June 2014

NASA/TM2014-218278

NESC-RP-14-00938

 

Review of Ground Systems Development and 

Operations (GSDO) Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software

Michael L. Aguilar/NESC

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Kevin H. Bonanne, Jeffrey A. Favretto, Maddalena M. Jackson, Stephanie L. Jones, 

Ryan M. Mackey, Marc A. Sarrel, and Kimberly A. Simpson

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. 

It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI 

program provides access to the NASA Aeronautics 

and Space Database and its public interface, the 

NASA Technical Report Server, thus providing one 

of the largest collections of aeronautical and space 

science STI in the world. Results are published in 

both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes the 

following report types:

 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

Programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but 

having less stringent limitations on manuscript 

length and extent of graphic presentations.

 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis.

 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

 CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, seminars, 

or other meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest.

 TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing information desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

 Access the NASA STI program home page 

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

 Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443-757-5803

 Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

443-757-5802

 Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199

June 2014

NASA/TM2014-218278

NESC-RP-14-00938

 

Review of Ground Systems Development and 

Operations (GSDO) Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software

Michael L. Aguilar/NESC

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Kevin H. Bonanne, Jeffrey A. Favretto, Maddalena M. Jackson, Stephanie L. Jones, 

Ryan M. Mackey, Marc A. Sarrel, and Kimberly A. Simpson

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

443-757-5802

Acknowledgments

The team would like to thank the GSDO Program and Command, Control, 

Communications, and Range points of contact (Kirk Lougheed, Christie Best, 

Robert Waterman, and Patricia Nicoli) for their cooperation and for providing the 

wealth of reference material—essentially more than 20 design, interface, and 

requirements documents, including the Space Launch System (SLS)-GSDO 

emulator and simulator bilateral exchange agreement. A very special thanks to 

Christie Best and her team for their quick responses to the many requests for data 

and clarifications related to the technical design.

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in the report is for accurate reporting and does not 

constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software

Page #: 

1 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

Review of Ground Systems Development and 

Operations (GSDO) Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software

May 1, 2014
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

2 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

Report Approval and Revision History 

NOTE: This document was approved at the May 1, 2014, NRB. This document was submitted 

to the Acting NESC Director on May 14, 2014, for configuration control. 

Approved:

Acting NESC Director Date 

Version Description of Revision Office of Primary 

Responsibility Effective Date 

1.0 Initial Release Michael L. Aguilar, 

NASA Technical 

Fellow for Software, 

GSFC 

5/1/14 

Original Signature on File (DS) 5/19/14
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

3 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

Table of Contents 

Technical Assessment Report 

1.0 Notification and Authorization ..................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ 6

3.0 Team List ........................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 7

4.0 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 8

5.0 Assessment Plan ............................................................................................................................. 9

6.0 Problem Description, Proposed Solutions, and Risk Assessment .............................................. 9

7.0 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 10

7.1 Source Documents for this Assessment ............................................................................ 11

7.2 Review Process ................................................................................................................. 18

7.2.1 Generate Component Structure ......................................................................................... 18

7.2.2 Model Physical Connections............................................................................................. 19

7.2.3 Model Logical Connections .............................................................................................. 19

7.2.4 Perform Requirements Gap Analysis ................................................................................ 19

7.2.5 Develop Analysis Questions ............................................................................................. 19

7.2.6 Perform Functional Analysis ............................................................................................ 19

7.2.7 Perform Parametric Analysis ............................................................................................ 19

7.3 Analysis Document Generation ........................................................................................ 19

8.0 Findings, Observations, and NESC Recommendations............................................................ 20

8.1 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 20

8.2 Observations ..................................................................................................................... 21

8.3 NESC Recommendations ................................................................................................. 22

9.0 Alternate Viewpoint ..................................................................................................................... 23

10.0 Other Deliverables ....................................................................................................................... 23

11.0 Lesson Learned ............................................................................................................................ 23

12.0 Recommendations for NASA Standards and Specifications .................................................... 23

13.0 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................................... 23

14.0 Acronym List ................................................................................................................................ 25

15.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 27
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

4 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

List of Figures 

Figure 4.0-1. Systems Modeling Language (SysML) Model Scope ........................................................ 8

Figure 6.0-1. Overview of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) of System Behavior at 

SLS/MPCV/GSDO Interfaces .......................................................................................... 10

Figure 7.2-1. Model-based IRD/ICD Interface Review Process ............................................................ 18

Figure 7.3-1. GAILA Table of Contents ................................................................................................ 20

List of Tables 

Table 7.1-1. Reference Documents for this Assessment ....................................................................... 11

Table 7.1-2. Context Documents for this Assessment .......................................................................... 14

Table 7.1-3. Data Sources for the SLS-MPCV-GSDO SysML Model ................................................. 15

 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

5 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

Technical Assessment Report 

1.0 Notification and Authorization 

The Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Standing Review Board (SRB) requested the 

NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conduct an independent review of the plan 

developed by Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) for identifying models and 

emulators to create a tool(s) to verify their command and control software. The NESC was 

requested to identify any issues or weaknesses in the GSDO plan. 

The assessment was approved out-of-board on February 18, 2014. Mr. Michael L. Aguilar was 

assigned to lead this assessment. The primary stakeholder and requestor for this assessment is 

Mr. LeRoy Cain, Chair, ESD SRB. 

 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

6 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

2.0 Signature Page 

Submitted by: 

Mr. Michael L. Aguilar Date 

Significant Contributors: 

Mr. Kevin H. Bonanne Date Mr. Jeffrey A. Favretto Date 

Ms. Maddalena M. Jackson Date Ms. Stephanie L. Jones Date 

Mr. Ryan M. Mackey Date Mr. Marc A. Sarrel Date 

Ms. Kimberly A. Simpson Date 

Signatories declare the findings, observations, and NESC recommendations compiled in the 

report are factually based from data extracted from program/project documents, contractor 

reports, and open literature, and/or generated from independently conducted tests, analyses, and 

inspections. 

Team Signature Page on File - 6/16/14
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

7 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

3.0 Team List 

Name Discipline Organization 

Core Team 

Michael Aguilar NESC Lead GSFC 

Kimberly Simpson Task Lead JPL 

Loutricia Johnson MTSO Program Analyst LaRC 

Kevin Bonanne Systems Architect JPL 

Jeff Favretto Systems Engineer JPL 

Maddalena Jackson Systems Architect JPL 

Stephanie Jones Systems Architect JPL 

Ryan Mackey Systems Engineer JPL 

Marc Sarrel Systems Architect JPL 

Administrative Support 

Melinda Meredith Project Coordinator LaRC/AMA 

Linda Burgess Planning and Control Analyst LaRC/AMA

Jonay Campbell Technical Writer LaRC/NG 

3.1 Acknowledgements 

The team would like to thank the Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) 

Program and the Command, Control, Communications, and Range points of contact (Kirk 

Lougheed, Christie Best, Robert Waterman, and Patricia Nicoli) for their cooperation and for 

providing the wealth of reference material—essentially more than 20 design, interface, and 

requirements documents, including the Space Launch System-GSDO emulator and simulator 

bilateral exchange agreement. A very special thanks to Christie Best and her team for their quick 

responses to the many requests for data and clarifications related to the technical design.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

8 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

4.0 Executive Summary 

On February 14, 2014, the Explorations Systems Directorate (ESD) Standing Review Board 

(SRB) requested an independent assessment of the Ground Systems Development and 

Operations (GSDO) plan for integrating models and emulators to create a tool(s) for verifying 

their command and control software. 

The objective of this independent assessment was to provide answers to or identify where there 

may be gaps in addressing the following questions: 

• Where do the hardware/emulators/simulators fit within the architecture? 

• What functions do they verify? 

• Who is building the hardware/emulators/simulators? 

• When are the hardware/emulators/simulators delivered? 

Previous NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) assessments [refs. 1 and 2] reviewed the 

Space Launch System (SLS)–Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)–GSDO interfaces presented 

in green in Figure 4.0-1. The interfaces in orange needed to be added to perform this assessment. 

Figure 4.0-1. Systems Modeling Language (SysML) Model Scope 

Results of the independent assessment (i.e., issues and weaknesses) were presented to the ESD 

SRB on April 8, 2014. Findings, observations, and NESC recommendations for this assessment 

are detailed in this report. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

9 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

5.0 Assessment Plan 

Major milestones for this report included: 

Milestone Date 

Out-of-Board Assessment Notification to the NESC 

Review Board (NRB) 

February 18, 2014 

Kickoff with SLS-MPCV-GSDO Modeling Team February 20, 2014 

NRB Assessment Plan Approval February 28, 2014 

NRB Approval of Preliminary Stakeholder Briefing April 4, 2014 

ESD SRB Presentation of Issues and Weaknesses April 8, 2014 

The scope of deliverables for this assessment included: 

• Briefing of issues and weaknesses to the ESD SRB on April 8, 2014. 

• Model views incorporating selected test environment of space hardware and test 

hardware for analysis. 

• Operational scenarios required to be verified for the selected test environment (not 

completed; refer to recommendation 1). 

• Findings, observations, and NESC recommendations, which are included in this report. 

6.0 Problem Description, Proposed Solutions, and Risk Assessment 

The length in workdays from kickoff to ESD SRB briefing was 25 days. 

One benefit of model-based analysis was that the single model could be used and reused to 

capture physical, logical, functional, and parametric attributes. As shown in Figure 6.0-1, 

previous NESC assessments [refs. 1 and 2] developed a SysML model of the SLS-MPCV-GSDO 

interfaces for Exploration Flight Test (EFT)-1 and Exploration Mission (EM)-1. This 

assessment added integration and test (I&T) interfaces to this previous model. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

10 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

Figure 6.0-1. Overview of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) of System Behavior at 

SLS/MPCV/GSDO Interfaces 

The same modeling team employed in the previous NESC assessments was assigned to this task, 

thereby minimizing any delay in tool installation and model development. 

Interfaces and contacts to the in-line GSDO engineers were developed to access documentation 

and to take advantage of subject matter expertise. GSDO involvement was maintained as 

“value-added” to the in-line effort. 

The Launch Control Subsystem (LCS) is being built in a series of builds, also known as 

evolutions. The LCS Build Plan [ref. 3] identifies the content of each build and the information 

sources that elaborate on that content description. The builds occur roughly every year, with 

some variation due to external program requirements. Development within the build is 

performed in a series of iterations. The following I&T environment builds were selected for this 

assessment due to their schedule alignment and relevance to the task objectives: 

• Build 14-1: The next build in the cycle (October 2014), supporting EFT-1. 

• Build 16-1: Has mature content to represent an EM-1 flight environment. 

7.0 Data Analysis 

A list of the products incorporated into the assessment can be found in the reference documents 

(see Table 7.1-1). The model used to generate this document reflects a generic GSDO 

configuration appropriate for the scope of this assessment, including operational support, and 

was not limited to Customer Avionics Interface Development and Analysis (CAIDA)-specific 

testing. 

 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

11 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

The following test facilities were identified: 

• GSDO Multipurpose Processing Facility 

• GSDO Firing Room (FR)-1 

• GSDO FR-3 

• GSDO CAIDA Laboratory 

• MPCV Integration Test Laboratory (ITL) (i.e., integrated mission simulations using 

MPCV, SLS, and Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System (ICPS) emulators/simulators) 

• MPCV Operations and Checkout (O&C) Facility 

• MPCV Mission Control Center (MCC) 

• SLS System Integration Laboratory (SIL) (i.e., integration testing utilizing SLS highfidelity emulators and flight software, including ICPS integration) 

Where applicable to the assessment, internal and external test interfaces and available emulators 

and simulators are captured in the GSDO Avionics Integration Laboratories Assessment 

(GAILA) architecture within the model. 

7.1 Source Documents for this Assessment 

The documents listed in Table 7.1-1 were reviewed and included in the assessment model 

development. At the close of this assessment, the SLS-MPCV-GSDO SysML model being used 

contained applicable details from over 50 documents. 

The SLS Real-Time Simulation to GSDO Real-Time Simulation Interface Control Document 

baseline (draft), dated March 4, 2014, could not be reviewed within the timeframe for this 

assessment. 

Table 7.1-1. Reference Documents for this Assessment 

No. Document ID Document Title Description Date 

1 C3R E2ECC LX-D2 Risk 11803 Task ID 

41897 Risk Mitigation 

Avionics/Software 

Integration Team Risk 

Mitigation task description, 

April 2013 

 4/30/2013 

2 CAIDA SRR 

CAIDA Lab System 

Requirements Review 

(SRR) 

CAIDA SRR presentation 10/29/2013 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

12 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

No. Document ID Document Title Description Date 

3 EFT-1 GSADD 

EFT-1 Ground System 

Architecture Description 

Document 

Model of EFT-1 ground 

system, including O&C–

Denver ITL interfaces in 

support of assembly, test, 

and launch operations 

(ATLO) and launch control 

center (LCC) flightfollowing design 

3/11/2014 

4 EFT-1 LCS Interfaces EFT-1 Telemetry to LCS 

Connectivity Diagram 

Microsoft®

 Visio® diagram 

of FR-1 connectivity to 

CAIDA in FR-3 

8/1/2013 

5 ESD 10019 

Exploration Systems 

Integration Avionics and 

Software Integration Plan 

Draft definition of the 

multi-program approach to 

key avionics and software 

discipline areas 

2014 

6 GSDO PDR 

GSDO Preliminary 

Design Review (PDR) 

Kickoff Presentation 

GSDO PDR kickoff 

presentation 1/15/2014 

7 GSDO SADD 

GSDO and Spaceport 

Command and Control 

System (SCCS) 

Amalgamated 

Description Document 

(SADD) 

Model of GSDO ground 

system architecture, 

including Multi-Purpose 

Processing Facility 

(MPPF), Vehicle Assembly 

Building (VAB), LCC, and 

Space Launch Complex 

(SLC)-39B configurations 

in support of integration 

testing and command, 

control, and 

communications data flows 

3/11/2014 

8 K0000112994-PLN LCS BUILD PLAN LCS Build Plan, Revision 

A 7/5/2013 

9 K0000112995-SPC SCCS Project SDD 

Volume 1 

System Design Document 

(SDD) for the SCCS, 

Volume 1, Revision A 

8/1/2013 

10 K0000118139-SPC SCCS Project SDD 

Volume 4 

SDD Command and 

Control System, Volume 4 

Revision A 

 8/2/2013 

11 K0000147171-GEN 

CAIDA Lab Concept of 

Operations (ConOps) - 

Basic Revision 

Draft CAIDA ConOps 

document (unreleased), 

April 2013 

 4/30/2013 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

13 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

No. Document ID Document Title Description Date 

12 KSC 9.1.6 ODN TOP 

KSC 9.1.6 Onboard Data 

Network (ODN) 

Topology Diagram 

Kennedy Space Center 

(KSC) ODN Topology – 

Honeywell Virtual Test 

Bench (HVTB) wiring 

diagram 

 

13 March 2014 IAS ITT 

TIM Materials 

ConOps for March 2014 

Information Architecture 

System (IAS) 

International Telephone 

and Telegraph (ITT) 

Technical Interchange 

Meeting (TIM) 

Testing ConOps TIM 

Notes, March 2014 3/2014 

14 P2P-00003 

SLS-GSDO Bilateral 

Exchange Agreement 

(BEA) in support of 

Program-to-Program 

Delivery of Models and 

Emulators 

Document deliveries of 

models and emulators 

between GSDO and SLS 

via BEA deliverables 

matrix 

Baseline 

April 2013 

15 TT_7_CAIDA_SRB CAIDA SRB Tabletop 

Agenda 

Presentation on the status of 

the CAIDA facility and its 

interaction with SLS Core, 

ICPS, and Orion* 

(including European Space 

Agency (ESA) Service 

Module) 

2/12/2014 

* Within some of the documentation, primarily Lockheed-Martin sources, the term Orion was used instead of the term MPCV. 

MPCV and Orion are used interchangeably to refer to the MPCV Program side of an interface (e.g., MPCV – GSDO IRD, 

MPCV – SLS ICD, etc.)—both are valid product naming conventions with the MPCV Program. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

14 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

The documents listed in Table 7.1-2 were reviewed but due to their scope were not used in the 

development of this model.

Table 7.1-2. Context Documents for this Assessment

No. Document ID Document Title Description Date 

1 CAIDA Access 

Control Policy 

CAIDA Lab Access 

Control Policy 

Document describing the 

guidelines, process, and 

procedures for which user 

access to the CAIDA 

system will be managed. 

April 1, 2014, from Christie 

Best 

 4/1/2014 

2 CAIDA IT CM 

Process 

CAIDA Lab Information 

Technology (IT) 

Configuration 

Management (CM) 

Process 

Document describing 

process for handling 

changes to hardware, 

software, and IT security 

settings; April 1, 2014, 

from Christie Best 

 4/1/2014 

3 CAIDA VMat CAIDA Validation 

Matrix 

CAIDA requirements and 

description of functionality 1/9/2014 

4 GSDO-PLN-1078 

GSDO Program: EFT-1 

Mission Implementation 

Plan 

Supporting material related 

to EFT-1 flight following 

plans and design 

CR 03/14 

5 MPCV OPSR EM-1 Orion* ITL 

Layout diagram of virtual 

test bed (VTB), notations of 

SLS and ICPS Engineering 

Modules, and identification 

of electrical ground support 

equipment (EGSE) that 

connects Integrated 

Robotics Facility (IRF) 

building to KSC via NASA 

Integrated Services 

Network (NISN) 

2/27/2014 

* Within some of the documentation, primarily Lockheed-Martin sources, the term Orion was used instead of the term MPCV. 

MPCV and Orion are used interchangeably to refer to the MPCV Program side of an interface (e.g., MPCV – GSDO IRD, 

MPCV – SLS ICD, etc.)—both are valid product naming conventions with the MPCV Program. 

 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

15 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

The documents listed in Table 7.1-3 were reviewed and included in the SysML model 

development of the SLS-MPCV-GSDO interfaces generated in previous NESC assessments 

[refs. 1 and 2]. 

Table 7.1-3. Data Sources for the SLS-MPCV-GSDO SysML Model

# Name Documentation 

SLS-MPCV_GSDO Interfaces

1 

Task Description 12-

00775_MPCV-SLS 

Modeling 

Description, participants, etc., of MPCV-SLS modeling task. 

2 ESD_ConOps_Sept_ 

2011 

The ConOps is a companion document to the ESD Requirements Document. It 

describes a bounding set of missions and roles of systems within those missions 

to provide scope for interpretation and implementation guidance of the 

controlled requirements. 

3 

SLS-PLAN020_SLSP_Concept_ 

of_Operations_Con_ 

Ops 

The SLS ConOps Document describes the system concept, operational 

characteristics, and uses of the SLS, and how it is envisioned to provide cargo 

and/or crew launch capability for space exploration and science, and, if required, 

support commercial missions. 

4 

IMA_Report_PostSRR_Release_ 

2-29-12_13 

The purpose of the Integrated Mission Analysis (IMA) Report is to document the 

results of a joint ESD-Program analysis of the ESD ConOps (ESD 10012). 

5 SLS_Capabilities_14 Part of the IMA 

6 MPCV_Capabilities_ 

14 Part of the IMA 

7 Master_Capabilities_ 

List Part of the IMA 

8 EM-1 Model On server sscae-cmr:17011. 

9 

ESMD-HEC.Reqt6.2011_REDLINES%

2009-16-11[1] 

This document focuses on functional requirements driven by architectural 

analysis. The ESD Requirements Document captures requirements controlled by 

the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate for SLS, MPCV, 

and GSDO. Requirements will be levied against future programs as the new 

program elements transition from architecture studies into program formulation. 

10 Engine_Out_Dukeman Presentation of Rid 0063: Core Engine Out Capability. 

11 EFT-1 Model On server sscae-cmr:17011. 

12 MPCV 70028 GS IRD 

Baseline - 2012_06_25 

The purpose of this Interface Requirements Document (IRD) is to define the 

detailed interface requirements and verification methods for interfaces between 

Orion* and GSDO. 

13 MPCV 70026 SLS 

IRD_Baseline_FINAL 

This IRD defines the detailed interface requirements and verification methods 

for interfaces between Orion* and SLS. All requirements in this document will 

apply to the SLS vehicle (i.e., core and ICPS) unless explicitly stated otherwise. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

16 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

# Name Documentation 

14 MPCV 70029 MS IRD 

Baseline - 06132012 

This IRD defines the detailed interface requirements and verification 

requirements for MPCV Program interfaces between Orion* and Mission 

Systems. 

GSDO Project Documents

1 

GSDO SCCS to 

Advanced Ground 

Systems Maintenance 

Interface Design 

Document (IDD) 

Describes the interfaces between SCCS and Advanced Ground System and 

Maintenance (AGSM). 

2 SCCS SDD: Volume 1 

Describes SCCS, which includes LCS and KSC Ground Control System 

(KGCS). Captured from .pdf on KSC Design Data Management System 

(KDDMS), 26 September 2013. 

3 SCCS SDD Vol 2 Traceability table for the SCCS SDD.

4 SCCS_SDD_Vol5_ 

hack.pdf Contains SCCS use cases 

5 MPCV 72548 MS to 

GSDO ICD 

MPCV Mission Systems to GSDO Interface Control Document (ICD), Baseline 

draft, dated May 2013. 

6 GSDO-ACO-1010.pdf GSDO Architecture and ConOps, dated 29 April 2013. Sourced from GSDO 

SharePoint® repository. 

7 C3R-3008_Rev._ 

Baseline.pdf 

100 percent (baseline) version of Command, Control, Communications, and 

Range (C3R) ConOps, dated 24 June 2013. 

MPCV 70028 GS 

IRD_Rev A_Final_ 

19Dec2012.pdf 

Revision A MPCV–GSDO IRD, dated 19 December 2012. Sourced from the 

MPCV Program CM Library. 

8 

SLS-ICD-052-5 SLSP 

to GSDO ICD V5 

Software Peer Review 

Consolidated 

Comments 

121108.docx 

60 percent draft version of SLS to GSDO ICD Volume 5, dated 25 October 

2012. 

9 KGCS_ICD_doc.pdf ICD for KGCS. 

10 KGCS_Conops.pdf Overall ConOps for KGCS only. Official but dates back to 2010. 

11 CTU_vs_LCS_V2.pdf Diagram of LCC to MPCV communications options 

(3 pages). 

12 

CEV-T-029930 

Orion* to GSDO ICD 

Volume 2 

Orion* to GSDO Software Interfaces, draft, dated 5 December 2013. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

17 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

# Name Documentation 

13 MPCV 70054 MPCV: 

MS to GSDO IRD Revision A, dated 6 March 2013. 

C3R Documents

1 

C3R Integrated 

Program Review 

(IPR), Complete 

Contains high-level C3R requirements, interdependencies, architecture of 

communications, and GSDO software. Dated 24 June 2013. 

2 

C3R Integrated 

Product Team (IPT) 

Overview and input to 

Offline Processing and 

Infrastructure (OPI) 

and Vehicle Integration and Launch 

(VIL) IPR 

Lengthy discussion of C3R including software, launch control operations, and 

communications with SLS when on ground. 

3 

C3R Software 

Architecture 

PowerPoint®

Presentation 

High-level architecture overview that described all the elements of the command 

and control system and how they interact. Includes identification of commercial 

off-the-shelf software, GSDO developed wrappers, and middleware. 

4 ProjectPlan.pdf Nine-page summary of the C3R architecture, with some risks, team members, 

and abbreviated project schedule. 

4 

C3R Product 

Architecture_ 

screencaps.pptx 

Screen captures from the HTML-based overview of the C3R Product 

Architecture, dated 23 May 2013. 

Supporting Documents from Other Sources

1 

Integrated 

Communications and 

Network (ICAN) Point 

of Departure 

Version 4, dated 6 May 2013. 

2 

EM-1 Integrated 

Communication 

Summary 

PowerPoint® presentation, dated 5 December 2013. 

3 

 MPCV to LCC 

Communications 

Trade 

Diagram of communication options, currently under study, 15 August 2013. 

* Within some of the documentation, primarily Lockheed-Martin sources, the term Orion was used instead of the term MPCV. 

MPCV and Orion are used interchangeably to refer to the MPCV Program side of an interface (e.g., MPCV – GSDO IRD, 

MPCV – SLS ICD, etc.)—both are valid product naming conventions with the MPCV Program. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

18 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

7.2 Review Process 

The process for this assessment was similar, if not identical, to the process used on previous 

NESC assessments [refs. 1 and 2]. Data were collected from available sources. The physical 

and logical interfaces were defined within the model. Analysis was performed using the SysML 

model (see Figure 7.2-1). 

Figure 7.2-1. Model-based IRD/ICD Interface Review Process 

All issues and weaknesses were reported to the document owners in a manner accepted by the 

GSDO stakeholders. 

7.2.1 Generate Component Structure 

The system components are identified and organized. Components can be locations, buildings, 

structures, components, etc. This provides the “structure” of the model. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

19 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

7.2.2 Model Physical Connections 

Physical connections are the physical interfaces between the components. Physical connections 

can be trunk lines, Internet, radio links, ducts, etc. 

7.2.3 Model Logical Connections 

Logical connections identify the type of information or data carried over the physical 

connections. Logical connections can be voice, telemetry, commands, controls, power, etc. 

7.2.4 Perform Requirements Gap Analysis 

Missing requirements and inconsistent requirements can be addressed as the model matures. The 

modeling tool itself produces reports of missing physical and logical connections, and reports of 

inconsistencies in the connections. These reports can identify the areas of the model that need 

correction or more complete detail. 

7.2.5 Develop Analysis Questions 

This assessment provided reports of issues to the in-line experts based on the model analysis. 

The issues were addressed within the in-line documents and the model itself. Traces of the 

questions and responses were maintained within the model itself. 

7.2.6 Perform Functional Analysis 

A minimum of functional analysis was performed for this assessment. Functional analysis 

requires operational scenarios to be detailed or developed from users and operators. This detail 

was unavailable to this assessment. 

7.2.7 Perform Parametric Analysis 

Functional analysis can further be quantified using parametric assignments to attributes within 

scenarios. Scenarios can be instrumented with values representing execution time, loading, 

throughput, bandwidth, etc. This level of detail was unavailable to this assessment. 

7.3 Analysis Document Generation 

All text, tables, and illustrations in the GAILA report were extracted and formatted from the 

SysML model repository. Figure 7.3-1 indicates the information that was generated. This 

generated GAILA report contains sensitive but unclassified material and is available from the 

NESC upon appropriate request.1 

 

1

 This document can be obtained by submitting a request to the NESC at: 

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/home/index.html
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

20 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

Figure 7.3-1. GAILA Table of Contents 

8.0 Findings, Observations, and NESC Recommendations 

8.1 Findings 

The following findings were identified: 

F-1. What the GSDO Program team has implemented and plans to implement appears to be 

sound in terms of physical entities and interfaces; the architecture documents plans to 

supply an I&T capability to many stakeholders. However, such a large set of 

stakeholders (i.e., SLS, MPCV, GSDO, and ESD) will drive the configuration in multiple 

directions, with the quantity and diversity of use taxing the system. 

F-2. The GSDO Program team has done a good job of identifying what is going to be built but 

did not produce additional detail regarding how it will be built. Documentation 

describing the interfaces between CAIDA and other test facilities was not located. The 

cross-program integrated schedule did not provide sufficient detail in the plans for all 

program emulators and simulators. 

F-3. The documentation, listed in Table 7.1-1, was missing details regarding expectations of 

resource utilization (e.g., the number of available emulators/simulators required to run all 

tests; staffing and required expertise/skills to operate CAIDA; etc.). 

F-4. Risk is introduced in integration, testing, and schedule activities because important BEAs 

have not been completed. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

21 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

F-5. Requirements on MPCV and SLS engineering resources in support of CAIDA operations 

are not detailed in any of the documents listed in Table 7.1-1. 

F-6. The Exploration Systems Integration Avionics and Software Integration Plan was used as 

a reference to understand the flow-down of expectations on cross-program avionics and 

software integration, but it did not provide any additional detail relevant to the integration 

of GSDO’s emulators and simulators. 

F-7. Deriving cross-system software functionality proved difficult. A set of CAIDA 

requirements does exist, but the requirements were sometimes too low level. This can be 

problematic when there are no functional requirements or traceability to the problems 

addressed by lower level requirements. In some cases, the rationale for a requirement 

reads as though it should be the written requirement. 

F-8. The tools themselves were capable when accessed in a distributed manner; however, 

access to the model for distributed development and review was hindered by Center 

server restrictions and time constraints such that no additional users were added. 

F-9. Use of a third-party tool set to generate final formatted documentation from the model 

was successful. The modeling tool provides the capabilities for viewing the model, but 

formatted documentation was preferred by the in-line stakeholders. 

8.2 Observations 

O-1. The assessment team was unable to determine loading of test beds at this point. PDR is 

early to have detailed specifics, but a general sense of overall resource loading and 

stakeholder requirements on test beds should be known. 

O-2. It is not clear how GSDO emulators are acceptance tested prior to delivery to SLS. 

O-3. Requirements on MPCV and SLS engineering resources in support of CAIDA operations 

are unclear. 

O-4. The coordination of simulations between SLS and MPCV within CAIDA is unknown. 

The documentation seems to reflect that there will be two halves of CAIDA developed 

(i.e., one to support MPCV and one to support SLS), but it is not clear how the two will 

integrate in support of simulation of MPCV-SLS interactions. 

O-5. When polled for questions, the engineers understand the design and what is to be 

developed, but documentation does not always reflect their understanding and can be 

unclear and inconsistent. 

O-6. The support from the in-line GSDO experts was greatly appreciated. 

O-7. This assessment leveraged an existing SLS-MPCV-GSDO interface model by adding test 

facilities and interfaces. Using model-based analysis, this assessment of the GSDO I&T 

environments was accomplished in 25 work days. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

22 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

8.3 NESC Recommendations 

The following NESC recommendations are directed to the GSDO Program. 

R-1. Specify the minimum CAIDA use cases to define the testing control and operations prior 

to 45-percent review to identify inherent risks related to over-subscription or complexity. 

(F-1)

The following are examples of recommended use cases: 

• LCS verification and validation (V&V). 

• Emulator V&V (e.g., HVTB, ground support equipment (GSE)). 

• Consistency checking process for verification of emulators supplied by GSDO to 

other Centers (i.e., GSDO Advanced Hardware LCS Emulator (GAHLE), GSDO 

Lightweight All-Digital Emulator (GLADE)) prior to use in formal testing. 

• SHADE acceptance testing. 

• Remote access path to external MPCV and SLS test beds. 

• CAIDA to test FR-1. 

• Use of emulators/simulators in support of training.

• Data management paths and resources (e.g., data recording and playback 

processes in support of testing or troubleshooting). 

• CAIDA validation, CM, diagnostics, and regression testing. 

R-2. Identify/generate the integration schedule to ensure GSDO receivables and deliverables 

align in content and schedule. (F-2)

R-3. Develop CADIA I&T environment requirements. (O-1)

The following are examples of requirements areas of interest: 

• Reference verification activities requiring CAIDA. 

• External requirements verified using CAIDA. 

• Time required to run external stakeholder’s verification activities. 

• “Subsystem” assumptions on CAIDA use (e.g., physical access, data security, 

software simulators, electrical needs, power, heating, cooling, training, support, 

spares, downtime allowed, maintenance overhead, interfaces within the facility, 

and floor space and volume requirements). 

R-4. Determine and track the status of the BEAs between the programs. The lack of formal 

BEAs is a risk to schedule and effort during planning, programming, budgeting, and 

execution (PPBE) cycles. (F-4)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

23 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

R-5. Document functional requirements as use cases to quantify CAIDA’s capabilities. The 

development and documentation of ConOps use cases is needed to define CAIDA’s 

required functions. The development and documentation of V&V use cases is necessary 

to define use as a reliable testbed for GSDO needs (e.g., V&V, training activities, etc.). 

(F-7)

R-6. Analyze the differences between the flight vehicle on the pad and the I&T environment. 

The development of I&T facilities has primarily been a bottom-up development process. 

A comparison between the flight vehicle on the pad and the I&T environment would 

determine differences and residual risk, as well as determine how close the I&T facility is 

to the “test like you fly” concept. (F-7)

9.0 Alternate Viewpoint 

There were no alternate viewpoints identified during the course of this assessment by the NESC 

team or the NRB quorum. 

10.0 Other Deliverables 

• Generated model report: GAILA is a separate .pdf document generated from the model 

data. It was the basis for the presentation to the ESD SRB. 

• SLS-MPCV-GSDO-I&T SysML model: The model is maintained on a server at Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). It is currently supported by JPL for an in-line SLS task. 

11.0 Lesson Learned 

No lessons learned were identified as a result of this assessment. 

12.0 Recommendations for NASA Standards and Specifications 

No recommendations for NASA standards and specifications were identified as a result of this 

assessment. 

13.0 Definition of Terms 

Corrective Actions Changes to design processes, work instructions, workmanship practices, 

training, inspections, tests, procedures, specifications, drawings, tools, 

equipment, facilities, resources, or material that result in preventing, 

minimizing, or limiting the potential for recurrence of a problem. 

Finding A relevant factual conclusion and/or issue that is within the assessment 

scope and that the team has rigorously based on data from their 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

24 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

independent analyses, tests, inspections, and/or reviews of technical 

documentation. 

Functional Model A structured representation of the functions (i.e., activities, actions, 

processes, and operations) within the modeled system or subject area. 

Lessons Learned Knowledge, understanding, or conclusive insight gained by experience 

that may benefit other current or future NASA programs and projects. 

The experience may be positive, as in a successful test or mission, or 

negative, as in a mishap or failure. 

Logical Model A graphical representation of the flow of data through an information 

system, modeling its process aspects—often a preliminary step used to 

create an overview of the system that can be elaborated upon later. A 

logical model shows what kind of information will be input to and output 

from the system, where the data will come from and go to, and where the 

data will be stored. It does not show information about the timing of 

processes or information about whether processes will operate in sequence 

or in parallel. 

Observation A noteworthy fact, issue, and/or risk that may not be directly within the 

assessment scope but could generate a separate issue or concern if not 

addressed. Alternatively, an observation can be a positive 

acknowledgement of a Center/Program/Project/Organization’s operational 

structure, tools, and/or support provided. 

Parametric Model A set of mathematical equations built into the model to perform automated 

data analysis in a reliable manner. These may be standard equations from 

reference books, proprietary equations developed by consultants or 

vendors, or some combination of the two. 

Physical Model Shows how the system is implemented, at the moment or how the designer 

intends it to be in the future. 

Problem The subject of the independent technical assessment. 

Proximate Cause The event(s) that occurred, including any condition(s) that existed 

immediately before the undesired outcome, directly resulted in its 

occurrence and, if eliminated or modified, would have prevented the 

undesired outcome. 

Recommendation A proposed measurable stakeholder action directly supported by specific 

Finding(s) and/or Observation(s) that will correct or mitigate an identified 

issue or risk. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

25 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

Root Cause One of multiple factors (events, conditions, or organizational factors) that 

contributed to or created the proximate cause and subsequent undesired 

outcome and, if eliminated or modified, would have prevented the 

undesired outcome. Typically, multiple root causes contribute to an 

undesired outcome. 

Supporting Narrative A paragraph, or section, in an NESC final report that provides the detailed 

explanation of a succinctly worded finding or observation. For example, 

the logical deduction that led to a finding or observation; descriptions of 

assumptions, exceptions, clarifications, and boundary conditions. Avoid 

squeezing all of this information into a finding or observation 

SysML A graphical modeling language supporting the specification, analysis, 

design, and V&V of systems that include hardware, software, data, 

personnel, procedures, and facilities. 

Use Case A list of steps, typically defining interactions between an actor and a 

system, to achieve a specific goal. The actor can be a human or an 

external system. In systems engineering, use cases are used at a higher 

level than within software engineering, often representing missions or 

stakeholder goals. The detailed requirements may then be captured in 

SysML or as contractual statements. 

14.0 Acronym List 

AGSM Advanced Ground System and Maintenance

AMA Analytical Mechanics Associates 

ATLO Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations 

BEA Bilateral Exchange Agreement 

C3R Command, Control, Communications, and Range 

CAIDA Customer Avionics Interface Development and Analysis 

CM Configuration Management 

ConOps Concept of Operations 

EFT Exploration Flight Test 

EGSE Electrical Ground Support Equipment 

EM Exploration Mission 

ESA European Space Agency 

ESD Exploration Systems Development 

FR Firing Room 

GAHLE GSDO Advanced Hardware LCS Emulator 

GAILA GSDO Avionics Integration Laboratories Assessment 

GLADE GSDO Lightweight All-Digital Emulator 

GSADD Ground System Architecture Description Document 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

26 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

GSDO Ground Systems Development and Operations 

GSE Ground Support Equipment 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

HVTB Honeywell Virtual Test Bench 

I&T Integration and Test 

IAS Information Architecture System

ICAN Integrated Communications and Network 

ICD Interface Control Document 

ICPS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System

IDD Interface Design Document 

IMA Integrated Mission Analysis 

IPR Integrated Program Review 

IPT Integrated Product Team 

IRD Interface Requirements Document 

IRF Integrated Robotics Facility 

IT Information Technology 

ITL Integration Test Lab 

ITT International Telephone and Telegraph 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

KDDMS KSC Design Data Management System 

KGCS Kennedy Ground Control System 

KSC Kennedy Space Center 

LaRC Langley Research Center 

LCC Launch Control Center 

LCS Launch Control Subsystem 

M&S Modeling and Simulation 

MCC Mission Control Center 

MPCV Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 

MPPF Multi-Purpose Processing Facility 

MTSO Management and Technical Support Office 

NESC NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

NG Northrop Grumman 

NISN NASA Integrated Services Network 

NRB NESC Review Board 

O&C Operations & Checkout 

ODN Onboard Data Network 

OPI Offline Processing and Infrastructure 

PPBE Planning Programming Budgeting and Execution 

PDR Preliminary Design Review 

SADD SCCS Amalgamated Description Document 

SCCS Spaceport Command and Control System 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP14-00938

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Review of GSDO Tools for Verifying 

Command and Control Software 

Page #: 

27 of 27

NESC Request No.: TI-14-00938 

SDD System Design Document 

SIL System Integration Laboratory 

SLC Space Launch Complex 

SLS Space Launch System 

SRB Standing Review Board 

SRR System Requirements Review 

SysML Systems Modeling Language 

TIM Technical Interchange Meeting 

V&V Verification and Validation 

VAB Vehicle Assembly Building 

VIL Vehicle Integration and Launch 

VTB Virtual Test Bed 

15.0 References 

1. “Modeling and Simulation of System Behavior at SLS, MPCV, and GSDO Interfaces,” 

NESC Assessment Report NESC-RP-12-00775, publication date TBD. 

2. “Modeling and Simulation of System Behavior at GSDO Interfaces,” NESC Assessment 

Report NESC-RP-13-00870, publication date TBD. 

3. “LCS Build Plan,” Document No. K0000112994-PLN, Revision A, July 5, 2013. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Review of Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) Tools 

for Verifying Command and Control Software

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Aguilar, Michael L.; Bonanne, Kevin H.; Favretto, Jeffrey A.; 

Jackson, Maddalena M.; Jones, Stephanie L.; Sarrel, Marc A.; 

Simpson, Kimberly A.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-20435 NESC-RP-14-00938

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 17 Space Communications, Spacecraft Communications, Command and Tracking

Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

The Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Standing Review Board (SRB) requested the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center (NESC) conduct an independent review of the plan developed by Ground Systems Development and Operations 

(GSDO) for identifying models and emulators to create a tool(s) to verify their command and control software. The NESC was 

requested to identify any issues or weaknesses in the GSDO plan. This document contains the outcome of the NESC review.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Ground Systems Development and Operations; NASA Engineering and Safety Center; Space Launch System; Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle; Command and control software

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

32

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(443) 757-5802

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

February 2014 - May 2014

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

869021.03.07.01.12

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TM-2014-218278

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 06 - 2014