Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SPACECRAFT GUIDANCE”

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

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

At least 649 records · Page 36
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

Atmospheric Environments for Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL)

Scientific measurements of atmospheric properties have been made by a wide variety of planetary flyby missions, orbiters, and landers. Although landers can make in-situ observations of near-surface atmospheric conditions (and can collect atmospheric data during their entry phase), the vast majority of data on planetary atmospheres has been collected by remote sensing techniques from flyby and orbiter spacecraft (and to some extent by Earth-based remote sensing). Many of these remote sensing observations (made over a variety of spectral ranges), consist of vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature as a function of atmospheric pressure level. While these measurements are of great interest to atmospheric scientists and modelers of planetary atmospheres, the primary interest for engineers designing entry descent and landing (EDL) systems is information about atmospheric density as a function of geometric altitude. Fortunately, as described in in this paper, it is possible to use a combination of the gas-law relation and the hydrostatic balance relation to convert temperature-versus-pressure, scientific observations into density-versus-altitude data for use in engineering applications. The following section provides a brief introduction to atmospheric thermodynamics, as well as constituents, and winds for EDL. It also gives methodology for using atmospheric information to do "back-of-the-envelope" calculations of various EDL aeroheating parameters, including peak deceleration rate ("g-load"), peak convective heat rate. and total heat load on EDL spacecraft thermal protection systems. Brief information is also provided about atmospheric variations and perturbations for EDL guidance and control issues, and atmospheric issues for EDL parachute systems. Subsequent sections give details of the atmospheric environments for five destinations for possible EDL missions: Venus. Earth. Mars, Saturn, and Titan. Specific atmospheric information is provided for these destinations, and example results are presented for the "back-of-the-envelope" calculations mentioned above.

Justus, Carl G.↗
NASA NTRS2008

The Advanced Video Guidance Sensor: Orbital Express and the Next Generation

The Orbital Express (OE) mission performed the first autonomous rendezvous and docking in the history of the United States on May 5-6, 2007 with the Advanced Video Guidance Sensor (AVGS) acting as one of the primary docking sensors. Since that event, the OE spacecraft performed four more rendezvous and docking maneuvers, each time using the AVGS as one of the docking sensors. The Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC's) AVGS is a nearfield proximity operations sensor that was integrated into the Autonomous Rendezvous and Capture Sensor System (ARCSS) on OE. The ARCSS provided the relative state knowledge to allow the OE spacecraft to rendezvous and dock. The AVGS is a mature sensor technology designed to support Automated Rendezvous and Docking (AR&D) operations. It is a video-based laser-illuminated sensor that can determine the relative position and attitude between itself and its target. Due to parts obsolescence, the AVGS that was flown on OE can no longer be manufactured. MSFC has been working on the next generation of AVGS for application to future Constellation missions. This paper provides an overview of the performance of the AVGS on Orbital Express and discusses the work on the Next Generation AVGS (NGAVGS).

Howard, Richard T.↗
NASA NTRS2007

State-Estimation Algorithm Based on Computer Vision

An algorithm and software to implement the algorithm are being developed as means to estimate the state (that is, the position and velocity) of an autonomous vehicle, relative to a visible nearby target object, to provide guidance for maneuvering the vehicle. In the original intended application, the autonomous vehicle would be a spacecraft and the nearby object would be a small astronomical body (typically, a comet or asteroid) to be explored by the spacecraft. The algorithm could also be used on Earth in analogous applications -- for example, for guiding underwater robots near such objects of interest as sunken ships, mineral deposits, or submerged mines. It is assumed that the robot would be equipped with a vision system that would include one or more electronic cameras, image-digitizing circuitry, and an imagedata- processing computer that would generate feature-recognition data products.

Bayard, David↗
NASA NTRS2019

Fracture Control for Additively Manufactured Spacecraft Structures

This paper describes how the intent of current NASA fracture control requirements may be applied to “fracture critical” additively manufactured spacecraft hardware. Fracture control is a multi-discipline design and certification methodology that is applied in order to mitigate catastrophic failure of structures resulting from growth of an undetected crack-like defect. The methodology is defined in existing NASA standards and is required on all human-rated space structures. As legacy spacecraft structures have been built using primarily metallic and composite materials manufactured using well established methods, guidance for application of fracture control to parts composed of these material types has been established and is documented in several NASA requirements. Additive manufactured structures offer advantages in design flexibility and manufacturing efficiency and as a result are expected to continue to be used more and more in the future. Recently, relevant guidance has been published by NASA to define materials and processes requirements for certain additive manufactured hardware, but procedures for fracture control are not addressed yet in any requirements or guidance document. While use of additive manufactured parts in non-critical scenarios may be of relatively low concern in current structural certification processes, there is a need for new fracture control guidance in order to use and certify additively manufacture hardware that is “fracture critical” where failure of the part may result in loss of life or loss of vehicle. Assurance of damage tolerance, i.e., that as-built flaws in a given part either do not exist or will not grow to become catastrophic, is of particular interest to the fracture control community. This poses a challenge due to the fact that damage tolerance behavior is not well understood in additive manufactured parts compared to legacy material types and manufacturing techniques. The discussion contained herein is necessary at this time as new guidance in this area should be founded collaboratively by the technical community at large. Different hardware types (e.g., pressure vessel, structural member) are described to highlight specific challenges and solutions for each. The discussion concludes with considering specific disciplines within fracture control (non-destructive evaluation, materials & processes, fracture mechanics, and structural certification) in a proposed extension of existing fracture control requirements to additive manufactured parts.

McElroy, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2019

Fracture Control for Additive Manufactured Spacecraft Structures

This paper describes how the intent of current NASA fracture control requirements may be applied to “fracture critical” additively manufactured spacecraft hardware. Fracture control is a multi-discipline design and certification methodology that is applied in order to mitigate catastrophic failure of structures resulting from growth of an undetected crack-like defect. The methodology is defined in existing NASA standards and is required on all human-rated space structures. As legacy spacecraft structures have been built using primarily metallic and composite materials manufactured using well established methods, guidance for application of fracture control to parts composed of these material types has been established and is documented in several NASA requirements. Additive manufactured structures offer advantages in design flexibility and manufacturing efficiency and as a result are expected to continue to be used more and more in the future. Recently, relevant guidance has been published by NASA to define materials and processes requirements for certain additive manufactured hardware, but procedures for fracture control are not addressed yet in any requirements or guidance document. While use of additive manufactured parts in non-critical scenarios may be of relatively low concern in current structural certification processes, there is a need for new fracture control guidance in order to use and certify additively manufacture hardware that is “fracture critical” where failure of the part may result in loss of life or loss of vehicle. Assurance of damage tolerance, i.e., that as-built flaws in a given part either do not exist or will not grow to become catastrophic, is of particular interest to the fracture control community. This poses a challenge due to the fact that damage tolerance behavior is not well understood in additive manufactured parts compared to legacy material types and manufacturing techniques. The discussion contained herein is necessary at this time as new guidance in this area should be founded collaboratively by the technical community at large. Different hardware types (e.g., pressure vessel, structural member) are described to highlight specific challenges and solutions for each. The discussion concludes with considering specific disciplines within fracture control (non-destructive evaluation, materials & processes, fracture mechanics, and structural certification) in a proposed extension of existing fracture control requirements to additive manufactured parts.

McElroy, Mark↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Passive Stabilization of Rotating Tethered Spacecraft

Rotating Spacecrafts can provide artificial gravity for long-term space missions, but the design of a Guidance and Control scheme for these vehicles is nuanced. For a three-segment vehicle with the propulsion element located at the center of mass, the vehicle must stabilize itself about this point even in the event of various off-nominal circumstances. Thus, a robust and passive spin stabilization system is needed. In this paper, various methods for stabilizing the system to allow for the exchange of mass and air between elements are explored and simulated.

Dynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Passive Stabilization of Rotating Spacecraft Using Dynamic Fluid-Pressure Equilibrium

Rotating spacecraft can provide artificial gravity for long-term space missions, but the design of a Guidance and Control scheme for these vehicles is nuanced. For a three-segment vehicle with the propulsion element located at the center of mass, the vehicle must stabilize itself about this point even in the event of various off-nominal circumstances. Thus, a robust and passive spin stabilization system is needed. In this paper, the dynamics of this system are explored and constraints are placed on the performance and controllability. A controller is thus developed based on assumptions regarding the fluid transfer between elements, and the result is simulated. Generalized methodology is then extracted and extended applications are explored, such as a conceptual fluid ring and active mass displacement for attitude control.

Rotating↗
NASA NTRS1961

Systems Engineering of a Nuclear-Electric Spacecraft

Studies have shown that nuclear-electric propulsion systems will provide superior payload capability and unique advantages over chemical systems for high-energy deep-space missions. Conceptual design studies of unmanned spacecraft employing nuclear-electric propulsion systems have been undertaken to determine some of the major integration problems. Early recognition of these problems will help to stimulate the development effort that will be required to bring these systems into fruitful utilization. Typical designs under consideration for interplanetary missions for the next decade employ a nuclear reactor providing thermal energy to a turbogeneration system which, in turn, supplies electrical power to an ion engine for primary propulsion and additional utility power for guidance and control, powered-flight radio transmission, instrumentation, et cetera. The major systems and components which form a complete spacecraft are listed in this Report, and a review of the significant physical and operational characteristics of these various systems and components which affect spacecraft integration is made. Conceptual.configurations and detailed weight studies for a 60-kilowatts-electric Venus-capture spacecraft and a 1-megawattelectric Jupiter-capture spacecraft are shown to illustrate typical physical arrangements based on the various hardware constraints. From these configurations, the major development goals are ascertained and summarized.

SPACECRAFT↗
NASA NTRS2023

Spacecraft Water Exposure Guidelines: Revision A

The enclosed table lists official Spacecraft Water Exposure Guidelines (SWEGs), which are guideline values set by the NASA/JSC Toxicology Group in cooperation with the National Research Council Committee on Toxicology (NRCCOT) or through publication in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature. Based on documented guidance (NRC, 2000), NASA has established SWEGs for 30 chemical compounds that are particularly relevant to water systems on the International Space Station (ISS) as well as on spacecraft for deep‐space exploration. Summaries of these SWEGs are presented in tabular form as part of this publication.

SWEGs↗
NASA NTRS1964

Saturn v instrument unit.

Saturn V instrument unit including structural, environmental control and guidance and control systems

SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE↗
NASA NTRS2014

Spacecraft Hybrid Control At NASA: A Look Back, Current Initiatives, and Some Future Considerations

There is a heightened interest within NASA for the design, development, and flight implementation of mixed actuator hybrid attitude control systems for science spacecraft that have less than three functional reaction wheel actuators. This interest is driven by a number of recent reaction wheels failures on aging, but still scientifically productive, NASA spacecraft. This paper describes the highlights of the first NASA Cross-Center Hybrid Control Workshop that was held in Greenbelt, Maryland in April of 2013 under the sponsorship of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). A brief historical summary of NASA's past experiences with spacecraft mixed actuator hybrid attitude control approaches, some of which were implemented on-orbit, will be provided. This paper will also convey some of the lessons learned and best practices captured at that workshop. Some relevant recent and current hybrid control activities will be described with an emphasis on work in support of a repurposed Kepler spacecraft. Specific technical areas for future considerations regarding spacecraft hybrid control will also be identified.

attitude control↗
NASA NTRS2001

Micro Navigator

Miniature high-performance low-mass space avionics systems are desired for planned future outer planetary exploration missions (i.e. Europa Orbiter/Lander, Pluto-Kuiper Express). The spacecraft fuel and mass requirements enabling orbit insertion is the driving requirement. The Micro Navigator is an integrated autonomous Guidance, Navigation & Control (GN&C)micro-system that would provide the critical avionics function for navigation, pointing, and precision landing. The Micro Navigator hardware and software allow fusion of data from multiple sensors to provide a single integrated vehicle state vector necessary for six degrees of freedom GN&C. The benefits of this MicroNavigator include: 1) The Micro Navigator employs MEMS devices that promise orders of magnitude reductions in mass power and volume of inertial sensors (accelerometers and gyroscopes), celestial sensing devices (startracker, sun sensor), and computing element; 2) The highly integrated nature of the unit will reduce the cost of flight missions. a) The advanced miniaturization technologies employed by the Micro Navigator lend themselves to mass production, and therefore will reduce production cost of spacecraft. b) The integral approach simplifies interface issues associated with discrete components and reduces cost associated with integration and test of multiple components; and 3) The integration of sensors and processing elements into a single unit will allow the Micro Navigator to encapsulate attitude information and determination functions into a single object. This is particularly beneficial for object-oriented software architectures that are used in advanced spacecraft. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Blaes, B. R.↗
NASA NTRS1998

An Atmospheric Guidance Algorithm Testbed for the Mars Surveyor Program 2001 Orbiter and Lander

An Atmospheric Flight Team was formed by the Mars Surveyor Program '01 mission office to develop aerocapture and precision landing testbed simulations and candidate guidance algorithms. Three- and six-degree-of-freedom Mars atmospheric flight simulations have been developed for testing, evaluation, and analysis of candidate guidance algorithms for the Mars Surveyor Program 2001 Orbiter and Lander. These simulations are built around the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories. Subroutines were supplied by Atmospheric Flight Team members for modeling the Mars atmosphere, spacecraft control system, aeroshell aerodynamic characteristics, and other Mars 2001 mission specific models. This paper describes these models and their perturbations applied during Monte Carlo analyses to develop, test, and characterize candidate guidance algorithms.

Striepe, Scott A.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Navigation systems requirement analysis for the Aeroassist Flight Experiment (AFE)

Navigation requirements for Aeroassist Flight Experiment (AFE) spacecraft passing through the earth's atmosphere have been studied using a 6-DOF dynamics model, an Inertial Measurement Unit model, a baseline AFE aeropass flight guidance logic, and a baseline AFE aeropass control model. The goal of this study is to determine, in a statistical sense, how much flight path angle error can be tolerated at Entry Interface (EI) and still have acceptable delta-V requirements at exit to position the AFE spacecraft for recovery. Assuming there is fuel available to produce 370 ft/sec of delta-V at atmospheric exit, a 3-sigma standard deviation in flight path angle error of 0.04 degree at EI would result in a 98 percent probability of mission success. In addition to the required delta-V at exit, other aeropass parameters such as maximum aeroheating rate, fuel consumption, and the science requirements affecting mission success are also investigated.

Huang, K. H.↗
NASA NTRS2002

On the validity of the double integrator approximation in deep space formation flying

Free-flying models are commonly used f o r path planning and open loop control design (i. e., guidance design) and translational feedback control design (i. e., control design) for deep space precision formation flying. The free flying model, essentially a double integrator, results from discarding small terms in the relative spacecraft equations of motion. While the magnitude of these discarded terms may be small, one must show that their dynamic effects are small as compared to the precision performance requirements. We do so by deriving a theoretical method for bounding the difference between the solution of a nonlinear truth model of the relative translational spacecraft dynamics and a Simplified linear time-invariant model. Presently, the method incorporates feedforward and static output feedback control. The method is applied to a Terrestrial Planet Finder- based example. Using only feedforward control (guidance) the free-flying model and a Hill- Clohessy- Wiltshire Equations-based model are shown to be accurate to 1 c m for up to 4 and 30 hours, respectively. Also shown is that the simplest free-flying model may not be sufficient for low-gain feedback control design-closed-loop tracking errors can be as large as 8 meters.

formation flying free flying model double integrat↗