Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Flight”

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 577 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD 2030 Grand Challenge: CFD-in-the-Loop Monte Carlo Flight Simulation for Space Vehicle Design

Flight qualification of space vehicles is markedly different from those typically employed for aircraft. The concept of an extensive flight test campaign for a space vehicle does not exist, and vehicle designers must look to alternative techniques for demonstrating robust and reliable performance of their vehicles prior to operational flight. A space vehicle may undergo only a handful of flight tests in its development cycle, with each flight representing a drastically different flight phase or flight configuration. For instance, NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft will only see a total of four flight demonstrations before flying a crew on its first operational mission, and each flight demonstrates a unique vehicle configuration and/or set of flight conditions. The SLS will be flown only one time before it becomes operational (Artemis 1). The Orion spacecraft Crew Module (CM) will have been tested twice, once on a Delta IV launch vehicle (Exploration Flight Test 1) and once as a fully integrated system with the SLS launch vehicle (Artemis 1). The Orion Launch abort system will have been tested twice, once in a pad abort scenario (Pad Abort 1) and once in an inflight abort scenario (Ascent Abort 2) on a modified Peacekeeper booster. Both of these latter tests involve only a boiler plate CM, not a functional Orion spacecraft. Thus, unlike aircraft, there is very little opportunity for engineers to assess and evaluate their preflight predictions. Instead, space vehicle designers rely on Monte Carlo flight simulations with detailed dispersions of predicted nominal flight behavior to determine how robust their design is to errors and uncertainties in the flight conditions their vehicle may encounter. These Monte Carlo analyses entail thousands of trajectory simulations to demonstrate that the vehicle can meet design requirements at a specified level of reliability. From an aerodynamics and aerothermodynamics perspective, these trajectory simulations are fueled by an extensive aerodynamic database that covers the complete range of expected flight conditions, vehicle configurations, and flight attitudes expected in a given mission. Today, these databases amount to a table of engineering parameters that can be quickly interrogated by the trajectory simulator. The aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic databases are assembled via a series of ground tests, empirical and analytical analysis, physics-based computational analysis, applicable past flight performance data, and in some cases, engineering judgment. These databases generally take years to assemble for a new space vehicle system and in the case of SLS/Orion, over a decade of test and analysis have been expended to develop the extensive databases required to cover the myriad of configurations and potential flight conditions required for the system. Recently, it has been proposed that Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) and computing capability may be reaching a point where it is foreseeable that CFD could be integrated directly into the production trajectory simulation tools used to design NASA’s space vehicles. To demonstrate this, NASA has embarked on two demonstrations of this type of capability, one where six degree of freedom flight trajectory simulation equations are embedded in an existing CFD solver and another where a production CFD solver is loosely coupled with a production trajectory simulation tool. These efforts represent an initial demonstration of a future approach to flight trajectory simulation, but they are a far cry from the capability required to perform a full-up CFD-in-the-loop Monte Carlo trajectory simulation. Therefore, this represents a viable grand challenge for computational methods addressing space vehicle design and development. The final paper/presentation will discuss the many hurdles, beyond simply raw computational power, to realizing this grand challenge and how they map directly to the CFD Vision 2030 ojectives. Among these are the wide range of flight conditions, including accelerating/decelerating flight, encountered by a space vehicle during launch and/or entry. The vehicle can also encounter numerous configuration changes, some of which can be quite drastic, during the course of its flight, so robust, automated geometry modeling, grid generation, and adaptation will play a huge role in reaching this goal. Multiply this by 1000’s of trajectory simulations occurring simultaneously in a given Monte Carlo analysis, and the problem readily scales to absorb virtually any size of supercomputer envisioned today. The concept of CFD-in-the-loop Monte Carlo trajectory simulation poses a formidable challenge for emerging and future computing systems, and it has the potential to shave years off the development cycle for aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic performance predictions as compared to today’s space vehicle design approach.

CFD 2030↗
NASA NTRS2024

Testing of Advanced Capabilities to Enable In-time Safety Management and Assurance for Future Flight Operations

In order to refine an initial Concept of Operations, explore Concepts of Use, and expose/validate requirements for future In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS), testing architectures were created, along with a set of capabilities and underlying information exchange protocols. These systems were conceived and developed based on hazards associated with two envisioned urban area flight domains: (1) highly autonomous small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) operating at low altitudes, and (2) highly autonomous air taxis. The initial scope of this development is described in [1]; this report provides an update, focusing on the subsequent developments and test activities. As stated in [1], it is important to note that there are many capabilities already in use by the industry (or soon to be in use) that will play critical roles in future IASMS designs. Those reported here were developed to address a gap in the current state-of-the-art regarding specific hazards/risks, and/or to allow for investigation of the interplay between and across hazard types — particularly regarding how overall safety risk can be reduced or managed effectively. Results of testing and development activities are organized by the operational phase wherein a particular capability would be employed (i.e., preflight, in-flight, and post-flight/off-line). Pre-flight: A set of capabilities were developed to help mitigate safety risk prior to flight (e.g., during flight and mission planning). Results of testing summarize (1) validation activities to raise the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and (2) evaluation activities where the capabilities were applied to flight/mission planning procedures and used by operators/pilots. For the latter, flight plans were automatically assessed, and operators/pilots were notified of hazardous flight segments so as to enable adjustment of the flight plan and re-evaluation, and/or to better inform go/no-go decisions. Capabilities addressed hazards associated with power consumption, third-party risk, wind, navigation system performance, radiofrequency interference, and proximity to geo-spatial threats (e.g., buildings, trees, and no-fly zones). In-flight: Flight experiments tested capabilities that detect and respond to hazards encountered during flight. In the first series, safety hazards were monitored and assessed onboard, and system-generated mitigation maneuvers were recorded (but not acted upon by the vehicle). In the second series, mitigation maneuver commands directed the aircraft in response to safety hazards (i.e., auto-mitigation). The sUAS used for testing is described in full, as is the test architecture, which included commercial avionics, research avionics, and onboard software designed to detect, assess, and respond to hazards. The onboard system was designed as a run-time assurance framework, consistent with [2] and supportive of both supervisory and automated modes. The primary functions included: real-time risk assessment (RTRA), auto-pilot monitoring, constraint monitoring, and contingency select/triggering. RTRA performs integrated risk assessment considering data from several hazard-related monitors (e.g., battery, motors, navigation, communications, population density, and loss-of-control). Post-flight/off-line: Data monitored and recorded during flights can enable IASMS capabilities that execute after flights have completed (or “off-line”). These include: (1) the ability to identify anomalies and trends that may only be observable when comparing data spanning a number of similar flights; (2) the ability to update and validate pre-flight and in-flight capabilities and any underlying models to improve their performance; (3) the ability to report anomalies/off-nominals that may indicate design changes or maintenance actions are needed; and (4) the ability for humans involved in operations to report safety-relevant observations to help in understanding the flight data and/or the operational context of a flight. Progress on three such capabilities is summarized; the first investigates anomaly detection given a limited set of flight logs and applies an approach previously used for space operations. The second explores what could be identified using a larger set of flight logs, including from web-based forums where flight logs are posted by sUAS autopilot users. The third creates a new means of collecting information on UAS incidents and accidents via the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).

sUAS↗
NASA NTRS2018

Flight Demonstration of Novel Atmospheric Satellite Concept

The major focus of the Phase II effort described herein is to develop and demonstrate an aircraft capable of autonomously sailing (i.e., to cruise without propulsion or external assistance), and thereby prove that the dual-aircraft platform (DAP) atmospheric satellite concept is potentially viable. This sailing mode of flight was identified as the number-1 enabling technology required for the stratospheric DAP concept (also known as Stratosat) in the NIAC (NASA Innovative Advanced Concept) Phase I effort. No scientific demonstration of this technology has ever been done or documented to our knowledge. This report describes efforts to take a major step towards the sailing mode of flight capability using a single aircraft connected by cable to a moving ground vehicle which uses sufficient crosswind to cruise without propulsion while "pulling" the ground vehicle forward (i.e., without external assistance). The development of a prototype aircraft is described in terms of novel and key hardware and software elements. A specialized prototype aircraft is described, including a novel cable release mechanism, novel "lateron" control surfaces, and a highly-accurate onboard wind measurement system. Additionally, a novel means to safely connect the aircraft to the moving ground vehicle is described involving a fishing rod/reel and integrated load cell. All of these devices were designed and developed in-house and validated in flight testing. Software is developed to provide look-up tables that give the flight condition targets (i.e., 3-D position relative to ground vehicle, forward speed, aircraft orientation, etc.), based on current wind speed and direction. These tables are successfully validated in flight simulation and used onboard the aircraft. High fidelity analysis of the aircraft aerodynamics are described - required to produce accurate target sailing flight conditions. A novel wind tunnel measurement technique is developed to accurately assess the aerodynamics of the ultra-thin cable. A new specialized flight simulator is described which is utilized to develop and verify the flight software required onboard the aircraft, and to support training of pilots for flying the aircraft while tethered to a ground vehicle. The DAP flight simulator was developed within the Matlab-Simulink framework and included detailed treatment of aircraft/cable aerodynamics, cable dynamics, experimentally-derived propeller-motor thrust curves, actuator responsiveness, and realistic air turbulence. The specialized formation flight controller algorithm, developed using this flight simulator, and onboard the aircraft is described. Finally, a novel auto-tuning software is described and verified within the flight simulator that is shown to refine the sailing flight condition targets during flight using an optimization technique involving doublet maneuvers. Virtual flights using the auto-tuning software indicate that the prototype aircraft should be able to reach and hold sailing conditions despite moderate levels of turbulence provided there is sufficient mean wind available. An overview of the flight testing program is provided. Hundreds of short flights were conducted, primarily using a “dead” short runway at Deland Municipal Airport which permitted use of a moving ground vehicle. Additional flight tests at Space Florida’s Shuttle Landing Facility are also described. First year results from these tests in which the aircraft is controlled manually, demonstrated that excessive flight testing would be required for a pilot to learn to sail with visual cues. However, second year results from autonomous flight these tests included successful demonstration of the closed-loop autonomous formation flight capability (i.e., autonomously determine, reach, and hold the required 3-D location relative to the ground vehicle required for sailing). The next step of using the auto-tune software to autonomously refine the aircraft orientation targets to finally achieve sailing remains the primary goal of future work.

Flight↗
NASA NTRS1999

System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and Flight Testing [l'Identification Des Systemes Pour le Developpement Integre des Aeronefs et les Essais en Vol]

Over the last decades flight vehicles such as aircraft and helicopters entering service and requiring increased operational effectiveness have with few exceptions experienced prolonged flight test development to achieve full certification. In many cases the original requirements had later to be reduced to enable release to service. The impact on the customer, and manufacturer has been considerable leading to increased costs and or reduced operational capabilities. These costly experiences are largely a result of the flight vehicle not behaving as modelled and designed. The evaluation of flight test data can be used as a tool for validating windtunnel results and mathematical models describing the flight dynamical behaviour. In this sense the uncertainty of important aerodynamic stability and control parameters can be reduced and the confidence of aircraft mathematical models improved. An additional important factor comes from the implementation of active control systems offering the promise of significantly increased flight vehicle performance and operational capability. This approach extends the traditional trade-offs between aerodynamics, structures and propulsion systems to include full- time, full-authority fly-by-wire/light systems. It is imperative that the aerodynamic stability and control parameters of such integrated flight and propulsion control systems have to turn out inflight as predicted, since inherent stability margins will be lower and the flight control system must correct these deficiencies to provide flight critical redundancy and safety. With the methodology of system identification from flight tests it is possible to sense the control inputs and the flight vehicle reactions Such as accelerations, rates and attitudes. The mathematical model, e.g. the model structure and parameters, has to be determined from the relationship of the measured control inputs and the system's responses. The aim of this symposium was to review the present state of the art of flight vehicle system and parameter identification techniques, and to provide a critical appraisal of current methods developed and applied to flight test data in a number of NATO nations. Particular emphasis was placed on practical aspects and lessons learned in order to generate information useful to the flight test community in industry and government agencies. The technical papers share invaluable experience and emphasize the advances of flight vehicle system identification over the last years to the point where confidence and robustness level is now reasonably high. The symposium covered overviews of identification methodologies, flight test techniques, recent aircraft and helicopter application programs, and a session of short papers covering up-to-the-minute flight test results. A final discussion included prepared comments from experts and concluded with key issues learned in the application of system identification and future research needs. The essential benefits to NATO nations can be condensed as follows: More accurate mathematical models for high bandwidth flight control systems, Improved assessment and evaluation of flying qualities, High fidelity mathematical models for flight vehicle development and mission training simulators, and generally, Reduced flight test time and costs.

Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Developm↗
NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 12 - Flight Envelope

The term "flight envelope" is used to refer to the boundaries of aircraft loading and flight conditions within which operation of the aircraft is satisfactory, and beyond which some aspect becomes unacceptable. This flight envelope represents, in fact, the limiting conditions arising from a matrix of inter-related flight envelopes covering the appropriate variables. Thus, for each loading (i.e., external stores configuration and its associated range of weight and center of gravity (c.g.) position) and aircraft configuration (i.e., position of undercarriage (u/c), flaps, slats, etc.), the envelopes of airspeed versus altitude, airspeed versus load factor, angle of attack versus angle of sideslip, etc., must be investigated to establish the limits within which all aspects such as handling qualities, engine behavior, structural loads, etc., remain acceptable. Flight testing of new or derivative aircraft models is carried out with the initial purpose of defining a flight envelope which is, first and foremost, safe and secondarily, which enables the effective use of the vehicle for its intended purpose. Flight testing occurs only after numerous reviews of the design and review of results from ground tests and predictions of flight characteristics in such areas as structures, aerodynamics, stability and control, flight controls (particularly fly-by-wire control systems, propulsion, etc.). Accordingly, opening and expanding the envelope is a task that must be approached cautiously, systematically, and with coordination and cooperation of the many disciplines involved in the design and test of an airplane. (Sections 8 and 10 cover test planning and safety of flight considerations, respectively). The fundamental tenet in establishing a flight envelope via flight test is risk reduction. This is reflected in the typical sequence of events leading to initial flight test - design reviews (both hardware and software), then ground test involving singular disciplines (windtunnel tests for aerodynamics, structurally loading the wing/fuselage/nacelle on a ground test article with loads anticipated to occur in flight, flight control system control law checkout, propulsion test cell runs and/or flying test bed tests, etc.), and then ground tests involving multi-disciplines (See Section 9). Only after these have been accomplished will an initial, limited, low-risk, flight envelope be established. The limited envelope will typically be in the middle of the projected final flight envelope. Subsequent flight tests will then be devoted to expanding the initial envelope by operating the airplane at increasing ranges - representing increasing risk - of engine operation, airspeeds both fast and slow, altitude, load factor both above and below 1g, centers of gravity (fore and aft), and with system/subsystem failures. Whether flight tests are to define a flight envelope on a new model airplane with the attendant new airframe, new engine(s), and new subsystems (hydraulics, pressurization, etc.), or on an airplane involving only a few of these areas such as new engines in an old airframe, the fundamental approach to establishing an envelope is the same.

H Walgemoed↗
NASA NTRS1998

Development and Testing of Automatically Generated ACS Flight Software for the MAP Spacecraft

By integrating the attitude determination and control system (ACS) analysis and design, flight software development, and flight software testing processes, it is possible to improve the overall spacecraft development cycle, as well as allow for more thorough software testing. One of the ways to achieve this integration is to use code-generation tools to automatically generate components of the ACS flight software directly from a high-fidelity (HiFi) simulation. In the development of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) spacecraft, currently underway at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, approximately 1/3 of the ACS flight software was automatically generated. In this paper, we will examine each phase of the ACS subsystem and flight software design life cycle: analysis, design, and testing. In the analysis phase, we scoped how much software we would automatically generate and created the initial interface. The design phase included parallel development of the HiFi simulation and the hand-coded flight software components. Everything came together in the test phase, in which the flight software was tested, using results from the HiFi simulation as one of the bases of comparison for testing. Because parts of the spacecraft HiFi simulation were converted into flight software, more care needed to be put into its development and configuration control to support both the HiFi simulation and flight software. The components of the HiFi simulation from which code was generated needed to be designed based on the fact that they would become flight software. This process involved such considerations as protecting against mathematical exceptions, using acceptable module and parameter naming conventions, and using an input/output interface compatible with the rest of the flight software. Maintaining good configuration control was an issue for the HiFi simulation and the flight software, and a way to track the two systems was devised. Finally, an integrated test approach was devised to support flight software testing at both the unit- and build-test levels using the HiFi simulation to generate data for performance verification. Another benefit of the simulation and code-generation application used on the MAP project is that it supported bringing flight software and test data into the HiFi simulation environment. It was possible to integrate parts of the hand-coded flight software into the HiFi simulation, and also possible to import flight software test data for comparison and performance verification. This capability was used to incorporate the flight software Kalman filter into the HiFi simulation. This enabled us to greatly increase the amount of testing that could be done on the filter, because we could exert a greater degree of control over the software-only simulation than over the flight software test environment. Also, since the simulation could be used to run the Kalman filter faster than real time, our testing efficiency was greatly increased. We will conclude our discussion with a summary of the lessons learned thus far using automatically- generated code for the MAP project, and the spacecraft status as we work towards our scheduled launch in the year 2000.

ODonnell, James R., Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Pre- and Post-Flight Estimations of Pitch Damping Coefficients for Unguided Entry Vehicles

Introduction: Pre-flight predictions of pitch damping coefficient (𝐶!!+𝐶!"̇)curves are used in entry simulations to determine flight readiness and if any dynamic remediation strategies are required. Accurate characterization of these pitch damping coefficient curves is crucial for mission success. Historically, pre-flight estimations of these curves are derived experimentally either via ballistic range testing or with 1-degree-of-freedom (DOF) free-or forced-oscillation wind tunnel testing. Methodology:With post-flight best-estimated trajectories, a fitting procedure as described in Karlgaard, et. al. [1] is used to compare pre-and post-flight pitch damping coefficients. This technique relies on an assumed analytical form of the trajectory, a limited 3-DOF representation described in Schoenenbergerand Queen [2], which results in anEuler-Cauchy solution form.This solution assumes constant density,thus limited amplitude multi-peak windows of the trajectory are considered to populate the pitch damping-amplitudes pace. Fig. 1 shows preliminary estimations of the pitch damping coefficients estimated using the post-flight best estimated trajectoryfor MER B, using a3-amplitude-peak window. Important to note is that the Euler-Cauchy solution also assumes planar motion, thus coning or 𝛽contribution is not included. Further,the estimated post-flight pitch damping approximations and the pre-flight predictions shown are effective representations of pitch damping, or the integrated effect of the pitch damping coefficient over one pitch cycle at the corresponding cycle’s peak amplitude. Effective pitch damping coefficient curves provide more intuitive insights about where the vehicle is stable and permits readily processed comparisons between data-sets. It is important to note that most pitch damping curves, such as those reported in aerodatabases and utilized in flight mechanics trajectory simulations, are represented in instantaneous angle-of-attack space distinct from what is presented in Fig 1. The extracted post-flight pitch damping coefficient points show a wide range of values across a narrow band of amplitudes (Fig.1a), albeit centered on the published pre-flight approximation. This also applies to the prediction as a function of Mach in Fig1b, where the post-flight scatter points are centered around the pre-flight predictions, but the pre-flight predictions notably lack data aboveMach 5.Further tuning of the technique, such as changing the number of peaks considered in each stencil, resolving density in higher resolution, and employing more accurate fitting procedures (beyond scipy.curve_fit()), will be performed. PosterFocus:This study will apply this reconstruction method to the as-flown trajectories for the following unguided entry vehicles: MER A, MER B, IRVE3, Phoenix, Insight, Pathfinder, and SIAD. The pitch damping coefficient will be derived from these trajectories and compared with the pre-flight predictions. Comparing across different missions, entry environments, and vehicle geometries can inform where our pre-flight testing methodologies accurately capture the flight dynamics. Results will provide valuable insight into the accuracy of pre-flight predicted pitch damping curves. Beyond that, this method can shed light on how accurate these curves need to be, which can inform uncertainty ranges applied to pre-flight curves for other missions.

pitch damping coefficient↗
NASA NTRS2005

Introduction to Flight Test Engineering [Introduction Aux Techniques Des Essais En Vol]

Flight test is at the core of what organizations must do in order to validate the operation and systems on an aircraft. While the AGARDograph series 300 and 160 series deal with aspects of this testing, this volume pulls it all together as an introduction to the process required to do effective flight test engineering. This volume was originally published in 1995. Its utility has been proven in that many flight test organizations and universities have requested copies for their engineers and students. It was felt that re-issuing it in a new format designed for electronic publication would be valuable to the community. This second printing changes none of the text, but rather reformats it. All the original references to AGARD (instead of RTO) are left in place so that none of the flavor of the original publication is lost. This is the Introductory Volume to the Flight Test Techniques Series. It is a general introduction to the various activities and aspects of Flight Test Engineering that must be considered when planning, conducting, and reporting a flight test program. Its main intent is to provide a broad overview to the novice engineer or to other people who have a need to interface with specialists within the flight test community. The first two Sections provide some insight into the question of why flight test and give a short history of flight test engineering. Sections 3 through 10 deal with the preparation for flight testing. They provide guidance on the preliminary factors that must be considered; the composition of the test team; the logistic support requirements; the instrumentation and data processing requirements; the flight test plan; the associated preliminary ground tests; and last, but by no means least, discuss safety aspects. Sections 11 through 27 describe the various types of flight tests that are usually conducted during the development and certification of a new or modified aircraft type. Each Section offers a brief introduction to the topic under consideration, and the nature and the objectives of the tests to be conducted. It lists the test instrumentation (and, where appropriate, other test equipment and facilities) required, describes the test maneuvers to be executed, and indicates the way in which the test data is selected, analyzed, and presented. The various activities that should take place between test flights are presented next. Items that are covered are: who to debrief; what type of reports to send where: types of data analysis required for next flight; review of test data to make a comparison to predicted data and some courses of action if there is not good agreement; and comments on selecting the next test flight. The activities that must take place upon completion of the test program are presented. The types of reports and briefings that should take place and a discussion of some of the uses of the flight test data are covered. A brief forecast is presented of where present trends may be leading.

Test facilities↗
NASA NTRS2010

Maximum Oxygen Uptake During Long-Duration Space Flight: Preliminary Results

INTRODUCTION: Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) is maintained during space flight lasting <15 d, but has not been measured during long-duration missions. This abstract describes pre-flight and in-flight preliminary findings from the International Space Station (ISS) VO2max experiment. METHODS: Seven astronauts (4 M, 3 F: 47 +/- 5 yr, 174 +/- 7 cm, 74.1 +/- 14.7 kg [mean +/- SD]) performed cycle exercise tests to volitional maximum approx.45 d before flight and tests were scheduled every 30 d during flight beginning on flight day (FD) 14. Tests consisted of three 5-min stages designed to elicit 25%, 50%, and 75% of preflight VO2max, followed by 25 W/min increases. VO2 and heart rate (HR) were measured using the ISS Portable Pulmonary Function System (PPFS) (Damec, Odense, DK). Unfortunately the PPFS did not arrive at the ISS in time to support early test sessions for 3 crewmembers. Descriptive statistics are presented for pre-flight vs. late-flight (FD 147 +/- 33 d) comparisons for all subjects (n=7); and pre-flight, early (FD 18 +/- 3) and late-flight (FD 156 +/- 5) data are presented for subjects (n=4) who completed all of these test sessions. RESULTS: When all subjects are considered, average VO2max decreased from pre- to late in-flight (2.98 +/- 0.85 vs. 2.57 +/- 0.50 L/min) while maximum HR late-flight seemed unchanged (178 +/- 9 vs. 175 +/- 8 beats/min). Similarly, for subjects who completed pre-, early, and late flight measurements (n=4), mean VO2max declined from 3.19 +/- 0.75 L/min preflight to 2.43 +/- 0.43 and 2.62 +/- 0.38 L/min early and late-flight, respectively. Maximum HR was 183 +/- 8, 174 +/- 8, and 179 +/- 6 beats/min pre-, early- and late-flight. DISCUSSION: Average VO2max declined during flight and did not appreciably recover as flight duration increased; however much inter-subject variation occurred in these changes.

Moore, A. D., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2011

X-43A Final Flight Observations

The presentation will provide an overview of the final flight of the NASA X-43A project. The project consisted of three flights, two planned for Mach 7 and one for Mach 10. The first flight, conducted on June 2, 2001, was unsuccessful and resulted in a nine-month mishap investigation. A two-year return to flight effort ensued and concluded when the second Mach 7 flight was successfully conducted on March 27, 2004. The third and final flight, which occurred on November 16, 2004, was the first Mach 10 flight demonstration of an airframe-integrated, scramjet-powered, hypersonic vehicle. As such, the final flight presented first time technical challenges in addition to final flight project closeout concerns. The goals and objectives for the third flight as well as those for the project will be presented. The configuration of the Hyper-X stack including the X-43A, Hyper-X launch vehicle, and Hyper-X research vehicle adapter wil also be presented. Mission differences, vehicle modifications and lessons learned from the first and second flights as they applied to the third flight will also be discussed. Although X-43A flight 3 was always planned to be the final flight of the X-43A project, the X-43 program had two other vehicles and corresponding flight phases in X-43C and X-43B. Those other projects never manifested under the X-43 banner and X-43A flight 3 also became the final flight of X-43 program.

Grindle, Laurie↗