Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Integrating Flight Dynamics”

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.

At least 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Actuator and aerodynamic modeling for high-angle-of-attack aeroservoelasticity

Accurate prediction of airframe/actuation coupling is required by the imposing demands of modern flight control systems. In particular, for agility enhancement at high angle of attack and low dynamic pressure, structural integration characteristics such as hinge moments, effective actuator stiffness, and airframe/control surface damping can have a significant effect on stability predictions. Actuator responses are customarily represented with low-order transfer functions matched to actuator test data, and control surface stiffness is often modeled as a linear spring. The inclusion of the physical properties of actuation and its installation on the airframe is therefore addressed in this paper using detailed actuator models which consider the physical, electrical, and mechanical elements of actuation. The aeroservoelastic analysis procedure is described in which the actuators are modeled as detailed high-order transfer functions and as approximate low-order transfer functions. The impacts of unsteady aerodynamic modeling on aeroservoelastic stability are also investigated in this paper by varying the order of approximation, or number of aerodynamic lag states, in the analysis. Test data from a thrust-vectoring configuration of an F/A-18 aircraft are compared to predictions to determine the effects on accuracy as a function of modeling complexity.

Brenner, Martin J.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Actuator and aerodynamic modeling for high-angle-of-attack aeroservoelasticity

Accurate prediction of airframe/actuation coupling is required by the imposing demands of modern flight control systems. In particular, for agility enhancement at high angle of attack and low dynamic pressure, structural integration characteristics such as hinge moments, effective actuator stiffness, and airframe/control surface damping can have a significant effect on stability predictions. Actuator responses are customarily represented with low-order transfer functions matched to actuator test data, and control surface stiffness is often modeled as a linear spring. The inclusion of the physical properties of actuation and its installation on the airframe is therefore addressed using detailed actuator models which consider the physical, electrical, and mechanical elements of actuation. The aeroservoelastic analysis procedure is described in which the actuators are modeled as detailed high-order transfer functions and as approximate low-order transfer functions. The impacts of unsteady aerodynamic modeling on aeroservoelastic stability are also investigated by varying the order of approximation, or number of aerodynamic lag states, in the analysis. Test data from a thrust-vectoring configuration of an F/A-l8 aircraft are compared to predictions to determine the effects on accuracy as a function of modeling complexity.

Brenner, Martin J.↗
NASA NTRS2001

The F-15B Propulsion Flight Test Fixture: A New Flight Facility For Propulsion Research

The design and development of the F-15B Propulsion Flight Test Fixture (PFTF), a new facility for propulsion flight research, is described. Mounted underneath an F-15B fuselage, the PFTF provides volume for experiment systems and attachment points for propulsion devices. A unique feature of the PFTF is the incorporation of a six-degree-of-freedom force balance. Three-axis forces and moments can be measured in flight for experiments mounted to the force balance. The NASA F-15B airplane is described, including its performance and capabilities as a research test bed aircraft. The detailed description of the PFTF includes the geometry, internal layout and volume, force-balance operation, available instrumentation, and allowable experiment size and weight. The aerodynamic, stability and control, and structural designs of the PFTF are discussed, including results from aerodynamic computational fluid dynamic calculations and structural analyses. Details of current and future propulsion flight experiments are discussed. Information about the integration of propulsion flight experiments is provided for the potential PFTF user.

Corda, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2010

AutoGNC Testbed

A simulation testbed architecture was developed and implemented for the integration, test, and development of a TRL-6 flight software set called Auto- GNC. The AutoGNC software will combine the TRL-9 Deep Impact AutoNAV flight software suite, the TRL-9 Virtual Machine Language (VML) executive, and the TRL-3 G-REX guidance, estimation, and control algorithms. The Auto- GNC testbed was architected to provide software interface connections among the AutoNAV and VML flight code written in C, the G-REX algorithms in MATLAB and C, stand-alone image rendering algorithms in C, and other Fortran algorithms, such as the OBIRON landmark tracking suite. The testbed architecture incorporates software components for propagating a high-fidelity truth model of the environment and the spacecraft dynamics, along with the flight software components for onboard guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C). The interface allows for the rapid integration and testing of new algorithms prior to development of the C code for implementation in flight software. This testbed is designed to test autonomous spacecraft proximity operations around small celestial bodies, moons, or other spacecraft. The software is baselined for upcoming comet and asteroid sample return missions. This architecture and testbed will provide a direct improvement upon the onboard flight software utilized for missions such as Deep Impact, Stardust, and Deep Space 1.

Carson, John M., III↗
NASA NTRS1993

Research and test facilities

A description is given of each of the following Langley research and test facilities: 0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel, 7-by 10-Foot High Speed Tunnel, 8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel, 13-Inch Magnetic Suspension & Balance System, 14-by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel, 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel, 16-by 24-Inch Water Tunnel, 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel, 30-by 60-Foot Wind Tunnel, Advanced Civil Transport Simulator (ACTS), Advanced Technology Research Laboratory, Aerospace Controls Research Laboratory (ACRL), Aerothermal Loads Complex, Aircraft Landing Dynamics Facility (ALDF), Avionics Integration Research Laboratory, Basic Aerodynamics Research Tunnel (BART), Compact Range Test Facility, Differential Maneuvering Simulator (DMS), Enhanced/Synthetic Vision & Spatial Displays Laboratory, Experimental Test Range (ETR) Flight Research Facility, General Aviation Simulator (GAS), High Intensity Radiated Fields Facility, Human Engineering Methods Laboratory, Hypersonic Facilities Complex, Impact Dynamics Research Facility, Jet Noise Laboratory & Anechoic Jet Facility, Light Alloy Laboratory, Low Frequency Antenna Test Facility, Low Turbulence Pressure Tunnel, Mechanics of Metals Laboratory, National Transonic Facility (NTF), NDE Research Laboratory, Polymers & Composites Laboratory, Pyrotechnic Test Facility, Quiet Flow Facility, Robotics Facilities, Scientific Visualization System, Scramjet Test Complex, Space Materials Research Laboratory, Space Simulation & Environmental Test Complex, Structural Dynamics Research Laboratory, Structural Dynamics Test Beds, Structures & Materials Research Laboratory, Supersonic Low Disturbance Pilot Tunnel, Thermal Acoustic Fatigue Apparatus (TAFA), Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT), Transport Systems Research Vehicle, Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, and the Visual Motion Simulator (VMS).

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2009

Ensuring Safe Exploration: Ares Launch Vehicle Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Testing

Ground vibration testing has been an integral tool for developing new launch vehicles throughout the space age. Several launch vehicles have been lost due to problems that would have been detected by early vibration testing, including Ariane 5, Delta III, and Falcon 1. NASA will leverage experience and testing hardware developed during the Saturn and Shuttle programs to perform ground vibration testing (GVT) on the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V cargo launch vehicle stacks. NASA performed dynamic vehicle testing (DVT) for Saturn and mated vehicle ground vibration testing (MVGVT) for Shuttle at the Dynamic Test Stand (Test Stand 4550) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, and is now modifying that facility to support Ares I integrated vehicle ground vibration testing (IVGVT) beginning in 2012. The Ares IVGVT schedule shows most of its work being completed between 2010 and 2014. Integrated 2nd Stage Ares IVGVT will begin in 2012 and IVGVT of the entire Ares launch stack will begin in 2013. The IVGVT data is needed for the human-rated Orion launch vehicle's Design Certification Review (DCR) in early 2015. During the Apollo program, GVT detected several serious design concerns, which NASA was able to address before Saturn V flew, eliminating costly failures and potential losses of mission or crew. During the late 1970s, Test Stand 4550 was modified to support the four-body structure of the Space Shuttle. Vibration testing confirmed that the vehicle's mode shapes and frequencies were better than analytical models suggested, however, the testing also identified challenges with the rate gyro assemblies, which could have created flight instability and possibly resulted in loss of the vehicle. Today, NASA has begun modifying Test Stand 4550 to accommodate Ares I, including removing platforms needed for Shuttle testing and upgrading the dynamic test facilities to characterize the mode shapes and resonant frequencies of the vehicle. The IVGVT team expects to collect important information about the new launch vehicles, greatly increasing astronaut safety as NASA prepares to explore the Moon and beyond.

Tuma, M. L.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Flight test configuration for verifying inertial sensor redundancy management techniques

The Redundant Strapdown Inertial Measurement Unit presently tested in flight configuration consists of a semioctahedral array of four dynamically tuned, two-degree-of-freedom (TDOF) gyros and four TDOF accelerometers which can provide dual, fail-operational performance for integrated avionics systems. Attention is given to the multilevel algorithm used for the detection and isolation of three ranges of sensor failure in an integrated avionics context. A technique for the generation of accelerometer and gyro error thresholds which is sensitive to dynamic sensor errors and separation effects is presented, together with simulation results. Emphasis is placed on the ensuring of highly reliable data for flight control/navigation functions, while minimizing false or missed alarms.

Bryant, W. H.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Project management techniques for highly integrated programs

The management and control of a representative, highly integrated high-technology project, in the X-29A aircraft flight test project is addressed. The X-29A research aircraft required the development and integration of eight distinct technologies in one aircraft. The project management system developed for the X-29A flight test program focuses on the dynamic interactions and the the intercommunication among components of the system. The insights gained from the new conceptual framework permitted subordination of departments to more functional units of decisionmaking, information processing, and communication networks. These processes were used to develop a project management system for the X-29A around the information flows that minimized the effects inherent in sampled-data systems and exploited the closed-loop multivariable nature of highly integrated projects.

Stewart, J. F.↗
NASA NTRS2000

A Historical Perspective on Dynamics Testing at the Langley Research Center

The experience and advancement of Structural dynamics testing for space system applications at the Langley Research Center of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) over the past four decades is reviewed. This experience began in the 1960's with the development of a technology base using a variety of physical models to explore dynamic phenomena and to develop reliable analytical modeling capability for space systems. It continued through the 1970's and 80's with the development of rapid, computer-aided test techniques, the testing of low-natural frequency, gravity-sensitive systems, the testing of integrated structures with active flexible motion control, and orbital flight measurements, It extended into the 1990's where advanced computerized system identification methods were developed for estimating the dynamic states of complex, lightweight, flexible aerospace systems, The scope of discussion in this paper includes ground and flight tests and summarizes lessons learned in both successes and failures.

Horta, Lucas G.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Goddard trajectory determination subsystem: Mathematical specifications

The mathematical specifications of the Goddard trajectory determination subsystem of the flight dynamics system are presented. These specifications include the mathematical description of the coordinate systems, dynamic and measurement model, numerical integration techniques, and statistical estimation concepts.

Wagner, W. E.↗
NASA NTRS1978

Combustion of hydrogen in a two-dimensional duct with step fuel injectors

An investigation of the combustion of hydrogen perpendicularly injected from step fuel injectors into a Mach 2.72, 2100 K vitiated test gas was conducted. The model simulated the flow between the center and side struts of an integrated scramjet module at Mach 7 flight and an altitude of 29 km. Parametric variation included equivalence ratio, fuel dynamic pressure ratio, and area distribution of the model. The overall area ratio of the model was held constant at 2.87. The data analysis indicated that no measurable improvement in mixing or combustion efficiency was obtained by varying the fuel dynamic pressure ratio from 0.79 to 2.45. Computations indicated approximately 80 percent of the fuel was mixed so that it could react; however, only approximately 50 percent of the mixed fuel actually reacted in two test configurations, and 74 percent in later tests where less area expansion of the flow occurred.

Eggers, J. M.↗
NASA NTRS1993

A comparative study of multivariable robustness analysis methods as applied to integrated flight and propulsion control

Three multivariable robustness analysis methods are compared and contrasted. The focus of the analysis is on system stability and performance robustness to uncertainty in the coupling dynamics between two interacting subsystems. Of particular interest is interacting airframe and engine subsystems, and an example airframe/engine vehicle configuration is utilized in the demonstration of these approaches. The singular value (SV) and structured singular value (SSV) analysis methods are compared to a method especially well suited for analysis of robustness to uncertainties in subsystem interactions. This approach is referred to here as the interacting subsystem (IS) analysis method. This method has been used previously to analyze airframe/engine systems, emphasizing the study of stability robustness. However, performance robustness is also investigated here, and a new measure of allowable uncertainty for acceptable performance robustness is introduced. The IS methodology does not require plant uncertainty models to measure the robustness of the system, and is shown to yield valuable information regarding the effects of subsystem interactions. In contrast, the SV and SSV methods allow for the evaluation of the robustness of the system to particular models of uncertainty, and do not directly indicate how the airframe (engine) subsystem interacts with the engine (airframe) subsystem.

Schierman, John D.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Application of the Life Safety Code to a Historic Test Stand

NASA has conducted a study to assess alternatives to refurbishing existing launch vehicle modal test facilities as opposed to developing new test facilities to meet the demands of a very fiscally constrained test and evaluation environment. The results of this study showed that Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Test Stand (TS) 4550 could be made compliant, within reasonable cost and schedule impacts, if safety processes and operational limitations were put in place to meet the safety codes and concerns of the Fire Marshall. Trades were performed with key selection criteria to ensure that appropriate levels of occupant safety are incorporated into test facility design modifications. In preparation for the ground vibration tests that were to be performed on the Ares I launch vehicle, the Ares Flight and Integrated Test Office (FITO) organization evaluated the available test facility options, which included the existing mothballed structural dynamic TS4550 used by Apollo and Shuttle, alternative ground vibration test facilities at other locations, and construction of a new dynamic test stand. After an exhaustive assessment of the alternatives, the results favored modifying the TS4550 because it was the lowest cost option and presented the least schedule risk to the NASA Constellation Program for Ares Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Test (IVGVT). As the renovation design plans and drawings were being developed for TS4550, a safety concern was discovered the original design for the construction of the test stand, originally built for the Apollo Program and renovated for the Shuttle Program, was completed before NASA s adoption of the currently imposed safety and building codes per National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code [NFPA 101] and International Building Codes. The initial FITO assessment of the design changes, required to make TS4550 compliant with current safety and building standards, identified a significant cost increase and schedule impact. An effort was launched to thoroughly evaluate the applicable life safety requirements, examine the context in which they were derived, and determine a means by which the TS4550 modifications could be made within budget and on schedule, while still providing the occupants with appropriate levels of safety.

Askins, Bruce↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

PRA methodology is one of the probabilistic analysis methods that NASA brought from the nuclear industry to assess the risk of LOM, LOV and LOC for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability and statistical data to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: What can go wrong? How likely is it? What is the severity of the degradation? Since 1986, NASA, along with industry partners, has conducted a number of PRA studies to predict the overall launch vehicles risks. Planning Research Corporation conducted the first of these studies in 1988. In 1995, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted a comprehensive PRA study. In July 1996, NASA conducted a two-year study (October 1996 - September 1998) to develop a model that provided the overall Space Shuttle risk and estimates of risk changes due to proposed Space Shuttle upgrades. After the Columbia accident, NASA conducted a PRA on the Shuttle External Tank (ET) foam. This study was the most focused and extensive risk assessment that NASA has conducted in recent years. It used a dynamic, physics-based, integrated system analysis approach to understand the integrated system risk due to ET foam loss in flight. Most recently, a PRA for Ares I launch vehicle has been performed in support of the Constellation program. Reliability, on the other hand, addresses the loss of functions. In a broader sense, reliability engineering is a discipline that involves the application of engineering principles to the design and processing of products, both hardware and software, for meeting product reliability requirements or goals. It is a very broad design-support discipline. It has important interfaces with many other engineering disciplines. Reliability as a figure of merit (i.e. the metric) is the probability that an item will perform its intended function(s) for a specified mission profile. In general, the reliability metric can be calculated through the analyses using reliability demonstration and reliability prediction methodologies. Reliability analysis is very critical for understanding component failure mechanisms and in identifying reliability critical design and process drivers. The following sections discuss the PRA process and reliability engineering in detail and provide an application where reliability analysis and PRA were jointly used in a complementary manner to support a Space Shuttle flight risk assessment.

Safie, Fayssal M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD 2030 Grand Challenge: CFD-in-the-Loop Monte Carlo Flight Simulation for Space Vehicle Design

Flight qualification of space vehicles is markedly different from those typically employed for aircraft. The concept of an extensive flight test campaign for a space vehicle does not exist, and vehicle designers must look to alternative techniques for demonstrating robust and reliable performance of their vehicles prior to operational flight. A space vehicle may undergo only a handful of flight tests in its development cycle, with each flight representing a drastically different flight phase or flight configuration. For instance, NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft will only see a total of four flight demonstrations before flying a crew on its first operational mission, and each flight demonstrates a unique vehicle configuration and/or set of flight conditions. The SLS will be flown only one time before it becomes operational (Artemis 1). The Orion spacecraft Crew Module (CM) will have been tested twice, once on a Delta IV launch vehicle (Exploration Flight Test 1) and once as a fully integrated system with the SLS launch vehicle (Artemis 1). The Orion Launch abort system will have been tested twice, once in a pad abort scenario (Pad Abort 1) and once in an inflight abort scenario (Ascent Abort 2) on a modified Peacekeeper booster. Both of these latter tests involve only a boiler plate CM, not a functional Orion spacecraft. Thus, unlike aircraft, there is very little opportunity for engineers to assess and evaluate their preflight predictions. Instead, space vehicle designers rely on Monte Carlo flight simulations with detailed dispersions of predicted nominal flight behavior to determine how robust their design is to errors and uncertainties in the flight conditions their vehicle may encounter. These Monte Carlo analyses entail thousands of trajectory simulations to demonstrate that the vehicle can meet design requirements at a specified level of reliability. From an aerodynamics and aerothermodynamics perspective, these trajectory simulations are fueled by an extensive aerodynamic database that covers the complete range of expected flight conditions, vehicle configurations, and flight attitudes expected in a given mission. Today, these databases amount to a table of engineering parameters that can be quickly interrogated by the trajectory simulator. The aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic databases are assembled via a series of ground tests, empirical and analytical analysis, physics-based computational analysis, applicable past flight performance data, and in some cases, engineering judgment. These databases generally take years to assemble for a new space vehicle system and in the case of SLS/Orion, over a decade of test and analysis have been expended to develop the extensive databases required to cover the myriad of configurations and potential flight conditions required for the system. Recently, it has been proposed that Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) and computing capability may be reaching a point where it is foreseeable that CFD could be integrated directly into the production trajectory simulation tools used to design NASA’s space vehicles. To demonstrate this, NASA has embarked on two demonstrations of this type of capability, one where six degree of freedom flight trajectory simulation equations are embedded in an existing CFD solver and another where a production CFD solver is loosely coupled with a production trajectory simulation tool. These efforts represent an initial demonstration of a future approach to flight trajectory simulation, but they are a far cry from the capability required to perform a full-up CFD-in-the-loop Monte Carlo trajectory simulation. Therefore, this represents a viable grand challenge for computational methods addressing space vehicle design and development. The final paper/presentation will discuss the many hurdles, beyond simply raw computational power, to realizing this grand challenge and how they map directly to the CFD Vision 2030 ojectives. Among these are the wide range of flight conditions, including accelerating/decelerating flight, encountered by a space vehicle during launch and/or entry. The vehicle can also encounter numerous configuration changes, some of which can be quite drastic, during the course of its flight, so robust, automated geometry modeling, grid generation, and adaptation will play a huge role in reaching this goal. Multiply this by 1000’s of trajectory simulations occurring simultaneously in a given Monte Carlo analysis, and the problem readily scales to absorb virtually any size of supercomputer envisioned today. The concept of CFD-in-the-loop Monte Carlo trajectory simulation poses a formidable challenge for emerging and future computing systems, and it has the potential to shave years off the development cycle for aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic performance predictions as compared to today’s space vehicle design approach.

CFD 2030↗
NASA NTRS2008

Transport Aircraft System Identification from Wind Tunnel Data

Recent studies have been undertaken to investigate and develop aerodynamic models that predict aircraft response in nonlinear unsteady flight regimes for transport configurations. The models retain conventional static and rotary dynamic terms but replace conventional acceleration terms with more general indicial functions. In the Integrated Resilient Aircraft Controls project of the NASA Aviation Safety Program one aspect of the research is to apply these current developments to transport configurations to facilitate development of advanced controls technology. This paper describes initial application of a more general modeling methodology to the NASA Langley Generic Transport Model, a sub-scale flight test vehicle.

Murphy, Patrick C.↗
NASA NTRS1942

Prediction of Downwash and Dynamic Pressure at the Tail from Free-flight Measurements

The present measurements form a continuation of earlier flight tests published in a previous report for predicting the downwash at the tail of an airplane. The method makes use of the tail itself as integrating contact surface to the extent that, beginning from the measurement of the self-alignment of the elevator, the mean downwash angle and dynamic pressure at the tail are determined. The instrumental accuracy is considerably improved if the elevator is completely separate from the controls during the tests, because the effect of friction on the self-alignment of the elevator is then reduced to a minimum and a finer elevator weight balance is rendered possible. The structural design of the push-rod uncoupling mechanism is also described.

Eujen, E↗
NASA NTRS2016

GOES-16 On-Orbit Dual Isolation Performance Characterization Results

The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R) is the first of the next generation geostationary weather satellites. GOES-R successfully launched on November19, 2016 and renamed GOES-16 upon entering geostationary orbit. Subsequently, GOES-16post-launch testing began. This paper presents the GOES-16 Satellite Dynamic Interaction Characterization results for the Earth Pointed Platform (EPP) stowed, referred to as the Reaction Wheel Assembly (RWA) Isolation Only configuration, and deployed, referred to as the Dual Isolation configuration. GOES-R represents a quantum increase in Earth and solar weather observation capabilities, with 4 times the resolution, 5 times the observation rate, and 3 times the number of spectral bands for Earth observations. With the improved resolution, comes the instrument suites increased sensitivity to disturbances over a broad spectrum 0-512Hz. Sources of disturbance include reaction wheels, thruster firings for station keeping and momentum management, gimbal motion, and internal instrument disturbances. To minimize the impact of these disturbances, the baseline design included an EPP, a stiff optical bench to which the two nadir pointed instruments are collocated together with the Guidance Navigation Control (GNC) star trackers and Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The EPP is passively isolated from the spacecraft bus with Honeywell D-Strut isolators providing attenuation for frequencies above 5 Hz in all six degrees-of-freedom. To reduce the risk of wheel disturbances impacting performance, a secondary passive isolation system manufactured by Moog CSA Engineering was incorporated under each of the six 160 Nms reaction wheels, tuned to provide attenuation at frequencies above 50 Hz. Integrated wheel and isolator testing was performed on a Kistler table at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Pre-launch Satellite Dynamic Interaction Characterization high-fidelity simulations and ground testing were conducted to evaluate jitter performance for two cases: 1) deployed EPP and reaction wheel (Dual Isolation) and 2) EPP hard mounted (RWA Isolation Only) to the spacecraft. A comparison of pre-launch to post-launch Satellite Dynamic Interaction Characterization results are also presented in this paper.

Carter, Delano↗