Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “dynamic assurance case”

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.

43 records · Page 3

NASA X-34 Technology in Motion

The X-34 technology development program is a joint industry/government project to develop, test, and operate a small, fully-reusable hypersonic flight vehicle. The objective is to demonstrate key technologies and operating concepts applicable to future reusable launch vehicles. Integrated in the vehicle are various systems to assure successful completion of mission objectives, including the Main Propulsion System (MPS). NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is responsible for developing the X-34's MPS including the design and complete build package for the propulsion system components. The X-34 will be powered by the Fastrac Engine, which is currently in design and development at NASA-MSFC. Fastrac is a single-stage main engine, which burns a mixture of liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene(RP-1). The interface between the MPS and Fastrac engine are critical for proper system operation and technologies applicable to future reusable launch vehicles. Deneb's IGRIP software package with the Dynamic analysis option provided a key tool for conducting studies critical to this interface as well as a mechanism to drive the design of the LOX and RP-1 feedlines. Kinematic models were created for the Fastrac Engine and the feedlines for various design concepts. Based on the kinematic simulation within Envision, design and joint limits were verified and system interference controlled. It was also critical to the program to evaluate the effect of dynamic loads visually, providing a verification tool for dynamic analysis and in some cases uncovering areas that had not been considered. Deneb's software put the X-34 technology in motion and has been a key factor in facilitating the strenuous design schedule.

Beech, Geoffrey↗

Assessment Study of the State of the Art in Adaptive Control and its Applications to Aircraft Control

Many papers relevant to reconfigurable flight control have appeared over the past fifteen years. In general these have consisted of theoretical issues, simulation experiments, and in some cases, actual flight tests. Results indicate that reconfiguration of flight controls is certainly feasible for a wide class of failures. However many of the proposed procedures although quite attractive, need further analytical and experimental studies for meaningful validation. Many procedures assume the availability of failure detection and identification logic that will supply adequately fast, the dynamics corresponding to the failed aircraft. This in general implies that the failure detection and fault identification logic must have access to all possible anticipated faults and the corresponding dynamical equations of motion. Unless some sort of explicit on line parameter identification is included, the computational demands could possibly be too excessive. This suggests the need for some form of adaptive control, either by itself as the prime procedure for control reconfiguration or in conjunction with the failure detection logic. If explicit or indirect adaptive control is used, then it is important that the identified models be such that the corresponding computed controls deliver adequate performance to the actual aircraft. Unknown changes in trim should be modelled, and parameter identification needs to be adequately insensitive to noise and at the same time capable of tracking abrupt changes. If however, both failure detection and system parameter identification turn out to be too time consuming in an emergency situation, then the concepts of direct adaptive control should be considered. If direct model reference adaptive control is to be used (on a linear model) with stability assurances, then a positive real or passivity condition needs to be satisfied for all possible configurations. This condition is often satisfied with a feedforward compensator around the plant. This compensator must be robustly designed such that the compensated plant satisfies the required positive real conditions over all expected parameter values. Furthermore, with the feedforward only around the plant, a nonzero (but bounded error) will exist in steady state between the plant and model outputs. This error can be removed by placing the compensator also in the reference model. Design of such a compensator should not be too difficult a problem since for flight control it is generally possible to feedback all the system states.

Kaufman, Howard↗

NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program

Recent Findings from Audits, New Technology Data Reviews a) Disabled Chip Burn-ins A recent audit for a QML device discovered that the chip was disabled during the static burn-in, thus it was not drawing any current. Recommendation: For new SMDs add a statement within the burn-in paragraphs stating that the parts shall be kept in their enabled state during the burn-in. b) Class Q 160-hr/125oC Burn-in This is being interpreted as a static burn-in (even for CMOS technology). Recommendation: Provide clarification in MIL-STD-883, Test Method 5004. c) At Frequency (Dynamic) Burn-ins Test equipment limitation is being cited for not doing burn-ins at the application frequency. Recommendation: The burn-in task group to discuss and provide guidance. When the SMD says that the part can be used at 200 MHz, then doing burn-in at 6 MHz (cited as burn-in equipment limitation frequency) is not going to be meaningful! d) Two Static Burn-ins Some manufacturers are doing electrical testing between the two static burn-ins, whereas others do electricals after completing both static burn-ins. Recommendation: Provide clarification in MIL-STD-883, Test Method 5004. e) Thermal Imaging For a device with hot spots, the thermal resistance, junction-to-case, would be much higher than the guidelines given in MIL-STD-1835. One of the suppliers used thermal imaging to find hot spots on the die. Recommendation: Assign a task group to evaluate the effectiveness of thermal imaging at the product development stage.

Class Y↗

Guidance and Control Design for High-Speed Rollout and Turnoff (ROTO)

A ROTO architecture, braking and steering control law and display designs for a research high speed Rollout and Turnoff (ROTO) system applicable to transport class aircraft are described herein. Minimum surface friction and FMS database requirements are also documented. The control law designs were developed with the aid of a non-real time simulation program incorporating airframe and gear dynamics as well as steering and braking guidance algorithms. An attainable objective of this ROTO system, as seen from the results of this study, is to assure that the studied aircraft can land with runway occupancy times less then 53 seconds. Runway occupancy time is measured from the time the aircraft crosses the runway threshold until its wing tip clears the near side of the runway. Turnoff ground speeds of 70 knots onto 30 degree exits are allowed with dry and wet surface conditions. Simulation time history and statistical data are documented herein. Parameters which were treated as variables in the simulation study include aircraft touchdown weight/speed/location, aircraft CG, runway friction, sensor noise and winds. After further design and development of the ROTO control system beyond the system developed earlier, aft CG MD-11 aircraft no longer require auto-asymmetric braking (steering) and fly-by-wire nose gear steering. However, the auto ROTO nose gear hysteresis must be less than 2 degrees. The 2 sigma dispersion certified for MD-11 CATIIIB is acceptable. Using this longitudinal dispersion, three ROTO exits are recommended at 3300, 4950 and 6750 feet past the runway threshold. The 3300 foot exit is required for MD-81 class aircraft. Designs documented in this report are valid for the assumptions/models used in this simulation. It is believed that the results will apply to the general class of transport aircraft; however further effort is required to validate this assumption for the general case.

Goldthorpe, S. H.↗

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASA's Space Launch System

The engineering development of the new Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The characteristics of these spacecraft systems must be matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex system engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in specialized Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through Flight Software certification are an important focus of this development effort to further insure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. NASA formed a dedicated M&FM team for addressing fault management early in the development lifecycle for the SLS initiative. As part of the development of the M&FM capabilities, this team has developed a dedicated testbed that integrates specific M&FM algorithms, specialized nominal and off-nominal test cases, and vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating these algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction for the SLS program. The flexibility of the Vehicle Management End-to-end Testbed (VMET) enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS. The intent of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software development infrastructure and its related testing entities. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts into software through requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM analysis group working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, the Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission and Loss of Crew probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses that can be tested in VMET to ensure that failures can be detected, and confirm that responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - ARINC 653 partitioned OS, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by Flight Software. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure the effectiveness of M&FM algorithms performance in the FSW development and test processes.

Trevino, Luis↗

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASAs Space Launch System

The engineering development of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS) requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The nominal and off-nominal characteristics of SLS's elements and subsystems must be understood and matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex systems engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model-based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model-based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through FSW certification are an important focus of SLS's development effort to further ensure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. To test and validate these M&FM algorithms a dedicated test-bed was developed for full Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing (VMET). For addressing fault management (FM) early in the development lifecycle for the SLS program, NASA formed the M&FM team as part of the Integrated Systems Health Management and Automation Branch under the Spacecraft Vehicle Systems Department at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). To support the development of the FM algorithms, the VMET developed by the M&FM team provides the ability to integrate the algorithms, perform test cases, and integrate vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle (LV) subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating the M&FM algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction. The flexibility of the VMET capabilities enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS, GNC, and others. One of the principal functions of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software test and validation processes. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts from requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development and regression testing lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM group but in particular by the Analysis Team working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses to be tested in VMET to ensure reliable failure detection, and confirm responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - the ARINC 6535-partitioned Operating System, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by FSW. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure their effectiveness and performance in the exterior FSW development and test processes. This paper is outlined in a systematic fashion analogous to a lifecycle process flow for engineering development of algorithms into software and testing. Section I describes the NASA SLS M&FM context, presenting the current infrastructure, leading principles, methods, and participants. Section II defines the testing philosophy of the M&FM algorithms as related to VMET followed by section III, which presents the modeling methods of the algorithms to be tested and validated in VMET. Its details are then further presented in section IV followed by Section V presenting integration, test status, and state analysis. Finally, section VI addresses the summary and forward directions followed by the appendices presenting relevant information on terminology and documentation.

Trevino, Luis↗

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗