SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “simulation optimization”

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Advances in Design Capabilities for Planetary Missions from the NASA Entry Systems Modeling and Instrumentation Portfolio

The Entry Systems Modeling project (ESM) is supported by both the NASA Space Technology and the Science Mission Directorates and focuses on developing simulation tools and validated models for characterizing the performance of entry systems tailored to planetary destinations across the Solar System. ESM is organized into six technical capability areas that together address all relevant factors related to spacecraft entry, as well as some aspects of descent: Thermal Protection System (TPS) Materials; Aerothermodynamics; Entry & Descent Vehicle Dynamics; Guidance, Navigation, and Control; Vehicle Systems Analysis; and Advanced Tools and Numerical Methods. Development within the capability areas is undertaken explicitly with a focus on transition and infusion to science missions, human exploration missions, and commercial space activities. The present talk details developments that specifically impact science missions, including simulation tool capabilities that aid in mission design and model development to understand entry system performance at a given destination. Examples of the successful infusion and transition of such project outcomes to science missions also are provided. Several simulation tool development efforts within ESM have resulted in new design capabilities for missions. One such outcome is improved toolsets for mission trajectory and concept of operations design. Specifically, an initiative to couple a leading tool for entry, ascent/descent, and orbital trajectory optimization (Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II or POST2) to those used within the Agency for interplanetary trajectory optimization (Copernicus and Monte) has made substantial progress, with the outcomes to date promising to allow efficient trajectory optimization across mission phases. Additionally, toolchains for the evaluation of vehicle performance during entry and descent have been developed that allow assessment of multi-dimensional aeroheating on detailed vehicle geometries, characterization of deployment and inflation of parachutes, and assessment of vehicle dynamic stability during descent. These capabilities are achieved by coupling diverse sets of physics together – material response, computational fluid dynamics, radiation, and vehicle dynamics – to suitably describe complex entry and descent phenomena. Several model development and validation efforts for specific destinations and entry regimes also are underway within the ESM project. For instance, new experimental capabilities to validate radiation models at low densities/high altitudes recently have been established with project support, specifically the Low-Density Shock Tube (LDST) at the NASA Ames Research Center Electric Arc Shock Tube (EAST) facility. The LDST is being leveraged to develop improved models of shock layer kinetics and radiation in Titan atmospheres, while future studies will be conducted in the LDST and the existing high velocity shock tube to provide validation data for radiation models of Venus, Ice Giants, and Mars atmospheres. Models describing the aerothermal and thermo-structural performance of Thermal Protection System (TPS) materials has been another focus, with multiscale modeling activities on-going for the two leading TPS materials applicable to a range of entry conditions and science missions: the Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) and woven materials like 3D Mid-Density Carbon Phenolic (3MDCP). A continual effort is made to infuse and transition outcomes from ESM simulation tool and model development activities into relevant science missions. Significant progress has been made on this front, with missions such as Dragonfly, DAVINCI, and Mars Missions benefitting from project outcomes. The groundwork also is being laid to provide insights into forward looking missions to Gas/Ice Giants as well as for potential sample returns.

Justin Haskins↗

NASA NTRS2017

Automation of POST Cases via External Optimizer and "Artificial p2" Calculation

During early conceptual design of complex systems, speed and accuracy are often at odds with one another. While many characteristics of the design are fluctuating rapidly during this phase there is nonetheless a need to acquire accurate data from which to down-select designs as these decisions will have a large impact upon program life-cycle cost. Therefore enabling the conceptual designer to produce accurate data in a timely manner is tantamount to program viability. For conceptual design of launch vehicles, trajectory analysis and optimization is a large hurdle. Tools such as the industry standard Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST) have traditionally required an expert in the loop for setting up inputs, running the program, and analyzing the output. The solution space for trajectory analysis is in general non-linear and multi-modal requiring an experienced analyst to weed out sub-optimal designs in pursuit of the global optimum. While an experienced analyst presented with a vehicle similar to one which they have already worked on can likely produce optimal performance figures in a timely manner, as soon as the "experienced" or "similar" adjectives are invalid the process can become lengthy. In addition, an experienced analyst working on a similar vehicle may go into the analysis with preconceived ideas about what the vehicle's trajectory should look like which can result in sub-optimal performance being recorded. Thus, in any case but the ideal either time or accuracy can be sacrificed. In the authors' previous work a tool called multiPOST was created which captures the heuristics of a human analyst over the process of executing trajectory analysis with POST. However without the instincts of a human in the loop, this method relied upon Monte Carlo simulation to find successful trajectories. Overall the method has mixed results, and in the context of optimizing multiple vehicles it is inefficient in comparison to the method presented POST's internal optimizer functions like any other gradient-based optimizer. It has a specified variable to optimize whose value is represented as optval, a set of dependent constraints to meet with associated forms and tolerances whose value is represented as p2, and a set of independent variables known as the u-vector to modify in pursuit of optimality. Each of these quantities are calculated or manipulated at a certain phase within the trajectory. The optimizer is further constrained by the requirement that the input u-vector must result in a trajectory which proceeds through each of the prescribed events in the input file. For example, if the input u-vector causes the vehicle to crash before it can achieve the orbital parameters required for a parking orbit, then the run will fail without engaging the optimizer, and a p2 value of exactly zero is returned. This poses a problem, as this "non-connecting" region of the u-vector space is far larger than the "connecting" region which returns a non-zero value of p2 and can be worked on by the internal optimizer. Finding this connecting region and more specifically the global optimum within this region has traditionally required the use of an expert analyst.

Dees, Patrick D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Parachute Models Used in the Mars Science Laboratory Entry, Descent, and Landing Simulation

An end-to-end simulation of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) entry, descent, and landing (EDL) sequence was created at the NASA Langley Research Center using the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2). This simulation is capable of providing numerous MSL system and flight software responses, including Monte Carlo-derived statistics of these responses. The MSL POST2 simulation includes models of EDL system elements, including those related to the parachute system. Among these there are models for the parachute geometry, mass properties, deployment, inflation, opening force, area oscillations, aerodynamic coefficients, apparent mass, interaction with the main landing engines, and off-loading. These models were kept as simple as possible, considering the overall objectives of the simulation. The main purpose of this paper is to describe these parachute system models to the extent necessary to understand how they work and some of their limitations. A list of lessons learned during the development of the models and simulation is provided. Future improvements to the parachute system models are proposed.

Cruz, Juan R.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Statistical analysis of piloted simulation of real time trajectory optimization algorithms

A simulation of time-optimal intercept algorithms for on-board computation of control commands is described. The effects of three different display modes and two different computation modes on the pilots' ability to intercept a moving target in minimum time were tested. Both computation modes employed singular perturbation theory to help simplify the two-point boundary value problem associated with trajectory optimization. Target intercept time was affected by both the display and computation modes chosen, but the display mode chosen was the only significant influence on the miss distance.

Price, D. B.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) Aerocapture System for Enabling Faster-Larger Planetary Science & Human Exploration Missions

Since our completing the NIAC Phase I NIAC on this Advanced Aerocapture System, NASA Langley Research Center has funded or supported a number of studies and code enhancements through its Center Innovation Fund (CIF) and NASA’s NSTGRO and Internship Programs to mature the analysis capabilities and quantify the merits of the MHD Aerocapture System technology. These efforts have resulted in a plug and play analysis capability for assessing MHD aerocapture system performance for arrival at many planetary bodies of interest. Our efforts have especially focused on the potential mass savings for improving the capacity for science observations at Neptune and Triton. A re-cent Forbes article published “‘Orbital mechanics is probably going to decide for us whether we go to Uranus or Neptune because we need to flyby Jupiter,’ said Kunio Sayanagi at Hampton University, Virginia, who also worked on the Neptune Odyssey proposal…. Exactly when a mission can be sent to Uranus, or Neptune, depends on the relative position of Jupiter, which can help give a spacecraft a gravitational slingshot. That drastically shortens the cruise phase.” [1] Since shortening the cruise phase is important for these science missions, any mass savings enabled by the MHD Aerocapture System could be reallocated to increasing Thermal Protection System mass to allow faster arrival speeds and/or for onboarding additional payloads such as science instruments, batteries, or propellant for conducting more science for longer durations in the desired orbits. The analysis steps and codes for conducting trades and sizing vehicles for aerocapture are as follows: Step 1 is to conduct aeroheating analysis using LAURA of the selected entry vehicle shape to identify locations on the forebody where ionization and flow velocity are sufficient for producing Lo-rentz forces. LAURA is a multiblock structured grid finite-volume CFD solver developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. [2] LAURA has been used for aerothermal analysis support of the entry, de-scent and landing (EDL) phase of interplanetary missions over the last three decades [3-7]. Step 2 is to port the LAURA results into CFDWARP to calcu-late electrical and thermal conductivities of ionized flow for sizing MHD patch system and calculating Lorentz forces needed for controls analysis. CFDWARP is a CFD code that uses advanced nu-merical methods that enable the simulation of the full coupling between the aerodynamics, the magne-tohydrodynamics, and the non-neutral plasma sheaths. CFDWARP has the unique capability to simulate efficiently the non-neutral sheaths (near the electrodes) in coupled form with the quasi-neutral bulk MHD flow [8-11]. Step 3 is to link re-sults from LAURA and CFDWARP into POST2 for calculating entry trajectories and comparing MHD control results with other aerodynamic control strategies. The Program to Optimize Simulated Tra-jectories II (POST2) is a generalized point mass, discrete parameter targeting and optimization pro-gram. POST2 provides the capability to target and optimize point mass trajectories for multiple pow-ered or un-powered vehicles near an arbitrary rotat-ing, oblate planet [12]. Step 4: TPS sizing was per-formed using the Fully Implicit Ablation and Ther-mal-response code (FIAT) tool which computes the transient one-dimensional thermal response and surface thermochemistry of a multilayer stackup of thermal protection, bonding, and structural materi-als subject to aeroheating on one surface [13]. The sizing and margining methodology used was based on the approach documented by Mahzari and Milos [14] for the dual-layered heatshield for extreme entry environment technology (DL-HEEET) TPS concept. TPS analysis utilizes trajectory information from POST2. Using this step-wise plug and play MHD Aerocapture performance assessment process, our analysis targets a Neptune aerocapture trajectory that will place the spacecraft in an observation orbit for Triton. [15]. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) control of a 4.5-meter diameter MSL-style capsule resulted in TPS mass savings of nearly 2000 kg when using an MHD system mass of under 200 kg. The flight path for a vehicle using the MHD control strategy has a much lower heat rate and heat load compared to the conventional aerodynamic aerocapture strategies known as bank angle con-trolled (BAC) and direct force controlled (DFC). Both BAC and DFC have heat rates significantly greater than 1500 W/cm2 typically used as an upper limit for PICA. Thus, DL-HEEET TPS concept was required for the BAC and DFC control strategies. However, considering the more benign environ-ments for the MHD case, additional TPS concepts with improved mass efficiency were also assessed. PICA was considered for the MHD controlled strat-egy since the maximum heat rate was well within the limits (<1500 W/cm2) of PICA. TPS sizing re-sulted in a significant mass reduction. The PICA layer for this sizing case was about 7.8 cm. As a point of reference, the Mars 2020 mission, which used this same PICA concept, had a PICA thickness of 3.18 cm [16]. The trajectories used for the TPS sizing originat-ed from the POST2 simulations. The current, I, to an electromagnet configuration can be manipulated to allow for active control of the vehicle. Manipula-tion of the current, I, changes the magnetic field, B, which affects the Lorentz force and therefore the MHD drag force on the vehicle. Our analysis in-cluded both open-loop and close-loop control. Closed-loop control will enable improved overall performance when taking into account mission level uncertainties, such as interplanetary delivery errors and atmospheric modeling uncertainties. The open-loop and closed-loop MHD control cases do not dip as deep into the atmosphere as the aerodynamic cases. Three types of aerodynamic-only approach-es are investigated: bank angle modulation (BAM), director force control (DFC), and Drag Modulated. BAM and DFC make use of vehicle aerodynamic angles to steer the vehicle. Thus, changing the aer-odynamic forces acting on the vehicle for control, aerodynamic drag modulated case requires a vary-ing drag area to modulate the drag force. The MHD drag modulated case modulates MHD generated drag force that adds to the aerodynamic drag. This higher atmospheric activation of drag forces by the MHD patch results in significantly less heat flux on the vehicle. The MHD technology will enable shorter cruise times and deceleration of larger payloads for increasing the capacity for science at the Ice Giants or for returning astronauts to Earth from cislunar space or from Mars. The purpose of this presentation is to provide more details about this work and to highlight plans for further research and development including a flight demonstration.

R. W. Moses↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Simulation Using Multi Model Monte Carlo with Python (MXMCPy)

EDL (Entry, Descent and Landing) is the process from a vehicle approaching a surface to landing on it, such as a Mars rover approaching the planet before landing. POST2 (Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories 2) is Langley’s primary EDL simulation tool and is used NASA-wide for simulations. POST2 can generate highly accurate results by running a precise, but time consuming, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation hundreds or thousands of times. Though POST2 can produce highly accurate results, it can take unrealistic time spans to generate these results, which has created a need to speed up the simulations. The new NASA software MXMCPy offers various ways to speed up the simulations while getting just as precise results. Instead of running high-precision POST2 simulations many times for traditional MC, MXMCPy can run fewer high-precision POST2 simulations and many less precise POST2 simulations and merge the results. MXMCPy contains 30+ different methods which will each suggest different allocations between model precision levels, which result in results of varying precision based on the POST2 simulation. I created Python and Bash code to automate the 5 steps of MXMCPy’s application to POST2. I also tested the precision of traditional Monte Carlo simulations to MXMCPy aided simulations and found that MXMCPy can achieve substantially more precise solutions at the same computer runtime. I learned Test Driven Development (TDD), a software programming workflow which involves writing computer-automated tests before writing the code which is being tested. These tests are ran every time the code is changed and they can find glitches in the code much quicker than a human can. This programming workflow saved me a lot of time because the automated tests could tell me exactly where the code had stopped working. I plan on using this software development method for future academic and professional software projects. I have greatly enjoyed my work at NASA, so I have been applying to NASA internships and Pathways positions. In addition, I plan on applying what I have learned about Test Driven Development to my computer science courses next semester

James Warner↗

NASA NTRS2024

Flight Mechanics Modeling and Simulation of the Earth Entry System

Introduction: The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign being planned by NASA and ESA has the ambitious goal to return Mars samples back to Earth. This international collaboration had developed a concept of operations that included a ESA-designed Earth Return Orbiter (ERO) and NASA-designed Capture, Containment, and Return System (CCRS). The Earth Entry System (EES), consisting of a protective aeroshell that houses the samples as well as sample containment vessels, would conduct entry, descent, and landing (EDL) on a direct Earth trajectory. The EES would enter on a spin-stabilized ballistic trajectory with the goal to passively achieve aerodynamic stability throughout all regions of flight. The EDL sequence would end with the EES impacting the soft playa soil of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). As of the submission of this abstract, the MSR campaign is undergoing a re-architecture leading to a pause in EES development. However, the novel approaches developed in flight mechanics modeling and simulation can significantly benefit the greater IPPW community in the development of Earth return vehicles. This paper will present the latest state of EES flight mechanics modeling and simulation. The paper will highlight the simulation architecture developed and key lessons learned from understanding of EDL trajectory sensitivities. Modeling and Simulation: Figure 1 provides a high-level concept of operations for the approach, entry, descent, and landing (AEDL) phase of the CCRS-portion of MSR. The objective of EES flight mechanics is to model and simulate the EES trajectory from ERO separation to ground impact at UTTR. A variety of flight mechanics simulation models were utilized to model both exo-atmopsheric and atmospheric portions of flight. 42, a 6-DOF simulation developed at Goddard Space Flight Center, is utilized for propagating the attitude of EES during exo-atmospheric flight. 42 allows for a variety of spin eject mechanism scenarios to be simulated for analysis. 10 minutes prior to entry, the 42 states are handed off to the EDL sims. The prime EDL sim utilized by EES is the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2), a 6-DOF sim developed at Langley Research Center, and the independent verification and validation EDL sim utilized is DSENDS, a 6-DOF sim developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Figure 2 provides a visualization of the flight mechanics simulation model flow through various points in the AEDL phase. Due to the existence of a variety of sim models, the EES flight mechanics team developed processes for data hand-off. These processes included the development of a centralized coordinate frame document, utilization of a single, centralized simulation input document for all sims to reference, and hand-off files containing both the technical data to be ingested by other flight mechanics sims as well as annotations of modeling assumptions utilized to generate the data. Figure~\ref{fig:post2simarchitecture} provides an overview of the POST2 sim architecture wherein POST2 ingests numerous subsystem models and input files. The dispersed state file generated by MONTE provides the position/velocity state of the trajectory while the 42 Handoff file provides the attitude. The aerodynamics database, delivered by the EES aeroscience team, is utilized to simulate the aerodynamic forces and moments experienced during EDL. A custom atmosphere model, developed by EES atmosphere team, is utilized to simulate the anticipated atmosphere environment around the region of Earth through which the EES trajectory flys. These inputs and subsystem models can be varied depending on the AEDL flight mechanics scenario being simulated. Monte Carlo simulations are utilized to generate statistical AEDL performance metrics in the form of scorecards and violin plots. Furthermore, outputs from the POST2 simulation are utilized for follow-on analyses including aerothermal and landing performance. \section{Flight Mechanics Lessons Learned} Though the EES flight mechanics team uncovered a variety of lessons learned through the analysis conducted to support CCRS through preliminary design review, this paper will highlight the most important lessons. A key AEDL performance goal is to ensure the landing footprint of EES remains on the UTTR south range. A common modeling strategy used in EDL analysis is One-Variable-At-a-Time (OVAT). OVAT analysis provides insight into the key drivers that affect AEDL performance metrics. Figure 3 shows the landing ellipses for single dispersion sources as compared to the baseline aggregate of all dispersions. The figure shows that atmosphere winds alone dominate the size of the footprint ellipse (note: EES does not use a parachute unlike previous Earth-return missions and is in wind-driven free fall for ~5min). The significance of the wind led the EES flight mechanics team to pursue the development of a Custom Atmosphere Model [4], in lieu of EarthGRAM [1], built on actual radiosonde wind measurements around the UTTR-region. This decision was driven by the realism in the generated footprint ellipses and lessons-learned from Stardust [5]. These findings will be invaluable for future Earth-return missions in providing an early understanding of the key drivers affecting footprint size and modeling considerations for which to account. Another lesson learned is tied to the AEDL performance goal of achieving passive stability throughout all regions of flight. It is well understood that blunt-body aeroshells are less stable as they transition from supersonic to subsonic. Eliminating a backshell does help improvestability; however, other phenomena such as roll-induced instability during terminal descent can still arise. The EES flight mechanics team developed stability metrics as tools to better understand the causes of and better predict the onset of dynamic instability. These tools were built upon analytical models developed by Jaffe [3] and Murphy [2]. The tools were shown to both be very accurate in correlation with actual unstable cases and useful in developing stability margin policies based on the vehicle design and simulation considerations (e.g. sphere-cone angle change, mass change, wind turbulence). These tools allowed for the current EES design to demonstrate the ability to achieve passive stability and can be an invaluable tool for consideration in the design of parachute-less Earth-return vehicles.

Rohan Deshmukh↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Application of A Dual-Quaternion Six Degree-of-Freedom Guidance to Human-Scale Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing

Landing humans on Mars comes with many challenges, including the execution of a safe and precise entry, descent, and landing (EDL) sequence. Various NASA studies have shown that there are a variety of EDL guidance methods that potentially offer solutions to the human-scale EDL precision landing problem and work is ongoing to assess new and novel methods. As part of these ongoing studies, a dual-quaternion-based six degree-of-freedom guidance algorithm was implemented in the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2), a NASA-and industry-standard spacecraft trajectory and vehicle design tool. This algorithm considers both translational and rotational dynamics and casts the trajectory optimization problem as a quadratically constrained quadratic program (QCQP) with various constraints at discrete nodes throughout the trajectory. The QCQP problem is solved via an alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) approach, and the output is a discretized optimal trajectory. The guidance is applied to a NASA reference human-scale Mars EDL system, and results are compared and discussed.

Optimization↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Application of A Dual-Quaternion Six Degree-of-Freedom Guidance to Human-Scale Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing

Optimization↗

NASA NTRS1982

Development of electrical test procedures for qualification of spacecraft against EID. Volume 1: The CAN test and other relevant data

A combined experimental and analytical program to develop system electrical test procedures for the qualification of spacecraft against damage produced by space-electron-induced discharges (EID) occurring on spacecraft dielectric outer surfaces is described. The data on the response of a simple satellite model, called CAN, to electron-induced discharges is presented. The experimental results were compared to predicted behavior and to the response of the CAN to electrical injection techniques simulating blowoff and arc discharges. Also included is a review of significant results from other ground tests and the P78-2 program to form a data base from which is specified those test procedures which optimally simulate the response of spacecraft to EID. The electrical and electron spraying test data were evaluated to provide a first-cut determination of the best methods for performance of electrical excitation qualification tests from the point of view of simulation fidelity.

Wilkenfeld, J. M.↗

NASA NTRS2012

End-To-End Simulation of Launch Vehicle Trajectories Including Stage Separation Dynamics

The development of methodologies, techniques, and tools for analysis and simulation of stage separation dynamics is critically needed for successful design and operation of multistage reusable launch vehicles. As a part of this activity, the Constraint Force Equation (CFE) methodology was developed and implemented in the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2). The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the capability of POST2/CFE to simulate a complete end-to-end mission. The vehicle configuration selected was the Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) Langley Glide Back Booster (LGBB) bimese configuration, an in-house concept consisting of a reusable booster and an orbiter having identical outer mold lines. The proximity and isolated aerodynamic databases used for the simulation were assembled using wind-tunnel test data for this vehicle. POST2/CFE simulation results are presented for the entire mission, from lift-off, through stage separation, orbiter ascent to orbit, and booster glide back to the launch site. Additionally, POST2/CFE stage separation simulation results are compared with results from industry standard commercial software used for solving dynamics problems involving multiple bodies connected by joints.

Albertson, Cindy W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of the Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing Simulation

On February 18, 2021, the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover successfully landed inside Jezero Crater at 18.44463 deg North latitude and 77.45088 deg East longitude. At 1026 kg, Perseverance is the largest, most sophisticated rover ever delivered to another planet. This event marked the ninth successful landing and fifth rover to be delivered at Mars. The Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2) is a trajectory simulation tool maintained by the NASA Langley Research Center. POST2 was the prime EDL performance simulation for Mars 2020. This tool has significant heritage on the previous Pathfinder, MER, Phoenix, InSight, and MSL landings. This paper presents a few initial comparisons between EDL flight telemetry and POST2 simulation predictions. These comparisons are important in order to understand how each of the individual models performed, as well as the integrated simulation as a whole. This information is fed forward to future missions, which benefit from the knowing where additional resources or study are needed and where uncertainties may be reduced to enable improved performance.

David W Way↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of the Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing Simulation

David Way↗

NASA NTRS2003

Analysis and training - why different?

It is tempting to seek universal combat simulations, optimized for both analysis and training. Such a quest would be quixotic, however, because the two environments place conflicting requirements.

simulation modeling training analysis↗

NASA NTRS2013

MARS Science Laboratory Post-Landing Location Estimation Using Post2 Trajectory Simulation

The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Curiosity rover landed safely on Mars August 5th, 2012 at 10:32 PDT, Earth Received Time. Immediately following touchdown confirmation, best estimates of position were calculated to assist in determining official MSL locations during entry, descent and landing (EDL). Additionally, estimated balance mass impact locations were provided and used to assess how predicted locations compared to actual locations. For MSL, the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2) was the primary trajectory simulation tool used to predict and assess EDL performance from cruise stage separation through rover touchdown and descent stage impact. This POST2 simulation was used during MSL operations for EDL trajectory analyses in support of maneuver decisions and imaging MSL during EDL. This paper presents the simulation methodology used and results of pre/post-landing MSL location estimates and associated imagery from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter s (MRO) High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera. To generate these estimates, the MSL POST2 simulation nominal and Monte Carlo data, flight telemetry from onboard navigation, relay orbiter positions from MRO and Mars Odyssey and HiRISE generated digital elevation models (DEM) were utilized. A comparison of predicted rover and balance mass location estimations against actual locations are also presented.

Davis, J. L.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Design of a neural network simulator on a transputer array

A brief summary of neural networks is presented which concentrates on the design constraints imposed. Major design issues are discussed together with analysis methods and the chosen solutions. Although the system will be capable of running on most transputer architectures, it currently is being implemented on a 40-transputer system connected to a toroidal architecture. Predictions show a performance level equivalent to that of a highly optimized simulator running on the SX-2 supercomputer.

Mcintire, Gary↗

NASA NTRS1991

Ascent performance of an air-breathing horizontal-takeoff launch vehicle

Simulations are conducted to investigate a proposed NASA launch vehicle that is fully reusable, takes off horizontally, and uses airbreathing propulsion in a single stage. The propulsion model is based on a cycle analysis method, and the vehicle is assumed to be a rigid structure with distributed fuel, operating under a range of atmospheric conditions. The program to optimize simulated trajectories (POST) is modified to include a predictor-corrector guidance capability and then used to generate the trajectories. Significant errors are encountered during the unpowered coast phase due to uncertainty in the atmospheric density profile. The amount of ascent propellant needed is shown to be directly related to the thrust-vector angle and the location of the center of gravity of the vehicle because of the importance of aim-drag losses to total ideal velocity.

Powell, Richard W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗