Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “6DOF”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

6DOF Testing of the SLS Inertial Navigation Unit

The Navigation System on the NASA Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 vehicle performs initial alignment of the Inertial Navigation System (INS) navigation frame through gyrocompass alignment (GCA). Because the navigation architecture for the SLS Block 1 vehicle is a purely inertial system, the accuracy of the achieved orbit relative to mission requirements is very sensitive to initial alignment accuracy. The assessment of this sensitivity and many others via simulation is a part of the SLS Model-Based Design and Model-Based Requirements approach. As a part of the aforementioned, 6DOF Monte Carlo simulation is used in large part to develop and demonstrate verification of program requirements. To facilitate this and the GN&C flight software design process, an SLS-Program-controlled Design Math Model (DMM) of the SLS INS was developed by the SLS Navigation Team. The SLS INS model implements all of the key functions of the hardware-namely, GCA, inertial navigation, and FDIR (Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery)-in support of SLS GN&C design requirements verification. Despite the strong sensitivity to initial alignment, GCA accuracy requirements were not verified by test due to program cost and schedule constraints. Instead, the system relies upon assessments performed using the SLS INS model. In order to verify SLS program requirements by analysis, the SLS INS model is verified and validated against flight hardware. In lieu of direct testing of GCA accuracy in support of requirement verification, the SLS Navigation Team proposed and conducted an engineering test to, among other things, validate the GCA performance and overall behavior of the SLS INS model through comparison with test data. This paper will detail dynamic hardware testing of the SLS INS, conducted by the SLS Navigation Team at Marshall Space Flight Center's 6DOF Table Facility, in support of GCA performance characterization and INS model validation. A 6-DOF motion platform was used to produce 6DOF pad twist and sway dynamics while a simulated SLS flight computer communicated with the INS. Tests conducted include an evaluation of GCA algorithm robustness to increasingly dynamic pad environments, an examination of GCA algorithm stability and accuracy over long durations, and a long-duration static test to gather enough data for Allan Variance analysis. Test setup, execution, and data analysis will be discussed, including analysis performed in support of SLS INS model validation.

Geohagan, Kevin↗
NASA NTRS2018

6DOF Testing of the SLS Inertial Navigation Unit

The Navigation System on the NASA Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 vehicle performs initial alignment of the Inertial Navigation System (INS) navigation frame through gyrocompass alignment (GCA). In lieu of direct testing of GCA accuracy in support of requirement verification, the SLS Navigation Team proposed and conducted an engineering test to, among other things, validate the GCA performance and overall behavior of the SLS INS model through comparison with test data. This paper will detail dynamic hardware testing of the SLS INS, conducted by the SLS Navigation Team at Marshall Space Flight Center's 6DOF Table Facility, in support of GCA performance characterization and INS model validation. A 6-DOF motion platform was used to produce 6DOF pad twist and sway dynamics while a simulated SLS flight computer communicated with the INS. Tests conducted include an evaluation of GCA algorithm robustness to increasingly dynamic pad environments, an examination of GCA algorithm stability and accuracy over long durations, and a long-duration static test to gather enough data for Allan Variance analysis. Test setup, execution, and data analysis will be discussed, including analysis performed in support of SLS INS model validation.

Geohagan, Kevin W.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Time and Frequency-Domain Cross-Verification of SLS 6DOF Trajectory Simulations

The SLS GNC team and its partners have developed several time- and frequency-based simulations for development and analysis of the proposed SLS launch vehicle. The simulations differ in fidelity and some have unique functionality that allows them to perform specific analyses. Some examples of the purposes of the various models are: trajectory simulation, multi-body separation, Monte Carlo, hardware in the loop, loads, and frequency domain stability analyses. While no two simulations are identical, many of the models are essentially six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) representations of the SLS plant dynamics, hardware implementation, and flight software. Thus at a high level all of those models should be in agreement. Comparison of outputs from several SLS trajectory and stability analysis tools are ongoing as part of the program's current verification effort. The purpose of these comparisons is to highlight modeling and analysis differences, verify simulation data sources, identify inconsistencies and minor errors, and ultimately to verify output data as being a good representation of the vehicle and subsystem dynamics. This paper will show selected verification work in both the time and frequency domain from the current design analysis cycle of the SLS for several of the design and analysis simulations. In the time domain, the tools that will be compared are MAVERIC, CLVTOPS, SAVANT, STARS, ARTEMIS, and POST 2. For the frequency domain analysis, the tools to be compared are FRACTAL, SAVANT, and STARS. The paper will include discussion of these tools including their capabilities, configurations, and the uses to which they are put in the SLS program. Determination of the criteria by which the simulations are compared (matching criteria) requires thoughtful consideration, and there are several pitfalls that may occur that can severely punish a simulation if not considered carefully. The paper will discuss these considerations and will present a framework for responding to these issues when they arise. For example, small event timing differences can lead to large differences in mass properties if the criteria are to measure those properties at the same time, or large differences in altitude if the criteria are to measure those properties when the simulation experiences a staging event. Similarly, a tiny difference in phase can lead to large gain margin differences for frequency-domain comparisons of gain margins.

VanZwieten, Tannen↗
NASA NTRS2017

Time and Frequency-Domain Cross-Verification of SLS 6DOF Trajectory Simulations

The Space Launch System (SLS) Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) team and its partners have developed several time- and frequency-based simulations for development and analysis of the proposed SLS launch vehicle. The simulations differ in fidelity and some have unique functionality that allows them to perform specific analyses. Some examples of the purposes of the various models are: trajectory simulation, multi-body separation, Monte Carlo, hardware in the loop, loads, and frequency domain stability analyses. While no two simulations are identical, many of the models are essentially six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) representations of the SLS plant dynamics, hardware implementation, and flight software. Thus at a high level all of those models should be in agreement. Comparison of outputs from several SLS trajectory and stability analysis tools are ongoing as part of the program's current verification effort. The purpose of these comparisons is to highlight modeling and analysis differences, verify simulation data sources, identify inconsistencies and minor errors, and ultimately to verify output data as being a good representation of the vehicle and subsystem dynamics. This paper will show selected verification work in both the time and frequency domain from the current design analysis cycle of the SLS for several of the design and analysis simulations. In the time domain, the tools that will be compared are MAVERIC, CLVTOPS, SAVANT, STARS, ARTEMIS, and POST 2. For the frequency domain analysis, the tools to be compared are FRACTAL, SAVANT, and STARS. The paper will include discussion of these tools including their capabilities, configurations, and the uses to which they are put in the SLS program. Determination of the criteria by which the simulations are compared (matching criteria) requires thoughtful consideration, and there are several pitfalls that may occur that can severely punish a simulation if not considered carefully. The paper will discuss these considerations and will present a framework for responding to these issues when they arise. For example, small event timing differences can lead to large differences in mass properties if the criteria are to measure those properties at the same time, or large differences in altitude if the criteria are to measure those properties when the simulation experiences a staging event. Similarly, a tiny difference in phase can lead to large gain margin differences for frequency-domain comparisons of gain margins.

Johnson, Matthew↗
NASA NTRS2024

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 24-04: 6DOF Check Cases

In 2015, the NESC released benchmark Earth-based check-cases for well specified, rigid-body, six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) aero/spacecraft models to promote consistent and accurate flight simulations across multiple Agency tools and facilities. Recently, the NESC expanded upon that effort to add Lunar-based check-cases to support new lunar exploration initiatives. This study produced a smaller, focused set of cases that exercise new and unique features of missions in the lunar environment in comparison with 8 high-fidelity NASA simulation tools and provides a measure of validation for simulations supporting Human Landing Systems.

Flight Mechanics↗
NASA NTRS2024

Expansion of Check-Cases for 6DOF Simulation: Appendix A

This is the Appendix containing figures of simulation output data plots for comparison from the assessment, “Expansion of Check-Cases for 6DOF Simulation”. This effort expands upon a previous NASA activity that developed flight simulation benchmark check-cases to include new check-cases for the Cislunar domain, comparing multiple NASA simulation tools. The results of this effort describe the benefits of standardizing inputs, simulation comparisons and describe an interactive website that enables comparison of externally provided simulation data. Participating simulations improved their software and identified implementation errors. This activity elevated simulation credibility and provided a measure of validation for the simulations actively in use for NASA’s Human Landing Systems (HLS).

Modeling↗
NASA NTRS2024

Expansion of Check-Cases for 6DOF Simulation

This is the Appendix containing a description of the solution for Case 1 in the assessment, “Expansion of Check-Cases for 6DOF Simulation”. For cases of spherical gravity, it is possible to provide a two-body solution without recourse to numerical integration and thus it is accurate to machine precision. Python code for a Keplerian Propagator (propagate.py) which produced a reference trajectory for Case 1 is provided in this appendix. There is also code for generating test cases which was used as an independent verification of the propagator. This is a high-level description of the algorithm employed. The documentation of each function includes implementation details, including equations for each task.

Modeling↗
NASA NTRS2024

Expansion of Check-Cases for 6DOF Simulation

This effort expands upon a previous NASA activity that developed flight simulation benchmark check-cases to include new check-cases for the Cislunar domain, comparing multiple NASA simulation tools. The results of this effort describe the benefits of standardizing inputs, simulation comparisons and describe an interactive website that enables comparison of externally provided simulation data. Participating simulations improved their software and identified implementation errors. This activity elevated simulation credibility and provided a measure of validation for the simulations actively in use for NASA’s Human Landing Systems (HLS).

Modeling↗
NASA NTRS2005

Six-Degree-of-Freedom Trajectory Optimization Utilizing a Two-Timescale Collocation Architecture

Six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) trajectory optimization of a reentry vehicle is solved using a two-timescale collocation methodology. This class of 6DOF trajectory problems are characterized by two distinct timescales in their governing equations, where a subset of the states have high-frequency dynamics (the rotational equations of motion) while the remaining states (the translational equations of motion) vary comparatively slowly. With conventional collocation methods, the 6DOF problem size becomes extraordinarily large and difficult to solve. Utilizing the two-timescale collocation architecture, the problem size is reduced significantly. The converged solution shows a realistic landing profile and captures the appropriate high-frequency rotational dynamics. A large reduction in the overall problem size (by 55%) is attained with the two-timescale architecture as compared to the conventional single-timescale collocation method. Consequently, optimum 6DOF trajectory problems can now be solved efficiently using collocation, which was not previously possible for a system with two distinct timescales in the governing states.

Desai, Prasun N.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Demonstration of automated proximity and docking technology

Automated spacecraft docking operations are being performed using a full scale motion based simulator and an optical sensor. This presentation will discuss the work in progress at TRW and MSFC facilities to study the problem of automated proximity and docking operations. The docking sensor used in the MSFC Optical Sensor and simulation runs are performed using the MSFC Flat Floor Facility. The control algorithms and six degrees of freedom (6DOF) simulation software were developed at TRW and integrated into the MSFC facility. Key issues being studied are the quantification of docking sensor requirements and operational constraints necessary to perform automated docking maneuvers, control algorithms capable of performing automated docking in the presence of sensitive and noisy sensor data, and sensor technologies for automated proximity and docking operations. As part of this study the MSFC sensor characteristics were analyzed and modeled so that off line simulation runs can be performed for control algorithm testing. Our goal is to develop and demonstrate full 6DOF docking capabilities with actual sensors on the MSFC motion based simulator. We present findings from actual docking simulation runs which show sensor and control loop performance as well as problem areas which require close attention. The evolution of various control algorithms using both phase plane and Clohessy-Wiltshire techniques are discussed. In addition, 6DOF target acquisition and control strategies are described.

Anderson, Robert L.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Thruster configurations for maneuvering heavy payloads

The cargo transfer vehicle (CTV) will be required to perform six degree of freedom (6DOF) maneuvers while carrying a wide range of payloads varying from 100,000 lbm to no payload. The current baseline design configuration for the CTV uses a forward propulsion module (FPM) mounted in front of the payload and the CTV behind the payload so that the center of gravity (CG) of the combined stack is contained between the thruster sets. This allows for efficient rotation and translations of heavy payloads in all directions; however, the FPM is a costly item, so it is desirable to find design solutions which do not require the FPM. This presentation provides an overview of the work performed in analyzing the FPM requirements for the CTV. Specifically, key issues related to thruster configuration requirements for operating the CTV without the FPM, throughout the 100,000 lbm payload to no payload range, will be highlighted. In this study, only the reaction control system (RCS) thruster configurations are considered and the orbit adjust engines are not addressed. An important output of this study is the viable alternative thruster configurations which eliminate the need for the FPM. Initial results were derived using analytical techniques and simulation analysis tools. Results from the preliminary analysis were used as inputs for our 6DOF simulation. The 6DOF simulation was used to validate our design guidelines and to verify the performance of the thruster configurations.

Tsugawa, Roy K.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Manual Crew Override of Vehicle Landings Following G-Transitions

BACKGROUND Manual control during exploration spaceflight consists of both planned automated supervisory control and unplanned crew override. This crew override capability is critical to enable overall mission success during landing contingencies. However, the introduction of manual override capabilities must be implemented to enable crews to mitigate risks introduced by human error. Adaptive changes in the sensorimotor system can manifest during g-transitions as spatial disorientation. While training and landing aids enable successful landing through disorientation, these adaptive changes may increase cognitive demand that needs to be accounted for in the manual control strategy. It is important to characterize these effects as soon as possible following the G-transition to develop appropriate countermeasures. METHODS In this study, we will examine operational piloting tasks following International Space Station (ISS) missions in a simulated lunar landing using a six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) motion base. The motion-based simulation will be implemented in our laboratory at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and will be available within hours following the return from commercial crew landings. The primary goals of this study are (1) to understand the impact of spaceflight on crew ability to perform manual crew override tasks, (2) to examine how adaptive changes in vestibular and cognitive function relate to changes in manual crew override proficiency, and (3) compare performance during late “just-in-time” on-board training with early post-flight crew performance. The impact of spaceflight on piloting capability will be assessed from pre- versus post-flight changes in crewmembers assigned to either short duration (< 30 day) or long duration (~6- month) missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Individual differences in post-flight vestibular and cognitive changes include motion sickness reports, measures of tilt motion perception accuracy and precision, and dual-task tracking. During the 6DOF lunar simulation, the crew will manually takeover attitude and rate-of-descent to the nominal or re-designated landing aim point during the approach phase. The outcome measures for the lunar crew override tasks will be the percent time maintaining actual vehicle states, e.g., attitude and rate-of-descent, within recommended guidance during the landing approach, number and maximum deviation outside limits, and root mean square error (RMSE). Given that “just-in-time” (JIT) training is an operational expectation for the Human Landing System (HLS) program, all participants will perform late inflight JIT training for each manual crew override task in which they will participate. Crew proficiency will be captured inflight during JIT training that will be implemented on a laptop with hand controllers to allow the crewmember to practice the landing task procedures like the approach implemented for JIT training with Shuttle landing and ISS telerobotic tasks. COUNTERMEASURE UPDATES The lunar lander simulation has been implemented onto a two-laptop display system where subjects select from alternative landing points, based upon avoiding hazards that the on-board system identifies during the landing. The subject makes inputs using a rotational hand controller (i.e., joystick) and a translational hand controller, which are processed by simulated vehicle dynamics to update the vehicle attitude and rate of descent. Subjects will utilize a combination of flight, situation, and status displays to monitor the state of the simulated vehicle. The simulation exports tilt and translation movements to a 6DOF motion base synced to visual movements and provides representative vestibular cues to the subject while performing the task inside an enclosed cabin featuring a simulated lunar out-the-window view and a heads-down lander cockpit view. RELEVANCE This project will deliver an operational demonstration of crew override capability following spaceflight and identify potential deficits that may require remediation. Comparison of individual vestibular and cognitive changes with crew override performance will help better characterize the manual control risks associated with sensorimotor alterations. The inclusion of “just-in-time” on-board training will ensure we are characterizing changes in override proficiency with this expected countermeasure in place. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors acknowledge contributions from Draper, HLS Joint Test Panel, Crew HLS Interfaces for Piloting Working Group, and Dynamic Skills Trainer (DST) Lab toward the development of the lunar landing simulation. This project is funded by the Human Health Countermeasures Element.

Austin M Bollinger↗
NASA NTRS1991

US automated rendezvous and capture capabilities review. Remote umbilical system abstract

This document will describe the technology developed at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to demonstrate automatic tracking, docking, and mating of umbilical systems. Specifically the use of a real time six degree of freedom (6DOF) target tracking vision system, (developed by Adaptive Automation, Inc. under contract to KSC), is discussed in detail. The paper describes the use of mechanical compliance in the docking, mating, and tracking-after-mating operations. The vision system computes six coordinates that define the position and orientation of a three dimensional target using data from a single CCD camera. The camera is mounted on a 6DOF robot arm. After target coordinates are computed, they are transmitted to a supervisory computer which controls the robot motion in real time. Details of the image processing algorithms, image processing hardware, and target configuration used in the vision system are discussed in the paper. The motion of the space vehicle relative to the service structure after mating led us to the development of a compliant system that allows enough displacement of the target relative to the camera so that tracking after mating may continue. This reduces internal stresses between flight and ground hardware.

Delcastillo, Eduardo Lopez↗
NASA NTRS1991

Six degree of freedom simulation system for evaluating automated rendezvous and docking spacecraft

Future logistics supply and servicing vehicles such as cargo transfer vehicles (CTV) must have full 6 degree of freedom (6DOF) capability in order to perform requisite rendezvous, proximity operations, and capture operations. The design and performance issues encountered when developing a 6DOF maneuvering spacecraft are very complex with subtle interactions which are not immediately obvious or easily anticipated. In order to deal with these complexities and develop robust maneuvering spacecraft designs, a simulation system and associated family of tools are used at TRW for generating and validating spacecraft performance requirements and guidance algorithms. An overview of the simulator and tools is provided. These are used by TRW for autonomous rendezvous and docking research projects including CTV studies.

Rourke, Kenneth H.↗
NASA NTRS1991

The MSFC space station/space operations mechanism test bed

The Space Station/Space Operations Mechanism Test Bed consists of the following: a hydraulically driven, computer controlled Six Degree-of-Freedom Motion System (6DOF); a six degree-of-freedom force and moment sensor; remote driving stations with computer generated or live TV graphics; and a parallel digital processor that performs calculations to support the real time simulation. The function of the Mechanism Test Bed is to test docking and berthing mechanisms for Space Station Freedom and other orbiting space vehicles in a real time, hardware-in-the-loop simulation environment. Typically, the docking and berthing mechanisms are composed of two mating components, one for each vehicle. In the facility, one component is attached to the motion system, while the other component is mounted to the force/moment sensor fixed in the support structure above the 6DOF. The six components of the contact forces/moments acting on the test article and its mating component are measured by the force/moment sensor.

Sutton, William G.↗