Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “operation”

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 NTRS2010

Web Design for Space Operations: An Overview of the Challenges and New Technologies Used in Developing and Operating Web-Based Applications in Real-Time Operational Support Onboard the International Space Station, in Astronaut Mission Planning and Mission Control Operations

The International Space Station (ISS) Operations Planning Team, Mission Control Centre and Mission Automation Support Network (MAS) have all evolved over the years to use commercial web-based technologies to create a configurable electronic infrastructure to manage the complex network of real-time planning, crew scheduling, resource and activity management as well as onboard document and procedure management required to co-ordinate ISS assembly, daily operations and mission support. While these Web technologies are classified as non-critical in nature, their use is part of an essential backbone of daily operations on the ISS and allows the crew to operate the ISS as a functioning science laboratory. The rapid evolution of the internet from 1998 (when ISS assembly began) to today, along with the nature of continuous manned operations in space, have presented a unique challenge in terms of software engineering and system development. In addition, the use of a wide array of competing internet technologies (including commercial technologies such as .NET and JAVA ) and the special requirements of having to support this network, both nationally among various control centres for International Partners (IPs), as well as onboard the station itself, have created special challenges for the MCC Web Tools Development Team, software engineers and flight controllers, who implement and maintain this system. This paper presents an overview of some of these operational challenges, and the evolving nature of the solutions and the future use of COTS based rich internet technologies in manned space flight operations. In particular this paper will focus on the use of Microsoft.s .NET API to develop Web-Based Operational tools, the use of XML based service oriented architectures (SOA) that needed to be customized to support Mission operations, the maintenance of a Microsoft IIS web server onboard the ISS, The OpsLan, functional-oriented Web Design with AJAX

Khan, Ahmed↗
NASA NTRS1991

Operator-assisted planning and execution of proximity operations subject to operational constraints

Future multi-vehicle operations will involve multiple scenarios that will require a planning tool for the rapid, interactive creation of fuel-efficient trajectories. The planning process must deal with higher-order, non-linear processes involving dynamics that are often counter-intuitive. The optimization of resulting trajectories can be difficult to envision. An interaction proximity operations planning system is being developed to provide the operator with easily interpreted visual feedback of trajectories and constraints. This system is hosted on an IRIS 4D graphics platform and utilizes the Clohessy-Wiltshire equations. An inverse dynamics algorithm is used to remove non-linearities while the trajectory maneuvers are decoupled and separated in a geometric spreadsheet. The operator has direct control of the position and time of trajectory waypoints to achieve the desired end conditions. Graphics provide the operator with visualization of satisfying operational constraints such as structural clearance, plume impingement, approach velocity limits, and arrival or departure corridors. Primer vector theory is combined with graphical presentation to improve operator understanding of suggested automated system solutions and to allow the operator to review, edit, or provide corrective action to the trajectory plan.

Grunwald, Arthur J.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Space Ops 2002: Bringing Space Operations into the 21st Century. Track 3: Operations, Mission Planning and Control. 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle-Concepts for Flight Operations

With the successful implementation of the International Space Station (ISS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) enters a new era of opportunity for scientific research. The ISS provides a working laboratory in space, with tremendous capabilities for scientific research. Utilization of these capabilities requires a launch system capable of routinely transporting crew and logistics to/from the ISS, as well as supporting ISS assembly and maintenance tasks. The Space Shuttle serves as NASA's launch system for performing these functions. The Space Shuttle also serves as NASA's launch system for supporting other science and servicing missions that require a human presence in space. The Space Shuttle provides proof that reusable launch vehicles are technically and physically implementable. However, a couple of problems faced by NASA are the prohibitive cost of operating and maintaining the Space Shuttle and its relative inability to support high launch rates. The 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (2nd Gen RLV) is NASA's solution to this problem. The 2nd Gen RLV will provide a robust launch system with increased safety, improved reliability and performance, and less cost. The improved performance and reduced costs of the 2nd Gen RLV will free up resources currently spent on launch services. These resource savings can then be applied to scientific research, which in turn can be supported by the higher launch rate capability of the 2nd Gen RLV. The result is a win - win situation for science and NASA. While meeting NASA's needs, the 2nd Gen RLV also provides the United States aerospace industry with a commercially viable launch capability. One of the keys to achieving the goals of the 2nd Gen RLV is to develop and implement new technologies and processes in the area of flight operations. NASA's experience in operating the Space Shuttle and the ISS has brought to light several areas where automation can be used to augment or eliminate functions performed by crew and ground controllers. This experience has also identified the need for new approaches to staffing and training for both crew and ground controllers. This paper provides a brief overview of the mission capabilities provided by the 2nd Gen RLV, a description of NASA's approach to developing the 2nd Gen RLV, a discussion of operations concepts, and a list of challenges to implementing those concepts.

Hagopian, Jeff↗
NASA NTRS1986

Crew factors in flight operations. Part 3: The operational significance of exposure to short-haul air transport operations

Excessive flightcrew fatigue has potentially serious safety consequences. Laboratory studies have implicated fatigue as a causal factor associated with varying levels of performance deterioration depending on the amount of fatigue and the type of measure utilized in assessing performance. These studies have been of limited utility because of the difficulty of relating laboratory task performance to the demands associated with the operation of a complex aircraft. The performance of 20 volunteer twin-jet transport crews is examined in a full-mission simulator scenario that included most aspects of an actual line operation. The scenario included both routine flight operations and an unexpected mechanical abnormality which resulted in a high level of crew workload. Half of the crews flew the simulation within two to three hours after completing a three-day, high-density, short-haul duty cycle (Post-Duty condition). The other half flew the scenario after a minimum of three days off duty (Pre-Duty) condition). The results revealed that, not surprisingly, Post-Duty crews were significantly more fatigued than Pre-Duty crews. However, a somewhat counter-intuitive pattern of results emerged on the crew performancemeasures. In general, the performance of Post-Duty crews was significantly better than that of Pre-Duty crews, as rated by an expert observer on a number of dimensions relevant to flight safety. Analyses of the flightcrew communication patterns revealed that Post-Duty crews communicated significantly more overall, suggesting, as has previous research, that communication is a good predictor of overall crew performance.

Foushee, H. C.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Medical Operations Support for ISS Operations - The Role of the BME Operations Team Leads

This slide presentation reviews the role of the biomedical flight controllers (BMEs), and BME Operations Team Leads (OTLs) in providing medical support for personnel on the International Space Station. This presentation will concentrate on role of the BME OTLs, who provide the integration function across the integration function across all Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) disciplines for operational products and medical procedures.

Janney, Rob↗
NASA NTRS2021

Practical Operational Readiness Gambits: Operations Training Simulations for the Curiosity Rover

The Mars Science Laboratory team had been puttingin effort to make a Training Venue to allow for parallel shadowtactical operations for trainees to actively work alongside theprime tactical operations personnel without affecting operations,since staffing constraints and shortened operations timelineswere straining the tactical process in supporting operationstrainees in the traditional way. The COVID- 19 Pandemic presentedfurther challenges in continuing on-console training forMSL operations trainees. The MSL operations team switched tofully remote operations, thus hampering the direct mentorshipa trainee would normally receive while on site at JPL. TheMars 2020 training team had developed a concept for roveroperations training simulations based on Johnson Space Center’sextensive simulations training program for astronauts andflight controllers. The MSL team borrowed this idea, and implementedthese training simulations which are called PracticalOperational Readiness Gambits (PORGs). The PORGs so farhave focused on the Science Planner and Rover Planner roles,which are two crucial roles in tactical operations that engagein key interactions throughout a shift. PORGs are based onactual sol scenarios that have occurred on Mars and follow thetactical operations process and timeline as closely as possible.However, unlike an operations shift, PORGs can slow down orpause to allow for more mentoring time. PORGs can focus onparticular skills to test the trainees on their understanding ofa concept. PORGs increase in complexity with each scenario toease the trainees into more typical tactical operations workloads.As more trainees join the MSL operations team, more roles arebeing incorporated into PORGs. There are plans to incorporatecertified operations personnel into PORGs to practice anomalyresponse situations. PORGs have become an essential part of theMSL operations training program and will continue even afterthe return to on-site operations at JPL.

Gajeway, Jocelyn↗
NASA NTRS2000

Lessons Learned on Operating and Preparing Operations for a Technology Mission from the Perspective of the Earth Observing-1 Mission

The New Millennium Program's first Earth-observing mission (EO-1) is a technology validation mission. It is managed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and is scheduled for launch in the summer of 2000. The purpose of this mission is to flight-validate revolutionary technologies that will contribute to the reduction of cost and increase of capabilities for future land imaging missions. In the EO-1 mission, there are five instrument, five spacecraft, and three supporting technologies to flight-validate during a year of operations. EO-1 operations and the accompanying ground system were intended to be simple in order to maintain low operational costs. For purposes of formulating operations, it was initially modeled as a small science mission. However, it quickly evolved into a more complex mission due to the difficulties in effectively integrating all of the validation plans of the individual technologies. As a consequence, more operational support was required to confidently complete the on-orbit validation of the new technologies. This paper will outline the issues and lessons learned applicable to future technology validation missions. Examples of some of these include the following: (1) operational complexity encountered in integrating all of the validation plans into a coherent operational plan, (2) initial desire to run single shift operations subsequently growing to 6 "around-the-clock" operations, (3) managing changes in the technologies that ultimately affected operations, (4) necessity for better team communications within the project to offset the effects of change on the Ground System Developers, Operations Engineers, Integration and Test Engineers, S/C Subsystem Engineers, and Scientists, and (5) the need for a more experienced Flight Operations Team to achieve the necessary operational flexibility. The discussion will conclude by providing several cost comparisons for developing operations from previous missions to EO-1 and discuss some details that might be done differently for future technology validation missions.

Mandl, Dan↗
NASA NTRS2011

Co-Operative Advances in Behavioral Health and Performance Research and Operations

In organizations that engage in both operations and applied research, with operational needs guiding research questions and research informing improved operations, the ideal goal is a synergy of ideas and information. In reality, this ideal synergy is often lacking. Real-time operational needs driving day-to-day decisions, lack of communication, lag time in getting research advances plugged into operations can cause both areas to suffer from this gap between operations and research. At Johnson Space Center, the Behavior Health and Performance group (BHP) strives to bridge this gap by following a Human Research Program framework: Expectations of future operational needs identify the knowledge gaps; the gaps in turn guide research leading to a product that is transitioned into operations. Thus, the direction those of us in research take is in direct response to current and future needs of operations. Likewise, those of us in operations actively seek knowledge that is supported by evidence-based research. We make an ongoing effort to communicate across the research and operations gap by working closely with each other and making a conscious effort to keep each other informed. The objective of the proposed panel discussion is to demonstrate through the following presentations the results of a successful collaboration between research and operations and to provide ASMA members with more practical knowledge and strategies for building these bridges to serve our field of practice well. The panel will consist of six presenters from BHP operations, internal BHP research, and external research instigated by BHP who together represent the entire BHP Research Transition to Operations Framework

VanderArk, Stephen T.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) 2010 Science Operations: Operational Approaches and Lessons Learned for Managing Science during Human Planetary Surface Missions

Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of hardware and operations tests carried out annually in the high desert of Arizona on the San Francisco Volcanic Field. These activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable, and they allow NASA to evaluate different mission concepts and approaches in an environment less costly and more forgiving than space.The results from the RATS tests allows election of potential operational approaches to planetary surface exploration prior to making commitments to specific flight and mission hardware development. In previous RATS operations, the Science Support Room has operated largely in an advisory role, an approach that was driven by the need to provide a loose science mission framework that would underpin the engineering tests. However, the extensive nature of the traverse operations for 2010 expanded the role of the science operations and tested specific operational approaches. Science mission operations approaches from the Apollo and Mars-Phoenix missions were merged to become the baseline for this test. Six days of traverse operations were conducted during each week of the 2-week test, with three traverse days each week conducted with voice and data communications continuously available, and three traverse days conducted with only two 1-hour communications periods per day. Within this framework, the team evaluated integrated science operations management using real-time, tactical science operations to oversee daily crew activities, and strategic level evaluations of science data and daily traverse results during a post-traverse planning shift. During continuous communications, both tactical and strategic teams were employed. On days when communications were reduced to only two communications periods per day, only a strategic team was employed. The Science Operations Team found that, if communications are good and down-linking of science data is ensured, high quality science returns is possible regardless of communications. What is absent from reduced communications is the scientific interaction between the crew on the planet and the scientists on the ground. These scientific interactions were a critical part of the science process and significantly improved mission science return over reduced communications conditions. The test also showed that the quality of science return is not measurable by simple numerical quantities but is, in fact, based on strongly non-quantifiable factors, such as the interactions between the crew and the Science Operations Teams. Although the metric evaluation data suggested some trends, there was not sufficient granularity in the data or specificity in the metrics to allow those trends to be understood on numerical data alone.

Eppler, Dean↗
NASA NTRS1975

IUS/TUG orbital operations and mission support study. Volume 3: Space tug operations

A study was conducted to develop space tug operational concepts and baseline operations plan, and to provide cost estimates for space tug operations. Background data and study results are presented along with a transition phase analysis (the transition from interim upper state to tug operations). A summary is given of the tug operational and interface requirements with emphasis on the on-orbit checkout requirements, external interface operational requirements, safety requirements, and system operational interface requirements. Other topics discussed include reference missions baselined for the tug and details for the mission functional flows and timelines derived for the tug mission, tug subsystems, tug on-orbit operations prior to the tug first burn, spacecraft deployment and retrieval by the tug, operations centers, mission planning, potential problem areas, and cost data.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1993

NASDA satellite mission operation system and operations

NASDA has recently developed a new tracking and control system as a basis for future satellite mission operation. It is named type-I Space Operations and Data Systems (type-I SODS). The software of this system is separated into three parts: operation and control system, network system, and support and information system. The operation control system treats telemetry and command operations. The network system controls the communication line and ground station equipments to connect the satellite and the operation control system. The support and information system provides to other systems necessary information. JERS-1 which was launched in February of this year is the first satellite operated by type-l SODS. We explain the architecture and operation methods of this system using JERS-1 mission operations.

Yamaya, Kousaku↗
NASA NTRS2005

The Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS), Higher Volume Operations (HVO) Off-Nominal Operations

The ability to conduct concurrent, multiple aircraft operations in poor weather, at virtually any airport, offers an important opportunity for a significant increase in the rate of flight operations, a major improvement in passenger convenience, and the potential to foster growth of charter operations at small airports. The Small Aircraft Transportation System, (SATS) Higher Volume Operations (HVO) concept is designed to increase traffic flow at any of the 3400 nonradar, non-towered airports in the United States where operations are currently restricted to one-in/one-out procedural separation during Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The concept's key feature is pilots maintain their own separation from other aircraft using procedures, aircraft flight data sent via air-to-air datalink, cockpit displays, and on-board software. This is done within the Self-Controlled Area (SCA), an area of flight operations established during poor visibility or low ceilings around an airport without Air Traffic Control (ATC) services. The research described in this paper expands the HVO concept to include most off-nominal situations that could be expected to occur in a future SATS environment. The situations were categorized into routine off-nominal operations, procedural deviations, equipment malfunctions, and aircraft emergencies. The combination of normal and off-nominal HVO procedures provides evidence for an operational concept that is safe, requires little ground infrastructure, and enables concurrent flight operations in poor weather.

Baxley, B.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Managing Science Operations during Planetary Surface Operations at Long Light Delay-Time Targets: The 2011 Desert RATS Test

Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of hardware and operations tests carried out annually in the high desert of Arizona in the San Francisco Volcanic Field. Conducted since 1997, these activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where multi-day tests are achievable. Desert RATS 2011 Science Operations Test simulated the management of crewed science operations at targets that were beyond the light delay time experienced during Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) and lunar surface missions, such as a mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO) or the martian surface. Operations at targets at these distances are likely to be the norm as humans move out of the Earth-Moon system. Operating at these distances places significant challenges on mission operations, as the imposed light-delay time makes normal, two-way conversations extremely inefficient. Consequently, the operations approach for space missions that has been exercised during the first half-century of human space operations is no longer viable, and new approaches must be devised.

Eppler, D. B.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mission Operations, Cubed: NASA Marshall Operations Support for SmallSats

SmallSats have come a long way since the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC) at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center supported its first “minisatellite” mission in 2010. And just as SmallSats themselves have evolved in those 12 years, so too has the HOSC’s mission support for SmallSats. Marshall Space Flight Center has a long history with payload and mission operations, including support for the Apollo missions to the moon, the Space Shuttle program, and 21 years of continuous around-the-clock science operations support for research aboard the International Space Station. Today, the HOSC is a multi-tenant facility, supporting not only ISS, but also NASA’s Commercial Crew program, the Space Launch System, the Hubble and Chandra observatories and others – including multiple SmallSat missions. Two SmallSat solar sail missions will be among those taking advantage of the HOSC’s resources for planning, training for and executing mission operations – the Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout and Solar Cruiser missions. One of 10 6U CubeSats manifest on the Artemis I launch of NASA’s Space Launch System rocket this year, NEA Scout’s three-year mission will be supported through a more traditional operations concept, with a dedicated Flight Controller staff operating within the HOSC. Scheduled to launch as part of the Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe (IMAP) in February 2025, Solar Cruiser’s 11-month mission will take a next-generation approach to operations by utilizing a multi-mission flight controller concept, as well as Marshall’s Telescience Resource Kit (TreK). TreK provides a suite of software applications and libraries that allow the Mission Operations Center to serve as an in-house ground system which incorporates remote and automation capability options for engineers and scientists. This presentation will compare the approaches the HOSC will use to support these two missions as a way of demonstrating the array of options NASA MSFC offers for operations support for CubeSat and SmallSat missions.

Darren S Wallace↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Concept of Operations for Far-Term Surface Trajectory-Based Operations (STBO)

The goal of this far-term STBO (Surface Trajectory-Based Operations) ConOps (Concept of Operations) is to increase the efficiency and predictability of airport surface operations, and reduce the environmental impact, by incorporating a time-based component to surface operations. In the far-term NextGen timeframe, airport surface operations will transition from current-day first-come, first-served operations, to strategically scheduled operations in which pilots are recruited as active participants in meeting the precise time-based goals of NextGen surface operations. The far-term STBO concept includes two-phases. Phase 1 introduces time-based traffic flow constraint points, which divide the taxi route into segments with an assigned Required Time of Arrival (RTA). This Phase 1 approach provides temporal certainty only near the traffic flow constraint points, but not in between. Minimal augmentations to the flight deck are required to support required time of arrival (RTA) management. Phase 2 further increases precision and efficiency by introducing full four-dimensional (4D) trajectories, with an x-y location for all times t. This phase assumes adoption of advanced flight deck equipage enabling higher temporal precision sufficient to support aircraft conformance to 4D trajectories. This allows more precision and less temporal uncertainty at all times along the route.

Surface Trajectory-Based Operations (STBO)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Where is the Human in the Loop? Human Factors Analysis of Extended Visual Line of Sight Unmanned Aerial System Operations within a Remote Operations Environment

Many envisioned technological and conceptual innovations focus on allocating more functions to automation, relegating the human as an afterthought if not a nuisance. Yet, until complete autonomy is realized, the human will remain “in the loop”. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is supporting research for the development and maturation of automated technologies and architectures for the future of advanced air mobility. Standing up a remote operations center used to control, manage, and monitor multiple highly automated vehicles is an important step towards realizing the advanced air mobility vision. At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Langley Research Center, a remote operation center exists and has been tested using humans piloting simulated vehicles. In this paper, we explore the human element within live flight operations that rely on increasingly automated technologies. Four ground control station operators performed multiple live flight operations. We employed a naturalistic approach and relied on qualitative data such as interviews and discussions with subject matter experts to help facilitate discovery. The present work evaluates the functions that the human and the automation had during the live operations, lists psychological constructs that may have promoted or reduced task performance, and provides recommendations on design of the remote operations environment and training of future ground control station operators.

Advanced Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Where is the Human in the Loop? Human Factors Analysis of Extended Visual Line of Sight Unmanned Aerial System Operations within a Remote Operations Environment

Many envisioned technological and conceptual innovations focus on allocating more functions to automation, relegating the human as an afterthought if not a nuisance. Yet, until complete autonomy is realized, the human will remain “in the loop”. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is supporting research for the development and maturation of automated technologies and architectures for the future of advanced air mobility. Standing up a remote operations center used to control, manage, and monitor multiple highly automated vehicles is an important step towards realizing the advanced air mobility vision. At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Langley Research Center, a remote operation center exists and has been tested using humans piloting simulated vehicles. In this paper, we explore the human element within live flight operations that rely on increasingly automated technologies. Four ground control station operators performed multiple live flight operations. We employed a naturalistic approach and relied on qualitative data such as interviews and discussions with subject matter experts to help facilitate discovery. The present work evaluates the functions that the human and the automation had during the live operations, lists psychological constructs that may have promoted or reduced task performance, and provides recommendations on design of the remote operations environment and training of future ground control station operators.

Advanced Air Mobility↗