SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Prototype Verification System”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 235 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1993

NTP comparison process

The systems engineering process for the concept definition phase of the program involves requirements definition, system definition, and consistent concept definition. The requirements definition process involves obtaining a complete understanding of the system requirements based on customer needs, mission scenarios, and nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) operating characteristics. A system functional analysis is performed to provide a comprehensive traceability and verification of top-level requirements down to detailed system specifications and provides significant insight into the measures of system effectiveness to be utilized in system evaluation. The second key element in the process is the definition of system concepts to meet the requirements. This part of the process involves engine system and reactor contractor teams to develop alternative NTP system concepts that can be evaluated against specific attributes, as well as a reference configuration against which to compare system benefits and merits. Quality function deployment (QFD), as an excellent tool within Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques, can provide the required structure and provide a link to the voice of the customer in establishing critical system qualities and their relationships. The third element of the process is the consistent performance comparison. The comparison process involves validating developed concept data and quantifying system merits through analysis, computer modeling, simulation, and rapid prototyping of the proposed high risk NTP subsystems. The maximum amount possible of quantitative data will be developed and/or validated to be utilized in the QFD evaluation matrix. If upon evaluation of a new concept or its associated subsystems determine to have substantial merit, those features will be incorporated into the reference configuration for subsequent system definition and comparison efforts.

Corban, Robert↗

NASA NTRS2014

Advanced Extravehicular Activity Pressure Garment Requirements Development

The NASA Johnson Space Center advanced pressure garment technology development team is addressing requirements development for exploration missions. Lessons learned from the Z‐2 high fidelity prototype development have reiterated that clear low‐level requirements and verification methods reduce risk to the government, improve efficiency in pressure garment design efforts, and enable the government to be a smart buyer. The expectation is to provide requirements at the specification level that are validated so that their impact on pressure garment design is understood. Additionally, the team will provide defined verification protocols for the requirements. However, in reviewing exploration space suit high level requirements there are several gaps in the team's ability to define and verify related lower level requirements. This paper addresses the efforts in requirement areas such as mobility/fit/comfort and environmental protection (dust, radiation, plasma, secondary impacts) to determine the by what method the requirements can be defined and use of those methods for verification. Gaps exist at various stages. In some cases component level work is underway, but no system level effort has begun, in other cases no effort has been initiated to close the gap. Status of ongoing efforts and potential approaches to open gaps are discussed.

Ross, Amy↗

NASA NTRS2015

Advanced Extra-Vehicular Activity Pressure Garment Requirements Development

The NASA Johnson Space Center advanced pressure garment technology development team is addressing requirements development for exploration missions. Lessons learned from the Z-2 high fidelity prototype development have reiterated that clear low-level requirements and verification methods reduce risk to the government, improve efficiency in pressure garment design efforts, and enable the government to be a smart buyer. The expectation is to provide requirements at the specification level that are validated so that their impact on pressure garment design is understood. Additionally, the team will provide defined verification protocols for the requirements. However, in reviewing exploration space suit high level requirements there are several gaps in the team's ability to define and verify related lower level requirements. This paper addresses the efforts in requirement areas such as mobility/fit/comfort and environmental protection (dust, radiation, plasma, secondary impacts) to determine the method by which the requirements can be defined and use of those methods for verification. Gaps exist at various stages. In some cases component level work is underway, but no system level effort has begun; in other cases no effort has been initiated to close the gap. Status of on-going efforts and potential approaches to open gaps are discussed.

Ross, Amy↗

NASA NTRS2004

Advanced Manufacturing Techniques Demonstrated for Fabricating Developmental Hardware

NASA Glenn Research Center's Engineering Development Division has been working in support of innovative gas turbine engine systems under development by Glenn's Combustion Branch. These one-of-a-kind components require operation under extreme conditions. High-temperature ceramics were chosen for fabrication was because of the hostile operating environment. During the designing process, it became apparent that traditional machining techniques would not be adequate to produce the small, intricate features for the conceptual design, which was to be produced by stacking over a dozen thin layers with many small features that would then be aligned and bonded together into a one-piece unit. Instead of using traditional machining, we produced computer models in Pro/ENGINEER (Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC), Needham, MA) to the specifications of the research engineer. The computer models were exported in stereolithography standard (STL) format and used to produce full-size rapid prototype polymer models. These semi-opaque plastic models were used for visualization and design verification. The computer models also were exported in International Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) format and sent to Glenn's Thermal/Fluids Design & Analysis Branch and Applied Structural Mechanics Branch for profiling heat transfer and mechanical strength analysis.

Redding, Chip↗

NASA NTRS2003

Development of Methodologies for IV and V of Neural Networks

Non-deterministic systems often rely upon neural network (NN) technology to "lean" to manage flight systems under controlled conditions using carefully chosen training sets. How can these adaptive systems be certified to ensure that they will become increasingly efficient and behave appropriately in real-time situations? The bulk of Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) research of non-deterministic software control systems such as Adaptive Flight Controllers (AFC's) addresses NNs in well-behaved and constrained environments such as simulations and strict process control. However, neither substantive research, nor effective IV&V techniques have been found to address AFC's learning in real-time and adapting to live flight conditions. Adaptive flight control systems offer good extensibility into commercial aviation as well as military aviation and transportation. Consequently, this area of IV&V represents an area of growing interest and urgency. ISR proposes to further the current body of knowledge to meet two objectives: Research the current IV&V methods and assess where these methods may be applied toward a methodology for the V&V of Neural Network; and identify effective methods for IV&V of NNs that learn in real-time, including developing a prototype test bed for IV&V of AFC's. Currently. no practical method exists. lSR will meet these objectives through the tasks identified and described below. First, ISR will conduct a literature review of current IV&V technology. TO do this, ISR will collect the existing body of research on IV&V of non-deterministic systems and neural network. ISR will also develop the framework for disseminating this information through specialized training. This effort will focus on developing NASA's capability to conduct IV&V of neural network systems and to provide training to meet the increasing need for IV&V expertise in such systems.

Taylor, Brian↗

NASA NTRS1994

Using virtual reality for science mission planning: A Mars Pathfinder case

NASA's Mars Pathfinder Project requires a Ground Data System (GDS) that supports both engineering and scientific payloads with reduced mission operations staffing, and short planning schedules. Also, successful surface operation of the lander camera requires efficient mission planning and accurate pointing of the camera. To meet these challenges, a new software strategy that integrates virtual reality technology with existing navigational ancillary information and image processing capabilities. The result is an interactive workstation based applications software that provides a high resolution, 3-dimensial, stereo display of Mars as if it were viewed through the lander camera. The design, implementation strategy and parametric specification phases for the development of this software were completed, and the prototype tested. When completed, the software will allow scientists and mission planners to access simulated and actual scenes of Mars' surface. The perspective from the lander camera will enable scientists to plan activities more accurately and completely. The application will also support the sequence and command generation process and will allow testing and verification of camera pointing commands via simulation.

Kim, Jacqueline H.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) Testing

Following successful completion of the space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 1.0 development and testing in 2011, the second system-level prototype, PLSS 2.0, was developed in 2012 to continue the maturation of the advanced PLSS design which is intended to reduce consumables, improve reliability and robustness, and incorporate additional sensing and functional capabilities over the current Space Shuttle/International Space Station Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) PLSS. PLSS 2.0 represents the first attempt at a packaged design comprising first generation or later component prototypes and medium fidelity interfaces within a flight-like representative volume. Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) is carryover terminology from the Space Shuttle Program referring to the series of test sequences used to verify functionality of the EMU PLSS prior to installation into the Space Shuttle airlock for launch. As applied to the PLSS 2.0 development and testing effort, PIA testing designated the series of 27 independent test sequences devised to verify component and subsystem functionality, perform in situ instrument calibrations, generate mapping data to define set-points for control algorithms, evaluate hardware performance against advanced PLSS design requirements, and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback on evolving design requirements and performance specifications. PLSS 2.0 PIA testing was carried out from 3/20/13 - 3/15/14 using a variety of test configurations to perform test sequences that ranged from stand-alone component testing to system-level testing, with evaluations becoming increasingly integrated as the test series progressed. Each of the 27 test sequences was vetted independently, with verification of basic functionality required before completion. Because PLSS 2.0 design requirements were evolving concurrently with PLSS 2.0 PIA testing, the requirements were used as guidelines to assess performance during the tests; after the completion of PIA testing, test data served to improve the fidelity and maturity of design requirements as well as plans for future advanced PLSS functional testing.

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) Testing

Following successful completion of the space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 1.0 development and testing in 2011, the second system-level prototype, PLSS 2.0, was developed in 2012 to continue the maturation of the advanced PLSS design. This advanced PLSS is intended to reduce consumables, improve reliability and robustness, and incorporate additional sensing and functional capabilities over the current Space Shuttle/International Space Station Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) PLSS. PLSS 2.0 represents the first attempt at a packaged design comprising first generation or later component prototypes and medium fidelity interfaces within a flight-like representative volume. Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) is carryover terminology from the Space Shuttle Program referring to the series of test sequences used to verify functionality of the EMU PLSS prior to installation into the Space Shuttle airlock for launch. As applied to the PLSS 2.0 development and testing effort, PIA testing designated the series of 27 independent test sequences devised to verify component and subsystem functionality, perform in situ instrument calibrations, generate mapping data, define set-points, evaluate control algorithms, evaluate hardware performance against advanced PLSS design requirements, and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback on evolving design requirements and performance specifications. PLSS 2.0 PIA testing was carried out in 2013 and 2014 using a variety of test configurations to perform test sequences that ranged from stand-alone component testing to system-level testing, with evaluations becoming increasingly integrated as the test series progressed. Each of the 27 test sequences was vetted independently, with verification of basic functionality required before completion. Because PLSS 2.0 design requirements were evolving concurrently with PLSS 2.0 PIA testing, the requirements were used as guidelines to assess performance during the tests; after the completion of PIA testing, test data served to improve the fidelity and maturity of design requirements as well as plans for future advanced PLSS functional testing.

Anchondo, Ian↗

NASA NTRS2013

SILHIL Replication of Electric Aircraft Powertrain Dynamics and Inner-Loop Control for V&V of System Health Management Routines

Software-in-the-loop and Hardware-in-the-loop testing of failure prognostics and decision making tools for aircraft systems will facilitate more comprehensive and cost-effective testing than what is practical to conduct with flight tests. A framework is described for the offline recreation of dynamic loads on simulated or physical aircraft powertrain components based on a real-time simulation of airframe dynamics running on a flight simulator, an inner-loop flight control policy executed by either an autopilot routine or a human pilot, and a supervisory fault management control policy. The creation of an offline framework for verifying and validating supervisory failure prognostics and decision making routines is described for the example of battery charge depletion failure scenarios onboard a prototype electric unmanned aerial vehicle.

Verification and Validation↗

NASA NTRS2018

Blind Study Validating Parametric Costing Tools PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H for NASA Science Missions

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE TruePlanning - Space Missions Catalog by PRICE Systems, and SEER-H by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. However, no independent verification of the accuracy of these tools is publicly available. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

Paul D Friz↗

NASA NTRS2019

Blind Study Validating Parametric Costing Tools PRICE True Planning and SEER-H for NASA Science Missions

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE True Planning - Space Missions Catalog by PRICE Systems, and SEER-H by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. However, no independent verification of the accuracy of these tools is publicly available. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE True Planning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

Friz, Paul D.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Unmanned Vacuum Environment Testing

For the first time in more than 30 years, an advanced space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) design was operated inside a vacuum chamber representative of the flight operating environment. The test article, PLSS 2.0, was the second system-level integrated prototype of the advanced PLSS design, following the PLSS 1.0 Breadboard that was developed and tested throughout 2011. Whereas PLSS 1.0 included five technology development components with the balance the system simulated using commercial-off-the-shelf items, PLSS 2.0 featured first generation or later prototypes for all components less instrumentation, tubing and fittings. Developed throughout 2012, PLSS 2.0 was the first attempt to package the system into a flight-like representative volume. PLSS 2.0 testing included an extensive functional evaluation known as Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) testing, Human-in-the-Loop testing in which the PLSS 2.0 prototype was integrated via umbilicals to a manned prototype space suit for 19 two-hour simulated EVAs, and unmanned vacuum environment testing. Unmanned vacuum environment testing took place from 1/9/15-7/9/15 with PLSS 2.0 located inside a vacuum chamber. Test sequences included performance mapping of several components, carbon dioxide removal evaluations at simulated intravehicular activity (IVA) conditions, a regulator pressure schedule assessment, and culminated with 25 simulated extravehicular activities (EVAs). During the unmanned vacuum environment test series, PLSS 2.0 accumulated 378 hours of integrated testing including 291 hours of operation in a vacuum environment and 199 hours of simulated EVA time. The PLSS prototype performed nominally throughout the test series, with two notable exceptions including a pump failure and a Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator (SWME) leak, for which post-test failure investigations were performed. In addition to generating an extensive database of PLSS 2.0 performance data, achievements included requirements and operational concepts verification, as well as demonstration of vehicular interfaces, consumables sizing and recharge, and water quality control.

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS2016

Modeling in the State Flow Environment to Support Launch Vehicle Verification Testing for Mission and Fault Management Algorithms in the NASA Space Launch System

Analysis methods and testing processes are essential activities in the engineering development and verification of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS). Central to mission success is reliable verification of the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the SLS launch vehicle (LV) flight software. This is particularly difficult because M&FM algorithms integrate and operate LV subsystems, which consist of diverse forms of hardware and software themselves, with equally diverse integration from the engineering disciplines of LV subsystems. M&FM operation of SLS requires a changing mix of LV automation. During pre-launch the LV is primarily operated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) organization with some LV automation of time-critical functions, and much more autonomous LV operations during ascent that have crucial interactions with the Orion crew capsule, its astronauts, and with mission controllers at the Johnson Space Center. M&FM algorithms must perform all nominal mission commanding via the flight computer to control LV states from pre-launch through disposal and also address failure conditions by initiating autonomous or commanded aborts (crew capsule escape from the failing LV), redundancy management of failing subsystems and components, and safing actions to reduce or prevent threats to ground systems and crew. To address the criticality of the verification testing of these algorithms, the NASA M&FM team has utilized the State Flow environment6 (SFE) with its existing Vehicle Management End-to-End Testbed (VMET) platform which also hosts vendor-supplied physics-based LV subsystem models. The human-derived M&FM algorithms are designed and vetted in Integrated Development Teams composed of design and development disciplines such as Systems Engineering, Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), liquid engines, and the astronaut crew office. Since the algorithms are realized using model-based engineering (MBE) methods from a hybrid of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), SFE methods are a natural fit to provide an in depth analysis of the interactive behavior of these algorithms with the SLS LV subsystem models. For this, the M&FM algorithms and the SLS LV subsystem models are modeled using constructs provided by Matlab which also enables modeling of the accompanying interfaces providing greater flexibility for integrated testing and analysis, which helps forecast expected behavior in forward VMET integrated testing activities. In VMET, the M&FM algorithms are prototyped and implemented using the same C++ programming language and similar state machine architectural concepts used by the FSW group. Due to the interactive complexity of the algorithms, VMET testing thus far has verified all the individual M&FM subsystem algorithms with select subsystem vendor models but is steadily progressing to assessing the interactive behavior of these algorithms with LV subsystems, as represented by subsystem models. The novel SFE applications has proven to be useful for quick look analysis into early integrated system behavior and assessment of the M&FM algorithms with the modeled LV subsystems. This early MBE analysis generates vital insight into the integrated system behaviors, algorithm sensitivities, design issues, and has aided in the debugging of the M&FM algorithms well before full testing can begin in more expensive, higher fidelity but more arduous environments such as VMET, FSW testing, and the Systems Integration Lab7 (SIL). SFE has exhibited both expected and unexpected behaviors in nominal and off nominal test cases prior to full VMET testing. In many findings, these behavioral characteristics were used to correct the M&FM algorithms, enable better test coverage, and develop more effective test cases for each of the LV subsystems. This has improved the fidelity of testing and planning for the next generation of M&FM algorithms as the SLS program evolves from non-crewed to crewed flight, impacting subsystem configurations and the M&FM algorithms that control them. SFE analysis has improved robustness and reliability of the M&FM algorithms by revealing implementation errors and documentation inconsistencies. It is also improving planning efficiency for future VMET testing of the M&FM algorithms hosted in the LV flight computers, further reducing risk for the SLS launch infrastructure, the SLS LV, and most importantly the crew.

Trevino, Luis↗

NASA NTRS1994

Concept verification of three dimensional free motion simulator for space robot

In the development of automatic assembling technologies for space structures, it is an indispensable matter to investigate and simulate the movements of robot satellites concerned with mission operation. The movement investigation and simulation on the ground will be effectively realized by a free motion simulator. Various types of ground systems for simulating free motion have been proposed and utilized. Some of these methods are a neutral buoyancy system, an air or magnetic suspension system, a passive suspension balance system, and a free flying aircraft or drop tower system. In addition, systems can be simulated by computers using an analytical model. Each free motion simulation method has limitations and well known problems, specifically, disturbance by water viscosity, limited number of degrees-of-freedom, complex dynamics induced by the attachment of the simulation system, short experiment time, and the lack of high speed super-computer simulation systems, respectively. The basic idea presented here is to realize 3-dimensional free motion. This is achieved by combining a spherical air bearing, a cylindrical air bearing, and a flat air bearing. A conventional air bearing system has difficulty realizing free vertical motion suspension. The idea of free vertical suspension is that a cylindrical air bearing and counter balance weight realize vertical free motion. This paper presents a design concept, configuration, and basic performance characteristics of an innovative free motion simulator. A prototype simulator verifies the feasibility of 3-dimensional free motion simulation.

Okamoto, Osamu↗

NASA NTRS2013

V and V of Lexical, Syntactic and Semantic Properties for Interactive Systems Through Model Checking of Formal Description of Dialog

During early phases of the development of an interactive system, future system properties are identified (through interaction with end users in the brainstorming and prototyping phase of the application, or by other stakehold-ers) imposing requirements on the final system. They can be specific to the application under development or generic to all applications such as usability principles. Instances of specific properties include visibility of the aircraft altitude, speed… in the cockpit and the continuous possibility of disengaging the autopilot in whatever state the aircraft is. Instances of generic properties include availability of undo (for undoable functions) and availability of a progression bar for functions lasting more than four seconds. While behavioral models of interactive systems using formal description techniques provide complete and unambiguous descriptions of states and state changes, it does not provide explicit representation of the absence or presence of properties. Assessing that the system that has been built is the right system remains a challenge usually met through extensive use and acceptance tests. By the explicit representation of properties and the availability of tools to support checking these properties, it becomes possible to provide developers with means for systematic exploration of the behavioral models and assessment of the presence or absence of these properties. This paper proposes the synergistic use two tools for checking both generic and specific properties of interactive applications: Petshop and Java PathFinder. Petshop is dedicated to the description of interactive system behavior. Java PathFinder is dedicated to the runtime verification of Java applications and as an extension dedicated to User Interfaces. This approach is exemplified on a safety critical application in the area of interactive cockpits for large civil aircrafts.

human-computer interface↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Blind Validation Study of PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H

Two of the primary parametric costing tools used to estimate the development and production cost of future spacecraft hardware are PRICE TruePlanning by PRICE Systems, and System Estimation and Evaluation of Resources-Hardware (SEER-H) by Galorath. These are standard tools used by NASA and industry to estimate the cost of new aerospace hardware. This study is an independent verification of the accuracy of these tools and was originally published in 2018. The purpose of this presentation is to circulate the findings of that study among the NASA cost community. Both PRICE Systems and Galorath have completed internal validation studies of their parametric cost estimating tools; however, they only provided the results of the studies and did not detail the exact methods used to perform the validation. In the present study, cost estimators used PRICE TruePlanning and SEER-H to estimate the cost of twelve different past NASA science missions. The estimators were prevented from knowing the actual cost of the missions in an effort to minimize cognitive biases. In the present study, SEER-H had an average error of 23%, median error of -0.3%, with a standard deviation of 43%. PRICE had an average error of 52%, median error of 50%, and standard deviation of 45%. Nine of the twelve mission's actual costs fell within the 80% confidence interval of SEER's probabilistic estimates; however, none of the missions fell within PRICE’s confidence intervals. There were several factors independent of PRICE and SEER-H which may have affected the accuracy of the results in the present study including: uncertainty in the technical data used for the estimates, the methods used to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft component mass and numbers of prototypes, and the experience of the estimators.

SEER↗

NASA NTRS2014

LADEE Multi-Domain Simulation

The Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) was a small explorer class spacecraft that was launched on Sept 7, 2013 and that was de-orbited and successfully impacted the Moons surface on April 17, 2014 after completing all of the mission objectives. The low-cost rapidly prototyped hardware design used for the spacecraft was extend to the development of the software base. To achieve this goal, a Model Based Design approach was utilized to develop the onboard flight software, and out of this development a model based multipurpose simulator was created of the LADEE spacecraft and its mission environment. This simulator extended the traditional function of propagating the vehicle's kinematic and rotational states and included the electrical and thermal states propagation. Traditionally, these domains are handled by domain specific high fidelity simulations that use the states histories from other domains as input. By reducing the fidelity and abstracting the relevant features being monitored and controlled by the flight software, it was possible to model the coupling across these domains resulting in more accurate overall system behavior. A faster than real-time workstation (WSIM) version of the LADEE simulator was used to develop and test the software control algorithms in the Simulink environment. To maximize the performance of the simulation, modeling knobs were introduced to reduce the resolution of the some of the domains models when the effects of that domain were not significant for the scope of that simulation. The automatic code generation feature in Simulink was used to port the simulation to several real-time environments to support Processor-in-the-Loop (PIL) and Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) testing, verification and validation. The real-time environment required that the design of each of the domain models be deterministic as possible in the time required to perform all of the calculations to update its states. The simulation interface was designed to be compatible with the command interface employed by the LADEE mission operation team. The WSIM, PIL, and HIL simulators thus used a common interface and thus were used for flight software testing, for mission operations personnel training (nominal and off-nominal operations) prior to the mission and to perform command sequence verification during the mission. This presentation will look at the modeling strategies used to create a common interface to the simulator and to model and couple multiple domains within the simulation, the results of those strategies, and the lessons learned.

Multi-Domain↗

NASA NTRS1993

Scientific goals of the Cooperative Multiscale Experiment (CME)

Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCS) form the focus of CME. Recent developments in global climate models, the urgent need to improve the representation of the physics of convection, radiation, the boundary layer, and orography, and the surge of interest in coupling hydrologic, chemistry, and atmospheric models of various scales, have emphasized the need for a broad interdisciplinary and multi-scale approach to understanding and predicting MCS's and their interactions with processes at other scales. The role of mesoscale systems in the large-scale atmospheric circulation, the representation of organized convection and other mesoscale flux sources in terms of bulk properties, and the mutually consistent treatment of water vapor, clouds, radiation, and precipitation, are all key scientific issues concerning which CME will seek to increase understanding. The manner in which convective, mesoscale, and larger scale processes interact to produce and organize MCS's, the moisture cycling properties of MCS's, and the use of coupled cloud/mesoscale models to better understand these processes, are also major objectives of CME. Particular emphasis will be placed on the multi-scale role of MCS's in the hydrological cycle and in the production and transport of chemical trace constituents. The scientific goals of the CME consist of the following: understand how the large and small scales of motion influence the location, structure, intensity, and life cycles of MCS's; understand processes and conditions that determine the relative roles of balanced (slow manifold) and unbalanced (fast manifold) circulations in the dynamics of MCS's throughout their life cycles; assess the predictability of MCS's and improve the quantitative forecasting of precipitation and severe weather events; quantify the upscale feedback of MCS's to the large-scale environment and determine interrelationships between MCS occurrence and variations in the large-scale flow and surface forcing; provide a data base for initialization and verification of coupled regional, mesoscale/hydrologic, mesoscale/chemistry, and prototype mesoscale/cloud-resolving models for prediction of severe weather, ceilings, and visibility; provide a data base for initialization and validation of cloud-resolving models, and for assisting in the fabrication, calibration, and testing of cloud and MCS parameterization schemes; and provide a data base for validation of four dimensional data assimilation schemes and algorithms for retrieving cloud and state parameters from remote sensing instrumentation.

Cotton, William↗