Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Vehicle testing”

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 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

L(sub 1) Adaptive Flight Control System: Flight Evaluation and Technology Transition

Certification of adaptive control technologies for both manned and unmanned aircraft represent a major challenge for current Verification and Validation techniques. A (missing) key step towards flight certification of adaptive flight control systems is the definition and development of analysis tools and methods to support Verification and Validation for nonlinear systems, similar to the procedures currently used for linear systems. In this paper, we describe and demonstrate the advantages of L(sub l) adaptive control architectures for closing some of the gaps in certification of adaptive flight control systems, which may facilitate the transition of adaptive control into military and commercial aerospace applications. As illustrative examples, we present the results of a piloted simulation evaluation on the NASA AirSTAR flight test vehicle, and results of an extensive flight test program conducted by the Naval Postgraduate School to demonstrate the advantages of L(sub l) adaptive control as a verifiable robust adaptive flight control system.

Xargay, Enric↗
NASA NTRS2015

Systems Engineering Management Plan NASA Traffic Aware Planner Integration Into P-180 Airborne Test-Bed

NASA's Traffic Aware Planner (TAP) is a cockpit decision support tool that provides aircrew with vertical and lateral flight-path optimizations with the intent of achieving significant fuel and time savings, while automatically avoiding traffic, weather, and restricted airspace conflicts. A key step towards the maturation and deployment of TAP concerned its operational evaluation in a representative flight environment. This Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) addresses the test-vehicle design, systems integration, and flight-test planning for the first TAP operational flight evaluations, which were successfully completed in November 2013. The trial outcomes are documented in the Traffic Aware Planner (TAP) flight evaluation paper presented at the 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA. (AIAA-2014-2166, Maris, J. M., Haynes, M. A., Wing, D. J., Burke, K. A., Henderson, J., & Woods, S. E., 2014).

Maris, John↗
NASA NTRS2016

Construction of Supersonic Flight Dynamics Test (SFDT-2) Vehicle Monte Carlo Splashdown Footprints for Use in Range Safety and Recovery Operations

The Low-Density Supersonic Dececlerator (LDSD) project performed the second test flight of a supersonic inflatable device (SIAD) and ring-sail parachute on June 8, 2015 over the Pacific Ocean west of Kauai. In order for recovery ships to quickly extract the test vehicle hardware from the ocean, and in the interest of safety to the population of the islands of Kauai and Nihau, statistical estimates of the splashdown location had to be performed. This paper describes the modeling assumptions used to generate the Monti Carlo splashdown trajectory simulation results and the use of the splashdown probability ellipses in support of satisfying range safety requirements.

Strauss, William D.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Construction of Supersonic Flight Dynamics Test (SFDT-2) Vehicle Monte Carlo Splashdown Footprints for Use in Range Safety and Recovery Planning

Overview of Low Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD) SFDT-2 ( Supersonic Flight Dynamics Test-2) flight profile; Description of Monte Carlo flight dynamics simulations performed; Modeling and uncertainties; Results with statistical prediction of test vehicle splashdown location; Use of Monte Carlo results for range safety and recovery planning.

Strauss, Bill↗
NASA NTRS2013

Vehicle Integrated Propulsion Research Tests

Overview of the Vehicle Integrated Propulsion Research Tests in the Vehicle Systems Safety Technologies project. This overview covers highlights of the completed VIPR I and VIPR II tests and also covers plans for the VIPR III test.

Sensors↗
NASA NTRS2018

Small Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Flight Testing of Enabling Vehicle Technologies for the UAS Traffic Management Project

Small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) have been studied and results indicate that there is a large array of highly-beneficial applications. These applications are too numerous to list, but include search and rescue, fire spotting, precision agriculture, etc. to name a few. Typically sUAS vehicles weigh less than 55 pounds and will be performing flight operations in the presence of manned aircraft and other sUAS. Certain sUAS applications, such as package delivery, will include operations in the close proximity of the general public. The full benefit from sUAS is contingent upon the resolution of several technological areas to enable free and widespread use of these vehicles. Technological areas in question include, but are not limited to: autonomous sense and avoid and deconfliction of sUAS from other sUAS and manned aircraft, communications and interfaces between the vehicle and human operators, and high-reliability autonomous systems. The NASA UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project is endeavoring to develop a traffic management system and concept of operations for these types of vehicles. An extensive sUAS flight test effort was performed to partially address vehicle-related technological areas and to shape an understanding of future developmental and test efforts for vehicles intended to use the UTM traffic management system. The flight testing described herein had the following objectives: 1) Install and test Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) systems developed for the automotive industry for potential sense and avoid sUAS applications; 2) Evaluate the use of cellular 4G systems to provide vehicle control; 3) Obtain high-resolution video imagery in support of image-based optical detection sense and avoid systems; 4) Acquire data in fixed-wing flight to support validation and maturation of an autonomous range containment system known as Safeguard in fixed-wing flight. A total of 53 flights were performed over 12 operational days at Beaver Dam Airpark in Elberon, VA. This work was sponsored by the UTM project that is part of the Aviation Operations and Safety Program (AOSP) at NASA.

Glaab, Louis J.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Lifting Body Flight Vehicles

NASA has a technology program in place to build the X-33 test vehicle and then the full sized Reusable Launch Vehicle, VentureStar. VentureStar is a Lifting Body (LB) flight vehicle which will carry our future payloads into orbit, and will do so at a much reduced cost. There were three design contenders for the new Reusable Launch Vehicle: a Winged Vehicle, a Vertical Lander, and the Lifting Body(LB). The LB design won the competition. A LB vehicle has no wings and derives its lift solely from the shape of its body, and has the unique advantages of superior volumetric efficiency, better aerodynamic efficiency at high angles-of-attack and hypersonic speeds, and reduced thermal protection system weight. Classically, in a ballistic vehicle, drag has been employed to control the level of deceleration in reentry. In the LB, lift enables the vehicle to decelerate at higher altitudes for the same velocity and defines the reentry corridor which includes a greater cross range. This paper outlines our LB heritage which was utilized in the design of the new Reusable Launch Vehicle, VentureStar. NASA and the U.S. Air Force have a rich heritage of LB vehicle design and flight experience. Eight LB's were built and over 225 LB test flights were conducted through 1975 in the initial LB Program. Three LB series were most significant in the advancement of today's LB technology: the M2-F; HL-1O; and X-24 series. The M2-F series was designed by NASA Ames Research Center, the HL-10 series by NASA Langley Research Center, and the X-24 series by the Air Force. LB vehicles are alive again today.

Barret, Chris↗
NASA NTRS1978

Baseline tests of the Kordesh hybrid passenger vehicle

Performance test results are presented for a four-passenger Austin A40 sedan that was converted to a heat-engine-alternator-and battery-powered hybrid. It is propelled by a conventional, gasoline-fueled, heat-engine-driven alternator and a traction pack powering a series-wound, 10 hp direct-current electric drive motor. The 16 hp gasoline engine drives the 7 kilowatt alternator, which provides electrical power to the drive motor or to the 96 volt traction battery through a rectifier. The propulsion battery consists of eight 12 volt batteries connected in series. The electric motor is coupled to a four-speed standard transmission, which drives the rear wheels. Power to the motor is controlled by a three-step foot throttle, which actuates relays that control armature current and field excitation. Conventional hydraulic brakes are used.

Soltis, R. F.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

From Simulation to Reality With Random Noise

The challenging environment of autonomous vehicle (AV) navigation necessitates certain functions be performed by deep neural networks. Optimizing these models involves collecting vast quantities of domain-specific training data and ensuring that the dataset is representative of expected conditions. High-fidelity simulation plays a vital role in making this process feasible, allowing a wide range of scenarios to be explored at low cost. However, learning from simulation introduces subtle biases into models, which can degrade real-world performance in unpredictable ways. This effect can be mitigated with learning schemes specialized to bridge distributional shifts (transfer learning). Given the complex nature of these methods, the underlying models, and their environments, meaningfully evaluating performance is notstraight forward. Many unrelated factors can effect an improvement in generalization accuracy, but a full ablation analysis is often difficult. To tease out signal from noise, it is necessary to understand how transfer learning performance is affected by noise itself. The goals of this paper are (i) to establish a domain randomization baseline for a simple classification transfer learning task and (ii) to validate the RRAV testbed as a platform for further research in sim-to-real learning. We generate imagery from a simulation of NASA Ames Research Center and train a small convolutional neural network (ConvNet) to classify position relative to a centerline. Further models are trained with different types of noise progressively added to the data. The models are deployed aboard the on-site test vehicle to test real-world performance. In our experiments, we find that such naive domain randomization raises sim-to-real accuracy from 64% to 79%, while training directly on real data yields an 89% accuracy ceiling. These results suggest that the isolated mechanism of domain randomization can significantly improve generalization.

simulation↗
NASA NTRS2000

CSP Manufacturing Challenges and Assembly Reliability

Although the expression of CSP is widely used by industry from suppliers to users, its implied definition had evolved as the technology has matured. There are "expert definition"- package that is up to 1.5 time die- or "interim definition". CSPs are miniature new packages that industry is starting to implement and there are many unresolved technical issues associated with their implementation. For example, in early 1997, packages with 1 mm pitch and lower were the dominant CSPs, whereas in early 1998 packages with 0.8 mm and lower became the norm for CSPs. Other changes included the use of flip chip die rather than wire bond in CSP. Nonetheless the emerging CSPs are competing with bare die assemblies and are becoming the package of choice for size reduction applications. These packages provide the benefits of small size and performance of the bare die or flip chip, with the advantage of standard die packages. The JPL-led MicrotypeBGA Consortium of enterprises representing government agencies and private companies have jointed together to pool in-kind resources for developing the quality and reliability of chip scale packages (CSPs) for a variety of projects. This talk will cover specifically the experience of our consortium on technology implementation challenges, including design and build of both standard and microvia boards, assembly of two types of test vehicles, and the most current environmental thermal cycling test results.

Ghaffarian, Reza↗
NASA NTRS1997

Ball Grid Array Reliability Assessment for Aerospace Applications

Reliability of Ball Grid Array(BGAs) was evaluated with special emphasis on space applications. This work was performed as part of a consortium led by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to help build the infrastructure necessary for implementation of this technology. Nearly 200 test vehicles, each with four packages, were assembled and tested using an experimental design.

Aerospace↗
NASA NTRS2011

Desert Rats 2010 Operations Tests: Insights from the Geology Crew Members

Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of tests of NASA hardware and operations deployed in the high desert of Arizona. Conducted annually since 1997, these activities exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in relatively harsh conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable. Such activities not only test vehicle subsystems, they also stress communications and operations systems and enable testing of science operations approaches that advance human and robotic surface exploration capabilities. Desert RATS 2010 tested two crewed rovers designed as first-generation prototypes of small pressurized vehicles, consistent with exploration architecture designs. Each rover provided the internal volume necessary for crewmembers to live and work for periods up to 14 days, as well as allowing for extravehicular activities (EVAs) through the use of rear-mounted suit ports. The 2010 test was designed to simulate geologic science traverses over a 14-day period through a volcanic field that is analogous to volcanic terrains observed throughout the Solar System. The test was conducted between 31 August and 13 September 2010. Two crewmembers lived in and operated each rover for a week with a "shift change" on day 7, resulting in a total of eight test subjects for the two-week period. Each crew consisted of an engineer/commander and an experienced field geologist. Three of the engineer/commanders were experienced astronauts with at least one Space Shuttle flight. The field geologists were drawn from the scientific community, based on funded and published field expertise.

Bleacher, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗