function as intended" (Johnson et al., 2011, 3). Fault Management, in turn, is the operational subset of SHM, which detects current or future failures, and takes operational measures to prevent or respond to these failures. Failure, in turn, is the "unacceptable performance of intended function." (Johnson 2011, 605) Thus the relationship of SE to FM is that SE defines the functions and the design to perform those functions to meet system goals and requirements, while FM detects the inability to perform those functions and takes action. SHM and FM are in essence "the dark side" of SE. For every function to be performed (SE), there is the possibility that it is not successfully performed (SHM); FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this lack of success. We can also describe this in terms of goals: for every goal to be achieved, there is the possibility that it is not achieved; FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this inability to achieve the goal. This brief description of relationships between SE, SHM, and FM provide hints to a modeling approach to provide formal connectivity between the nominal (SE), and off-nominal (SHM and FM) aspects of functions and designs. This paper describes a formal modeling approach to the initial phases of the development process that integrates the nominal and off-nominal perspectives in a model that unites SE goals and functions of with the failure to achieve goals and functions (SHM/FM). This methodology and corresponding model, known as a Goal-Function Tree (GFT), provides a means to represent, decompose, and elaborate system goals and functions in a rigorous manner that connects directly to design through use of state variables that translate natural language requirements and goals into logical-physical state language. The state variable-based approach also provides the means to directly connect FM to the design, by specifying the range in which state variables must be controlled to achieve goals, and conversely, the failures that exist if system behavior go out-of-range. This in turn allows for the systems engineers and SHM/FM engineers to determine which state variables to monitor, and what action(s) to take should the system fail to achieve that goal. In sum, the GFT representation provides a unified approach to early-phase SE and FM development. This representation and methodology has been successfully developed and implemented using Systems Modeling Language (SysML) on the NASA Space Launch System (SLS) Program. It enabled early design trade studies of failure detection coverage to ensure complete detection coverage of all crew-threatening failures. The representation maps directly both to FM algorithm designs, and to failure scenario definitions needed for design analysis and testing. The GFT representation provided the basis for mapping of abort triggers into scenarios, both needed for initial, and successful quantitative analyses of abort effectiveness (detection and response to crew-threatening events).

Patterson, Jonathan D.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Crew-Centric Onboard Mission Operations Planning and Execution Tool: Year 2

Currently, mission planning for the International Space Station (ISS) is largely affected by ground operators in mission control. The task of creating a week-long mission plan for ISS crew takes dozens of people multiple days to complete, and is often created far in advance of its execution. As such, re-planning or adapting to changing real-time constraints or emergent issues is similarly taxing. As we design for future mission operations concepts to other planets or areas with limited connectivity to Earth, more of these ground-based tasks will need to be handled autonomously by the crew onboard.There is a need for a highly usable (including low training time) tool that enables efficient self-scheduling and execution within a single package. The ISS Program has identified Playbook as a potential option. It already has high crew acceptance as a plan viewer from previous analogs and can now support a crew self-scheduling assessment on ISS or on another mission. The goals of this work, a collaboration between the Human Research Program and the ISS Program, are to inform the design of systems for more autonomous crew operations and provide a platform for research on crew autonomy for future deep space missions. Our second year of the research effort have included new insights on the crew self-scheduling sessions performed by the crew through use on the HERA (Human Exploration Research Analog) and NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) analogs. Use on the NEEMO analog involved two self-scheduling strategies where the crew planned and executed two days of EVAs (Extra-Vehicular Activities). On HERA year two represented the first HERA campaign where we were able to perform research tasks. This involved selected flexible activities that the crew could schedule, mock timelines where the crew completed more complex planning exercises, usability evaluation of the crew self-scheduling features, and more insights into the limit of plan complexity that the crew could effectively self-schedule. In parallel we have added in new features and functionality in the Playbook tool based off of our insights from crew self-scheduling in the NASA analogs. In particular this year we have added in the ability for the crew to add, edit, and remove their own activities in the Playbook tool, expanding the type of planning and re-planning possible in the tool and opening up the ability for more free form plan creation. The ability to group and manipulate groups of activities from the plan task list was also added, allowing crew members to add predefined sets of activities onto their mission timeline. In addition we also added a way for crew members to roll back changes in their plan, in order to allow an undo like capability. These features expand and complement the initial self-scheduling features added in year one with the goal of making crew autonomous planning more efficient. As part of this work we have also finished developing the first version of our Playbook Data Analysis Tool, a research tool built to interpret and analyze the unobtrusively collected data obtained during the NASA analog missions through Playbook. This data which includes user click interaction as well as plan change information, through the Playbook Data Analysis Tool, allows us to playback this information as if a video camera was mounted over the crewmember's tablet. While the primary purpose of this tool is to allow usability analysis of crew self-scheduling sessions used on the NASA analog, since the data collected is structured, the tool can automatically derive metrics that would be traditionally tedious to achieve without manual analysis of video playback. We will demonstrate and discuss the ability for future derived metrics to be added to the tool. In addition to the current data and results gathered in year two we will also discuss the preparation and goals of our International Space Station (ISS) onboard technology demonstration with Playbook. This technology demonstration will be preformed as part of the CAST payload starting in late 2016.

onboard planning↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Highlights of NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office In Situ and Laboratory Measurements

NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO) maintains various returned spacecraft materials, capabilities, and facilities used for in situ and laboratory measurements that directly support orbital debris environmental models. In situ measurements include the analysis of exposed and returned hardware surfaces. These surfaces serve as passive sensors for the small-sized micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) flux below the sensitivity of ground-based radar and optical sensors. Various instruments and techniques are used to determine the size and depth of selected impact features, and – if feasible – the composition of the projectile material. Analysis of the impactor residues enables the differentiation of MM and OD for debris below 1 mm to support modeling the OD environment. In addition, projectiles identified as OD can be further differentiated in low-, medium-, and high- density impactors based on chemical analyses. In addition to in situ measurements, the ODPO has also worked in collaboration with the U.S. Space Force Space Systems Command (formerly the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center), the Aerospace Corporation, and the University of Florida on a laboratory-based hypervelocity impact test, DebriSat, conducted at the Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Complex in 2014. The resulting data from this impact test series are being analyzed to assess the fragments’ sizes/masses, materials/densities, shapes, and other parameters of interest. The DebriSat project provides the data needed to update NASA’s breakup models and size estimation models using the simulated orbital breakup of a modern, low Earth orbit spacecraft. Ultimately, over 200,000 fragments from this impact test will be stored at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and further analyzed by the ODPO. This project will also use machine learning techniques to infer physical parameters of fragments embedded in the soft-catch foam used in the impact experiment. Applied to X-ray imagery of the foam panels, these techniques promise to minimize human-in-the-loop processes for fragment extraction and physical characterization. A brief overview of this project and data collected will be presented. Lastly, the ODPO provides various capabilities hosted at NASA JSC for optical inspections and measurements using a variety of techniques and scientific instrumentation to support both in situ and laboratory measurements. The ODPO’s Optical Measurement Center (OMC) is an advanced facility for photometric and spectroscopic laboratory measurements of targets, including fragments from the DebriSat project. The OMC simulates telescopic observations by using space-like illumination conditions and source-target-sensor orientation techniques. Additionally, the OMC is uniquely equipped to acquire pseudo-bidirectional reflectance distribution data for broadband photometric measurements, thus removing aspect angle dependencies that can affect target size estimates using the optical size estimation model. Narrow-band surface material characterization using spectroscopic instrumentation gives insight into how the albedo parameter – also important in the optical size estimation model – may vary depending on the state of the material. The OMC also performs simulations of photometric measurements using optical ray-tracing software to model the OMC optical throughput. In addition to the OMC, the ODPO houses a start-of-the-art Fragment Analysis Facility that uses multiple microscopic inspection instruments to support in situ measurements and material characterization. An overview of both facilities will be highlighted in this paper.

Orbital Debris↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Highlights of NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office In Situ and Laboratory Measurements

NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO) maintains various returned spacecraft materials, capabilities, and facilities used for in situ and laboratory measurements that directly support orbital debris environmental models. In situ measurements include the analysis of exposed and returned hardware surfaces. These surfaces serve as passive sensors for the small-sized micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) flux below the sensitivity of ground-based radar and optical sensors. Various instruments and techniques are used to determine the size and depth of selected impact features, and – if feasible – the composition of the projectile material. Analysis of the impactor residues enables the differentiation of MM and OD for debris below 1 mm to support modeling the OD environment. In addition, projectiles identified as OD can be further differentiated in low-, medium-, and high- density impactors based on chemical analyses. In addition to in situ measurements, the ODPO has also worked in collaboration with the U.S. Space Force Space Systems Command (formerly the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center), the Aerospace Corporation, and the University of Florida on a laboratory-based hypervelocity impact test, DebriSat, conducted at the Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Complex in 2014. The resulting data from this impact test series are being analyzed to assess the fragments’ sizes/masses, materials/densities, shapes, and other parameters of interest. The DebriSat project provides the data needed to update NASA’s breakup models and size estimation models using the simulated orbital breakup of a modern, low Earth orbit spacecraft. Ultimately, over 200,000 fragments from this impact test will be stored at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and further analyzed by the ODPO. This project will also use machine learning techniques to infer physical parameters of fragments embedded in the soft-catch foam used in the impact experiment. Applied to X-ray imagery of the foam panels, these techniques promise to minimize human-in-the-loop processes for fragment extraction and physical characterization. A brief overview of this project and data collected will be presented. Lastly, the ODPO provides various capabilities hosted at NASA JSC for optical inspections and measurements using a variety of techniques and scientific instrumentation to support both in situ and laboratory measurements. The ODPO’s Optical Measurement Center (OMC) is an advanced facility for photometric and spectroscopic laboratory measurements of targets, including fragments from the DebriSat project. The OMC simulates telescopic observations by using space-like illumination conditions and source-target-sensor orientation techniques. Additionally, the OMC is uniquely equipped to acquire pseudo-bidirectional reflectance distribution data for broadband photometric measurements, thus removing aspect angle dependencies that can affect target size estimates using the optical size estimation model. Narrow-band surface material characterization using spectroscopic instrumentation gives insight into how the albedo parameter – also important in the optical size estimation model – may vary depending on the state of the material. The OMC also performs simulations of photometric measurements using optical ray-tracing software to model the OMC optical throughput. In addition to the OMC, the ODPO houses a start-of-the-art Fragment Analysis Facility that uses multiple microscopic inspection instruments to support in situ measurements and material characterization. An overview of both facilities will be highlighted in this paper.

Orbital Debris↗

NASA NTRS1991

Computer-based video digitizer analysis of surface extension in maize roots: kinetics of growth rate changes during gravitropism

We used a video digitizer system to measure surface extension and curvature in gravistimulated primary roots of maize (Zea mays L.). Downward curvature began about 25 +/- 7 min after gravistimulation and resulted from a combination of enhanced growth along the upper surface and reduced growth along the lower surface relative to growth in vertically oriented controls. The roots curved at a rate of 1.4 +/- 0.5 degrees min-1 but the pattern of curvature varied somewhat. In about 35% of the samples the roots curved steadily downward and the rate of curvature slowed as the root neared 90 degrees. A final angle of about 90 degrees was reached 110 +/- 35 min after the start of gravistimulation. In about 65% of the samples there was a period of backward curvature (partial reversal of curvature) during the response. In some cases (about 15% of those showing a period of reverse bending) this period of backward curvature occurred before the root reached 90 degrees. Following transient backward curvature, downward curvature resumed and the root approached a final angle of about 90 degrees. In about 65% of the roots showing a period of reverse curvature, the roots curved steadily past the vertical, reaching maximum curvature about 205 +/- 65 min after gravistimulation. The direction of curvature then reversed back toward the vertical. After one or two oscillations about the vertical the roots obtained a vertical orientation and the distribution of growth within the root tip became the same as that prior to gravistimulation. The period of transient backward curvature coincided with and was evidently caused by enhancement of growth along the concave and inhibition of growth along the convex side of the curve, a pattern opposite to that prevailing in the earlier stages of downward curvature. There were periods during the gravitropic response when the normally unimodal growth-rate distribution within the elongation zone became bimodal with two peaks of rapid elongation separated by a region of reduced elongation rate. This occurred at different times on the convex and concave sides of the graviresponding root. During the period of steady downward curvature the elongation zone along the convex side extended farther toward the tip than in the vertical control. During the period of reduced rate of curvature, the zone of elongation extended farther toward the tip along the concave side of the root. The data show that the gravitropic response pattern varies with time and involves changes in localized elongation rates as well as changes in the length and position of the elongation zone. Models of root gravitropic curvature based on simple unimodal inhibition of growth along the lower side cannot account for these complex growth patterns.

NASA Discipline Plant Biology↗

NASA NTRS2003

Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Annual Report 2002

The year 2002 brought advances on many fronts in our space exploration ventures. A new orbiter settled in at Mars and delivered tantalizing science results suggesting a vast store of water ice under the planet's surface, a discovery that may have profound consequences for exploring Mars. A long-lived spacecraft made its final fly-bys of Jupiter's moons, while another started its final approach toward Saturn and yet another flew by an asteroid on its way to a comet. A new ocean satellite began science observations, joined in Earth orbit by a pair of spacecraft measuring our home planets gravity field, as well as JPL instruments on NASA and Japanese satellites. A major new infrared observatory and a pair of Mars rovers were readied for launch. All told, JPL is now communicating with 14 spacecraft cast like gems across the velvet expanses of the solar system. It is a far cry from the early 1960's, when JPL engineers made prodigious efforts to get the first planetary explorers off the ground and into space - an achievement of which we were especially mindful this year, as 2002 marked the 40th anniversary of the first successful planetary mission, Mariner 2, which barely reached our closest planetary neighbor, Venus. Added to this anniversary were celebrations surrounding the 25th anniversaries of the launches of Voyagers 1 and 2, two remarkable spacecraft that are still flying and are actively probing the outer realms of the solar system. These events of the past and present provide an occasion for reflection on the remarkable era of exploration that we at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are privileged to be a part of. As 2002 neared its end, the Laboratory had yet another reason for celebration, as a new five-year management contract between NASA and the California Institute of Technology was signed that calls for a closer working relationship with NASA and other NASA centers as a member of the 'One NASA' team. There is a strong emphasis on cost control and management, areas in which we can improve, enabling us to become more competitive. This new agreement again confirms NASA's trust and faith in Caltech and JPL, in which we should all take great pride. If the history of JPL were a book, we are on the verge of turning the page to one that promises to be one of the most exciting and busiest chapters in JPL's history. In 2003 and 2004, we will launch 11 spacecraft or major payloads. We will land two rovers on Mars; put a spacecraft in orbit around Saturn, deliver a probe to the surface of its largest moon, Titan, and map Titan's surface withimaging radar; send a spacecraft past a comet collecting samples from its tail, while another one is launched toward a comet impact; bring a capsule back to Earth with the first samples ever collected beyond the orbit of the Moon; map the skies in the ultraviolet as well as the infrared spectrum to unprecedented accuracy; and continue the mapping of ocean topography and winds on our home planet, Earth.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS↗