SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “grid control architecture”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

43 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2003

Safe Grid

The biggest users of GRID technologies came from the science and technology communities. These consist of government, industry and academia (national and international). The NASA GRID is moving into a higher technology readiness level (TRL) today; and as a joint effort among these leaders within government, academia, and industry, the NASA GRID plans to extend availability to enable scientists and engineers across these geographical boundaries collaborate to solve important problems facing the world in the 21 st century. In order to enable NASA programs and missions to use IPG resources for program and mission design, the IPG capabilities needs to be accessible from inside the NASA center networks. However, because different NASA centers maintain different security domains, the GRID penetration across different firewalls is a concern for center security people. This is the reason why some IPG resources are been separated from the NASA center network. Also, because of the center network security and ITAR concerns, the NASA IPG resource owner may not have full control over who can access remotely from outside the NASA center. In order to obtain organizational approval for secured remote access, the IPG infrastructure needs to be adapted to work with the NASA business process. Improvements need to be made before the IPG can be used for NASA program and mission development. The Secured Advanced Federated Environment (SAFE) technology is designed to provide federated security across NASA center and NASA partner's security domains. Instead of one giant center firewall which can be difficult to modify for different GRID applications, the SAFE "micro security domain" provide large number of professionally managed "micro firewalls" that can allow NASA centers to accept remote IPG access without the worry of damaging other center resources. The SAFE policy-driven capability-based federated security mechanism can enable joint organizational and resource owner approved remote access from outside of NASA centers. A SAFE enabled IPG can enable IPG capabilities to be available to NASA mission design teams across different NASA center and partner company firewalls. This paper will first discuss some of the potential security issues for IPG to work across NASA center firewalls. We will then present the SAFE federated security model. Finally we will present the concept of the architecture of a SAFE enabled IPG and how it can benefit NASA mission development.

Chow, Edward T.↗

NASA NTRS1997

MFLOP to GFLOP: The Impact on High Fidelity Based Computational Aeroelasticity

Aeroelasticity which involves strong coupling of fluids, structures and controls is an important element in designing an aircraft. Computational aeroelasticity using low fidelity methods such as the linear aerodynamic flow equations coupled with the modal structural equations are well advanced. Though these low fidelity approaches are computationally less intensive, they are not adequate for the analysis of modern aircraft which can experience complex flow/structure interactions. Even at moderate angles of attack supersonic aircraft can experience vortex induced aeroelastic oscillations. Near transonic speeds buffet associated structural oscillations are possible. Aircraft flying in transonic regime may experience a dip in the flutter speed. For accurate aeroelastic computations at these complex fluid/structure interaction situations, high fidelity equations such as the Navier-Stokes for fluids and the finite-elements for structures are needed. Computations using these high fidelity equations require large computational resources both in memory and speed. Current conventional supercomputers have reached their limitations both in memory and speed. As a result, parallel computers have evolved to overco me the limitations of conventional computers. This paper will address the transition that is taking place in computational aeroelasticity from conventional computers to parallel computers. The paper will address special techniques needed to take advantage of the architecture of new parallel computers. Results will be illustrated from computations made on iPSC/860 and IBM SP2 computer by using ENSAERO code that directly couples the Euler/Navier-Stokes flow equations with high resolution finite-element structural equations. Modifications required in both fluids and structural solvers in order to run efficiently on parallel computers will be discussed. Implementation of moving grids and fluid/structural interface on parallel computers will be discussed.

Guruswamy, Guru P.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Incremental Parallelization of Non-Data-Parallel Programs Using the Charon Message-Passing Library

Message passing is among the most popular techniques for parallelizing scientific programs on distributed-memory architectures. The reasons for its success are wide availability (MPI), efficiency, and full tuning control provided to the programmer. A major drawback, however, is that incremental parallelization, as offered by compiler directives, is not generally possible, because all data structures have to be changed throughout the program simultaneously. Charon remedies this situation through mappings between distributed and non-distributed data. It allows breaking up the parallelization into small steps, guaranteeing correctness at every stage. Several tools are available to help convert legacy codes into high-performance message-passing programs. They usually target data-parallel applications, whose loops carrying most of the work can be distributed among all processors without much dependency analysis. Others do a full dependency analysis and then convert the code virtually automatically. Even more toolkits are available that aid construction from scratch of message passing programs. None, however, allows piecemeal translation of codes with complex data dependencies (i.e. non-data-parallel programs) into message passing codes. The Charon library (available in both C and Fortran) provides incremental parallelization capabilities by linking legacy code arrays with distributed arrays. During the conversion process, non-distributed and distributed arrays exist side by side, and simple mapping functions allow the programmer to switch between the two in any location in the program. Charon also provides wrapper functions that leave the structure of the legacy code intact, but that allow execution on truly distributed data. Finally, the library provides a rich set of communication functions that support virtually all patterns of remote data demands in realistic structured grid scientific programs, including transposition, nearest-neighbor communication, pipelining, gather/scatter, and redistribution. At the end of the conversion process most intermediate Charon function calls will have been removed, the non-distributed arrays will have been deleted, and virtually the only remaining Charon functions calls are the high-level, highly optimized communications. Distribution of the data is under complete control of the programmer, although a wide range of useful distributions is easily available through predefined functions. A crucial aspect of the library is that it does not allocate space for distributed arrays, but accepts programmer-specified memory. This has two major consequences. First, codes parallelized using Charon do not suffer from encapsulation; user data is always directly accessible. This provides high efficiency, and also retains the possibility of using message passing directly for highly irregular communications. Second, non-distributed arrays can be interpreted as (trivial) distributions in the Charon sense, which allows them to be mapped to truly distributed arrays, and vice versa. This is the mechanism that enables incremental parallelization. In this paper we provide a brief introduction of the library and then focus on the actual steps in the parallelization process, using some representative examples from, among others, the NAS Parallel Benchmarks. We show how a complicated two-dimensional pipeline-the prototypical non-data-parallel algorithm- can be constructed with ease. To demonstrate the flexibility of the library, we give examples of the stepwise, efficient parallel implementation of nonlocal boundary conditions common in aircraft simulations, as well as the construction of the sequence of grids required for multigrid.

VanderWijngaart, Rob F.↗

NASA NTRS1998

A Fresh Look at Coupled-Oscillator Spatial Power Combining

Quasi-optical oscillators were proposed a little more than ten years ago as a means of developing the power levels needed for applications at millimeter frequencies using large numbers of individual semiconductor devices each of which produces only a modest amount of power [J.W. Mink, IEEE Trans. MTT., vol. 34, p. 273, 19861. An operating system was demonstrated soon after [Z.B. Popovic et. al, Int. J. Infrared and Millimeter Waves, v. 9, p. 647, 1988] in the form of a so-called grid oscillator. This device constituted a rectangular array of oscillating devices that are mutually coupled so that they oscillator coherently. The interconnecting lines in one direction serve as radiators so that the oscillators radiate directly, and the radiated fields add. Subsequently, coupled oscillators using resonant transmission line lengths was demonstrated by Mortazawi and Itoh [IEEE Trans. MTT., vol. 38, p. 86,1990). In recent work, coupled-oscillator power combiners have received less attention, with amplifier/combiners receiving more attention. Specific weaknesses of spatial-combining oscillators have motivated this transition. Namely, the oscillators employ low-Q resonators (resulting in low signal quality) and no clear means of modulation has been identified until recently. In this presentation, we review coupled-oscillator combiners in broad terms, indicating the features that make particular systems viable. We indicate how these features can be reconciled to functional requirements for system applications. Comparisons are drawn between two approaches to obtain mutual coupling: One employs low-Q oscillator circuits at each site, with concomitantly high propensity for the oscillators to couple. The other approach employs moderate-Q oscillators at each site with the concomitant requirement to tune the oscillators so that they share a range of frequencies over which they can couple and lock. In either case, precise frequency control and modulation can be achieved through locking to an external frequency source that ensures high quality signals. A recent development in coupled-oscillator arrays provides a means for beam-steering the radiation field of coupled oscillators through de-tuning of the edge elements in the array. This detuning introduces a progressive phase shift across the oscillator array. This 0 suggests architectures that can replace the functionality of a phased array without the cost 0 incurred by phase shifters. A comprehensive theory of the phase interactions among devices in such arrays is under development [e.g., Pogorzelski, York, and Maccarini, 1998 AP-S International Symposium, Atlanta, GA. June, 19981.

Pearson, L.W.↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA Tech Briefs, May 2011

Topics covered include: 1) Method to Estimate the Dissolved Air Content in Hydraulic Fluid; 2) Method for Measuring Collimator-Pointing Sensitivity to Temperature Changes; 3) High-Temperature Thermometer Using Cr-Doped GdAlO3 Broadband Luminescence; 4)Metrology Arrangement for Measuring the Positions of Mirrors of a Submillimeter Telescope; 5) On-Wafer S-Parameter Measurements in the 325-508-GHz Band; 6) Reconfigurable Microwave Phase Delay Element for Frequency Reference and Phase-Shifter Applications; 7) High-Speed Isolation Board for Flight Hardware Testing; 8) High-Throughput, Adaptive FFT Architecture for FPGA-Based Spaceborne Data Processors; 9) 3D Orbit Visualization for Earth-Observing Missions; 10) MaROS: Web Visualization of Mars Orbiting and Landed Assets; 11) RAPID: Collaborative Commanding and Monitoring of Lunar Assets; 12) Image Segmentation, Registration, Compression, and Matching; 13) Image Calibration; 14) Rapid ISS Power Availability Simulator; 15) A Method of Strengthening Composite/Metal Joints; 16) Pre-Finishing of SiC for Optical Applications; 17) Optimization of Indium Bump Morphology for Improved Flip Chip Devices; 18) Measuring Moisture Levels in Graphite Epoxy Composite Sandwich Structures; 19) Marshall Convergent Spray Formulation Improvement for High Temperatures; 20) Real-Time Deposition Monitor for Ultrathin Conductive Films; 21) Optimized Li-Ion Electrolytes Containing Triphenyl Phosphate as a Flame-Retardant Additive; 22) Radiation-Resistant Hybrid Lotus Effect for Achieving Photoelectrocatalytic Self-Cleaning Anticontamination Coatings; 23) Improved, Low-Stress Economical Submerged Pipeline; 24) Optical Fiber Array Assemblies for Space Flight on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter; 25) Local Leak Detection and Health Monitoring of Pressurized Tanks; 26) Dielectric Covered Planar Antennas at Submillimeter Wavelengths for Terahertz Imaging; 27) Automated Cryocooler Monitor and Control System; 28) Broadband Achromatic Phase Shifter for a Nulling Interferometer; 29) Super Dwarf Wheat for Growth in Confined Spaces; 30) Fine Guidance Sensing for Coronagraphic Observatories; 31) Single-Antenna Temperature- and Humidity-Sounding Microwave Receiver; 32) Multi-Wavelength, Multi-Beam, and Polarization-Sensitive Laser Transmitter for Surface Mapping; 33) Optical Communications Link to Airborne Transceiver; 34) Ascent Heating Thermal Analysis on Spacecraft Adaptor Fairings; 35) Entanglement in Self-Supervised Dynamics; 36) Prioritized LT Codes; 37) Fast Image Texture Classification Using Decision Trees; 38) Constraint Embedding Technique for Multibody System Dynamics; 39) Improved Systematic Pointing Error Model for the DSN Antennas; 40) Observability and Estimation of Distributed Space Systems via Local Information-Exchange Networks; 41) More-Accurate Model of Flows in Rocket Injectors; 42) In-Orbit Instrument-Pointing Calibration Using the Moon as a Target; 43) Reliability of Ceramic Column Grid Array Interconnect Packages Under Extreme Temperatures; 44) Six Degrees-of-Freedom Ascent Control for Small-Body Touch and Go; and 45) Optical-Path-Difference Linear Mechanism for the Panchromatic Fourier Transform Spectrometer.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗

NASA NTRS2014

SpaceCube v2.0 Space Flight Hybrid Reconfigurable Data Processing System

This paper details the design architecture, design methodology, and the advantages of the SpaceCube v2.0 high performance data processing system for space applications. The purpose in building the SpaceCube v2.0 system is to create a superior high performance, reconfigurable, hybrid data processing system that can be used in a multitude of applications including those that require a radiation hardened and reliable solution. The SpaceCube v2.0 system leverages seven years of board design, avionics systems design, and space flight application experiences. This paper shows how SpaceCube v2.0 solves the increasing computing demands of space data processing applications that cannot be attained with a standalone processor approach.The main objective during the design stage is to find a good system balance between power, size, reliability, cost, and data processing capability. These design variables directly impact each other, and it is important to understand how to achieve a suitable balance. This paper will detail how these critical design factors were managed including the construction of an Engineering Model for an experiment on the International Space Station to test out design concepts. We will describe the designs for the processor card, power card, backplane, and a mission unique interface card. The mechanical design for the box will also be detailed since it is critical in meeting the stringent thermal and structural requirements imposed by the processing system. In addition, the mechanical design uses advanced thermal conduction techniques to solve the internal thermal challenges.The SpaceCube v2.0 processing system is based on an extended version of the 3U cPCI standard form factor where each card is 190mm x 100mm in size The typical power draw of the processor card is 8 to 10W and scales with application complexity. The SpaceCube v2.0 data processing card features two Xilinx Virtex-5 QV Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA), eight memory modules, a monitor FPGA with analog monitoring, Ethernet, configurable interconnect to the Xilinx FPGAs including gigabit transceivers, and the necessary voltage regulation. The processor board uses a back-to-back design methodology for common parts that maximizes the board real estate available. This paper will show how to meet the IPC 6012B Class 3A standard with a 22-layer board that has two column grid array devices with 1.0mm pitch. All layout trades such as stack-up options, via selection, and FPGA signal breakout will be discussed with feature size results. The overall board design process will be discussed including parts selection, circuit design, proper signal termination, layout placement and route planning, signal integrity design and verification, and power integrity results. The radiation mitigation techniques will also be detailed including configuration scrubbing options, Xilinx circuit mitigation and FPGA functional monitoring, and memory protection.Finally, this paper will describe how this system is being used to solve the extreme challenges of a robotic satellite servicing mission where typical space-rated processors are not sufficient enough to meet the intensive data processing requirements. The SpaceCube v2.0 is the main payload control computer and is required to control critical subsystems such as autonomous rendezvous and docking using a suite of vision sensors and object avoidance when controlling two robotic arms.

Xilinx FPGA↗