SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This paper describes an integrated set of high fidelity software tools that are being developed for the design of solar sail missions and analysis of the guidance, navigation and control (GNC) of these missions.
Exploration-class vehicles that require fully autonomous ascent and descent must employ robust, explicit path-adaptive guidance algorithms that can operate in a wide range of physical environments. Vehicle designs that employ solid-propellant rocket motors (SRMs) for maneuvers are attractive from a systems engineering perspective because of their simplicity and reliability, but may cause complications for both mission designers and GNC engineers when dealing with total impulse uncertainty, as well as proper energy management of a motor with an uncontrolled cutoff time. This paper presents a simplified guidance algorithm, named Simple Cross-Product Steering (SxS), that was derived during early studies of NASA’s Mars Sample Return mission’s Mars Ascent Vehicle. The algorithm takes roots in a flight-proven guidance algorithm commonly referred to as Cross-Product Steering. SxS has been shown to provide sufficient guidance accuracy for in-space SRM burns in a simulated Martian environment, and preliminary studies have been conducted to test the algorithm in a solid-propellant lunar braking scenario. A method for predicting proper motor ignition time during execution of the Cross-Product Steering algorithm is the primary contribution of this paper. Mechanization notes are also provided that were realized in early phases of MAV. Results are shown for an example ascent vehicle in a simulated Mars environment.
Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.
Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.
On February 18th, 2021, NASA landed Perseverance on the Jezero crater (Mars). This paper presents an overview of the Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC) system for the Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) phases of the Mars 2020 Mission. It describes the GNC architecture, including sensors, actuators and algorithms. It takes the perspective of the GNC mode commander and shows its as-flown performance.
Lunar Flashlight (LF) is a 6U, 14 kg spacecraft being built by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The mission will use IR laser technology to search for volatiles and surface water ice deposits in the permanently shadowed regions (PSR) of the moon in preparation for future human lunar exploration. The fine pointing provided by the Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC) system is crucial for the spacecraft to successfully reach the moon, enter a lunar orbit, and acquire scientific data. At the center of the GNC system’s ability to determine the spacecraft’s attitude is a star tracker. The LF star tracker is a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) unit built into the integrated GNC system provided by Blue Canyon Technologies. Blue Canyon tested the star tracker in a lab environment for basic functionality and attitude estimation capabilities; upon delivery of the hardware to JPL, further testing with a real night sky was desired to determine expected in-flight operational characteristics. JPL maintains the Table Mountain Facility with its suite of ground telescopes, including a 0.6m telescope with an equatorial mount. This stable platform provided a highly accurate method of providing slews and attitude holds akin to what the spacecraft will perform in flight. Therefore, by analyzing the data from these representative night-sky ground tests performed in March, 2021, it is possible to acquire expected flight performance of the star tracker, particularly in regard to the ability of the star tracker to maintain lock on the starfield during planned maneuver types. This paper presents the various tests that have been performed to ensure that the LF star tracker will function as part of the overall GNC system and integrated spacecraft once launched. Test data is included for several key tests, and a path forward towards future integration and testing at the spacecraft level is described.
The Lunar Gateway is a deep space orbiting outpost being developed by NASA in partnership with ESA and other domestic and international partners. It is a critical component of NASA’s Artemis program supporting long-term human exploration of the moon and is designed to be refueled, requiring the on-orbit transfer of propellants. The first two modules of Gateway to be launched will be the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO). The PPE contains the bipropellant chemical and electrical propulsion systems that will provide attitude control and orbit raising capability for Gateway. The reaction control system (RCS) utilizes monomethylhydrazine (MMH) and mixed oxides of nitrogen-3 (MON-3) as the fuel and oxidizer, respectively. Helium is used as a pressurant. The Advanced Electric Propulsion Systems (AEPS) and Busek hall thrusters that comprise the solar electric propulsion (SEP) system use xenon as the propellent. The ESPRIT Refueling Module, provided by ESA, will supply the propellant refueling function to Gateway’s propulsion systems. On-orbit refueling is a complex, technically challenging operation that is key to enabling sustainable crewed Lunar and Martian exploration. Numerous systems may be involved in the refueling operation. Also numerous systems are required to enable the successful ability for Gateway to refuel such as, SEP, RCS, Structure & Mechanisms (S&M), Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC), Thermal, Software, Vehicle System Manager (VSM), Flight Ops, Extra Vehicular Robotics (EVR), Communication and Tracking (C&T), Avionics, and more. This paper will detail the design architecture, concept of operations, and challenges associated with the Gateway refueling system. The methodologies used in Gateway will be compared to those implemented in OSAM-1 and the best practices documented by AIAA and CONFERS (Consortium For Execution Of Rendezvous And Servicing Operations).
This paper presents advancements in the frequency domain stability analysis for landing and ascent vehicle configurations with dual centerline propellant tanks, developed in support of Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) insight activities for the Human Landing System project. The study focuses on the impact of axial thrust on the dual tank slosh danger zone solution. The frequency domain stability analysis tool is developed within the GeneraLized Aerospace Simulation in Simulink® (GLASS) framework at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The frequency domain stability analysis tool is used to determine slosh damping and control systems design requirements. The accuracy of the tool’s instability predictions is validated against time-domain outcomes within the GLASS simulation environment, showing consistent and anticipated results. Additionally, the method is validated by comparing its results with Frequency Domain Analysis and Comparison Tool Assuming Linearity (FRACTAL), a frequency domain analysis tool with extensive heritage and rigorous verification and validation using NASA Ares I-X and SLS flight data. The findings of this paper contribute to a better understanding of dual-tank slosh instability and support improved design and operation margins of space vehicles.
This paper presents advancements in the frequency domain stability analysis for landing and ascent vehicle configurations with dual centerline propellant tanks, developed in support of Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) insight activities for the Human Landing System project. The study focuses on the impact of axial thrust on the dual tank slosh danger zone solution. The frequency domain stability analysis tool is developed within the GeneraLized Aerospace Simulation in Simulink® (GLASS) framework at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The frequency domain stability analysis tool is used to determine slosh damping and control systems design requirements. The accuracy of the tool’s instability predictions is validated against time-domain outcomes within the GLASS simulation environment, showing consistent and anticipated results. Additionally, the method is validated by comparing its results with Frequency Domain Analysis and Comparison Tool Assuming Linearity (FRACTAL), a frequency domain analysis tool with extensive heritage and rigorous verification and validation using NASA Ares I-X and SLS flight data. The findings of this paper contribute to a better understanding of dual-tank slosh instability and support improved design and operation margins of space vehicles.
This paper details a translation of a first order quadratic program (QP) solver from MATLAB to C. NASA could use this QP solver to generate online flight path trajectories for powered descent vehicles during landing. Over 12 weeks, the team designed, implemented, and tested two iterations of the QP solver for accuracy and runtime on 104 benchmark QP tests. The final iteration was 541.07% faster than the first, handling most tests in under one second. Additionally, it solved four more QP tests for N≥1383, and all outputs for cost and D_x matched the MATLAB reference values.
The function of Transit Habitat (TH) Reaction Control System (RCS) propulsion is to provide free-flying spacecraft capabilities and to augment Gateway stack control when docked on Gateway. The requirements of multiple propellant replenishments and extensive life operation have significant impacts on selection of the propulsion system concept and components for the RCS. The intent of this document is to provide insight into the government-reference conceptual design of a propulsion system for TH element. A pressure-fed hypergolic bi-propellant system is the assumed propulsion approach for the RCS. Its architectural concept is being traded within the NASA Moon to Mars architecture. A pressure-regulated system is examined. The propellants under consideration are Monomethyl Hydrazine (MMH) and Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen with 3% Nitric Oxide (MON3). A peer review was conducted to assess the flow schematic design and propulsion component selection, compliant with a set of assumed requirements. Redundant components to satisfy one-fault tolerance for function and two-fault tolerance against catastrophic events are incorporated in the propulsion concept design. Instrumentation laid out on the schematic would be used to gather data to monitor the health of the propulsion system and to support quantity gauging of the propulsion system fluids. Venting propellant ullage gas overboard during the refilling operations poses a significant concern to the external surfaces of the TH. A liquid/gas separator would be required to eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of liquid propellant expelled in the vent gas mixture. The technology readiness level of the phase separator for the TH must be advanced. Metal diaphragm and non-positive-expulsion PMD propellant tank systems were traded against each other, with the PMD architecture being selected. A blowdown concept is also considered for the TH RCS propulsion. Its fluid schematic is derived from the pressure-regulated schematic with removal of assemblies involving the helium pressurization and ullage venting. Its system wet mass is 10% heavier than the pressure-regulated due to thruster performance loss and larger propellant tanks. There is no firm constraint on the propulsion system mass at this phase of the design. The blowdown concept can offer reduction in component count and operation, that would lead to a more reliable propulsion system. The blowdown concept would also benefit avionics, thermal, power, and structures on the TH. Assessing these benefits will be carried as a future work. Drawbacks of thrust and minimum impulse bit (MIB) variations due to the blowdown operation would be acceptable to Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC). Although the blowdown concept has been selected as a current baseline, further evaluation of the concept will be the subject of future work to ensure that the blowdown propulsion operation is appropriate for the HT RCS propulsion. This document also highlights key trade studies and design decisions, including pros and cons of the selected concept. Other appropriate options for components are pointed out for future assessments. Additional background information and documents for further review are referenced in this report.
This publication is a collection of materials presented at a NASA workshop on guidance, navigation, controls, and dynamics (GNC&D) for atmospheric flight. The workshop was held at the NASA Langley Research Center on March 18-19, 1993. The workshop presentations describe the status of current research in the GNC&D area at Langley over a broad spectrum of research branches. The workshop was organized in eight sessions: overviews, general, controls, military aircraft, dynamics, guidance, systems, and a panel discussion. A highlight of the workshop was the panel discussion which addressed the following issue: 'Direction of guidance, navigation, and controls research to ensure U.S. competitiveness and leadership in aerospace technologies.'
The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control System (GNC) hardware, generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the NASA FMEA/CIL baseline with proposed Post 51-L updates included. A resolution of each discrepancy from the comparison is provided through additional analysis as required. The results of that comparison for the Orbiter GNC hardware is documented. The IOA product for the GNC analysis consisted of 141 failure mode worksheets that resulted in 24 potential critical items being identified. Comparison was made to the NASA baseline which consisted of 148 FMEAs and 36 CIL items. This comparison produced agreement on all but 56 FMEAs which caused differences in zero CIL items.
This paper discusses the implementation and simulated performance of the FNPEG (Fully Numerical Predictor-corrector Entry Guidance) algorithm into GNC FSW (Guidance, Navigation, and Control Flight Software) for use in an autonomous re-entry vehicle. A few modifications to FNPEG are discussed that result in computational savings -- a change to the state propagator, and a modification to cross-range lateral logic. Finally, some Monte Carlo results are presented using a representative vehicle in both a high-fidelity 6-DOF (degree-of-freedom) sim as well as in a 3-DOF sim for independent validation.
The Cassini-Huygens mission is a flagship class NASA/ESA mission to the planet Saturn. Launched in 1997, Cassini is still successfully operating after 16 years of flight and the telemetry from the attitude control hardware on Cassini has produced an immense dataset that allows the Cassini operations team to report on the long-term performance of several commercially available GNC hardware components in the space environment. This investigation summarizes the in-flight performance of the two inertial reference units aboard Cassini. Each of the two Cassini inertial reference units contains four hemispherical quartz resonator gyros. The Cassini operations team previously reported on the performance of the inertial reference units in 2007, and this paper provides an update with an additional 6 years of flight experience at Saturn.
This paper describes the design, development, and testing of the EDL program from the perspective of the software engineer. We briefly cover the overall MSL flight software organization, and then the organization of EDL itself. We discuss the timeline, the structure of the GNC code (but not the algorithms as they are covered elsewhere in this conference) and the command and telemetry interfaces. Finally, we cover testing and the influence that testability had on the EDL flight software design.
No abstract available
What You Will Learn: The focus is on payload imaging performance due to pointing motion. Some historical background on pointing performance analysis is given. The Optical Transfer Function (OTF) and Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) are defined. The imaging performance due to pointing motion is measured by image motion optical transfer functions (IM OTF). IM OTFs are defined for displacement, smear, and jitter motions, which are all rigorously defined. Deterministic and Statistical IM OTFs are briefly derived and graphically illustrated and compared. The IM OTFs are parameterized by pointing error metrics(PEM), which are means and covariances of displacement, smear, and jitter. Emphasis is on procedures and algorithms to evaluate the image motion optical transfer functions and pointing error metrics. Three procedures are covered, which depend on whether the pointing error data is from time-domain simulation, frequency-domain analysis, or stochastic modeling. A method to evaluate the relative contribution of disturbance sources and to identify the most significant contributors is presented. The presentation includes pertinent discussion of flexible structures and control-structure interaction. No single book can adequately cover this subject, so a book is not required for the course. A list of selected articles, reports, documents, and books is provided for reference and further study. Mathis kept to the minimum necessary to convey principles; lengthy derivations are left to the reference material. Graphics are used to illustrate concepts. As with any such learning endeavor, the knowledge gained will be retained and strengthened through actual practice.c©2019–2021 Mark E. Pittelkau— 5