Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “integrated distribution planning”

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 NTRS1990

An innovative approach for distributed and integrated resources planning for the Space Station Freedom

This paper presents a planning approach to the Space Station Freedom program which takes into account the widely distributed nature of that program. The program management structure is organized into three major levels: a strategic level, a tactical level, and an execution level. For each level, resource availabilities are determined, the resources are distributed, schedules are built independently within the resource limits, the schedules are integrated into a single schedule, and conflicts are resolved by negotiating requirements and/or relaxing contraints. This approach distributes resources to multiple planning entities in such a way that when the multiple plans are collected, they fit together with minimal modification. The up-front distribution is planned in such a way and to a sufficient degree that a fit is virtually assured.

Hornstein, Rhoda S.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Interfacing Space Communications and Navigation Network Simulation with Distributed System Integration Laboratories (DSIL)

NASA's planned Lunar missions will involve multiple NASA centers where each participating center has a specific role and specialization. In this vision, the Constellation program (CxP)'s Distributed System Integration Laboratories (DSIL) architecture consist of multiple System Integration Labs (SILs), with simulators, emulators, testlabs and control centers interacting with each other over a broadband network to perform test and verification for mission scenarios. To support the end-to-end simulation and emulation effort of NASA' exploration initiatives, different NASA centers are interconnected to participate in distributed simulations. Currently, DSIL has interconnections among the following NASA centers: Johnson Space Center (JSC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Through interconnections and interactions among different NASA centers, critical resources and data can be shared, while independent simulations can be performed simultaneously at different NASA locations, to effectively utilize the simulation and emulation capabilities at each center. Furthermore, the development of DSIL can maximally leverage the existing project simulation and testing plans. In this work, we describe the specific role and development activities at JPL for Space Communications and Navigation Network (SCaN) simulator using the Multi-mission Advanced Communications Hybrid Environment for Test and Evaluation (MACHETE) tool to simulate communications effects among mission assets. Using MACHETE, different space network configurations among spacecrafts and ground systems of various parameter sets can be simulated. Data that is necessary for tracking, navigation, and guidance of spacecrafts such as Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), and Lunar Relay Satellite (LRS) and orbit calculation data are disseminated to different NASA centers and updated periodically using the High Level Architecture (HLA). In addition, the performance of DSIL under different traffic loads with different mix of data and priorities are evaluated.

Traffic Measuring and Monitoring↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Consolidated Planning and Scheduling System for Space Transportation and Space Station operations - Successful development experience

In 1992, NASA made the decision to evolve a Consolidated Planning System (CPS) by adding the Space Transportation System (STS) requirements to the Space Station Freedom (SSF) planning software. This paper describes this evolutionary process, which began with a series of six-month design-build-test cycles, using a domain-independent architecture and a set of developmental tools known as the Advanced Scheduling Environment. It is shown that, during these tests, the CPS could be used at multiple organizational levels of planning and for integrating schedules from geographically distributed (including international) planning environments. The potential for using the CPS for other planning and scheduling tasks in the SSF program is being currently examined.

Hornstein, Rhoda S.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Automated Planning and Scheduling for Planetary Rover Distributed Operations

Automated planning and Scheduling, including automated path planning, has been integrated with an Internet-based distributed operations system for planetary rover operations. The resulting prototype system enables faster generation of valid rover command sequences by a distributed planetary rover operations team. The Web Interface for Telescience (WITS) provides Internet-based distributed collaboration, the Automated Scheduling and Planning Environment (ASPEN) provides automated planning and scheduling, and an automated path planner provided path planning. The system was demonstrated on the Rocky 7 research rover at JPL.

Backes, Paul G.↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS)

NASA Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS) is a disruptive software platform and processes being developed by SSC Autonomous Systems Laboratory (ASL). Autonomous operations are critical for the success, safety and crew survival of NASA deep space missions beyond low Earth orbit, including Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, and for the future of cost-effective ground mission operations. NPAS represents the embodiment of an innovative implementation for "thinking" autonomy in contrast to brute-force autonomy. It also uniquely addresses the requirements and integrates five primary functionalities for autonomous operations including: (1) Integrated System Health Management (ISHM), (2) autonomy, guided by health and system concepts of operations; (3) knowledge models of applications; (4) infrastructure to create, schedule, and execute mission plans; and (5) infrastructure to integrate distributed autonomous applications across networks.

Figueroa, Fernando↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned In Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The "pieces" are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Lessons Learned in Developing Multiple Distributed Planning Systems for the International Space Station

The planning processes for the International Space Station (ISS) Program are quite complex. Detailed mission planning for ISS on-orbit operations is a distributed function. Pieces of the on-orbit plan are developed by multiple planning organizations, located around the world, based on their respective expertise and responsibilities. The pieces are then integrated to yield the final detailed plan that will be executed onboard the ISS. Previous space programs have not distributed the planning and scheduling functions to this extent. Major ISS planning organizations are currently located in the United States (at both the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), in Russia, in Europe, and in Japan. Software systems have been developed by each of these planning organizations to support their assigned planning and scheduling functions. Although there is some cooperative development and sharing of key software components, each planning system has been tailored to meet the unique requirements and operational environment of the facility in which it operates. However, all the systems must operate in a coordinated fashion in order to effectively and efficiently produce a single integrated plan of ISS operations, in accordance with the established planning processes. This paper addresses lessons learned during the development of these multiple distributed planning systems, from the perspective of the developer of one of the software systems. The lessons focus on the coordination required to allow the multiple systems to operate together, rather than on the problems associated with the development of any particular system. Included in the paper is a discussion of typical problems faced during the development and coordination process, such as incompatible development schedules, difficulties in defining system interfaces, technical coordination and funding for shared tools, continually evolving planning concepts/requirements, programmatic and budget issues, and external influences. Techniques that mitigated some of these problems will also be addressed, along with recommendations for any future programs involving the development of multiple planning and scheduling systems. Many of these lessons learned are not unique to the area of planning and scheduling systems, so may be applied to other distributed ground systems that must operate in concert to successfully support space mission operations.

Maxwell, Theresa G.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Autonomous mission planning and scheduling: Innovative, integrated, responsive

Autonomous mission scheduling, a new concept for NASA ground data systems, is a decentralized and distributed approach to scientific spacecraft planning, scheduling, and command management. Systems and services are provided that enable investigators to operate their own instruments. In autonomous mission scheduling, separate nodes exist for each instrument and one or more operations nodes exist for the spacecraft. Each node is responsible for its own operations which include planning, scheduling, and commanding; and for resolving conflicts with other nodes. One or more database servers accessible to all nodes enable each to share mission and science planning, scheduling, and commanding information. The architecture for autonomous mission scheduling is based upon a realistic mix of state-of-the-art and emerging technology and services, e.g., high performance individual workstations, high speed communications, client-server computing, and relational databases. The concept is particularly suited to the smaller, less complex missions of the future.

Sary, Charisse↗
NASA NTRS2005

Towards G2G: Systems of Technology Database Systems

We present an approach and methodology for developing Government-to-Government (G2G) Systems of Technology Database Systems. G2G will deliver technologies for distributed and remote integration of technology data for internal use in analysis and planning as well as for external communications. G2G enables NASA managers, engineers, operational teams and information systems to "compose" technology roadmaps and plans by selecting, combining, extending, specializing and modifying components of technology database systems. G2G will interoperate information and knowledge that is distributed across organizational entities involved that is ideal for NASA future Exploration Enterprise. Key contributions of the G2G system will include the creation of an integrated approach to sustain effective management of technology investments that supports the ability of various technology database systems to be independently managed. The integration technology will comply with emerging open standards. Applications can thus be customized for local needs while enabling an integrated management of technology approach that serves the global needs of NASA. The G2G capabilities will use NASA s breakthrough in database "composition" and integration technology, will use and advance emerging open standards, and will use commercial information technologies to enable effective System of Technology Database systems.

Maluf, David A.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Automated Planning and Scheduling for Space Mission Operations

Research Trends: a) Finite-capacity scheduling under more complex constraints and increased problem dimensionality (subcontracting, overtime, lot splitting, inventory, etc.) b) Integrated planning and scheduling. c) Mixed-initiative frameworks. d) Management of uncertainty (proactive and reactive). e) Autonomous agent architectures and distributed production management. e) Integration of machine learning capabilities. f) Wider scope of applications: 1) analysis of supplier/buyer protocols & tradeoffs; 2) integration of strategic & tactical decision-making; and 3) enterprise integration.

scheduling↗
NASA NTRS2007

Probabilistic Reasoning for Robustness in Automated Planning

A general-purpose computer program for planning the actions of a spacecraft or other complex system has been augmented by incorporating a subprogram that reasons about uncertainties in such continuous variables as times taken to perform tasks and amounts of resources to be consumed. This subprogram computes parametric probability distributions for time and resource variables on the basis of user-supplied models of actions and resources that they consume. The current system accepts bounded Gaussian distributions over action duration and resource use. The distributions are then combined during planning to determine the net probability distribution of each resource at any time point. In addition to a full combinatoric approach, several approximations for arriving at these combined distributions are available, including maximum-likelihood and pessimistic algorithms. Each such probability distribution can then be integrated to obtain a probability that execution of the plan under consideration would violate any constraints on the resource. The key idea is to use these probabilities of conflict to score potential plans and drive a search toward planning low-risk actions. An output plan provides a balance between the user s specified averseness to risk and other measures of optimality.

Schaffer, Steven↗
NASA NTRS2006

Implementing Distributed Operations: A Comparison of Two Deep Space Missions

Two very different deep space exploration missions--Mars Exploration Rover and Cassini--have made use of distributed operations for their science teams. In the case of MER, the distributed operations capability was implemented only after the prime mission was completed, as the rovers continued to operate well in excess of their expected mission lifetimes; Cassini, designed for a mission of more than ten years, had planned for distributed operations from its inception. The rapid command turnaround timeline of MER, as well as many of the operations features implemented to support it, have proven to be conducive to distributed operations. These features include: a single science team leader during the tactical operations timeline, highly integrated science and engineering teams, processes and file structures designed to permit multiple team members to work in parallel to deliver sequencing products, web-based spacecraft status and planning reports for team-wide access, and near-elimination of paper products from the operations process. Additionally, MER has benefited from the initial co-location of its entire operations team, and from having a single Principal Investigator, while Cassini operations have had to reconcile multiple science teams distributed from before launch. Cassini has faced greater challenges in implementing effective distributed operations. Because extensive early planning is required to capture science opportunities on its tour and because sequence development takes significantly longer than sequence execution, multiple teams are contributing to multiple sequences concurrently. The complexity of integrating inputs from multiple teams is exacerbated by spacecraft operability issues and resource contention among the teams, each of which has their own Principal Investigator. Finally, much of the technology that MER has exploited to facilitate distributed operations was not available when the Cassini ground system was designed, although later adoption of web-based and telecommunication tools has been critical to the success of Cassini operations.

Cassini Mission↗
NASA NTRS1952

Chordwise and compressibility corrections to slender-wing theory

Corrections to slender-wing theory are obtained by assuming a spanwise distribution of loading and determining the chordwise variation which satisfies the appropriate integral equation. Such integral equations are set up in terms of the given vertical induced velocity on the center line or, depending on the type of wing plan form, its average value across the span at a given chord station. The chordwise distribution is then obtained by solving these integral equations. Results are shown for flat-plate rectangular, and triangular wings.

Lomax, Harvard↗
NASA NTRS1978

NASA and the U.S. climate program - A problem in data management

NASA's contribution to the total data base for the National Climate Plan will be to produce climate data sets from its experimental space observing systems and to maximize the value of these data for climate analysis and prediction. Validated data sets will be provided to NOAA for inclusion into their overall diagnostic data base. NASA data management for the Climate Plan will involve: (1) cataloging and retrieval of large integrated and distributed data sets upon user demand, and (2) the storage equivalent of 100,000 digital data tapes. It will be the largest, most complex data system ever developed by NASA

Quann, J. J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Development of a Crosslink Channel Simulator

Distributed Spacecraft missions are an integral part of current and future plans for NASA and other space agencies. Many of these multi-vehicle missions involve utilizing the array of spacecraft as a single, instrument requiring communication via crosslinks to achieve mission goals. NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is developing the Formation Flying Test Bed (FFTB) to provide a hardware-in-the-loop simulation environment to support mission concept development and system trades with a primary focus on Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) challenges associated with spacecraft flying. The goal of the FFTB is to reduce mission risk by assisting in mission planning and analysis, provide a technology development platform that allows algorithms to be developed for mission functions such as precision formation navigation and control and time synchronization. The FFTB will provide a medium in which the various crosslink transponders being used in multi-vehicle missions can be integrated for development and test; an integral part of the FFTB is the Crosslink Channel Simulator (CCS). The CCS is placed into the communications channel between the crosslinks under test, and is used to simulate on-mission effects to the communications channel such as vehicle maneuvers, relative vehicle motion, or antenna misalignment. The CCS is based on the Starlight software programmable platform developed at General Dynamics Decision Systems and provides the CCS with the ability to be modified on the fly to adapt to new crosslink formats or mission parameters. This paper briefly describes the Formation Flying Test Bed and its potential uses. It then provides details on the current and future development of the Crosslink Channel Simulator and its capabilities.

Hunt, Chris↗
NASA NTRS2003

International Cooperation of Payload Operations on the International Space Station

One of the primary goals of the International Space Station (ISS) is to provide an orbiting laboratory to be used to conduct scientific research and commercial products utilizing the unique environment of space. The ISS Program has united multiple nations into a coalition with the objective of developing and outfitting this orbiting laboratory and sharing in the utilization of the resources available. The primary objectives of the real- time integration of ISS payload operations are to ensure safe operations of payloads, to avoid mutual interference between payloads and onboard systems, to monitor the use of integrated station resources and to increase the total effectiveness of ISS. The ISS organizational architecture has provided for the distribution of operations planning and execution functions to the organizations with expertise to perform each function. Each IPP is responsible for the integration and operations of their payloads within their resource allocations and the safety requirements defined by the joint program. Another area of international cooperation is the sharing in the development and on- orbit utilization of unique payload facilities. An example of this cooperation is the Microgravity Science Glovebox. The hardware was developed by ESA and provided to NASA as part of a barter arrangement.

Melton, Tina↗
NASA NTRS1990

Concepts in Distributed Scheduling and Control

To support instrument and experiment operations effectively in the Space Station era, planning, scheduling and control must allow for: interactive, realtime, remote operations; responsive scheduling and rescheduling; support of the full range of distributed science, application and commercial users; interaction and cooperation among distributed users; and efficient use of on-board, communications, and ground-based resources. We suggest conceptual and managerial approaches that address these needs. Specifically, we describe an approach to distributed planning, scheduling and control functions that is based on resources and on a distributed knowledge hierarchy. We describe these functions as components of an integrated management system. We discuss automated scheduling assistants and integration of planning and scheduling functions with realtime operations control. The suggested approach, taken from a users' point-of-view, has resulted in the Science User Resource Planning and Scheduling System (SURPASS). In this paper, we describe the major components of SURPASS and discuss the features of this innovative prototype. Further ideas concerning instrument planning, scheduling, and control may be found in the Space Station Instrument Control System Study.

Hansen, Elaine R.↗