Advertisement

Multi-agent Architecture for Automating Satellite Control Operations Planning and Execution

  • Adriana C. Biancho
  • Andreia C. de Aquino
  • Mauricio G. V. Ferreira
  • José Demisio S. da Silva
  • Luciana S. Cardoso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4251)

Abstract

Reducing the costs of space operations is an increasing demand which may be achieved by automating the ground segment operations. This work proposes a Multi-Agent Ground-operation Automation architecture named MAGA that aggregates agents responsible for automating the ground segment operation planning and execution. MAGA architecture manages ground resource allocation for multi-satellite tracking, plans the satellite control operations and automates plan execution. For managing the sharing of ground resources, it identifies satellites with time-conflicting visibility periods and reduces the least priority satellite tracking. For the planning process, MAGA architecture analyzes whether a satellite tracking period is sufficient to achieve all the tracking goals and allows the elimination of lesser priority goals in case of insufficient time. The satellite control planning problem is specified in PDDL 2.2 and the satellite control plans generated according to the temporal planning paradigm.

Keywords

Satellite Tracking Planner Agent Satellite Control Tracking Period Executor Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ECSS-E-70: Part 1A: Space Engineering – Ground Systems and Operations. Part 1 – Principles and Requirements. ESA Publications Division, Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fikes, R., Nilsson, N.: STRIPS – A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem-Solving. Artificial Intelligence 3-4(2), 189–208 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL 2.1 – An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 61–124 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edelkamp, S., Hoffmann, J.: PDDL 2.2 – The Language for the Classical Part of the 4th International Planning Competition. Technical Report 195. Albert Ludwigs Universität, Institüt fur Informatik, Freiburg, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerevini, A., Saetti, A., Serina, I., Toninelli, P.: Planning in PDDL2.2 Domains with LPG-TD. In: International Planning Competition booklet. 14th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, Whistler, Canada (June 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zheng’an, Z., Tongjie, Y., Lun, L.: Planning and Scheduling of Operations of Small Satellites. In: Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Space Operations, Montreal, Canada (May 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, D.: Choosing Objectives in Over-Subscription Planning. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, Whistler, Canada, June 2004, pp. 393–401. AAAI Publisher, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coddington, A.: A Continuous Planning Framework with Durative Actions. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, July 2002, pp. 108–114. IEEE Computer Society, Manchester (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana C. Biancho
    • 1
  • Andreia C. de Aquino
    • 1
  • Mauricio G. V. Ferreira
    • 1
  • José Demisio S. da Silva
    • 1
  • Luciana S. Cardoso
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Computing Postgraduate ProgramNational Institute for Space Research (INPE)São José dos CamposBrazil

Personalised recommendations