SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “automated alignment”

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.

220 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Rapid Commissioning of Large Machine Tools Using Finite Element-Based Correction of Geometric Errors

Large computer numerical control (CNC) machine tools derive their stiffness from monolithic cast iron bases or weldments that are sometimes integral to machine motion systems like box ways or guideways. However, the sheer size of castings and even floor flatness deviations result in dimensional errors in these systems, which manifest as machine motion errors. Typical geometric alignment processes rely on an iterative approach, where measurements are taken to assess alignment (straightness, squareness, and parallelism), followed by adjustment of the machine supports (fixators or leveling pads), which can take weeks even for an experienced operator. Conversely, a novel method is proposed to shorten the correction time by eliminating the trial-and-error process in favor of a more deterministic approach guided by a finite element (FE) method. A feasibility study is conducted on a CNC polymer hybrid machine, with a steel weldment frame, supported by six leveling pads. An FE model of the frame is utilized to obtain recommended leveling pad adjustments, based on measurement of machine errors taken using a laser tracker. After a single adjustment cycle, measurements reveal that geometric errors of the machine tool are reduced from 2.22 mm of flatness deviation to 0.32 mm, achieving an 85.6% reduction. Furthermore, the entire process including measurement, adjustment, and assessment is completed in just 6 h by two operators who are not professional service engineers. In conclusion, this methodology demonstrates feasibility for scaling up, especially to large, high-precision CNC machine tools with bases mounted by fixators, offering the capability for bidirectional adjustment.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRS2007

Robotics

Lunar robotic functions include: 1. Transport of crew and payloads on the surface of the moon; 2. Offloading payloads from a lunar lander; 3. Handling the deployment of surface systems; with 4. Human commanding of these functions from inside a lunar vehicle, habitat, or extravehicular (space walk), with Earth-based supervision. The systems that will perform these functions may not look like robots from science fiction. In fact, robotic functions may be automated trucks, cranes and winches. Use of this equipment prior to the crew s arrival or in the potentially long periods without crews on the surface, will require that these systems be computer controlled machines. The public release of NASA's Exploration plans at the 2nd Space Exploration Conference (Houston, December 2006) included a lunar outpost with as many as four unique mobility chassis designs. The sequence of lander offloading tasks involved as many as ten payloads, each with a unique set of geometry, mass and interface requirements. This plan was refined during a second phase study concluded in August 2007. Among the many improvements to the exploration plan were a reduction in the number of unique mobility chassis designs and a reduction in unique payload specifications. As the lunar surface system payloads have matured, so have the mobility and offloading functional requirements. While the architecture work continues, the community can expect to see functional requirements in the areas of surface mobility, surface handling, and human-systems interaction as follows: Surface Mobility 1. Transport crew on the lunar surface, accelerating construction tasks, expanding the crew s sphere of influence for scientific exploration, and providing a rapid return to an ascent module in an emergency. The crew transport can be with an un-pressurized rover, a small pressurized rover, or a larger mobile habitat. 2. Transport Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) equipment and construction payloads. 3. Transport habitats and power modules over long distances, pre-positioning them for the arrival of crew on a subsequent lander. Surface Handling 1. Offload surface system payloads from the lander, breaking launch restraints and power/data connections. Payloads may be offloaded to a wheeled vehicle for transport. 2. Deploy payloads from a wheeled vehicle at a field site, placing the payloads in their final use site on the ground or mating them with existing surface systems. 3. Support regolith collection, site preparation, berm construction, or other civil engineering tasks using tools and implements attached to rovers. Human-Systems Interaction 1. Provide a safe command and control interface for suited EVA to ride on and drive the vehicles, making sure that the systems are also safe for working near dismounted crew. 2. Provide an effective control system for IV crew to tele-operate vehicles, cranes and other equipment from inside the surface habitats with evolving independence from Earth. .. Provide a supervisory system that allows machines to be commanded from the ground, working across the Earth-Lunar time delays on the order of 5-10 seconds (round trip) to support operations when crew are not resident on the surface. Technology Development Needs 1. Surface vehicles that can dock, align and mate with outpost equipment such as landers, habitats and fluid/power interfaces. 2. Long life motors, drive trains, seals, motor electronics, sensors, processors, cable harnesses, and dash board displays. 3. Active suspension control, localization, high speed obstacle avoidance, and safety systems for operating near dismounted crew. 4. High specific energy and specific power batteries that are safe, rechargeable, and long lived.

Ambrose, Robert O.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition for Electrochemical Separation Experimentation

The Python-based program is a laboratory automation tool designed to control and monitor electrochemical systems. The tool was developed for capacitive deionization (CDI) experiments, but it can be used for any system that requires controlled voltage or current segments and multi-parameter monitoring. The program integrates hardware components to run user-defined experimental parameters, providing operational control of a programmable power supply, peristaltic pump, and data acquisition devices. Currently, the program is structured with a workflow that includes an initialization (or pre-run) phase, a main loop, and a post-experiment stabilization (or post-run) phase. The initialization phase prepares and stabilizes the cell, ensuring that the electrodes and solution reach a baseline state before the experiment begins. The main loop consists of multiple voltage segments that repeat, controlling the experiment while recording key parameters such as time, voltage, current, pH, and conductivity. Finally, the post-experiment stabilization phase allows the system to stabilize after the experiment, returning the cell and solution to equilibrium conditions before ending the sequence. The program is designed with four variations, each tailored to different experimental needs. All variations include both the initialization and post-experiment stabilization stages, which run for a set amount of time, voltage, current, and flow rate before and after the main experiment block. The main loop runs for a set number of cycles, as defined by the user input, and each cycle is composed of 2 or 4 segments. The 4 program variations are described as follows: Program 1: The main program includes 2 segments. Each segment is defined to have a set duration, flow rate, voltage, and current. This program measures conductivity, flow rate, voltage, and current. Program 2: The main program expands Program 1 to include 4 segments. Each segment has a specified duration, flow rate, voltage, and current. Like Program 1, it measures conductivity, flow rate, voltage, and current. Program 3: The main program consists of 2 segments, each defined by time, flow rate, voltage, and current. In addition to conductivity, flow rate, voltage, and current, Program 3 collects pH and temperature data through a 4-channel data acquisition device. Program 4: This program independently controls two channels of a multi-channel power supply simultaneously. While conductivity can only be measured for one cell at a time, the dual-channel control makes it possible to operate two cells simultaneously under different voltage/current conditions. The main program includes 2 segments.For each program, all measurements are automatically logged and integrated into a single Excel output file. Data are displayed in numerical format and plotted, both in real time, to track system performance. A key feature of the program is its ability to synchronize all outputs so that every measurement shares a single timestamp, ensuring accurate alignment of voltage, current, pH, conductivity, and pH data.By combining hardware control, real-time monitoring, and unified data collection, this program significantly reduces manual workload and minimizes errors, making it a reliable platform for researchers, engineers, and laboratory technicians conducting CDI experiments, among other electrochemical tests.

Valentino, Lauren [Argonne National Laboratory (AN↗

NASA NTRS2016

Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload

Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk as follows: Sleep loss is apparent during spaceflight. Astronauts consistently average less sleep during spaceflight relative to on the ground. The causes of this sleep loss remain unknown, however ground-based evidence suggests that the sleep duration of astronauts is likely to lead to performance impairment and short and long-term health consequences. Further research is needed in this area in order to develop screening tools to assess individual astronaut sleep need in order to quantify the magnitude of sleep loss during spaceflight; current and planned efforts in BHP's research portfolio address this need. In addition, it is still unclear whether the conditions of spaceflight environment lead to sleep loss or whether other factors, such as work overload lead to the reduced sleep duration. Future data mining efforts and continued data collection on the ISS will help to further characterize factors contributing to sleep loss. Sleep inertia has not been evaluated during spaceflight. Ground-based studies confirm that it takes two to four hours to achieve optimal performance after waking from a sleep episode. Sleep inertia has been associated with increased accidents and reduced performance in operational environments. Sleep inertia poses considerable risk during spaceflight when emergency situations necessitate that crewmembers wake from sleep and make quick decisions. A recently completed BHP investigation assesses the effects of sleep inertia upon abrupt awakening, with and without hypnotics currently used in spaceflight; results from this investigation will help to inform strategies relative to sleep inertia effects on performance. Circadian desynchrony has been observed during spaceflight. Circadian desynchrony during spaceflight develops due to schedule constraints requiring non-24 operations or 'slam-shifts' and due to insufficient or mis-timed light exposure. In addition, circadian misalignment has been associated with reduced sleep duration and increased medication use. In ground-based studies, circadian desynchrony has been associated with significant performance impairment and increased risk of accidents when operations coincide with the circadian nadir. There is a great deal of information available on how to manage circadian misalignment, however, there are currently no easily collected biomarkers that can be used during spaceflight to determine circadian phase. Current research efforts are addressing this gap. Work overload has been documented during current spaceflight operations. NASA has established work hour guidelines that limit shift duration, however, schedule creep, where duty requirements necessitate working beyond scheduled work hours, has been reported. This observation warrants the documentation of actual work hours in order to improve planning and in order to ensure that astronauts receive adequate down time. In addition to concerns about work overload, ground based evidence suggests that work underload may be a concern during deep space missions, where torpor may develop and physically demanding workload will be exchanged for monitoring of autonomous systems. Given that increased automation is anticipated for exploration vehicles, fatigue effects in the context of such systems needs to be further understood. Performance metrics are needed to evaluate fitness-for-duty during spaceflight. Although ground-based evidence supports the notion that sleep loss, circadian desynchronization and work overload lead to performance impairment, inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate performance during spaceflight make it difficult to evaluate the magnitude of performance impairment during spaceflight. Work is underway to standardize measures of performance evaluation during spaceflight. Once established, such performance indicators need to be correlated with operational performance. Individual differences in sleep need and circadian preference, phase shifting ability and period have been documented in ground-based studies. Individual differences in response to sleep loss and circadian misalignment have also been documented and are presumed to be associated with genetic polymorphisms. No studies have systematically reported individual differences in sleep or circadian-related outcomes during spaceflight. More work is needed in this area in order to identify genetic or phenotypic biomarkers that predict resilience or vulnerability to sleep loss in order to personalize countermeasure strategies and mitigate performance impairment during spaceflight. Two laboratory and field investigations specific to this topic are currently ongoing; additional efforts, including an effort to mine existing biological data from spaceflight relative to sleep and circadian outcomes, are planned. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian period and phase have been reported in ground-based studies. The impact of these sex differences on performance is unclear. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian rhythms have not been systematically studied during spaceflight, presumably due to the small number of women that have flown in space. More research is needed in this area to evaluate whether any of the observed sex differences in physiology lead to altered performance in spaceflight and on the ground.

Flynn-Evans, Erin↗