An overview of the OpenOrbiter autonomous operating software

The OpenOrbiter spacecraft aims to demonstrate the efficacy of the Open Prototype for Educational Nanosats (OPEN) framework. Software is an important part of this framework. This paper discusses the operating software for the spacecraft (which runs on top of the Linux operating system to command spacecraft operations). It presents an overview of this software and then pays particular attention to the aspects of software design that enable onboard autonomy. It also discusses the messaging scheme that is used onboard and the testing and validation plan. Finally, it discusses system extensibility, before concluding.

[1]  Michael Swartwout,et al.  University-Class Satellites: From Marginal Utility to 'Disruptive' Research Platforms , 2004 .

[2]  Rob Sherwood,et al.  Sensor Web Technologies : A New Paradigm for Operations , 2007 .

[3]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  An open-source scheduler for small satellites , 2013, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[4]  Michael Taraba,et al.  Boeing's CubeSat TestBed 1 Attitude Determination Design and On­Orbit Experience , 2009 .

[5]  David W. Way.  Preliminary assessment of the Mars Science Laboratory entry, descent, and landing simulation , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[6]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  OpenOrbiter: A Low-Cost, Educational Prototype CubeSat Mission Architecture , 2013 .

[7]  Peter H. Feiler,et al.  Model-Based Engineering with AADL: An Introduction to the SAE Architecture Analysis & Design Language , 2012 .

[8]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  An Assessment of Educational Benefits from the OpenOrbiter Space Program , 2013 .

[9]  R. Castano,et al.  Autonomous science agents and sensor Webs: EO-1 and beyond , 2006, 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[10]  Michael Swartwout.  The Long-Threatened Flood of University-Class Spacecraft (and CubeSats) Has Come: Analyzing the Numbers , 2013 .

[11]  Paul Dickson,et al.  Sputnik: The Shock of the Century , 2002 .

[12]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  The open prototype for educational NanoSats: Fixing the other side of the small satellite cost equation , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[13]  Jeremy Straub.  CubeSats: A Low-Cost, Very High-Return Space Technology , 2012 .

[14]  Jeremy Straub.  A Review of Spacecraft AI Control Systems , 2011 .

[15]  Alexander Robin Mercantini Ghosh,et al.  Building Engineers: A 15-Year Case Study in CubeSat Education , 2016 .

[16]  Brian T. Mahlstedt,et al.  HiMARC 3D- High-speed, Multispectral, Adaptive Resolution Stereographic CubeSat Imaging Constellation , 2012 .

[17]  Michael A. Swartwout,et al.  A brief history of rideshares (and attack of the CubeSats) , 2011, 2011 Aerospace Conference.

[18]  Daniel G. Kubitschek.  Impactor Spacecraft Encounter Sequence Design for the Deep Impact Mission , 2005 .

[19]  Leonard Friedman.  Research at Jet Propulsion Laboratory , 1983 .

[20]  David J. Weeks,et al.  SMDC-ONE: An Army Nanosatellite Technology Demonstration , 2009 .

[21]  David M. Bushman,et al.  Soviet automated rendezvous and docking system overview , 1991 .

[22]  Roland Coelho,et al.  ELaNa – Educational Launch of Nanosatellite: Providing Routine RideShare Opportunities , 2012 .

[23]  Jeremy Straub,et al.  Evaluation of the Educational Impact of Participation Time in a Small Spacecraft Development Program , 2014 .