Improving Payload Operations for Science Missions

1
Improving Payload Operations for Science Missions

• Chaizy, P.A. Dimbylow, T.G. Hapgood, M.A.
  Hutchinson, M.G. Allan, P.M. A.F. Chadwick
• Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
• (RAL)

2
Introduction and Purpose

• What is this paper about? (1 of 4)
• It is about payload operation systems
• Which aims at planning routines payload
  activities
• To satisfy the objectives of the space mission
• Within the environmental and spacecraft
  constraints
• For scientific missions
• Such payload operation systems are called,
  hereafter, Science Operation Systems (SOS)
• Note we believe that many elements of this
  discussion should also be relevant for
  non-scientific missions, i.e. for missions
  involving any sort of routine payload operations.

3
Introduction and Purpose

• What is this paper about? (2 of 4)
• Typical SOS features
• There is one SOS per mission
• Each SOS generate a detailed and consolidated
  Science Operation Plan (SOP) which is a timeline
  of
• Spacecraft usage requests (e.g. like pointing
  requests)
• Payload commands
• It is a component of the space and ground segment

4
Introduction and Purpose

• What is this paper about? (3 of 4)
• The ground segment elements of the ESA SOSs (non
  co-located) are
• The scientific team(s) (ST) element responsible
  for the management of the scientific observations
• Experiment team(s) (ET) element responsible for
  the building and maintenance of the experiments
• The Science Operation Centre (SOC) element
  responsible for the science operations
• Flight Dynamic (FD) element responsible for the
  spacecraft trajectory and attitude
• The Mission Operation Centre (MOC) element
  responsible for the spacecraft operation
• The Ground Stations (GS) element responsible for
  the communication with the spacecraft

5
Introduction and Purpose

• What is this paper about? (4 of 4)

6
Introduction and Purpose

• What is the issue? (1 of 2)
• Discovery and competitiveness are the keywords in
  Europes policies and programs for space.
• This means that effort is required to
  continuously improve performance and productivity
  (PP) of ESAs activities, including SOS
  activities.

7
Introduction and Purpose

• What is the issue? (2 of 2)
• Improving PP of SOS
• Performance result obtained during the execution
  of a task (i.e. the type of science that is
  accessible) Ways of increasing performance
  include
• Increase of the data volume (e.g. for better
  statistics)
• Increase of the data quality (e.g. better target
  planning)
• Increase spacecraft autonomy (e.g. for
  unpredictable events)
• Productivity measurable ratio between a produced
  quantity and the means used to produce the
  latter typically by reducing design and
  implementation (DI) and running costs by, for
  instance
• Increasing the generic nature of the SOS
• Increasing automation and diagnostic support

8
Introduction and Purpose

• What is the purpose of this paper? (1 of 4)
• SOS are complex structures, requiring various
  fields of expertise
• Finding ways of continuously improving PP is a
  complex issue
• The above identification can be efficient only if
  a mechanism, aiming at such an identification, is
  developed.
• However, such a mechanism can be developed only
  if its requirements are first well established.
• This is why we believe that it is in the interest
  of ESA (at least) to finance a study to identify
  the requirements and pertinence of such a
  mechanism.

9
Introduction and Purpose

• What is the purpose of this paper? (2 of 4)
• Therefore, we propose that the European Space
  Agency finances a study whose purpose will be to
  assess the feasibility and requirements of a
  cost-effective mechanism that will efficiently
  improve performance and productivity for future
  SOS.

10
Introduction and Purpose

• What is the purpose of this paper? (3 of 4)
• In this talk, we have decided to name the
  mechanism in conformance with what we believe the
  features of such a mechanism should be, i.e. a
  Consultative Committee for Science Operation
  Systems, or CCSOS.

11
Introduction and Purpose

• What is the purpose of this paper? (4 of 4)
• The Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL)
  currently has a team of about 11 people
  coordinating, for the European Space Agency, the
  payload operations of 3 missions Cluster, Mars
  Express and Double Star (the latter in
  collaboration with the Chinese Space Agency).
• Based on that experience, we would like to
  discuss, in this paper, the following issues
• The study objective and implementation
• The expected key study outputs
• An example of what could be the CCSOS
  architecture
• An example of what could be the CCSOS output

12
Study Objectives Implementation

• Proposed study objectives
• To identify the requirements of the CCSOS
• The cost to implement and run the CCSOS
• Whether the CCSOS is cost-effective
• The time required to implement the CCSOS and an
  initial date to start the implementation
• The initial list of
• Organisations that should support the CCSOS
• Funding authorities

13
Study Objectives Implementation

• Proposed study implementation (1 of 3)
• In order to incorporate a maximum range of
  expertise, the CCSOS should be run by
  organisations involved in various types of
  missions, including
• PI driven missions such as Solar system or Earth
  observation missions
• Non-PI driven missions such as Astronomy missions
• Those organisations should be related to ESA but
  also to other space agencies to further increase
  the expertise.

14
Study Objectives Implementation

• Proposed study implementation (2 of 3)
• The total cost of the study will strongly depend
  on the number and field of competence of the
  partners involved.
• This information is currently unknown and must be
  an output of the study.
• We therefore believe that it is necessary to
  split the study into three phases
• One of the outputs from Phases 12 will be an
  assessment of the cost of the following phase.

15
Study Objectives Implementation

• Proposed study implementation (3 of 3)
• Phase 1 identification of the potential partners
  that could run the CCSOS this phase should
  include the following activities
• Identification of the list of potential partners
• Assessment of the cost of the second phase
• Phase 2 assessment of the interest of each of
  the potential partners this phase should include
  the following activities
• Drafting of an initial CCSOS feasibility
  assessment
• Sending of the draft assessment to each potential
  partner and assess with the latter, one by one,
  their interest and funding capabilities. This
  activity will require several iterations between
  each partner.
• Assessment of the cost of the third phase
• Phase 3 finalisation of the draft assessment
  with the interested partners (involve cross
  partner iterations)

16
Expected Key Study Outputs

• Key CCSOS requirements (1 of 4)
• SOS DI are highly dependent on
• The fundamental requirements of science
  operations
• The always-evolving
• Science objectives (i.e. the purpose)
• Available technology (i.e. the means).

17
Expected Key Study Outputs

• Key CCSOS requirements (2 of 4)
• Therefore, we should expect that the CCSOS key
  requirements include
• The identification of the SOS fundamental
  requirements
• The delivery of a framework to DI SOS
• The identification of the domains requiring
  further research and development to improve SOS
  PP
• A typical example is research and development in
  planning tools, particularly to develop automated
  generic software to generate the SOP.

18
Expected Key Study Outputs

• Key CCSOS requirements (3 of 4)
• The SOS fundamental requirements should be
  established at conceptual level, i.e. they should
  be
• Static i.e.
• Independent of the SOS DI i.e. of the specific
  science objectives and technology
• Supported by the experience gained during the
  execution of current and past SOS

19
Expected Key Study Outputs

• Key CCSOS requirements (4 of 4)
• The framework should
• Be dynamic
• Since DI are
• Dependent on technology and science objective
• Which evolve continuously
• Provide guidelines to improve SOS PP
• Satisfy the SOS fundamental requirements
• Determine what will be the SOS
• Architecture
• Tools
• Procedures

20
Expected Key Study Outputs

• SOS DI discussion
• SOS architecture
• Establishes the SOS sub-systems and the
  relationship between the ground and space segment
  elements and the SOS sub-systems
• Note that ESA is currently implementing a
  structural modification of its ground segment by
  co-locating some of the SOCs at Villafranca del
  Castillo, near Madrid (Spain)
• SOS tools are very sensitive to the progress made
  in various technologies and are used, for
  instance, to
• Reduce the amount of human resources required
• Perform tasks human cannot do
• Increase reliability
• SOS procedures describe the timeline of
  activities that lead to the generation of the SOP.

21
Example of CCSOS Architecture

• List of possible CCSOS sub-systems (1 of 2)
• A SOS fundamental requirements sub-system to
  identify and issue the SOS fundamental
  requirements. (e.g. brain storming sessions)
• A dynamic framework sub-system to manage the
  evolving content of the SOS DI framework. Its
  implementation could include components to
• Monitor the evolution of technology and science
  objective
• Issue proposals (e.g. via brain storming
  sessions)
• Validate the proposals
• A research and development sub-system to identify
  the areas to be developed to improve SOS PP

22
Example of CCSOS Architecture

• List of possible CCSOS sub-systems (2 of 2)
• An administrative sub-system to manage
• The content of the CCSOS variables such as
• The list of organisations which should support
  the CCSOS (e.g. space agencies to be involved,
  current SOCs and MOCs etc)
• The platform used to execute the CCSOS sub-system
  (e.g. brain storming sessions could be executed
  through a series of workshops)
• The list of funding authorities
• The CCSOS interfaces with the external bodies
  such as, for instance
• The contractual bodies to define, for instance,
  how to report, to get instructions or some
  funding
• Similar mechanisms dealing with non-scientific
  payload operations

23
Example of CCSOS outputs

• Introduction
• This discussion
• Could potentially be used as a starting point for
  the CCSOS
• Aims at illustrating the complexity inherent to
  the generation of SOP
• Based on our experience, it is possible to
  categorise the purpose of SOS into the following
  activities
• Generation of the SOP based on the content of the
  planning inputs
• Generation and implementation of the planning
  inputs

24
Example of CCSOS outputs

• The generation of the SOP
• It can be divided into two main activities
• The initial SOP generation SOP is made of
• A spacecraft usage plan
• Contains the timeline of optimised spacecraft
  usage (e.g. spacecraft resources and pointing)
• A command plan
• Contains the command timeline to be uplinked
• Does not violate the spacecraft usage plan (used
  as an input)
• The SOP update the possible types of updates
  are
• The re-optimisation of the plan, i.e. by
  executing a full (from scratch) or partial (i.e.
  repairing) re-planning (e.g. target of
  opportunity)
• The adaptation of its content i.e. without
  re-optimising the full plan (e.g. instrument fine
  tuning based on previous observations)
• Both of these, i.e. a plan re-optimisation
  followed by an adaptation

25
Example of CCSOS outputs

• The planning inputs
• They include
• The planning rules
• They are used to control the quality and validity
  of the SOP during the generation of the SOP (e.g.
  SOP optimisation criteria)
• The planning data
• They are used to generate the SOP and/or assess
  the feasibility of the science requests (e.g.
  orbital events)
• The experiment data
• This describes the operation of an experiment
  (e.g. experiment modes, resource usage, sequences
  to command mode transition...)

26
Summary and Conclusion

• A mechanism, such as the CCSOS, is needed
• ESA has financed the DI of SOCs, at ESTEC and
  RAL, to co-ordinate the science operations of
  missions such as Cluster, Double-Star, Mars
  Express at RAL and Rosetta, Venus Express and
  SMART 1 at ESTEC.
• To further develop this experience, for the
  current and future SOS, and to capitalise on the
  latter, some centralised coordination is
  required.
• This coordination should
• Be conducted by the CCSOS
• Increase SOS PP
• Be run by several partners such as
• Current ESA SOS ground segment elements
• European and non-European space agencies.

27
Summary and Conclusion

• We need to study the CCSOS feasibility!
• We are therefore convinced that allocating some
  resources to study the feasibility of such a
  CCSOS is mandatory to increase the likelihood of
  efficiently improving the PP of future SOS

28
Summary and Conclusion

• We would therefore very welcome inputs about
• This proposal in general
• What is done in other space agencies to improve
  SOS PP.
• The level of interest of other space agencies in
  participating in such a CCSOS.
• Thank you very much in advance!

29
Contact Details

• Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot,
  OX11 0QX, UK
• Patrick Chaizy
• P.Chaizy_at_rl.ac.uk (44 (0)1235 44 5437)
• Trevor Dimbylow
• T.G.Dimbylow_at_rl.ac.uk (44 (0)1235 44 5827)
• Mike Hapgood
• M.A.Hapgood_at_rl.ac.uk (44 (0)1235 44 6520)
• Gerard Hutchinson
• G.Hutchinson_at_rl.ac.uk (44 (0)1235 44 5057)
• Anne Chadwick
• A.F.Chadwick_at_rl.ac.uk (44 (0)1235 77 8012)
• Peter Allan
• P.M.Allan_at_rl.ac.uk (44 (0)1235 44 5723)