Dynamics Questions Associated with the AERCam Sprint Free-Flyer
The International Space Station will require the development of small robotic vehicles for such tasks as external inspection, monitoring of extravehicular activities (EVA's) and station build-up, and providing additional lighting at EVA worksites. The Autonomous EVA Robotic Camera (AERCam) family of free-flyers is currently being developed at NASA Johnson Space Center to perform these functions; the first member of the family is the AERCam Sprint vehicle. Many interesting dynamical questions are associated with the Sprint free-flyer. For instance, the reaction of a vehicle which is nearly spherically symmetric (such as Sprint) to a stuck-on thruster is significantly more complicated than that obtained for an idealized, perfectly spherical, spacecraft model. In particular, the real spacecraft will experience a form of forced nutation, with convergence towards either its major or minor principal axis, depending on both the applied torque and the mass properties of the vehicle. Furthermore, the body-fixed jet force vector may have a significant component along this principal axis, so giving rise to a considerable net linear acceleration of the spacecraft. The large velocity that can result is very important, as it may lead to collision with the nearby Orbiter, and is completely overlooked in the idealized analysis. This report will firstly briefly describe the stuck-on thruster dynamics of the real vehicle, and outline how the small products of inertia of the spacecraft determine the time constants of the motion. Secondly, the dynamical effects of a failed-off jet on the Sprint free-flyer will be described in more detail, and compared with the stuck-on thruster case. This will help to show whether the two malfunctions should be dealt with differently in flight. Finally, the stuck-on thruster detection software (known as the uncommanded motion algorithm) that is proposed to be flown on the Sprint vehicle will be analyzed, and all possible perturbation sources that may tend to give rise to false stuck-on thruster alarms quantified. It will be shown that false alarms can be triggered by discrete events such as a failed-off thruster, a glancing collision with Orbiter structure, or thruster saturation. They can also be triggered by a combination of errors introduced by constantly present sources such as thrust level errors, thruster misalignment, inertial cross-coupling, angular rate sensor noise, and structural vibrations induced by thruster firings. Based on this fact, the original plan to have the spacecraft enter safe mode whenever the uncommanded motion algorithm is triggered does not appear to be advisable. A better approach seems to be to provide the Sprint pilot with a warning whenever uncommanded motion is detected, and then allow the crew to determine whether safing the vehicle is appropriate.