Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Command File Error (CFE)”

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.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

Managing the Risk of Command File Errors

Command File Error (CFE), as defined by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) is, regardless of the consequence on the spacecraft, either: an error in a command file sent to the spacecraft, an error in the process for developing and delivering a command file to the spacecraft, or the omission of a command file that should have been sent to the spacecraft. The risk consequence of a CFE can be mission ending and thus a concern to space exploration projects during their mission operations. A CFE during space mission operations is often the symptom of some kind of imbalance or inadequacy within the system that comprises the hardware & software used for command generation and the human experts involved in this endeavour. As we move into an era of enhanced collaboration with other NASA centers and commercial partners, these systems become more and more complex and hence it is all the more important to formally model and analyze CFEs in order to manage the risk of CFEs. Here we will provide a summary of the ongoing efforts at JPL in this area and also explain some more recent developments in the area of developing quantitative models for the purpose of managing CFE's.

Bayesian Belief Networks↗
NASA NTRS2013

Modeling to Improve the Risk Reduction Process for Command File Errors

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has learned that even innocuous errors in the spacecraft command process can have significantly detrimental effects on a space mission. Consequently, such Command File Errors (CFE), regardless of their effect on the spacecraft, are treated as significant events for which a root cause is identified and corrected. A CFE during space mission operations is often the symptom of imbalance or inadequacy within the system that encompasses the hardware and software used for command generation as well as the human experts and processes involved in this endeavor. As we move into an era of increased collaboration with other NASA centers and commercial partners, these systems become more and more complex. Consequently, the ability to thoroughly model and analyze CFEs formally in order to reduce the risk they pose is increasingly important. In this paper, we summarize the results of applying modeling techniques previously developed to the DAWN flight project. The original models were built with the input of subject matter experts from several flight projects. We have now customized these models to address specific questions for the DAWN flight project and formulating use cases to address their unique mission needs. The goal of this effort is to enhance the project's ability to meet commanding reliability requirements for operations and to assist them in managing their Command File Errors.

spacecraft↗
NASA NTRS2014

Addressing the Hard Factors for Command File Errors by Probabilistic Reasoning

Command File Errors (CFE) are managed using standard risk management approaches at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Over the last few years, more emphasis has been made on the collection, organization, and analysis of these errors for the purpose of reducing the CFE rates. More recently, probabilistic modeling techniques have been used for more in depth analysis of the perceived error rates of the DAWN mission and for managing the soft factors in the upcoming phases of the mission. We broadly classify the factors that can lead to CFE's as soft factors, which relate to the cognition of the operators and hard factors which relate to the Mission System which is composed of the hardware, software and procedures used for the generation, verification & validation and execution of commands. The focus of this paper is to use probabilistic models that represent multiple missions at JPL to determine the root cause and sensitivities of the various components of the mission system and develop recommendations and techniques for addressing them. The customization of these multi-mission models to a sample interplanetary spacecraft is done for this purpose.

Meshkat, Leila↗
NASA NTRS2018

GPM Mission's Best Practices: PERP

Similar to other missions, the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory's Command and Data Handling (C&DH) subsystem is critical for operations of the spacecraft. The onboard C&DH system comprises of two fully redundant boxes - a primary and a cold backup. Within each box, amongst other components, is a Single Board Computer (SBC) that hosts the flight software (FSW) system. In the event of an SBC reset, the Flight Operations Team (FOT) is poised with a lengthy task of restoring the SBC to nominal configuration. Due to the complexity of the C&DH system, this may take many days at a time to complete. The spacecraft's FSW applications are located in Electronically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) and are copied into Random Access Memory (RAM) upon SBC initialization/reset. Each SBC has two banks of EEPROM, with each bank containing a copy of the FSW. Since launch, there have been many configuration changes to tables and applications that have been loaded into just RAM. Unfortunately, these changes are vulnerable to being wiped during a SBC initialization/reset, when the RAM is overwritten by the EEPROM. Although the EEPROM loads the default FSW configurations, the process to command non-default individual table and application changes is very cumbersome and time consuming. This consequentially increases the time until the spacecraft is back into nominal Mission Science Mode (MSM) drastically. The GPM Power-On Reset (POR) Expedited Recovery Process (PERP) Design introduces a method of consolidating commands into a single file load which the SBC can process independently of the ground - decreasing recovery time, the level of TDRS support reliance, and human error. This tested design can be implemented across many other missions that utilize a similar core Flight Executive (cFE) platform; hence providing an easy-to-follow, safe, and efficient process that can be applied across the board.

recovery↗