Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

167 records · Page 10

Characterization of Days Based On Analysis of National Airspace System Performance Metrics

Days of operations in the National Airspace System can be described in term of traffic demand, runway conditions, equipment outages, and surface and enroute weather conditions. These causes manifest themselves in terms of departure delays, arrival delays, enroute delays and traffic flow management delays, Traffic flow management initiatives such as, ground stops, ground delay programs, miles-in-trail restrictions, rerouting and airborne holding are imposed to balance the air traffic demand with respect to the available capacity, In order to maintain operational efficiency of the National Airspace System, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maintains delay sad other statistics in the Air Traffic Operations Network (OPSNET) and the Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) databases. OPSNET data includes reportable delays of fifteen minutes ox more experienced by Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flights. Numbers of aircraft affected by departure delays, enroute delays, arrival delays and traffic flow delays are recorded in the OPSNET data. ASPM data consist of number of actual departures, number of canceled departures, percentage of on time departures, percentage of on time gate arrivals, taxi-out delays. taxi-in delays, gate delays, arrival delays and block delays. Surface conditions at the major U.S. airports are classified in terms of Instrument Meteorological Condition (IMC) and Visual Meteorological Condition (VMC) as a function of the time of the day in the ASPM data. The main objective of this paper is to use OPSNET and ASPM data to classify the days in the datasets into few distinct groups, where each group is separated from the other groups in terms of a distance metric. The motivations for classifying the days are two-fold, 1) to enable selection of days of traffic with particular operational characteristics for concept evaluation using system-wide simulation systems such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Airspace Concepts Evaluation Tool (ACES) and 2) to enable evaluation of a given day with respect to the characteristics of the classified groups. The first part of the paper is devoted to the analysis of major trends seen in the OPSNET and ASPM data. The second part of the paper is devoted to describing features or measures derived from the OPSNET and ASPM data that are suitable for characterizing days, and the classification algorithm used for grouping the days. Finally, the method for evaluating the characteristics of a given day with respect to the properties of the groups is described.

Chatterji, Gano B.↗

Orion Optical Navigation Progress Toward Exploration: Mission 1

Optical navigation of human spacecraft was proposed on Gemini and implemented successfully on Apollo as a means of autonomously operating the vehicle in the event of lost communication with controllers on Earth. It shares a history with the "method of lunar distances" that was used in the 18th century and gained some notoriety after its use by Captain James Cook during his 1768 Pacific voyage of the HMS Endeavor. The Orion emergency return system utilizing optical navigation has matured in design over the last several years, and is currently undergoing the final implementation and test phase in preparation for Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) in 2019. The software development is being worked as a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) project delivered as an application within the Core Flight Software of the Orion camera controller module. The mathematical formulation behind the initial ellipse fit in the image processing is detailed in Christian. The non-linear least squares refinement then follows the technique of Mortari as an estimation process of the planetary limb using the sigmoid function. The Orion optical navigation system uses a body fixed camera, a decision that was driven by mass and mechanism constraints. The general concept of operations involves a 2-hour pass once every 24 hours, with passes specifically placed before all maneuvers to supply accurate navigation information to guidance and targeting. The pass lengths are limited by thermal constraints on the vehicle since the OpNav attitude generally deviates from the thermally stable tail-to-sun attitude maintained during the rest of the orbit coast phase. Calibration is scheduled prior to every pass due to the unknown nature of thermal effects on the lens distortion and the mounting platform deformations between the camera and star trackers. The calibration technique is described in detail by Christian, et al. and simultaneously estimates the Brown-Conrady coefficients and the Star Tracker/Camera interlock angles. Accurate attitude information is provided by the star trackers during each pass. Figure 1 shows the various phases of lunar return navigation when the vehicle is in autonomous operation with lost ground communication. The midcourse maneuvers are placed to control the entry interface conditions to the desired corridor for safe landing. The general form of optical navigation on Orion is where still images of the Moon or Earth are processed to find the apparent angular diameter and centroid in the camera focal plane. This raw data is transformed into range and bearing angle measurements using planetary data and precise star tracker inertial attitude. The measurements are then sent to the main flight computer's Kalman filter to update the onboard state vector. The images are, of course, collected over an arc to converge the state and estimate velocity. The same basic technique was used by Apollo to satisfy loss-of-comm, but Apollo used manual crew sightings with a vehicle-integral sextant instead of autonomously processing optical imagery. The software development is past its Critical Design Review, and is progressing through test and certification for human rating. In support of this, a hardware-in-the-loop test rig was developed in the Johnson Space Center Electro-Optics Lab to exercise the OpNav system prior to integrated testing on the Orion vehicle. Figure 2 shows the rig, which the test team has dubbed OCILOT (Orion Camera In the Loop Optical Testbed). Analysis performed to date shows a delivery that satisfies an allowable entry corridor as shown in Figure 3.

Holt, Greg N.↗

Localization of Ad-Hoc Lunar Constellations in Communication Failure Modes for Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

As lunar missions increase in complexity inspired by NASA’s Artemis Program, they will require reliable and sufficient capability of the Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) system to support their scientific objectives. In addition, NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program initiates the proliferation of public and private exploration partnerships using small satellites from commercial and private organizations, expanding traditionally confined low Earth orbit to be used for missions beyond geosynchronous orbit (Zucherman et al., 2022). Therefore, the Lunar PNT system is also required to provide navigation services compatible with the smaller platforms being sent by the public and private sectors, like CubeSats. However, traditional approaches to deep space missions’ navigation based on ground radio facilities have difficulties in providing sufficient support for the increasing number of users and communication at a distance from the Earth (Kaplev et al., 2022). In particular, the existing Lunar navigation technologies such as weak signal global positioning system (GPS) and deep space network (DSN) are not able to ensure operations of the upcoming small-scale Lunar missions due to their limitations in localization performance as well as capacity aspects. Another way to provide Lunar PNT service is to create a dedicated Lunar global navigation satellite system (GNSS) constellation, like GNSS systems on Earth. Space agencies like NASA, ESA, and JAXA are now developing the lunar communications relay and navigation systems (LCRNS) and Lunar navigation satellite systems (LNSS). In their systems, satellites will be deployed in moon orbits to provide the communication, positioning, navigation, and timing (CPNT) service at the lunar south pole region where the Artemis base camp will be expected (Murata et al., 2022). Meanwhile, common challenges considered in lunar PNT research arise from poor geometry of the terrestrial GNSS satellites when seen from the lunar user, highly perturbed lunar orbits, and limitations in power, size, and cost of the equipment on lunar satellites (Iiyama et al., 2023). It is also not clear if there will be enough Lunar users to support the cost and resources this would require as the Low-cost surface missions may not be able to support the large power, mass, and weight requirements that these navigation solutions entail (Niemoeller et al., 2022). As an alternative, existing Lunar science and exploration assets could be used to create a low-cost, autonomous, ad-hoc, and on-demand mission-centric Lunar PNT swarm capable of providing PNT services to these low-cost lunar missions (Hagenau et al., 2021). Introducing the non-dedicated and ad-hoc Lunar navigation constellation gives a way to provide PNT services on-demand. The non-dedicated swarm assets of Lunar constellations are designed to localize themselves with minimal interaction with Earth by adding cooperative autonomous localization to lunar missions, freeing up valuable bandwidth and ground segment resources. An autonomous localization of Lunar constellations is based on the concept of the decentralized PNT system with a distributed extended Kalman filter (DEKF) approach to state estimation for minimal onboard operating costs. In the distributed data processing algorithm, computation is broken down and assigned to each satellite, resulting in a considerably decreased computational amount while maintaining the accuracy of the orbit ephemeris and clock offsets as the result of centralized data processing (Wen et al., 2019). The DEKF requires spacecraft to perform two-way ranging operations with each other to communicate simultaneously, leveraging neighbor two-way intersatellite link (ISL) measurements such as pseudoranges to, and relative velocities between, visible satellites as sensor values (Frank et al., 2021). The Lunar autonomous PNT simulation (LAPS) demonstrated the feasibility of orbital asset localization among ad-hoc Lunar small-sat constellations based on the DEKF in Hagenau et al. (2021) and evaluated the matching algorithm proposed by Frank et al. (2021) in scheduling position estimation updates. In previous papers, all assets and measurements are assumed to be always available without consideration of the impact of intermittent and permanent communication failure. This study presents localization performance with increasing levels of network degradation for swarm assets and users to demonstrate the robustness of the decentralized Lunar PNT service in more realistic scenarios. Main issues arising from communication failure include spacecraft permanent or transient loss, antenna failures, message delays, etc. We tested four possible reasons for network degradation for 7 days in 21 satellites frozen with an altitude of 5500 km, evenly spaced around 3 circular, 40 inclination orbital planes where each spacecraft has two directional antennas. As anchor nodes with an independent estimate of their position are required in the DEKF approach, two ground nodes in each pole and one node in the gateway were implemented in the simulation. First, the most probable failure scenario involves the loss of a single spacecraft due to solar interference and technical malfunctions of the assets. Losing the availability of a single spacecraft means losing the two-way ISL measurement of the asset in the DEKF update. In order to provide the best possible quality of PNT service with limited time and resources, the distributed Lunar constellations must schedule the communication activities. The scheduler leverages mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) for the coordination and scheduling of the desired “as-needed” localization service (Niemoeller et al., 2022). We assume the scheduler has completely excluded the spacecraft information before the DEKF update in the failure scenario. When a random spacecraft has been turned off at a specific time, the robustness of the autonomous Lunar PNT system is evaluated. The simulation results give an 11.5% degradation in median position accuracy compared to the idealized performance excluding the asset loss. Second, a large number of assets may vanish due to major hardware problems or meteor strikes around the moon. A multiple spacecraft loss can degrade the localization performance very fast by losing the communication ability to do cross-plane measurements and in-plane measurements in a 3-plane constellation. When the matching-based scheduler is aware of ISL availability, we investigate a large number of in-plane and cross-plane asset vanishments both in close proximity and equally spaced throughout the orbital plane. According to the simulations, the loss of in-plane measurements gives 40.2% degradation while cross-plane measurements degrade 50.5% of asset localization performance among available assets. Therefore, it is concluded that cross-plane measurements are more important in improving the position estimation accuracy. Third, spacecraft failure information can be lost due to the internal message delay, resulting in the DEKF update scheduler to solve the matching problem with unavailable assets. The DEKF update cycle is comprised of network setup, communication, and computations where a global broadcast network and a 2-way ISL network setup take 6 minutes in total (Frank et al., 2021). Once the broadcast network successfully transmits and receives information, a random spacecraft may lose its availability right before solving the matching problem. This means the matching solution is no longer optimal, resulting in degradation in the localization performance. A numerical assessment shows the matching-based scheduler with knowing failure holds 11.5% of position accuracy degradation, whereas the scheduler without knowing failure gives 34% degraded localization performance without asset loss. Fourth, a transient loss of a single or multiple spacecraft may occur due to their antenna outages. After losing the two-way ISL availability for a few DEKF update cycles, the availability of spacecraft can easily be recovered as their states have been independently updated using measurements from anchor nodes. It is likely that the longer failure will result in worse localization performance. We have tested the transient failure of a random single asset for 30 min in the simulation, which is losing 3 update cycles in the DEKF system. From the simulation results, the position accuracy has been degraded to 4.84% which is better than the degraded localization performance of 11.5% from the permanent loss scenario among available assets. In conclusion, the autonomous Lunar PNT system based on the DEKF approach shows the ability to maintain resilience and robustness in the possible communication failure scenarios, ensuring that localization accuracy is preserved across various network degradation and outages. Future studies on investigating user localization performance near the South Pole and the broadcast network system will be continued in the following months.

Yeji Kim↗

Airborne Radar for sUAS Sense and Avoid

A primary challenge for the safe integration of small UAS operations into the National Airspace System (NAS) is traffic deconfliction, both from manned and unmanned aircraft. The UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project being conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) considers a layered approach to separation provision, ranging from segregation of operations through airspace volumes (geofences) to autonomous sense and avoid (SAA) technologies for higher risk, densely occupied airspace. Cooperative SAA systems, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and/or vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems provide significant additional risk mitigation but they fail to adequately mitigate collision risks for non-cooperative (non-transponder equipped) airborne aircraft. The RAAVIN (Radar on Autonomous Aircraft to Verify ICAROUS Navigation) flight test being conducted by NASA and the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership (MAAP) was designed to investigate the applicability and performance of a prototype, commercially available sUAS radar to detect and track non-cooperative airborne traffic, both manned and unmanned. The radar selected for this research was a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar with 120 degree azimuth and 80 degree elevation field of view operating at 24.55GHz center frequency with a 200 MHz bandwidth. The radar transmits 2 watts of power thru a Metamaterial Electronically Scanning Array antenna in horizontal polarization. When the radar is transmitting, personnel must be at least 1 meter away from the active array to limit nonionizing radiation exposure. The radar physical dimensions are 18.7cm by 12.1cm by 4.1cm and it weighs less than 820 grams making it well suited for installation on small UASs. The onboard, SAA capability, known as ICAROUS, (Independent Configurable Architecture for Reliable Operations of Unmanned Systems), developed by NASA to support sUAS operations, will provide autonomous guidance using the traffic radar tracks from the onboard radar. The RAAVIN set of studies will be conducted in three phases. The first phase included outdoor, ground-based radar evaluations performed at the Virginia Tech’s Kentland Farm testing range in Blacksburg, VA. The test was designed to measure how well the radar could detect and track a small UAS flying in the radar’s field of view. The radar was used to monitor 5 test flights consisting of outbound, inbound and crossing routes at different ranges and altitudes. The UAS flown during the ground test was the Inspire 2, a quad copter weighing less than 4250 grams (10 pounds) at maximum payload. The radar was set up to scan and track targets over its full azimuthal field of view from 0 to 40 degrees in elevation. The radar was configured to eliminate tracks generated from any targets located beyond 2000 meters from the radar and moving at velocities under 1.45 meters per second. For subsequent phases of the study the radar will be integrated with a sUAS platform to evaluate its performance in flight for SAA applications ranging from sUAS to manned GA aircraft detections and tracking. Preliminary data analysis from the first outdoor ground tests showed the radar performed well at tracking the vehicle as it flew outbound and repeatedly maintained a track out to 1000 meters (maximum 1387 meters) until the vehicle slowed to a stop to reverse direction to fly inbound. As the Inspire flew inbound tracks from beyond 800 meters, a reacquisition time delay was consistently observed between when the Inspire exceeds a speed of 1.45 meters per second and when the radar indicated an inbound target was present and maintained its track. The time delay varied between 6 seconds to over 37 seconds for the inbound flights examined, and typically resulted in about a 200 meter closure distance before the Inspire track was maintained. The radar performed well at both acquiring and tracking the vehicle as it flew crossing routes out past 400 meters across the azimuthal field of view. The radar and ICAROUS software will be integrated and flown on a BFD-1400-SE8-E UAS during the next phase of the RAAVIN project. The main goal at the conclusion of this effort is to determine if this radar technology can reliably support minimum requirements for SAA applications of sUAS. In particular, the study will measure the range of vehicle detections, lateral and vertical angular errors, false and missed/late detections, and estimated distance at closest point of approach after an avoidance maneuver is executed. This last metric is directly impacted by sensor performance and indicates its suitability for the task.

Szatkowski, George N.↗

Monitoring Airspace Complexity and Determining Contributing Factors

The national airspace has evolved over many years to accommodate increased traffic demand [1] while simultaneously maintaining one of the safest forms of transportation [2], [3]. One of the reasons for this success is the ability of the system and the operators to adapt and accommodate to situations that routinely disrupt optimal operations. These situations may include: adverse weather, delays, early arrivals, equipment outages, and other factors that are outside the operators ability to control. These factors can lead to states where automation is unable to properly handle these issues and therefore air traffic controllers and pilots have to intervene, ultimately increasing communication between operators resulting in higher workload. As controller workload increases to handle sub-optimal operating conditions this can be viewed as an increase in complexity. The reasoning for this is because humans are now required to make tactical decisions in response to external factors, resulting in a departure from the strategic plan where operations would be more efficiently managed. Human operators control airspace complexity under rigid regulations that are constantly changing. The airspace is divided into sectors and the number of aircraft assigned to each controller is limited for safe handling. There has been past work that devised airspace complexity metrics in commercial aviation and related these metrics to controller workload (e.g., [4],[5]). The upper bounds on the system load are pre-determined. Such bounds on complexity make for a safe system, but the system cannot scale and adapt to autonomous, dense, and heterogeneous traffic, including the many types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) envisioned to be added to the operations. We hypothesize that, as traffic density and heterogeneity grow, and other key metrics change, there will be phase transitions at which the way traffic should be managed changes significantly [6]. We offer a method for in-time detection of contributing factors that lead to phase transitions, characterized by increased complexity. To the best of our knowledge, there is no tool similar to our proposed effort that identifies such contributing factors or precursor patterns. To define the scope we are proposing to measure complexity from the viewpoint of the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) controller’s perspective. In particular we are analyzing arrivals into KSFO. With safety as the top concern for airspace operators, it is important to recognize that as density and heterogeneity grow, the focus of the system will change. Times of the day when the airspace has low density and heterogeneity, the flights will follow more efficient paths where the aircraft move on established routes that are more or less directly to the destination. However, when density and heterogeneity increases, the system will begin changing focus to avoiding conflicts and collisions and route the flights in a more flexible way. Higher flexibility requires more communication and coordination between controllers and pilots which the current automation is unable to handle. This paper proposes a novel approach that monitors airspace complexity at multiple scales, uses a Machine Learning-based tool that predicts when operations will transition to a regime of greater complexity, and identifies actions that can reduce the complexity while still maintaining efficient and safe operations. We demonstrate our proposed approach using data from multiple complementary sources. This includes, but is not limited to: historical aircraft surveillance data from NASA’s Sherlock Data Warehouse [7], METAR weather data, and airport configuration data from Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM). The surveillance data flight paths are sampled at a variable sample rate — increasing as the aircraft approaches the airport. This is due to how Sherlock manages flight track stitching between different radar facilities which have different sampling rates. The weather and performance data are logged at defined intervals throughout the day at a courser refresh rate. In addition to the logged data and metrics, we leverage pre-defined Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) procedures to characterize the path of each flight. Each flight files for one of these routes in the flight plan well before entering the terminal airspace, and approximately follows the route until it leaves the STAR, typically on the final fix of a runway transition. However, most flights do not always fly the full STAR procedure to completion [8], but the majority do adhere to the fixes within the common route of the procedure. Our approach leverages fixes in the common route of each of the STARs to build a reference path to the airport. This allows us to characterize the flight paths in what we are defining as the “maneuvering area” (the airspace between the STAR and before the flight is lined up on the runway’s final approach) to determine how off nominal the flights are to calculate its complexity score. Determining airspace complexity is a concept that does not have a concrete answer. In designing this metric, we consider what increases the workload for the air traffic controllers. Consequently more specialized vectoring maneuvers results in higher workload. Accordingly, we start with a theory: each flight has a direct path it takes from the STAR’s common route to the final approach’s outer marker fix for the flight’s landing runway. It is important to note that the direct path is only used as a reference. If the majority of the flights have a large consistent offset as compared to other routes it does not necessarily mean that those flights have higher complexity. We are merely building a distribution based on this direct path for that particular STAR and runway pair to determine the normal mode of operations for that route. Flights that are in the upper tail of these distributions will result in higher complexity scores and flights that fly in the median will represent the normal mode of operations and therefore will have lower complexity scores. Since flights following each STAR route take different paths to the airport, we have a different distribution for each STAR route and therefore can model these distributions to compute a complexity score from their respective normalized distributions. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed airspace complexity metric we will compare against an established approach based on trajectory clustering [9]. This unsupervised learning technique consists of the following steps: (1) identify the general maneuvering areas (waypoints) by performing $\kappa$-means or DBSCAN clustering on locations where aircraft frequently turn based on the surveillance radar track data, (2) map flight trajectories onto sequences of waypoints, and (3) cluster the sequences based on their common subsequences. From a high-level perspective, this baseline model learns nominal operations in the airspace through the sequence of waypoints that are representative of where aircraft change direction and defines deviations from the nominal operations as “complex.” Therefore, more deviations from the nominal operations correspond to higher complexity values. For our validation, we re-implemented this technique and tune model hyper-parameters to correctly detect waypoints for the arrival traffic into the San Francisco bay area. We will compute the complexity measure over a one-year period using our proposed technique as well as the baseline. Our validation will be based on each technique’s ability to detect a set of undesirable outcomes (e.g., go-arounds, holding patterns, average time in the airspace, etc.). Since our current complexity metric is derived from the offset from the direct reference path, it’s important to understand what causes these offsets. In many of the flights with high offset distance, flights performing holding patterns and S turns can be observed. These maneuvering tactics are utilized to add distance between the aircraft and the destination runway to prevent multiple flights from having conflicting arrival times. In order to predict a rise in complexity (or the precursor to complexity), it’s necessary to be able to identify these potential conflicts (which in turn, result in higher offsets). To do this, we define a “representative flight” for each STAR route and runway pair. This flight is approximately the path the flight would take if there was a clear path with no other flights in the airspace — including the time remaining to the airport. We first identify the flights for a given STAR runway pair using the offset to the reference path distributions that fall between the 44-55 percentiles. This yields the flights that conform to the most normal mode of operation. Each of these flights is partitioned based on the percent complete from the entry point into the maneuvering areas from 0\% – 100\% complete. Then for each percent “bin”, we take the median value of the flight’s latitude/longitude coordinates, airspeed, and (non causal) time remaining to the airport to construct a lookup table for each percent complete bin on a given route. As a flight enters the maneuvering area, we can find the estimated arrival time of a flight to the airport by finding the closest point to the representative path’s percent complete bin (relative to the flight’s current position at any snapshot in the airspace) and therefore retrieve the corresponding remaining time left on the “representative path”. We assume that the flight will follow the representative path to completion when deriving these estimates. We can then compare these estimated arrival times against other flights for the same snapshot in time to identify potential conflicts. If more flights are estimated to arrive within a tolerance window than there are runways available, then we have a potential conflict. We can use this derived measure along with other factors expected to add disruption to the operation such as weather and runway configuration changes as an input to machine learning tools to detect precursors that increases in our complexity measure. This novel method will assist in uncovering insights into the contributing factors that lead to increased complexity that may allow for in-time responses to avoid reaching a high complexity state in the airspace.

complexity↗