Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “hardware and accelerator control systems”

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.

132 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

Low Cost Rapid Response Spacecraft, (LCRRS): A Research Project in Low Cost Spacecraft Design and Fabrication in a Rapid Prototyping Environment

The Low Cost Rapid Response Spacecraft (LCRRS) is an ongoing research development project at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC), Moffett Field, California. The prototype spacecraft, called Cost Optimized Test for Spacecraft Avionics and Technologies (COTSAT) is the first of what could potentially be a series of rapidly produced low-cost satellites. COTSAT has a target launch date of March 2009 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The LCRRS research system design incorporates use of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf), MOTS (Modified Off The Shelf), and GOTS (Government Off The Shelf) hardware for a remote sensing satellite. The design concept was baselined to support a 0.5 meter Ritchey-Chretien telescope payload. This telescope and camera system is expected to achieve 1.5 meter/pixel resolution. The COTSAT team is investigating the possibility of building a fully functional spacecraft for $500,000 parts and $2,000,000 labor. Cost is dramatically reduced by using a sealed container, housing the bus and payload subsystems. Some electrical and RF designs were improved/upgraded from GeneSat-1 heritage systems. The project began in January 2007 and has yielded two functional test platforms. It is expected that a flight-qualified unit will be finished in December 2008. Flight quality controls are in place on the parts and materials used in this development with the aim of using them to finish a proto-flight satellite. For LEO missions the team is targeting a mission class requiring a minimum of six months lifetime or more. The system architecture incorporates several design features required by high reliability missions. This allows for a true skunk works environment to rapidly progress toward a flight design. Engineering and fabrication is primarily done in-house at NASA Ames with flight certifications on materials. The team currently employs seven Full Time Equivalent employees. The success of COTSATs small team in this effort can be attributed to highly cross trained engineering team. The engineers on the team are capable of functioning in two to three engineering disciplines which allows highly efficient interdisciplinary engineering collaboration. NASA Ames is actively proposing mission concepts to use the COTSAT platform to accomplish science. If the COTSAT team validates this approach, it will allow the possibility for remote sensing missions to produce a high science yield for minimal cost and reduced schedule. Another aim of this approach is to yield an accelerated pathway from a Phase A study to mission launch. Leaders in the aerospace industry have shown interest in this methodology. Several visits and tours have been given in the lab. Although the concept of low-cost development is initially met with skepticism from some within the prohibitive aerospace industry, the project's efforts have been highly praised for the accomplishments met within a limited time and budget. Overall the development has progressed tremendously well and the team is answering critical questions for current and future low-cost small satellite developments. COTSAT subsystems are not limited to a specific weight class and could be adapted to produce smaller platforms and to fit various launch vehicles.

Spremo, Stevan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards Autonomous Lunar Resource Excavation via Reinforcement Learning

To continue on a sustainable and flexible path, NASA needs to address the challenge of collecting and moving large amounts of regolith at the destination. NASA’s Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR) is principally designed to mine and deliver regolith for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) processing. RASSOR’s design enables it to efficiently collect and deposit regolith, return collected material for processing, and myriad related ISRU activities. To reliably perform these operations on the lunar surface, RASSOR software and sensory systems need to be robust and maximize the information extracted from a reduced sensor payload. Herein, we present preliminary findings from the Intelligent Capabilities Enhanced RASSOR project. We created reduced-order simulation environments to develop autonomous trenching controllers via reinforcement learning and prototype state estimation architectures. The goal of reinforcement learning is for an agent to learn a policy (task strategy) through interactions with an environment. When the agent performs an action, a change occurs in environment state and a numerical reward is received which informs the agent whether the action performed was good or not. Since reinforcement learning algorithms learn through trial-and-error, a simulation is a desirable first environment for development and learning. We developed two simulations, the first is a 2D excavation simulation developed to facilitate parameter selection, and a 3D simulation developed using a game physics engine, to simulate simplified soil interactions and increase the fidelity of the dynamic models of the robotic agents. The development of this 3D simulation has enabled the training of additional sensing capabilities and research both at the granular mechanics and operations levels. We experimented with various virtual sensor payloads to identify a combination that enabled efficient excavation operation and learning. Our reward function is based on how much material is excavated per step. A penalty is also received for leaving the dig site and to smooth the acceleration of the drum arms. We implemented pseudo time-of-flight sensors to report distance from each drum to ground and the height above ground which was found to be more efficient than existing solutions. Our findings suggest that reinforcement learning for autonomous operations has learned viable trenching strategies within 3000 training episodes in our simplified 2D environment and helped identify desirable sensing capabilities, arrangements, and considerations such as the positioning of time-of-flight sensors. Future work includes expanding our simulation to more complex environments and scenarios, and transfer learning from simulation to RASSOR 2.0 hardware for deployment in the Regolith Test Bin at NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

rassor↗
NASA NTRS2016

Status of NASA's Space Launch System

NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) continued to make significant progress in 2015 and 2016, completing hardware and testing that brings NASA closer to a new era of deep space exploration. Programmatically, SLS completed Critical Design Review (CDR) in 2015. A team of independent reviewers concluded that the vehicle design is technically and programmatically ready to move to Design Certification Review (DCR) and launch readiness in 2018. Just five years after program start, every major element has amassed development and flight hardware and completed key tests that will lead to an accelerated pace of manufacturing and testing in 2016 and 2017. Key to SLS' rapid progress has been the use of existing technologies adapted to the new launch vehicle. The existing fleet of RS-25 engines is undergoing adaptation tests to prove it can meet SLS requirements and environments with minimal change. The four-segment shuttle-era booster has been modified and updated with a fifth propellant segment, new insulation, and new avionics. The Interim Cryogenic Upper Stage is a modified version of an existing upper stage. The first Block I SLS configuration will launch a minimum of 70 metric tons (t) of payload to low Earth orbit (LEO). The vehicle architecture has a clear evolutionary path to more than 100t and, ultimately, to 130t. Among the program's major 2015-2016 accomplishments were two booster qualification hotfire tests, a series of RS-25 adaptation hotfire tests, manufacturing of most of the major components for both core stage test articles and first flight tank, delivery of the Pegasus core stage barge, and the upper stage simulator. Renovations to the B-2 test stand for stage green run testing was completed at NASA Stennis Space Center. This year will see the completion of welding for all qualification and flight EM-1 core stage components and testing of flight avionics, completion of core stage structural test stands, casting of the EM-1 solid rocket motors, additional testing of RS-25 engines and flight engine controllers This paper will discuss these and other technical and programmatic successes and challenges over the past year and provide a preview of work ahead before the first flight of this new capability.

Honeycutt, John↗
NASA NTRS2005

Force Limited Vibration Testing

This slide presentation reviews the concept and applications of Force Limited Vibration Testing. The goal of vibration testing of aerospace hardware is to identify problems that would result in flight failures. The commonly used aerospace vibration tests uses artificially high shaker forces and responses at the resonance frequencies of the test item. It has become common to limit the acceleration responses in the test to those predicted for the flight. This requires an analysis of the acceleration response, and requires placing accelerometers on the test item. With the advent of piezoelectric gages it has become possible to improve vibration testing. The basic equations have are reviewed. Force limits are analogous and complementary to the acceleration specifications used in conventional vibration testing. Just as the acceleration specification is the frequency spectrum envelope of the in-flight acceleration at the interface between the test item and flight mounting structure, the force limit is the envelope of the in-flight force at the interface . In force limited vibration tests, both the acceleration and force specifications are needed, and the force specification is generally based on and proportional to the acceleration specification. Therefore, force limiting does not compensate for errors in the development of the acceleration specification, e.g., too much conservatism or the lack thereof. These errors will carry over into the force specification. Since in-flight vibratory force data are scarce, force limits are often derived from coupled system analyses and impedance information obtained from measurements or finite element models (FEM). Fortunately, data on the interface forces between systems and components are now available from system acoustic and vibration tests of development test models and from a few flight experiments. Semi-empirical methods of predicting force limits are currently being developed on the basis of the limited flight and system test data. A simple two degree of freedom system is shown and the governing equations for basic force limiting results for this system are reviewed. The design and results of the shuttle vibration forces (SVF) experiments are reviewed. The Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) also was used to validate force limiting. Test instrumentation and supporting equipment are reviewed including piezo-electric force transducers, signal processing and conditioning systems, test fixtures, and vibration controller systems. Several examples of force limited vibration testing are presented with some results.

random vibration testing↗
DOE OSTI2026

Constellation: The autonomous control and data acquisition system for dynamic experimental setups

The operation of instruments and detectors in laboratory or beamline environments presents a complex challenge, requiring stable operation of multiple concurrent devices, often controlled by separate hardware and software solutions. These environments frequently undergo modifications, such as the inclusion of different auxiliary devices depending on the experiment or facility, adding further complexity. The successful management of such dynamic configurations demands a flexible and robust system capable of controlling data acquisition, monitoring experimental setups, enabling seamless reconfiguration, and integrating new devices with limited effort. This paper presents Constellation, a flexible and network-distributed control and data acquisition software framework tailored to laboratory and beamline environments, that addresses the limitations of existing solutions. The framework is designed with a focus on extensibility, providing a streamlined interface for instrument integration. It supports efficient system setup via network discovery mechanisms, promotes stability through autonomous operational features, and provides comprehensive documentation and supporting tools for operators and application developers such as controllers and logging interfaces. At the core of the architectural design is the autonomy of the individual components, called satellites, which can make independent decisions about their operation and communicate these decisions to other components. This paper introduces the design principles and framework architecture of Constellation, presents the available graphical user interfaces, shares insights from initial successful deployments, and provides an outlook on future developments and applications.

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗