Search NASASearch

Engineering topics

Matt Hawkins

Publications and source records attributed to Matt Hawkins.

Guidance Modifications & Enhancement for Space Launch System Block-1 in Support ARTEMIS I and Beyond

As NASA has conducted extensive simulation and testing of the Space Launch System for the Artemis I mission, opportunities were identified for improvements to the Guidance, Navigation and Controls algorithms. These improvements will allow more effective use of the capabilities of the SLS vehicle, and enhance safety of the crew on board. This paper describes several planned updates to the Powered Explicit Guidance algorithm and auxiliary guidance algorithms for Artemis I and subsequent SLS missions.

Naeem Ahmad

Guidance Modifications and Enhancements for Space Launch System Block-1 in Support of Artemis I and Beyond

NASA is currently building the Space Launch System (SLS) Block-1 launch vehicle for the Artemis I test flight. Design of the Artemis II mission, which will use theBlock-1 vehicle to take astronauts around the moon for the first time in decades, is also underway. The Guidance, Navigation, and Controls (GN&C) algorithms will be largely similar for the two missions. However, the extensive simulation and testing campaign for Artemis I has revealed opportunities for improvements in the GN&C algorithms, allowing more effective use of the capabilities of the SLS vehicle, and enhancing safety for the astronauts aboard. This paper will de-scribe several planned algorithm updates for the Artemis II mission. The updates enhance the Powered Explicit Guidance (PEG) algorithm and auxiliary guidance algorithms.

Matt Hawkins

Evaluation of Precision Landing Performance Using A Generalized Aerospace Simulation in Simulink Framework

NASA’s science and exploration goals to return to the Moon and beyond will need to perform precision landings to place humans and cargo supplies near places of scientific interest, surface resources, or pre-established basecamps. With the maturation of new navigation technology, such as terrain relative navigation, precision landing is now feasible, enabling new exploration sites, such as the lunar poles. However, verification of precision landing performance becomes crucial since not reaching the designated landing site would have a high risk of loss of mission. Therefore, having a high-fidelity simulation platform to evaluate six degrees of freedom vehicle performance during high-risk phases of flight such landing is a fundamental part of the system verification and risk reduction. The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center has developed the GeneraLized Aerospace Simulation in Simulink® (GLASS) tool which incorporates guidance, navigation, and control algorithms, as well as vehicle and environmental models, such as gravity, vehicle mass properties, navigation sensors, propulsion, and terrain models. GLASS uses the MathWorks® Simulink® environment which provides a model-based design framework that allows the incorporation of vehicle models in a modular architecture. The Simulink® environment provides seamless integration with all the MathWorks® capabilities and toolboxes, such as control design toolboxes and Simscape™ Multibody™ dynamics toolbox. The MathWorks® environment also allows for guidance, navigation, and control algorithms to be auto coded in C language, enabling quick software and hardware in the loop testing. This paper provides an overview of GLASS capabilities for analyzing precision landing performance, including navigation trades applied to a NASA human lander reference design architecture.

Guidance

Verification of the Generalized Aerospace Simulation in Simulink (R)

NASA uses six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) simulations tools to design, test, develop Guidance Navigation and Control (GN&C) software, and certify vehicle performance prior to flight. Therefore, it is critical that the 6-DOF tools used for vehicle design and certification are validated. The focus of this work is the vali-dation of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 6-DOF “GeneraLized Aero-space Simulation in Simulink” (GLASS) framework tool. The GLASS tool framework is currently used to support NASA GN&C insight for the Human Landing System (HLS) project, simulating vehicle dynamics during lunar descent and as-cent. The GLASS framework utilizes the off-the-shelf Mathworks ® Simscape Multibody® toolbox to model vehicle multi-body dynamics. NASA’s Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) provides a set of 6-DOF simulation verification “check cases” that are available to any user needing to verify 6-DOF tools. The check cases contain seventeen atmospheric and twenty-six orbital test scenarios are provided to validate equations of motion, environmental models (e.g., atmosphere, gravitation, and geodesy) and tool propagators. This paper compares GLASS 6-DOF simulation results against the NESC check cases’ results via simulation-to-simulation comparisons. The comparisons demonstrate that GLASS simulation results are “in family” with the outputs of the applicable NASA NESC check cases and verifies the GLASS core framework dynamics and the correct implementation of the check case scenario models.

6-Dof

Verification of the Generalized Aerospace Simulation in Simulink

NASA uses six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) simulations tools to design, test, develop Guidance Navigation and Control (GN&C) software, and certify vehicle performance prior to flight. Therefore, it is critical that the 6-DOF tools used for vehicle design and certification are validated. The focus of this work is the validation of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 6-DOF “GeneraLized Aerospace Simulation in Simulink” (GLASS) framework tool. The GLASS tool framework is currently used to support NASA GN&C insight for the Human Landing System (HLS) project, simulating vehicle dynamics during lunar descent and ascent. The GLASS framework utilizes the off-the-shelf Mathworks (R) Simscape (TM) Multibody (TM) toolbox to model vehicle multi-body dynamics. NASA’s Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) provides a set of 6-DOF simulation verification “check cases” that are available to any user needing to verify 6-DOF tools. The check cases contain seventeen atmospheric and twenty-six orbital test scenarios are provided to validate equations of motion, environmental models (e.g., atmosphere, gravitation, and geodesy) and tool propagators. This paper compares GLASS 6-DOF simulation results against the NESC check cases’ results via simulation-to-simulation comparisons. The comparison demonstrates that GLASS simulation results are “in family” with the outputs of the applicable NASA NESC check-cases and verify the GLASS core framework dynamics and the implementation of the check case scenario models.

6-Dof