Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Connected and Automated Vehicles”

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.

40 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2025

Provider of Services for Urban Air Mobility (PSU) Prototype Simulation (X5) Final Report

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new air transportation service concept to carry passengers or cargo in metropolitan areas, leveraged by innovative aircraft and air traffic automation technologies. NASA has conducted a series of simulations, called the X-series simulation, to evaluate the UAM concept of operations and support the development of airspace procedures and services for UAM operations. The simulation called “X5” was conducted in 2023 to test a Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) prototype developed by NASA for UAM flight planning, strategic conflict management support, and data exchange between UAM operators. In this simulation, two strategic conflict management capabilities, Demand-Capacity Balancing and Sequencing and Scheduling, were further investigated. This document describes the UAM system architecture modeled, the X5 simulation environment to be executed (e.g., traffic scenario and UAM airspace construct), and the strategic conflict management processes developed and evaluated in this study. Then, the simulation results are provided using several system performance metrics, such as the number of operations planned and activated, demand-capacity imbalances detected and resolved, and pre-departure delays. Based on these metrics, the test findings and lessons learned from this simulation are discussed. NASA developed a PSU prototype as part of a reference implementation of UAM system architecture and evolved strategic conflict management capabilities for UAM operations from the previous collaborative simulations with industry partners. Below is the summary of the achievements: - Aligned NASA’s UAM reference architecture with the FAA’s UAM ConOps notional architecture - Extended UAM airspace management capabilities to include 1) Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to ensure operators coordinate planned usage of shared vertiports, and 2) Sequencing and Scheduling (S&S) at UAM corridor entry and exit points to help facilitate an orderly flow of traffic - Defined the PSU information exchange APIs and requirements towards informing industry standards - Developed and tested a NASA PSU prototype as reference implementation to validate the requirements and APIs - Developed a prototype service connecting NASA’s PSU and the FAA system for testing future PSU-ATM interface requirements - Tested NASA-developed assumptions for UAM operations such as airspace design, procedures, vehicle performance, and strategic conflict management methods to inform future Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs) development with industry - Evaluated system performance metrics such as number of simultaneous operations and ground delays that can help define system-level requirements. The simulation results showed that the UAM traffic demand could be managed to minimize the needs of tactical separation provision with ground delays assigned by DCB and S&S. These accomplishments and the lessons learned from the PSU Prototype X5 simulation activities will be valuable inputs for the Air Mobility Pathfinders (AMP) project, which is NASA’s new project to create and evaluate a reference architecture for safe, secure, and scalable UAM operations.

Simulation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗
NASA NTRS2017

Automation of POST Cases via External Optimizer and "Artificial p2" Calculation

During early conceptual design of complex systems, speed and accuracy are often at odds with one another. While many characteristics of the design are fluctuating rapidly during this phase there is nonetheless a need to acquire accurate data from which to down-select designs as these decisions will have a large impact upon program life-cycle cost. Therefore enabling the conceptual designer to produce accurate data in a timely manner is tantamount to program viability. For conceptual design of launch vehicles, trajectory analysis and optimization is a large hurdle. Tools such as the industry standard Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST) have traditionally required an expert in the loop for setting up inputs, running the program, and analyzing the output. The solution space for trajectory analysis is in general non-linear and multi-modal requiring an experienced analyst to weed out sub-optimal designs in pursuit of the global optimum. While an experienced analyst presented with a vehicle similar to one which they have already worked on can likely produce optimal performance figures in a timely manner, as soon as the "experienced" or "similar" adjectives are invalid the process can become lengthy. In addition, an experienced analyst working on a similar vehicle may go into the analysis with preconceived ideas about what the vehicle's trajectory should look like which can result in sub-optimal performance being recorded. Thus, in any case but the ideal either time or accuracy can be sacrificed. In the authors' previous work a tool called multiPOST was created which captures the heuristics of a human analyst over the process of executing trajectory analysis with POST. However without the instincts of a human in the loop, this method relied upon Monte Carlo simulation to find successful trajectories. Overall the method has mixed results, and in the context of optimizing multiple vehicles it is inefficient in comparison to the method presented POST's internal optimizer functions like any other gradient-based optimizer. It has a specified variable to optimize whose value is represented as optval, a set of dependent constraints to meet with associated forms and tolerances whose value is represented as p2, and a set of independent variables known as the u-vector to modify in pursuit of optimality. Each of these quantities are calculated or manipulated at a certain phase within the trajectory. The optimizer is further constrained by the requirement that the input u-vector must result in a trajectory which proceeds through each of the prescribed events in the input file. For example, if the input u-vector causes the vehicle to crash before it can achieve the orbital parameters required for a parking orbit, then the run will fail without engaging the optimizer, and a p2 value of exactly zero is returned. This poses a problem, as this "non-connecting" region of the u-vector space is far larger than the "connecting" region which returns a non-zero value of p2 and can be worked on by the internal optimizer. Finding this connecting region and more specifically the global optimum within this region has traditionally required the use of an expert analyst.

Dees, Patrick D.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of an Inflatable Airlock for a Deep Space Gateway

Inflatable structures technology utilizes high-strength fabric materials and internal pressure to create a stiffened pressure vessel that can replace traditional metallic primary structure in a habitable spacecraft. The flexibility of fabric structures allows them to be compactly stowed for launch and expanded in space, providing significant launch volume savings. The unique construction and design flexibility of these structures can be customized for a variety of uses in space including landing bags, decelerators, long duration in-space and planetary surface habitats, and even airlocks. An airlock is often a required component of a crewed spacecraft to allow for maintenance and human exploration outside of the vehicle. Airlock designs in use today rely on complex hatches and seals connected by metallic walls. Recent developments towards the design of an inflatable airlock structure show feasibility and a significant launch volume savings over a traditional metallic design. This paper will provide a high-level summary of these projects and the current state-of-the-art in inflatable airlock development with additional references and detail about previous and on-going research, providing guidance for the design of a softgoods airlock system. The use of inflatables in space has been in development since the 1960’s for both habitats and airlocks. The first ever EVA was conducted by the USSR in 1965 using an inflatable airlock known as the Volga. This airlock was attached to the Voskhod 2 spacecraft and turned the vehicle into a dual chamber airlock. The airlock was successfully deployed, used and jettisoned after Alexey Leonov’s historic spacewalk. Additional work on human-rated inflatable structures was not continued until the late 1990’s when NASA-JSC led an effort to demonstrate these structures as feasible long-term pressurized elements with the TransHab project. The technology developed and pioneered during this project led to multiple patents and proven feasibility that inflatables could be used for large habitable structures. Following TransHab, Bigelow Aerospace continued the development of inflatable structures with technical support from NASA. This partnership eventually led to the successful flight certification, launch, attachment and deployment of the Bigelow Expandable Activities Module (BEAM) on the ISS in 2016. Inflatable and expandable airlock structures have undergone various detailed feasibility studies and testing for over 15 years, most notably with the Advanced Inflatable Airlock (AIA), Dual-Chamber Hybrid Inflatable Suitlock (DCIS), Minimalistic Advanced Soft Hatch (MASH), and Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA). During this time, full-scale articles have been built and pressure-tested, and mock-ups and demonstrators have been constructed and evaluated. During the 2001-2003 timeframe, the AIA concept was matured through requirements development, conceptual design, subscale and full-scale engineering breadboards subjecting various test articles to deployment and pressure testing up to four times operating pressure. These tests proved the feasibility of successful deployment and structural integrity of an inflatable crewlock. Additional testing was performed in the ensuing years, as funding permitted, to further refine additional structural and deployment concepts and to understand the EVA crewmember interfaces, hatches and EVA support equipment interfaces that would be required for a fully functioning airlock. This work resulted in a refinement of the structural requirements and an accounting of the systems needed in an inflatable airlock. In 2014, the MASH project developed an ultra-lightweight airlock concept with a fabric hatch that utilized a unique pressure vessel shape to minimize structural loads around a linear seal. The concept uses an automated zipper-like seal that allows for crew egress/ingress. Most of the development work on the project thus far has focused on the design, analysis and testing of the primary structure and the zipper-like seal system is in the preliminary stages of development with a successful proof-of-concept test. As part of the 2017 LEIA effort, studies were conducted on EVA crewmember interfaces on the inside of an inflatable airlock. These efforts included the design of an internal secondary structure and placement of handholds and foot restraints to enable hatch opening, closing and translation through the airlock. Structural design, analysis and testing was completed on several secondary structure candidates. Crew interface testing was also completed using an inflatable crewlock mockup and the JSC Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the movement of an EVA crewmember through an inflatable crewlock in microgravity. The results of these tests helped demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing an inflatable structure as an airlock and informed the required volume, hatch size, and configuration and location of translation aids for crewmembers in a microgravity crewlock. The ISS Quest airlock uses a dual-chamber design with isolated compartments known as the equipment-lock and the crewlock. The equipment-lock houses the Servicing, Performance and Checkout Equipment (SPCE) items (suit batteries, consumables, etc.) while the crewlock has limited internal hardware and is the nominally depressurized compartment during US EVAs. While inflatable dual chamber airlocks have been studied, the current state of the art emphasizes an inflatable crewlock-type structure attached to a rigid equipment-lock type or habitat structure. Since a large portion of the hardware in the equipment-lock are rigid components and connectors that are installed on the ground - and an inflatable structure does not achieve full structural capabilities until pressurized in space - a depressurized fabric structure cannot provide the capabilities of a full equipment-lock. The use of an inflatable as a crewlock, however, provides all the required capabilities for EVA operations in a small launch package that offers significant volume savings over a metallic crewlock. The functions of a traditional equipment lock, including the SPCE, could be provided by a spacecraft’s habitat module or node and not necessarily in a separate equipment lock. An inflatable crewlock would be attached to the vehicle and launched in a packed and compressed state, saving volume under the launch shroud and mass for the overall airlock element compared to a rigid crewlock. Work is currently underway to continue development of an inflatable airlock with a variety of focus areas including the consideration of crew-induced loads and interfaces, the design and development of an internal sub-structure to provide translation aids and restraints, the thermal considerations of a fabric shell depressurized during an EVA, the micrometeorite environment in deep space, and the packaging and deployment of an inflatable airlock.

Deep Space Exploration↗