Quality control maturity evaluation method and device for aerospace flight control task

Abstract

The invention relates to a quality control maturity evaluation method and device for a spaceflight control task, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining a task input requirement and historical task data of the spaceflight control task, and constructing a task system model of a four-layer architecture through employing an MBSE method according to the task input requirement and historical task data of the spaceflight control task; according to the task system model, the system supports multi-dimensional identification of quality control key elements of a space flight control task from information data and control activities, and an element identification rule is established; according to an element identification rule, performing maturity index mapping on the quality control key elements, and constructing a maturity evaluation index system for quality-effect evaluation and continuous improvement; and evaluating the quality control maturity of the to-be-processed aerospace flight control task according to the maturity evaluation index system to obtain an evaluation result. The flight control task system model is constructed through MBSE, the quality control key elements are identified in multiple dimensions, the maturity evaluation index system is established, and standardization and refinement of flight control task quality control are achieved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the fields of aerospace quality management and spacecraft flight control technology. Specifically, this invention relates to a method and apparatus for evaluating the maturity of quality control in aerospace flight control missions. Background Technology

[0002] With the increasing frequency of space missions and the growing technical difficulty and complexity of missions, the probability of quality problems occurring during the preparation and implementation of flight control missions also increases, posing huge risks and challenges to the quality of spacecraft operation and control. Current quality management methods play an important supporting role in fulfilling mission engineering requirements, but in the face of a complex quality management situation, there are still many weak links. Optimizing flight control mission quality control management and methods is an urgent need.

[0003] Currently, mainstream aerospace mission quality management methods mainly include the ISO 9001 quality management system, quality teams (experts, quality engineers, quality personnel, and quality inspectors), product assurance management, technical specifications and standards, and quality management regulations. These methods have the following limitations: 1) They heavily rely on expert experience and the professional competence of specific staff, making it difficult to effectively preserve, inherit, and promote expert knowledge. 2) When integrated with different phases of the aerospace mission, they tend to be understood as routine work processes, with quality management characteristics not being prominent in some areas, leaving significant room for improvement in quality control efficiency. 3) Facing the complexities of aerospace systems engineering, there are quality control risks in areas such as technical status control, requirement changes, document management (external input documents, internally generated documents, mission configuration files, etc.), and version control, especially in areas involving personnel operation, including omissions and incomplete transmission, inadequate impact domain analysis, and operational errors. These limitations may lead to serious quality problems and threaten the operational safety of spacecraft. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a method and apparatus for evaluating the maturity of quality control in aerospace flight control missions, aiming to solve at least one of the above-mentioned technical problems.

[0005] In a first aspect, the technical solution of the present invention to solve the above-mentioned technical problems is as follows: a method for evaluating the maturity of quality control in aerospace flight control missions, the method comprising: Based on the mission input requirements and historical mission data of aerospace flight control missions, a four-layer mission system model is constructed using the MBSE method. The mission system model is used to describe the mission elements of aerospace flight control missions and the interaction relationships between the various mission elements. Based on the mission system model, key elements for quality control of aerospace flight control missions are identified from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, and rules for element identification are established. Based on the element identification rules, maturity indicators are mapped to key elements of quality control to construct a maturity evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement. The quality control maturity of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed is evaluated based on the maturity evaluation index system, and the evaluation results are obtained.

[0006] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: By acquiring mission input requirements and historical data and constructing a four-layer architecture mission system model using the MBSE method, complex aerospace flight control missions are abstracted into standardized descriptions of the mission layer, requirement layer, capability layer, and control activity layer. This simplifies the system design and analysis process, which involves a wide range of aspects, numerous factors, and complex information relationships. Furthermore, using a unified model as an information medium enhances stakeholder communication, reduces information loss and misunderstanding, and effectively solves the problem of traditional quality management's heavy reliance on expert experience, making it difficult to preserve, inherit, and promote. Moreover, it identifies key elements of quality control from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, and establishes element identification rules based on FMEA, expert knowledge, quality system requirements, and mission specifications. Based on this, maturity indicators are mapped to key quality control elements to construct an evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement. A refined flight control process and systematic evaluation framework are designed, and the output of documents, control, and management quality at each stage are optimized by monitoring key performance indicators. Finally, this system is used to evaluate the maturity of tasks to be processed, outputting quantitative evaluation results to support refined management decisions, thereby improving the refined management and quality control level of flight control missions and providing a complete, quantifiable, iterative, and sustainable technical path for improving the reliability of spacecraft control management.

[0007] Based on the above technical solution, the present invention can be further improved as follows.

[0008] Furthermore, the aforementioned four-layer architecture includes: The mission layer describes the overall objectives and phase divisions of aerospace flight control missions. The requirements layer describes the functional requirements, data requirements, and constraints of aerospace flight control missions. The capability layer describes the functional modules required to complete aerospace flight control missions and the logical relationships between these modules. The control activity layer describes the on-site control activities and automatic system execution actions of aerospace flight control missions.

[0009] Furthermore, based on the mission system model, the key elements for quality control of aerospace flight control missions are identified from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support. These include: The first key element in identifying aerospace flight control missions is the external input information, internally generated and transferred data information, and interface information from the perspective of information data. The second key element in identifying the job-specific control activities and internal and external collaborative work in aerospace flight control missions is the control activities themselves. Identify the third key element of aerospace flight control missions from the perspective of system support: hardware and software systems, communication support, and electromechanical systems. The key elements of quality control include the first key element, the second key element, and the third key element.

[0010] Furthermore, the aforementioned rules for establishing element identification include: Based on the three dimensions of information data, operational activities, and system support, the aspect layer is determined. The specific content of the aspect layer includes three quality control dimensions: information data quality, operational activity quality, and system support capability. Based on failure mode and effects analysis, expert experience and knowledge, quality management system requirements and task standardization documents, the key elements of quality control are decomposed and defined in a progressive hierarchical structure of aspect layer, element layer and sub-element layer, forming element identification rules.

[0011] Furthermore, based on failure mode and effects analysis, expert experience and knowledge, quality management system requirements, and task standardization documents, the key elements of quality control are decomposed and defined in a progressive hierarchical structure of aspect layer, element layer, and sub-element layer, forming element identification rules, including: At the aspect layer, based on failure mode and effects analysis and expert experience, the element layer is determined. The specific content of the element layer includes the quality control subject objects corresponding to each dimension. The quality control subject objects include at least one of engineering input documents, control positions, and business processes. Under the element layer, based on failure mode and effects analysis, quality management system requirements and task standardization documents, sub-element layers are determined. The specific content of the sub-element layer includes the key quality control indicators corresponding to each quality control subject. Based on failure mode and effects analysis, expert experience and knowledge, quality management system requirements and task standardization documents, the specific contents of the aspect layer, element layer and sub-element layer are identified and defined to form element identification rules.

[0012] Furthermore, based on the element identification rules, maturity indicators are mapped to key quality control elements to construct a maturity evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement, including: Based on the key elements of quality control, identify the main objects of quality control under the three dimensions of quality control: information data, control activities, and system support. Based on the element identification rules, corresponding key quality control indicators are designed for each quality control subject. The key quality control indicators for each quality control subject include at least one of the following: data version management, status change control and approval, operator reliability, operation process standardization, control logic and timing correctness, and system reliability. The three quality control dimensions, each quality control subject, and the corresponding key quality control indicators are constructed into a progressive maturity evaluation index system.

[0013] Furthermore, the quality control maturity of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed was evaluated based on the maturity evaluation index system, and the evaluation results are as follows: Acquire actual data on each key quality control indicator corresponding to the maturity evaluation index system for the aerospace flight control mission to be processed; By comparing the actual data with the evaluation benchmarks in the maturity evaluation index system, the maturity level of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed at each level of aspect layer, element layer and sub-element layer is determined. Based on the maturity level of each level, evaluation results for the aerospace flight control missions to be processed are generated.

[0014] Secondly, to solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention also provides a quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions, the device comprising: The acquisition module is used to acquire and construct a four-layer mission system model based on the mission input requirements and historical mission data of the aerospace flight control mission using the MBSE method. The mission system model is used to describe the mission elements of the aerospace flight control mission and the interaction relationships between the various mission elements. The rule-building module is used to identify key elements of quality control for aerospace flight control missions from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, based on the mission system model, and to establish rules for element identification. The system construction module is used to map maturity indicators to key quality control elements according to element identification rules, and to build a maturity evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement. The evaluation module is used to evaluate the quality control maturity of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed according to the maturity evaluation index system, and obtain the evaluation results.

[0015] Thirdly, in order to solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention also provides an electronic device, which includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the quality control maturity evaluation method for aerospace flight control missions of the present application.

[0016] Fourthly, in order to solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the quality control maturity evaluation method for aerospace flight control missions of the present application.

[0017] Additional aspects and advantages of this application will be set forth in part in the description which follows, and will become apparent from the description or may be learned by practice of this application. Attached Figure Description

[0018] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments of the present invention will be briefly introduced below.

[0019] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a quality control maturity evaluation method for aerospace flight control missions, provided as an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a method for constructing an evaluation index system for aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity model, provided in one embodiment of the present invention. Figure 3 A schematic diagram of a task system model based on MBSE provided in one embodiment of the present invention; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the mechanism of action of key elements in a flight control mission maturity model, provided in one embodiment of the present invention. Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the hierarchical relationship of an indicator system construction according to an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 6 A schematic diagram illustrating the identification process of key quality control elements according to an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 7 A schematic diagram illustrating a key element of quality control according to an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 8 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the process of maturity evaluation for a spaceflight control mission quality control maturity system based on MBSE, as provided in one embodiment of the present invention. Figure 9 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions, provided in one embodiment of the present invention. Figure 10 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in one embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0020] The principles and features of the present invention are described below. The examples given are only for explaining the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of the present invention.

[0021] The technical solution of the present invention and how the technical solution of the present invention solves the above-mentioned technical problems are described in detail below with specific embodiments. These specific embodiments can be combined with each other, and the same or similar concepts or processes may not be described again in some embodiments. The embodiments of the present invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0022] The solution provided in this invention can be applied to any application scenario requiring target detection. The solution provided in this invention can be executed by any electronic device, such as a user's terminal device, including at least one of the following: smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop computer, smart speaker, smartwatch, smart TV, or smart in-vehicle device.

[0023] This invention provides a possible implementation, such as... Figure 1 The diagram shows a flowchart of a method for evaluating the maturity of quality control in aerospace flight control missions. This method can be executed by any electronic device, such as a terminal device, or by a terminal device and a server. For ease of description, the method provided in this embodiment will be described below using a terminal device as the execution subject as an example. Figure 1 The flowchart shown indicates that the method may include the following steps: S10: Acquire and construct a four-layer mission system model based on the mission input requirements and historical mission data of the aerospace flight control mission using the MBSE method. The mission system model is used to describe the mission elements of the aerospace flight control mission and the interaction relationships between the various mission elements. S20, based on the mission system model, identifies key elements of quality control for aerospace flight control missions from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, and establishes rules for element identification. S30, based on the element identification rules, maps maturity indicators to key elements of quality control, and constructs a maturity evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement. S40 evaluates the quality control maturity of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed according to the maturity evaluation index system, and obtains the evaluation results.

[0024] This invention utilizes a method that, by acquiring mission input requirements and historical data and employing the MBSE (Multi-Level Modeling) approach to construct a four-layer architecture mission system model, abstracts complex aerospace flight control missions into standardized descriptions of the mission layer, requirement layer, capability layer, and control activity layer. This simplifies the system design and analysis process, which involves a wide range of stakeholders, numerous factors, and complex information relationships. Furthermore, the unified model serves as an information medium to enhance stakeholder communication, reduce information loss and misunderstandings, and effectively solves the problem of traditional quality management's heavy reliance on expert experience, making it difficult to preserve, inherit, and promote. The invention further identifies key quality control elements from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, and establishes element identification rules based on FMEA (Faculty of Management Experience), expert knowledge, quality system requirements, and mission specifications. Based on this, maturity indicators are mapped to key quality control elements to construct an evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement. A refined flight control process and systematic evaluation framework are designed, and key performance indicators are monitored to optimize document output, control, and management quality at each stage. Finally, this system is used to evaluate the maturity of tasks under processing, outputting quantitative evaluation results to support refined management decisions. This improves the refined management and quality control level of flight control missions, providing a quantifiable, iterative, and sustainable complete technical path for enhancing the reliability of spacecraft control management.

[0025] The following specific embodiments further illustrate the solution of the present invention. Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is a formally recognized application of modeling methods in systems engineering activities. It uses modeling methods to support activities such as system requirements, design, analysis, verification, and validation. These activities begin in the conceptual design phase and continue throughout the entire development process and subsequent lifecycle phases. MBSE technology is becoming a recognized digital design paradigm for complex systems. Currently, MBSE has extensive research and application in the fields of systems engineering and digital engineering, and it also possesses significant application value and advantages in the field of quality management. This paper introduces the MBSE method into the quality management and control of aerospace missions, conducts research on MBSE-based aerospace flight control mission quality control methods, and designs an MBSE-based quality control maturity model and evaluation index system to improve the quality of aerospace operation and control.

[0026] This invention focuses on the quality management and control of spacecraft flight control missions at ground operation control centers, proposing a method for constructing an evaluation index system for a spacecraft flight control mission quality control maturity model based on MBSE (Mobility Maturity Model for Flight Control). First, the MBSE method is used to construct a system model of the spacecraft flight control mission. Through system model analysis, quality control elements are identified. Based on this, maturity assessment theory and methods are applied to design a flight control mission quality control maturity model and evaluation index system. This maturity assessment model improves the level of refined management and quality control of flight control missions. Specific problems to be addressed include: (1) Based on the characteristics and patterns of spacecraft flight control missions, a spaceflight flight control mission system model is constructed using the MBSE method.

[0027] (2) Analyze the flight control mission through the system model and identify the quality control elements.

[0028] (3) Based on the requirements of the quality control maturity model theory and method, design and construct the flight control mission quality control maturity model and evaluation index system.

[0029] In response to the above problems, this invention has conducted a detailed analysis, clarified the relevant definitions and boundaries, and proposed solutions and specific implementation steps.

[0030] The solutions provided in this invention are applicable to scenarios involving quality control and maturity evaluation of flight control missions for various spacecraft (such as satellites, space stations, and probes) by ground control centers. The solutions provided in this invention can be executed by the computer system of the aerospace flight control center, or by flight control center technicians with computer assistance.

[0031] Based on this, in this embodiment, combined with Figure 2 and Figure 8 This paper provides a method for evaluating the maturity of quality control in aerospace flight control missions, which may include the following steps: S10: Acquire and construct a four-layer mission system model based on the mission input requirements and historical mission data of the aerospace flight control mission using the MBSE method. The mission system model is used to describe the mission elements of the aerospace flight control mission and the interaction relationships between the various mission elements.

[0032] In this step, the first step is to obtain the mission input requirements and historical mission data for the aerospace flight control mission to be evaluated. Mission input requirements include, but are not limited to, technical documents such as the overall engineering implementation plan, flight procedures, injected data format specifications, command usage guidelines, status monitoring and judgment conditions, system interface protocols, anomaly handling plans, and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Historical mission data includes mission planning templates, job operation manuals, quality problem case libraries, and expert experience and knowledge compiled from summarizing historical flight control missions of similar spacecraft.

[0033] Optionally, the above four-layer architecture includes: The mission layer describes the overall objectives and phase divisions of aerospace flight control missions. The requirements layer describes the functional requirements, data requirements, and constraints of aerospace flight control missions. The capability layer describes the functional modules required to complete aerospace flight control missions and the logical relationships between these modules. The control activity layer describes the on-site control activities and automatic system execution actions of aerospace flight control missions.

[0034] Based on the mission input requirements and historical mission data for the aforementioned aerospace flight control mission, a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach can be used to construct a mission system model framework, i.e., a mission system model. This mission system model adopts a four-layer architecture: "mission layer—requirements layer—capability layer—control activities layer," to systematically decompose and standardize the description of the flight control mission. Mission Layer: Defines the overall objectives and phase divisions of the aerospace flight control mission. In this embodiment, the flight control mission is divided into three lifecycle phases: the preparation phase (writing the mission control implementation plan and generating planned instruction data), the countersigning phase (countersigning and confirming the plan, instructions, orbit prediction, and other data), and the operation implementation phase (each position carries out control activities according to the procedures with the support of the flight control software, hardware, and communication system).

[0035] The requirements layer describes the functional requirements, data requirements, and constraints of the flight control mission. In this embodiment, the requirements layer summarizes six core requirements: control scheme constraints, mission planning, telemetry and control resource assurance, telemetry data reception and parsing, spacecraft status monitoring, and uplink remote control command and injection data transmission. The requirements layer clarifies the input-output relationships and technical status baselines that need to be met at each stage. Figure 2 As shown, the control scheme clarifies the control process and constraints for the spacecraft, and based on this, mission planning is carried out to generate control plans and command data for control. With communication links guaranteed, ground stations and other telemetry and control resources are used to track and control the spacecraft, receive and analyze downlink telemetry and external measurement data, monitor the spacecraft's status, and send uplink remote control commands and inject data through the stations to achieve the control objectives of the spacecraft.

[0036] Capability Layer: Describes the functional modules and their logical relationships required to complete flight control tasks. In this embodiment, the capability layer modularizes flight control task functions into mission planning capabilities, trajectory determination and prediction capabilities, remote control injection capabilities, telemetry monitoring capabilities, command and dispatch capabilities, etc. Each capability is achieved collaboratively by several control activities, and capability modules are interconnected through data interfaces and service calls. Specifically, a "capability" can be interpreted as a "flight control task functional module," which is the logical core for completing the flight control task. A "capability" is considered as a set of interrelated and interacting functional components that perform one or more expected functions of the target system. Capabilities are implemented by "control activities." A "capability" can be completed by one or more "control activities."

[0037] The control activity layer describes the specific activities of operators in manipulating the operation control software system, hardware system, communication system, and electromechanical system, as well as the actions of automatic system operation feedback. In this embodiment, the control activity layer includes task planning activities of the task planning position, precise track determination activities of the track maintenance position, remote control command generation and transmission activities of the operation control position, and status interpretation activities of the telemetry monitoring position. Each activity is described in a standardized manner according to the job operation manual. Specifically, "control activity" refers to the specific activities of operators in manipulating the operation control software system, hardware system, communication system, and electromechanical system, or it can be the actions of automatic system operation feedback from the software system, hardware system, and communication system. "Control activity" can be described by the job operation manual, and operators carry out control activities or conduct job skills learning and training according to the job operation manual.

[0038] Through the above four-layer architecture, the mission system model comprehensively depicts the structure, working content, key elements of operation and implementation, and interaction mechanism of the flight control mission, forming the sole data source for subsequent quality control analysis.

[0039] The mission elements of the aforementioned aerospace flight control mission refer to the abstract expression and structured description of the functions, activities, data, resources, and constraints contained in the four-layer architecture mission system model constructed based on the MBSE method. Specifically, these include: mission objectives and life cycle phase divisions defined at the mission layer; functional and data requirements and constraints defined at the requirements layer; functional modules and their logical relationships defined at the capability layer; job operations and automatic system execution actions defined at the control activity layer; and information data resources, organizational structure, human resources, institutional norms, and hardware and software system elements that support mission operation.

[0040] The interaction between the aforementioned mission elements refers to the hierarchical dependence, functional mapping, information transmission, and dynamic correlation of each mission element in order to achieve the overall goal of the aerospace flight control mission through data flow, control flow, and collaborative mechanisms.

[0041] Optionally, see Figure 3 The aforementioned S10 specifically includes: S10-1: Acquire and parse the mission input requirements and historical mission data for aerospace flight control missions; S10-2: Based on mission input requirements, the aerospace flight control mission is divided into stages and the objectives are defined at the mission level; Preparation phase: defined as the phase of writing a mission control implementation plan according to mission input requirements, clarifying spacecraft control procedures and constraints, and generating various flight control plans and command data; The countersigning stage is defined as the stage in which multiple positions and systems work together to countersign and confirm various technical documents and data produced in the preparation stage, such as plans, instructions, data, and orbit forecasts. Operation Implementation Phase: Defined as the phase in which operators at each position, with the support of flight control software, hardware, and communication systems, carry out specific control activities in accordance with the signed mission control procedures, and work together to achieve the spacecraft's flight control objectives.

[0042] S10-3: The task layer is divided into three phases, and the functional requirements, data requirements, and constraints are defined item by item in the requirements layer: Preparation phase requirements: Clarify the requirements for control scheme development, injection data format definition, instruction usage criteria constraints, status monitoring condition setting, anomaly handling contingency plan design, and task planning and data generation functional requirements; Requirements for the joint approval stage: Define the requirements for the data joint approval process, cross-system data consistency verification, and closed-loop management of joint approval opinions; Operational implementation phase requirements: Define the requirements for telemetry, tracking and control functions, telemetry data reception and parsing, spacecraft status monitoring, uplink remote control commands and injected data transmission, and communication link assurance.

[0043] S10-4: Based on the requirements layer definition, identify and define the functional modules required to complete the flight control mission and their interactions in the capability layer: Task planning capability module: responsible for task planning, application for measurement and control resources, and design of fault coordination programs, which are implemented by the task planning position. Orbit determination and prediction capability module: responsible for precise orbit determination of spacecraft, orbit control strategy calculation, and orbit prediction data generation, which is implemented by orbit operation and maintenance personnel. Remote injection capability module: responsible for the design, generation, countersigning, inspection, and release of remote injection data, as well as the sending of remote control commands and injection data, which is implemented by the operation control position. Telemetry and surveillance capability module: responsible for spacecraft status monitoring, fault diagnosis and information transmission, which is achieved by telemetry and surveillance personnel controlling the activities; Command and dispatch capability module: responsible for task status display and issuing command and dispatch commands, which is implemented by the planning position to control the activities.

[0044] The various capability modules form a logical network through data interfaces (such as track prediction data output to the remote control injection capability module) and service calls (such as the command and dispatch capability module calling the status information of the telemetry and monitoring capability module).

[0045] S10-5: Based on the functional module mapping of the capability layer, the operation activity layer is decomposed into specific job operation activities and system automatic execution actions: Task planning job activities: Task plan preparation, measurement and control resource application, and fault coordination program design, implemented in accordance with the job operation manual; Planning job activities: generating, countersigning, checking, publishing, and changing activity plans; setting activity status on the task status display screen; and issuing command and dispatch commands. Orbital maintenance job activities include: spacecraft precise orbit determination, orbit control strategy calculation, and orbit prediction data generation. Operational control post activities include: remote control injection data arrangement and design activities, remote control injection data generation, countersigning, inspection and release activities, remote control command and injection data sending and inspection activities, and manual command issuance and implementation activities. Automatic system actions: The flight control software system automatically interprets telemetry data and generates alarms, the communication system automatically switches backup links, and the hardware system reports its self-test status, etc.

[0046] S10-6: Use MBSE modeling tools (such as various modeling software that support SysML) to establish the tracing relationships and data flow associations between the task layer, requirement layer, capability layer, and control activity layer: Vertical tracing relationship: The "operation implementation phase" of the task layer is traced back to the "uplink remote control command sending requirement" of the requirement layer, the requirement layer is traced back to the "remote control injection capability module" of the capability layer, and the capability layer is traced back to the "remote control command sending activity" of the control activity layer. Horizontal data flow relationship: Define the data flow generated by the "orbit forecast data generation activity" in the control activity layer to the input interface of the "remote control injection data arrangement design activity", and define the flow of the status judgment result of the "telemetry monitoring activity" to the decision input interface of the "command and dispatch activity". Closed-loop feedback relationship: A "planning-implementation-inspection-improvement" closed loop is embedded in the control activity layer. After each activity is completed, quality evidence records are generated and fed back to the capability layer for capability maturity assessment.

[0047] Through the above six sub-steps, based on the vertical traceability relationship, horizontal data flow association, and closed-loop feedback relationship between the mission layer, requirement layer, capability layer, and control activity layer, the aerospace flight control mission system model is constructed, forming a unique digital data source for subsequent identification of key quality control elements and maturity evaluation.

[0048] S20, based on the mission system model, identifies key elements of quality control for aerospace flight control missions from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, and establishes rules for element identification. In this step, the mission system model constructed using S10 is taken as the analysis object. From three quality control dimensions—information data, control activities, and system support—the key factors affecting the quality of flight control missions are comprehensively identified. (See [link to relevant documentation]). Figure 4From the perspective of maturity model theory, aerospace flight control missions involve process domains such as flight control functions, information and data resources, organizational structure, human resources, operational activities, institutional norms, internal and external collaboration, hardware and software systems, and communication support. These process domains interact and operate in a closed loop of planning-implementation-inspection-improvement. Based on this theory, this step focuses on three core quality control dimensions: information and data, operational activities, and system support, to identify elements and establish rules for the mission system model constructed by S10.

[0049] Due to the unique nature of aerospace flight control missions, the quality maturity of various technical status documents and important data records, as well as the ability to execute flight control missions, are the main carriers for improving the overall maturity of flight control mission operations. "Flight control mission functional modules" are the logical core for completing operational control missions, and "control activities" are the specific activities of operators manipulating the operational control software system, hardware system, communication system, and electromechanical system. This step S20, based on the mission system model constructed in step S10, starts from three dimensions: information data, functional modules (control activities), and software, hardware, and communication support systems. Through FMEA, expert experience and knowledge, quality management system requirements, and quality-related documents such as flight control mission standardization, it establishes rules and standards for identifying key quality control elements. Figure 6 As shown.

[0050] Based on the mission system model, the above-mentioned S20 identifies key elements for quality control of aerospace flight control missions from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, including: S20-1 is the first key element for identifying external input information, internally generated and transferred data information, and interface information of aerospace flight control missions from the perspective of information data. Identifying from the information and data dimension: The first key element encompasses external input information (such as overall engineering input documents, overall measurement and control input documents, and input documents of each system), internally generated and transferred data information (such as internal scheme details of the operation and control center, configuration files generated by each control position, various data of flight control missions, inter-system status agreement minutes, and internal status agreement minutes of the operation and control center), and interface information (such as inter-system collaborative work procedures and institutional norms).

[0051] Specifically, the system traverses the requirement layer of the mission system model, identifies all data input and output interfaces, and extracts external input information (overall engineering input files, overall measurement and control input files, and input files of each system), internally generated and transferred data information (internal scheme details of the operation and control center, configuration files of each control position, various data of flight control missions, and minutes of inter-system / internal status agreements) and interface information (inter-system collaborative work procedures and institutional norms) as the first key elements. It can also record the source, format, transfer path and verification rules of each data element.

[0052] S20-2 is the second key element for identifying the job-specific control activities and internal and external collaborative work in aerospace flight control missions from the perspective of control activities. Identifying from the dimension of control activities: This includes the second key element of job control activities (such as task planning and resource application activities of the task planning position, plan generation and countersigning activities of the planning position, precise track determination and forecasting activities of the track maintenance position, remote control injection data design and command issuance activities of the operation control position, and status monitoring and fault diagnosis activities of the telemetry monitoring position) as well as internal and external collaborative work.

[0053] Specifically, the system traverses the control activity layer of the task system model, identifies the control activities of each position and the internal and external collaborative work nodes, and extracts the task planning and resource application activities of the task planning position, the plan generation and countersigning activities of the planning position, the precise track determination and forecasting activities of the track maintenance position, the remote control command generation and sending activities of the operation control position, and the status monitoring and fault diagnosis activities of the telemetry monitoring position as the second key element. It can also record the executing subject, input and output, preconditions and completion marks of each activity.

[0054] S20-3, from the perspective of system support, identifies the third key element of aerospace flight control missions: hardware and software systems, communication support, and electromechanical systems. Identifying from the system support dimension: This is the third key element of the support system, encompassing software systems, hardware systems, communication support systems, electromechanical systems, and other supporting systems.

[0055] Specifically, the requirements for measurement and control tracking, link assurance, and data processing in the capability layer and requirement layer of the task system model are analyzed. The software system, hardware system, communication assurance system, and electromechanical system are extracted as the third key element. The functional interfaces, status monitoring points, and anomaly recovery mechanisms provided by each system can also be identified.

[0056] The key elements of quality control include all the elements identified in the above three dimensions, namely, the first key element, the second key element, and the third key element.

[0057] Based on this, S20-4, according to the three dimensions of information data, control activities, and system support, the aspect layer is determined. The specific content of the aspect layer includes three quality control dimensions: information data quality, control activity quality, and system support capability. Specifically, in the aspect layer, the information data dimension is mapped to the "information data quality" aspect, the control activity dimension is mapped to the "control activity quality" aspect, and the system support dimension is mapped to the "system support capability" aspect. S20-5, based on Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), expert experience and knowledge, quality management system requirements (such as GJB9001C), and flight control mission standardization documents, decomposes and defines key elements of quality control in a progressive hierarchical structure of aspect layer, element layer, and sub-element layer, forming element identification rules.

[0058] Specifically, it includes the following steps: For the first, second, and third critical elements, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is first used to identify potential failure modes (such as version mismatch or data loss) in the transmission, storage, and usage stages of each data element; potential failure modes (such as operation timeout or mis-issued commands) in the execution stage of each control activity element; and potential failure modes (such as communication interruption or software crash) in the operation stage of each system element. The severity, occurrence, and detectability of the failure impact are then assessed to form a risk priority list. All potential failure modes and risk priority lists are used as the results of the FMEA analysis.

[0059] Then, the FMEA analysis results are combined with expert experience and knowledge, GJB9001C quality management system requirements, and flight control mission standardization documents to hierarchically organize, decompose, and define the first, second, and third key elements, specifically including: S20-51, at the aspect level, based on failure mode and effects analysis (specifically using the risk priority list in the FMEA analysis results) and expert experience knowledge, the element level is determined. The specific content of the element level includes the quality control subject objects corresponding to each dimension. The quality control subject objects include at least one of engineering input documents, control positions and business processes. Determining the element layer refers to grouping elements with the same function or business type into quality control subject objects (e.g., grouping overall engineering input documents and overall measurement and control input documents into the "Engineering Input Documents" object). Specifically, in terms of "information and data quality," based on the risk priority list in the FMEA analysis results, discrete data elements with the same functional type and high risk correlation are grouped into quality control subject objects: for example, elements such as "overall engineering input documents," "overall measurement and control input documents," and "input documents of each system" are grouped into the "Engineering Input Documents" object; elements such as "configuration files of each operating position" and "inter-system status agreement minutes" are grouped into the "internal data files" object. Expert experience and knowledge are used to supplement the merging logic in this process (e.g., some documents, although of different types, share the same version management process and should be grouped into one category).

[0060] In terms of "controlling activity quality", based on the analysis of failure modes in the execution links of activity elements (such as "operation timeout" and "incorrect command issuance") by FMEA, job activities involving similar failure prevention are grouped into business process objects: for example, "task planning and resource application" and "plan generation and countersigning" are grouped into "task planning process" objects; "remote command generation and sending" and "manual command issuance and implementation" are grouped into "remote operation process" objects.

[0061] At the aspect level, the quality control targets under the information and data quality dimension include engineering input documents, configuration files for each control position, and collaborative programs; the quality control targets under the control activity quality dimension include business processes such as task planning positions, planning positions, track maintenance positions, operation control positions, and telemetry monitoring positions; and the quality control targets under the system support capability dimension include software systems, hardware systems, communication systems, and electromechanical systems.

[0062] S20-52, at the element level, based on failure mode and effects analysis, quality management system requirements and task standardization documents, sub-element levels are determined. The specific content of the sub-element level includes the key quality control indicators corresponding to each quality control subject. Specifically, at the element level, for each quality control subject, corresponding key quality control indicators are determined. For example, for the subject "overall engineering input documents", its key quality control indicators include eight indicators: document version management, status change analysis and control approval, collaborative inspection and expert review, completeness of the system document chain, data integrity and accuracy, data standardization, data consistency and synchronization, and data understandability and credibility.

[0063] As an example, for the main object of "overall engineering input documents", based on the severity (S=9), occurrence (O=4), and detectability (D=3) of the "version mismatch" failure mode in the FMEA analysis results, combined with the requirements of GJB9001C for "controlled technical status documents", and referring to the specific provisions of the flight control mission standardization document on "document version management" (such as "the version number must include the revision number and date"), the key quality control indicator "document version management status" in the sub-element layer is defined, and its specific judgment criteria are clarified (such as: whether electronic version control is implemented, whether it is automatically synchronized to all positions, and whether the change approval record is complete).

[0064] For the "remote control operation process" object, based on the risk priority number of the "instruction mis-issuance" failure mode in the FMEA analysis results, combined with the "four-eye principle" (double-person verification) proposed by experts, and in accordance with the system requirements that "critical operations must be cross-checked", the sub-element layer indicator "control logic and timing correctness" is defined. Its judgment criteria include: whether there is automatic logic verification before instruction is sent, whether double confirmation is required, and whether an alarm is triggered if the timing deviation exceeds the threshold.

[0065] S20-53, based on failure mode and effects analysis, expert experience and knowledge, quality management system requirements and task standardization documents, identifies and defines the specific contents of the aspect layer, element layer and sub-element layer, forming element identification rules.

[0066] Specifically, the contents of the above-mentioned aspect layer, element layer, and sub-element layer, FMEA analysis templates, expert experience criteria, and quality system specification reference clauses are standardized and encapsulated to form a reusable element identification rule base. The input of this rule base is the task system model, and the output is a structured and hierarchical key elements of quality control and their corresponding identification standards.

[0067] The FMEA analysis template is based on Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Specifically, it refers to the analysis forms, scoring criteria (Severity S / Occurrence O / Detectability D scoring criteria), and Risk Priority Number (RPN) calculation rules used when analyzing the first, second, and third critical factors. Expert experience criteria are based on expert experience and knowledge. Specifically, they refer to the implicit quality control requirements (such as "verbal communication between positions is unreliable" and "critical instructions must be visually confirmed by two people before being sent"), risk supplement identification items (such as "operation timeouts are not covered by existing processes"), and best practice standards (such as "the completeness of handover records for excellent positions should reach 100%) proposed by experts when participating in FMEA analysis or independent review. The clauses referenced in the quality system specifications are determined based on the requirements of the quality management system (such as GJB9001C). Specifically, they refer to the specific clauses in the GJB9001C standard applicable to aerospace flight control missions (such as "8.5.1 Control of production and service provision" and "8.5.6 Change control"), as well as the implementation details of the clauses in the quality management system documents of the operations control center (such as "Changes to technical status documents must be approved by the chief engineer").

[0068] As an example, the identification of key quality control elements adopts a progressive three-tiered description: aspect layer, element layer, and sub-element layer. This comprehensively covers all tasks and elements involved in the entire flight control mission, emphasizing effective control over the reliability and quality of the flight control process. It serves as both a work requirement and a measurement criterion. Specifically, for example... Figure 5 As shown.

[0069] S30, based on the element identification rules, maps maturity indicators to key elements of quality control, and constructs a maturity evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement.

[0070] This step, based on the element identification rules established in step S20, deconstructs and identifies key elements affecting the flight control mission, including the logical flow, operational context (control environment), activity sequence, execution status, and fault propagation logic, within the flight control mission model. An evaluation index system is then established, such as... Figure 7 As shown.

[0071] Optionally, the specific implementation process of S30 above is as follows: S30-1, based on the key elements of quality control, determine the main objects of quality control under the three quality control dimensions of information data, control activities, and system support; S30-2, based on element identification rules, design corresponding key quality control indicators for each quality control subject. The key quality control indicators for each quality control subject include at least one of the following: data version management, status change control and approval, operator reliability, operation process standardization, control logic and timing correctness, and system reliability. S30-3 constructs a progressive maturity evaluation index system by integrating three quality control dimensions, various quality control subjects, and corresponding key quality control indicators.

[0072] The first level of the design of key elements for quality control can be divided into three main aspects: "information and data," "operational activities," and "system support." In terms of information and data, the main focus is on ensuring the reliability of external input information, internally generated and transferred data, and interfaces. Regarding operational activities, the main focus is on addressing the quality and reliability of internal operational procedures and internal / external collaborative work during flight control missions. In terms of system support, the main focus is on ensuring the reliability of the supporting systems, such as hardware and software systems, communication support, and electromechanical systems, upon which flight control missions rely.

[0073] For information data, the quality control subjects include unstructured data described in natural language such as mission flight control plans, flight procedures, fault contingency plans, and status records, as well as structured data with strict format specifications such as remote control commands (injected data), various flight control mission execution plans, and interface information. Specifically, the mapping of information data quality indicators is detailed in Table 1.

[0074] Table 1 For operational activities, the quality control subjects under these activities include task planning, scheduling, track maintenance, operation control, and telemetry monitoring positions. Specifically, the quality indicators for operational activities (position-based operation control activities) are mapped as shown in Table 2. Table 2 System support capability index mapping: System support refers to the software systems, hardware systems, communication systems, and electromechanical systems required for spacecraft flight control missions. The key capabilities these systems must provide include: the ability to provide stable functionality and the ability to recover from anomalies. To reduce system complexity, during quality control assessment and analysis, software, hardware, communication, and electromechanical systems can be treated as black-box systems, focusing only on their externally provided functions, output behavior, and status, typically without needing to understand their internal operations. The system's reliability parameters, reliability R (%) and reliability A (%), can be analyzed as key elements for quality control.

[0075] Optionally, the determination of the aforementioned quality control subjects is not limited to the three aspects of "information data," "manipulation activities," and "system support," but can also be based on data related to management, such as... Figure 5 As shown. The Operations Control Center implements the GJB9001C quality management system, which has a complete set of mature management systems, requirements and standards. This patent does not focus on the GJB9001C quality management system. In order to simplify the complexity of the indicators, a simplified design is carried out in the first level of indicator element design, and the establishment of management-related indicators is deleted.

[0076] Optionally, the method further includes: Based on the key elements of quality control, the main objects of quality control under the dimension of controlling business processes can be identified; then, based on the element identification rules, corresponding key quality control indicators are designed for each main object of quality control under the dimension of controlling business processes.

[0077] Specifically, the following processing steps are included: Identify the main objects of quality control under the dimension of control business processes: Based on the risk level and implementation characteristics of aerospace flight control missions, the main objects of quality control under the dimension of control business processes are identified into three categories: daily flight control mission processes (such as platform inspection processes), major flight control mission processes (such as orbit control, attitude control, solar panel control, on-orbit maintenance, software upgrades, payload testing, and collision avoidance control processes), and emergency flight control mission processes (such as fault and anomaly handling processes). Each category represents an end-to-end cross-position business chain.

[0078] FMEA integration and standardized eight-stage decomposition based on element identification rules: For each type of business process object, the FMEA analysis template in the element identification rule library is called, focusing on identifying potential failure modes from four dimensions: business control process, input correctness, control logic and timing, and data matching, forming a risk priority list; at the same time, in accordance with the quality management requirements of "events according to process, process with control points, and control points with records" in the element identification rule library, each business process object is forcibly decomposed into eight standardized stages: "work content, work basis, preconditions, implementation process, process control points, completion mark, quality evidence, and time estimation", to complete the global quality control element analysis and obtain the eight-stage decomposition results; Mapping Design Key Quality Control Indicators: Based on the eight-stage decomposition results, for each stage of each business process object, corresponding key quality control indicators are designed according to the FMEA risk priority list, expert experience criteria, and the referenced clauses of the GJB9001C system specification. For example, for the "orbit control process" object in the "major flight control mission process", the "control logic and timing correctness" indicator is designed in the "implementation process" stage, the "data and control matching" indicator is designed in the "process control point" stage, and the "state record integrity" indicator is designed in the "quality evidence" stage. Finally, 10 key quality control indicators for this process object are formed, as detailed in Table 3.

[0079] Table 3 S40 evaluates the quality control maturity of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed according to the maturity evaluation index system, and obtains the evaluation results.

[0080] Optionally, the specific implementation process of S40 above is as follows: Acquire actual data on each key quality control indicator corresponding to the maturity evaluation index system for the aerospace flight control mission to be processed; By comparing the actual data with the evaluation benchmarks in the maturity evaluation index system, the maturity level of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed at each level of aspect layer, element layer and sub-element layer is determined. Based on the maturity level of each level, evaluation results for the aerospace flight control missions to be processed are generated.

[0081] The evaluation benchmark in the maturity evaluation index system refers to the maturity level definition, judgment criteria, and indicator scoring details embedded within the system. Its development process is completed simultaneously with the index system construction: When constructing the maturity evaluation index system in step S30, based on the GJB9001C quality management system's requirements for capability maturity grading and expert experience summaries, quality maturity is defined from low to high as five levels: Initial, Managed, Defined, Quantitatively Managed, and Continuously Optimized. General judgment criteria are developed for each maturity level (e.g., "Defined Level" requires standardized documentation of the quality control process). Simultaneously, five-level quantitative scoring standards are designed for key quality control indicators at each sub-element layer (e.g., "document version management status") (0-20 points = Level 1, 21-40 points = Level 2, etc.). These level definitions, judgment criteria, and scoring details together constitute the evaluation benchmark and are solidified in the system architecture, allowing step S40 to directly call upon it to compare actual data and determine the maturity level, thereby resolving the logical chain break caused by the lack of explicit recording of evaluation criteria during system construction.

[0082] As an example, the maturity evaluation index system built by S30 is applied to the aerospace flight control mission to be processed (such as the orbit control mission of a certain type of spacecraft), and the following evaluation process is executed: Obtain actual data: Collect actual operational data of the track control task at each stage of preparation, signing, and implementation, including: version number of overall engineering input documents and change approval records, task planning post operation logs and handover records, remote control command generation and signing records, command sending timing logs during track control implementation, system reliability monitoring data (such as system availability A=99.95%), etc., as actual values ​​of each key quality control indicator.

[0083] Evaluation Benchmark Comparison: Compare the actual data with the preset evaluation benchmarks in the maturity evaluation index system (such as maturity level definitions: Initial Level → Managed Level → Defined Level → Quantitatively Managed Level → Continuously Optimized Level). For example, if the version management of engineering input documents is fully electronically controlled and automatically synchronized to all positions, it is rated as "Quantitatively Managed Level"; if only versions are manually recorded, it is rated as "Managed Level".

[0084] Determine the maturity level of the task at each level: This involves determining the maturity level of the task at the aspect level (information and data quality, operational activity quality, system support capabilities), the element level (each main object such as "overall project input documents" and "task planning positions"), and the sub-element level (each key quality control indicator). For example, if the overall information and data quality dimension reaches the "defined level," and the overall project input document version management reaches the "quantitative management level," but some configuration files still rely on manual transmission, it is rated as "managed level."

[0085] Evaluation Results: A comprehensive quality control maturity evaluation report for the orbital control mission is generated, based on the maturity levels at each level. This report clearly identifies strengths (e.g., "correct command transmission timing" reaches the "continuous optimization level"), weaknesses (e.g., "reliability of internal handover" is only at the "managed level"), and improvement suggestions (e.g., upgrading handover records from paper forms to electronic, automated records and incorporating them into job training and assessment). This evaluation directly supports refined management decisions and provides a quantitative basis for continuous quality improvement in subsequent flight control missions.

[0086] Optionally, the method also includes: implementing continuous improvement and knowledge accumulation based on the evaluation results.

[0087] In this step, the evaluation results generated by S40 are fed back to the task system model in S10, and key optimizations are made to the weak links identified in the model (such as elements with low maturity levels). For example, to address the issue of a low rating for "reliability of internal job handover," the handover process in the job operation manual is revised, an automated "handover confirmation" check node is added to the operation activity layer of the task system model, and the element identification rules and evaluation index system are updated. At the same time, the improved best practices are stored in the knowledge base as new historical task data, realizing the preservation, inheritance, and promotion of expert knowledge, forming a closed-loop quality management cycle of "modeling → evaluation → improvement → remodeling."

[0088] Through the above embodiments, this invention deeply integrates the MBSE method, maturity theory and aerospace flight control mission practice, and constructs a standardized, refined and quantifiable quality control maturity evaluation index system. It effectively solves the problems of traditional quality management relying on expert experience, difficulty in improving quality and efficiency, and imprecise risk control, and significantly improves the reliability and safety of spacecraft flight control missions.

[0089] The present invention has the following advantages: (1) By abstracting and decomposing the MBSE model, the system design and analysis process is simplified, which is applicable to the complex directed system of aerospace flight control mission, which involves a wide range of factors and variables, complex information input and output relationships, and large influence of personnel factors. (2) MBSE uses a unified model as an information medium to enhance communication among stakeholders, reduce misunderstandings and information loss, and help solve the problems of expert knowledge preservation, inheritance and transmission, and meet the specific needs of communication among staff in each link. (3) MBSE can provide a standardized simulation framework, which helps to make scientific and reasonable decisions in various links such as design, analysis and verification, and output standardized products. (4) MBSE can design a refined flight control process and a systematic evaluation system, and improve the system operation and control quality by monitoring key performance indicators and optimizing the document output quality, operation quality and management quality of each link.

[0090] Based on and Figure 1Using the same principle as the method shown, this embodiment of the invention also provides a quality control maturity evaluation device 20 for aerospace flight control missions, such as... Figure 9 As shown, the quality control maturity evaluation device 20 for this aerospace flight control mission may include an acquisition module 210, a rule establishment module 220, a system construction module 230, and an evaluation module 240, wherein: The acquisition module 210 is used to acquire and construct a four-layer mission system model based on the mission input requirements and historical mission data of the aerospace flight control mission using the MBSE method. The mission system model is used to describe the mission elements of the aerospace flight control mission and the interaction relationships between the various mission elements. The rule establishment module 220 is used to identify key elements of quality control for aerospace flight control missions from multiple dimensions, including information data, control activities, and system support, based on the mission system model, and to establish rules for element identification. The system construction module 230 is used to map maturity indicators to key elements of quality control according to the element identification rules, and to construct a maturity evaluation indicator system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement. Evaluation module 240 is used to evaluate the quality control maturity of the aerospace flight control mission to be processed according to the maturity evaluation index system and obtain the evaluation results.

[0091] The aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity evaluation device of this invention can execute the aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity evaluation method provided in this invention. The implementation principle is similar. The actions performed by each module and unit in the aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity evaluation device in each embodiment of this invention correspond to the steps in the aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity evaluation method in each embodiment of this invention. For detailed functional descriptions of each module of the aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity evaluation device, please refer to the descriptions in the corresponding aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity evaluation methods shown above, which will not be repeated here.

[0092] The aforementioned quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions can be a computer program (including program code) running on a computer device. For example, the quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions can be an application software. The device can be used to execute the corresponding steps in the method provided in the embodiments of the present invention.

[0093] In some embodiments, the quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions provided in this invention can be implemented using a combination of hardware and software. As an example, the quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions provided in this invention can be a processor in the form of a hardware decoding processor, which is programmed to execute the quality control maturity evaluation method for aerospace flight control missions provided in this invention. For example, the processor in the form of a hardware decoding processor can be one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), DSPs, programmable logic devices (PLDs), complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), or other electronic components.

[0094] In other embodiments, the aerospace flight control mission quality control maturity evaluation device provided in this invention can be implemented in software. Figure 9 A quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions stored in a memory is shown. It can be software in the form of programs and plug-ins, and includes a series of modules, including an acquisition module 210, a rule establishment module 220, a system construction module 230, and an evaluation module 240, for implementing the quality control maturity evaluation method for aerospace flight control missions provided in the embodiments of the present invention.

[0095] The modules described in the embodiments of the present invention can be implemented in software or hardware. The names of the modules are not, in some cases, limiting the scope of the module itself.

[0096] Based on the same principles as the methods shown in the embodiments of the present invention, the embodiments of the present invention also provide an electronic device, which may include, but is not limited to: a processor and a memory; the memory for storing computer programs; and the processor for executing the methods shown in any embodiment of the present invention by invoking the computer programs.

[0097] In one alternative embodiment, an electronic device is provided, such as Figure 10 As shown, Figure 10The illustrated electronic device 4000 includes a processor 4001 and a memory 4003. The processor 4001 and the memory 4003 are connected, for example, via a bus 4002. Optionally, the electronic device 4000 may further include a transceiver 4004, which can be used for data interaction between the electronic device and other electronic devices, such as sending and / or receiving data. It should be noted that in practical applications, the transceiver 4004 is not limited to one type, and the structure of the electronic device 4000 does not constitute a limitation on the embodiments of the present invention.

[0098] Processor 4001 may be a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a general-purpose processor, a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), or other programmable logic devices, transistor logic devices, hardware components, or any combination thereof. It can implement or execute the various exemplary logic blocks, modules, and circuits described in conjunction with the disclosure of this invention. Processor 4001 may also be a combination that implements computational functions, such as including one or more microprocessor combinations, a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, etc.

[0099] Bus 4002 may include a pathway for transmitting information between the aforementioned components. Bus 4002 may be a PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) bus or an EISA (Extended Industry Standard Architecture) bus, etc. Bus 4002 can be divided into address bus, data bus, control bus, etc. For ease of representation, Figure 10 The bus is represented by a single thick line, but this does not mean that there is only one bus or one type of bus.

[0100] The memory 4003 may be ROM (Read Only Memory) or other types of static storage devices capable of storing static information and instructions, RAM (Random Access Memory) or other types of dynamic storage devices capable of storing information and instructions, or EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory), CD-ROM (Compact Disc Read Only Memory) or other optical disc storage, optical disc storage (including compressed optical discs, laser discs, optical discs, digital universal optical discs, Blu-ray discs, etc.), magnetic disk storage media or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium capable of carrying or storing desired program code in the form of instructions or data structures and accessible by a computer, but not limited thereto.

[0101] The memory 4003 stores application code (computer program) for executing the present invention, and its execution is controlled by the processor 4001. The processor 4001 executes the application code stored in the memory 4003 to implement the content shown in the foregoing method embodiments.

[0102] Among these, electronic devices can also be terminal devices. Figure 10 The electronic device shown is merely an example and should not be construed as limiting the functionality and scope of use of the embodiments of the present invention.

[0103] This invention provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when run on a computer, enables the computer to execute the corresponding content in the aforementioned method embodiments.

[0104] According to another aspect of the present invention, a computer program product or computer program is also provided, comprising computer instructions stored in a computer-readable storage medium. A processor of a computer device reads the computer instructions from the computer-readable storage medium and executes the computer instructions, causing the computer device to perform the methods provided in the various embodiments described above.

[0105] Computer program code for performing the operations of this invention can be written in one or more programming languages ​​or a combination thereof, including object-oriented programming languages ​​such as Java, Smalltalk, and C++, and conventional procedural programming languages ​​such as C or similar languages. The program code can be executed entirely on the user's computer, partially on the user's computer, as a standalone software package, partially on the user's computer and partially on a remote computer, or entirely on a remote computer or server. In cases involving remote computers, the remote computer can be connected to the user's computer via any type of network—including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN)—or can be connected to an external computer (e.g., via the Internet using an Internet service provider).

[0106] It should be understood that the flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in a flowchart or block diagram may represent a module, segment, or portion of code containing one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions indicated in the blocks may occur in a different order than those indicated in the drawings. For example, two consecutively indicated blocks may actually be executed substantially in parallel, and they may sometimes be executed in reverse order, depending on the functions involved. It should also be noted that each block in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, may be implemented using a dedicated hardware-based system that performs the specified function or operation, or using a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.

[0107] The computer-readable storage medium provided in this invention can be, for example, but not limited to, an electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any combination thereof. More specific examples of a computer-readable storage medium may include, but are not limited to: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer disk, a hard disk, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), optical fiber, portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), optical storage device, magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination thereof. In this invention, a computer-readable storage medium can be any tangible medium containing or storing a program that can be used by or in conjunction with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

[0108] The aforementioned computer-readable storage medium carries one or more programs, which, when executed by the electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform the method shown in the above embodiments.

[0109] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention and an explanation of the technical principles employed. Those skilled in the art should understand that the scope of disclosure in this invention is not limited to technical solutions formed by specific combinations of the above-described technical features, but should also cover other technical solutions formed by arbitrary combinations of the above-described technical features or their equivalents without departing from the above-disclosed concept. For example, technical solutions formed by substituting the above features with (but not limited to) technical features with similar functions disclosed in this invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the quality control maturity of a space flight control mission, characterized in that, The method comprises the following steps: obtaining and according to the task input requirements and historical task data of a space flight control task, a task system model of a four-layer architecture is constructed by using an MBSE method, the task system model is used for describing task elements of the space flight control task and interaction relationships between the task elements; according to the task system model, quality control key elements of the space flight control task are identified from information data, operation activities and system support in multiple dimensions, and element identification rules are established; according to the element identification rules, maturity index mapping is performed on the quality control key elements, and a maturity evaluation index system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement is constructed; the maturity of quality control of a space flight control task to be processed is evaluated according to the maturity evaluation index system, and an evaluation result is obtained.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein, The four-layer architecture comprises: a task layer, which is used for describing overall objectives and stage division of the space flight control task; a requirement layer, which is used for describing functional requirements, data requirements and constraint conditions of the space flight control task; an ability layer, which is used for describing functional modules required for completing the space flight control task and logical relationships between the functional modules; an operation activity layer, which is used for describing post operation activities of the space flight control task and system automatic execution actions.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein, According to the task system model, the quality control key elements of the space flight control task are identified from information data, operation activities and system support in multiple dimensions, which comprises: first key elements of external input information, internally generated and transferred data information and interface information of the space flight control task are identified from the information data dimension; second key elements of post operation activities and internal and external collaborative work of the space flight control task are identified from the operation activity dimension; third key elements of software and hardware systems, communication support and electromechanical systems of the space flight control task are identified from the system support dimension. The quality control key elements comprise the first key elements, the second key elements and the third key elements.

4. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that, The element identification rules are established, which comprises: according to information data, operation activities and system support in three dimensions, an aspect layer is determined, and specific contents of the aspect layer comprise three quality control dimensions of information data quality, operation activity quality and system support capability; based on failure mode and effects analysis, expert experience knowledge, quality management system requirements and task standardization files, the quality control key elements are decomposed and defined according to a progressive hierarchical structure of the aspect layer, the element layer and the sub-element layer, and the element identification rules are formed.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein, Based on failure mode and effects analysis, expert experience knowledge, quality management system requirements and task standardization files, the quality control key elements are decomposed and defined according to a progressive hierarchical structure of the aspect layer, the element layer and the sub-element layer, and the element identification rules are formed, which comprises: based on failure mode and effects analysis and expert experience knowledge, an element layer is determined under the aspect layer, and specific contents of the element layer comprise quality control subject objects corresponding to each dimension, and the quality control subject objects comprise at least one of engineering input files, operation posts and business processes. Under the element layer, based on failure mode and effects analysis, quality management system requirements and task specification files, a sub-element layer is determined, and the specific content of the sub-element layer includes quality control key indicators corresponding to each quality control subject object; Based on failure mode and effects analysis, expert experience knowledge, quality management system requirements and task specification files, the specific content of the aspect layer, element layer and sub-element layer is identified and defined to form the element identification rule.

6. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that, According to the element identification rule, the maturity index mapping of the quality control key elements is performed to construct a maturity evaluation index system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement, including: According to the quality control key elements, each quality control subject object under three quality control dimensions of information data, operation activity and system support is determined; Based on the element identification rule, for each quality control subject object, a corresponding quality control key indicator is designed, and the quality control key indicator corresponding to each quality control subject object includes at least one of data version management, state change control and approval, operation reliability of post operator, operation process standardization, control logic and timing correctness, and system reliability; The three quality control dimensions, each quality control subject object and the corresponding quality control key indicator are constructed into a progressive maturity evaluation index system.

7. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that, According to the maturity evaluation index system, the quality control maturity of the to-be-processed aerospace flight control task is evaluated to obtain an evaluation result, including: Actual data of the to-be-processed aerospace flight control task on each quality control key indicator corresponding to the maturity evaluation index system is obtained; The actual data is compared with the evaluation benchmark in the maturity evaluation index system to determine the maturity level of the to-be-processed aerospace flight control task at each level of the aspect layer, element layer and sub-element layer; According to the maturity level of each level, the evaluation result of the to-be-processed aerospace flight control task is generated.

8. A quality control maturity evaluation device for aerospace flight control missions, characterized in that, Including: An acquisition module is configured to acquire and, according to task input requirements and historical task data of an aerospace flight control task, construct a task system model of a four-layer architecture by using an MBSE method, and the task system model is used to describe task elements of the aerospace flight control task and interaction relationships between each task element; A rule establishment module is configured to identify quality control key elements of the aerospace flight control task from information data, operation activity and system support dimensions according to the task system model, and establish an element identification rule; A system construction module is configured to perform maturity index mapping of the quality control key elements according to the element identification rule, and construct a maturity evaluation index system for quality and efficiency evaluation and continuous improvement; An evaluation module is configured to evaluate the quality control maturity of a to-be-processed aerospace flight control task according to the maturity evaluation index system to obtain an evaluation result.

9. An electronic device, comprising: A computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, when the processor executes the computer program, implements the method in any one of claims 1-7. A computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, when the processor executes the computer program, implements the method in any one of claims 1-7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is executed by the processor to implement the method in any one of claims 1-7.

Images