Navigation and pointing timeline development for an autonomous free-flying Shuttle payload
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
An enumeration algorithm is presented for solving a scheduling problem similar to the single machine job shop problem with sequence dependent setup times. The scheduling problem differs from the job shop problem in two ways. First, its objective is to select an optimum subset of the available tasks to be performed during a fixed period of time. Secondly, each task scheduled is constrained to occur within its particular scheduling window. The algorithm is currently being used to develop typical observational timelines for a telescope that will be operated in earth orbit. Computational times associated with timeline development are presented.
STEDe applications work together to emulate the official HLS mission timeline and provide insight into potential mission constraints. They ingest HLS Program inputs such as ground rules and assumptions, requirements, and activity durations, informed by experts, to ensure that crew activities and critical vehicle events can transpire without conflicts and mission goals can be achieved. The STEDe applications provide timely assessments of what-if changes to the timeline with respect to different parameters and improve on the trial-and-error mission timeline development process.
We present points of special interest to potential proposers for the Compton Observatory Phase 2 Guest Investigator (GI) program. A general summary of some of the most important details of the phase 2 NASA Research Announcement (NRA) is followed by an enumeration of the modes of participation and proposal types available to GI proposers. Finally, the method which is planned for the selection of the Phase 2 Guest Investigators in parallel with the development of a preliminary Phase 2 observing timeline is outlined. The ways in which the selection of targets by GI's could be affected by the Phase 2 timeline development procedure is described.
The Cassini spacecraft has been in orbit for five years, returning a wealth of scientific data from Titan and the Saturn system. The mission is a cooperative undertaking between NASA, ESA and the Italian Space Agency and the project is currently planning for a second extension of the mission. The Cassini Solstice Mission (CSM) will extend the mission's lifetime until Saturn's northern summer solstice in 2017. The Titan Orbiter Science Team (TOST) has the task of integrating the science observations for all 126 targeted Titan flybys (44 in the Prime Mission, 26 in the first extension (Equinox Mission), and 56 in the second extension (Solstice Mission)) contained in the chosen trajectory. Cassini science instruments are body-fixed with limited ability to articulate; thus, the spacecraft pointing during the flybys must be allocated among the instruments to accomplish the mission's science goals. The science that can be accomplished on each Titan flyby also critically depends on the closest approach altitude, which is in turn determined by the attitude, but changing the altitude impacts the overall trajectory for the Solstice Mission. During the Prime and Extended missions, TOST has learned that the best way to achieve Cassini's Titan science goals is via a 'jumpstart' process prior to final delivery of the trajectory. The jumpstart is driven by the desire to balance Titan science across the entire set of flybys during the CSM, and to influence any changes (tweaks) to the flyby altitudes. By the end of the jumpstart, TOST produces Master Timelines for each flyby, identifying each flyby's prime science observations and allocating control of the spacecraft attitude to specific instrument teams. In addition, developing timelines early, while the science and operations teams are still fully funded, decreases the future workload in integration and implementation.
The NASA/Mir Phase I Program is a precursor to the assembly and operations of the International Space Station (ISS). The Phase I Program covers a four-year period and encompasses over ten shuttle flights to the Mir, culminating with the flight of STS-91 in June 1998. The Mir-Orbiting Station (Mir-OS) provides an excellent environment, both onboard and on the ground, for learning and studying the characteristics associated with crew-tended operations on long duration missions. By the end of the Phase I program, NASA astronauts will have accumulated over two years of continuous operations experience working and living onboard the Mir-OS. Ground controllers, working in Russia and at remote sites in the United States, will have gained valuable experience in the generation, maintenance, and coordination of the information and products required to support the long duration crew members onboard the Mir-OS. The experience gained by the crew and ground support personnel in the area of long duration mission operations has resulted in a number of factors that need to be considered in the definition and implementation of the processes and products for the ISS. While there are many areas in which experience has been gained, this paper focuses on the lessons learned regarding the level of detail and flexibility of crew timelines. Provided in this paper is an overview of the characteristics associated with long duration mission timeline development and execution, a summary of applicable lessons learned identified and documented through participation in the NASA/Mir Phase I Program, a detailed discussion of "Gross Timelines" as implementation which addresses the lessons learned. Also discussed are the challenges that must be overcome in getting the ISS program to recognize, evaluate, and learn from the crew and ground controller experience gained through participation in the NASA/Mir Phase I Program.
In August 2003, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) established the Adaptive Planning (AP) initiative [1] with an objective of reducing the time necessary to develop and revise Combatant Commander (COCOM) contingency plans and increase SECDEF plan visibility. In addition to reducing the traditional plan development timeline from twenty-four months to less than twelve months (with a goal of six months)[2], AP increased plan visibility to Department of Defense (DoD) leadership through In-Progress Reviews (IPRs). The IPR process, as well as the increased number of campaign and contingency plans COCOMs had to develop, increased the workload while the number of planners remained fixed. Several efforts from collaborative planning tools to streamlined processes were initiated to compensate for the increased workload enabling COCOMS to better meet shorter planning timelines. This paper examines the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) directed contingency planning and staffing requirements assigned to a combatant commander staff through the lens of modeling and simulation. The dynamics of developing a COCOM plan are captured with an ExtendSim [3] simulation. The resulting analysis provides a quantifiable means by which to measure a combatant commander staffs workload associated with development and staffing JSCP [4] directed contingency plans with COCOM capability/capacity. Modeling and simulation bring significant opportunities in measuring the sensitivity of key variables in the assessment of workload to capability/capacity analysis. Gaining an understanding of the relationship between plan complexity, number of plans, planning processes, and number of planners with time required for plan development provides valuable information to DoD leadership. Through modeling and simulation AP leadership can gain greater insight in making key decisions on knowing where to best allocate scarce resources in an effort to meet DoD planning objectives.
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.
EVA timeline development occurs using task execution data generated through underwater training and simulation. This project collected task time data during final training events for several Space Shuttle and International Space Station missions and compared like task time data collected during on-orbit execution. Analysis was performed to compare types of activities and times required for each looking specifically for how activities can be accurately trained from a timeline planning perspective. The data revealed two significant aspects of flight timeline planning; Zero-g task times will match training times for activities that can be accurately simulated with appropriate fidelity hardware; and not all activities can be simulated sufficiently to produce training task times that will reflect required zero-g times. An approach for timeline planning utilizing this knowledge is also presented.
Part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research is enhanced by discovering new scientific tools to improve life on earth. Sequentially, to successfully explore the unknown, there has to be a planning process that organizes certain events in the right priority. Therefore, the planning support team has to continually improve their processes so the ISS Mission Operations can operate smoothly and effectively. The planning support team consists of people in the Long Range Planning area that develop timelines that includes International Partner?s Preliminary STP inputs all the way through to publishing of the Final STP. Planning is a crucial part of the NASA community when it comes to planning the astronaut?s daily schedule in great detail. The STP Process is in need of improvement, because of the various tasks that are required to be broken down in order to get the overall objective of developing a Final STP done correctly. Then a new project came along in order to store various data in a more efficient database. "The SharePoint site is a Web site that provides a central storage and collaboration space for documents, information, and ideas."
An operational computer program, the Procedures and Performance Program (PPP) which operates in conjunction with the Phase I Shuttle Procedures Simulator to provide a procedures recording and crew/vehicle performance monitoring capability was developed. A technical synopsis of each task resulting in the development of the Procedures and Performance Program is provided. Conclusions and recommendations for action leading to the improvements in production of crew procedures development and crew training support are included. The PPP provides real-time CRT displays and post-run hardcopy output of procedures, difference procedures, performance data, parametric analysis data, and training script/training status data. During post-run, the program is designed to support evaluation through the reconstruction of displays to any point in time. A permanent record of the simulation exercise can be obtained via hardcopy output of the display data and via transfer to the Generalized Documentation Processor (GDP). Reference procedures data may be transferred from the GDP to the PPP. Interface is provided with the all digital trajectory program, the Space Vehicle Dynamics Simulator (SVDS) to support initial procedures timeline development.
An approach to achieving an optimized set of crew/computer interface requirements on the Space Shuttle program is described. It consists of defining the mission phases and crew timelines, developing a functional description of the crew/computer interface displays and controls software, conducting real-time simulations using pilot evaluation of the interface displays and controls, and developing a set of crew/computer functional requirements specifications. The simulator is a two-man crew station which includes three CRTs with keyboards for simulating the crew/computer interface. The programs simulate the mission phases and the flight hardware, including the flight computer and CRT displays.
Technology advancement to effect an orderly development program leading to construction of space platforms was defined, in a program that utilized a viable platform and service module concept with concise OSS/OAST mission and payload models. Consideration was given to concepts for alternate platform servicing of the payloads described in the model. Using the baseline configuration, issues pertinent to platform development as well as orbit emplacement and operation and on orbit construction methodology were analyzed. These analyses provided the following data: (1) payload definitions and installation options; (2) identified structural and subsystems options; (3) developed integrated platform system concepts; and (4) identified technology deficiencies and recommended technology development timelines.
The trajectory data presented are to be used for orbiter systems and subsystems evalation, flight and mission control center software verification, flight techniques and timeline development, crew training, and evaluation of operational mission suitability. The entry profile is very similar to cycle 2, however, elevon and body flap temperature margins have increased and the elevon schedule was changed. The terminal area energy management (TAEM) profile was completely reshaped to conform with new angle of attack constraints and left hand turn around the heading alignment cylinder. Also, the entry/TAEM interface was adjusted to minimize guidance induced angle of attack transients across the interface. The approach and landing phase was reshaped for a 20 deg glideslope and reduced velocity at touchdown. The definition of the runway threshold was standardized for all landing sites. This results in a shift at Edwards Air Force Base in aim points and touchdown relative to the threshold of 1000 feet. The rollout remains essentially unchanged with the exception of the speedbrake, which is now deployed to 50 percent at touchdown.
A plan for the incorporation of Automation and Robotics technology on the Space Station is presented. The time phased introduction of twenty two selected candidates is set forth in accordance with a technology development forecast. Twenty candidates were chosed primarily for their potential to relieve the crew of mundane or dangerous operations and maintenance burdens, thus freeing crew time for mission duties and enhancing safety. Two candidates were chosen based on a potential for increasing the productivity of laboratory experiments and thus directly enhancing the scientific value of the Space Station. A technology assessment for each candidate investigates present state of the art, development timelines including space qualification considerations, and potential for technology transfer to earth applications. Each candidate is evaluated using a crew workload model driven by crew size, number of pressurized U.S. modules and external payloads, which makes it possible to assess the impact of automation during a growth scenario. Costs for each increment of implementation are estimated and accumulated.
Viewgraphs on Space Station Freedom electric power system evolutionary energy storage are presented. Topics covered include: system requirements evolution; Space Station Freedom timeline; development of technologies selection criteria; and candidate technologies.
The paper will then propose extending this multi-mission philosophy to skeleton timeline development, science sequencing, and spacecraft sequencing. Finally, the paper will investigate a multi-mission approach to MOS development.