Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

VanZwieten, Tannen

Publications and source records attributed to VanZwieten, Tannen.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Fast Attitude Maneuvers for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

This paper describes a new operational capability for fast attitude maneuvering that is being developed for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). The LRO hosts seven scientific instruments. For some instruments, it is necessary to per-form large off-nadir slews to collect scientific data. The accessibility of off-nadir science targets has been limited by slew rates and/or occultation, thermal and power constraints along the standard slew path. The new fast maneuver (FastMan) algorithm employs a slew path that autonomously avoids constraint violations while simultaneously minimizing the slew time. The FastMan algo-rithm will open regions of observation that were not previously feasible and improve the overall science return for LRO's extended mission. The design of an example fast maneuver for LRO's Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter that reduc-es the slew time by nearly 40% is presented. Pre-flight, ground-test, end-to-end tests are also presented to demonstrate the readiness of FastMan. This pioneer-ing work is extensible and has potential to improve the science data collection return of other NASA spacecraft, especially those observatories in extended mission phases where new applications are proposed to expand their utility.

Karpenko, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2015

In-Flight Suppression of a De-Stabilized F/A-18 Structural Mode Using the Space Launch System Adaptive Augmenting Control System

Adaptive Augmenting Control (AAC) has been developed for NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) family of launch vehicles and implemented as a baseline part of its flight control system (FCS). To raise the technical readiness level of the SLS AAC algorithm, the Launch Vehicle Adaptive Control (LVAC) flight test program was conducted in which the SLS FCS prototype software was employed to control the pitch axis of Dryden's specially outfitted F/A-18, the Full Scale Advanced Systems Test Bed (FAST). This presentation focuses on a set of special test cases which demonstrate the successful mitigation of the unstable coupling of an F/A-18 airframe structural mode with the SLS FCS.

Wall, John↗
NASA NTRS2014

Stability Assessment and Tuning of an Adaptively Augmented Classical Controller for Launch Vehicle Flight Control

Recently, a robust and practical adaptive control scheme for launch vehicles [ [1] has been introduced. It augments a classical controller with a real-time loop-gain adaptation, and it is therefore called Adaptive Augmentation Control (AAC). The loop-gain will be increased from the nominal design when the tracking error between the (filtered) output and the (filtered) command trajectory is large; whereas it will be decreased when excitation of flex or sloshing modes are detected. There is a need to determine the range and rate of the loop-gain adaptation in order to retain (exponential) stability, which is critical in vehicle operation, and to develop some theoretically based heuristic tuning methods for the adaptive law gain parameters. The classical launch vehicle flight controller design technics are based on gain-scheduling, whereby the launch vehicle dynamics model is linearized at selected operating points along the nominal tracking command trajectory, and Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) controller design techniques are employed to ensure asymptotic stability of the tracking error dynamics, typically by meeting some prescribed Gain Margin (GM) and Phase Margin (PM) specifications. The controller gains at the design points are then scheduled, tuned and sometimes interpolated to achieve good performance and stability robustness under external disturbances (e.g. winds) and structural perturbations (e.g. vehicle modeling errors). While the GM does give a bound for loop-gain variation without losing stability, it is for constant dispersions of the loop-gain because the GM is based on frequency-domain analysis, which is applicable only for LTI systems. The real-time adaptive loop-gain variation of the AAC effectively renders the closed-loop system a time-varying system, for which it is well-known that the LTI system stability criterion is neither necessary nor sufficient when applying to a Linear Time-Varying (LTV) system in a frozen-time fashion. Therefore, a generalized stability metric for time-varying loop=gain perturbations is needed for the AAC.

VanZwieten, Tannen↗
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↗