Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “command file errors”

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 19 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 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 NTRS2014

Data Analysis & Statistical Methods for Command File Errors

This paper explains current work on modeling for managing the risk of command file errors. It is focused on analyzing actual data from a JPL spaceflight mission to build models for evaluating and predicting error rates as a function of several key variables. We constructed a rich dataset by considering the number of errors, the number of files radiated, including the number commands and blocks in each file, as well as subjective estimates of workload and operational novelty. We have assessed these data using different curve fitting and distribution fitting techniques, such as multiple regression analysis, and maximum likelihood estimation to see how much of the variability in the error rates can be explained with these. We have also used goodness of fit testing strategies and principal component analysis to further assess our data. Finally, we constructed a model of expected error rates based on the what these statistics bore out as critical drivers to the error rate. This model allows project management to evaluate the error rate against a theoretically expected rate as well as anticipate future error rates.

Correlation Analysis↗
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 NTRS2012

A Systems Modeling Approach for Risk Management of Command File Errors

The main cause of commanding errors is often (but not always) due to procedures. Either lack of maturity in the processes, incompleteness of requirements or lack of compliance to these procedures. Other causes of commanding errors include lack of understanding of system states, inadequate communication, and making hasty changes in standard procedures in response to an unexpected event. In general, it's important to look at the big picture prior to making corrective actions. In the case of errors traced back to procedures, considering the reliability of the process as a metric during its' design may help to reduce risk. This metric is obtained by using data from Nuclear Industry regarding human reliability. A structured method for the collection of anomaly data will help the operator think systematically about the anomaly and facilitate risk management. Formal models can be used for risk based design and risk management. A generic set of models can be customized for a broad range of missions.

probabilistic risk↗
NASA NTRS2012

Improving operations: Metrics to Results

As a result of the mission failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) spacecraft in 1999, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) initiated the development of a Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) program to be implemented across all flight projects managed by JPL. One of the initiatives undertaken in 2001 was the collection of data on command file errors occurring in the operational phase of the mission. This paper defines command file errors and how and where they occur in the operations process. It also describes the problem reporting system (PRS) in use for mission operations at JPL. We examine the recent modifications to the PRS that enable the collection of metrics, specifically on command file errors. This paper discusses what the data show us since metrics have been collected for the operational missions conducted by JPL. We examine the evolution of an operational working group initiative to evaluate proximate, contributing, and root causes for the errors. As part of this discussion we see what the metrics have indicated over a decade. At the macro level, we can say that the aggregate command file error rate has been cut to roughly one third of the initial 2001 level by the end of 2011. Additionally, we explore efficient and innovative means to continually integrate the findings and recommendations from the working group back into the flight operations environment.

command file errors↗
NASA NTRS2012

Does Commercial Space Really Need MOA?

The Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) discipline actively participates as a project member to achieve their common objective of full mission success while also providing an independent risk assessment to the Project Manager. The cornerstone element of MOA is the independent assessment of the risks the project faces in executing its mission. Especially as the project approaches critical mission events, it becomes imperative to clearly identify and assess the risks the project faces. This has been the paradigm for robotic space exploration missions, but does the same apply to commercial space operations? This is the question which is the driver for this year's MOA track at the 18th Annual Improving Space Operations workshop in April at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the question we examine in this paper. Corollaries to this driving question are why shouldn't MOA apply and are there factors beyond mission success with acceptable risk which apply to commercial space operations that are not present in government scientific missions? To address these questions, areas we focus on include risk (both mission and profit) management for commercial space operations and the practical extension of robotic mission MOA to commercial space operations. Another key area to look at is command file errors which are a major concern for deep space robotic missions, but can we worry about them less with manned missions or unmanned supply mission? Further, with the growing concern about space debris, we delve into the role of MOA relative to End-of-Mission activities. This paper examines these topics and in particular the perspectives presented at the workshop to begin charting the appropriate course for MOA in the emerging sector of Commercial Space Operations.

commercial space↗
NASA NTRS1992

Advanced Communications Technology Satellite high burst rate link evaluation terminal experiment control and monitor software maintenance manual, version 1.0

The Experiment Control and Monitor (EC&M) software was developed at NASA Lewis Research Center to support the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) High Burst Rate Link Evaluation Terminal (HBR-LET). The HBR-LET is an experimenter's terminal to communicate with the ACTS for various investigations by government agencies, universities, and industry. The EC&M software is one segment of the Control and Performance Monitoring (C&PM) software system of the HBR-LET. The EC&M software allows users to initialize, control, and monitor the instrumentation within the HBR-LET using a predefined sequence of commands. Besides instrument control, the C&PM software system is also responsible for computer communication between the HBR-LET and the ACTS NASA Ground Station and for uplink power control of the HBR-LET to demonstrate power augmentation during rain fade events. The EC&M Software User's Guide, Version 1.0 (NASA-CR-189160) outlines the commands required to install and operate the EC&M software. Input and output file descriptions, operator commands, and error recovery procedures are discussed in the document. The EC&M Software Maintenance Manual, Version 1.0 (NASA-CR-189161) is a programmer's guide that describes current implementation of the EC&M software from a technical perspective. An overview of the EC&M software, computer algorithms, format representation, and computer hardware configuration are included in the manual.

Reinhart, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Advanced communications technology satellite high burst rate link evaluation terminal experiment control and monitor software user's guide, version 1.0

The Experiment Control and Monitor (EC&M) software was developed at NASA Lewis Research Center to support the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) High Burst Rate Link Evaluation Terminal (HBR-LET). The HBR-LET is an experimenter's terminal to communicate with the ACTS for various investigations by government agencies, universities, and industry. The EC&M software is one segment of the Control and Performance Monitoring (C&PM) software system of the HBR-LET. The EC&M software allows users to initialize, control, and monitor the instrumentation within the HBR-LET using a predefined sequence of commands. Besides instrument control, the C&PM software system is also responsible for computer communication between the HBR-LET and the ACTS NASA Ground Station and for uplink power control of the HBR-LET to demonstrate power augmentation during rain fade events. The EC&M Software User's Guide, Version 1.0 (NASA-CR-189160) outlines the commands required to install and operate the EC&M software. Input and output file descriptions, operator commands, and error recovery procedures are discussed in the document.

Reinhart, Richard C.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Spacecraft command verification: The AI solution

Recently, a knowledge-based approach was used to develop a system called the Command Constraint Checker (CCC) for TRW. CCC was created to automate the process of verifying spacecraft command sequences. To check command files by hand for timing and sequencing errors is a time-consuming and error-prone task. Conventional software solutions were rejected when it was estimated that it would require 36 man-months to build an automated tool to check constraints by conventional methods. Using rule-based representation to model the various timing and sequencing constraints of the spacecraft, CCC was developed and tested in only three months. By applying artificial intelligence techniques, CCC designers were able to demonstrate the viability of AI as a tool to transform difficult problems into easily managed tasks. The design considerations used in developing CCC are discussed and the potential impact of this system on future satellite programs is examined.

Fesq, Lorraine M.↗