The ECSS Standard on Space Segment Operability

Schmidt, Maximilian

doi:10.2514/6.2004-695-504

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FDIR in the self-reconfigurable GNC is achieved by each individual service performing tailored FDIR techniques on Table 1 The levels of onboard autonomy [1] Level of onboard autonomy Description Name E1…”

Section: A Application Layermentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontology-Based Self-Reconfiguring Guidance, Navigation, and Control for Planetary Rovers

Burroughes

Gao

2016

Journal of Aerospace Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Certain limitations exist in autonomous software and guidance, navigation, and control architectures developed for extraterrestrial planetary exploration rovers in regard to fault tolerance, changes in environment, and changes in rover capabilities. To address these limitations, this paper outlines a self-reconfiguring guidance, navigation, and control architecture, using an ontology-based rational agent to enable autonomous reconfiguration of mission goals, software architecture, software components, and the control of hardware components during the run time. This new architecture was evaluated through implementation onboard a rover and tested in challenging, Mars-like environments, both simulated and real world, and was found to be highly reliable, fault tolerant, and adaptable

show abstract

Section: A Application Layermentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontology-Based Self-Reconfiguring Guidance, Navigation, and Control for Planetary Rovers

Burroughes

Gao

2016

Journal of Aerospace Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, autonomy can be regarded as not only being a high level system feature, but can be broken down to systems, subsystems and functions, in other words, different elements can feature quite different degrees of autonomous operations. In the frame of an ECSS (European Cooperation for Space Standardisation) working group on S/C Operability [4,5], spacecraft autonomy has been preliminarily categorised to into three major areas of operation:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchical FDIR Concepts in S/C Systems

Geßner¹,

Kosters²,

Hefler³

et al. 2004

Space OPS 2004 Conference

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for advanced autonomous operations in spacecraft systems recently has significantly increased, not only in deep space missions as e.g. the ESA projects MarsExpress or Rosetta where autonomy is inherent, but also for Earth Observation and other missions, since there is increasing interest to reduce operational costs.In order to implement S/C autonomy, a hierarchical FDIR architecture needs to be in place to support the overall system autonomy during nominal operations ("nominal autonomy") and during non-nominal operations ("failure case autonomy"). Nominal autonomy is usually supported by means of a mission timeline or mission planning driven concept, where different implementations can be conceived, depending on the respective mission goals. More sophisticated methods are required, if failure cases have to be considered. In this case the autonomy and FDIR implementation depends on the specific mission requirements and can vary from high levels of autonomy with automatic reconfigurations of S/C systems or subsystems to lower levels of autonomy, in which the spacecraft is switched to a safe state. In addition to the traditional FDIR complexity for deep space missions due to contact limitations and special manoeuvres as e.g. orbit insertions, also for Earth observation there is an increasing tendency to apply more complex autonomy and FDIR concepts in order to reduce the operational costs on ground. This paper presents concepts of hierarchical FDIR based on the experiences from ongoing ESA projects and addresses the required resources to cope with various autonomy requirements. The hierarchical FDIR concept is characterised by the definition of specifically acting instances and clearly defined interfaces between those instances as the individual FDIR levels. Usually the highest FDIR level is in charge of the execution of vital functions to ensure the S/C integrity, while lower level hierarchies operate on system or subsystem level and are usually software driven. A very important aspect in this context is the increased level of technological know-how regarding the FDIR implementation. The presented project examples show, that the overall system FDIR is usually implemented by means of hardware and software resources with a high level of "crosstalk" between both. As a consequence, each of the spacecraft subsystems needs to implement parts of the overall FDIR architecture.

show abstract