Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

HabSim: Architecture for modelling disruptions, propagation, detection and repair in deep space habitats

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A hybrid simulation architecture models fire cascades, detection, and repair in deep-space habitats.

desk verdict The architecture is a real contribution, but the resilience analysis in Example 2 is invalidated by an internally inconsistent response-margin metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08903 v1 pith:5O24XVSF submitted 2025-06-10 eess.SY cs.SY

Luca Vaccino , Alana K. Lund , Shirley J. Dyke , Mohsen Azimi , Ethan Vallerga This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords spacehabitatsimulationsystem-of-systemsfaultpropagationdetectionandrepairhybridphysics-basedphenomenologicalmodelingresilienceassessmentfiredisruptionscenarioreal-time
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a deep-space habitat can be simulated end-to-end as a system-of-systems in which a single disturbance, such as a fire, spreads through physical and phenomenological signals, is detected by synthetic fault-detection logic, and is repaired by an agent, all within a software architecture that runs fast enough for real-time and stochastic use. The argument is that hybrid modeling is the key: physics-based signals keep quantitative accuracy where it matters, while phenomenological intensity levels and damage indicators carry cascading effects cheaply. A sympathetic reading of the results is that HabSim, the testbed used here, now gives habitat designers a what-if tool for resilience questions, such as how soon a fire must be detected, how fast suppression must act, and which components fail first. The paper demonstrates this with a lunar-habitat fire scenario and with 100 stochastic realizations that map a response-margin boundary between recoverable and irreversible damage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a hybrid-signal, mediator-based simulation architecture implemented in the HabSim testbed. A disturbance initiator emits both physical signals and phenomenological intensity levels; a coordination block with an internal data-fusion router merges and routes all signals to subsystem plug-ins; and receiving subsystems convert physical states, such as air temperature, back into five-level damage indicators that drive cascading failure. Multi-rate time stepping coordinates fast subsystems, such as structural vibration, with slow ones, such as battery discharge, to keep the simulation real-time. The scalability claim rests on standardized signal formats, so subsystems can be added or substituted without refactoring the core.

What would settle it

Run the same fire scenario in a physical or high-fidelity mock-up of the habitat and compare component failure times, recovery times, and the response-margin boundary with HabSim's predictions. If real power converters, batteries, or compressors degrade or recover at temperatures materially different from Table 2, or if measured transient behavior changes the cascade order, the architecture's quantitative resilience conclusions shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes an architecture in which every subsystem speaks a standardized input/output format and is coordinated by a mediator block that merges physics-based signals, such as temperatures, pressures, and power flows, with phenomenological signals, specifically five-level intensity levels and five-level damage indicators. The disturbance initiator converts the physical temperature response of the interior environment into damage indicators that downgrade power converters, energy storage, and compressors, so the fire's secondary effects cascade through the habitat without resolving every physical detail. The same architecture carries detection and repair: synthetic fault-detection blocks turn sensor deviations into binary health states, and a repair scheduler sends agent availability, repair rate, and repair type back to the affected subsystems. The demonstrated consequence is that a fire scenario can be simulated from initiation through propagation, detection, and suppression, and that stochastic runs over detection times and fire spread rates can identify a critical boundary beyond which the habitat cannot recover in time.

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the assumption that the temperature-to-damage thresholds in Table 2 are a valid stand-in for how real components degrade and recover; the paper acknowledges these thresholds sacrifice transient accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Habitat designers can set measurable detection and suppression requirements: the response margin converts "react quickly enough" into a number tied to sensor placement and suppression speed.
  • Stochastic resilience studies become practical early in design, because hundreds of disruption realizations run faster than real time.
  • The same standardized signal interface lets researchers swap in higher-fidelity subsystem models without rebuilding the whole habitat simulation.
  • The fire scenario shows how a single primary disturbance can be tracked through secondary cascades, from temperature to power efficiency to energy consumption, and back to nominal operation after repair.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the Table 2 thresholds could be replaced by continuous degradation curves fitted to component test data, and the architecture's standardized signal ports would not need to change.
  • The same intensity-level and damage-indicator pattern should transfer to micrometeorite impacts, lunar dust, airlock leaks, and coolant leaks, since the paper models those as disturbance-initiator options.
  • Because the simulator outruns real time, an obvious next step is embedding it in hardware-in-the-loop or autonomous decision-making loops, but that would require the coordination block's timing to be synchronized with external clock sources.
  • The specific critical boundary, detection near 470 seconds with a spread rate near 1.04 mm/s, comes from the one-fifth-scale habitat and scaled fire model, so full-scale design decisions would need re-running with unscaled inputs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents HabSim, a modular architecture for simulating disruption initiation, propagation, detection, and repair in deep space habitats, implemented in the HabSim version 6.3 testbed. The architecture combines physics-based signals with phenomenological intensity and damage indicators, and coordinates subsystems operating at different time scales to achieve real-time simulation. Example 1 traces a fire in a lunar habitat through temperature rise, component-efficiency degradation, detection by FDD, and suppression by an agent. Example 2 samples 100 combinations of fire spread rate and detection time, and uses a 'response margin' metric to identify critical detection/spread thresholds beyond which the habitat fails. The central claims are that the hybrid modeling approach balances computational efficiency with model fidelity and enables real-time stochastic resilience studies.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution: integrated fault propagation, detection, and repair in a system-of-systems habitat simulator is rare, and the modular, signal-standardized architecture is a sensible way to combine physics-based and phenomenological models. The paper explicitly demonstrates a coherent end-to-end cascade in Example 1, and the configurable threshold-based damage indicators provide a flexible extension mechanism. The stochastic study in Example 2 is exactly the kind of design-support capability that motivates the architecture. However, the current resilience analysis is undermined by an internally inconsistent response-margin definition and a circularly chosen damage threshold, so the quantitative conclusions—including the proposed critical boundary—are not yet reliable. The paper also does not yet provide the claimed reproducibility assets, since the code and data are only announced as forthcoming.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, response margin definition] The response margin M_response = 1 - t_sc,effect / t_h,effect is internally inconsistent. For a successful active suppression with finite suppression time, 0 < t_sc < t_h, so 0 < M_response < 1. Yet the text states that 'if M_response is smaller than one, it implies that the control measure is too slow,' and Figure 10 classifies all values less than 1 as failures. This means every active-control realization with non-zero suppression time is classified as a failure, so the claimed critical boundary (detection time exceeding 470 s and spread rate exceeding 1.04 mm/s) is an artifact of the misdefinition. The failure criterion should be, for example, M_response < 0 (equivalently t_sc > t_h), or the metric should be redefined. The stochastic resilience conclusions and the design guidance drawn from Figure 10 must be re-derived with a corrected criterion.
  2. [Section 4.2, Figures 7–9] The effective hazard time t_h,effect is defined as the time to reach 350 K, but this 350 K value is read off the same simulation output as the knee in the recovery-time-versus-temperature relationship (Figures 7–9). The threshold is therefore not independently anchored: the response-margin boundary partly reflects a threshold chosen from the simulation's own behavior. An external physical basis, an independent damage model, or at least a sensitivity analysis over plausible threshold values is needed before the reported 'uncontrollable beyond' boundary can be interpreted as a property of the habitat rather than of the chosen threshold.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Table 2] The damage-indicator thresholds in Table 2 (e.g., energy storage damage level 5 at <= -50 C or >= 50 C, power converter critical failure above 145 C) are stated without justification, references, or calibration data. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 4.1 that threshold-based step-wise responses do not accurately represent transients, yet these thresholds drive the cascade behavior, recovery times, and the response-margin boundary in Example 2. To support the abstract claim of balancing computational efficiency with model fidelity, the authors should either calibrate these thresholds against experiments or previously published component data, or explicitly label the simulation as illustrative and temper the fidelity claim accordingly.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Conclusions] The real-time capability claim is not substantiated. Section 4.2 states that simulations run 'twice as fast as real-time' on a Dell OptiPlex 5700 with an 'Intel64 Family 6 processor,' but no timing procedure, wall-clock measurements, or hardware configuration details are provided. Since real-time simulation is a central advertised benefit of the architecture, the authors should report measured run times relative to simulated time for the reported scenarios, including how many realizations were feasible in a given wall-clock budget.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'leveraged for through stochastic simulations' in the abstract appears garbled; it should likely be 'leveraged through stochastic simulations.'
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 5] The text contains a typo, 'the the ES power,' which should be 'the ES power.'
  3. [Section 2.2] The word 'prioritzed' should be 'prioritized.'
  4. [References] The reference for Leon et al. (2015) lists 'ArXhabiv,' which should be 'arXiv.'
  5. [Appendix A] The appendix figures are numbered Figures 2–5, which duplicates the main-text numbering; they should be labeled A1–A5 or similar.
  6. [Figure 10] The y-axis label 'Time to response margin' is unclear; it should be the response margin M itself, and the failure threshold should be shown explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Example 2's stochastic resilience boundary is a definitional artifact of the response-margin metric and an internally fitted 350 K threshold.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, response margin definition and Figure 10 interpretation]
    "The response margin is defined as follows: Mresponse = 1 − t_sc,effect / t_h,effect. A higher Mresponse value indicates more effective safety control. If t_sc,effect is less than t_h,effect, the safety control successfully addresses the hazard before it propagates to other systems. Conversely, if Mresponse is smaller than one, it implies that the control measure is too slow to prevent the hazard from spreading."

    Under this formula, any active suppression with 0 < t_sc,effect < t_h,effect yields 0 < Mresponse < 1, so the paper's own success condition (t_sc,effect < t_h,effect) is a subset of Mresponse < 1. Yet Figure 10 and the surrounding text classify every Mresponse < 1 as 'habitat failure' and reserve Mresponse = 1 for passive controls. The claimed critical boundary (detection > 470 s, spread rate > 1.04 mm/s) is therefore an artifact of the metric's definition, not a threshold discovered from simulation; every active-suppression realization is classified as failure by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, t_h,effect definition and Figures 7-10]
    "t_h,effect denotes the time at which the fire causes non-recoverable damage (i.e., the time to reach 350 K, after which the time to recover does not experience as significant of an increase with additional temperature). The findings indicate that, up to 350 K, recovery time increases significantly with any rise in temperature... However, after 350 K, further increases in temperature do not result in a similarly significant increase in recovery time."

    The 350 K value is read off Figure 7, which plots the same 100 HabSim realizations used to compute the response margin. This simulation-derived knee is then inserted into Mresponse as t_h,effect and used to label failures and define the 'critical operational boundary' in Figure 10. The threshold is thus an output of the model recycled as an input physical limit; changing the knee chosen from Figure 7 would move the failure boundary without any external calibration.

full rationale

The architecture sections (Sec. 3 and Example 1) are not circular: they report an implementation built on the separately published HabSim testbed (Azimi et al. 2025) and demonstrate signal routing, damage indicators, detection, and repair in a concrete fire scenario. That part is self-contained as a software-architecture demonstration. The circularity is concentrated in the stochastic resilience analysis of Example 2. The response-margin formula Mresponse = 1 - t_sc,effect / t_h,effect is combined with a rule that all Mresponse < 1 are failures; since every active suppression has t_sc,effect > 0, all active realizations have Mresponse < 1, so Figure 10's 'failure' region and the 470 s / 1.04 mm/s boundary are definitional, not emergent. In addition, t_h,effect is anchored at 350 K, a knee read from the same 100-run simulation output, so the 'non-recoverable damage' time is the model's own output recycled as a physical threshold. The architecture may still be useful, and the real-time/fidelity claims are not reduced to these definitions, but the paper's central resilience demonstration is partially circular because its headline critical threshold reduces to the metric's construction and to an internally fitted temperature value.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central demonstration depends on several phenomenological conventions inherited from the same institute's prior work: intensity levels, damage thresholds, and stochastic input distributions. The 350 K threshold is even read off the paper's own simulation output. These are the main items the reader must accept on faith, since nothing is calibrated against external fire or component data.

free parameters (7)
  • Damage-indicator temperature thresholds (Table 2) = Energy storage: [-1,30] level 1, <=-50 or >=50 level 5; compressor and power converter ranges as listed
    These thresholds determine how fire-induced temperature maps to component degradation in Example 1. They are taken from prior HabSim documentation and are not fitted to new experimental data.
  • Fire intensity level = 3 (plastic or polymer fire)
    Chosen by the user as the initiating disturbance; it drives the phenomenological heat profile sent to the interior environment.
  • Fire spread rate = 0.4 mm/s (scaled from an effective 0.23 mm/s in the simulation)
    Scaled with respect to the one-fifth scale HabSim model; no full-scale lunar habitat fire validation is provided.
  • Beta distribution shape parameters for fire spread rate = alpha = 8.49, beta = 7.84
    Chosen to represent a relatively narrow range of spread rates in stochastic Example 2; no likelihood fit to data is shown.
  • Detection time uniform interval = [280, 560] seconds
    Assumed distribution for detection time in Example 2, inherited from prior work; no empirical support is given.
  • Critical temperature threshold for irreversible damage = 350 K
    Selected post hoc from the simulation cloud in Figure 7 and used to define th_effective in the response margin.
  • Detectable fire radius = 20 mm
    Defines when a fire is considered detectable in the stochastic simulations; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Five-level intensity and damage scales are a sufficient representation of disruption severity and cascading damage.
    Section 3.1 introduces levels 1 through 5 and uses them to drive subsystem responses without a formal mapping to physical damage extent.
  • domain assumption The threshold-based, step-wise damage in Table 2 captures the steady-state behavior of components even though transients are not accurate.
    Section 4.1 explicitly acknowledges that transient behavior is not accurately represented; the steady-state validity is asserted, not validated.
  • domain assumption A hemisphere fire-propagation model with the given spread rates represents fire behavior in a lunar habitat.
    Used in Example 1 with a spread rate scaled from a one-fifth scale model; no experimental fire data for lunar habitat conditions is cited.
  • domain assumption The stochastic distributions for spread rate and detection time, inherited from Jain et al. (2024), represent the variability of fire scenarios.
    Section 4.2 adopts beta and uniform distributions without fitting or quantifying their uncertainty.
invented entities (2)
  • Five-level intensity scale
    purpose: Represents severity of primary disruptions such as fire, impact, and dust in phenomenological signals sent to subsystems.
    No calibration to measured damage is provided; it is an ordinal modeling convention introduced for this architecture.
  • Five-level damage indicators
    purpose: Represents cascading secondary damage from a primary disruption, for example temperature-driven degradation of compressors, converters, and energy storage.
    The thresholds in Table 2 are asserted from prior HabSim documentation; no external validation or falsifiable prediction is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HabSim: Architecture for modelling disruptions, propagation, detection and repair in deep space habitats." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5O24XVSF

@misc{pith2026250608903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HabSim: Architecture for modelling disruptions, propagation, detection and repair in deep space habitats},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5O24XVSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08903}
}
read the original abstract

Establishing long-term human settlements in deep space presents significant challenges. Harsh environmental conditions, such as extreme temperature fluctuations, micrometeorite impacts, seismic activity, and exposure to solar and cosmic radiation pose obstacles to the design and operation of habitat systems. Prolonged mission duration and the vast distances from Earth introduce further complications in the form of delayed communication and limited resources, making autonomy especially desirable. Enabling simulation of the consequences of disruptions and their propagation through the various habitat subsystems is important for the development of autonomous and resilient space habitats. While existing simulation tools can assist in modeling some of these aspects, the integration of damage propagation, detection and repair in a computational model is rarely considered. This paper introduces and demonstrates a simulation architecture designed to model these aspects efficiently. By combining physics-based and phenomenological models, our approach balances computational efficiency with model fidelity. Furthermore, by coordinating subsystems operating at different time scales, we achieve real-time simulation capabilities. After describing the architecture, we demonstrate its application within HabSim, a space habitat system model developed by the NASA-funded Resilient Extraterrestrial Habitat Institute (RETHi). In these scenarios we consider fire hazard propagation within a lunar habitat to illustrate both how our architecture supports the modeling of disruption propagation, detection, and repair in a simulation environment and how the HabSim model can be leveraged for through stochastic simulations to support resilience assessment. The architecture developed herein is efficient and scalable, enabling researchers to gain insight into resilience, autonomy and decision-making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture developed for disruption initiation and propagation. disruption and repair initiation. A disruption is activated only if the intensity level is greater than one, i.e. when an event occurs, while the repair is initiated only after the fault has been detected by the agent. The dataflow between the disturbance initiator system and other nearby systems is depicted in red in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HabSim architecture, its component systems, and their communication pathways. Blue represents cyber signals, green indicates repair actions, black denotes physical signals, and red signifies disruptions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Planar view of the modeled habitat. Once a disturbance has been initiated, the secondary effects of the disruption, which are often obscured in purely physical models, are explicitly captured using damage indicators. While intensity levels represent the immediate effect of a primary disruption (e.g., fire or micrometeorite) on the system, damage levels model the secondary or cascading effects resulting from that pri… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Steps through the scenario stages, illustrating disruption propagation, detection, and repair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of key parameters during a fire scenario, including fire radius (a), fire suppression steps (b), ECLSS component efficiency (c), stored energy levels (d), temperature in Zone 1 and Zone 2 (e), pressure in Zone 1 and Zone 2 (f), and power consumption (g). …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Selected Fire detection samples from uniform distribution (a), and selected fire spread rate samples from beta distribution (b). After drawing ten samples for the fire spread rate and ten samples for the detection time, the HabSim model is run for every possible combin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time to recover and maximum temperature for each simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time to recover and maximum energy consumption for each simulation As illustrated in the 3D plot in 9, which collectively examines power consumption, maximum temperature, and recovery time, early detection and prompt suppression of the fire lead to reduced power usage …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of time to recovery, temperature and energy consumption for different simulations. These results can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of control measures and to guide habitat designers in identifying ways to help prevent the rapid propagation of fire ha…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time to response margin for each simulation. Through these simulation results, we demonstrate the utility of the HabSim disruption architecture, which effectively integrates low-computational-cost phenomenological models with more detailed physics-based models. This h…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fire scenario data, detail step 2. The fire starts propagating within the habitat (a). Pressure and temperature are increasing, and the pressure exceeds the cooling set point (e, f). The power consumption is due to the thermal and pressure control and starts to increas…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fire scenario data, detail step 3. Pressure in both zones and temperature in zone 2 is outside the safe range (e, f). The power consumption is due to the thermal and pressure control and starts to increase (g), since Fan 1, Fan 2, and compressor efficiency is decreasin…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fire scenario data, detail step 4. Pressure in both zones and temperature in zone 2 are still outside the safe range (e, f). The power consumption is due to the thermal and pressure control and starts to decrease (g), since Fan 1, Fan 2, and compressor efficiency is in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fire scenario data, detail step 5. The habitat is back to nominal conditions. Pressure and temperature are within the safe range (e, f). The power consumption is due to the thermal and pressure control only (g). Fan 1, Fan 2, and compressor are back to maximum possible…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize "" * " " * ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A., Yu, Z., Wu, N., and Kaid, H

    Alzalab, E. A., Yu, Z., Wu, N., and Kaid, H. (2020). Fault-recovery and repair modeling of discrete event systems using petri nets. IEEE Access , 8:170237--170247

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    and Khoo, S

    Anderson, H. and Khoo, S. C. (2009). Improving responsiveness of hard real-time embedded systems. In 2009 Third IEEE International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering , pages 13--20, Tianjin, China. IEEE

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Azimi, M., Lund, A., Fu, Y., Montoya, H., Vaccino, L., Murali Krishnan, R., Rhee, S., Chebbo, L., Shahriar, A., Wang, Z., Maghareh, A., and Dyke, S. J. (2025). Habsim: A modular-coupled virtual testbed for simulating extraterrestrial habitat systems. AIAA Journal , 63(2):376--388

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Baheri, A. (2023). Exploring the role of simulator fidelity in the safety validation of learning-enabled autonomous systems. AI Magazine , 44:453–459

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Beck, K. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Accessed: 2024-01-21

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    and Raiteri, D

    Bobbio, A. and Raiteri, D. C. (2004). Parametric fault trees with dynamic gates and repair boxes. In Annual Symposium Reliability and Maintainability , pages 459--465, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Bondi, A. B. (2000). Characteristics of scalability and their impact on performance. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance , pages 195--203

    work page 2000

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Budde, C. (2020). Rare event simulation for non-markovian repairable fault trees. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS 2020 , volume 12078 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science . Springer, Cham

    2020

  2. [10]

    Carmignani, L., Rhoades, B., and Bhattacharjee, S. (2018). Correlation of burning rate with spread rate for downward flame spread over pmma. Fire Technology , 54(3):613--624. Received: 16 October 2017; Accepted: 29 December 2017; Published: 13 January 2018; Issue Date: May 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Chandy, K. M. (2009). Event driven architecture. In Liu, L. and Özsu, M. T., editors, Encyclopedia of Database Systems . Springer, Boston, MA

    2009

  4. [12]

    Chebbo, L., Gultekin, M., Bazzi, A., Tomastik, R., Pattipati, K., Vaccino, L., Azimi, M., and Lund, A. (2022). Modeling and operation of microgrids for deep space habitats under environmental disturbances. In IEEE Power and Energy Conference at Illinois

    2022

  5. [13]

    A., Bazzi, A., Tomastik, R., Pattipati, K., Vaccino, L., Azimi, M., and Lund, A

    Chebbo, L., Gultekin, M. A., Bazzi, A., Tomastik, R., Pattipati, K., Vaccino, L., Azimi, M., and Lund, A. (2023). Modeling and operation of microgrids for deep space habitats under environmental disturbances. In 2023 IEEE Power and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI) , pages 1--5

    2023

  6. [14]

    Chebbo, L., Nisar, H., and Bazzi, A. (2025). Fault diagnosis of power components with reliability assessment in extraterrestrial microgrids. AIAA Journal , 63(2):404--419

    2025

  7. [15]

    and Unewisse, M

    Chen, P. and Unewisse, M. H. (2016). A systems thinking approach to engineering challenges of military systems-of-systems

    2016

  8. [16]

    Cilento, M. V. (2022). Resilient extra-terrestrial habitat design using a control effectiveness metric. Master's thesis,Purdue University Graduate School

    2022

  9. [17]

    Cristaldi, L., Ferrero, A., Monti, A., Ponci, F., McKay, W., and Dougal, R. (2005). A virtual environment for remote testing of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 54(1):123

    2005

  10. [18]

    C., Craig, D

    Crusan, J. C., Craig, D. A., and Herrmann, N. B. (2017). Nasa's deep space habitation strategy. In 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference , pages 1--11, Big Sky, MT, USA

    2017

  11. [19]

    Czupalla, M., Zhukov, A., Schnaitmann, J., Olthoff, C., Deiml, M., Pl \"o tner, P., and Walter, U. (2015). The virtual habitat -- a tool for dynamic life support system simulations. Advances in Space Research , 55(11):2683--2707

    2015

  12. [20]

    Diao, X., Pietrykowski, M., Huang, F., Mutha, C., and Smidts, C. (2022). An ontology-based fault generation and fault propagation analysis approach for safety-critical computer systems at the design stage. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufactur...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Dibowski, H., Holub, O., and Rojícek, J. (2016). Knowledge-based fault propagation in building automation systems. In 2016 International Conference on Systems Informatics, Modelling and Simulation (SIMS) , pages 124--132, Riga, Latvia

    2016

  14. [22]

    J., Marais, K., Bilionis, I., and Werfel, J

    Dyke, S. J., Marais, K., Bilionis, I., and Werfel, J. (2021). Strategies for the design and operation of resilient extraterrestrial habitats. In Zonta, D., Huang, H., and Su, Z., editors, Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 20...

    2021

  15. [23]

    J., Marais, K., Bilionis, I., and Werfel, J

    Dyke, S. J., Marais, K., Bilionis, I., and Werfel, J. (2022). Reth institute annual report appendix a modular coupled virtual testbed (version 6.0). NASA Sharepoint

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ekanayake, T., Dewasurendra, D., Abeyratne, S., Ma, L., and Yarlagadda, P. (2017). Model-based fault diagnosis and prognosis of dynamic systems: A review. In Proceedings of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017 (MESIC 2017) , 14th Global Congress ...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Garcés, L., Oquendo, F., and Nakagawa, E. Y. (2018). Towards a taxonomy of software mediators for systems-of-systems. In Proceedings of the VII Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse , pages 53--62, Sao Carlos, Brazil. ACM

    2018

  18. [26]

    and Rayavarapu, V

    Gorton, I. and Rayavarapu, V. T. (2022). Foundations of scalable software architectures. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C) , Seattle, USA and Boston, USA. Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern ...

    2022

  19. [27]

    V., Manzano, W., Rohling, A

    Graciano Neto, V. V., Manzano, W., Rohling, A. J., Gonçalves Vieira, M., Volpato, T., and Nakagawa, E. Y. (2022). Externalizing patterns for simulations in software engineering of systems-of-systems. Technical report, University of São Paulo - USP, Brazil; University of Hawaii, USA

    2022

  20. [28]

    Hinkelmann, K., Laurenzi, E., Martin, A., and Thönssen, B. (2018). Ontology-based metamodeling. In Dornberger, R., editor, Business Information Systems and Technology 4.0 , volume 141 of Studies in Systems, Decision and Control . Springer

    2018

  21. [29]

    and Bishop, S

    Häuplik-Meusburger, S. and Bishop, S. (2021). Space Habitats and Habitability: Designing for Isolated and Confined Environments on Earth and in Space . Space and Society. Springer

    2021

  22. [30]

    Jain, R., Cilento, M., Ulmer, J., and Marais, K. (2024). Control effectiveness: Metric development and application to resilient lunar habitat design. AIAA Journal , 62(9):3208--3224

    2024

  23. [31]

    Kessler, P., Prater, T., Nickens, T., and Harris, D. (2022). Artemis deep space habitation: Enabling a sustained human presence on the moon and beyond. In 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO) , pages 1--12

    2022

  24. [32]

    and Van Vliet, H

    Klein, J. and Van Vliet, H. (2013). A systematic review of system-of-systems architecture research. In Proceedings of the 9th international ACM Sigsoft conference on Quality of software architectures , pages 13--22, Vancouver British Columbia Canada. ACM

    2013

  25. [33]

    Kumar, G., Jain, V., and Soni, U. (2019). Modelling and simulation of repairable mechanical systems reliability and availability. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag , 10:1221--1233

    2019

  26. [34]

    and Sharma, R

    Kumar, P. and Sharma, R. K. (2016). Real-time fault tolerant full adder design for critical applications. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal , 19(3):1465--1472

    2016

  27. [35]

    Laanti, M., Simil"a, J., and Abrahamsson, P. (2013). Definitions of agile software development and agility. In McCaffery, F., O'Connor, R., and Messnarz, R., editors, Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement , volume 364 of Communications in Computer and Information ...

    2013

  28. [36]

    Lafortune, S., Teneketzis, D., Sampath, M., Sengupta, R., and Sinnamohideen, K. (2001). Failure diagnosis of dynamic systems: an approach based on discrete event systems. In Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference (Cat. No.01CH37148) , volume 3, pages 2058--2071, A...

    2001

  29. [37]

    Leon, H., Bonigo, G., and Briones, L. (2015). Distributed analysis for diagnosability in concurrent systems. ArXhabiv, abs/1502.07466

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K., Gao, W., and Smidts, C

    Li, B., Diao, X., Vaddi, P. K., Gao, W., and Smidts, C. (2022). A propagation-based fault detection and discrimination method and the optimization of sensor deployment. Annals of Nuclear Energy , 166:108746

    2022

  31. [39]

    Li, Y., Chen, K., Collignon, S., and Ivanov, D. (2020). Ripple effect in the supply chain network: Forward and backward disruption propagation, network health and firm vulnerability. European Journal of Operational Research

    2020

  32. [40]

    C., Hester, E

    Little, J. C., Hester, E. T., Elsawah, S., Filz, G. M., Sandu, A., Carey, C. C., Iwanaga, T., and Jakeman, A. J. (2019). A tiered, system-of-systems modeling framework for resolving complex socio-environmental policy issues. Environmental Modelling and Software , 112:82--94

    2019

  33. [41]

    Liu, J., Xu, Y., Zhou, K., and Ge, M.-F. (2021). Fault diagnosis and failure prognosis in hydraulic systems . Academic Press

    2021

  34. [42]

    What does scalability mean for systems and services? Lucidchart Blog

    Lucidchart (2022). What does scalability mean for systems and services? Lucidchart Blog

    2022

  35. [43]

    Maier, J., Wynn, D., Biedermann, W., et al. (2014). Simulating progressive iteration, rework and change propagation to prioritise design tasks. Research in Engineering Design , 25:283–307

    2014

  36. [44]

    Maier, M. W. (1998). Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Systems Engineering , 1:267--284

    1998

  37. [45]

    Michelson, B. M. (2006). Event-driven architecture overview

    2006

  38. [46]

    Mohammed, O. D. and Rantatalo, M. (2020). Gear fault models and dynamics-based modelling for gear fault detection – a review. Engineering Failure Analysis , 117:104798

    2020

  39. [47]

    J., Bilionis, I., Wang, J., Xue, C., Han, S., and Azimi, M

    Murali Krishnan, R., Zhang, Z., Hao, K., Manikkan, S., Parsons, P., Dyke, S. J., Bilionis, I., Wang, J., Xue, C., Han, S., and Azimi, M. (2025). Habsim-hms: A systems testbed to investigate situational awareness for extraterrestrial habitation. AIAA Journal , 63(2):389--403

    2025

  40. [48]

    Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins

    National Academy of Engineering (2024). Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins . Washington, DC

    2024

  41. [49]

    Pencolé, Y. (2006). Decentralised diagnosis of discrete-event systems: application to telecommunication network . CSL, The Australian National University, IRISA

    2006

  42. [50]

    Plötner, P., Czupalla, M., and Zhukov, A. (2013). Closed environment module – modularization and extension of the virtual habitat. Advances in Space Research , 52(12):2180--2191

    2013

  43. [51]

    Pritchard, K. A. (2023). A simulation-based study of operational vulnerabilities and contingency planning for smart extraterrestrial habitats. Master's thesis,Purdue University Graduate School

    2023

  44. [52]

    Rana, M. R. and Baul, S. (2023). A survey on microkernel based operating systems and their essential key components. SSRN Electronic Journal

    2023

  45. [53]

    Habsim documentation

    RETH institute (2024). Habsim documentation

    2024

  46. [54]

    Rhee, S., Noble, Z., Park, J., Lial, A., Collazo, L., and Ziviani, D. (2023). Development of a damageable eclss and ie virtual testbed model to simulate future resilient deep space habitats. In Proceedings of the 52nd International Conference on Environmental Systems , Calgary, Canada

    2023

  47. [55]

    Richards, M. (2022). Software Architecture Patterns . O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2 edition

    2022

  48. [56]

    and Obermaisser, R

    Sanduka, I. and Obermaisser, R. (2014). Model-based development of systems-of-systems with real-time requirements. In 2014 12th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN) , pages 188--194, Porto Alegre RS, Brazil. IEEE

    2014

  49. [57]

    Shahriar, A., Montoya, H., Majlesi, A., Avila, D., and Montoya, A. (2024). Coupling independent solid mechanics-based systems in a system-of-systems modeling framework. AIAA Journal , 0(0):3510--3525

    2024

  50. [58]

    Strangas, E. G. (2021). Fault diagnosis and failure prognosis of electrical drives . Academic Press

    2021

  51. [59]

    Sun, Y., Gray, J., and White, J. (2015). A demonstration-based model transformation approach to automate model scalability. Software and Systems Modeling , 14(6):1245--1271

    2015

  52. [60]

    Ulmer, J. (2023). A resilience-oriented extra-terrestrial habitat design process. Master's thesis,Purdue University Graduate School

    2023

  53. [61]

    Vaccino, L. (2021). Condition monitoring of hydraulic pumps for fluid power applications. Master's thesis,Politecnico di Torino

    2021

  54. [62]

    and Karimi, H

    Wang, G. and Karimi, H. R. (2021). 1 - Quality-related fault detection and diagnosis: a technical review and summary . Academic Press

    2021

  55. [63]

    Zhao, L., Thulasiraman, K., Ge, X., and Niu, R. (2016). Failure propagation modeling and analysis via system interfaces. Mathematical Problems in Engineering , 2016(1):8593612

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.