Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “main engine guidance control 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.

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

36 records · Page 2

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Single Stage to Orbit/Reusable Launch Vehicle

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works has compiled an Annual Performance Report of the X-33/RLV Program. This report consists of individual reports from all industry team members, as well as NASA team centers. This portion of the report is comprised of a status report of Lockheed Martin's contribution to the program. The following is a summary of the Lockheed Martin Centers involved and work reviewed under their portion of the agreement: (1) Lockheed Martin Skunk Works - Vehicle Development, Operations Development, X-33 and RLV Systems Engineering, Manufacturing, Ground Operations, Reliability, Maintainability/Testability, Supportability, & Special Analysis Team, and X-33 Flight Assurance; (2) Lockheed Martin Technical Operations - Launch Support Systems, Ground Support Equipment, Flight Test Operations, and RLV Operations Development Support; (3) Lockheed Martin Space Operations - TAEM and A/L Guidance and Flight Control Design, Evaluation of Vehicle Configuration, TAEM and A/L Dispersion Analysis, Modeling and Simulations, Frequency Domain Analysis, Verification and Validation Activities, and Ancillary Support; (4) Lockheed Martin Astronautics-Denver - Systems Engineering, X-33 Development; (5) Sanders - A Lockheed Martin Company - Vehicle Health Management Subsystem Progress, GSS Progress; and (6) Lockheed Martin Michoud Space Systems - X-33 Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Tank, Key Challenges, Lessons Learned, X-33/RLV Composite Technology, Reusable Cyrogenic Insulation (RCI) and Vehicle Health Monitoring, Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), Structural Testing, X-33 System Integration and Analysis, and Cyrogenic Systems Operations.

Source record↗

Simulation of Mission Phases

This position with the Simulation and Graphics Branch (ER7) at Johnson Space Center (JSC) provided an introduction to vehicle hardware, mission planning, and simulation design. ER7 supports engineering analysis and flight crew training by providing high-fidelity, real-time graphical simulations in the Systems Engineering Simulator (SES) lab. The primary project assigned by NASA mentor and SES lab manager, Meghan Daley, was to develop a graphical simulation of the rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) phases of flight. The simulation is to include a generic crew/cargo transportation vehicle and a target object in low-Earth orbit (LEO). Various capsule, winged, and lifting body vehicles as well as historical RPOD methods were evaluated during the project analysis phase. JSC core mission to support the International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Crew Program (CCP), and Human Space Flight (HSF) influenced the project specifications. The simulation is characterized as a 30 meter +V Bar and/or -R Bar approach to the target object's docking station. The ISS was selected as the target object and the international Low Impact Docking System (iLIDS) was selected as the docking mechanism. The location of the target object's docking station corresponds with the RPOD methods identified. The simulation design focuses on Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) system architecture models with station keeping and telemetry data processing capabilities. The optical and inertial sensors, reaction control system thrusters, and the docking mechanism selected were based on CCP vehicle manufacturer's current and proposed technologies. A significant amount of independent study and tutorial completion was required for this project. Multiple primary source materials were accessed using the NASA Technical Report Server (NTRS) and reference textbooks were borrowed from the JSC Main Library and International Space Station Library. The Trick Simulation Environment and User Training Materials version 2013.0 release was used to complete the Trick tutorial. Multiple network privilege and repository permission requests were required in order to access previous simulation models. The project was also an introduction to computer programming and the Linux operating system. Basic C++ and Python syntax was used during the completion of the Trick tutorial. Trick's engineering analysis and Monte Carlo simulation capabilities were observed and basic space mission planning procedures were applied in the conceptual design phase. Multiple professional development opportunities were completed in addition to project duties during this internship through the System for Administration, Training, and Education Resources for NASA (SATERN). Topics include: JSC Risk Management Workshop, CCP Risk Management, Basic Radiation Safety Training, X-Ray Radiation Safety, Basic Laser Safety, JSC Export Control, ISS RISE Ambassador, Basic SharePoint 2013, Space Nutrition and Biochemistry, and JSC Personal Protective Equipment. Additionally, this internship afforded the opportunity for formal project presentation and public speaking practice. This was my first experience at a NASA center. After completing this internship I have a much clearer understanding of certain aspects of the agency's processes and procedures, as well as a deeper appreciation from spaceflight simulation design and testing. I will continue to improve my technical skills so that I may have another opportunity to return to NASA and Johnson Space Center.

Carlstrom, Nicholas Mercury↗

Shuttle Abort Flight Management (SAFM) - Application Overview

One of the most demanding tasks that must be performed by the Space Shuttle flight crew is the process of determining whether, when and where to abort the vehicle should engine or system failures occur during ascent or entry. Current Shuttle abort procedures involve paging through complicated paper checklists to decide on the type of abort and where to abort. Additional checklists then lead the crew through a series of actions to execute the desired abort. This process is even more difficult and time consuming in the absence of ground communications since the ground flight controllers have the analysis tools and information that is currently not available in the Shuttle cockpit. Crew workload specifically abort procedures will be greatly simplified with the implementation of the Space Shuttle Cockpit Avionics Upgrade (CAU) project. The intent of CAU is to maximize crew situational awareness and reduce flight workload thru enhanced controls and displays, and onboard abort assessment and determination capability. SAFM was developed to help satisfy the CAU objectives by providing the crew with dynamic information about the capability of the vehicle to perform a variety of abort options during ascent and entry. This paper- presents an overview of the SAFM application. As shown in Figure 1, SAFM processes the vehicle navigation state and other guidance information to provide the CAU displays with evaluations of abort options, as well as landing site recommendations. This is accomplished by three main SAFM components: the Sequencer Executive, the Powered Flight Function, and the Glided Flight Function, The Sequencer Executive dispatches the Powered and Glided Flight Functions to evaluate the vehicle's capability to execute the current mission (or current abort), as well as more than IS hypothetical abort options or scenarios. Scenarios are sequenced and evaluated throughout powered and glided flight. Abort scenarios evaluated include Abort to Orbit (ATO), Transatlantic Abort Landing (TAL), East Coast Abort Landing (ECAL) and Return to Launch Site (RTLS). Sequential and simultaneous engine failures are assessed and landing footprint information is provided during actual entry scenarios as well as hypothetical "loss of thrust now" scenarios during ascent.

Hu, Howard↗

Towards Resilient Autonomous Navigation of Drones

Robots and particularly drones are especially useful in exploring extreme environments that pose hazards to humans. To ensure safe operations in these situations, usually perceptually degraded and without good GNSS, it is critical to have a reliable and robust state estimation solution. The main body of literature in robot state estimation focuses on developing complex algorithms favoring accuracy. Typically, these approaches rely on a strong underlying assumption: the main estimation engine will not fail during operation. In contrast, we propose an architecture that pursues robustness in state estimation by considering redundancy and heterogeneity in both sensing and estimation algorithms. The architecture is designed to expect and detect failures and adapt the behavior of the system to ensure safety. To this end, we present HeRO (Heterogeneous Redundant Odometry): a stack of estimation algorithms running in parallel supervised by a resiliency logic. This logic carries out three main functions: a) perform confidence tests both in data quality and algorithm health; b) re-initialize those algorithms that might be malfunctioning; c) generate a smooth state estimate by multiplexing the inputs based on their quality. The state and quality estimates are used by the guidance and control modules to adapt the mobility behaviors of the system. The validation and utility of the approach are shown with real experiments on a ying robot for the use case of autonomous exploration of subterranean environments, with particular results from the STIX event of the DARPA Subterranean Challenge.

Agha-mohammadi, Ali-akbar↗

Study of an Automatic System for Control of the Terminal Phase of Satellite Rendezvous

An analytical and simulation study has been conducted of an automatic system for control of the terminal phase of rendezvous between two space vehicles. The basic system employs switching and thrust orientation criteria based upon relative-motion parameters first to establish a collision course and then to reduce the range and range rate to zero, simultaneously. In addition, a technique has been devised by which the system effects control based upon the total amount of fuel available for this phase of the space mission. The onboard equipment assumed for the intercepting vehicle includes a special-purpose computer, an attitude-control system, a single main rocket engine with, multi-start capabilities, and sensors capable of measuring range, line-of sight angles, and the time derivatives of these quantities. Techniques are developed. for employing control with either modulated thrust or on-off thrust at a constant level. The results of an analog simulation study of the automatic control system in which a six-degree-of freedom vehicle is assumed are presented for various initial conditions at the beginning of the terminal phase. The results of the study indicate that the automatic system can effectively control the terminal phase of rendezvous over a wide range of initial conditions and control-system requirements and, in addition, can utilize the available fuel in a very efficient manner.

RENDEZVOUS↗

Space Shuttle Main Engine Implications for the Abort-to-Orbit Off-the-Pad Study

In 2001, the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) project office was contacted by the Space Shuttle Ascent Guidance, Navigation, and Control group to provide the engine perspective for an Abort-to-Orbit (ATO) study. The purpose of the AT0 Off-the-Pad study was to determine the feasibility of eliminating the Return to Launch Site and Transatlantic abort modes by using a five-segment solid rocket booster and throttling the remaining SSMEs to a higher power level. This would enable all abort modes to be Abort-to-Orbit. The SSME project office at Marshall Space Flight Center collaborated with MSFC's Space Transportation Directorate and Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power to provide the AT0 Off-the-Pad study with the analysis required. Power levels at 109%, 1 11% and 1 13% of rated power level were studied as well as mixture ratio decreases down to 5.85. SSME was to evaluate and define the technical and programmatic impacts to certify the SSME to these abort power levels. The SSME systems analysis group performed a steady state analysis using the SSME power balance model to determine if there were any technical issues associated with higher power level, low mixture ratio operation. Based on each power level/mixture ratio combination, an engine certification plan was created and a preliminary probabilistic risk assessment was performed. The results showed favorable results for higher power 1evel/lower mixture ratio SSME operation. In nearly all performance and redline parameters, the traded engine operation was encompassed by nominal engine performance of a prior engine configuration.

Schoffstoll, Dayna L.↗

Demonstration and Evaluation of the Human-Technology Integration Function Allocation Methodology

There is an imminent need for the existing nuclear power plants to reduce their operating and maintenance (O&M) costs to remain economically viable. Digital technology, including automation, provides a significant opportunity for the existing nuclear power plant fleet to transform the way in which work is accomplished, reducing O&M costs, and allowing the fleet to remain economically competitive. One notable opportunity to significantly reduce O&M costs pertains to modifications to the plant equipment and main control room (MCR). Existing instrumentation and control (I&C) technologies in the MCR are highly analog, costly to operate and maintain, and demand a high cognitive and physical workload from plant staff (i.e., operators). Digitalizing the MCR has a range of broad economic benefits, including improved plant performance and reduced manual work. Further, digital I&C systems can fundamentally change the way in which plant staff operate the plant; this is the concept of operation. Human-technology integration is important to ensure that impacts to the concept of operation are done in a way that account for capabilities of people and technology. Human-technology integration employs human factors engineering (HFE) methods and principles to maximize the benefits of digital technology, reducing human error, improving overall decision-making and usability. The U.S. Department of Energy Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program is applying human-technology integration research to ensure digital technologies are safe, reliable, and efficient. This paper documents the demonstration of the human-technology guidance developed by the Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program from a first-of-a-kind digital I&C upgrade, specifically addressing function analysis and allocation for a new digital I&C system that included changes in automation levels. The program’s specific approach is included in this work, following lessons learned. This document serves as a resource for industry to follow in applying human-technology integration and HFE to digital modifications, specific to function analysis and allocation. The lessons learned should be considered in the planning and execution of HFE activities that support such digital modifications.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

L-Band Digital Aeronautical Communications System Engineering - Initial Safety and Security Risk Assessment and Mitigation

This document is being provided as part of ITT's NASA Glenn Research Center Aerospace Communication Systems Technical Support (ACSTS) contract NNC05CA85C, Task 7: "New ATM Requirements--Future Communications, C-Band and L-Band Communications Standard Development." ITT has completed a safety hazard analysis providing a preliminary safety assessment for the proposed L-band (960 to 1164 MHz) terrestrial en route communications system. The assessment was performed following the guidelines outlined in the Federal Aviation Administration Safety Risk Management Guidance for System Acquisitions document. The safety analysis did not identify any hazards with an unacceptable risk, though a number of hazards with a medium risk were documented. This effort represents a preliminary safety hazard analysis and notes the triggers for risk reassessment. A detailed safety hazards analysis is recommended as a follow-on activity to assess particular components of the L-band communication system after the technology is chosen and system rollout timing is determined. The security risk analysis resulted in identifying main security threats to the proposed system as well as noting additional threats recommended for a future security analysis conducted at a later stage in the system development process. The document discusses various security controls, including those suggested in the COCR Version 2.0.

Zelkin, Natalie↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

Simulation, Challenge Testing and Validation of Solutions for Residential and Commercial Occupancy Sensing/Counting and CO2 Sensing (Final Report)

Carbon dioxide sensors used for monitoring and control applications in buildings are known to be sensitive to long term drift and can be affected by variations in temperature, humidity, other gas interferents, pressure and other factors that cannot be corrected through the typical auto-calibration methods often embedded in the sensor electronics. This investigation was part of the Category D defined in the ARPA-E Saving Energy Nationwide in Structures With Occupancy Recognition (SENSOR) Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement No. DE-FOA-0001737, FFDA No. 81.135, January 18, 2017. The FOA defined target criteria for the evaluation of the Category C commercial CO2 sensors selected for review and development through the ARPA-E SENSOR program and charged the Iowa State Category D team with developing an evaluation methodology for Category C sensors in accordance with these criteria. As part of the work, the Iowa State team chose to engage the standards community in the development of the evaluation methodology. Standard development work in the D22.05 Indoor Air and D22.03 Ambient Atmospheres and Source Emissions subcommittees of ASTM International Committee D22 on Air Quality on the evaluation of low cost sensors and provision of guidance for using indoor carbon dioxide concentrations to evaluate indoor air quality and ventilation is of particular relevance to the Category D efforts. To date, three draft standards with specific input by the Iowa State Category D team have passed the subcommittee balloting stage and are being balloted in December 2022 and January 2023 in the main D22 committee. In addition to the aforementioned standards to which the PI was a contributing author, intellectual property developed in this project pertaining to “An Automated System for Evaluation of the Long Term Performance of Carbon Dioxide Sensors” and “An Automated Ground Truth System for Real-Time Reliability Assessment, Capture of Control Decisions and Energy Savings Measurements for Occupancy Recognition Systems and Other Applications” are the other major deliverables of the project. These standards and the developed intellectual property are expected to benefit the public in a number of ways stemming from their provision of means to benchmark the performance of carbon dioxide and other sensor systems. In particular, there is high interest in techniques to demonstrate the performance of low-cost carbon dioxide sensors which can be used for typical HVAC applications (e.g., demand controlled ventilation, outdoor and indoor air monitoring, estimation of occupancy, etc.).

42 ENGINEERING↗

Covariance Analysis Tool (G-CAT) for Computing Ascent, Descent, and Landing Errors

G-CAT is a covariance analysis tool that enables fast and accurate computation of error ellipses for descent, landing, ascent, and rendezvous scenarios, and quantifies knowledge error contributions needed for error budgeting purposes. Because GCAT supports hardware/system trade studies in spacecraft and mission design, it is useful in both early and late mission/ proposal phases where Monte Carlo simulation capability is not mature, Monte Carlo simulation takes too long to run, and/or there is a need to perform multiple parametric system design trades that would require an unwieldy number of Monte Carlo runs. G-CAT is formulated as a variable-order square-root linearized Kalman filter (LKF), typically using over 120 filter states. An important property of G-CAT is that it is based on a 6-DOF (degrees of freedom) formulation that completely captures the combined effects of both attitude and translation errors on the propagated trajectories. This ensures its accuracy for guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) analysis. G-CAT provides the desired fast turnaround analysis needed for error budgeting in support of mission concept formulations, design trade studies, and proposal development efforts. The main usefulness of a covariance analysis tool such as G-CAT is its ability to calculate the performance envelope directly from a single run. This is in sharp contrast to running thousands of simulations to obtain similar information using Monte Carlo methods. It does this by propagating the "statistics" of the overall design, rather than simulating individual trajectories. G-CAT supports applications to lunar, planetary, and small body missions. It characterizes onboard knowledge propagation errors associated with inertial measurement unit (IMU) errors (gyro and accelerometer), gravity errors/dispersions (spherical harmonics, masscons), and radar errors (multiple altimeter beams, multiple Doppler velocimeter beams). G-CAT is a standalone MATLAB- based tool intended to run on any engineer's desktop computer.

Boussalis, Dhemetrios↗

HESTIA Commodities Exchange Pallet and Sounding Rocket Test Stand

During my Spring 2016 internship, my two major contributions were the design of the Commodities Exchange Pallet and the design of a test stand for a 100 pounds-thrust sounding rocket. The Commodities Exchange Pallet is a prototype developed for the Human Exploration Spacecraft Testbed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA) program. Under the HESTIA initiative the Commodities Exchange Pallet was developed as a method for demonstrating multi-system integration thru the transportation of In-Situ Resource Utilization produced oxygen and water to a human habitat. Ultimately, this prototype's performance will allow for future evaluation of integration, which may lead to the development of a flight capable pallet for future deep-space exploration missions. For HESTIA, my main task was to design the Commodities Exchange Pallet system to be used for completing an integration demonstration. Under the guidance of my mentor, I designed, both, the structural frame and fluid delivery system for the commodities pallet. The fluid delivery system includes a liquid-oxygen to gaseous-oxygen system, a water delivery system, and a carbon-dioxide compressors system. The structural frame is designed to meet safety and transportation requirements, as well as the ability to interface with the ER division's Portable Utility Pallet. The commodities pallet structure also includes independent instrumentation oxygen/water panels for operation and system monitoring. My major accomplishments for the commodities exchange pallet were the completion of the fluid delivery systems and the structural frame designs. In addition, parts selection was completed in order to expedite construction of the prototype, scheduled to begin in May of 2016. Once the commodities pallet is assembled and tested it is expected to complete a fully integrated transfer demonstration with the ISRU unit and the Environmental Control and Life Support System test chamber in September of 2016. In addition to the development of the Commodities Exchange Pallet, I also assisted in preparation for testing the upper stage of a sounding rocket developed as a Center Innovation Fund project. The main objective of this project is to demonstrate the integration between a propulsion system and a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC). The upper stage and SOFC are scheduled to complete an integrated test in August of 2016. As part of preparation for scheduled testing, I was responsible for designing the upper stage's test stand/support structure and main engine plume deflector to be used during hot-fire testing (fig. 3). The structural components of the test stand need to meet safety requirements for operation of the propulsion system, which consist of a 100 pounds-thrust main engine and two 15 pounds-thrust reaction control thrusters. My main accomplishment for this project was the completion of the design and the parts selection for construction of the structure, scheduled to begin late April of 2016.

Chaparro, Javier↗

Tunable phase structure in NaNbO 3 ceramics by grain-size effect, electric field and heat treatment

Large polarization and strain change during antiferroelectric - ferroelectric phase transition under electric field is the foundation for realizing excellent electrical properties in antiferroelectric ceramics, therefore, the adjustment of antiferroelectricity and clarification of the corresponding mechanism is the foundation for controlling electrical properties. NaNbO3 is the most complex perovskite system showing multiple antiferroelectric phases in a wide temperature range, in which the antiferroelectricity shows obvious instability with changing external and internal conditions, namely the antiferroelectric phase can be adjusted by grain-size effect, electric field and heat treatment. According to the systematical study in terms of the Rietveld refinement of synchrotron XRD and Raman, NaNbO3 exhibits a ferrielectric P21ma structure at room temperature, the ferroelectric component of which increases with decreasing grain size. Two antiferroelectric tetragonal phases exist around Curie temperature TC before the entrance of antiferroelectric R phase zone, while an antiferroelectric monoclinic phase, which can be maintained to room temperature by annealing treatment, acts as the bridge for the depolarization of the poled NaNbO3 with ferroelectric Q phase. A detailed phase diagram mainly focused on the antiferroelectric phase zones of NaNbO3 is plotted, which gives a clear understanding about the polymorphic phase transitions under different conditions. Finally, the results concluded in this work would give a clear guidance for designing high-performance NaNbO3-based lead-free ceramics from the point of structure.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

NASA Tech Briefs, September 2013

Topics include: ISS Ammonia Leak Detection Through X-Ray Fluorescence; A System for Measuring the Sway of the Vehicle Assembly Building; Fast, High-Precision Readout Circuit for Detector Arrays; Victim Simulator for Victim Detection Radar; Hydrometeor Size Distribution Measurements by Imaging the Attenuation of a Laser Spot; Quasi-Linear Circuit; High-Speed, High-Resolution Time-to-Digital Conversion; Li-Ion Battery and Supercapacitor Hybrid Design for Long Extravehicular Activities; Ultrasonic Low-Friction Containment Plate for Thermal and Ultrasonic Stir Weld Processes; High-Powered, Ultrasonically Assisted Thermal Stir Welding; Next-Generation MKIII Lightweight HUT/Hatch Assembly; Centrifugal Sieve for Gravity-Level-Independent Size; Segregation of Granular Materials; Ion Exchange Technology Development in Support of the Urine Processor Assembly; Nickel-Graphite Composite Compliant Interface and/or Hot Shoe Material; UltraSail CubeSat Solar Sail Flight Experiment; Mechanism for Deploying a Long, Thin-Film Antenna From a Rover; Counterflow Regolith Heat Exchanger; Acquisition and Retaining Granular Samples via a Rotating Coring Bit; Very-Low-Cost, Rugged Vacuum System; Medicine Delivery Device With Integrated Sterilization and Detection; FRET-Aptamer Assays for Bone Marker Assessment, C-Telopeptide, Creatinine, and Vitamin D; Multimode Directional Coupler for Utilization of Harmonic Frequencies from TWTAs; Dual-Polarization, Multi-Frequency Antenna Array for use with Hurricane Imaging Radiometer; Complementary Barrier Infrared Detector (CBIRD) Contact Methods; Autonomous Control of Space Nuclear Reactors; High-Power, High-Speed Electro-Optic Pockels Cell Modulator; Covariance Analysis Tool (G-CAT) for Computing Ascent, Descent, and Landing Errors; Enigma Version 12; Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Shield Ballistic Limit Analysis Program; Spitzer Telemetry Processing System; Planetary Protection Bioburden Analysis Program; Wing Leading Edge RCC Rapid Response Damage Prediction Tool (IMPACT2); ISSM: Ice Sheet System Model; Automated Loads Analysis System (ATLAS); Integrated Main Propulsion System Performance Reconstruction Process/Models. Phoenix Telemetry Processor; Contact Graph Routing Enhancements Developed in ION for DTN; GFEChutes Lo-Fi; Advanced Strategic and Tactical Relay Request Management for the Mars Relay Operations Service; Software for Generating Troposphere Corrections for InSAR Using GPS and Weather Model Data; Ionospheric Specifications for SAR Interferometry (ISSI); Implementation of a Wavefront-Sensing Algorithm; Sally Ride EarthKAM - Automated Image Geo-Referencing Using Google Earth Web Plug-In; Trade Space Specification Tool (TSST) for Rapid Mission Architecture (Version 1.2); Acoustic Emission Analysis Applet (AEAA) Software; Memory-Efficient Onboard Rock Segmentation; Advanced Multimission Operations System (ATMO); Robot Sequencing and Visualization Program (RSVP); Automating Hyperspectral Data for Rapid Response in Volcanic Emergencies; Raster-Based Approach to Solar Pressure Modeling; Space Images for NASA JPL Android Version; Kinect Engineering with Learning (KEWL); Spacecraft 3D Augmented Reality Mobile App; MPST Software: grl_pef_check; Real-Time Multimission Event Notification System for Mars Relay; SIM_EXPLORE: Software for Directed Exploration of Complex Systems; Mobile Timekeeping Application Built on Reverse-Engineered JPL Infrastructure; Advanced Query and Data Mining Capabilities for MaROS; Jettison Engineering Trajectory Tool; MPST Software: grl_suppdoc; PredGuid+A: Orion Entry Guidance Modified for Aerocapture; Planning Coverage Campaigns for Mission Design and Analysis: CLASP for DESDynl; and Space Place Prime.

Source record↗

Human and Robotic Exploration Missions to Phobos Prior to Crewed Mars Surface Missions

Phobos is a scientifically significant destination that would facilitate the development and operation of the human Mars transportation infrastructure, unmanned cargo delivery systems and other Mars surface systems. In addition to developing systems relevant to Mars surface missions, Phobos offers engineering, operational, and public engagement opportunities that could enhance subsequent Mars surface operations. These opportunities include the use of low latency teleoperations to control Mars surface assets associated with exploration science, human landing‐site selection and infrastructure development which may include in situ resource utilization (ISRU) to provide liquid oxygen for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). A human mission to Mars' moons would be preceded by a cargo predeploy of a surface habitat and a pressurized excursion vehicle (PEV) to Mars orbit. Once in Mars orbit, the habitat and PEV would spiral to Phobos using solar electric propulsion based systems, with the habitat descending to the surface and the PEV remaining in orbit. When a crewed mission is launched to Phobos, it would include the remaining systems to support the crew during the Earth‐Mars transit and to reach Phobos after insertion in to Mars orbit. The crew would taxi from Mars orbit to Phobos to join with the predeployed systems in a spacecraft that is based on a MAV, dock with and transfer to the PEV in Phobos orbit, and descend in the PEV to the surface habitat. A static Phobos surface habitat was chosen as a baseline architecture, in combination with the PEV that was used to descend from orbit as the main exploration vehicle. The habitat would, however, have limited capability to relocate on the surface to shorten excursion distances required by the PEV during exploration and to provide rescue capability should the PEV become disabled. To supplement exploration capabilities of the PEV, the surface habitat would utilize deployable EVA support structures that allow astronauts to work from portable foot restraints or body restrain tethers in the vicinity of the habitat. Prototype structures were tested as part of NEEMO 20. PEVs would contain closed loop guidance and provide life support and consumables for two crew for 2 weeks plus reserves. The PEV has a cabin that uses the exploration atmosphere of 8.2 psi with 34% oxygen, enabling use of suit ports for rapid EVA with minimal oxygen prebreathe as well as dust control by keeping the suits outside the pressurized volume. When equipped with outriggers and control moment gyros, the PEV enables EVA tasks of up to 8 pounds of force application without the need to anchor. Tasks with higher force requirements can be performed with PEV propulsion providing the necessary thrust to react forces. Exploration of Phobos builds heavily from the developments of the cis‐lunar proving ground, and significantly reduces Mars surface risk by facilitating the development and testing of habitats, MAVs, and pressurized rover cabins that are all Mars surface forward. A robotic precursor mission to Phobos and Deimos is also under consideration and would need to launch in 2022 to support a 2031 human Phobos mission.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗

Enabling a Voice Management System for Space Applications, Design and Software Development

Sustainable missions, beyond low Earth orbit, will require autonomous capabilities in order to achieve NASA’s Artemis program objectives. Correspondingly, the crew must have a means to efficiently interact with these autonomous systems; this can be facilitated via voice and speech communications. Voice-based controls enable the user to access autonomous systems hands-free/eyes-free, allowing the user to better focus on critical tasks. The goal of this project was to explore the knowledge and technology needed to successfully design effective voice interfaces for autonomous systems. The main objective was to understand how a crew member, through voice interaction, could most efficiently and intuitively communicate with a notional autonomous vehicle system manager. This project leveraged prior research conducted by the University of Michigan’s Bioastronautics and Life Support System (BLiSS) team as part of a NASA Moon to Mars eXploration Systems and Habitation (M2M X-Hab) 2020 Academic Innovation Challenge. The X-Hab 2020 work from the BliSS Team resulted in an intuitive graphical user interface/user experience that was built on an Internet of Things (IOT) platform. The Voice User Interface (VUI) design for the M2M X-Hab 2021 project leveraged this technology and incorporated a voice-based assistant and NASA’s Platform for Autonomous Systems (NPAS) software. This required technologies to convert voice to text, conduct semantic interpretations, and convert responses from the autonomous system to text and to speech; additionally, the background noise environment of spacecraft was assessed, and a relatable personality for the autonomous system to facilitate human-like conversations was created. This work’s success was largely due to the diverse team that included expertise in Space Systems Engineering, Human Computer Interaction, Aerospace Engineering, Computer Science, Biomedical Engineering, and Applied Physics. The differing perspectives fostered elaborate discussions, resulting in the conception of three main interactions: (1) User-System, (2) NPAS-System, and (3) Environment-System. The system developed, i.e. the VUI, had to be unique, efficient, and intuitive; thus, the team crafted a personality for the system to enable human-like conversation. User surveys sent to students and young professionals were used to help determine these personality traits by capturing perspectives and expectations of the “Artemis Generation Astronauts”. To further simulate human-like conversations, the system had to be able to quickly interpret user speech and be able to integrate with NASA’s NPAS system for quick and reliable information transfer. Results of this research include (1) a working prototype user interface, that is compatible with NASA’s NPAS system; (2) software that demonstrates the ability to interpret user requests and respond appropriately; (3) the capability to implement fully expanded conversations between user and system using intuitive communication in four request categories; and (4) software and hardware recommendations that optimize the system’s ability to operate, i.e. be heard, in a noisy environment. The technologies chosen for this project’s demonstrations included the following: Raspberry Pi, RASA, Mozilla Deep Speech, Coqui, RTX Voice and Adobe XD. This work has laid the foundation for the development of VUI’s used for autonomy, and is intended to provide guidance for future VUI development.

Tara Vega↗

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗

Introduction to Flight Test Engineering [Introduction Aux Techniques Des Essais En Vol]

Flight test is at the core of what organizations must do in order to validate the operation and systems on an aircraft. While the AGARDograph series 300 and 160 series deal with aspects of this testing, this volume pulls it all together as an introduction to the process required to do effective flight test engineering. This volume was originally published in 1995. Its utility has been proven in that many flight test organizations and universities have requested copies for their engineers and students. It was felt that re-issuing it in a new format designed for electronic publication would be valuable to the community. This second printing changes none of the text, but rather reformats it. All the original references to AGARD (instead of RTO) are left in place so that none of the flavor of the original publication is lost. This is the Introductory Volume to the Flight Test Techniques Series. It is a general introduction to the various activities and aspects of Flight Test Engineering that must be considered when planning, conducting, and reporting a flight test program. Its main intent is to provide a broad overview to the novice engineer or to other people who have a need to interface with specialists within the flight test community. The first two Sections provide some insight into the question of why flight test and give a short history of flight test engineering. Sections 3 through 10 deal with the preparation for flight testing. They provide guidance on the preliminary factors that must be considered; the composition of the test team; the logistic support requirements; the instrumentation and data processing requirements; the flight test plan; the associated preliminary ground tests; and last, but by no means least, discuss safety aspects. Sections 11 through 27 describe the various types of flight tests that are usually conducted during the development and certification of a new or modified aircraft type. Each Section offers a brief introduction to the topic under consideration, and the nature and the objectives of the tests to be conducted. It lists the test instrumentation (and, where appropriate, other test equipment and facilities) required, describes the test maneuvers to be executed, and indicates the way in which the test data is selected, analyzed, and presented. The various activities that should take place between test flights are presented next. Items that are covered are: who to debrief; what type of reports to send where: types of data analysis required for next flight; review of test data to make a comparison to predicted data and some courses of action if there is not good agreement; and comments on selecting the next test flight. The activities that must take place upon completion of the test program are presented. The types of reports and briefings that should take place and a discussion of some of the uses of the flight test data are covered. A brief forecast is presented of where present trends may be leading.

Test facilities↗