Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Automated Testing”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Automated Test for NASA CFS

The core Flight System (cFS) is a flight software (FSW) product line developed by the Flight Software Systems Branch (FSSB) at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The cFS uses compile-time configuration parameters to implement variable requirements to enable portability across embedded computing platforms and to implement different end-user functional needs. The verification and validation of these requirements is proving to be a significant challenge. This paper describes the challenges facing the cFS and the results of a pilot effort to apply EXB Solution's testing approach to the cFS applications.

Flight software↗
NASA NTRS2020

Command and Control System Automated Testing

To support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has developed the Spaceport Command and Control System (SCCS) to monitor and control the pre-launch and launch operations. Within SCCS, the Launch Control System (LCS) is designed to allow console engineers to control and monitor the status of the launch and flight hardware, as well as issue commands to ground control systems and launch vehicles. The display software of the LCS is responsible for visualizing the various data that can be received from the hardware and software components of the LCS. Since this system is providing critical information to engineers in the firing room, the visualization of data across the system must be easy to understand, but also reliable and accurate.

Software↗
NASA NTRS2020

Automating Test Consistency

Creating and controlling incredibly complex vehicles such as a rocket requires an unfathomable number of tests. Such tests are necessary to ensure a successful mission and that any issues are caught immediately. Once human lives become involved, the importance of such tests cannot be understated. Often times, however, tests may not be written in a consistent manner and such inconsistencies can lead to slowing down the test-writing process and may even create concerns with the test itself. Because of this, NASA has standards that should be followed by all test writers, but the list of standards is quite long and ensuring that tests follow this perfectly can be challenging. Older tests or tests written by individuals who are unfamiliar with this guide may not be following it which can lead to inconsistencies. To fix this issue, I have taken these human-readable rules and implemented them into an open-source linting program. Linting software is used to automatically check the style of code, and in this case, the tests. In doing so, any rules that the test developer may not have followed will be flagged upon running the software and they can quickly and accurately keep their test consistent with the rules that they are expected to follow.

Software↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-D-204-07: Comparison of AAPM TG150 Draft Image Receptor Tests with Vendor Automated QC Tests for Five Mobile DR Units

Purpose: To determine the consistency of digital detector (DR) tests recommended by AAPM TG150 and tests provided by commercially available DirectView Total Quality Tool (TQT). Methods: The DR tests recommended by the TG150 Detector Subgroup[1] were performed on 4 new Carestream DRX-Revolution and one Carestream DRX1C retrofit of a GE AMX-4 that had been in service for three years. After detector calibration, flat-field images plus images of two bar patterns oriented parallel and perpendicular to the A-C axis, were acquired at conditions recommended by TG150. Raw images were harvested and then analyzed using a MATLAB software previously validated[2,3,4]. Data were analyzed using ROIs of two different dimensions: 1) 128 x 128 ROIs matching the detector electronics; and 2) 256 x 256 ROIs, each including 4 adjacent smaller ROIs. TG150 metrics from 128 x 128 ROIs were compared to TQT metrics, which are also obtained from 128 x 128 ROIs[5]. Results: The results show that both TG150 and TQT measurements were consistent among these detectors. Differences between TG150 and TQT values appear systematic. Compared with 128 x 128 ROIs, noise and SNR non-uniformity were lower with 256 x 256 ROIs, although signal non-uniformity was similar, indicating detectors were appropriately calibrated for gain and offset. MTF of the retrofit unit remained essentially the same between 2012 and 2015, but was inferior to the new units. The older generator focal spot is smaller (0.75mm vs. 1.2mm), and the SID for acquisition is 182cm as well, so focal spot dimensions cannot explain the difference. The difference in MTF may be secondary to differences in generator X-ray spectrum or by unannounced changes in detector architecture. Further investigation is needed. Conclusion: The study shows that both TG150 and TQT tests are consistent. The numerical value of some metrics are dependent on ROI size.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1989

The development of a Flight Test Engineer's Workstation for the Automated Flight Test Management System

The Automated Flight Test Management System (ATMS) is being developed as part of the NASA Aircraft Automation Program. This program focuses on the application of interdisciplinary state-of-the-art technology in artificial intelligence, control theory, and systems methodology to problems of operating and flight testing high-performance aircraft. The development of a Flight Test Engineer's Workstation (FTEWS) is presented, with a detailed description of the system, technical details, and future planned developments. The goal of the FTEWS is to provide flight test engineers and project officers with an automated computer environment for planning, scheduling, and performing flight test programs. The FTEWS system is an outgrowth of the development of ATMS and is an implementation of a component of ATMS on SUN workstations.

Tartt, David M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Automated Rocket Propulsion Test Management

The Rocket Propulsion Test-Automated Management System provides a central location for managing activities associated with Rocket Propulsion Test Management Board, National Rocket Propulsion Test Alliance, and the Senior Steering Group business management activities. A set of authorized users, both on-site and off-site with regard to Stennis Space Center (SSC), can access the system through a Web interface. Web-based forms are used for user input with generation and electronic distribution of reports easily accessible. Major functions managed by this software include meeting agenda management, meeting minutes, action requests, action items, directives, and recommendations. Additional functions include electronic review, approval, and signatures. A repository/library of documents is available for users, and all items are tracked in the system by unique identification numbers and status (open, closed, percent complete, etc.). The system also provides queries and version control for input of all items.

Walters, Ian↗
NASA NTRS2007

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-loop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of"pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS. The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (1) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multi-sensor series of trajectories.

Brewster, L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Lab

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success ofthe Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-Ioop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of "pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS.' The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (l) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multisensor series oftrajectories

Brewster, Linda L.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Programmable, automated transistor test system

A programmable, automated transistor test system was built to supply experimental data on new and advanced power semiconductors. The data will be used for analytical models and by engineers in designing space and aircraft electric power systems. A pulsed power technique was used at low duty cycles in a nondestructive test to examine the dynamic switching characteristic curves of power transistors in the 500 to 1000 V, 10 to 100 A range. Data collection, manipulation, storage, and output are operator interactive but are guided and controlled by the system software.

Truong, L. V.↗
DOE OSTI2014

Nanomechanical testing system

An automated testing system includes systems and methods to facilitate inline production testing of samples at a micro (multiple microns) or less scale with a mechanical testing instrument. In an example, the system includes a probe changing assembly for coupling and decoupling a probe of the instrument. The probe changing assembly includes a probe change unit configured to grasp one of a plurality of probes in a probe magazine and couple one of the probes with an instrument probe receptacle. An actuator is coupled with the probe change unit, and the actuator is configured to move and align the probe change unit with the probe magazine and the instrument probe receptacle. In another example, the automated testing system includes a multiple degree of freedom stage for aligning a sample testing location with the instrument. The stage includes a sample stage and a stage actuator assembly including translational and rotational actuators.

77 NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nanomechanical testing system

An automated testing system includes systems and methods to facilitate inline production testing of samples at a micro (multiple microns) or less scale with a mechanical testing instrument. In an example, the system includes a probe changing assembly for coupling and decoupling a probe of the instrument. The probe changing assembly includes a probe change unit configured to grasp one of a plurality of probes in a probe magazine and couple one of the probes with an instrument probe receptacle. An actuator is coupled with the probe change unit, and the actuator is configured to move and align the probe change unit with the probe magazine and the instrument probe receptacle. In another example, the automated testing system includes a multiple degree of freedom stage for aligning a sample testing location with the instrument. The stage includes a sample stage and a stage actuator assembly including translational and rotational actuators.

77 NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nanomechanical testing system

An automated testing system includes systems and methods to facilitate inline production testing of samples at a micro (multiple microns) or less scale with a mechanical testing instrument. In an example, the system includes a probe changing assembly for coupling and decoupling a probe of the instrument. The probe changing assembly includes a probe change unit configured to grasp one of a plurality of probes in a probe magazine and couple one of the probes with an instrument probe receptacle. An actuator is coupled with the probe change unit, and the actuator is configured to move and align the probe change unit with the probe magazine and the instrument probe receptacle. In another example, the automated testing system includes a multiple degree of freedom stage for aligning a sample testing location with the instrument. The stage includes a sample stage and a stage actuator assembly including translational and rotational actuators.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2026

A Scalable Test-Bed for Direct Current Current Transformer Automated Functional Testing and Characterization

This article describes a scalable test-bed for automation of measurements of the direct current current transformers (DCCT). Automation of measurement involves functional measurements, fault event based measurements and data validation. The test-bed is designed to measure up to 20 DCCTs at a time with software based measurement repetition checks and validation of the measurements.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗