Aerospace Testing 2006 A Centralized Approach To Ground Support Software To Reduce Technical Risk and Overall Mission Costs Thomas Hauck GSE Software, Inc. Stephen E. Jaskulek Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins University

New Horizons Case study of the New Horizons Mission to Pluto Launch: Jan. 19, 2006 Pluto Encounter: 2015

Mission Life Cycle

Pros of Decentralized Approach Each instrument team is autonomous in the choice of their test and development system. Potential re-use of existing test equipment and familiarity with existing development tools. Administrative and budget structure often supports/dictates splitting the responsibilities at ICD level.

Cons of Decentralized Approach Duplication of interface implementation effort. Payload integration has to account for interface problems. TLM&CMD changes are not adopted quickly and concurrently by instrument teams Higher level test tools like STOL (Spacecraft Test and Operations Language) are usually not feasible to develop on instrument level Little or no cross-instrument data visibility

Coordinated GSE

Reduced mission wide development effort Payload integration can be performed more efficiently High level test environments like STOL interpreters are feasible Telemetry and command databases can be converted into GSE configuration The instrument customization can be reused through bench testing, payload integration, and flight operations Cross-team data access Compact hardware configuration. One PC can run all instrument GSEs simultaneously

GSEOS Rapid Development Tool for GSE Quick Look System Simple bit level telemetry definition Dynamic data modeling with custom decoders Archiving/Playback STOL Emulator Version Control Extremely portable

User Interface

Block Concept

Block Hierarchy

New Horizons GSE Excel TM based TLM & CMD definitions Zero-Impact Conversion Tools STOL Emulator Common MOC (Mission Operation Control) Interface Configuration Control Cross-team Telemetry Visibility

Mission Benefits Enhanced GSE capabilities Reduced code duplication (20%) Reduced technical risk (30%) Reduced scheduling risk (50%) Reduced hardware costs (50%) Reduced overall mission costs

Discussion/Questions