Activity Planning for the Phoenix Mars Lander Mission

Fox, Jason M.; McCurdy, Michael

doi:10.1109/aero.2007.352951

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All adaptations make heavy use of "Spacecraft ephemeris, Planetary ephemeris, Instruments, C Pointing Matrix, Event Info" (SPICE) integration, which provides essential geometric information that serves as an input to every other subsystem model [11]. Though not used for the presented Lander simulations, APGen has been shown to be flexible and able to work with other scheduling systems on prior surface missions like Phoenix [12].…”

Section: A Activity Plan Generator Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Europa Lander Concept: High fidelity system modeling informing flight system and concept of operations years before launch

Lawler

Wissler

Kulkarni

et al. 2018

2018 SpaceOps Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Activity Plan Generator Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Europa Lander Concept: High fidelity system modeling informing flight system and concept of operations years before launch

Lawler

Wissler

Kulkarni

et al. 2018

2018 SpaceOps Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…LASPI was developed in-house at the University of Western Ontario's Centre for Planetary Science and Exploration. A LASPI output plan for the fourth day of the deployment is shown in Fig 9. This tool, similar in concept to the Phoenix Project's Phoenix Science Interface (PSI) (Fox and McCurdy, 2007) proved invaluable for documenting requested activities. Following the uplink of commands at each DDULT, a copy of the LASPI plan would be published on the wiki and subpages would automatically be created for each activity requested.…”

Section: The Lunar Analogue Science Planning Interface (Laspi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Mission Control Architecture for robotic lunar sample return as field tested in an analogue deployment to the sudbury impact structure

Moores

Francis

Mader

et al. 2012

Advances in Space Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Mission Control Architecture is presented for a Robotic Lunar Sample Return Mission which builds upon the experience of the landed missions of the NASA Mars Exploration Program. This architecture consists of four separate processes working in parallel at Mission Control and achieving buy-in for plans sequentially instead of simultaneously from all members of the team. These four processes were: Science Processing, Science Interpretation, Planning and Mission Evaluation. Science Processing was responsible for creating products from data downlinked from the field and is organized by instrument. Science Interpretation was responsible for determining whether or not science goals are being met and what measurements need to be taken to satisfy these goals. The Planning process, responsible for scheduling and sequencing observations, and the Evaluation process that fostered inter-process communications, reporting and documentation assisted these processes. This organization is advantageous for its flexibility as shown by the ability of the structure to produce plans for the rover every two hours, for the rapidity with which Mission Control team members may be trained and for the relatively small size of each individual team. This architecture was tested in an analogue mission to the Sudbury impact structure from June 6-17, 2011. A rover was used which was capable of developing a network of locations that could be revisited using a teach and repeat method. This allowed the science team to process several different outcrops in parallel, downselecting at each stage to ensure that the samples selected for caching were the most representative of the site. Over the course of 10 days, 18 rock samples were collected from 5 different outcrops, 182 individual field activities -such as roving or acquiring an image mosaic or other data product -were completed within 43 command cycles, and the rover travelled over 2,200 m. Data transfer from communications passes were filled to 74%. Sample triage was simulated to allow down-selection to 1kg of material for return to Earth.

show abstract

“…Current ground data systems for robotic missions are a useful analog for these future concepts. One example of using state-of-the-art human-computer interaction methods for design is the Phoenix Science Interface, which was used for tactical activity planning by the science team for the Phoenix Mars lander mission (Fox & McCurdy, 2007;McCurdy et al, 2006).…”

Section: Human-technology Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Performance in Space

Jones¹

2010

Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human factors is a critical discipline for human spaceflight. Nearly every human factors research area is relevant to space exploration-from the ergonomics of hand tools used by astronauts, to the displays and controls of a spacecraft cockpit or mission control workstation, to levels of automation designed into rovers on Mars, to organizational issues of communication between crew and ground. This chapter focuses more on the ways in which the space environment (especially altered gravity and the isolated and confined nature of longduration spaceflight) affects crew performance and thus has specific novel implications for human factors research and practice. We focus on four aspects of human performance: neurovestibular integration, motor control and musculoskeletal effects, cognitive effects, and behavioral health. We also provide a sampler of recent human factors studies from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.Thi s chapter looks at exploration of space from a human factors perspective, with a focus on the astronaut crew as the primary user population of interest. Like other complex work domains such as aviation, air traffic management, health care, homeland security, and vehicle control, space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues-for example, human-automation interaction, telerobotics, display and control design, usability, anthropometry, biomechanics, safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness, crew resource management, methods for cognitive work analysis, and habitability-are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, spacecraft designers, manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (Connors, Harrison, & Akins, 1985Harrison, 2001;Morphew, Balmer, & Khoury, 2001;Rathjen et al., 2008). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on some of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

show abstract

Activity Planning for the Phoenix Mars Lander Mission

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

Europa Lander Concept: High fidelity system modeling informing flight system and concept of operations years before launch

Europa Lander Concept: High fidelity system modeling informing flight system and concept of operations years before launch

A Mission Control Architecture for robotic lunar sample return as field tested in an analogue deployment to the sudbury impact structure

Human Performance in Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About