1. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap Space Systems Operations Branch Mission Operations Laboratory Marshall Space Flight Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1-256-544-2226 John.Jaap@nasa.gov Patrick Meyer Elizabeth Davis Lea Richardson

2. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 2 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Presentation Outline  Introduction  Light-time delays  Interplanetary internet  Message bus  Collaboration defined  Integration  Concept of operations  Widespread collaboration  Collaboration on final schedule  Collaborative scheduling software  Equipment mode modeling  Task modeling  Automatic scheduling  Mixed-initiative scheduling  Resources, conditions, and autonomous systems  Terminology and standards  User interfaces  Conclusion

3. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 3 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Introduction NASA has a vision to send humans to the moon and Mars.  These missions are long and stressful.  The astronauts need to participate in scheduling.  The astronauts need autonomy.  Quick response to anomalies  Extended loss of communication  Technological advances are available to help.  Delay-tolerant networks  Remote-access planning and scheduling systems ♦ 18+ months ♦ Earth only a point of light ♦ 4+ months return time ♦ No voice conversations with earth ♦ Meet personal preferences ♦ Have a sense of control over their own actions ♦ Understand reasons for task times

4. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 4 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Light-Time Delays (to Mars)  Close approach is 56x10 6 km or 3.1 minutes (one way).  Far retreat is 400x10 6 km or 22.2 minutes (one way).  The earth overtakes Mars every 26 months.  Relay satellites can help with solar occultation and the delay-tolerant network. Diagram shows a relay satellite trailing the earth by 90 degrees

5. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 5 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Communications for Mars Exploration  Interplanetary internet  Path known even when destination is unavailable  Long time delays expected  Store-and-forward a good solution  Message bus  Publish / subscribe (one-way communication)  Standard infrastructure, standard message protocol General name: Delay-Tolerant Network

6. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 6 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Collaboration in General  Passive collaboration Based on a concept of operation. Example: guards who work at different gates to ensure that only ticket holders enter the arena. Of course, a special concept of operations is required. Text Messaging Working jointly to produce a product or attain a goal.  Interactive collaboration  Face-to-face  Teleconferencing and web conferencing  Custom software  Instant messaging and chat rooms  File transfer  Electronic forums  Electronic mail  Postal mail

7. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 7 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Enabling Principles for Collaboration  The contributions of one collaborator will not invalidate the contributions of another. This includes the crew’s contributions.  Collaborators need only minimum expertise in the knowledge realm of other collaborators.

8. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 8 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Concept of Operations Widespread collaboration on preliminary timeline (including crew) Crew / scheduling cadre collaboration on final timeline

9. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 9 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Contributors to Widespread Collaboration on Preliminary Timeline  Task experts – First-hand knowledge about the tasks to be done and how to order the tasks to accomplish the goals.  Hardware and systems experts – Detailed knowledge about how the hardware performs and how it is integrated with systems.  Scheduling cadre – Knowledge of program goals. Produce the detailed timelines. Final tweaks to timeline.  Crew – First-hand knowledge of in-space situation, personal preferences.  Other contributors – Provide availabilities, predictions, and simulation of companion autonomous systems including robots / rovers. TL developed on earth

10. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 10 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Contributors to Final Timeline  Crew – Modify timeline based on in-space situation, personal preferences, etc. Modify models based on actual configurations. Delete tasks as desired / needed. Add tasks as desired / needed.  Scheduling Cadre – Verify actions of crew (when time permits). Modify models and timeline as needed. TL finalized in space Of course, custom planning and scheduling software is required.

11. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 11 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Planning and Scheduling Software Key features – ♦ Comprehensive modeling schema that represents all the constraints ♦ Automatic scheduler that understands the models and produces a desired timeline ♦ Remote access to the scheduling system ♦ Human interface that is user friendly to all users including the crew ♦ Use of standard terminology ♦ Ability to perform over a delay-tolerant network

12. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 12 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 P&S Software – Modeling  Equipment mode modeling  Equipment and their modes are modeled independently of the tasks that use the equipment.  Resource and condition constraints are assigned in the equipment modes.  Models can define a hierarchy of constraints and alternate constraints.  Task network modeling  Tasks use equipment in specified modes, variable durations.  Temporal networks of tasks are defined using relationships like during, after, overlap, cyclic, etc.  Variable timing  Optional tasks Models are built on earth by experts. Occasionally they are modified by the crew.

13. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 13 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 P&S Software – Automatic Scheduling with an Incremental Engine An incremental scheduling engine supports collaboration.  Multiple remote users can submit requests.  Scheduling a request doesn’t change what is already scheduled.  The engine can delete items on the schedule if nothing is invalidated.  The engine can replace items if nothing is invalidated. Consistent with enabling principles.

14. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 14 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 P&S Software – Mixed-Initiative Scheduling Engine Mixed-initiative scheduling best used only by experts.  Requires in-depth knowledge of requirements  Requires broad knowledge of contents of TL  Often has complex GUI.  Displays comprehensive list of endangered constraints.  Can allow the user to override constraints.  Can be used to invoke an incremental engine to add to timeline. Not always consistent with enabling principles.

15. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 15 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 P&S Software – Resources, Conditions, and Autonomous Systems  Resources (power, storage lockers, camera)  Conditions (sunlight, communications, weather)  Autonomous systems (robots, rovers, etc.) During preliminary TL development, resources and conditions are predicted by earth-based software. During final TL development, they are predicted by in-space software. During preliminary TL development, autonomous systems are simulated. During final TL development, the primary scheduler interacts (negotiates) with the autonomous systems schedulers. Example: robot is asked when it is available for a task, the primary scheduler schedules the task, and sends a message to the robot to commit the TL.

16. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 16 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 P&S Software – Terminology & Standards  Collaboration by many diverse contributors requires standard terminology and standard methods.  Crew collaboration and crew autonomy require standard terminology and software.  Current / historic scheduling community is fragmented. Examples:  Terminology:  State vs. condition  Goal set vs. operational sequence vs. task network  Approach:  Start and end events vs. task duration  Implicit resource usage Standards bodies, such as the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS), are available to apply their expertise in establishing, negotiating, and documenting the needed data standards.

17. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 17 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 P&S Software – User Interfaces  Collaboration requires good user interfaces.  Experts in many diverse fields must become “virtual” scheduling experts.  Scheduling experts must be able to comprehend the requirements entered by others.  The crew must be able to use any part.  The crew will need specialized user interfaces.

18. MOL The Mission Operations Laboratory Chart 18 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Alabama In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling John Jaap 25 October, 2006 Conclusion When the earth appears as a mere point of light, and round-trip communication delays exceed half an hour, the humans on the journey must have significant control over their daily timeline and the timelines of their companion systems. In a new concept of operations, multiple, dispersed, earth-based teams and the crew collaborate on a preliminary timeline. Once the preliminary timeline is uplinked, the crew will become the primary contributors with minimal ground support. Implementing this new concept requires software that is delay tolerant, supports multiple users, is remotely accessible, uses standard terminology, and has good user interfaces. And a delay-tolerant network must be implemented.