While this could be done using the synthesis formulation, we demonstrate that this leads to slower performances.

While this could be done using the synthesis formulation, we demonstrate that this leads to slower performances.

The preliminary spacecraft trajectory design phase can be posed as a parameterized global search problem for optimal spacecraft trajectories. At each stage of the preliminary design, the mission objectives, requirements, and constraints may change, resulting in variations of the global search problem parameters. Parameters may also change to represent increased modeling fidelity. The aim at any stage of the preliminary design is to solve for a large set of high quality spacecraft trajectories with diverse, or similarly qualitatively different, features. High quality is naturally defined by the value of a solution's objective value relative to the best known. Examples of qualitatively different features may include trajectories that have a different number of revolutions around a central body, a different number or sequence of gravity assist flybys, solutions that avoid radiation belts or other hazards, or solutions that depart the original or target orbital planes. The benefit of having different qualitative solutions is that it allows mission designers to trade different priorities in their design and reflects the fact that not all relevant objectives and constraints can be incorporated into the optimal spacecraft trajectory problem so early or readily in the design phase (i.e., without prior knowledge of what is relevant and when designing at a quick cadence). In the simplest of cases, a mission designer's past experience may be sufficient to guide them in finding a high quality set of solutions.

This paper presents a robust path-planning framework for safe spacecraft autonomy under uncertainty and develops a computationally tractable formulation based on convex programming. We utilize chance-constrained control to formulate the problem. It provides a mathematical framework to solve for a sequence of control policies that minimizes a probabilistic cost under probabilistic constraints with a user-defined confidence level (e.g., safety with 99.9% confidence). The framework enables the planner to directly control state distributions under operational uncertainties while ensuring the vehicle safety. This paper rigorously formulates the safe autonomy problem, gathers and extends techniques in literature to accommodate key cost/constraint functions that often arise in spacecraft path planning, and develops a tractable solution method. The presented framework is demonstrated via two representative numerical examples: safe autonomous rendezvous and orbit maintenance in cislunar space, both under uncertainties due to navigation error from Kalman filter, execution error via Gates model, and imperfect force models.

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com. Virginia authorities have determined that a Tesla was operating on its Autopilot system and was speeding in the moments leading to a crash with a crossing tractor-trailer last July that killed the Tesla driver. The death of Pablo Teodoro III, 57, is the third since 2016 in which a Tesla that was using Autopilot ran underneath a crossing tractor-trailer, raising questions about the partially automated system's safety and where it should be allowed to operate. The crash south of Washington remains under investigation by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sent investigators to Virginia last summer and began a broader probe of Autopilot more than two years ago.

Precise relative navigation is a critical enabler for distributed satellites to achieve new mission objectives impossible for a monolithic spacecraft. Carrier phase differential GPS (CDGPS) with integer ambiguity resolution (IAR) is a promising means of achieving cm-level accuracy for high-precision Rendezvous, Proximity-Operations and Docking (RPOD), In-Space Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM) as well as satellite formation flying and swarming. However, IAR is sensitive to received GPS signal noise, especially under severe multi-path or high thermal noise. This paper proposes a sensor-fusion approach to achieve IAR under such conditions in two coupling stages. A loose coupling stage fuses through an Extended Kalman Filter the CDGPS measurements with on-board sensor measurements such as range from cross-links, and vision-based bearing angles. A second tight-coupling stage augments the cost function of the integer weighted least-squares minimization with a soft constraint function using noise-weighted observed-minus-computed residuals from these external sensor measurements. Integer acceptance tests are empirically modified to reflect added constraints. Partial IAR is applied to graduate integer fixing. These proposed techniques are packaged into flight-capable software, with ground truths simulated by the Stanford Space Rendezvous Laboratory's S3 library using state-of-the-art force modelling with relevant sources of errors, and validated in two scenarios: (1) a high multi-path scenario involving rendezvous and docking in low Earth orbit, and (2) a high thermal noise scenario relying only on GPS side-lobe signals during proximity operations in geostationary orbit. This study demonstrates successful IAR in both cases, using the proposed sensor-fusion approach, thus demonstrating potential for high-precision state estimation under adverse signal-to-noise conditions.

The sun had yet to rise in Delray Beach, Fla., when Jeremy Banner flicked on Autopilot. His red Tesla Model 3 sped down the highway at nearly 70 mph, his hands no longer detected on the wheel. Seconds later, the Tesla plowed into a semi-truck, shearing off its roof as it slid under the truck's trailer. Banner was killed on impact. Banner's family sued after the gruesome 2019 collision, one of at least 10 active lawsuits involving Tesla's Autopilot, several of which are expected to go to court over the next year. Together, the cases could determine whether the driver is solely responsible when things go wrong in a vehicle guided by Autopilot -- or whether the software should also bear some of the blame.