SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “variable frequency drive”

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.

164 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

Solar Dynamics Observatory Guidance, Navigation, and Control System Overview

The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) was designed and built at the Goddard Space Flight Center, launched from Cape Canaveral on February 11, 2010, and reached its final geosynchronous science orbit on March 16, 2010. The purpose of SDO is to observe the Sun and continuously relay data to a dedicated ground station. SDO remains Sun-pointing throughout most of its mission for the instruments to take measurements of the Sun. The SDO attitude control system (ACS) is a single-fault tolerant design. Its fully redundant attitude sensor complement includes sixteen coarse Sun sensors (CSSs), a digital Sun sensor (DSS), three two-axis inertial reference units (IRUs), and two star trackers (STs). The ACS also makes use of the four guide telescopes included as a part of one of the science instruments. Attitude actuation is performed using four reaction wheels assemblies (RWAs) and eight thrusters, with a single main engine used to provide velocity-change thrust for orbit raising. The attitude control software has five nominal control modes, three wheel-based modes and two thruster-based modes. A wheel-based Safehold running in the attitude control electronics box improves the robustness of the system as a whole. All six modes are designed on the same basic proportional-integral-derivative attitude error structure, with more robust modes setting their integral gains to zero. This paper details the final overall design of the SDO guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) system and how it was used in practice during SDO launch, commissioning, and nominal operations. This overview will include the ACS control modes, attitude determination and sensor calibration, the high gain antenna (HGA) calibration, and jitter mitigation operation. The Solar Dynamics Observatory mission is part of the NASA Living With a Star program, which seeks to understand the changing Sun and its effects on the Solar System, life, and society. To this end, the SDO spacecraft carries three Sun-observing instruments: Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI), led by Stanford University; Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA), led by Lockheed Martin Space and Astrophysics Laboratory; and Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE), led by the University of Colorado. The basic mission is to observe the Sun for a very high percentage of the 5-year mission (10-year goal) with long stretches of uninterrupted observations and with constant, high-data-rate transmission to a dedicated ground station to be located in White Sands, New Mexico. These goals guided the design of the spacecraft bus that will carry and service the three-instrument payload. Overarching design goals for the bus are geosynchronous orbit, near-constant Sun observations with the ability to fly through eclipses, and constant HGA contact with the dedicated ground station. A three-axis stabilized ACS is needed both to point at the Sun accurately and to keep the roll about the Sun vector correctly positioned with respect to the solar north pole. This roll control is especially important for the magnetic field imaging of HM I. The mission requirements have several general impacts on the ACS design. Both the AIA and HMI instruments are very sensitive to the blurring caused by jitter. Each has an image stabilization system (ISS) with some ability to filter out high frequency motion, but below the bandwidth of the ISS the control system must compensate for disturbances within the ACS bandwidth or avoid exciting jitter at higher frequencies. Within the ACS bandwidth, the control requirement imposed by AIA is to place the center of the solar disk no more than 2 arc sec, 3 , from a body-defined target based on one of the GTs that accompany the instrument. This body-defined target, called the science reference boresight (SRB), was determined from the postlaunch orientation of the GTs by averaging the bounding telescope boresights for pitch to get a pitch SRB coordinate, and by averaging the bounding boresights for yaw toet the yaw SRB coordinate. The location of this SRB in the 0.5-deg field-of-view for each GT then becomes the central target for each telescope; one GT is selected for use as the ACS controlling guide telescope (CGT) at any given time. Fine Sun-pointing is effected based on this SRB for all three instruments when the Sun is within the linear range of the CGT. In addition to limiting jitter, HMI science requires averaging several observations, making the instrument sensitive to low frequency motion that induces differential motion between each observation. This requires the spacecraft attitude to be stable about the roll axis to approximately 10 arcsec over a ten-minute period. Instrument calibrations require that the spacecraft point the SRB up to 2.5 degrees in pitch and yaw away from the center of the Sun, placing the Sun outside the field-of-view of the guide telescopes. In such instances, when the GTs cannot provide the definitive target for the ACS, on-board attitude determination combined with ephemeris prediction of the Sun direction must provide the definitive target. EVE is capable of observing the Sun with less dependence on attitude control. However, the ground data processing needs for calibrations result in the most strict attitude knowledge requirements for the mission: [35,70,70] arcsec, 3 , of knowledge with respect to the center of the solar disk. In addition to driving the ACS sensor selection, the knowledge requirements, which have their effect primarily during Inertial mode calibrations, drive the accuracy requirements for the solar ephemeris. The need to achieve and maintain geosynchronous orbit (GEO) drove the need for high-efficiency propulsive systems and appropriate attitude control. The main engine provided high specific impulse for the maneuvers to attain GEO, while the smaller ACS thrusters managed the disturbance torques of the larger engine and provided the capability for much smaller adjustment burns on orbit. SDO s large solar profile means that solar radiation pressure is a large torque disturbance, and the momentum buildup from this disturbance and the GEO altitude drives the ACS to use thrusters to manage vehicle momentum. The demanding data capture budget for the mission, however, requires SDO to avoid frequent thruster maneuvers, while concerns about on-orbit jitter restrict the maximum desired wheel speeds desired from the RWAs. The plan for on-orbit wheel speed and momentum management will be discussed as well as what is now being done in operation after the jitter environment was characterized. The SDO ACS hardware complement is single-fault tolerant. Two main processors carry virtually identical copies of the command and data handling and ACS software, and two identical attitude control electronics (ACE) boxes carry Coldfire processors with contingency ACS software and other hardware interface cards; the ACE structure allows reaction wheels to be commanded by the Sun-pointing Safehold independent of the Mil Std 1553 data bus. The sixteen Adcole CSSs are grouped into primary and backup sets of eight sensors, each set providing the ability to calculate a sun vector. Each set of eight eyes provides full 4 -steradian coverage. The Adcole DSS comprises an optics head and a separate electronics box providing a 1553 data interface. The electronics box is mounted inside the Faraday cage created by the spacecraft bus module. The DSS head with its 32- deg square FOV is mounted on the instrument module with its boresight along the spacecraft X axis, nearly aligned with the Sun during observations. Adcole has designed the DSS calibration parameters so that the accuracy is 0.24 arcminutes within 10 deg of the boresight, and diminishes to 3 arcminutes as the Sun moves towards the edges of its FOV . This DSS calibration scheme provides higher accuracy attitude determination over the range of the instrument calibration maneuvers.

Morgenstern, Wendy M.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Simulating the Formation of Lunar Floor-Fracture Craters Using Elastoviscoplastic Relaxation

Lunar floor-fracture craters formed during the height of mare basalt emplacement. Due to a general temporal and spatial relation with the maria, these craters, numbering some 200, may be diagnostic of the thermal structure of the crust during this time. As the name suggests, these craters exhibit brittle failure, generally limited to the central floor region. That, and a shallower depth than fresh lunar craters, has led to two main theories as to their formation: laccolith emplacement under the crater and viscous relaxation. The implications of each model for the state of the Moon's crust during this time are quite different, so the viability of each model must be checked. Laccolith emplacement has been treated elsewhere. However, previous attempts to study the relaxation of the craters have assumed only a uniform, Newtonian viscous response of the near surface to the topographic driving forces, and simply postulated that the fractures resulted from tensile stresses associated with floor uplift. Here, we use a more sophisticated rheological model that includes not only non-Newtonian viscous behavior (i.e., the viscosity is stress-dependent), but also incorporates elastic behavior and a plastic component to the rheology to directly simulate the formation of the floor fractures. The results of our simulations show that while elastoviscoplastic relaxation is potentially viable for larger floor-fracture craters, it is not viable for craters with diameters < or = 60 km, the size of the majority of floor-fracture craters. We employ the finite element method, a numerical technique well suited for boundary-value problems, via the commercially available MARC software package. To test the viability of topographic relaxation, our goal is to prepare the simulations as to maximize the amount of relaxation. We take advantage of the natural axisymmetry of craters, simulating one radial plane. Initial shapes are based on data for fresh craters from Pike. To simplify implementation, a fourth order polynomial is used for the basin, while a third order inverse function is used for the rim. This form closely approximates the long-wavelength behavior of complex craters, while ignoring higher-frequency topography, save the rim. This approximation is appropriate because crater relaxation is strongly controlled by long-wavelength topography. Loading is accomplished assuming a uniform gravity field (1.62 m/s-square) and a uniform density of 2900 kg/cubic m. The initial stress state is set to be hydrostatic, with an additional pressure term to account for any overlying topography. This additional pressure term is tapered exponentially with depth. While the simulations quickly settle on a preferred stress state, and while the final solution is fairly insensitive to the choice of the e-folding depth of the taper, selecting an e-folding depth close to the diameter of the crater sets the initial stress state near the preferred state. We assume a diuranally averaged surface temperature of -20 C, and allow temperature to increase with depth at a rate of 50 K//km. Assuming a thermal conductivity of 2 W/in/K, this gradient translates to a heat flow of 100mW/square m, an extremely high value for the Moon. Temperature, of course, will not increase without bound. To maximize relaxation, we allow our temperature profile to increase linearly until it reaches the solidus (assumed to be 1200C) at a depth of 24.4 km, at which point it is kept constant. The presence of melt will drop the bulk viscosity; however, we have no rheological control for partial melts. Therefore, we make no attempt to simulate this situation. Elastoviscoplastic rheological model. In general, geologic materials can behave in three main ways: elastically, viscously (via solid-state creep), and brittly (plasticity is a continuum approach to simulate this phenomenon). We combine these three deformation mechanisms in an extended Maxwell solid, where the total strain can be broken down into a simple summation of the elastic, creep, and plastic strains. In relaxation phenomena in general, the system takes advantage of any means possible to eliminate deviatoric stresses by relaxing away the topography. Previous analyses have only modeled the viscous response. Comparatively, the elastic response in our model can augment the relaxation, to a point. This effect decreases as the elastic response becomes stiffer; indeed, in the limit of infinite elastic Young's modulus (and with no plasticity), the solution converges on the purely viscous solution. Igneous rocks common to the lunar near-surface have Young's modulii in the range of 10-100 GPa. To maximize relaxation, we use a Young's modulus of 10 GPa. (There is negligible sensitivity to the other elastic modulus, the Poisson's ratio; we use 0.25.) For the viscous response, we use a flow law for steady-state creep in thoroughly dried Columbia diabase, because the high plagioclase (about 70 vol%) and orthopyroxene (about 17 vol%) content is similar to the composition of the lunar highland crust as described by remote sensing and sample studies: noritic anorthosite. This flow law is highly non-Newtonian, i.e., the viscosity is highly stress dependent. That, and the variability with temperature, stands in strong contrast to previous examinations of lunar floor-fracture crater relaxation. To model discrete, brittle faulting, we assume "Byerlee's rule," a standard geodynamical technique. We implement this "rule" with an-angle of internal friction of about 40 deg, and a higher-than-normal cohesion of about 3.2 MPa (to approximate the breaking of unfractured rock). The actual behavior of geologic materials is more complex than in our rheological model, so the uncertainties in the plasticity do not represent the state-of-the-art error. Additional information is contained in the original.

Dombard, A. J.↗