Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “thrust control”

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 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Controls Systems Design and Analysis Branch

Marshall Space Flight Center maintains a critical national capability in the analysis of launch vehicle flight dynamics and flight certification of GN&C algorithms. MSFC analysts are domain experts in the areas of flexible-body dynamics and control-structure interaction, thrust vector control, sloshing propellant dynamics, and advanced statistical methods. Marshall's modeling and simulation expertise has supported manned spaceflight for over 50 years. Marshall's unparalleled capability in launch vehicle guidance, navigation, and control technology stems from its rich heritage in developing, integrating, and testing launch vehicle GN&C systems dating to the early Mercury‐Redstone and Saturn vehicles. The Marshall team is continuously developing novel methods for design, including advanced techniques for large‐scale optimization and analysis.

Gilligan, Eric↗
NASA NTRS2010

Preliminary Design of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control System of the Altair Lunar Lander

Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) is the measurement and control of spacecraft position, velocity, and attitude in support of mission objectives. This paper provides an overview of a preliminary design of the GN&C system of the Lunar Lander Altair. Key functions performed by the GN&C system in various mission phases will first be described. A set of placeholder GN&C sensors that is needed to support these functions is next described. To meet Crew safety requirements, there must be high degrees of redundancy in the selected sensor configuration. Two sets of thrusters, one on the Ascent Module (AM) and the other on the Descent Module (DM), will be used by the GN&C system. The DM thrusters will be used, among other purposes, to perform course correction burns during the Trans-lunar Coast. The AM thrusters will be used, among other purposes, to perform precise angular and translational controls of the ascent module in order to dock the ascent module with Orion. Navigation is the process of measurement and control of the spacecraft's "state" (both the position and velocity vectors of the spacecraft). Tracking data from the Earth-Based Ground System (tracking antennas) as well as data from onboard optical sensors will be used to estimate the vehicle state. A driving navigation requirement is to land Altair on the Moon with a landing accuracy that is better than 1 km (radial 95%). Preliminary performance of the Altair GN&C design, relative to this and other navigation requirements, will be given. Guidance is the onboard process that uses the estimated state vector, crew inputs, and pre-computed reference trajectories to guide both the rotational and the translational motions of the spacecraft during powered flight phases. Design objectives of reference trajectories for various mission phases vary. For example, the reference trajectory for the descent "approach" phase (the last 3-4 minutes before touchdown) will sacrifice fuel utilization efficiency in order to provide landing site visibility for both the crew and the terrain hazard detection sensor system. One output of Guidance is the steering angle commands sent to the 2 degree-of-freedom (dof) gimbal actuation system of the descent engine. The engine gimbal actuation system is controlled by a Thrust Vector Control algorithm that is designed taking into account the large quantities of sloshing liquids in tanks mounted on Altair. In this early design phase of Altair, the GN&C system is described only briefly in this paper and the emphasis is on the GN&C architecture (that is still evolving). Multiple companion papers will provide details that are related to navigation, optical navigation, guidance, fuel sloshing, rendezvous and docking, machine-pilot interactions, and others. The similarities and differences of GN&C designs for Lunar and Mars landers are briefly compared.

Lee, Allan Y.↗
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 NTRS1991

Control of a varying thrust spacecraft for autonomous space rendezvous

Before the use of autonomous rendezvous will be allowed as a substitute for man-in-the-loop control, adequate safety and mission performance will have to be guaranteed. Most autopilots for autonomous rendezvous of spacecraft assume constant thrust reaction control system (RCS) thrusters. This assumption implies either true constant thrust RCS thrusters or thrusters whose thrust levels vary very slowly. The ongoing work described in this presentation examines the autonomous rendezvous problem when varying thrust RCS thrusters are inherent in the system equations of motion.

Dawson, Travis E., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Development and Flight Test of an Emergency Flight Control System Using Only Engine Thrust on an MD-11 Transport Airplane

An emergency flight control system that uses only engine thrust, called the propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) system, was developed and flight tested on an MD-11 airplane. The PCA system is a thrust-only control system, which augments pilot flightpath and track commands with aircraft feedback parameters to control engine thrust. The PCA system was implemented on the MD-11 airplane using only software modifications to existing computers. Results of a 25-hr flight test show that the PCA system can be used to fly to an airport and safely land a transport airplane with an inoperative flight control system. In up-and-away operation, the PCA system served as an acceptable autopilot capable of extended flight over a range of speeds, altitudes, and configurations. PCA approaches, go-arounds, and three landings without the use of any normal flight controls were demonstrated, including ILS-coupled hands-off landings. PCA operation was used to recover from an upset condition. The PCA system was also tested at altitude with all three hydraulic systems turned off. This paper reviews the principles of throttles-only flight control, a history of accidents or incidents in which some or all flight controls were lost, the MD-11 airplane and its systems, PCA system development, operation, flight testing, and pilot comments.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Performance Improvement for Nonaxisymmetric Nozzles

Internal flow separation eliminated during reverse thrust. Convergent and Divergent Nozzle Flaps rotate to form reverser blocker for reverse-thrust operation. During cruise operation, drums rotate in direction of external flow. During reverse-thrust operation, drums rotate in direction of internal flow. Rotating-drum thrust reverser and boundarylayer control device improves performance of nonaxisymmetric nozzles in three ways: (1) Controls thrust-reverser exhaust port area by elimination of internal flow separation in reverser exhaust port; (2) provides control of reverse-thrust flow direction (exhaust angle); and (3) eliminates external flow separation over nozzle boattail.

Berrier, B. L.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Forebody vortex control as a complement to thrust vectoring

The desire to enhance the controllability of fighter aircraft at high angles of attack, particularly yaw control, has fostered an interest in both vectored thrust and active control of forebody vortices. This paper reviews several methods of forebody vortex control that have been investigated with water and wind tunnel tests of both generic and actual fighter configurations. The methods investigated include pneumatic or blowing techniques using surface-mounted jets and slots, surface suction, variable-height deployable strakes, and rotatable tip strakes. Flow visualization, and force and moment measurements have shown that all of the methods are effective in manipulating the forebody vortices over a wide range of angles of attack and sideslip, primarily through control over flow separation on the surface of the forebody. All are most effective when applied near the forebody tip. The advantages and limitations of the various methods are reviewed.

Malcolm, G. N.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Emergency Flight Control Using Only Engine Thrust and Lateral Center-of-Gravity Offset: A First Look

Normally, the damage that results in a total loss of the primary flight controls of a jet transport airplane, including all engines on one side, would be catastrophic. In response, NASA Dryden has conceived an emergency flight control system that uses only the thrust of a wing-mounted engine along with a lateral center-of-gravity (CGY) offset from fuel transfer. Initial analysis and simulation studies indicate that such a system works, and recent high-fidelity simulation tests on the MD-11 and B-747 suggest that the system provides enough control for a survivable landing. This paper discusses principles of flight control using only a wing engine thrust and CGY offset, along with the amount of CGY offset capability of some transport airplanes. The paper also presents simulation results of the throttle-only control capability and closed-loop control of ground track using computer-controlled thrust.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Preliminary flight test results of a fly-by-throttle emergency flight control system on an F-15 airplane

A multi-engine aircraft, with some or all of the flight control system inoperative, may use engine thrust for control. NASA Dryden has conducted a study of the capability and techniques for this emergency flight control method for the F-15 airplane. With an augmented control system, engine thrust, along with appropriate feedback parameters, is used to control flightpath and bank angle. Extensive simulation studies have been followed by flight tests. This paper discusses the principles of throttles-only control, the F-15 airplane, the augmented system, and the flight results including landing approaches with throttles-only control to within 10 ft of the ground.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Preliminary Flight Results of a Fly-by-throttle Emergency Flight Control System on an F-15 Airplane

A multi-engine aircraft, with some or all of the flight control system inoperative, may use engine thrust for control. NASA Dryden has conducted a study of the capability and techniques for this emergency flight control method for the F-15 airplane. With an augmented control system, engine thrust, along with appropriate feedback parameters, is used to control flightpath and bank angle. Extensive simulation studies were followed by flight tests. The principles of throttles only control, the F-15 airplane, the augmented system, and the flight results including actual landings with throttles-only control are discussed.

Burcham, Frank W., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Optimal orbital rendezvous using high and low thrust

Optimal control theory is used to examine a specific class of spacecraft trajectory problems where high- and low-thrust propulsion systems are utilized. These problems assume a spacecraft is in an established orbit about a planet. It is desired to execute an intercept of a pre-determined position in space in a specified amount of time using an optimal high-thrust program. The spacecraft then returns to the original orbit station using the low-thrust propulsion system in an optimal fashion. A minimum fuel solution is sought using the linearized equations of motion, known as the CW equations, which simplify the necessary computations. Solutions are obtained for problems with a fixed final time. However, for the time-open case, the optimal solution is for the final time to be infinite. With a weighted function of the final time in the performance index, a limited range of optimal single impulse solutions for the time -open case can also be found.

Prussing, John E.↗