ATHMoS: Automated Telemetry Health Monitoring System at GSOC using Outlier Detection and Supervised Machine Learning

Knowing which telemetry parameters are behaving accordingly and those which are behaving out of the ordinary is vital information for continued mission success. For a large amount of different parameters, it is not possible to monitor all of them manually. One of the simplest methods of monitoring the behavior of telemetry is the Out Of Limit (OOL) check, which monitors whether a value exceeds its upper or lower limit. A fundamental problem occurs when a telemetry parameter is showing signs of abnormal behavior; yet, the values are not extreme enough for the OOL-check to detect the problem. By the time the OOL threshold is reached, it could be too late for the operators to react. To solve this problem, the Automated Telemetry Health Monitoring System (ATHMoS) is in development at the German Space Operation Center (GSOC). At the heart of the framework is a novel algorithm for statistical outlier detection which makes use of the so-called Intrinsic Dimensionality (ID) of a data set. Using an ID measure as the core data mining technique allows us to not only run ATHMoS on a parameter by parameter basis, but also monitor and flag anomalies for multi-parameter interactions. By aggregating past telemetry data and employing these techniques, ATHMoS employs a supervised machine learning approach to construct three databases: Historic Nominal data, Recent Nominal data and past Anomaly data. Once new telemetry is received, the algorithm makes a distinction between nominal behaviour and new potentially dangerous behaviour; the latter of which is then flagged to mission engineers. ATHMoS continually learns to distinguish between new nominal behavior and true anomaly events throughout the mission lifetime. To this end, we present an overview of the algorithms ATHMoS uses as well an example where we successfully detected both previously unknown, and known anomalies for an ongoing mission at GSOC

Robust Commanding

In this paper we present Robust Commanding as a new method that mission planning systems can implement to improve the reaction of the planning system to unsuccessful commanding. This method can be used to improve upon flexibility and reaction time of the mission planning while maintaining a safe commanding concept that avoids gaps in the mission timeline. The prerequisites are highlighted and the method is presented and exemplified on the basis of commanding low-earth orbiting satellites. The necessary commanding interfaces are discussed and an outlook for application of this method to future satellite missions is given

The Incremental Planning System – GSOC’s Next Generation Mission Planning Framework

The paper at hand presents the new generic framework for automated planning and scheduling in future mission planning systems developed at GSOC (German Space Operations Center). It evolved from the experiences made in past and current projects and the evaluation of internal and external requirements for upcoming projects. In customary systems such as the one used within GSOC’s TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X mission, succeeding planning runs to combine all collected input to a consistent, conflict-free command timeline take place at fix, dedicated points in time, e.g. twice a day. In contrast and as a main difference, with the new system each new input is processed immediately and so a consistent up-to-date timeline is maintained at all times. We show that this approach provides a set of important advantages and new possibilities for spacecraft commanding and user satisfaction. For example, uplink schedules can be flexibly modified due to short-term notifications, or up-to-date, extensive information about the planning state is always available, which means that conflicts can be seen before finally submitting a new request and, if applicable, can be resolved by selecting a suggested solution scenario. The presented system constitutes a generic tool suite which is scalable in performance critical areas, which is configurable to various mission scenarios and which defines a dedicated set of interfaces, specifying the functionality that remains to be implemented by each individual project. The declared goal is that all upcoming GSOC missions will benefit from using the Incremental Planning framework in terms of cost reduction, implementation duration and system robustness

GSOCs Planning Library: History, Generic Features and Lessons Learnt

Mission Planning at GSOC started, in cooperation with other agencies, with manually triggered processes. Within the mission D-2, first experiences have been gathered with the Experiment Scheduling Program of the Marshall Space Flight Center. For succeeding missions, the interactive planning application Pinta has been developed, together with additional tools which support event calculation and automated planning using simple heuristics. A major step forward was the implementation of a fully automated planning system for TerraSAR-X, where it was in charge of the whole mission, including payload and bus. Soon this Mission Planning system had been extended to also include a second satellite and additional mission goals for the TanDEM-X mission. In preparation of a successor mission, desires of internal and external users and operators of the TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X missions have been analyzed. Even though no successor mission for TerraSAR-X has been selected yet, the Mission Planning team evolved its planning libraries according to the outcome of this analysis and to respond to further lessons learnt, which had been gathered in different other missions throughout the years, such as FireBird, EDRS, Galileo and several LEOPs. This paper describes how GSOCs planning libraries evolved, presents the current status, and presents the current status. It discusses what generic features have proven beneficial, which features were less helpful, and describes obstacles which need to be considered in different missions. The paper concludes with an outlook on how the GSOC Mission Planning team prepares its systems for the future

The prelude to industrial whaling:Identifying the targets of ancient European whaling using zooarchaeology and collagen mass-peptide fingerprinting

Taxonomic identification of whale bones found during archaeological excavations is problematic due to their typically fragmented state. This difficulty limits understanding of both the past spatio-temporal distributions of whale populations and of possible early whaling activities. To overcome this challenge, we performed zooarchaeology by mass spectrometry on an unprecedented 719 archaeological and palaeontological specimens of probable whale bone from Atlantic European contexts, predominantly dating from ca 3500 BCE to the eighteenth century CE. The results show high numbers of Balaenidae (many probably North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)) and grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus) specimens, two taxa no longer present in the eastern North Atlantic. This discovery matches expectations regarding the past utilization of North Atlantic right whales, but was unanticipated for grey whales, which have hitherto rarely been identified in the European zooarchaeological record. Many of these specimens derive from contexts associated with mediaeval cultures frequently linked to whaling: the Basques, northern Spaniards, Normans, Flemish, Frisians, Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians. This association raises the likelihood that early whaling impacted these taxa, contributing to their extirpation and extinction. Much lower numbers of other large cetacean taxa were identified, suggesting that what are now the most depleted whales were once those most frequently used.</p

Building Babies - Chapter 16

In contrast to birds, male mammals rarely help to raise the offspring. Of all mammals, only among rodents, carnivores, and primates, males are sometimes intensively engaged in providing infant care (Kleiman and Malcolm 1981). Male caretaking of infants has long been recognized in nonhuman primates (Itani 1959). Given that infant care behavior can have a positive effect on the infant’s development, growth, well-being, or survival, why are male mammals not more frequently involved in “building babies”? We begin the chapter defining a few relevant terms and introducing the theory and hypotheses that have historically addressed the evolution of paternal care. We then review empirical findings on male care among primate taxa, before focusing, in the final section, on our own work on paternal care in South American owl monkeys (Aotus spp.). We conclude the chapter with some suggestions for future studies.Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HU 1746/2-1) Wenner-Gren Foundation, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation (BCS-0621020), the University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation, the Zoological Society of San Dieg

The parental care behaviour of Paratilapia polleni (Perciformes, Labroidei), a phylogenetically primitive cichlid from Madagascar, with a discussion of the evolution of maternal care in the family Cichlidae

The parental behaviour of the Madagascan cichlid, Paratilapia polleni , was studied in the laboratory. According to current hypotheses of phylogenetic intrarelationship for the family Cichlidae, Paratilapia is a representative of a phylogenetically primitive cichlid lineage, and as such is of particular interest in comparative evolutionary studies. Given the basal phylogenetic placement of Paratilapia it seems reasonable to expect that, if maternal participation in brood care arose within the extant Cichlidae, then the proposed plesiomorphic system of extensive male care of eggs and embryos may be retained in this taxon. This is not the case, and already by the fertilized-egg interval male and female roles in Paratilapia are strongly differentiated with the female as the primary care giver. In addition to specialized behavioural roles, a unique egg morphology and mobile egg mass is described for Paratilapia . The results of the study are discussed in the context of theories of the evolution of maternal brood care within the Cichlidae.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/42636/1/10641_2004_Article_BF00004768.pd

The Multi-Mission Operations Concept at the German Space Operations Center

The paper describes capabilities and activities of the German Space Operations Center (GSOC) which operates communication, navigation and earth observation satellites as well as Columbus, a human spaceflight mission. DLR offers its partners operations services for the different mission types on a modular basis. For many mission types DLR has the advantage to further offer the complete end-to-end services by additionally involving DLR’s Remote Sensing Data Center and several DLR research institutes like the Remote Sensing Technology, the Microwave and Radar, the Robotics and Mechatronics and the Communications and Navigation institutes, all located at the same DLR site in Oberpfaffenhofen near Munich. GSOC supports the phases Operations Preparation, Training and Simulation, LEOP Operations, Commissioning Phase, In-Orbit-Tests and Routine Operations as well as the Rundown Phase and Deorbiting. Regarding the Operations Systems GSOC provides the Development, Configuration, Operations and Maintenance of the Flight Operations System (FOS), the Mission Planning System (MPS) and the Flight Dynamics System (FDS). GSOC also manages the Ground Data System (GDS) which comprises the Operations and Maintenance of Control Room Facilities, Computer Systems, Local and Wide Area Networks as well as the DLR Ground Station in Weilheim complemented by a network of Ground Stations of our partner organizations. The typical Earth observation mission is run at GSOC in a multi mission mode. A single multi-mission operations team (1st level support) monitors and controls up to 6 satellites on 24h/7days a week in the Satellite Control Center. Currently the missions CHAMP, GRACE, BIRD and TerraSAR-X are supported. For communication satellites like the SATCOMBw mission GSOC has a another dedicated 1st level operations team. In both areas there is support given by project dedicated 2nd level subsystem engineers. For Galileo, the new European Navigation Satellite System, another specialized team in the new Galileo Control Center building manages and operates the mission. The future area of On-Orbit Servicing satellite missions will also require a dedicated 1st level operations team, but GSOC seeks synergies on the subsystem operations engineers’ level with other missions. The demanding Human Spaceflight mission Columbus requires a dedicated 1st level 24/7 operations team to cover at least six on-console positions at the Columbus Control Center at any time. They are supported by another team which is mainly responsible for facility operations and maintenance.

Optimization of Positioning of Ground Stations for Space Optical Missions

Every space mission which uses optical band, e.g. ground-satellite/satellite-ground laser telecommunication, optical earth observation, on-ground optical space debris tracking system, is drastically affected by the clouds in the troposphere of the Earth. Mission planning group of the German Space Operations Center (GSOC) is investigating the possibility to achieve the maximum performance of future optical space missions