SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “sUAS”

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.

At least 127 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2018

Adaptive Load Control of Flexible Aircraft Wings Using Fiber Optic Sensing

Over the past century aircraft wing design has transformed from the morphing wing used on the Wright Flyer to rigid wings with little to no shape-tailoring abilities. Modern day wings are designed to fly at a single trim condition and optimized to have a maximum aerodynamic efficiency at only this condition. Shape morphing wings on the other hand have the potential to undergo geometric changes allowing them to adapt to their mission profiles. Several flight demonstrations have been conducted over the decades using morphing-wing technologies. Active wing-twist control was demonstrated on the X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) research project by utilizing multiple leading- and trailing-edge control surfaces. Passive morphing technology has been demonstrated on the Rockwell RPRV-870 Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft. In the current study, the wings of a small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) were modified to have segmented control surfaces (SCS). The modifications include segmenting the original wing control surfaces (one flap and one aileron per wing) into 44 individual sections, each section having its own independent servo control motor. The wings were also instrumented with a network of over 1800 fiber-optic strain sensors (on four sensing fibers distributed over the top and bottom surfaces of the wing) monitoring the strain response of the wing to aerodynamic loading. The SCS positions were manipulated in real time to modify the spanwise lift distribution of the wings on the sUAS. The change in the structural response of the wings caused by load redistribution was quantified by measuring the bending strains on the upper and lower wing surfaces using an on-board compact fiber-optic strain sensing (cFOSS) system. A feedback controller was developed to control the SCS positions using strain-based shape estimations from the Displacement Transfer Function (DTF). Post-processing of the strain data allowed for the transverse displacement distributions and load distributions to be compared for the conventional and segmented control surface cases using displacements and loads algorithms developed by Richards and Ko at AFRC (refs. 5-10). While the current study focused on the shifting of the spanwise aerodynamic loads as quantified by displacements, future applications for loads or displacement control might include active gust alleviation and flutter suppression.

Pena, Francisco↗

NASA NTRS2020

UAS Service Supplier Network Performance

This report summarizes the performance of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Service Suppliers (USS) in the Technical Capability Level 4 (TCL4) flight test performed by NASA and its partners in support of the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) concept. TCL4 is the final in a series of TCL demonstrations of a traffic management system for small UAS (sUAS). All demonstrations have been executed in collaboration with industry partners. The [FAA 2018] UTM Concept of Operations document describes UTM as:...the manner in which the FAA will support operations for predominantly sUAS operating in low altitude airspace. UTM utilizes industry’s ability to supply services under FAA’s regulatory authority where these services do not currently exist. It is a community-based traffic management system, where the Operators are responsible for the coordination, execution, and management of operations, with rules of the road established by FAA. UTM is designed to support the demand and expectations for a broad spectrum of operations with ever-increasing complexity and risk. UTM should be considered a collection of services rather than a monolithic application. The following section describes the architecture at a high level. For further insight, the FAA’s concept document [FAA 2018] or NASA’s earlier concept publication [NASA 2016] should be consulted.

Rios, Joseph L.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Defining Handling Qualities of Unmanned Aerial Systems: Phase II Final Report

Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) are no longer coming, they are here, and operators from first responders to Google and Amazon are demanding access to the National Airspace System (NAS) for a wide variety of missions. This includes a proliferation of small UAS or sUAS that will operate beyond line of sight at altitudes of 500 ft and below. A myriad of issues continues to slow the development of verification, validation, and certification methods that will enable the safe introduction of UAS to the NAS. These issues include the lack of both a consensus in UAS categorization process and quantitative certification requirements, including the definition of handling qualities. Because of the wide variety of UAS types (fixed wing, rotary wing from traditional helicopters to multirotor configurations, ducted fans, airships, etc.) and vehicle size from micro vehicles to the Global Hawk with a wing span similar to that of a Boeing 737, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all set of requirements. To address these issues, Systems Technology Inc. (STI) has developed the UAS Handling Qualities Assessment (UAS-HQ) process and corresponding draft specification that will guide UAS stakeholders through a systematic evaluation process. The work described herein builds on the existing, highly successful, military rotorcraft handling qualities specifications that features a mission-oriented approach, a concept that originated at STI. The vehicle is first identified by a simple weight-based classification and then the associated vehicle mission task elements are considered. These missions have specific tasks inclusive to them that then dictate the criteria and demonstration maneuvers necessary to evaluate the UAS handling qualities. An assessment of both modeled responses and flight test data can then be conducted to examine the predicted versus actual handling qualities and, if required, design modifications can then be made. Mr. David Klyde, Vice President and Technical Director, Engineering Services, served as Principal Investigator, while Dr. Natalia Alexandrov served as the NASA LaRC technical representative. In the Phase II program, STI was joined by David Mitchell of Mitchell Aerospace Research and the University of Minnesota. Mr. Mitchell led the draft specification development effort, while the University of Minnesota UAV Lab conducted sUAS flight tests under the direction of Dr. Peter Seiler.

Klyde, David H.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Safe2Ditch Steer-To-Clear Development and Flight Testing

This paper describes a series of small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) flights performed at NASA Langley Research Center in April and May of 2019 to test a newly added Steer-to-Clear feature for the Safe2Ditch (S2D) prototype system. S2D is an autonomous crash management system for sUAS. Its function is to detect the onset of an emergency for an autonomous vehicle, and to enable that vehicle in distress to execute safe landings to avoid injuring people on the ground or damaging property. Flight tests were conducted at the City Environment Range for Testing Autonomous Integrated Navigation (CERTAIN) range at NASA Langley. Prior testing of S2D focused on rerouting to an alternate ditch site when an occupant was detected in the primary ditch site. For Steer-to-Clear testing, S2D was limited to a single ditch site option to force engagement of the Steer-to-Clear mode. The implementation of Steer-to-Clear for the flight prototype used a simple method to divide the target ditch site into four quadrants. An RC car was driven in circles in one quadrant to simulate an occupant in that ditch site. A simple implementation of Steer-to- Clear was programmed to land in the opposite quadrant to maximize distance to the occupant’s quadrant. A successful mission was tallied when this occurred. Out of nineteen flights, thirteen resulted in successful missions. Data logs from the flight vehicle and the RC car indicated that unsuccessful missions were due to geolocation error between the actual location of the RC car and the derived location of it by the Vision Assisted Landing component of S2D on the flight vehicle. Video data indicated that while the Vision Assisted Landing component reliably identified the location of the ditch site occupant in the image frame, the conversion of the occupant’s location to earth coordinates was sometimes adversely impacted by errors in sensor data needed to perform the transformation. Logged sensor data was analyzed to attempt to identify the primary error sources and their impact on the geolocation accuracy. Three trends were observed in the data evaluation phase. In one trend, errors in geolocation were relatively large at the flight vehicle’s cruise altitude, but reduced as the vehicle descended. This was the expected behavior and was attributed to sensor errors of the inertial measurement unit (IMU). The second trend showed distinct sinusoidal error for the entire descent that did not always reduce with altitude. The third trend showed high scatter in the data, which did not correlate well with altitude. Possible sources of observed error and compensation techniques are discussed.

Petty, Bryan J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Demonstration of Two Extended Visual Line of Sight Methods for Urban UAV Operations

This report describes two extended visual line of sight (EVLOS) methods developed and utilized during two flight campaigns over the campus of NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC): a chase vehicle method and a radio controlled (RC) pilot handoff method. These campaigns were performed to (a) evaluate small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) flight beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) of the ground control station operator and (b) test technologies under development to enable a transition from EVLOS to BVLOS operations. While an autonomous waypoint-based operational approach enabled minimal pilot intervention in both methods, range containment was enforced (a) manually via continual pilot visual monitoring and (b) autonomously via on-board contingency landing autonomy triggerable at the boundary of stay-in geofences. In the thirty-nine flights which utilized the chase vehicle, the pilot followed the sUAS flying a 1.2 km path at 40m altitude over urban streets. In the fifteen flights which utilized pilot handoff, a pilot at one end of a 1.5 km path initiated the flight at 120m altitude over buildings and trees, and at the midway point of the path transferred radio control to a pilot at the other end. In comparison, the chase vehicle method requires less ground crew and simpler avionics, while the pilot handoff method avoids schedule risk arising from street traffic congestion but better replicates actual direct routing for BVLOS flights. Collision risk with another aircraft was introduced in both campaigns and mitigated with the same manual and autonomous methods. Results from these campaigns serve as a basis for planned BVLOS operations at NASA LaRC.

Nicholas Rymer↗

NASA NTRS2020

TCL4 UTM (UAS Traffic Management) Nevada 2019 Flight Tests, Airspace Operations Laboratory (AOL) Report

The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) research project has been developing and testing concept ideas for enabling small UAS (sUAS) operations in low altitude airspace (ground to 400 feet). To do this, NASA has organized a series of flight test demonstrations. Technology Capability Level-4 (TCL4) flight tests were conducted at a Nevada, USA test site, during June 2019. The testing resulted in over 300 data collection flights using eight live rotorcraft, 15 simulated vehicles, involving six flight crews and five Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Service Suppliers (USS). The TCL4 approach was designed to demonstrate five scenarios that set up five diverse sets of UAS events and activities. The Nevada test site focused on three of these scenarios: an incoming weather front, a concert event with an incident requiring an emergency response, and a scenario where multiple vehicles experienced Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance (CNS) issues. The test site created their scenarios to each have three phases and were required to complete three executions of each scenario, for a total of nine missions per Nevada vehicle per scenario. This document presents data collected from participants during the TCL4-Nevada flight test that provides information about how much and how well operators were able to make use of UTM functions and information, with the goal of exploring what the minimum information requirements and/or best practices might be in TCL4 operations. The driving enquiry was: how do UTM tools and features support (human) operators leading to safe and effective conduct of large-scale beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) sUAS operations in “urban canyon” environments? As with the data collected during previous similar tests (e.g., TCL3, Martin et al., 2019), the quality of the UTM information exchanged, and the meaningfulness and therefore usefulness of this information, were all focal points of the questions asked and the data collected. Data aligned with five human-system attributes to indicate that UTM provided information that contributed to users’ ability to operate safely and effectively within UTM, but that information was not always complete and was sometimes unclear.

UTM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerial Object Trajectory Classification by Training on Flight Controller Data and Testing on RADAR Generated Tracks

Onboard collision avoidance is needed to enable safe, autonomous flight operations for NASA projects such as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), as well as many commercial applications. Real-time aerial object classification will improve onboard collision avoidance algorithm decision making and may reduce unnecessary activation of avoidance systems. This work trains an aircraft trajectory classifier using trajectories from flight controller logs and tests the classifier using RADAR collected trajectories during air to air experiments and ground to air experiments. In contrast to RADAR data, these flight controller logs are relatively abundant, which makes the possibility of substituting flight data for RADAR data an attractive, cost-effective option. The SVM model developed in this work achieved a 79.7% classification accuracy on the first second of radar trajectories of GA, multirotor sUAS, and fixed wing sUAS. Findings from this work indicate that it is feasible to classify sensor collected trajectories using a classifier trained on flight controller data.

Henry Holbrook↗

NASA NTRS2022

DataSet: Aerial Object Trajectory Classification by Training on Flight Controller Data and Testing on RADAR Generated

Onboard collision avoidance is needed to enable safe, autonomous flight operations for NASA projects such as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), as well as many commercial applications. Real-time aerial object classification will improve onboard collision avoidance algorithm decision making and may reduce unnecessary activation of avoidance systems. This work trains an aircraft trajectory classifier using trajectories from flight controller logs and tests the classifier using RADAR collected trajectories during air to air experiments and ground to air experiments. In contrast to RADAR data, these flight controller logs are relatively abundant, which makes the possibility of substituting flight data for RADAR data an attractive, cost-effective option. The SVM model developed in this work achieved a 79.7% classification accuracy on the first second of radar trajectories of GA, multirotor sUAS, and fixed wing sUAS. Findings from this e that it is feasible to classify sensor collected trajectories using a classifier trained flight controller data.

Chester V Dolph↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Classifying Aircraft using Velocity Data with Support Vector Machines and Likelihood Ratio Tests

Timely classification of aircraft is important for small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) technologies, such as onboard collision avoidance systems, and aerial perimeter security for prisons and sports venues. This work uses velocity-based metrics to classify multi-rotor sUAS, fixed wings UAS, and general aviation planes using two classification methods: Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Likelihood Ratio (LR) tests. We found that a 96% classification accuracy is achieved when either classifier is trained using average speed derived from flight controller data or radar data and tested with one second of radar data. Further, we show that LR tests perform similarly to SVM for single metric classification. In addition, we present two novel metrics for classifying aircraft: log variance of absolute change in speed, and log variance of relative change in speed. Finally, we discuss challenges associated with training classifiers with flight controller data but testing on radar data.

Logan T Dihel↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human-Autonomy Teaming Assistant to Support Small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems for Wildland Firefighting Operations

An exploratory human-in-the-loop simulation was conducted to investigate and characterize a Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) Assistant to support a remote operator of multiple small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (sUAS) using a ground control station (GCS) in the context of a wildland fire surveillance mission. Operator performance using the GCS with the HAT Assistant (Assisted Mode) was compared to operator performance using the GCS without the HAT Assistant (Unassisted Mode) during two types of contingency-event scenarios (Low and High Complexity). In the Assisted Mode, the HAT Assistant provided updates to the level of risk to the mission along with recommendations for risk mitigation, which were not provided in the Unassisted Mode. No significant differences in objective performance and subjective ratings of workload, situation awareness, and trust in automation between the Assisted and Unassisted Modes were detected, however there were indications that participants preferred the Assisted GCS over the Unassisted GCS and directions for further development were explored. Additional work is necessary to further refine the HAT Assistant and better characterize its effects on remote operator performance while managing multiple sUAS assets. Future work is recommended to optimize the implementation of an assistant to support operator performance during different missions and across vehicle classes.

Human-Autonomy Teaming↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Use of an Uninhabited Aircraft System (UAS) for Atmospheric Observations During an Acoustic Flight Test

A jet noise test was performed at Niagara Falls International Airport using a Calspan Learjet 25 by acoustics researchers at NASA Glenn Research Center in partnership with Calspan personnel and Uninhabited Aircraft Systems (UAS) pilots and sensor operators from NASA Langley Research Center. To account for atmospheric attenuation in the de-propagation of jet noise from a ground-based microphone array to the source for comparison with model data collected in a facility at NASA GRC, a vertical profile of atmospheric conditions was required. To that end, a sUAS was flown with a weather sensor package measuring atmospheric pressure, humidity, and temperature in a range of altitudes from ground level to 304.8 m (1,000 ft) above ground level (AGL). The sUAS flights were performed concurrently with and adjacent to the Learjet flight path. Data from these UAS flights are presented herein; additionally, comparisons with conventional balloon-borne instrumentation are made with a particular focus on the quality and capability of UAS-based observations for acoustic flight test applications. Furthermore, a ground-based light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system was deployed for collecting wind magnitude and direction for discrete altitudes up to 304.8 m (1,000 ft) AGL. Data from the LiDAR unit will be presented and discussed in the context of aircraft acoustic flight testing. This effort was supported by NASA’s Commercial Supersonic Technology project.

UAS↗

NASA NTRS2024

m:N Working Group Meeting Summary November 2023

From November 28th to 30th, 2023 the m:N UAS working group and its subgroups [small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS), Large UAS, High Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS), and Urban Air Mobility (UAM)] met at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA for an in person meeting. The subgroups meet multiple times throughout the year, virtually. Twice a year however, participants from all the subgroups come together in person to further identify and discuss challenges, and path forward ideas for incorporating UAS into the airspace. The m:N UAS working group is run by Jay Shively (Adaptive Aerospace) and Andy Thurling (Thurling Aero Consulting) and is comprised of members from government, industry, and academia in an effort to identify and reduce barriers to m:N operations. This effort also includes identifying requirements, use cases, and metrics to support organizations and groups including the FAA, RTCA, and ASTM. Each subgroup is run by a government/industry team (see below). sUAS Subgroup Garrett Sadler (NASA) Scott Scheff (HF Designworks) Large UAS Subgroup Conrad Rory (NASA) Brandon Suarez (Reliable Robotics) HAPS Subgroup Andy Thurling (Thurling Aero Consulting) Jeff Homola (NASA) UAM Subgroup Mike Politowicz (NASA) Scott Scheff (HF Designworks), member-at-large

m:N operations↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human-Autonomy Teaming Assistant to Support Small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems for Wildland Firefighting Operations

Human-Autonomy Teaming↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Textual and Network Analysis of Part 107 Waivers

Context: The management of hazards in sUAS operations is not as well defined as today's commercial operations despite sUAS widespread use. Part 107 waived operations' provisions, which manage hazards for higher risk operations that require approval, can offer insight to organizations establishing UAS Programs in managing their own operation hazards. Aim: We seek to understand how the FAA Part 107 waived operations manage hazards. Method: We used the constant comparative method to identify hazard mitigation textual categories from provisions and use networks to assess the dispersion of provisions and the identified categories across issued waivers. Results: Eight mitigation categories and twenty-four sub-categories were identified. Most provisions present in waivers are mostly reused in one waiver. Conclusion: While there is a broad range of provisions to control for hazard mitigations in the Part 107 issued waivers analyzed regulations, they require case-by-case modifications.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRS2024

m:N Working Group: Meeting Summary March 2024

From March 26th to 28th, 2024 the m:N UAS working group and its subgroups (Evaluation Methodologies, Exceptions/Interventions, and Initial Operating Capability for Airspace Integration) met at SAIC in Washington, D.C. for an in-person meeting. The subgroups meet virtually throughout the year, and twice a year participants from all the subgroups come together to further identify and discuss challenges and paths forward for incorporating UAS into the airspace. The m:N UAS working group is run by Jay Shively (Adaptive Aerospace) and Andy Thurling (DroneUp) and is comprised of members from government, industry, and academia in an effort to identify and reduce barriers to m:N operations. This includes identifying requirements, use cases, metrics, and the development of white papers to support organizations including the FAA, RTCA, and ASTM. A change from last year, the Large UAS and HAPS sub working groups have disbanded while the sUAS working group continues independently, currently working on a white paper titled Personnel Selection, Roles, and Training for sUAS. For 2024 the m:N sub working groups have been refocused to cover evaluation methodologies, interventions/exceptions, and initial operating capability for airspace integration; with the premise that the outcomes from these subgroups will be white papers. These white papers can inform one another to ultimately become a master whitepaper. Each subgroup lead is called out below: Evaluation Methodologies Subgroup Jay Shively, Adaptive Aerospace Interventions/Exceptions Subgroup Andy Thurling, DroneUp (Lead) Initial Operating Capability for Airspace Integration Subgroup Andy Lacher, NASA (Lead)

m:N operations↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Textual and Network Analysis of Title 14 CFR Part107 Waivers

Context: The management of hazards in small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) operations is not as well defined as today's commercial operations despite sUAS widespread use. FAA Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 107 waived operations' provisions, which manage hazards for higher risk operations that require approval, can offer insight to organizations establishing UAS Programs in managing their own operation hazards. Aim: We seek to understand how the Title 14 CFR Part 107 waived operations manage hazards. Method: We used the constant comparative method to identify hazard mitigation textual categories from provisions and use networks to assess the dispersion of provisions and the identified categories across issued waivers. Results: Eight mitigation categories and twenty-four sub-categories were identified. Most provisions present in waivers are mostly reused in one waiver. Conclusion: While there is a broad range of provisions to control for hazard mitigations in the Title 14 CFR Part 107 issued waivers analyzed regulations, they require case-by-case modifications.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Usability of an Updated Version of the Supplemental Data Service Provider-Consolidated Dashboard for Supporting Uncrewed Aircraft System Traffic Management

The Supplemental Data Service Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD) is a preflight planning user interface (UI) that serves to aid operators when drafting routes for small uncrewed aircraft systems (sUASs). The primary function of the SDSP-CD is to identify hazards that an sUAS may encounter along a proposed flight path and assess the severity of these risks. A usability study was conducted on an updated version of the SDSP-CD to determine if the most recent iterations made to the system improved objective performance and subjective user experience. There are two main components of the SDSP-CD interface: (1) the dashboard and (2) the interactive map. The dashboard provides users with hazard and vehicle limitations for each sUAS in their fleet while the map contains a graphical representation of each vehicle’s route, hazard details, and geographic information. A series of preflight risk-assessment questions and tasks were developed to examine how participants interact with the updated version of the SDSP-CD. Additionally, a new service that measures vertiport congestion was developed and included as one of the services that was tested. In the present study, participants were trained to use the SDSP-CD and then completed two simulated scenarios during which they performed a variety of tasks, responded to questions, and completed surveys. The two scenarios developed for the present study were the Package Delivery and Hurricane Preparation scenarios. The Package Delivery scenario involved a fleet of four sUASs delivering low-stakes items (e.g., lunches and snacks) to people in a fictitious city. The Hurricane Preparation scenario involved a fleet of 11 sUASs delivering a range of supplies (from medicine to boardgames) to employees stranded at an office park due to road closures caused by an impending hurricane. Participants assumed the role of a fleet manager during both scenarios and were responsible for managing the sUASs in their fleet. Questions included those with objectively correct responses, open-ended strategy responses, and subjective user experience feedback. It was found that participants were largely successful at using the SDSP-CD interface to answer questions with objectively correct responses. Additionally, participants were able to use reasoning and logic based on the information available in the SDSP-CD to determine the cause of various risks and what actions they would consider taking. Finally, although participants reported that there were elements of the UI that could be improved, overall feedback pertaining to user experience suggested that the SDSP-CD concept is viable.

usability testing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gap Analysis of UAS Manuals and Hazards

Emerging aviation includes the use of small Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in novel operations. The manufacture and operation of these small UAS are not as regulated as today’s commercial operation, and their widespread use introduces new risks and hazards to the general public. Today, there are case-by-case approvals for sUAS operations, particularly for emergency response operations in which the potential benefits to use of sUAS is perceived to outweigh potential risks. We analyze operational approvals, procedures, and concepts of operation to identify and categorize the risks and hazards that applicants and approvers are already considering, and also identify barriers and mitigations that the operators have already put in place. This analysis may help lead to routine checklists that standardize safety analysis and lead to more routine operations.

grounded theory↗