Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Imde Design Features
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Software Engineering

The Challenge of Configuring Model-Based Space Mission Planners

Profile image of John ChachereJohn Chachere

2011

Abstract

Mission planning is central to space mission operations and has benefited from advances in model-based planning software, but developing a planning model still remains a difficult task. Mission planning constraints arise from many sources, including simulators and engineering specification documents. Ensuring that these constraints are correctly represented in the planner’s model is a challenge. As mission constraints evolve, planning domain modelers must add and update model constraints efficiently using the available source data, catching errors quickly, and correcting the model. We describe the current state of the practice in designing model-based mission planning tools and the challenges facing model developers. We then propose an Interactive Model Development Environment (IMDE) to configure mission planning systems by integrating modeling and simulation environments to reduce model editing time, generate simulations automatically to evaluate plans, and identify modeling errors...

Related papers

ASPEN-Automated Planning and Scheduling for Space Mission Operation
Ben Smith

2000

This paper describes the ASPEN system for automation of planning and scheduling for space mission operations. ASPEN contains a number of innovations including: an expressive but easy to use modeling language, multiple search (inference) engines, iterative repair suited for mixed-initiative human in loop operations, real-time replanning and response (in the CASPER system), and plan optimization. ASPEN is being used for the Citizen Explorer (CX-1) (August 2000 launch) and the 2 nd Antarctic Mapping Missions (AMM-2) (September 2000). ASPEN has also been used to automate ground communications stations -automating generation of tracking plans for the Deep Space Terminal (DS-T). ASPEN has been used to demonstrate automated command generation and onboard planning for rovers and is currently being evaluated for operational use for the Mars-01 Marie Curie rover mission. CASPER, the soft real-time versions of ASPEN, has been demonstrated with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Mission Data Systems (MDS) Control Architecture prototypes. .

View PDFchevron_right
Data Management, Collaboration, and Model Integration for Space Exploration System Analysis and Design
Ivo Ferreira

& Proceedings 저널· 프로시딩즈| 기술보고서| 해외연구 …

SpaceNet, an open source logistics simulation tool for analyzing space exploration logistics. SpaceNet requires input data to specify nodes, edges, resources, and elements used in a space exploration definition. These types of data are commonly stored in a database for use across several exploration scenarios. However, managing the data in raw spreadsheet formats can be error-prone due to notations and data conventions, time-consuming to specify crossreferenced objects for hierarchical data representations, and cannot leverage collaboration between multiple users without manual integration.

View PDFchevron_right
Representing Spacecraft Mission Planning Knowledge in ASPEN
Ben Smith

1998

Automated planning technologies show great promise of reducing operations costs by automating the spacecraft mission planning process. However, one of the bottlenecks is acquiring spacecraft operations knowledge from operations personnel and expressing it in a plan model. One of the primary design goals of the AS-PEN planning language is to eliminate the knowledge acquisition bottleneck by making it easy for operations personnel to build plan models themselves.

View PDFchevron_right
Software Companion: The MEXAR2 Support to Space Mission Planners
Nicola Policella

2006

This paper describes a fielded AI system in daily use at the European Space Agency (ESA-ESOC) since February 2005. The tool, named MEXAR2, provides continuous support to human mission planners in synthesizing plans for downlinking on-board memory data from the MARS EXPRESS spacecraft to Earth.

View PDFchevron_right
SAC-D / Aquarius Mission Automated Plan Generation and Execution Validation
Marcelo Oglietti

2013

SAC-D/Aquarius is a joint satellite space mission with CONAE and NASA as main partners. For this mission, a distributed planning approach has been operational since the spacecraft launch on June 10, 2011. In this paper we describe the representation used by the distributed planning system that runs at the Mission Operations Center. We describe how this representation is exploited for automatic generation of all activities related with periodic orbital events and for an automatic verification of a successful plan execution. The former takes advantage of an abstraction layer provided by the planning system and the latter is based on the model inside the planning system that connects all activities considered when planning with their detailed implementation.

View PDFchevron_right
An Innovative Product for Space Mission Planning: An A Posteriori Evaluation
Angelo Oddi

2007

This paper describes MEXAR2, a software tool that is currently used to synthesize the operational commands for data downlink from the on-board memory of an interplanetary space mission spacecraft to the ground stations. The tool has been in daily use by the Mission Planning Team of MARS EXPRESS at the European Space Agency since early 2005. Goal of this paper is to present a quick overview of how the planning and scheduling problem has been addressed, a complete application customized and put into context in the application environment. Then it concentrates on describing more in detail how a core solver has been enriched to create a tool that easily allows users to generate diversified plans for the same problem by handling a set of control parameters, called heuristic modifiers, that insert heuristic bias on the generated solutions. A set of experiments is presented that describes how such modifiers affect the solving process.

View PDFchevron_right
Automated Planning for Spacecraft and Mission Design
Ben Smith

… Automation and Control, 2000

Mission design engineers identify a spacecraft design and mission plan that best achieves the mission objectives while staying within cost, mass, and operability constraints. It is often easiest to evaluate a spacecraft design in the context of a detailed ...

View PDFchevron_right
Usage of Interactive Simulators in Support of Planetary Science Operations Planning
Jorge Diaz del Rio

SpaceOps 2010 Conference<br> <b><i>Delivering on the Dream</b></i><br> <i>Hosted by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and Organized by AIAA</i>, 2010

This paper presents a solution for interactivity between different simulators (geometry, environmental, payload, or spacecraft) and planning engines (machine to machine interaction: planners, schedulers, constraint checkers) or planning engineers (human to machine interaction) for supporting Planetary Science Operations Planning, demonstrating that the interactivity is possible and that it can be implemented within the Planetary Missions Science Ground Segments and easily extended to any Space Science Ground Segment. Nomenclature t computational time, seconds N Number of seconds in a confinement window n Number of quantities or parameters to compute ϑ Computational time quantity, parameter-dependent, seconds Θ Average computational for a quantity independently of the parameter, seconds T OWmin Minimum duration of an observation, seconds M Number of time periods of T OWmin where a root has been found Subscript i Variable number

View PDFchevron_right
Model-based trade space exploration for near-Earth space missions
Wayne Boncyk

2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Toward Real-World Science Mission Planning
Barney Pell

1994

In this paper we describe the use of our planning and scheduling framework, HSTS, to support science mission planning. This work is part of an overall project to enable a small team of scientists to control the operations of a spacecraft. The present process is essentially carried out by human operators. Users (scientists and operators) rely on a non-codified understanding of the different spacecraft subsystems and of their operating constraints. They use a variety of software tools to support their decision making process. A successful use of AI planning and scheduling technology must consider the types of decision making that need to be supported/automated, the nature of the domain constraints and the capabilities needed to address them successfully, and the nature of external software systems with which the core planning/scheduling engine needs to interact.

View PDFchevron_right

References (26)

  1. Aghevli, A., Bachmann, A., Bresina, J.L., Greene, J., Kanefsky, R., Kurien, J.,McCurdy, M., Morris, P.H., Pyrzak, G., Ratterman, C., Vera, A., Wragg. S., Planning Applications for Three Mars Missions. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space. Baltimore, MD, 2007.
  2. Barltrop, K., Clement, B., Horvath, G., and Lee, C. Automated Test Case Selection for Flight Systems using Genetic Algorithms. Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference, 2010.
  3. Barreiro, B., Chachere, J., Frank, J., Bertels C., and Crocker A. Constraint and Flight Rule Management for Space Mission Operations. International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation in Space, 2010.
  4. Barrett, A., Bass, D., Laubach, S., and Mishkin, A. A Retrospective Snapshot of the Planning Processes in MER Operations After 5 Years. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space. 2009.
  5. Barrett, A. and Dvorak, D. A Combinatorial Test Suite Generator for Gray-Box Testing, IEEE SMC-IT 2009.
  6. Bell, S., Kortenkamp, D., and Zaientz, J. A Data Abstraction Architecture for Mission Operations. In Proc. of the International Symposium on AI, Robotics, and Automation in Space, 2010.
  7. Boddy, M., Carpenter, T., Shackleton, H., Nelson, K. System- Level Autonomy Trust Enabler (SLATE), In Proc. of the U.S. Air Force T&E Days, AIAA, Los Angeles, CA, Feb, 2008.
  8. Brat, G., Gheorghiu, M, , Giannakopoulou, D., "Verification of Plans and Procedures," In Proc. of IEEE Aerospace Conf., 2008.
  9. Bresina, J., Jónsson, A., Morris, P., and Rajan, K. 2005. Activity planning for the Mars Exploration Rovers. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, Monterey CA, USA, June 5-10, 2005, S. Biundo, K. Myers, K. Rajan, Eds. AAAI, Menlo Park, CA., USA 40-49.
  10. Carraway, J., Squibb, G., Larson, W. Mission Operations. In Wetz, J. and Larsen, W. Space Mission Analysis and Design (3d edition). Microcosm Press, El Segundo, CA, p. 587-620, 1999.
  11. Cesta, A., Finzi, A., Fratini, S., Orlandini, A., Tronci, E. Validation and Verification Issues in a Timeline-Based Planning System. Knowledge Engineering Review, 25(3): 299-318, 2010.
  12. S. Chien, R. Sherwood, D. Tran, B. Cichy, G. Rabideau, R. Castano, A. Davies, D. Mandl, S. Frye, B. Trout, S. Shulman, and D. Boyer. Using Autonomy Flight Software to Improve Science Return on Earth Observing One. Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, 2005.
  13. Chien, S. A. Static and Completion Analysis for Planning Knowledge Base Development and Verification. In Proc. of 3 rd Int'l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems. 1996. Cichy, B., Chien, S., Schaffer, S., Tran, D., Rabideau, G., Sherwood, R. Validating the Autonomous EO-1 Science Agent In: Int'l Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space. 2004. Clement, B., Durfee, E., Barrett, A. Abstract Reasoning for Planning and Coordination. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 28, 453-515, 2007.
  14. Clement, B. and Johnston. M., The Deep Space Network Scheduling Problem. In Proceedings of the 17 th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, 2005. Cresswell, S., McCluskey, T. L., and West, M. M. Acquiring planning domain models using LOCM. Knowledge Engineering Review, 2012, to appear. desJardins, M. Knowledge Development Methods for Planning Systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Planning and Learning, New Orleans, 1994.
  15. Fox, M. & Long, D. PDDL2.1: An extension of PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 61-124, 2003.
  16. Garcia, G., Barnoy, A., Beech, T., Saylor, R., Cosgrove, J., Ritter, S. Mission Planning and Scheduling for NASA's Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter. In Proceedings of the Ground Systems Automation Workshop, 2009.
  17. Howey, R. and Long, D. and Fox, M. VAL: automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using PDDL. In Proc. ICTAI. pp. 15-17, Nov 2004.
  18. Izygon, M., Kortenkamp, D., Molin, A., "A Procedure Integrated Development Environment for Future Spacecraft and Habitats," Space Technology and Applications International Forum, 2008.
  19. Knight, R., Chouinard, C., Jones, G., and Tran, D. Planning and Scheduling Challenges for Orbital Express. In Proceedings of the Inte'l Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space. 2009.
  20. Ko, A., Maldague, P., Page, D., Bixler, J., Lever, S., and Cheung, K. M. Design and Architecture of Planning and Sequence System for Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Operations. In Proceedings of the AIAA Space Conference. 2004.
  21. Long, D., Fox, M., and Howey, R. Planning Domains and Plans: Validation, Verification and Analysis. In Proc. Workshop on V&V of Planning and Scheduling Systems, 2009.
  22. Raimondi, F., Pecheur, C., and Brat, G. PDVer, a Tool to Verify PDDL Planning Domains. In Proc. Workshop on Verification and Validation of Planning and Scheduling Systems, ICAPS, 2009.
  23. Reddy, S., Frank, J., Iatauro, M., Boyce, M., Kurklu, E., Ai Chang, M., Jonsson, A. Planning Solar Array Operations on the International Space Station. Special Issue on Applications of Automated Planning, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2011.
  24. Tompkins, P.D., Hunt, R., D'Ortenzio, M., Strong, J., Galal, K., Bresina, J., Foreman, D., Barber, R., Munger, J., and Drucker, E. Flight Operations for the LCROSS Lunar Impactor Mission. In Proceedings of AIAA Space Conference(SpaceOps) 2010.
  25. Vaquero, T., Romero, V., Sette, F., Tonidandel, F., Reinaldo Silva, J. ItSimple 2.0: An Integrated Tool for Designing Planning Domains. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling, 2007.
  26. Yen, J., Cooper, B., Hartman, F., Maxwell, S., Wright, J., Leger, C. Physical Based Simulation for Mars Exploration Rover Tactical Sequencing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Space Mission Challenges, 2005

Related papers

Deploying Interactive Mission Planning Tools- Experiences and Lessons Learned
Simone Fratini

Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics

This article contains a retrospective overview of connected work performed for the European Space Agency (ESA) over a span of 10 years. We have been creating and refining an AI approach to problem solving and have infused a series of deployed planning and scheduling systems which have innovated the agency’s mission planning practice. The goal of this paper is to identify strong features of this experience, comment on general lessons learned and offer guidelines for work practice of the future. Specifically, the work considers some key points that have contributed to strengthening the effectiveness of our approach for the development of an end-to-end methodology to field applications: the attention to domain modeling, the constraint-based algorithm synthesis and the relevance of user interaction services.

View PDFchevron_right
Deploying Interactive Mission Planning Tools
Simone Fratini

This article contains a retrospective overview of connected work performed for the European Space Agency (ESA) over a span of 10 years. We have been creating and rening an AI approach to problem solving and injected a series of deployed planning and scheduling systems which have innovated agency's mission planning practice. Goal of the paper is to identify general lessons learned and guidelines for work practice of the future. Specically, the work dwells on issue related to some key points that have contributed to strengthen the effectiveness of our approach: the attention to domain modeling, the constraintbased algorithm synthesis, and the development of an endto-end methodology to eld applications. Desirable features of space applications useful for protable and successful deployment on different ground segment operations are also discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
The Challenge of Grounding Planning in Simulation with an Interactive Model Development Environment
John Chachere

2011

A principal obstacle to fielding automated planning systems is the difficulty of modeling. Physical systems are modeled conventionally based on specification documents and the modeler’s understanding of the system. Thus, the model is developed in a way that is disconnected from the system’s actual behavior and is vulnerable to manual error. Another obstacle to fielding planners is testing and validation. For a space mission, generated plans must be validated often by translating them into command sequences that are run in a simulation testbed. Testing in this way is complex and onerous because of the large number of possible plans and states of the spacecraft. Though, if used as a source of domain knowledge, the simulator can ease validation. This paper poses a challenge: to ground planning models in the system physics represented by simulation. A proposed, interactive model development environment illustrates the integration of planning and simulation to meet the challenge. This in...

View PDFchevron_right
An Interactive Problem Solving Tool for Mission Planning
N. Policella

2003

This paper gives a short overview of a software system developed to support mission planning tasks in the ESA program called Mars-Express. A system named Mexar is described that synthesizes spacecraft operation commands for downlinking the on-board memory according to mission planners requirements. The tool is based on a constraintbased representation, a family of problem solving algorithms and a sophisticated user frontend that allows to understand and manipulate different features of both the current problem and the proposed solution.

View PDFchevron_right
A Visual Integrated Development Environment for Automated Planning Domain Models
Jim Ong

AIAA SPACE 2013 Conference and Exposition, 2013

Automated planning software uses symbolic reasoning techniques and models of the planning domain to generate plans. Execution systems execute these plans to perform tasks or achieve goals, subject to constraints imposed by physical laws, resource limits, and environmental conditions and flight rules. Automated planning can support autonomous operations of spacecraft, habitats, and space launch systems. The Action Notation Modeling Language (ANML) is a relatively new language developed by NASA for specifying planning domain models. Developing and maintaining good planning domain models is challenging and critical to the success of applying applying automated planning technology to support autonomous systems. We developed an integrated development environment (IDE) to help modelers enter, review, test, debug, maintain, and enhance ANML planning domain models as well as review and understand ANML models developed by others. The IDE is implemented in the Java programming language using the Eclipse and Xtext open source frameworks for developing integrated development environments (IDEs). The IDE provides a syntax-aware text-based editor that color-codes ANML text based on its syntactic type, flags errors and warnings, supports browsing, suggests code completions, and provides online help. It automatically detects and highlights problems such as syntax errors, type mismatches, references to undefined variables, and incorrect numbers or types of arguments in references to variables and actions. In addition, the IDE provides graphical displays that help modelers see important patterns and relationships among planning variables and actions. An evaluation showed that PM/IDE significantly reduced the time needed to create ANML models. The syntax highlighting and tooltips helped modelers avoid many syntax errors, and the visualizations helped modelers identify logic errors and other semantic issues.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Engineering
  • Configuration Management
  • Systems Integration
  • Systems Simulation
  • Space Missions
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved