Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Avionics”

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 793 records · Page 44

Psyche Hardware Abstraction Simulation Environment (PHASE): Development of High-Fidelity Downlink Model for Flight Software Performance Testing

NASA’s Katherine Johnson Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Independent Test Capability (ITC) Team develops high fidelity software-only simulations (or “digital-twins”) of NASA’s most critical missions that are then used for software verification and validation (V&V). One such digital-twin simulator nearing maturity is the Psyche Hardware Abstraction Simulation Environment (PHASE). PHASE utilizes an instruction set simulator along with ITC-developed avionics models. PHASE includes a newly-developed model of the telecom hardware with a high-fidelity downlink interface, capable of supporting reconfigurable downlink data rates and transmission modes. The different downlink transmission modes allow more processing to be ceded from software onto the telecom hardware. Thus, we are able to monitor the performance of the downlink software module in the time-partitioned OS and perform more realistic dynamic testing based on software’s resource utilization. This presentation will cover PHASE, avionics modeling, the downlink model, and its usage for flight software performance testing.

modeling↗

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗

Overview of the SLS Core Stage Thrust Vector Control System Design

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) consists of four independent hydraulic systems. The SLS CS TVC system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Each hydraulic system nominally provides hydraulic power to one RS-25 engine and two actuators. Additionally, each system provides redundant control capability to one actuator on each of its neighboring systems. The RS-25 uses hydraulic power to control propellant valves, and the TVC actuators are used to move the engine in the pitch and yaw gimbal planes. The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Space Shuttle heritage hardware directly reused on SLS includes the Orbiter TVC hydraulic servo-actuators (with two slight design modifications), the Orbiter hydraulic circulation pumps, the Orbiter gimbal block/bearing, and the Solid Rocket Booster hydraulic pumps. The Solid Rocket Booster APU turbines are powered by hot gas produced by a catalyzed hydrazine decomposition. The SLS Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) is derived from the Space Shuttle Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU); on the SLS Core Stage, the CAPU turbine is spun using cold gas tapped-off from the RS-25 to CS liquid hydrogen autogenous pressurization line. The remaining hardware in the TVC system (hydraulic Filter Manifold (FM), hydraulic Supply Accumulator (SA), hydraulic Return Accumulator (RA), Hydraulic Reservoir, Exhaust Gas Heat Exchanger (EGHE)) as well as the avionics providing control and telemetry (TVC Actuator Controller (TAC) and CAPU Controller (CAPUC) are new components developed for SLS. This paper is the first installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, the overall design architecture of the CS TVC is presented, with a focus on the interfaces between the TVC actuators, the engines, their hydraulic power systems, and the avionics that provide commands from the SLS Vehicle Management (VM) software to effect stable and robust flight control for the integrated SLS launch vehicle.

Thrust Vector Control↗

Overview of the SLS Core Stage Thrust Vector Control System Design

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) consists of four independent hydraulic systems. The SLS CS TVC system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Each hydraulic system nominally provides hydraulic power to one RS-25 engine and two actuators. Additionally, each system provides redundant control capability to one actuator on each of its neighboring systems. The RS-25 uses hydraulic power to control propellant valves, and the TVC actuators are used to move the engine in the pitch and yaw gimbal planes. The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Space Shuttle heritage hardware directly reused on SLS includes the Orbiter TVC hydraulic servo-actuators (with two slight design modifications), the Orbiter hydraulic circulation pumps, the Orbiter gimbal block/bearing, and the Solid Rocket Booster hydraulic pumps. The Solid Rocket Booster APU turbines are powered by hot gas produced by a catalyzed hydrazine decomposition. The SLS Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) is derived from the Space Shuttle Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU); on the SLS Core Stage, the CAPU turbine is spun using cold gas tapped-off from the RS-25 to CS liquid hydrogen autogenous pressurization line. The remaining hardware in the TVC system (hydraulic Filter Manifold (FM), hydraulic Supply Accumulator (SA), hydraulic Return Accumulator (RA), Hydraulic Reservoir, Exhaust Gas Heat Exchanger (EGHE)) as well as the avionics providing control and telemetry (TVC Actuator Controller (TAC) and CAPU Controller (CAPUC) are new components developed for SLS. This paper is the first installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, the overall design architecture of the CS TVC is presented, with a focus on the interfaces between the TVC actuators, the engines, their hydraulic power systems, and the avionics that provide commands from the SLS Vehicle Management (VM) software to effect stable and robust flight control for the integrated SLS launch vehicle.

Thrust Vector Control↗

Testing Mars 2020 Flight Software and Hardware in the Surface System Development Environment

The Mars 2020 (M2020) Perseverance Rover is NASA's most advanced planetary rover mission to date. It includes a novel Sample Caching Subsystem (SCS) which will collect rock cores for possible future return to Earth, as well as an improved mobility system with enhanced autonomous navigation which will enable it to traverse faster and farther than prior rovers. The development of both systems required extensive flight software and flight hardware testing. To support this testing, we developed the Surface System Development Environment (SSDEV) and used it for a wide variety of testing. SSDEV is a bundled subset of M2020 Flight Software which runs on commercially available Linux computers and can be combined with multiple backend options for simulation and hardware control. The SSDEV architecture enabled our teams to perform much more testing of flight software and flight hardware than would have otherwise been possible. As a secondary benefit, the SSDEV-based test campaigns also helped our teams enter the operations phase of the mission with greater readiness of operations products and tools. In this paper, we summarize the motivation for SSDEV, provide an overview of the SSDEV architecture, list several examples of how SSDEV was used, and summarize lessons learned. SSDEV is not a substitute for integrated testing with flight-like avionics, but it enabled substantially more testing than would have otherwise been possible and also provided some unique benefits. We recommend architectures like SSDEV to future projects that need to perform extensive hardware and software testing using a limited set of flight-like avionics.

Wai, Dennis↗

Robotics Verification and Validation Strategies for Perseverance Rover Sampling and Caching

The Mars 2020 Sampling and Caching Subsystem(SCS) is the most complex robotic system ever fielded on a MarsRover. It includes a 5 degree-of-freedom Robotic Arm, coringdrill, gas Dust Removal Tool, interfaces for two turret-mountedinstruments, and an Adaptive Caching Assembly (ACA). TheACA is itself a complex robotic system, containing hardware tosupport docking and bit exchange, a 3 degree-of-freedomSample Handling Assembly for manipulating sample tubes,storage for several drill bits and sample tubes, and mechanismsto support observing and sealing samples collected by the drill.To successfully verify and validate the SCS hardware andsoftware and its integration with the Mars 2020 flight systemseveral key strategies were employed.The SCS Verification and Validation (V&V) program utilizedmultiple test venues with tiered levels of fidelity. These includedsimulation and visualization software environments, low fidelitydevelopment testbeds, testbeds with high fidelity SCS hardwareand commercial off-the shelf avionics, integrated systemtestbeds with flight-like avionics, and environmental testbedscapable of simulating Martian surface temperature andpressure. Multiple units of each SCS hardware componentmoved fluidly between test venues to accomplish myriadstandalone and coordinated test objectives. Test preparationand executions were performed by a diverse team of engineerswith training and technical ownership tailored for individualexperience and role. Despite significant differences between testvenues, the SCS V&V team established efficient and consistentprocesses and tools for procedure development, test execution,and data review that enabled personnel, as well as technicalproducts such as sequences and parameter configurations, toflow between venues effectively. A series of benchmark testsprovided evidence of performance consistency as elements weretransferred between venues and as system capability evolved.This paper provides an overview of the SCS V&V program andexplores several overarching strategies that enabled successfuloperation in the face of unprecedented complexity. Keyoutcomes of the SCS validation effort are summarized, alongwith lessons learned and beneficial integrations of validationtool and process innovations into Mars surface operations.

Brooks, Sawyer↗

Flow Boiling and Condensation Experiment: Flow Boiling in a Rectangular Channel with Subcooled Inlet Conditions in Microgravity

Two-phase thermal management subsystems that take advantage of both the sensible and latent heat of a working fluid can potentially yield significant enhancements in overall performance by adopting heat transfer processes that are based on phase transition like boiling and condensation. Performance of terrestrial two-phase flow systems may be predictable because the hydrodynamic and body forces are understood, however, in microgravity, which is predominant during planetary space travel, forces that are masked by the strong body force on Earth (gravitational or buoyancy force) reappear with different magnitude and influence. The need arose for a facility that provides for two-phase flow with phase transition testing in microgravity. The Flow Boiling and Condensation Experiment (FBCE) is a facility that was launched to the International Space Station in August of 2021 and is in operation since February of 2022. This facility enables investigators to perform two-phase flow and phase transition research in flow boiling and condensation. Along with the test module that is experiment specific, the FBCE system consists of the fluid, avionics, and software subsystems. Currently two test modules, namely, the Flow Boiling Module (FBM) and the Condensation Module for Heat Transfer (CM-HT) are available. A third module, the Transfer Line test Module (TL) is being developed. The fluid subsystem conditions and delivers the fluid at the desired thermodynamic state to the test module. It consists of two fluid modules and a heater module that are connected by flex hoses for fluid circulation and by data and electrical cables for control and data acquisition. Two avionics modules acquire pressure and temperature data from various sensors in the flow loop. For FBM, a high-speed camera is available to acquire images of the boiling process. Experiments are operated autonomously by software and are based on an Experiment Parameters Master Table (EPMT) that is uploaded to ISS and is executed by the FBCE flight software. This presentation briefly introduces the objectives of FBCE and provides a system description of the experiment onboard of the ISS/Fluid Integrated Rack (FIR). Results of the test campaign carried out using the FBM are presented. Specifically, microgravity flow boiling of n-perfluorohexane (test fluid) is discussed with subcooled inlet conditions in a single-side-heated rectangular channel of dimensions 114.6-mm heated length, 2.5-mm heated width, and 5.0-mm height. Key operating parameters investigated are mass velocity (199.90 – 3200.13 kg/m2s), inlet subcooling (0.10 – 45.76°C), and inlet pressure (113.30 – 164.29 kPa). Image sequences acquired via high-speed-video are shown to elucidate the interfacial flow physics. The effects of various parameters on flow boiling heat transfer in microgravity, from the onset of boiling to the critical heat flux are discussed. Heat transfer results are presented in terms of flow boiling curves, streamwise profiles of wall temperature and heat transfer coefficient, and parametric trends of local and averaged heat transfer coefficient, and the critical heat flux.

Two-phase flow and phase transition↗

PY4 Four-CubeSat Swarm of PyCubed-Based Spacecraft

PY4 is a low-cost, rapid-turn-around, four-satellite technology demonstration based on the open-source PyCubed avionics framework. PyCubed is an open-source, radiation-tested CubeSat avionics platform that integrates power, computing, communication, and attitude determination and control functionality into a single low-cost module programmable entirely in the programming language Python.

Jan Michael Stupl↗

Fiber Optics Sensing System (FOSS) deployment on Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID)

Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) is a technology demonstration of an inflatable aeroshell to slow down and protect heavy and valuable payloads when entering atmospheres such as those of the Earth and Mars. The ultimate project goal is to enable future payload deliveries to Mars. The LOFTID is based on more than a decade of development of the hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerator (HIAD) technology, which consists of a stack of the inflatable concentric rings that make up the inflatable structure that is covered with a Flexible Thermal Protection System (FTPS) and, when combined, form the inflatable aeroshell. The goal of the LOFTID demonstration was to verify that a flexible heat shield, packed into a small-volume payload, can be inflated exoatmospherically to sizes much larger than that of the launch vehicle fairing and survive re-entry into the Earth atmosphere while withstanding a temperature excess of 1,600 °C. The LOFTID is part of Technology Demonstration Missions (TDM) under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). The NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) (Edwards, California) is part of the LOFTID program, where a space-launch version of the fiber optic sensing system (FOSS) is integrated into the avionics bay of the re-entry vehicle to provide high-spatial-density temperature measurements in three strategic locations of the vehicle. The program is part of a partnership agreement between the NASA Launch Service Program (LSP) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) (Merritt Island, Florida) and the main Center of the LOFTID program at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) (Hampton, Virginia). This paper will first give a brief introduction of the FOSS, then discuss how the FOSS was integrated into LOFTID, in terms of fiber sensor integration into various sections of the vehicle, as well as integration of the FOSS interrogator into the avionics bay. Finally, data analysis during the LOFTID re-entry will be discussed.

Allen R Parker↗

X-57 Cockpit Interface Control Document (ICD-CEPT-006)

The Cockpit Interface Control Document defines the hardware interfaces between the X-57 cockpit and subsystems. It provides locational and operational information in support of ground and flight operations with details on controls and displays that include Modes of Operation, Start-Up and Shut- Down Sequence diagrams and captures the current state of the MOD II Avionics Power Architecture. There is also preliminary information of the MOD III and MOD IV configurations. Microsoft PowerPoint was chosen for the document as early development required frequent meetings with multiple customers including aircraft operators (pilots), ground operations, support contractors and power, instrumentation, and human systems integration engineers and PowerPoint enabled presentations that could be quickly modified based on customer and developer interaction. One of the driving requirements for the cockpit design was to keep the left side panel as close the stock Tecnam panel as possible to reduce the failure risk of flight critical indicators. The original annunciator panel in the left side panel was modified to alert the pilot to failures in critical X-57 subsystems and an operator audio alert capability was added for these subsystems. Power-Up switches for the aircraft low voltage 13.8 VDC systems are located at the bottom of the left side panel and center panel, the same location as the stock Tecnam 13.8 VDC switches. The switches for energizing the high voltage system were located in the overhead panel to reduce the risk of inadvertently energizing the high voltage system during the low voltage power-up sequence. The Cruise Motor ARM switches were also located in the overhead panel and correspond to the same location as the stock Tecnam ignition switches. The stock Tecnam throttle levers and prop pitch levers were retained for the X-57. The throttle levers were renamed torque levers since they controlled the commanded torque to the cruise motors. The prop pitch levers provide a commanded RPM signal to an electronic prop pitch controller. X-57 specific displays, located in the right-side panel, are driven by dedicated sensors that monitor right and left side cruise motor RPM, right and left high voltage “Traction Bus” A and B (voltage, current and power) and the Avionics Bus DC converters (A and B) voltage and current. An X-57 Multi-Function Display (MFD) located in the center panel displays CAN Bus parameters. CAN Bus architecture is not certified for flight so these displays could not be used for safety critical information but were designed to be used for test point information only.

Laura Kushner↗

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↗

SmallSat / Model-Based Mission Assurance Session Overview

SmallSat state of the art report advanced avionics section updates. Systematic CubeSat radiation hardening assurance using the SEAM platforms. Building ontologies for AI-integrated prognostic health management of spacecraft avionics.

Rebekah Austin↗

X-57 Traction Power and Command Systems Development

This paper describes the final, as-built design of the X‑57 Maxwell aircraft power and command system architecture that implements the electrified propulsion capability. The development of the traction power, command, and avionics power subsystems proceeded as planned at the initial project critical design review, but improvements to the design were identified following the development of detailed operations concepts and integrated subsystem and system testing. The redundant architecture with A‑side and B‑side buses provided a robust framework for a developmental system that would turn out to have a lower technology readiness than had been assumed upon project formulation. As the project team identified reliability or performance gaps in the electrified propulsion powertrain components and their interactions with the other vehicle systems, the traction power, command, and avionics architectures were modified to accommodate the modified systems. Following the publication of the planned design approach at the critical design review milestone [1], the project team developed the flight hardware and software, integrated the systems, and adjusted the design and qualification activities to address gaps in the components, system architecture, and requirements as the gaps were realized. In addition to inherent challenges in development of these subsystems, the integration of this new technology with adjacent critical systems in an aircraft configuration posed additional challenges that drove design considerations across the subsystem development and the other vehicle systems. Integration complications included electromagnetic compatibility, thermal performance, and tolerance of single-point failures internal and external to the powerplant. Development of a qualification program was required for the new motors, inverters, and batteries, and hardware performance during component qualification fed back into the development process and led lessons learned and redesign of key elements.

distributed propulsion↗

Performance of a Regenerative Fuel Cell System for the Lunar Surface

Regenerative fuel cells (RFCs) are an attractive energy storage solution for lunar missions as a technology capable of providing a higher specific energy (i.e., W∙h/kg) than state-of-the-art packaged Li-ion battery systems. An RFC consists of the (1 & 2) electrochemical stacks (chemical to electrical energy conversion to supply electricity to an external load, i.e. the fuel cell reaction, and electrical to chemical energy conversion of supplied electrical power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, i.e. water electrolysis), (3) fluidic conditioning, (4) reactant storage, (5) avionics, (6) power management and distribution (PMAD), and (7) thermal management. NASA’s Glenn Research Center has designed, assembled, and tested a breadboard RFC sys-tem capable of operating autonomously for multiple simulated lunar day/night cycles in a laboratory environment. The system is comprised of a non-flow through proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell stack and a liquid-anode feed PEM electrolyzer (EZ) stack designed to electrochemically compress the reactants at balanced pressures up to 12.4 MPa (1800 psia). The fluidic conditioning, avionics, PMAD, and thermal management sub-systems are largely comprised of commercial-off-the-shelf components for this system-level development effort. The hardware is controlled by a CubeSat space processor running an operational program based on core flight architecture that can control the RFC hardware autonomously through a state machine with fault monitoring. The testing results highlighted here were completed with the system in an open-loop configuration such that reactants generated through water electrolysis were vented while gas cylinders supplied fuel cell operation. The breadboard operated autonomously, but there were five unplanned transitions to a safe state that required a manual restart after reviewing the data, determining a root cause, and implementing a solution. Four of the transitions were caused by the thermal management subsystem and the fifth was caused by a water management control issue in the EZ sub-system. The RFC system operated for over 550 hours with the final cycle being slightly abbreviated due to reasons unrelated to system performance.

Kerrigan Cain↗

Performance of a Regenerative Fuel Cell System for the Lunar Surface

Regenerative fuel cells (RFCs) are an attractive energy storage solution for lunar missions as a technology capable of providing a higher specific energy (i.e., W∙h/kg) than state-of-the-art packaged Li-ion battery systems. An RFC consists of the (1 & 2) electrochemical stacks (chemical to electrical energy conversion to supply electricity to an external load, i.e. the fuel cell reaction, and electrical to chemical energy conversion of supplied electrical power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, i.e. water electrolysis), (3) fluidic conditioning, (4) reactant storage, (5) avionics, (6) power management and distribution (PMAD), and (7) thermal management. NASA’s Glenn Research Center has designed, assembled, and tested a breadboard RFC sys-tem capable of operating autonomously for multiple simulated lunar day/night cycles in a laboratory environment. The system is comprised of a non-flow through proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell stack and a liquid-anode feed PEM electrolyzer (EZ) stack designed to electrochemically compress the reactants at balanced pressures up to 12.4 MPa (1800 psia). The fluidic conditioning, avionics, PMAD, and thermal management sub-systems are largely comprised of commercial-off-the-shelf components for this system-level development effort. The hardware is controlled by a CubeSat space processor running an operational program based on core flight architecture that can control the RFC hardware autonomously through a state machine with fault monitoring. The testing results highlighted here were completed with the system in an open-loop configuration such that reactants generated through water electrolysis were vented while gas cylinders supplied fuel cell operation. The breadboard operated autonomously, but there were five unplanned transitions to a safe state that required a manual restart after reviewing the data, determining a root cause, and implementing a solution. Four of the transitions were caused by the thermal management subsystem and the fifth was caused by a water management control issue in the EZ sub-system. The RFC system operated for over 550 hours with the final cycle being slightly abbreviated due to reasons unrelated to system performance.

Kerrigan Cain↗

Flight Test Techniques

These proceedings contain the twenty-five papers presented a the AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Symposium on Flight Test Techniques, held in Lisbon, Portugal, 2-5 April 1984. Under main headings of Performance and Flying Qualities, Systems Testing, and Instrumentation and Facilities, papers were given on Lift-Drag; Parameter Identification; High-Angle Testing; Flight and Release of External Stores; Pilot Workload; Avionics, Navigation and Weapons Systems; H.U.D.; Real-Time Analysis and Test Control; Airborne Computation and Calibration; Laser Measurement of True Airspeed and Windshear; Clearance for Repaired Runway Operation.

Checkout↗

Digital Signal Conditioning for Flight Test, Volume 19 [Le Traitement du Signal Numérique pour les Essais en Vol]

This volume in the AGARD Flight Instrumentation Series provides flight test instrumentation engineers with an introduction to digital processes on aircraft. Flight test instrumentation systems are rapidly evolving from analog intensive to digital intensive systems, including the use of onboard digital computers. Topics include: measurements that are digital in origin, sampling, encoding, transmitting, and storing of data. Particular emphasis is placed on modem avionic data bus architectures and what to be aware of when extracting data from them. Some example data extraction techniques are given. Tradeoffs between digital logic families, trends in digital development, and design testing techniques are discussed. An introduction to digital filtering is also covered.

Flight instruments↗

Aging Mechanisms and Control: Specialists' Meeting on Life Management Techniques for Aging Air Vehicles

The costs of maintaining ageing aircraft are draining the existing budgets. The Specialist Meeting provided guidance on strategies for the development and implementation of technologies and logistic management processes to reduce this economic burden. The emphasis was on military aircraft, but many of the principles could be applied to other defence systems. The papers covered the entire range of ageing problems including structural integrity, corrosion, avionics, mechanical subsystems, structures and wiring as well as the role of information management. Forty-two papers addressed the safety and economic implications such as fatigue cracking, corrosion, wear and material degradation. Key technologies were discussed, including non-destructive inspection, repair, modifications, prevention analysis, and health management. The shortcomings of current were highlighted and the investment required was identified. The need for research and development was clearly identified.

aging tests (materials)↗