Results for “Vehicles” — Page 22

NASA NTRS2016

Investigation of Unsteady Pressure-Sensitive Paint (uPSP) and a Dynamic Loads Balance to Predict Launch Vehicle Buffet Environments

This NESC assessment examined the accuracy of estimating buffet loads on in-line launch vehicles without booster attachments using sparse unsteady pressure measurements. The buffet loads computed using sparse sensor data were compared with estimates derived using measurements with much higher spatial resolution. The current method for estimating launch vehicle buffet loads is through wind tunnel testing of models with approximately 400 unsteady pressure transducers. Even with this relatively large number of sensors, the coverage can be insufficient to provide reliable integrated unsteady loads on vehicles. In general, sparse sensor spacing requires the use of coherence-length-based corrections in the azimuthal and axial directions to integrate the unsteady pressures and obtain reasonable estimates of the buffet loads. Coherence corrections have been used to estimate buffet loads for a variety of launch vehicles with the assumption methodology results in reasonably conservative loads. For the Space Launch System (SLS), the first estimates of buffet loads exceeded the limits of the vehicle structure, so additional tests with higher sensor density were conducted to better define the buffet loads and possibly avoid expensive modifications to the vehicle design. Without the additional tests and improvements to the coherence-length analysis methods, there would have been significant impacts to the vehicle weight, cost, and schedule. If the load estimates turn out to be too low, there is significant risk of structural failure of the vehicle. This assessment used a combination of unsteady pressure-sensitive paint (uPSP), unsteady pressure transducers, and a dynamic force and moment balance to investigate the integration schemes used with limited unsteady pressure data by comparing them with direct integration of extremely dense fluctuating pressure measurements. An outfall of the assessment was to evaluate the potential of using the emerging uPSP technique in a production test environment for future launch vehicles. The results show that modifications to the current technique can improve the accuracy of buffet estimates. More importantly, the uPSP worked remarkably well and, with improvements to the frequency response, sensitivity, and productivity, will provide an enhanced method for measuring wind tunnel buffet forcing functions (BFFs).

Schuster, David M.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Passive Earth Entry Vehicle Landing Test

Two full-scale passive Earth Entry Vehicles (EEV) with realistic structure, surrogate sample container, and surrogate Thermal Protection System (TPS) were built at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) and tested at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). The main test objective was to demonstrate structural integrity and investigate possible impact response deviations of the realistic vehicle as compared to rigid penetrometer responses. With the exception of the surrogate TPS and minor structural differences in the back shell construction, the two test vehicles were identical in geometry and both utilized the Integrated Composite Stiffener Structure (ICoSS) structural concept in the forward shell. The ICoSS concept is a lightweight and highly adaptable composite concept developed at NASA LaRC specifically for entry vehicle TPS carrier structures. The instrumented test vehicles were released from a helicopter approximately 400 m above ground. The drop height was selected such that at least 98% of the vehicles terminal velocity would be achieved. While drop tests of spherical penetrometers and a low fidelity aerodynamic EEV model were conducted at UTTR in 1998 and 2000, this was the first time a passive EEV with flight-like structure, surrogate TPS, and sample container was tested at UTTR for the purpose of complete structural system validation. Test results showed that at a landing vertical speed of approximately 30 m/s, the test vehicle maintained structural integrity and enough rigidity to penetrate the sandy clay surface thus attenuating the landing load, as measured at the vehicle CG, to less than 600 g. This measured deceleration was found to be in family with rigid penetrometer test data from the 1998 and 2000 test campaigns. Design implications of vehicle structure/soil interaction with respect to sample container and sample survivability are briefly discussed.

Kellas, Sotiris↗

NASA NTRS2017

Drawbar Pull (DP) Procedures for Off-Road Vehicle Testing

As NASA strives to explore the surface of the Moon and Mars, there is a continued need for improved tire and vehicle development. When tires or vehicles are being designed for off-road conditions where significant thrust generation is required, such as climbing out of craters on the Moon, it is important to use a standard test method for evaluating their tractive performance. The drawbar pull (DP) test is a way of measuring the net thrust generated by tires or a vehicle with respect to performance metrics such as travel reduction, sinkage, or power efficiency. DP testing may be done using a single tire on a traction rig, or with a set of tires on a vehicle; this report focuses on vehicle DP tests. Though vehicle DP tests have been used for decades, there are no standard procedures that apply to exploration vehicles. This report summarizes previous methods employed, shows the sensitivity of certain test parameters, and provides a body of knowledge for developing standard testing procedures. The focus of this work is on lunar applications, but these test methods can be applied to terrestrial and planetary conditions as well. Section 1.0 of this report discusses the utility of DP testing for off-road vehicle evaluation and the metrics used. Section 2.0 focuses on test-terrain preparation, using the example case of lunar terrain. There is a review of lunar terrain analogs implemented in the past and a discussion on the lunar terrain conditions created at the NASA Glenn Research Center, including methods of evaluating the terrain strength variation and consistency from test to test. Section 3.0 provides details of the vehicle test procedures. These consist of a review of past methods, a comprehensive study on the sensitivity of test parameters, and a summary of the procedures used for DP testing at Glenn.

wheel↗

NASA NTRS2020

Mars Ascent Vehicle Solid Propulsion Configuration

As part of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign, two Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) configurations have been designed in parallel. Each ascent vehicle configuration has a different propulsion system, which ultimately leads to two unique vehicle designs. As part of a Preliminary Architecture Assessment (PAA), these vehicle designs were developed to the same level of maturity in order to inform the selection of one of the vehicles as the point of departure design for the campaign. The selection will be made in November 2019. Although the initial MSR architecture called for a hybrid-based propulsion MAV featuring solid wax fuel with liquid oxidizer, a configuration using more traditional solid propulsion was developed as an additional risk mitigation option. Though lacking in the single stage to orbit (SSTO) and throttle flexibility of a hybrid configuration, a solid configuration vehicle allows a simpler design with significantly longer flight heritage and higher Technology Readiness Level (TRL). This paper describes the design of the solid propulsion configuration. An additional paper will be published describing the design of the hybrid propulsion configuration. The solid propulsion configuration MAV was developed in 2019 by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in association with NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). It features two stages with a modified STAR-17 motor for the second stage and a traditional electromechanical actuator Thrust Vector Controller (TVC). The vehicle was designed to deliver approximately 0.47kg of Martian geological samples to a circular orbit at Mars of 343km at a 25° inclination. Although solid motor designs in general are at a relatively high TRL, the integrated vehicle subsystems that operate in conjunction with these propulsion elements do not typically operate in a Martian environment, which in this application can get as cold as -40°C. The PAA advanced the maturity of these subsystems by performing detailed design and analysis on the vehicle with respect to structures and mechanisms, Guidance/Navigation/Control (GNC) systems, avionics, Reaction Control System (RCS), TVC, thermal environments, and advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). This paper will summarize the results of these studies.

Yaghoubi, Darius↗

NASA NTRS2020

Mars Ascent Vehicle Solid Propulsion Configuration

As part of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign, two Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) configurations have been designed in parallel. Each ascent vehicle configuration has a different propulsion system, which ultimately leads to two unique vehicle designs. As part of a Preliminary Architecture Assessment (PAA), these vehicle designs were developed to the same level of maturity in order to inform the selection of one of the vehicles as the point of departure design for the campaign. The selection will be made in November 2019. Although the initial MSR architecture called for a hybrid-based propulsion MAV featuring solid wax fuel with liquid oxidizer, a configuration using more traditional solid propulsion was developed as an additional risk mitigation option. Though lacking in the single stage to orbit (SSTO) and throttle flexibility of a hybrid configuration, a solid configuration vehicle allows a simpler design with significantly longer flight heritage and higher Technology Readiness Level (TRL). This paper describes the design of the solid propulsion configuration. An additional paper will be published describing the design of the hybrid propulsion configuration. The solid propulsion configuration MAV was developed in 2019 by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in association with NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). It features two stages with a modified STAR-17 motor for the second stage and a traditional electromechanical actuator Thrust Vector Controller (TVC). The vehicle was designed to deliver approximately 0.47kg of Martian geological samples to a circular orbit at Mars of 343km at a 25° inclination. Although solid motor designs in general are at a relatively high TRL, the integrated vehicle subsystems that operate in conjunction with these propulsion elements do not typically operate in a Martian environment, which in this application can get as cold as -40°C. The PAA advanced the maturity of these subsystems by performing detailed design and analysis on the vehicle with respect to structures and mechanisms, Guidance/Navigation/Control (GNC) systems, avionics, Reaction Control System (RCS), TVC, thermal environments, and advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). This paper will summarize the results of these studies.

Yaghoubi, Darius↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Wind Tunnel to Full Scale Mapping of Winds and Loads for Launch-Vehicle Ground Wind Loads

A launch vehicle ground-wind-loads program was conducted at the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel. The objectives were to quantify key aerodynamic and structural characteristics that impact the occurrence of large wind-induced oscillations of a launch vehicle when exposed to ground winds prior to launch. Of particular interest is the dynamic response of a launch vehicle when a von Kármán vortex street forms in the wake of the vehicle resulting in quasiperiodic lift and drag forces.Vehicle response to these quasiperiodic forces can become quite large when the frequency of vortex shedding nears that of a lowly-damped structural mode thereby exciting a resonant response. The study of ground-wind-loads presents unique challenges to quantify significant characteristics of the approaching wind and to relate the wind-tunnel acquired static, dynamic, and gravitational loads to full-scale vehicles. This paper will explain the correlation process between model-scale and full-scale wind characteristics and resulting structural loads. Characterization of the wind at a launch site requires knowledge of the vehicle dynamics and the anemometer performance. Vehicle dynamics dictate the frequency range of interest in characterization of the atmospheric turbulence, and in defining the required data window-length to model dynamic oscillation build-up during wind-gust analysis. Knowledge of the anemometer performance is required to infer peak wind magnitudes since most anemometers cannot directly measure instantaneous peak values. Following proper wind-speed correlation, static and dynamic wind-tunnel loads must be converted to full-scale equivalent values to derive design and operational guidance. In addition to the direct computation of full-scale equivalent loads using relevant scaling parameters, the corrections applied to dynamic loads accounting for differences in structural damping will also be discussed. Furthermore, a phenomenon that manifests in many slender and flexible launch vehicles is a load magnification due to gravity resulting from mass offset under deflection. A method for scaling this contribution from model-scale to full-scale is presented. Finally, a comparison of wind-tunnel derived loads using the described methodologies to launch vehicle measured loads is presented.

ground wind loads↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Design Results for the MSR DAC-0.0 Mars Ascent Vehicle

The NASA Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign endeavors to return Martian regolith, rock, and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study. One of many significant challenges to overcome in the return of these samples lies in transporting them from the Martian surface to space. In order to surmount this challenge, the Campaign has conceptualized the need for a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) to perform this function and deliver Martian samples to orbit. There, the samples will be ejected and captured by a separate spacecraft for return to Earth. Many concepts for a MAV have existed in the past, but it has not been until now that an integrated, detailed design solution has been developed and analyzed. Preliminary assessments of the initial architecture examined multiple methods of propulsion. The team ultimately determined that a Two Stage to Orbit (TSTO) solid propulsion vehicle would provide the most effective performance and be the most technologically ready to support this mission. Following the decision to adopt a TSTO solid propelled vehicle, the first official Design Analysis Cycle, DAC-0.0, was performed in Spring 2020 to formally advance the fidelity of the vehicle to a maturity level acceptable for NASA Key Decision Point A (KDP-A). This paper describes the resultant MAV design concept developed as part of the DAC-0.0 study by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), in association with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The TSTO vehicle features two solid rocket motors, one powering each stage. Their thrust vectors are controlled with Thrust Vector Control (TVC) systems consisting of independent electromechanical actuators acting on gimballed nozzles. The vehicle is designed to deliver up to 0.47kg of Martian samples to a Mars circular orbit of 343km at 27° inclination. Due to the unique environmental conditions that this vehicle is required to operate in, the subsystem design teams were compelled to develop creative and unorthodox designs to ensure a successful mission. The detailed design and analysis of these subsystems are discussed in this paper and include topics on the MAV Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC); structures and mechanisms; integrated vehicle thermal; avionics and flight software; a hydrazine-based Reaction Control System (RCS); aerosciences; and vehicle assembly, integration, and test (AI&T) considerations, among others. Following the conclusion of the MAV DAC-0.0, additional alternative architecture concepts were also studied to further reduce the mass of the overall system. The results of these studies will also be examined in this paper.

Darius Yaghoubi↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

More / All Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) Vehicle Sensitivities to Propulsion and Power Performance

Battery power and energy density are important parameters for the emerging concepts for more / all-electric vehicles. Electric propulsion and power system performance is also important. To better understand how electric propulsion and power systems component performance influences overall vehicle design, a sensitivity assessment was performed noting changes in vehicle gross weight and energy usage. Updated versions of the Revolutionary Vertical lift Technology (RVLT) Project vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) urban air mobility (UAM) reference vehicles and missions were used. NASA electric vehicle studies are discussed which were used to help select the range of electric propulsion and power system performance parameters used in this assessment. Thermal management systems (TMS) considerations are also important; new and innovative power management and distribution systems can reduce electric system weight and losses, reducing thermal management constraints often imposed by electric systems modest maximum use temperatures. Vehicles with higher disk loadings (smaller rotors) require higher power levels per unit weight for VTOL operations, which make them more sensitive to electric system weights and efficiencies. Battery, all-electric vehicles show different sensitivities to component performance than turboelectric or hybrids systems. Battery, all-electric propulsion systems may increase vehicle weight and size, but still results in lower mission energy usage than their hydrocarbon-fueled versions. Significant vehicle weight growth to electric propulsion and power system power-to-weight reductions also occurs at different levels among the various concepts. From these results, one can more readily identify required component performance levels, potential component choices or, research and development paths.

Electric Propulsion Systems (Aircraft)↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

More / All Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) Vehicle Sensitivities to Propulsion and Power Performance

Battery power and energy density are important parameters for the emerging concepts for more / all-electric vehicles. Electric propulsion and power system performance is also important. To better understand how electric propulsion and power systems component performance influences overall vehicle design, a sensitivity assessment was performed noting changes in vehicle gross weight and energy usage. Updated versions of the Revolutionary Vertical lift Technology (RVLT) Project vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) urban air mobility (UAM) reference vehicles and missions were used. NASA electric vehicle studies are discussed which were used to help select the range of electric propulsion and power system performance parameters used in this assessment. Thermal management systems (TMS) considerations are also important; new and innovative power management and distribution systems can reduce electric system weight and losses, reducing thermal management constraints often imposed by electric systems modest maximum use temperatures. Vehicles with higher disk loadings (smaller rotors) require higher power levels per unit weight for VTOL operations, which make them more sensitive to electric system weights and efficiencies. Battery, all-electric vehicles show different sensitivities to component performance than turboelectric or hybrids systems. Battery, all-electric propulsion systems may increase vehicle weight and size, but still results in lower mission energy usage than their hydrocarbon-fueled versions. Significant vehicle weight growth to electric propulsion and power system power-to-weight reductions also occurs at different levels among the various concepts. From these results, one can more readily identify required component performance levels, potential component choices or, research and development paths.

electric propulsion systems (aircraft) mission ana↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Design Results for the MSR DAC-0.0 Mars Ascent Vehicle

The NASA Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign endeavors to return Martian regolith, rock, and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study. One of many significant challenges to overcome in the return of thesesamples lies in transporting them from the Martian surface to space. In order to surmount this challenge, the Campaign has conceptualized the need for a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) to perform this function and deliver Martian samples to orbit. There, the samples will be ejected and captured by a separate spacecraft for return to Earth. Many concepts for a MAV have existed in the past, but it has not been until now that an integrated, detailed design solution has been developed and analyzed. Preliminary assessments of the initial architecture examined multiple methods of propulsion. The team ultimately determined that a Two Stage to Orbit (TSTO) solid propulsion vehicle would provide the most effective performance and be the most technologically ready to support this mission. Following the decision to adopt a TSTO solid propelled vehicle, the first official Design Analysis Cycle, DAC-0.0, was performed in Spring 2020 to formally advance the fidelity of the vehicle to a maturity level acceptable for NASA Key Decision Point A (KDP-A). This paper describes the resultant MAV design concept developed as part of the DAC-0.0 study by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), in association with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The TSTO vehicle features two solid rocket motors, one powering each stage. Their thrust vectors are controlled with Thrust Vector Control (TVC) systems consisting of independent electromechanical actuators acting on gimballed nozzles. The vehicle is designed to deliver up to 0.47kg of Martian samples to a Mars circular orbit of 343km at 27° inclination. Due to the unique environmental conditions that this vehicle is required to operate in, the subsystem design teams were compelled to develop creative and unorthodox designs to ensure a successful mission. The detailed design and analysis of these subsystems are discussed in this paper and include topics on the MAV Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC); structures and mechanisms; integrated vehicle thermal; avionics and flight software; a hydrazine-based Reaction Control System (RCS); aerosciences; and vehicle assembly, integration, and test (AI&T) considerations, among others. Following the conclusion of the MAV DAC-0.0, additional alternative architecture concepts were also studied to further reduce the mass of the overall system.

Mars↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) and Hot Structures for Hypersonic Vehicles

Thermal protection systems (TPS) and hot structures are required for a range of hypersonic vehicles ranging from ballistic reentry to hypersonic cruise vehicles, both within Earth’s atmosphere and non-Earth atmospheres. The focus of this presentation is on air breathing hypersonic vehicles in the Earth's atmosphere. This includes single-stage to orbit (SSTO), two-stage to orbit (TSTO) accelerators, access to space vehicles, and hypersonic cruise vehicles. The presentation will start with a brief discussion of aerodynamic heating and thermal management techniques to address the high heating, followed by an overview of TPS for rocket-launched and air-breathing vehicles. The argument is presented that as we move from rocket-based vehicles to air-breathing vehicles, we need to move away from the “insulated airplane” approach used on the Space Shuttle Orbiter to a wide range of TPS and hot structure approaches. The primary portion of the presentation will discuss issues and design options for CMC TPS and hot structure components, including leading edges, acreage TPS, and control surfaces. The current state-of-the-art will be briefly discussed for some of the components. The two primary technical challenges impacting the use of CMC TPS and hot structures for hypersonic vehicles are environmental durability and fabrication, and will be discussed briefly.

Thermal Protection Systems↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) and Hot Structures for Hypersonic Vehicles

Thermal protection systems (TPS) and hot structures are required for a range of hypersonic vehicles ranging from ballistic reentry to hypersonic cruise vehicles, both within Earth’s atmosphere and non-Earth atmospheres. The focus of this presentation is on air breathing hypersonic vehicles in the Earth's atmosphere. This includes single-stage to orbit (SSTO), two-stage to orbit (TSTO) accelerators, access to space vehicles, and hypersonic cruise vehicles. The presentation will start with a brief discussion of aerodynamic heating and thermal management techniques to address the high heating, followed by an overview of TPS for rocket-launched and air-breathing vehicles. The argument is presented that as we move from rocket-based vehicles to air-breathing vehicles, we need to move away from the “insulated airplane” approach used on the Space Shuttle Orbiter to a wide range of TPS and hot structure approaches. The primary portion of the presentation will discuss issues and design options for CMC TPS and hot structure components, including leading edges, acreage TPS, and control surfaces. The current state-of-the-art will be briefly discussed for some of the components. The two primary technical challenges impacting the use of CMC TPS and hot structures for hypersonic vehicles are environmental durability and fabrication, and will be discussed briefly.

David E Glass↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) and Hot Structures for Hypersonic Vehicles

Thermal protection systems (TPS) and hot structures are required for a range of hypersonic vehicles ranging from ballistic reentry to hypersonic cruise vehicles, both within Earth’s atmosphere and non-Earth atmospheres. The focus of this presentation is on air breathing hypersonic vehicles in the Earth's atmosphere. This includes single-stage to orbit (SSTO), two-stage to orbit (TSTO) accelerators, access to space vehicles, and hypersonic cruise vehicles. The presentation will start with a brief discussion of aerodynamic heating and thermal management techniques to address the high heating, followed by an overview of TPS for rocket-launched and air-breathing vehicles. The argument is presented that as we move from rocket-based vehicles to air-breathing vehicles, we need to move away from the “insulated airplane” approach used on the Space Shuttle Orbiter to a wide range of TPS and hot structure approaches. The primary portion of the presentation will discuss issues and design options for CMC TPS and hot structure components, including leading edges, acreage TPS, and control surfaces. The current state-of-the-art will be briefly discussed for some of the components. The two primary technical challenges impacting the use of CMC TPS and hot structures for hypersonic vehicles are environmental durability and fabrication, and will be discussed briefly.

Thermal Protection Systems, hot structure↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) and Hot Structures for Hypersonic Vehicles

Thermal protection systems (TPS) and hot structures are required for a range of hypersonic vehicles ranging from ballistic reentry to hypersonic cruise vehicles, both within Earth’s atmosphere and non-Earth atmospheres. The focus of this paper is on air breathing hypersonic vehicles in the Earth's atmosphere. This includes single-stage to orbit (SSTO), two-stage to orbit (TSTO) accelerators, access to space vehicles, and hypersonic cruise vehicles. This paper will start out with a brief discussion of aerodynamic heating and thermal management techniques to address the high heating, followed by an overview of TPS for rocket-launched and air-breathing vehicles. The argument is presented that as we move from rocket-based vehicles to air-breathing vehicles, we need to move away from the “insulated airplane” approach used on the Space Shuttle Orbiter to a wide range of TPS and hot structure approaches. The two primary technical challenges impacting the use of CMC TPS and hot structures for hypersonic vehicles are environmental durability and fabrication, and will be discussed briefly.

Hypersonics↗

NASA NTRS2024

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗

NASA NTRS2025

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗

DOE OSTI2021

Method and apparatus for controlling a vehicle including an adaptive cruise control system

Operating a subject vehicle equipped with an adaptive cruise control system includes setting initial states for control parameters, including setting a desired vehicle speed and determining a desired following gap range, wherein the desired following gap range is associated with a lead vehicle. Operation is controlled via the adaptive cruise control system based upon the initial states for the control parameters. Operation also includes monitoring for presence of the lead vehicle. Upon detecting presence of the lead vehicle, an actual following gap is determined between the subject vehicle and the lead vehicle, and the initial states of the control parameters associated with the adaptive cruise control system are adjusted based upon the actual following gap between the subject vehicle and the lead vehicle, and the desired following gap range. Operation is controlled via the adaptive cruise control system based upon the adjusted initial states of the control parameters.

Zhao, Junfeng↗

DOE OSTI2024

System and method for vehicle coast control

A method for controlling vehicle propulsion includes identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a route being traversed by a vehicle. The method further includes determining a profile for a target vehicle speed based on the at least one route characteristic and a vehicle energy consumption profile. The method further includes selectively adjusting a vehicle speed control input based on the target vehicle speed profile. The method further includes communicating the vehicle speed control input to a vehicle propulsion controller to achieve the target vehicle speed profile.

Aggoune, Karim↗