Back
AUTOMATION IN space operations

Top Mistakes in Automated Space Operations and How to Avoid Them

In this article, we’ll highlight the top mistakes in automated space operations and provide practical advice on how to avoid them, leveraging real-world examples to underline the importance of meticulous system design and operational protocols.

Space

Automation in space operations has revolutionized how missions are conducted, allowing spacecrafts to perform complex tasks with minimal human intervention. From managing satellite communications to executing intricate maneuvers in deep space, automated systems have become indispensable. These advancements have enabled endeavors like the International Space Station (ISS) to handle routine tasks such as maintenance checks and environmental controls autonomously, freeing up astronauts to focus on scientific research. Similarly, autonomous attitude and orbit control systems on deep space probes ensure accurate trajectory adjustments far from Earth and in proximity of other celestial bodies, which would be impossible to do from Earth, due to communication delays.

However, with these achievements come new challenges. As the reliance on automation increases, the potential for errors also grows, often with costly consequences. The transition from manual to automated systems has highlighted a range of pitfalls that can arise when these systems are not adequately tested, integrated, or overseen by human operators. The complexity of space missions means that even minor oversights in automated operations can lead to mission failures, underlining the critical need for meticulous planning and testing of these systems.

Automation in Spacecraft Operation

Automation in spacecraft operations  is transformative, enabling missions to execute complex maneuvers, manage communications, and conduct scientific experiments without direct human intervention. It's the backbone of modern space missions.

Automation in spacecraft operations involves three critical levels that interact seamlessly to ensure mission success:

  • On the Ground: Ground-based automation includes mission control systems that monitor and manage spacecraft operations. These systems handle tasks such as trajectory calculations, data analysis, and command sequencing.
  • On the Spacecraft: Onboard automation refers to systems installed directly within the spacecraft that execute essential functions like navigation, system health monitoring, and scientific data processing autonomously.
  • Complementary Interaction: Ground and spacecraft systems complement each other by ensuring continuous operations. Ground systems can update and recalibrate spacecraft systems, while onboard systems provide real-time data and status updates to the ground.

Complexity of Automation

Automation in space operations is not merely about replacing human effort but enhancing operational efficiency and reliability in order to reduce operational risks and enable more complex and long-duration space missions. Here are some examples and considerations:

  • Daily Workflow Automation: Routine tasks such as adjusting satellite antennae, managing solar panel orientation, and basic system checks are ideal for automation. Automating these tasks saves significant manpower and reduces human error. 
    For example, satellites rely on automated systems to adjust the position of their solar panels, ensuring they capture the maximum possible sunlight for energy generation. This operation is essential for maintaining adequate power supply and is generally controlled by the on-board computer.
  • Complex Scenario Automation: More complex automation involves systems capable of recognizing and diagnosing unexpected issues. However, these systems typically do not possess the capability to analyze the root causes without human intervention. For instance, while an automated system on a spacecraft can detect an anomaly in the power grid, it may require human engineers to analyze the issue and decide on the corrective action.

Infographic-Automation in Spacecraft Operation-16.9-v1

See a larger version of the infographic (Opens in new tab)

Setting Up Automation

Before implementing automation, it is crucial to address specific questions to align the automation strategy with mission goals:

  • Operation Complexity and Mission Profile: What are the specific needs and challenges of the mission? Understanding the mission's complexity helps in designing automation systems that are robust enough to handle expected and unexpected scenarios.
  • Desired Outcomes: What does the mission aim to achieve with automation? Whether it's increasing operational efficiency, enhancing data acquisition, or improving safety, each objective might require different levels and types of automation.

Mistake 1: Insufficient Testing of Automated Systems

One of the most significant oversights in automated space operations is the insufficient testing of systems before deployment. The space environment presents unique challenges such as microgravity, radiation, and extreme temperature fluctuations, which can all cause unexpected system behaviors.

Case Study: Consider the infamous Ariane 5 Flight 501, that failed just 37 seconds after launch due to a software error on the onboard inertial reference system.  The software was designed to automatically handle a specific set of flight conditions that were common in Ariane 4 but were no longer applicable to Ariane 5. The incident highlighted the importance of thorough testing of automated systems, especially when reusing software in new environments.

Recommendations

  • Complex Missions (e.g., Scientific Satellites with Unique Objectives): For missions, where the satellite has unique functionalities and there is limited pre-existing data, it is crucial to undertake extensive and innovative testing regimes. These missions often cannot rely solely on historical data to predict all possible scenarios, thus requiring creative simulation and modeling to encompass a broad range of possibilities.

  • Large-Scale Missions (e.g., Mega-Constellations): For constellations involving numerous similar satellites, the availability of extensive data can streamline the testing process. Here, systems can be taught and tested against a well-understood set of parameters, leveraging data from previous iterations. The repetitive nature of these missions allows for a more standardized testing protocol, enhancing predictability and reliability.

By adopting a mission-specific testing approach, organizations can ensure that both complex, unique missions and large-scale, standardized projects are equally prepared to handle the dynamic challenges of space operations. Implementing rigorous, tailored testing protocols is crucial for mitigating risks and enhancing the robustness of automated space operations.

With a comprehensive toolkit including a sophisticated flight processor emulator, detailed hardware models, and robust closed-loop testing systems, Terma's suite delivers unparalleled accuracy in simulation and validation. The Terma testing environment streamlines onboard software debugging, configuration, patching, and development—delivering quality software using cost-efficient tools, Terma's facilities have supported numerous satellite missions, providing reliable software validation that minimized risks and maximized mission success.

CTA banner Automation in Spacecraft Operation Dec 2024 v1

Mistake 2: Neglecting the Integration of Human Oversight

Automation is indispensable in space operations, but the integration of human oversight remains crucial. Automated systems excel at handling routine tasks, but they may not adequately respond to unexpected scenarios or failures, where human judgement is invaluable.

Incident Analysis:  A notable example is the Mars Climate Orbiter mishap where a minor error escalated to a mission-critical issue due to the lack of timely human intervention (one side using metric units and the other side using imperial units), leading to the loss of the satellite.

Strategies for Enhanced Human Oversight

  • Single or Dual Satellites: For missions involving a small number of satellites, every satellite is critical. Losing even one due to automation errors can jeopardize the mission's goals.

Use Case 1: Implement event-driven alerts where specific risk thresholds trigger automated notifications to ground operators. This allows for quick human assessment and potential remote correction of the issue, minimizing the risk of satellite loss.

Use Case 2: Set up automated failure detection systems that not only identify issues but also notify control centers to initiate a human-led recovery process. This dual-layered approach ensures that failures are addressed before escalating into critical failures.

  • Large-Scale Missions (Mega-Constellations): In large constellations, the loss of a few satellites might not critically impact the overall functionality, but it introduces significant concerns regarding space debris, which can have cascading effects on global satellite infrastructure.

Use Case 1: Establish protocols for automated anomaly reporting with an emphasis on rapid human evaluation to decide on potential deorbiting maneuvers or other mitigation strategies to manage space debris effectively.

Use Case 2: Develop a system where failures in satellites trigger an automated isolation sequence to prevent the malfunction from affecting other satellites. Simultaneously, these events should alert human operators who can assess long-term impacts and coordinate debris mitigation strategies if the satellite is irrecoverable.

These strategic integrations of human oversight ensure that both individual satellite missions and large-scale operations maintain higher safety and efficiency standards. By leveraging human expertise to complement automated processes, space missions can achieve greater resilience against operational anomalies and reduce the risks associated with automated decision-making.

Mistake 3: Inadequate Automation for Daily Tasks

One common error in spacecraft automation is the inadequate setup for daily operations, leading to inefficiencies and potential mission hazards. For example, during the Mars Rover Curiosity mission, a software bug caused by routine automated checks led to multiple system reboots and data losses, illustrating the critical need for robust automation frameworks.

Solutions

To avoid such pitfalls, space missions should employ regularly updated automation protocols that are thoroughly tested and refined. Customizing automation tools to match specific spacecraft characteristics can significantly enhance reliability and functionality, ensuring that daily operations proceed without disruption.

A prime example is Terma's CCS5 , a highly configurable command and control system designed for spacecraft operations. CCS5 allows simultaneous support of multiple ground stations, even when data exchange protocols vary between them, and includes full automation of ground station operations. This enhances testing efficiency through automation and supports the creation of automated test programs as well as operation processes. For instance, during a recent satellite deployment mission, CCS5 enabled seamless integration of varied ground station protocols, optimizing communication and control sequences, and significantly reducing operational risks. 

Space banner v2-2

Mistake 4: Undertrained Automation Systems

A significant oversight in many space missions is the failure to simulate all possible operational scenarios. This gap was evident in the Galaxy 15 communications satellite, which, despite numerous simulations, experienced an anomaly that left it uncontrollably drifting over the geostationary arc, causing interference with other satellites.

Effective simulation is fundamental to the success of automated space operations. Despite advances in technology, simulating the exact conditions a satellite will face in space poses significant challenges. The tools used—ranging from digital twins to emulators and simulators—each have their limitations and strengths.

Automation and Data Challenges

  • Generating and utilizing data to train automated systems is a key hurdle. For common mission types, such as communication satellites, data from similar missions can be leveraged to enhance simulation accuracy.
  • For unique scientific missions, the lack of comparable data points makes it difficult to prepare systems for all possible scenarios, which can lead to critical oversights.

Solutions Overview

  • Digital Twin: This technology provides a dynamic software model that mirrors a physical object. It can be invaluable for ongoing monitoring and operational adjustments. However, creating an accurate digital twin that fully replicates the complexities of a satellite's behavior in space is immensely challenging and costly.
    Their effectiveness in unpredictable or novel situations is still not proven at scale, and the cost of developing sophisticated digital models remains high.
  • Emulator: An emulator attempts to reproduce the behavior of a unit, providing a high-fidelity representation of its functions. However, it might not accurately reflect the interaction with environmental variables.
    TEMU , Terma's advanced general-purpose multi-core microprocessor emulator and simulation framework, addresses this by offering robust models of common processors and peripheral devices used in spacecraft. TEMU supports the emulation of various flight processors, including SPARCv8 (ERC32, LEON2, UT699, UT700, GR740), PowerPC, and ARM. For instance, during the development of a new satellite's onboard software, TEMU was used to simulate target software timing and connect third-party debuggers, allowing engineers to identify and resolve issues early in the development process. This comprehensive emulation capability ensures that software is rigorously tested and validated, significantly reducing the risk of in-flight anomalies.
  • Simulator: This solution simulates the behavior based on predefined parameters and is often less accurate compared to the previous ones. It's particularly critical when relying on table-driven methods for complex operations, as missing data can lead to significant simulation gaps. 
    For example, Terma's development of the ESOC Simulation Infrastructure (SIMSAT) offers a real-time simulation kernel that has been instrumental in numerous missions. SIMSAT has supported the rigorous training of flight control teams for complex space missions (e.g. OPS-SAT-1, Juice, HERA and more), ensuring they are well-prepared to manage both routine and emergency scenarios. Over the past 30 years, Terma's simulators have been pivotal in the success of various commercial and institutional missions by providing realistic and comprehensive training environments that closely mimic actual mission conditions.

Cost and Complexity: Building comprehensive simulators or digital twins for space missions is prohibitively expensive and technically complicated. Many missions utilize an engineering model on the ground to test systems before building the final flight model, but these still may not capture all possible scenarios that could occur in space.

Enhancing simulator technology, expanding the use of digital twins, and incorporating a broader array of data inputs are critical steps forward. As we advance our capabilities in these areas, the goal should be to close the gap between simulated predictions and real-world behavior, thus reducing the risks associated with automation in space. By investing in these technologies and continuously refining them, space missions can achieve higher reliability and success, mitigating the impacts of unforeseen events.

Conclusion

Avoiding common automation mistakes is crucial for the success of any space endeavour. As we continue to push the boundaries of what is possible in space, Terma remains your dedicated partner, offering innovative solutions and unparalleled expertise to ensure your missions are successful, efficient, and safe.