Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SPACE VEHICLE 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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1972

Performance, static stability, and control effectiveness of a parametric space shuttle launch vehicle

This test was run as a continuation of a prior investigation of aerodynamic performance and static stability tests for a parametric space shuttle launch vehicle. The purposes of this test were: (1) to obtain a more complete set of data in the transonic flight region, (2) to investigate new H-0 tank noseshapes and tank diameters, (3) to obtain control effectiveness data for the orbiter at 0 degree incidence and with a smaller diameter H-0 tank, and (4) to determine the effects of varying solid rocket motor-to-H0 tank gap size. Experimental data were obtained for angles of attack from -10 to +10 degrees and for angles of sideslip from +10 to -10 degrees at Mach numbers ranging from .6 to 4.96.

Buchholz, R. E.↗
NASA NTRS2025

Evolving the SpaceFOM: Lessons Learned and Future Development

For over fifty years, simulation has been a cornerstone technology for space missions. In many cases, one single simulator, developed by one team, is not enough to meet the simulation objectives. Astronaut crew training, docking, vehicle testing and complex mission planning all require several simulations to be connected and to interoperate, in order to achieve the goal of the simulation. To facilitate the development of interoperable simulations, an open standard, the SISO SpaceFOM was developed in collaboration between government, industry and academia. The standard was released in 2020. The initial release of SpaceFOM focuses on the core interoperability topics for space simulation: (i) specifying spatial data using several, well defined reference frames, (ii) managing time (including real-time, hard real-time, and as-fast-as-possible execution), (iii) composition of systems with subsystems such as space vehicles, and (iv) execution control, such as initializing, running, pausing, and terminating simulations. The initial release of SpaceFOM focuses on the core interoperability topics for space simulation: (i) specifying spatial data using several, well defined reference frames, (ii) managing time (including real-time, hard real-time, and as-fast-as-possible execution), (iii) composition of systems with subsystems such as space vehicles, and (iv) execution control, such as initializing, running, pausing, and terminating simulations. A number of requirements for the next version of SpaceFOM have been identified and proposed solutions are already under development. One key area is the object classes used for data exchange, where a richer set of classes have been proposed, based on practical use cases. For time management, the use of variable time resolutions and variable time steps is also proposed. For execution control, save and restore of simulations is considered as well as improved robustness, to handle failing components. A number of clarifications are also under consideration. This paper provides both a forward-looking view of the technical developments underway and a retrospective on the standard's evolution. The authors emphasize that prioritizing core challenges and delivering a practical first version were crucial steps. While not every idea was implemented in the initial release, the timely delivery of a functional standard enabled real-world applications, the growth of a user community, and the collection of valuable insights to shape future versions. The authors look forward to working with the next version of SpaceFOM together with the growing user community.

Simulation Interoperability↗
NASA NTRS1989

Effective techniques for the identification and accommodation of disturbances

The successful control of dynamic systems such as space stations, or launch vehicles, requires a controller design methodology that acknowledges and addresses the disruptive effects caused by external and internal disturbances that inevitably act on such systems. These disturbances, technically defined as uncontrollable inputs, typically vary with time in an uncertain manner and usually cannot be directly measured in real time. A relatively new non-statistical technique for modeling, and (on-line) identification, of those complex uncertain disturbances that are not as erratic and capricious as random noise is described. This technique applies to multi-input cases and to many of the practical disturbances associated with the control of space stations, or launch vehicles. Then, a collection of smart controller design techniques that allow controlled dynamic systems, with possible multi-input controls, to accommodate (cope with) such disturbances with extraordinary effectiveness are associated. These new smart controllers are designed by non-statistical techniques and typically turn out to be unconventional forms of dynamic linear controllers (compensators) with constant coefficients. The simplicity and reliability of linear, constant coefficient controllers is well-known in the aerospace field.

Johnson, C. D.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Trusted Autonomy for Space Flight Systems

NASA has long supported research on intelligent control technologies that could allow space systems to operate autonomously or with reduced human supervision. Proposed uses range from automated control of entire space vehicles to mobile robots that assist or substitute for astronauts to vehicle systems such as life support that interact with other systems in complex ways and require constant vigilance. The potential for pervasive use of such technology to extend the kinds of missions that are possible in practice is well understood, as is its potential to radically improve the robustness, safety and productivity of diverse mission systems. Despite its acknowledged potential, intelligent control capabilities are rarely used in space flight systems. Perhaps the most famous example of intelligent control on a spacecraft is the Remote Agent system flown on the Deep Space One mission (1998 - 2001). However, even in this case, the role of the intelligent control element, originally intended to have full control of the spacecraft for the duration of the mission, was reduced to having partial control for a two-week non-critical period. Even this level of mission acceptance was exceptional. In most cases, mission managers consider intelligent control systems an unacceptable source of risk and elect not to fly them. Overall, the technology is not trusted. From the standpoint of those who need to decide whether to incorporate this technology, lack of trust is easy to understand. Intelligent high-level control means allowing software io make decisions that are too complex for conventional software. The decision-making behavior of these systems is often hard to understand and inspect, and thus hard to evaluate. Moreover, such software is typically designed and implemented either as a research product or custom-built for a particular mission. In the former case, software quality is unlikely to be adequate for flight qualification and the functionality provided by the system is likely driven largely by the need to publish innovative work. In the latter case, the mission represents the first use of the system, a risky proposition even for relatively simple software.

Freed, Michael↗
NASA NTRS1998

Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested Systems: Constraints on Crew Members During Space Vehicle Abort, Entry, and Landing - 2

This report reviews the operational demands made of a Shuttle pilot or commander within the context of a proven empirical methodology for describing human sensorimotor performance and whole-body coordination in mechanically and perceptually complex environments. The conclusions of this review pertain to a) methods for improving our understanding of the psychophysics and biomechanics of visual/manual control and whole-body coordination in space vehicle cockpits; b) the application of scientific knowledge about human perception and performance in dynamic inertial conditions to the development of technology, procedures, and training for personnel in space vehicle cockpits; c) recommendations for mitigation of safety and reliability concerns about human performance in space vehicle cockpits; and d) in-flight evaluation of flight crew performance during nominal and off-nominal launch and reentry scenarios.

Riccio, Gary E.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Practical Methodology for the Inclusion of Nonlinear Slosh Damping in the Stability Analysis of Liquid-Propelled Space Vehicles

A method is presented that allows for the prediction of the magnitude of limit cycles due to adverse control-slosh interaction in liquid propelled space vehicles using non-linear slosh damping. Such a method is an alternative to the industry practice of assuming linear damping and relying on: mechanical slosh baffles to achieve desired stability margins; accepting minimal slosh stability margins; or time domain non-linear analysis to accept time periods of poor stability. Sinusoidal input describing functional analysis is used to develop a relationship between the non-linear slosh damping and an equivalent linear damping at a given slosh amplitude. In addition, a more accurate analytical prediction of the danger zone for slosh mass locations in a vehicle under proportional and derivative attitude control is presented. This method is used in the control-slosh stability analysis of the NASA Space Launch System.

Ottander, John A.↗
NASA NTRS2006

CFD Simulation of the Space Shuttle Launch Vehicle with Booster Separation Motor and Reaction Control Plumes

The primary objective of this paper is to demonstrate the capability of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate a very complicated flow field encountered during the space shuttle ascent. The flow field features nozzle plumes from booster separation motor (BSM) and reaction control system (RCS) jets with a supersonic incoming cross flow at speed of Mach 4. The overset Navier-Stokes code OVERFLOW, was used to simulate the flow field surrounding the entire space shuttle launch vehicle (SSLV) with high geometric fidelity. The variable gamma option was chosen due to the high temperature nature of nozzle flows and different plume species. CFD predicted Mach contours are in good agreement with the schlieren photos from wind tunnel test. Flow fields are discussed in detail and the results are used to support the debris analysis for the space shuttle Return To Flight (RTF) task.

Gea, L. M.↗
NASA NTRS2006

CFD Simulation of the Space Shuttle Launch Vehicle with Booster Separation Motor and Reaction Control System Plumes

The primary objective of this paper is to demonstrate the capability of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate a very complicated flow field encountered during the space shuttle ascent. The flow field features nozzle plumes from booster separation motor (BSM) and reaction control system (RCS) jets with a supersonic incoming cross flow at speed of Mach 4. The overset Navier-Stokes code OVERFLOW, was used to simulate the flow field surrounding the entire space shuttle launch vehicle (SSLV) with high geometric fidelity. The variable gamma option was chosen due to the high temperature nature of nozzle flows and different plume species. CFD predicted Mach contours are in good agreement with the schlieren photos from wind tunnel test. Flow fields are discussed in detail and the results are used to support the debris analysis for the space shuttle Return To Flight (RTF) task.

Gea, L. M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Constraint and Flight Rule Management for Space Mission Operations

The exploration of space is one of the most fascinating domains to study from a human factors perspective. Like other complex work domains such as aviation (Pritchett and Kim, 2008), air traffic management (Durso and Manning, 2008), health care (Morrow, North, and Wickens, 2006), homeland security (Cooke and Winner, 2008), and vehicle control (Lee, 2006), space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts (Perrow, 1999; Woods et al, 1994). Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues - for example, human-automation interaction (Sheridan and Parasuraman, 2006), telerobotics, display and control design (Smith, Bennett, and Stone, 2006), usability, anthropometry (Chaffin, 2008), biomechanics (Marras and Radwin, 2006), safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness (Tenney and Pew, 2006), crew resource management (Salas et al., 2006), methods for cognitive work analysis (Bisantz and Roth, 2008) and the like -- are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, Space Shuttle manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (e.g., Bloomberg, 2003; Bos et al, 2006; Brooks and Ince, 1992; Casler and Cook, 1999; Jones, 1994; McCurdy et al, 2006; Neerincx et aI., 2006; Olofinboba and Dorneich, 2005; Patterson, Watts-Perotti and Woods, 1999; Patterson and Woods, 2001; Seagull et ai, 2007; Sierhuis, Clancey and Sims, 2002). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on some of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

Barreiro, J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors in Space Exploration

The exploration of space is one of the most fascinating domains to study from a human factors perspective. Like other complex work domains such as aviation (Pritchett and Kim, 2008), air traffic management (Durso and Manning, 2008), health care (Morrow, North, and Wickens, 2006), homeland security (Cooke and Winner, 2008), and vehicle control (Lee, 2006), space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts (Perrow, 1999; Woods et ai, 1994). Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues - for example, human-automation interaction (Sheridan and Parasuraman, 2006), telerobotics, display and control design (Smith, Bennett, and Stone, 2006), usability, anthropometry (Chaffin, 2008), biomechanics (Marras and Radwin, 2006), safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness (Tenney and Pew, 2006), crew resource management (Salas et aI., 2006), methods for cognitive work analysis (Bisantz and Roth, 2008) and the like -- are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, Space Shuttle manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (e.g., Bloomberg, 2003; Bos et al, 2006; Brooks and Ince, 1992; Casler and Cook, 1999; Jones, 1994; McCurdy et ai, 2006; Neerincx et aI., 2006; Olofinboba and Dorneich, 2005; Patterson, Watts-Perotti and Woods, 1999; Patterson and Woods, 2001; Seagull et ai, 2007; Sierhuis, Clancey and Sims, 2002). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on sorne of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

FROM↗
NASA NTRS1973

Optimal control of a variable spin speed CMG system for space vehicles

Many future NASA programs require very high accurate pointing stability. These pointing requirements are well beyond anything attempted to date. This paper suggests a control system which has the capability of meeting these requirements. An optimal control law for the suggested system is specified. However, since no direct method of solution is known for this complicated system, a computation technique using successive approximations is used to develop the required solution. The method of calculus of variations is applied for estimating the changes of index of performance as well as those constraints of inequality of state variables and terminal conditions. Thus, an algorithm is obtained by the steepest descent method and/or conjugate gradient method. Numerical examples are given to show the optimal controls.

Liu, T. C.↗