Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

John Wall

Publications and source records attributed to John Wall.

11 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Treatment of Launch Vehicle Flight Control Stability Margin Reductions for Crewed Missions with Emphasis on Slosh Dynamics

NESC’s perspective for crewed spaceflight: Acceptance of flight control gain/phase stability margin reductions from industry standards should be accompanied by an adequately extensive technical treatment, including: •Analyzing the fundamental physics involved, with applicable simulation tool verification (particularly if results are dissimilar among rules of thumb, linear tools, nonlinear analysis, and flight data) •Conducting sensitivity studies in time and frequency domains to analyze effects of possible parameter and system variations •Studying the effects of the consequence of instability associated with offending modes by running stressing cases in time domain •Assessing alternative flight control designs to demonstrate that present design appropriately balances overall vehicle risk (i.e., quantitatively delineate chosen tradeoffs between various stability margins and vehicle performance in the context of risk/consequence) Work presented here represents an example summary of expected engineering work to flight-certify crewed missions with unstable slosh modes and reduced stability margins

Launch Vehicle Flight Control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis and Application of Novel and Heritage Acceleration Limiting Algorithms for SLS on Ascent

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently building the Space Launch System (SLS) Block-1 launch vehicle, to be used as the crewed heavy-lift vehicle for the Artemis series of missions. The SLS Block-1 guidance subsystem utilizes a nonlinear algorithm derived from Shuttle heritage for limiting the vehicle’s induced maximum axial acceleration during ascent flight, known as g-limiting. Even though g-limiting has demonstrated stability and robustness through several design analysis cycles and the extensive Shuttle flight history, there are no available documents that demonstrate that this algorithm has been proven stable through conventional controls stability analysis. This paper highlights the non-linear nature of g-limit, presents an alternative methodology to employ a linear version of this algorithm, performs assessment of selected linear gains using classical stability analysis and, conducts a comparison of both approaches through Six Degrees-of-Freedom (6-DOF) Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

Jason Everett↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Structural Dynamics Observations in Space Launch System Green Run Hot Fire Testing

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of eight mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Green Run Hot Fire (GRHF) of the SLS Core Stage provided a flight-like ground test environment for verification of integrated vehicle TVC performance. A TVC model coupled to a vehicle structural dynamic model has been developed previously and incrementally validated in subsystem tests and simulations. Still, some aspects of TVC performance in GRHF were not anticipated. The ensuing investigation demonstrated the need for well-instrumented test environments, various levels of modeling fidelity, test-representative structural models, and caution in reuse of legacy components. This paper is the sixth installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. It introduces the salient structural dynamic phenomena uncovered in ambient and hot fire testing. During the Green Run test campaign, a comparison of ambient and hot fire step responses showed a significant change in apparent damping due to the presence of friction, challenging long standing assumptions that friction could be neglected. Additionally, the characteristic response of the engine and thrust structure during GRHF proved to be more complex than anticipated, as evidenced by the available actuator, thrust structure, and engine measurements. While the string-potentiometer based test instrumentation was intended to allow for reconstruction of the engine angles along the two control axes, the geometric placement, location uncertainty, and responses in overlapping frequency spectra revealed additional phenomena requiring further analysis and post-processing. The observations from both modal and frequency response testing during the Green Run ambient and hot fire configurations led to Engine and Core Stage FEM (finite element model) updates. When evidence of unexpected engine motion was found in engine section accelerometer data, the authors pursued additional structural analysis leading to FEM updates associated with the TVC gimbal and thrust structure. Through collaboration between structures, TVC, and flight control disciplines, the test-informed models and root-cause analysis led to confident flight rationale for the first flight of the SLS launch vehicle.

Richard Moore↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Core Stage TVC Systems Engineering Challenges in Reusing Heritage Hardware

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Space Shuttle heritage hardware directly reused on SLS includes the Orbiter TVC hydraulic servo-actuators (with two slight design modifications), the Orbiter hydraulic circulation pumps, the Orbiter gimbal block/bearing, and the Solid Rocket Booster hydraulic pumps. The Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) is derived from the Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). The Orbiter and Solid Rocket Booster APU turbines are powered by hot gas produced by catalyzed hydrazine decomposition. On the SLS Core Stage, the CAPU turbine is spun using cold gas tapped-off from the RS-25 to CS liquid hydrogen autogenous pressurization line. While direct reuse or slight modification of existing hardware may seem to be a triple-win for a program in cost, schedule, and technical risk mitigation, those benefits can only be realized when its degree of application in a new system is carefully and thoughtfully managed. The heritage hardware reuse should be prescribed within the heritage design capability and reuse environments must lie within the envelope of heritage qualification testing. Despite the significant test and flight experience of the Shuttle heritage hardware components, successful integration with the newly designed CS TVC components and incorporation into the stage design proved to be a challenge which required re-qualification of the heritage hardware as well as thorough integrated testing to support flight certification. Examples of the challenges that were overcome include: re-qualifying heritage hardware to survive new shock and vibration environments, certifying performance of extensively modified heritage hardware, regenerating design insight due to lack of available heritage vendor data, showing compliance to modern structural design standards, translation of heritage requirements for analog avionics to modern digital avionics, and interfacing heritage mechanical hardware with newly designed avionics. This paper is the second installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. This paper will discuss several engineering challenges encountered during the development process for SLS CS TVC and how they were successfully overcome to reach flight readiness.

Thrust Vector Control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System: Core Stage Thrust Vector Control Systems Engineering Challenges in Reusing Heritage Hardware

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Space Shuttle heritage hardware directly reused on SLS includes the Orbiter TVC hydraulic servo-actuators (with two slight design modifications), the Orbiter hydraulic circulation pumps, the Orbiter gimbal block/bearing, and the Solid Rocket Booster hydraulic pumps. The Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) is derived from the Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). The Orbiter and Solid Rocket Booster APU turbines are powered by hot gas produced by catalyzed hydrazine decomposition. On the SLS Core Stage, the CAPU turbine is spun using cold gas tapped-off from the RS-25 to CS liquid hydrogen autogenous pressurization line. While direct reuse or slight modification of existing hardware may seem to be a triple-win for a program in cost, schedule, and technical risk mitigation, those benefits can only be realized when its degree of application in a new system is carefully and thoughtfully managed. The heritage hardware reuse should be prescribed within the heritage design capability and reuse environments must lie within the envelope of heritage qualification testing. Despite the significant test and flight experience of the Shuttle heritage hardware components, successful integration with the newly designed CS TVC components and incorporation into the stage design proved to be a challenge which required re-qualification of the heritage hardware as well as thorough integrated testing to support flight certification. Examples of the challenges that were overcome include: re-qualifying heritage hardware to survive new shock and vibration environments, certifying performance of extensively modified heritage hardware, regenerating design insight due to lack of available heritage vendor data, showing compliance to modern structural design standards, translation of heritage requirements for analog avionics to modern digital avionics, and interfacing heritage mechanical hardware with newly designed avionics. This paper is the second installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. This paper will discuss several engineering challenges encountered during the development process for SLS CS TVC and how they were successfully overcome to reach flight readiness.

Thrust Vector Control↗