Technology development for real-time teleoperated spacecraft mission operations

Author(s):  
Jan Harder ◽  
Markus Wilde ◽  
Andreas Fleischner
2019 ◽  
Vol 167 ◽  
pp. 105092 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. René Villalobos ◽  
Wladimir E. Soto-Silva ◽  
Marcela C. González-Araya ◽  
Rosa G. González–Ramirez

Author(s):  
William R. Wilson ◽  
Laura L. Jones ◽  
Mason A. Peck

In the past several years, small satellites have taken on an increasingly important role as affordable technology demonstrators and are now being viewed as viable low-cost platforms for traditional spacecraft mission objectives. As such, the CubeSat standard (1 kg in a 10 cm cube) has been widely adopted for university-led development efforts even as it is embraced by traditional spacecraft developers, such as NASA. As CubeSats begin to take on roles traditionally filled by much larger spacecraft, the infrastructure for dynamics and controls testing must also transition to accommodate the different size and cost scaling associated with CubeSats. While air-bearing-based testbeds are commonly used to enable a variety of traditional ground testing and development for spacecraft, few existing designs are suitable for development of CubeSat-scale technologies, particularly involving multibody dynamics. This work describes Cornell University's FloatCube testbed, which provides a planar reduced-friction environment for multibody dynamics and controls technology development for spacecraft less than 6 kg and a 15 cm cube. The multimodule testbed consists of four free-floating air-bearing platforms with on-board gas supplies that allow the platforms to float over a glass surface without external attachments. Each of these platforms, or FloatCubes, can host CubeSat-sized payloads at widely ranging levels of development, from prototype components to full-scale systems. The FloatCube testbed has already hosted several successful experiments, proving its ability to provide an affordable reduced-friction environment to CubeSat-scale projects. This paper provides information on the system design, cost, performance, operating procedures, and applications of this unique, and increasingly relevant, testbed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 163-171
Author(s):  
Colin Hamilton ◽  
Robert Phaal ◽  
Mita Brahmbhatt ◽  
Peter Jarritt ◽  
Topun Austin

ObjectivesTo identify current ‘gaps’ in clinical practice or therapeutic knowledge of the care of neonatal neurointensive care patients and to determine the impact healthcare technologies can have on improving outcomes.DesignThe Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing’s (IfM) roadmapping methodology.SettingCambridge, UK.Participants16 delegates were selected through professional networks. They provided coverage of academia and clinical skills, as well as expertise in neonatology, engineering and technology development.Main outcome measuresA ‘strategic landscape’ has been developed with ‘landmarks’ identified as ‘trends or drivers’, ‘patient pathway experience and unmet needs’ and ‘enabling project or resources’. Priorities were voted on by delegates.Results26 strategic ‘landmarks’ were identified, and of these 8 were considered ‘trends or drivers’, 8 ‘patient pathway experience and unmet needs’ and 10 as ‘enabling project or resources’. Of these, five priorities for the future of neonatal neurocritical care were identified by a voting process: real-time video monitoring for parents; individualised management of preterm infants in neonatal neurocritical care based on real-time multimodal monitoring; continuous electroencephalogram monitoring for early seizure diagnosis; neuroprotection: understanding basic mechanisms; and sleep measurement.ConclusionsThrough the use of the IfM methodology, a list of priorities has been developed for future work into improving the experience and possible outcomes of newborn infants with brain injuries and their families. While not an exhaustive list, it provides the beginning for a national conversation on the topic.


Author(s):  
Markus Plattner ◽  
Sebastian Albrecht ◽  
Olaf Haelker ◽  
Andreas Lederhuber ◽  
Norbert Meidinger ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
O. F. Gemici ◽  
F. Kara ◽  
I. Hokelek ◽  
I.H. Salim ◽  
H. Asmer ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Richard Burns ◽  
Cynthia Cheung ◽  
George Davis ◽  
Everett Cary ◽  
John Higinbotham ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Viktorija Badasjane ◽  
Mats Alhskog ◽  
Anna Granlund ◽  
Jessica Bruch

Within an international manufacturing network (IMN), one particular factory, called the lead factory is responsible for development of new products, processes and technologies as well as transferring these to the subsidiaries within the IMN. These responsibilities require coordination, which is found difficult even in the best-performing companies due to its complexity. When the responsibility for development of Industry 4.0 technologies are included such as cyber-physical systems and Internet of Things the complexity increases further. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify what are the challenges with coordination of technology development and transfer of Industry 4.0 technologies in IMNs. Accordingly, a real-time embedded case study was carried out with six manufacturing companies. One major finding is that development of Industry 4.0 technologies does not fit the current way of organizing technology development at lead factories. Another finding is that several of the identified challenges connected to technology development can be derived from a lack of a long-term strategy ensuring competence for future needs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document