In situ method and system for autonomous fault detection, isolation and recovery in spacecraft

Abstract: An fault identification, isolation and fault recovery system autonomously controls spacecraft operational systems. A fault detection and isolation module monitors the operational systems, identifies faults via such monitoring and attempts to isolate component causing the fault. Isolation may constitute a plurality of hierarchically arranged techniques that enhance speed and maximize the likelihood of identifying a correct hypothesis regarding the actual failure. The fault isolation and fault recovery modules are bounded by a severe fault override module which places the spacecraft operational systems in a safe mode or state. Thus, the override module ensures rapid entry into the safe mode while preventing an erroneous hypothesis serviced by the fault recovery module from driving the system beyond acceptable limits. A high level command processor receives command sequences from remote ground support stations and from the on-board fault recovery module. A ground based test bed attached to a ground support systems is used to generate verified high level fault recovery scripts before and during a mission to bolster fault recovery capabilities.

Description: BACKGROUND 1. Technical Field The present invention relates generally to fault detection, identification and recovery in spacecraft; and, specifically, it relates to on-board systems which not only provide autonomous fault and onset detection and identification, but also support autonomous correction and recovery. 2. Related Art Conventional software and hardware systems found within spacecraft, e.g., satellites, rockets, etc., continue to exhibit increasing degrees of complexity. This results in spacecraft systems which are very difficult to monitor and control from earth. To monitor a conventional spacecraft's performance from earth, large streams of data must be continuously transmitted from the spacecraft to a conventional ground support system for analysis. To attempt controlling or corrective action, the ground support system performs such analysis in real time. If a fault or an onset of a fault is detected in spacecraft data streams during analysis of the spacecraft data stream, the ground support system responds by attempting to isolate the cause of the fault, and selects and transmits instructions (hereinafter "command sequences") to the spacecraft to attempt to recover from the fault. Through continuous monitoring and analysis of the spacecraft data stream, the ground support system determines the success or failure of the selected command sequences. If the cause of the fault (or fault onset) is incorrectly isolated, command sequences transmitted may not only fail to correct the fault, but may also compound or create additional faults. As a result, the ground support system attempts to generate a new command sequence to attempt to recover from the previous command sequence transmitted as well as the original fault condition. Conventional ground support personnel create command sequences for a ground based system in a ground based test configuration (hereinafter a "test bed"). Generated command sequences are verified to solve particular faults that might occur in the spacecraft systems during a mission. These verified command sequences are then called upon when determined to be needed to correct a detected fault condition as previously discussed. However, the generation of faults in the test bed, no matter how thorough, may not result in the identification of all possible spacecraft faults. Thus, numbers of highly trained, ground based personnel often have to step in to attempt to diagnose a fault condition and generate a command sequence in hopes of correcting the problem. And, of course, not all faults lend themselves to recovery. Compounding matters, communication propagation times and available bandwidth constraints along with ground support and spacecraft processing times often yields a control feedback system that is very difficult to stabilize. In attempts to address such problems, conventional spacecraft systems are designed to enter a "safe state" upon detecting severe operating conditions. In the safe state, the spacecraft awaits ground based diagnosis and command sequences while attempting to minimize (further) damage to spacecraft systems. Moreover, during such times, the mission may be jeopardized merely as a result of entering the safe state. To accommodate conventional spacecraft, base support systems require very complex and costly processing systems capable of receiving and processing real time spacecraft data streams. They must also rapidly identify, isolate and attempt to recover from faults. As a design goal. conventional base support systems should recover a spacecraft from all encountered faults. As can be appreciated with such conventional designs, this goal is not easily met. In the article "System Fault Protection Design for the Cassini Spacecraft" by SLONSKI, J.P., in IEEE AEROSPACE APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, vol. 1, 1996, pages 279-292, New York, NY, USA, it is disclosed to recover fault conditions of a spacecraft in an autonomous manner by means of a fault detection and recovery implemented on board of the spacecraft. It is contemplated to perform a recovery from a fault conditions on the basis of measures characterized by information provided by a ground station for the spacecraft. In "Intelligent Fault Diagnosis and Control Reconfiguration" by RAUCH, H.E., in IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE, vol. 14, no. 3, June 1994, pages 6-12, USA, it is disclosed to employ a ground-based test bed for demonstrating fault accommodation for a space vehicle before launching into orbit. Recovery from fault conditions of the space vehicle are performed on the basis of results previously obtained by simulations utilizing the ground-based test bed. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention provides a system comprising a support unit, a test bed being communicatively coupled to the support unit and a remote unit communicatively coupled to the support by wireless transceivers as defined in claim 1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram that illustrates various functional aspects of an exemplary embodiment of a hardware and software system within a spacecraft built in accordance with the present invention to support autonomous fault detection, identification and recovery. Fig. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating the interaction of the spacecraft system of Fig. 1 with an exemplary ground support station to accommodate and support autonomous fault detection, identification and recovery in accordance with the present invention. Fig. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of portions of the spacecraft system of Figs. 1 and 2, further illustrating operation of autonomous fault processing in accordance with the present invention. Fig. 4 is a schematic diagram of an alternate embodiment of the fault detection and isolation and fault recovery modules of Figs. 1-2. Fig. 5a and 5b are schematic diagrams illustrating further embodiments of the fault detection and isolation module of Figs. 1-2. Fig. 6 is an exemplary flow diagram that illustrates the functionality of the spacecraft systems of Figs. 1-5b in accordance with the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram that illustrates various functional aspects of an exemplary embodiment of a hardware and software system within a spacecraft built in accordance with the present invention to support fault detection, identification and recovery. In particular, a spacecraft 101, as depicted by the dashed box, is configured with hardware and software modules that monitor spacecraft operational systems 105 to autonomously attempt to identify, isolate and recover from faults. The term "autonomous," as used herein, refers to on-board spacecraft operations that are performed independent of remote, earth based support stations or "ground support stations." To detect and isolate a fault, a fault detection and isolation module 109 monitors the spacecraft operational systems 105. If a fault is detected, the fault detection and isolation module 109 immediately attempts to isolate or "identify" the correct source of the fault, which may be any hardware and/or software component or subsystem with the spacecraft operational system 105. If the fault is detected and the source correctly isolated, the fault detection and isolation module 109 delivers such information to a fault recovery module 113. The fault recovery module 113 evaluates the detected and isolated fault and identifies an appropriate fault recovery script (or scripts) which it delivers to the spacecraft operational system 105. In response, the spacecraft operational system 105 follows the recovery script in an attempt to overcome or accommodate the isolated fault. Even though a fault has been detected and isolated, the fault detection and isolation module 109 continues to monitor the spacecraft operational systems 105. Thus, after the fault recovery module 113 delivers the fault recovery script to the spacecraft operational systems 105, the fault detection and isolation module 109 can determine whether the recovery script has proven successful. An indication of success or failure is delivered by the fault detection and isolation module 109 to the fault recovery module 113. If failure is encountered, the fault recovery module 113 may attempt to counter the effects of the unsuccessful fault recovery script and, further, may attempt alternate fault recovery scripts and check their effect on the fault. This cyclical process occurs on board in an autonomous manner so long as alternate recovery scripts are available; and without requiring intervention from base or ground support stations (not shown). If no alternate recovery scripts are available or when no further alternate recovery scripts remain, the fault recovery module 113 places the spacecraft in a safe mode if necessary or otherwise causes the spacecraft to operate with less than.full functionality. Information regarding the both the successful and unsuccessful attempts at recovery is communicated to the base or ground support stations. There such information may be analyzed in more detail so that new or replacement recovery scripts may be prepared and delivered to the spacecraft. The spacecraft operational systems 105 may also be placed into a safe mode of operation whenever a severe fault is detected. A safe mode override module 121 also monitors operation of the spacecraft operational systems 105. Upon detecting what is categorized as a severe fault, the safe mode override module 121 immediately places the spacecraft operational systems 105 in a safe operating state. The safe mode override module 121 overrides pending operations including those defined by the fault recovery module 113 in an ongoing fault recovery script. Thus, if the autonomous fault recovery script itself causes a severe fault or if a severe fault occurs without warning, damage to the spacecraft operational systems 105 or the mission may be prevented or at least minimized. Fig. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating the interaction of the spacecraft system such as that of Fig. 1 with an exemplary ground support station to accommodate and support autonomous fault detection, identification and recovery in accordance with the present invention. In particular, at a ground based station 251, a ground support unit 255 and a test bed 263 are used to monitor communications from the spacecraft and support autonomous fault operation as needed within a spacecraft 201 via a transceiver 259. As used herein, a ground support unit might comprise a monitoring system, a single computing device or a plurality of such devices forming a network, for example. As previously discussed, to detect and isolate a fault, a fault detection and isolation module 209 monitors spacecraft operational systems 205. When a fault is detected, the fault detection and isolation module 209 attempts to isolate the source of the fault within the spacecraft operational system 205. If a detected is correctly isolated, the fault detection and isolation module 209 delivers such information to a fault recovery module 213. The fault recovery module 213 evaluates the detected and isolated fault and identifies an appropriate fault recovery script which it delivers to the spacecraft operational system 205. The spacecraft operational systems 205 follow the fault recovery script delivered by the fault recovery module 213 in an attempt to overcome or accommodate the isolated fault. Fault recovery scripts typically also require the spacecraft operational systems 205 to report fault information, e.g., fault detect data, isolated fault source and recovery scripts selected, to the remote ground support unit 255 via a wireless transmission between a transceiver 217 and the transceiver 259. The transceivers 217 and 219 may comprise, for example, radio frequency or laser transceivers. If the fault detection and isolation module 209 fails to isolate a detected fault, such information is also delivered to the fault recovery module 213. For even without isolation of the source of the fault, the fault recovery module 213 may be able to identify a script (or scripts) for accommodating the detected fault and/or minimizing potential or further damage to the spacecraft operational systems 205 or the mission. The fault detection and isolation module 209 determines whether the recovery script has proven successful through its continuous monitoring of the spacecraft operational systems 205. An indication of success or failure is delivered by the fault detection and isolation module 209 to the fault recovery module 213. If successful, the fault recovery module 213 directs the spacecraft operational systems 205 to report such success along with associated operational parameters to the ground support unit 255 via the transceivers 217 and 259. However, if the fault detection and isolation module 209 reveals a failure in a fault recovery script delivered to the spacecraft operational systems 205, the fault recovery module 213 immediately responds by attempting to correct for the previous fault recovery script. The fault recovery module 213 also attempts to identify an alternate fault recovery script for recovering from the initial fault detected. If identified, the alternate fault recovery script is delivered to the spacecraft operational systems 205 along with the instructions for correcting for the previous fault recovery script. Again the success or failure is monitored. Unless successful or interrupted by the ground based system 255, this process continues until the fault recovery module 213 fails to identify any further alternate recovery scripts. During this process, all information regarding fault identification, isolation, recovery scripts selected and corresponding success or failure is relayed via the transceivers 217 and 259 to the ground support unit 255. If the fault recovery module 213 fails to accommodate or correct for a fault due to a failure to identify a (or any successful) recovery script, the fault recovery module 213 may direct the spacecraft to enter a safe mode if necessary and wait for further instructions from the ground support unit 255. If the spacecraft is not placed into a safe mode, it will operate with limited functionality until otherwise instructed by the ground support unit 255. In response to received fault processing information, the ground support unit 255 may direct the spacecraft operational systems to enter a safe operating state (or "safe mode"), while ground personnel and systems contemplate preparation of a fault recovery script not presently available to the fault recovery module 213. If constructed, the remote fault recovery script may be delivered directly to the spacecraft operational systems 205 or delivered to the fault recovery module 213 for execution. The latter approach is often preferable when the remote fault recovery script must be monitored, adapted and/or disabled in an autonomous fashion. Similarly, fault detection and isolation procedures and/or associated information may be delivered to the fault detection and isolation module 209 from ground support to assist the remote fault recovery module 213 in autonomously carrying out a fault recovery script received remotely. Ground support units and personnel may identify and verify further fault recovery scripts in the ground based test bed 263 while a spacecraft is on mission. Such fault recovery scripts may then be transmitted to the spacecraft 201 for supplementing the fault recovery module 213 and, if necessary, the fault detection and isolation module 209. In this way, autonomous fault recovery capabilities of the spacecraft 201 can be bolstered during a mission and prior to encountering such newly identified potential faults. The test bed 263 also provides a working environment prior to launch for ground personnel to identify faults and provide verification for fault recover scripts. Thereafter, such fault recovery scripts which are loaded into the modules 209 and 213 before launch have been verified, and, thus, are unlikely to send the spacecraft operational systems 205 into a severe fault condition when executed. As mentioned previously, some faults may require the fault recovery module 213 to immediately place the spacecraft operational systems 205 into a safe mode of operation. This may occur as part of the procedure to enable autonomous recovery from the fault, or may occur simply as a stop gap measure until the ground support unit 255 (and/or the ground support personnel) responds. Additionally, a safe mode override module 221 also monitors operation of the spacecraft operational systems 205. Upon detecting what are considered to be severe faults, the safe mode override module 221 immediately places the spacecraft operational systems 205 in a safe operating state and informs the ground support unit of the occurrence. The safe mode override module 221 overrides the fault recovery module 213 regarding pending operations of the spacecraft operational systems 205. With this approach, if the autonomous fault recovery itself causes a severe fault or if a severe fault occurs without warning, damage to the spacecraft operational systems 205 or the mission may be prevented or minimized. If the safe mode override module 221 places the spacecraft operational systems 205 into a safe state, the ground support unit 255 may control resetting the module 221 and restoring the system 205 to a normal operating state. Alternately in other embodiments, the ground support unit 255 may delegate such responsibilities to the fault recovery module 213, via a delivered fault recovery scripts constructed on the ground possibly via the test bed 263, to accommodate further autonomous fault recovery sequencing. Although the fault recovery module 213 may also contain predefined fault recovery scripts for autonomously resetting the module 221 and restoring the system 205, often times it may prove beneficial to require review of the severe fault conditions by ground support before such scripts are carried out. The safe mode override module 221, as illustrated, operates independently from the modules 209 and 213. Although the functionality of the override module 221 could be combined within the modules 209 and 213, independence might degrade along with the aforementioned performance. One might, however, combine the fault detection portion of the fault detection and isolation module 209 with the fault detection portion of the override module 221, and still benefit from the override portion of the override module 221 bounding the fault isolation portion of the fault detection and isolation module 209 and the fault recovery module. Alternatively, the safe mode override module 221 might be entirely removed from the spacecraft 201. Such removal might prove desirable where the fault detection and isolation module 209 and the fault recovery module 213 provide adequate substitute performance, for example, via redundancy and rapid safe mode performance. In the illustrated embodiment, communication both between the fault recovery module 213 and the spacecraft operational systems 205 and between the ground support unit 255 and the spacecraft operational systems 205 occurs via a high level command processor module 225. The command processor module 225 receives and processes high level commands that minimize wireless bandwidth in communicating instructions from the ground support unit 255. Although the fault recovery module 213 need not deliver such high level commands (and instead operate either directly with the spacecraft operational systems 205 or indirectly via a different command processing module), such operation exhibits advantages. The high level commands also enable support personnel to easily construct fault recovery scripts (pre or post launch) or otherwise interact with the spacecraft 201. It also minimizes the overall system complexity via a single standard interface to the spacecraft 201 or its constituent parts, decreasing potential other fault conditions. Therefore, for example, a series of verified high level commands generated in the test bed 263 (e.g., in the form of a fault recovery script) can be delivered without translation via the ground support unit 255 via the transceiver 259 to the spacecraft 201. Upon receipt, the high level commands are delivered to the command processor module 225 for controlling the spacecraft 201 to support direct (non-autonomous) fault recovery or non-fault mission objectives. Similarly, using the same high level commands, trained personnel may also generate scripts executable by and stored within the spacecraft operating systems 205 to support mission objectives unrelated to faults. Otherwise, as previously noted, the high level commands may constitute fault recovery scripts delivered for storage and use by the fault recovery module 213. Similarly, high level scripts may also be used to define further functionality or to provide further information for the fault detection and isolation module 209. Fig. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of portions of the spacecraft system of Figs. 1 and 2, further illustrating variations of the operation of autonomous fault processing in accordance with the present invention. A fault detection and isolation module 309 and a fault recovery module 313 operate together to identify and isolate faults, select fault recovery scripts and evaluate recovery success/failure. A low level control module 359 receives data/measurements from target hardware/software subsystems 351, 353, 355 and 357. Such data/measurements are that needed to adequately detect fault occurrences related to the target subsystems 351, 353, 355 and 357. As illustrated, the target systems may comprise sensors, actuators, power sources and operational electronics (representing various other circuitry and software subsystems), for example. A low level control module 359 gathers the data/measurements from the target subsystems 351, 353, 355 and 357, and relays the data/measurements to a preprocessor 361. The preprocessor 361 preprocesses the data/measurements to ensure compatibility with the fault detection and isolation module 309. The preprocessor 361 delivers the preprocessed data/measurements to the fault detection and isolation module 309. In the illustrated embodiment, the fault detection and isolation module 309 comprises a model-based reasoning program based on a technique known as "constraint suspension." In particular, the module 309 comprises a generic engine and a plurality of software models imbedded in a CPU 305 of the spacecraft. Further detail regarding this model-based reasoning program may be found in a doctoral thesis entitled "MARPLE: An Autonomous Diagnostician for Isolating System Hardware Failures," published in 1993 at UCLA. Although constraint suspension techniques are used in this embodiment, many other conventional mechanisms for detecting and isolating fault might alternately be used. The fault detection and isolation module 309 propagates the preprocessed data/measurements received from the preprocessor 361 through the plurality of software models and uses tolerance checks to determine if inconsistencies exist between the hardware units and the low-level commands, where inconsistencies are defined as off-nominal behavior. Then, if an inconsistency is found, the fault detection and isolation module 309 uses an extension of constraint suspension to autonomously isolate the faulty component. Thereafter and periodically on a cycle by cycle basis, the fault detection and isolation module 309 delivers a message to the fault recovery module 313 indicating system status. Messages indicating fault contain an identification number corresponding to the faulty component isolated. The fault recovery module 313 responds to messages indicating fault by performing two actions. First, the fault recovery module 313 accesses a predefined component failure/fault effect database to determine if any fault recovery command scripts, or any command scripts related to normal operations, need to be disabled, modified or replaced due to the faulty component. When necessary, the component failure/fault effect database contains the functional dependencies between components and stored fault recovery command scripts. The fault recovery module 313 sets enable/disable flags in a command script database 363 to disable all fault recovery command scripts that require the faulty component. When possible, instead of merely disabling a command script, the fault recovery module 313 will modify or replace the command script to permit partial or alternate operational functionality. Thus, this approach considers the effects of the fault on the entire system. Because failures in different modes of operations may require different recovery procedures, the fault recovery module 313 next executes fault recovery logic subroutines to determine the appropriate fault recovery command script to run. This script number is then communicated to a high level command processor 325. Of course the fault recovery command script (or "fault recovery script" as used herein) communicated may often comprise a plurality of high level scripts that are needed to address many corresponding effects that the fault has caused the system. In response, the high level command processor 325 accesses the command script database 363 at the location corresponding to the fault recovery and normal operation script number. It then checks low and high level system and hardware constraints to verify that the required fault recovery script does not violate any rules. If the fault recovery script is valid, the high level command processor 325 sends the fault recovery script to the low level control module 359 without waiting for external (remote) intervention. The low level control module 359 carries out the script via the appropriate one(s) of the target subsystems 351, 353, 355 and 357. Further detail regarding the interaction of the script database 363 and the high level command processor 325 during normal operations using command scripts can be found in U.S. Patent No. 5,951,609 , entitled "Method and System for Autonomous Spacecraft Control," filed on even date herewith by Hanson et al. Fig. 4 is a schematic diagram of an alternate embodiment of the fault detection and isolation and fault recovery modules of Figs. 1-2. A fault detection and isolation module 401 and a fault recovery module 403 operate to provide autonomous fault identification, isolation and recovery in a remote system such as a spacecraft in much the same way described previously in reference to counterpart modules described in reference to Fig. 1, for example. More particularly, within the fault detection and isolation module 401, a system model 411 (or plurality thereof) generates predicted system behavior for delivery to a comparator 413. The comparator 413 compares the predicted system behavior with actual system behavior that is also received by the comparator 413. The comparator 413 delivers the results of the comparison to a heuristic module 415 for evaluation. Using empirical spacecraft knowledge, e.g., such as reliability data relating to individual components or subsystems, the heuristic module 415 attempts to generate a suggested failure type. In response, a problem solver module 417 utilizes the suggested failure type in attempts to narrow the possibilities and identify (isolate) the component which failed. Alternatively, if the heuristic module 415 fails to suggest a failure type, the problem solver module 417 must resort to a broader set of possibilities when attempting to identify the fault. In either case, of course, such identification actually constitutes a hypothesis, because the system has not attempted verification. Hypotheses generated by the problem solver module 415 are delivered to the system model 411 for generation of a new prediction of system behavior. This process of cycling between the modules 413, 415, 417 and 411 continues until the comparator 413 identifies a match between current predicted and actual system behavior. The problem solver module 417 responds to the matching event (via the module 415) to deliver the hypothesis to the fault recovery module 403. A correction module 419 therein responds to the delivery by attempting to correct the spacecraft operational systems via diagnosis and prior history. As may be appreciated, although the heuristic module 417 need not exist for the fault detection and isolation module 401 to work properly, the heuristic module 417 enhances the operation. It does so by, among other things, accelerating the process of isolating fault. It also helps focus the isolation search on highly likely component failure types in what might otherwise be surrounded by a sea of highly unlikely failure types. Fig. 5a and 5b are schematic diagrams illustrating further embodiments of the fault detection and isolation module of Figs. 1-2. Specifically, Fig. 5a offers an illustration of a further variation of that found in Fig. 4. As before, a system model module 511 generates predicted system behavior. A comparator 513 compares the predicted system behavior with that of actual behavior and delivers the results of the comparison to a first stage fault detection and isolation module 515. In the first stage module 515, the heuristics described above in reference to the heuristic module 415 (Fig. 4) is applied to prioritize and possibly narrow the field of possible faults. The results of the first stage module 515 is delivered to a second stage fault detection and isolation module 516 which performs fault detection at a subsystem level, attempting to further narrow the field of possible faults. The results of the second stage module 515 is then passed to a third stage fault detection and isolation module 517 which attempts to isolate the actual failed component within suggested subsystems identified by the second stage module 515. With this hierarchical approach to detecting fault, it can be appreciated that at least speed can be enhanced in the process of isolation. The hierarchical approach takes advantage of specific benefits offered by different types of approaches to fault detection while avoiding their limitations. Moreover, although only three particular types of approaches are illustrated at the modules 515-517, many other types of approaches and various combinations thereof might also be employed. Fig. 5b provides a further variation of the fault detection and isolation module of Fig. 4. In particular, instead of using the comparator 415 and the system model module 411 (Fig. 4), a fault detection and isolation module 551 comprises a first, second and third stage fault detect modules 553-555 which correspond in functionality to the modules 515-517 of Fig. 5a. However, the final hypothesis generated at the module 555 may be considered sufficient for delivery to a fault detection module (not shown). Fig. 6 is an exemplary flow diagram that illustrates typical functionality of the spacecraft systems of Figs. 1-5b in accordance with the present invention. For example, referring to typical modules found in Fig. 1, a fault detect module monitors the behavior of spacecraft operational systems in an attempt to detect fault at a block 601. Also at the block 601, the safe mode override module monitors such behavior. If the safe mode override module detects a severe fault condition, as represented by an event block 603, the override module places the spacecraft operational systems into a safe mode or state at a block 605. Thereafter, at a block 607, information regarding the severe fault is communicated wirelessly to the ground support unit where further direction regarding fault identification, isolation and recovery may originate. Alternately, at the block 601, if the fault detection and isolation module detects a fault, as indicated by a block 611, the fault detection and isolation module attempts to isolate the fault at a block 613. If successful, as determined at a block 615, the fault recovery module will respond at a block 617 by attempting fault recovery. The information regarding the fault, including for example the fault type and selected fault detect script or scripts used, is communicated to the remote ground support unit at the block 607. Thereafter, the fault detection and isolation module returns to the block 601 to evaluate the effects of the attempted fault recovery. Similarly, fault information is also communicated at the block 607 if the fault detection and isolation module fails to isolate the fault as determined at the block 615. Because the fault detection and isolation module and the fault recovery module together operate independently from the safe mode override module, detection and parallel processing of events may exist. Under such circumstances, as previously mentioned, the safe mode override module governs and, thereby, bounds the fault recovery module. Among other benefits, this provides a rapid mechanism for shutting down the system as soon as severe faults occur without having to wait for the processing complexities and delays associated with fault isolation. It also bounds any result of incorrect hypotheses that may cause a severe fault. The use of the term "modules" as used herein with refers generally to hardware and software, alone or in combination, which carries out the particular functionality at issue. Moreover, the term "module" is not meant to imply that each given module is distinct in both hardware and software from all other modules, even though this may sometimes be the case. Even so, in many cases, the underlying hardware (and possibly software) of one module may overlap that of several others. In other words, the term refers to functional modules and not physical modules. Furthermore, as used herein recovery from a specific fault might constitute, for example, one or more of: 1) redundant hardware replacement; 2) redundant software replacement; 3) software replacement to failing hardware; 4) software patches that provide substandard yet acceptable operation; 5) cancellation of specific but not all of mission functionality; or 6) otherwise adapting to available resources to carry out needed tasks. In view of the above detailed description of the present invention and associated drawings, other modifications and variations will now become apparent to those skilled in the art. For example, although the functionality associated with fault detection and correction herein is illustrated in context of spacecraft embodiments, such functionality could also be placed within any remote non-spacecraft system which does not lend itself to non-autonomous approaches for fault management, e.g., aircraft, submarines or power plants. Moreover, it should also be apparent that such and other modifications and variations may be effected without departing from the scope of the present invention as set forth in the claims which follow.

Claims: A system comprising: a support unit (255), a test bed (263) communicatively coupled to the support unit (255), a remote unit (201) being communicatively coupled to the support unit (255) via wireless transceivers (217, 259), having a plurality of differing components each of which operate in one of multiple conditions including at least one fault condition and exhibiting operating characteristics that indicate when a component enters a fault condition, the remote unit (201) comprising: a fault detect and isolation module (209) that monitors the operating characteristics of the remote unit (201) to autonomously detect and isolate fault conditions; and a fault recovery module (213) which responds to at least the detection of the fault condition by the fault detect and isolation module (209) to autonomously recover the remote unit (201) from the fault condition using at least one of a plurality of fault recovery scripts, and characterized in that the test bed (263) verifies at least one of the plurality of fault recovery scripts, and the ground support (255) transmits the at least one verified of the plurality of fault recovery scripts to the remote unit (201). The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of fault recovery scripts to be verified is generated in the test bed (263) in response when the fault recovery module (213) fails to autonomously recover the remote unit (201) from a fault condition. The system according to one of the preceding claims, wherein at least one of the plurality of fault recovery scripts is generated by the fault recovery module (213) in response to a failed attempt to autonomously recover the remote unit from the fault condition. The system according to one of the preceding claims, wherein the fault detection and isolation module (209) comprises a plurality of fault isolation sub-modules (515, 516, 517) that are hierarchically arranged. The system according to one of the preceding claims, wherein the fault detection and isolation module (209) includes a feedback path for confirming isolation before the fault recovery module (213) attempts autonomous fault recovery. The system according to one of the preceding claims, comprising a safe mode module (221) that monitors the operating characteristics of the remote unit (201) to detect severe fault conditions and that, upon detecting severe fault conditions, places the remote unit (201) in a safe operational state. The system of claim 6, wherein the safe mode module (221) overrides an ongoing attempt by the fault recovery module (213) of autonomous recovery. The system according to one of the preceding claims, wherein the remote unit (201) comprises a command processor (225) coupled to both the wireless transceiver (217) of the remote unite (201) and the fault recovery module (213). The system of claim 8, wherein the fault recovery module (213) performs the recovery process of the fault condition via the command processor (225). The system of claim 8 or 9, wherein the command processor (225) receives the at least one verified fault recovery scripts from the support unit (255). The system according to one of the preceding claims, wherein the fault recovery module (213) receives the at least one verified of the plurality of fault recovery scripts from the support unit (255). The system according to one of the preceding claims, wherein the remote unit (201) is a spacecraft, and the support unit (255) is a ground support unit for the spacecraft.

Inventors: FESQ LORRAINE M, HANSON MARK L, NGUYEN MAI H, FESQ, LORRAINE M., HANSON, MARK L., NGUYEN, MAI H.
Applicants: TRW INC, TRW INC.
Application year: 1998
Main classification: B64G1
IPC codes: B64G1, G06F11, G05B23, G05B9, G01M17