Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “BASELINE VECTORS”

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.

203 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASAs Space Launch System

The engineering development of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS) requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The nominal and off-nominal characteristics of SLS's elements and subsystems must be understood and matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex systems engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model-based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model-based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through FSW certification are an important focus of SLS's development effort to further ensure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. To test and validate these M&FM algorithms a dedicated test-bed was developed for full Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing (VMET). For addressing fault management (FM) early in the development lifecycle for the SLS program, NASA formed the M&FM team as part of the Integrated Systems Health Management and Automation Branch under the Spacecraft Vehicle Systems Department at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). To support the development of the FM algorithms, the VMET developed by the M&FM team provides the ability to integrate the algorithms, perform test cases, and integrate vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle (LV) subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating the M&FM algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction. The flexibility of the VMET capabilities enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS, GNC, and others. One of the principal functions of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software test and validation processes. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts from requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development and regression testing lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM group but in particular by the Analysis Team working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses to be tested in VMET to ensure reliable failure detection, and confirm responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - the ARINC 6535-partitioned Operating System, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by FSW. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure their effectiveness and performance in the exterior FSW development and test processes. This paper is outlined in a systematic fashion analogous to a lifecycle process flow for engineering development of algorithms into software and testing. Section I describes the NASA SLS M&FM context, presenting the current infrastructure, leading principles, methods, and participants. Section II defines the testing philosophy of the M&FM algorithms as related to VMET followed by section III, which presents the modeling methods of the algorithms to be tested and validated in VMET. Its details are then further presented in section IV followed by Section V presenting integration, test status, and state analysis. Finally, section VI addresses the summary and forward directions followed by the appendices presenting relevant information on terminology and documentation.

Trevino, Luis↗
NASA NTRS2015

Attitude Design for the LADEE Mission

The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) satellite successfully completed its 148-day science investigation in a low-altitude, near-equatorial lunar orbit on April 18, 2014. The LADEE spacecraft was built, managed and operated by NASA's Ames Research Center (ARC). The Mission Operations Center (MOC) was located at Ames and was responsible for activity planning, command sequencing, trajectory and attitude design, orbit determination, and spacecraft operations. The Science Operations Center (SOC) was located at Goddard Space Flight Center and was responsible for science planning, data archiving and distribution. This paper details attitude design and operations support for the LADEE mission. LADEE's attitude design was shaped by a wide range of instrument pointing requirements that necessitated regular excursions from the baseline one revolution per orbit "Ram" attitude. Such attitude excursions were constrained by a number of flight rules levied to protect instruments from the Sun, avoid geometries that would result in simultaneous occlusion of LADEE's two star tracker heads, and maintain the spacecraft within its thermal and power operating limits. To satisfy LADEE's many attitude requirements and constraints, a set of rules and conventions was adopted to manage the complexity of this design challenge and facilitate the automation of ground software that generated pointing commands spanning multiple days of operations at a time. The resulting LADEE Flight Dynamics System (FDS) that was developed used Visual Basic scripts that generated instructions to AGI's Satellite Tool Kit (STK) in order to derive quaternion commands at regular intervals that satisfied LADEE's pointing requirements. These scripts relied heavily on the powerful "align and constrain" capability of STK's attitude module to construct LADEE's attitude profiles and the slews to get there. A description of the scripts and the attitude modeling they embodied is provided. One particular challenge analysts faced was in the design of LADEE maneuver attitudes. A flight rule requiring pre-maneuver verification of in-flight maneuver conditions by ground operators prior to burn execution resulted in the need to accommodate long periods in the maneuver attitude. This in turn complicated efforts to satisfy star tracker interference and communication constraints in lunar orbit. In response to this challenge, a graphical method was developed and used to survey candidate rotation angles about the thrust vector. This survey method is described and an example of its use on a particular LADEE maneuver is discussed. Finally, the software and methodology used to satisfy LADEE's attitude requirements are also discussed in the context of LADEE's overall activity planning effort. In particular, the way in which strategic schedules of instrument and engineering activities were translated into actual attitude profiles at the tactical level, then converted into precise quaternion commands to achieve those pointing goals is explained. In order to reduce the risk of time-consuming re-planning efforts, this process included the generation of long-term projections of constraint violation predictions for individual attitude profiles that could be used to establish keep-out time-frames for particular attitude profiles. The challenges experienced and overall efficacy of both the overall LADEE ground system and the attitude components of the Flight Dynamics System in meeting LADEE's varied pointing requirements are discussed.

LADEE↗
NASA NTRS2017

A Trilateration Scheme for Relative Positioning

We introduce a trilateration scheme that evaluates the 3-dimensional (3-D) relative position between a reference spacecraft and a target spacecraft using raw-range measurements from a distance baseline of known locations, which we call “anchors”. The anchors can be antennas of a ground-based network (e.g., Deep Space Network (DSN) or Near Earth Network (NEN) stations), or satellites of a spacebased network (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) or tracking and data relay satellite (TDRS)). We define raw-range as the range that includes all the systematic errors that occur during range measurements. A unique feature of this approach is that accurate relative position is derived from a “differencing function” of raw-range measurements of the reference spacecraft and target spacecraft, thereby eliminating most of the systematic errors, such as media effects, ephemeris errors, instrument delays, clock bias, etc. There can be an arbitrary number of target spacecraft, and relative positioning of target spacecraft with respect to the reference spacecraft can be done simultaneously. In this paper, we first assume an idealized system in which clocks on the reference and target spacecraft are synchronized, with clocks of the anchors synchronized as well. We develop a novel iterative algorithm that computes the relative position of the target spacecraft with respect to the reference spacecraft. We illustrate the relative positioning method using the scenario of a network of three ground stations (i.e., the anchors) at Goldstone, California, USA, Madrid, Spain, and Marlargue, Argentina tracking two spacecraft at geosynchronous orbit distance. We demonstrate that the algorithm converges to submeter accuracy in estimating the relative position, in the presence of random errors and systematic errors in raw-range measurements, and in the presence of angular errors in estimating the pointing vectors between the anchors and the reference spacecraft. Next, we relax the requirement of perfect time synchronization between spacecraft, and show that by using an additional anchor, one can estimate and remove the clock biases between the reference and target spacecraft. We add a ground station at Kourou to the above example of three ground stations of Goldstone, Madrid, and Marlargue, and demonstrate that the updated algorithm also converges to meter-level accuracy (submeter in some cases) in the presence of clock biases in addition to the random errors, systematic errors, and angular errors as shown in the above case. We compare this scheme with a similar trilateration scheme for relative positioning scheme first proposed by Montenbruck in 2002.

Cheung, Kar-Ming↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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↗
NASA NTRS2008

Ambiguous Tilt and Translation Motion Cues in Astronauts after Space Flight

Adaptive changes during space flight in how the brain integrates vestibular cues with visual, proprioceptive, and somatosensory information can lead to impaired movement coordination, vertigo, spatial disorientation, and perceptual illusions following transitions between gravity levels. This joint ESA-NASA pre- and post-flight experiment is designed to examine both the physiological basis and operational implications for disorientation and tilt-translation disturbances in astronauts following short-duration space flights. The first specific aim is to examine the effects of stimulus frequency on adaptive changes in eye movements and motion perception during independent tilt and translation motion profiles. Roll motion is provided by a variable radius centrifuge. Pitch motion is provided by NASA's Tilt-Translation Sled in which the resultant gravitoinertial vector remains aligned with the body longitudinal axis during tilt motion (referred to as the Z-axis gravitoinertial or ZAG paradigm). We hypothesize that the adaptation of otolith-mediated responses to these stimuli will have specific frequency characteristics, being greatest in the mid-frequency range where there is a crossover of tilt and translation. The second specific aim is to employ a closed-loop nulling task in which subjects are tasked to use a joystick to null-out tilt motion disturbances on these two devices. The stimuli consist of random steps or sum-of-sinusoids stimuli, including the ZAG profiles on the Tilt-Translation Sled. We hypothesize that the ability to control tilt orientation will be compromised following space flight, with increased control errors corresponding to changes in self-motion perception. The third specific aim is to evaluate how sensory substitution aids can be used to improve manual control performance. During the closed-loop nulling task on both devices, small tactors placed around the torso vibrate according to the actual body tilt angle relative to gravity. We hypothesize that performance on the closed-loop tilt control task will be improved with this tactile display feedback of tilt orientation. The current plans include testing on eight crewmembers following Space Shuttle missions or short stay onboard the International Space Station. Measurements are obtained pre-flight at L-120 (plus or minus 30), L-90 (plus or minus 30), and L-30, (plus or minus 10) days and post-flight at R+0, R+1, R+2 or 3, R+4 or 5, and R+8 days. Pre-and post-flight testing (from R+1 on) is performed in the Neuroscience Laboratory at the NASA Johnson Space Center on both the Tilt-Translation Device and a variable radius centrifuge. A second variable radius centrifuge, provided by DLR for another joint ESA-NASA project, has been installed at the Baseline Data Collection Facility at Kennedy Space Center to collect data immediately after landing. ZAG was initiated with STS-122/1E and the first post-flight testing will take place after STS-123/1JA landing.

Clement, G.↗