Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “AUTOPILOT”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2021

There is More to the Autopilot Button than Meets the Eye

Following a series of crashes in which semiautonomous cars collided with high-visibility emergency vehicles, this article looks at the human factors challenges of partially automated driving. I review recent research that investigates the capabilities of driver assist systems, the limits of human attention and vigilance, the impact of automation use on driver fatigue, and driver understanding of all of the above. I review the efforts being made to align driver understanding with system reality: instructions and warnings, point-of-sale driver training, automation training standards, and vehicle design. I conclude that several important safety concepts, revealed by research, have yet to be effectively communicated to drivers who will need them to operate these cars safely.

automation↗
NASA NTRS1950

Theoretical Investigation of a Proportional-Plus-Flicker Automatic Pilot

The proportional-plus-flicker automatic pilot operates by a nonlinear principle whereby a fast-acting flicker servomotor response is combined with a low-speed proportional servomotor response for the purpose of obtaining supersonic stability and control. Essentially, the autopilot maintains a zero reference about which the output is proportional to the input. However, a flicker response overrides this proportional response at a fixed angle of gimbal displacement on either side of the zero gyroscope reference. Therefore, in contrast to other high speed control systems, the design requirements are simplified because the two components of the proportional-flicker control system are easy to build separately and they can be combined in a relatively simple manner. By application of the proportional-flicker principle, satisfactory stability can be obtained by the proper adjustment of the variable factors in the autopilot mechanism; namely, the proportional gain, the amplitude of flicker control deflection, the autopilot time-lag factor (the time-lag between flicker and proportional operation), and the point in the range that the autopilot switches from a flicker to a proportional system. There is a possibility that these factors can be adjusted so that a more rapid response time (the time to reach steady state) is obtained with the non-linear proportional-flicker autopilot than with a purely linear proportional autopilot. For the main part of this analysis, the proportional part of the system is approximated by a zero-phase-lag proportional autopilot with the assumption that the control surface moves instantaneously at the point where the system switches from flicker to proportional. Good correlation is shown between the results obtained by this method and results obtained by using a close approximation of an actual autopilot transfer function for proportional autopilot operation.

Seaberg, Ernest C.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Verification test results of Apollo stabilization and control systems during undocked operations

The results are presented of analysis and simulation testing of both the Skylark 1 reaction control system digital autopilot (RCS DAP) and the thrust vector control (TVC) autopilot for use during the undocked portions of the Apollo/Soyuz Test Project Mission. The RCS DAP testing was performed using the Skylab Functional Simulator (SLFS), a digital computer program capable of simulating the Apollo and Skylab autopilots along with vehicle dynamics including bending and sloshing. The model is used to simulate three-axis automatic maneuvers along with pilot controlled manual maneuvers using the RCS DAP. The TVC autopilot was tested in two parts. A classical stability analysis was performed on the vehicle considering the effects of structural bending and sloshing when under control of the TVC autopilot. The time response of the TVC autopilot was tested using the SLFS. Results indicate that adequate performance stability margins can be expected for the CSM/DM configuration when under the control of the Apollo control systems tested.

Copeland, E. L.↗
NASA NTRS1982

Qualitative differences between on-orbit and transition RCS control

Two separate reaction control system (RCS) digital autopilots (DAPs) evolved from one original Space Shuttle orbital autopilot concept. A computer overload forced this evolution. Part of the overload problem was due to unique performance requirements imposed on the RCS controller during each of several different flight regimes. The two resultant RCS DAPs yield different effector responses because they rely on different sources of sensory input and they process data differently. This paper describes the evolution of the two RCS controllers and illustrates their behavioral differences. The transition autopilot, used in orbital insertion and deorbit, is sensitive to orbiter flexure due to its feedthrough character. The on-orbit autopilot is sensitive to transient rate control degradation from large disturbances due to feed-forward rate estimation. Simulation results and flight data are used to illustrate performance differences between the two autopilots under various conditions. These include computer failures where electronic stringing and procedural reconfiguration differences affect autopilot behavior.

Hattis, P. D.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Spacecraft flight control with the new phase space control law and optimal linear jet select

An autopilot designed for rotation and translation control of a rigid spacecraft is described. The autopilot uses reaction control jets as control effectors and incorporates a six-dimensional phase space control law as well as a linear programming algorithm for jet selection. The interaction of the control law and jet selection was investigated and a recommended configuration proposed. By means of a simulation procedure the new autopilot was compared with an existing system and was found to be superior in terms of core memory, central processing unit time, firings, and propellant consumption. But it is thought that the cycle time required to perform the jet selection computations might render the new autopilot unsuitable for existing flight computer applications, without modifications. The new autopilot is capable of maintaining attitude control in the presence of a large number of jet failures.

Bergmann, E. V.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Evaluating Flight Crew Operator Manual Documentation

Aviation and cognitive science researchers have identified situations in which the pilot s expectations for the behavior of the avionics are not matched by the actual behavior of the avionics. Researchers have attributed these "automation surprises" to the complexity of the avionics mode logic, the absence of complete training, limitations in cockpit displays, and ad-hoc conceptual models of the avionics. Complete canonical rule-based descriptions of the behavior of the autopilot provide the basis for understanding the perceived complexity of the autopilots, the differences between the pilot s and autopilot s conceptual models, and the limitations in training materials and cockpit displays. This paper compares the behavior of the autopilot Vertical Speed/Flight Path Angle (VS-FPA) mode as described in the Flight Crew Operators Manual (FCOM) and the actual behavior of the VS-FPA mode defined in the autopilot software. This example demonstrates the use of the Operational Procedure Model (OPM) as a method for using the requirements specification for the design of the software logic as information requirements for training.

Sherry, Lance↗