RobertShendock102406

Automated Mission Planning and Scheduling (AMPS) Support of Autonomous Operations for the ST5 Constellation: 

Automated Mission Planning and Scheduling (AMPS) Support of Autonomous Operations for the ST5 Constellation Terri Wood / NASA GSFC Robert Shendock / SGT, Inc Jenny Williams / CSC

Preface: 

Preface ST5 validated some interoperability and distributed control operations concepts intended to lower operational costs and risks Interoperability Distributed message bus to loosely interconnect mission components on the ground and provide “plug and play” capability Form basis of future mission Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Distributed mission control Used self-managing, autonomous software components to validate concept for managing increasingly complex missions

Introduction: 

Introduction The Mission What new technologies were used to support it Challenges in using the application An approach to modeling that worked How well did the technologies support mission objectives Requirements/problems solved Improvements to mission cost/quality What methods were used to infuse new technologies Technical & cultural issues Approaches to infusion that worked & didn’t

Mission Overview: 

Mission Overview 3 spacecraft launched 22MAR06 300 X 4500 km orbit 10.5 orbits per day Same transmitter freq Supported by DSN and GN GN Support 2 contacts / spacecraft / day McMurdo Ground Station (MGS) DSN Support (34 meter) 1 contact / spacecraft / day Primarily Canberra (DSS-34)

Mission Operations RequirementsMotivation for Automated Mission Planning System: 

Mission Operations Requirements Motivation for Automated Mission Planning System Maintain the health and safety of three spacecraft. Recover at least 80% of the recorded data. To design, develop, test and operate a ground segment supporting multiple spacecraft acting as a single constellation. Develop ground software to automate constellation operations. Demonstrate concepts for autonomous constellation management and autonomous operations from the ground. Perform "lights out" operations during which time no intervention by ground personnel is required to operate the constellation or maintain the health and safety of the spacecraft.

New Technologies Supporting P&S: 

New Technologies Supporting P&S Infused GMSEC architecture to facilitate data transfer Middleware served as generic messaging interface between components Provided easy scalability (plug & play) of ground system Implemented Model-based operations to meet mission objectives, reduce staff and minimize risk Simulink ST-5 (ROME) modeling of constrained resource utilization For ST5, MATLAB models generated for Solid State Recorders, RF Link and Power Automated Mission Planning System (AMPS) provided planning for near real-time autonomous re-planning Operations Overview

GMSEC Component Catalog: 

GMSEC Component Catalog Technologies GMSEC Interoperable Catalog Components GMSEC approach gives users choices for the components in their system. ST5 added or enhanced key components in the GMSEC catalog.

Technologies ST5 Architecture: 

Technologies ST5 Architecture

TechnologiesGMSEC Architecture: 

Technologies GMSEC Architecture GSFC Mission Services Evolution Center (GMSEC) coordinates data systems development & services Standardized Interfaces and Messages (not components) COTS or in-house tools have the same key interface definitions To provide for plug-and-play modules that can be integrated quickly and to allow the “trading” of components with other organizations Middleware Provide message-based communications services on a bus Makes it much easier to add new tools, reduce integration effort GMSEC focuses on the Architecture and Interfaces Traditional development organizations still own their domain areas Create a system from GMSEC offerings, populate the databases, add mission unique features

Technologies Mission Planning Centric: 

Technologies Mission Planning Centric Automated Mission Planning System (AMPS) provides constellation and autonomous operations support Plans integrated spacecraft stored command, spacecraft real-time command, and GSE directives One product showing all planned activities Supports integrated planning for all constellation spacecraft One product for the constellation Provides a command/ directive interface with other applications What you scheduled is what is executed GMSEC Apps GMSEC Bus Model-Based Ops CMD/TLM System AMPS User Rules User Requests

Technologies Model Based Operations: 

Technologies Model Based Operations Real-time Object Modeling Executive (ROME) Supports multiple models and multiple spacecraft Leverages common engineering modeling environments Models from various sources are easily integrated Fully supports GMSEC bus Models initialized and maintained from telemetry Model control via configuration file or bus directive Results available to GMSEC subscribers Easily configured via XML Highly scalable GMSEC Apps GMSEC Bus Planning System CMD/TLM System Matlab / Simulink Model Model Model ROME

Technologies Allocate responsibilities: 

Technologies Allocate responsibilities Applications provide integrated support for space and ground segments Planning system defines planned on-board absolute time command sequences and real-time ground sequences Ground segment supports more dynamic spacecraft management capabilities System can assess and respond to changing spacecraft and ground states Autonomy provided by the on-board Flight Software was judiciously utilized Auto operations support was applied where best suited Allocation based on availability of functional capabilities and state information

Technologies Challenges: 

Technologies Challenges Define a reasonable operations concept System approach to technology integration while minimizing risk ST5: Restrict the scope of the work to be performed (cost / benefit analysis) Consider quality of heritage capabilities during system design Assure data is available when and where it is needed System analysis resulting in application and interface specification ST5: Defined the what, where, when and quality of data; assigned functional requirements accordingly Find the right people to develop the application database By definition, new technology applications do not have a large pool of experienced people to draw from ST5: No good solution

Technologies Challenges 2: 

Technologies Challenges 2 Develop a reasonable test environment for meaningful durations Local simulators usually not good in simulating networks or space link environments ST5: Test it like you’ll fly it. Utilized FlatSat simulator and conducted Operational Simulations using the fullest ground system available Support refinement of the application following launch FOT product type refinements as well as application developer support ST5: Didn’t do the best, FOT staffing lean, developer money short – paid the price in diminished performance

TechnologiesModeling Notes: 

Technologies Modeling Notes Finding the resources for model development Modeling is expensive but done during the mission life cycle ST5: Took what was available & utilized students and contractor support to build additional models Generation and transfer of analysis derived from the models to the user Get the needed analytical results when & where they are needed ST5: Developed a system to initialize, execute and distribute the resulting analysis in a useable form Maintaining the fidelity of the model Modeled environments change with time, lack of maintenance frequently kills high fidelity models ST5: Developed a system to autonomously maintain configuration & performance parameters based on spacecraft & ground system data

Mission Support Approach to Supporting Mission Objectives: 

Mission Support Approach to Supporting Mission Objectives Devise and validate a plan off-line Plan is directly executed for automated control of ground and space segments Provide self-updating predictive models Support plan validation off-line Report changes in constrained resource availability in real-time Autonomously re-plan in real-time in response to reported changes in resource availability Operations Overview

Mission Support Using Model-Based Operations: 

Mission Support Using Model-Based Operations Inserting model-based predictive software within the control loop yields higher quality Command and Control of space-borne platforms Validation of operator generated plan of activities (UDAP) Self-updating, or ‘tuning’, models for accuracy over mission lifecycle

Mission Support AMPS Generated Integrated Activity Plan: 

Mission Support AMPS Generated Integrated Activity Plan Typical contact Spacecraft stored commands Real-time spacecraft commands GSE directives Orbital, scheduling & planning events Note “as scheduled” release entry Operations Overview Time (GMT) S/C Application Type User Defined Data

Mission Support Long-Term Mission Planning ROME Profile: 

Mission Support Long-Term Mission Planning ROME Profile During the off-line planning process: Develop a proposed plan Generate ROME model profiles Adjust the plan based on profile results Re-profile using the revised plan Commit the plan once violations are resolved

Mission Support Real-Time Mission Planning ROME Profile: 

Mission Support Real-Time Mission Planning ROME Profile During the real-time execution process: Generate short-term ROME model profiles Generate alarm messages if user-defined thresholds are violated Mission planning system adjusts plan to avoid (minimize) threshold violation

Mission Support Real-Time AMPS Re-Plan: 

Mission Support Real-Time AMPS Re-Plan Post-pass Activity Plan “AS RUN” Release request modified from 2 to 1 in response to ROME alarm

Mission Support Summary: Checking & Using the Plan: 

Mission Support Summary: Checking & Using the Plan Operations Overview

Mission Support How Well Did We Do: Mission Metrics: 

Mission Support How Well Did We Do: Mission Metrics

Mission Support Solutions & Improvements: 

Mission Support Solutions & Improvements Problems were solved / requirements met Exceeded all mission requirements Maintained health and safety throughout the mission Recovered 93% of the data for the entire mission System supported the mission throughout at increasing levels of automation Successfully conducted at least one full Operational Week of “lights out” operations Improvements to the mission realized Reduced off-shift staffing requirement Reduced complexity of operations Minimized “trivial’ errors

Infusion of New TechnologiesTechnological / Cultural Issues: 

Infusion of New Technologies Technological / Cultural Issues Utilization of existing technologies may not be fully implemented in your environment Master available capabilities and demonstrate utility / worthlessness before pressing on In situations where controllers become uncomfortable with the current situation, they instinctively disable the new technology This generally created an environment where the probability of operator error increased The team needs to undergo a true end-to-end cultural shift – understanding & feeling comfortable with the new technologies Has resulted in the premature death of multiple “sound” technologies

Infusion of New TechnologiesApproaches That Worked: 

Infusion of New Technologies Approaches That Worked Support of management makes all the difference Keep all levels of project management well informed Work system design, development & test with a knowledge of and in parallel with spacecraft development Consider a Spacecraft Controller Team (test conductor / controller) approach Define and mitigate risks during all mission phases Be well prepared, have sound mitigation approaches Apply an appropriate level of engineering to the project Engineers like to over-design, ops likes it simple, easy and as it was Explicitly define a realistic and consistent scope

Infusion of New TechnologiesApproaches That Worked 2: 

Infusion of New Technologies Approaches That Worked 2 Knowledge is power, but action requires knowledge and control authority Analyze the detailed what, where, when and quality of your data Send data to the most logical agent for action Provide the most logical agent for action with the authority to effect change Define reasonable mission requirements From a project perspective, if it isn’t a requirement, it may not get done From a project perspective, if it is a requirement, it better get done Provide a quality toolset, have the team use it often Each mission is “different”, provide the tools first, then the solution

Infusion of New TechnologiesApproaches That Worked 3: 

Infusion of New Technologies Approaches That Worked 3 Staff to meet your needs, build the team you need Pre-launch development is different from nominal mission Hire support staff capable and willing to nurture new technologies Test on the ground, budget for support in-flight Ground test will be incomplete by definition Budget and plan on support for the technologies in-flight Don’t be “out there” unless you’re required to be “out there”

Infusion of New TechnologiesApproaches That Don’t Work: 

Infusion of New Technologies Approaches That Don’t Work Assuming ops “buy in” if the intent is to reduce staff Very few people will work hard to put themselves or friends out of a job Most people will work to meet previously published requirements Poor risk management or presentation of risk mitigation Ops exposure is limited until Flight Ops Review, plan & present well If not correctly managed, risk reduction may equate to scope reduction or worse (RFAs) Propose sound requirements, develop a realistic implementation plan early on in the mission Expect to significantly advance new technologies if: They are “goals” (i.e. not required) You rely on real-time ops support to do it in their spare time

Contact Information: 

Contact Information Terry Wood NASA /GSFC Code 583 301-614-6432 Terri.Wood@gsfc.nasa.gov Bob Shendock SGT,Inc 301-883-4051 rshendock@sgt-inc.com Jenny Williams CSC 443-436-6934 jwillia7@csc.com