SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
The technology development Project Plan covers an overview of the Project and planned project activities for FY14-16.
No abstract available
This high level presentation is designed to introduce the UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) in NAS (National Airspace System) project to the Penn State community.
No abstract available
As spacecraft designs converge toward miniaturization, and with the volumetric and mass challenges placed on avionics, programs will continue to advance the state of the art in spacecraft system development with new challenges to reduce power, mass and volume.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
During design of the SDO Science and Inertial mode PID controllers, the decision was made to disable the integral torque whenever system stability was in question. Three different schemes were developed to determine when to disable or enable the integral torque, and a trade study was performed to determine which scheme to implement. The trade study compared complexity of the control logic, risk of not reenabling the integral gain in time to reject steady-state error, and the amount of integral torque space used. The first scheme calculated a simplified Routh criterion to determine when to disable the integral torque. The second scheme calculates the PD part of the torque and looked to see if that torque would cause actuator saturation. If so, only the PD torque is used. If not, the integral torque is added. Finally, the third scheme compares the attitude and rate errors to limits and disables the integral torque if either of the errors is greater than the limit. Based on the trade study results, the third scheme was selected. Once it was decided when to disable the integral torque, analysis was performed to determine how to disable the integral torque and whether or not to reset the integrator once the integral torque was reenabled. Three ways to disable the integral torque were investigated: zero the input into the integrator, which causes the integral part of the PID control torque to be held constant; zero the integral torque directly but allow the integrator to continue integrating; or zero the integral torque directly and reset the integrator on integral torque reactivation. The analysis looked at complexity of the control logic, slew time plus settling time between each calibration maneuver step, and ability to reject steady-state error. Based on the results of the analysis, the decision was made to zero the input into the integrator without resetting it. Throughout the analysis, a high fidelity simulation was used to test the various implementation methods.
The Human Exploration Science Office (KX) provides leadership for NASA's Imagery Integration (Integration 2) Team, an affiliation of experts in the use of engineering-class imagery intended to monitor the performance of launch vehicles and crewed spacecraft in flight. Typical engineering imagery assessments include studying and characterizing the liftoff and ascent debris environments; launch vehicle and propulsion element performance; in-flight activities; and entry, landing, and recovery operations. Integration 2 support has been provided not only for U.S. Government spaceflight (e.g., Space Shuttle, Ares I-X) but also for commercial launch providers, such as Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation, servicing the International Space Station. The NASA Integration 2 Team is composed of imagery integration specialists from JSC, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), who have access to a vast pool of experience and capabilities related to program integration, deployment and management of imagery assets, imagery data management, and photogrammetric analysis. The Integration 2 team is currently providing integration services to commercial demonstration flights, Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), and the Space Launch System (SLS)-based Exploration Missions (EM)-1 and EM-2. EM-2 will be the first attempt to fly a piloted mission with the Orion spacecraft. The Integration 2 Team provides the customer (both commercial and Government) with access to a wide array of imagery options - ground-based, airborne, seaborne, or vehicle-based - that are available through the Government and commercial vendors. The team guides the customer in assembling the appropriate complement of imagery acquisition assets at the customer's facilities, minimizing costs associated with market research and the risk of purchasing inadequate assets. The NASA Integration 2 capability simplifies the process of securing one-of-a-kind imagery assets and skill sets, such as ground-based fixed and tracking cameras, crew-in the-loop imaging applications, and the integration of custom or commercial-off-the-shelf sensors onboard spacecraft. For spaceflight applications, the Integration 2 Team leverages modeling, analytical, and scientific resources along with decades of experience and lessons learned to assist the customer in optimizing engineering imagery acquisition and management schemes for any phase of flight - launch, ascent, on-orbit, descent, and landing. The Integration 2 Team guides the customer in using NASA's world-class imagery analysis teams, which specialize in overcoming inherent challenges associated with spaceflight imagery sets. Precision motion tracking, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry, image stabilization, 3D modeling of imagery data, lighting assessment, and vehicle fiducial marking assessments are available. During a mission or test, the Integration 2 Team provides oversight of imagery operations to verify fulfillment of imagery requirements. The team oversees the collection, screening, and analysis of imagery to build a set of imagery findings. It integrates and corroborates the imagery findings with other mission data sets, generating executive summaries to support time-critical mission decisions.
The initial part of the study was begun with a combination of literature searches, World Wide Web searches, and contacts with individuals and companies who were known to members of our team to have an interest in topics that seemed to be related to our study. There is a long list of such topics, such as concurrent engineering, design for manufacture, life-cycle engineering, systems engineering, systems integration, systems design, design systems, integrated product and process approaches, enterprise integration, integrated product realization, and similar terms. These all capture, at least in part, the flavor of what we describe here as integrated design systems. An inhibiting factor in this inquiry was the absence of agreed terminology for the study of integrated design systems. It is common for the term to be applied to what are essentially augmented Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems, which are integrated only to the extent that agreements have been reached to attach proprietary extensions to proprietary CAD programs. It is also common for some to use the term integrated design systems to mean a system that applies only, or mainly, to the design phase of a product life cycle. It is likewise common for many of the terms listed earlier to be used as synonyms for integrated design systems. We tried to avoid this ambiguity by adopting the definition of integrated design systems that is implied in the introductory notes that we provided to our contacts, cited earlier. We thus arrived at this definition: Integrated Design Systems refers to the integration of the different tools and processes that comprise the engineering, of complex systems. It takes a broad view of the engineering of systems, to include consideration of the entire product realization process and the product life cycle. An important aspect of integrated design systems is the extent to which they integrate existing, "islands of automation" into a comprehensive design and product realization environment. As the study progressed, we relied increasingly upon a networking approach to lead us to new information. The departure point for such searches often was a government-sponsored project or a company initiative. The advantage of this approach was that short conversations with knowledgeable persons would usually cut through confusion over differences of terminology, thereby somewhat reducing the search space of the study. Even so, it was not until late in our eight-month inquiry that we began to see signs of convergence of the search, in the sense that a number of the latest inquiries began to turn up references to earlier contacts. As suggested above, this convergence often occurred with respect to particular government or company projects.
The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) is an experimental exploration habitat technology and architecture test platform designed for analog demonstration activities. The HDU previously served as a test bed for testing technologies and sub-systems in a terrestrial surface environment. in 2010 in the Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM) configuration. Due to the amount of work involved to make the HDU project successful, the HDU project has required a team to integrate a variety of contributions from NASA centers and outside collaborators The size of the team and number of systems involved With the HDU makes Integration a complicated process. However, because the HDU shell manufacturing is complete, the team has a head start on FY--11 integration activities and can focus on integrating upgrades to existing systems as well as integrating new additions. To complete the development of the FY-11 HDU from conception to rollout for operations in July 2011, a cohesive integration strategy has been developed to integrate the various systems of HDU and the payloads. The highlighted HDU work for FY-11 will focus on performing upgrades to the PEM configuration, adding the X-Hab as a second level, adding a new porch providing the astronauts a larger work area outside the HDU for EVA preparations, and adding a Hygiene module. Together these upgrades result in a prototype configuration of the Deep Space Habitat (DSH), an element under evaluation by NASA's Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) Scheduled activates include early fit-checks and the utilization of a Habitat avionics test bed prior to installation into HDU. A coordinated effort to utilize modeling and simulation systems has aided in design and integration concept development. Modeling tools have been effective in hardware systems layout, cable routing, sub-system interface length estimation and human factors analysis. Decision processes on integration and use of all new subsystems will be defined early in the project to maximize the efficiency of both integration and field operations. In addition a series of tailored design reviews are utilized to quickly define the systems and their integration into the DSH configuration. These processes are necessary to ensure activities, such as partially reversing integration of the X-Hab second story of the HDU and deploying and stowing the new work porch for transportation to the JSC Rock Yard and to the Arizona Black Point Lava Flow Site are performed with minimal or no complications. In addition, incremental test operations leading up to an Integrated systems test allows for an orderly systems test program. For FY-11 activities, the HDU DSH will act as a laboratory utilizing a new X-Hab inflatable second floor with crew habitation features. In addition to the day to day operations involving maintenance of the HDU and exploring the surrounding terrain, testing and optimizing the use of the new X-Hab, work porch, Hygiene Module, and other sub-system enhancements will be the focus of the FY-11 test objectives. The HDU team requires a successful integration strategy using a variety of tools and approaches to prepare the DSH for these test objectives. In a challenging environment where the prototyping influences the system design, as well as Vice versa, results of the HDU DSH field tests will influence future designs of habitat systems.
The desire and ability to fly Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) is of increasing urgency. The application of unmanned aircraft to perform national security, defense, scientific, and emergency management are driving the critical need for less restrictive access by UAS to the NAS. UAS represent a new capability that will provide a variety of services in the government (public) and commercial (civil) aviation sectors. The growth of this potential industry has not yet been realized due to the lack of a common understanding of what is required to safely operate UAS in the NAS. NASA's UAS Integration in the NAS Project is conducting research in the areas of Separation Assurance/Sense and Avoid Interoperability (SSI), Human Systems Integration (HSI), and Communication to support reducing the barriers of UAS access to the NAS. This research was broken into two research themes namely, UAS Integration and Test Infrastructure. UAS Integration focuses on airspace integration procedures and performance standards to enable UAS integration in the air transportation system, covering Sense and Avoid (SAA) performance standards, command and control performance standards, and human systems integration. The focus of the Test Infrastructure theme was to enable development and validation of airspace integration procedures and performance standards, including the execution of integrated test and evaluation. In support of the integrated test and evaluation efforts, the Project developed an adaptable, scalable, and schedulable relevant test environment incorporating live, virtual, and constructive elements capable of validating concepts and technologies for unmanned aircraft systems to safely operate in the NAS. To accomplish this task, the Project planned to conduct three integrated events: a Human-in-the-Loop simulation and two Flight Test series that integrated key concepts, technologies and/or procedures in a relevant air traffic environment. Each of the integrated events were built on the technical achievements, fidelity and complexity of previous simulations and tests, resulting in research findings that support the development of regulations governing the access of UAS into the NAS. The purpose of this document is to describe how well the system under test was representative
The desire and ability to fly Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) is of increasing urgency. The application of unmanned aircraft to perform national security, defense, scientific, and emergency management are driving the critical need for less restrictive access by UAS to the NAS. UAS represent a new capability that will provide a variety of services in the government (public) and commercial (civil) aviation sectors. The growth of this potential industry has not yet been realized due to the lack of a common understanding of what is required to safely operate UAS in the NAS. NASA's UAS Integration into the NAS Project is conducting research in the areas of Separation Assurance/Sense and Avoid Interoperability, Human Systems Integration (HSI), and Communication to support reducing the barriers of UAS access to the NAS. This research is broken into two research themes namely, UAS Integration and Test Infrastructure. UAS Integration focuses on airspace integration procedures and performance standards to enable UAS integration in the air transportation system, covering Sense and Avoid (SAA) performance standards, command and control performance standards, and human systems integration. The focus of Test Infrastructure is to enable development and validation of airspace integration procedures and performance standards, including the integrated test and evaluation. In support of the integrated test and evaluation efforts, the Project will develop an adaptable, scalable, and schedulable relevant test environment capable of evaluating concepts and technologies for unmanned aircraft systems to safely operate in the NAS. To accomplish this task, the Project will conduct a series of Human-in-the-Loop and Flight Test activities that integrate key concepts, technologies and/or procedures in a relevant air traffic environment. Each of the integrated events will build on the technical achievements, fidelity and complexity of the previous tests and technical simulations, resulting in research findings that support the development of regulations governing the access of UAS into the NAS.
The proposed paper will cover ongoing effort named HESTIA (Human Exploration Spacecraft Testbed for Integration and Advancement), led at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to promote a cross-subsystem approach to developing Mars-enabling technologies with the ultimate goal of integrated system optimization. HESTIA also aims to develop the infrastructure required to rapidly test these highly integrated systems at a low cost. The initial focus is on the common fluids architecture required to enable human exploration of mars, specifically between life support and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) subsystems. An overview of the advancements in both integrated technologies, in infrastructure, in simulation, and in modeling capabilities will be presented, as well as the results and findings of integrated testing,. Due to the enormous mass gear-ratio required for human exploration beyond low-earth orbit, (for every 1 kg of payload landed on Mars, 226 kg will be required on Earth), minimization of surface hardware and commodities is paramount. Hardware requirements can be minimized by reduction of equipment performing similar functions though for different subsystems. If hardware could be developed which meets the requirements of both life support and ISRU it could result in the reduction of primary hardware and/or reduction in spares. Minimization of commodities to the surface of mars can be achieved through the creation of higher efficiency systems producing little to no undesired waste, such as a closed-loop life support subsystem. Where complete efficiency is impossible or impractical, makeup commodities could be manufactured via ISRU. Although, utilization of ISRU products (oxygen and water) for crew consumption holds great promise of reducing demands on life support hardware, there exist concerns as to the purity and transportation of commodities. To date, ISRU has been focused on production rates and purities for propulsion needs. The meshing of requirements between all potential users, producers, and cleaners of oxygen and water is crucial to guiding the development of technologies which will be used to perform these functions. Various new capabilities are being developed as part of HESTIA, which will enable the integrated testing of these technologies. This includes the upgrading of a 20' diameter habitat chamber to eventually support long duration (90+ day) human-in-the-loop testing of advanced life support systems. Additionally, a 20' diameter vacuum chamber is being modified to create Mars atmospheric pressures and compositions. This chamber, designated the Mars Environment Chamber (MEC), will eventually be upgraded to include a dusty environment and thermal shroud to simulate conditions on the surface of Mars. In view that individual technologies will be in geographically diverse locations across NASA facilities and elsewhere in the world, schedule and funding constraints will likely limit the frequency of physical integration. When this is the case, absent subsystems can be either digitally or physically simulated. Using the Integrated Power Avionics and Software (iPAS) environment, HESTIA is able to bring together data from various subsystems in simulated surroundings, insert faults, errors, time delays, etc., and feed data into computer models or physical systems capable of reproducing the output of the absent subsystems for the consumption of a local subsystems. Although imperfect, this capability provides opportunities to test subsystem integration and interactions at a fraction of the cost. When a subsystem technology is too immature for integrated testing, models can be produced using the General-Use Nodal Network Solver (GUNNS) capability to simulate the overall system performance. In doing so, even technologies not yet on the drawing board can be integrated and overall system performance estimated. Through the integrated development of technologies, as well as of the infrastructure to rapidly and at a low cost, model, simulate, and test subsystem technologies early in their development, HESTIA is pioneering a new way of developing the future of human space exploration.
The transition to new technology, innovative ideas, and resistance to change is something that every industry experiences. Recent examples of this shift are changing to using robots in the assembly line construction of automobiles or the increasing use of robotics for medical procedures. Most often this is done with cost-reduction in mind, though ease of use for the customer is also a driver. All industries experience the push to increase efficiency of their systems; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the commercial space industry are no different. NASA space communication services are provided by three separately designed, developed, maintained, and operated communications networks known as the Deep Space Network (DSN), Near Earth Network (NEN) and Space Network (SN). The Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program is pursuing integration of these networks and has performed a variety of architecture trade studies to determine what integration options would be the most effective in achieving a unified user mission support organization, and increase the use of common operational equipment and processes. The integration of multiple, legacy organizations and existing systems has challenges ranging from technical to cultural. The existing networks are the progeny of the very first communication and tracking capabilities implemented by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) more than 50 years ago and have been customized to the needs of their respective user mission base. The technical challenges to integrating the networks are many, though not impossible to overcome. The three distinct networks provide the same types of services, with customizable data rates, bandwidth, frequencies, and so forth. The differences across the networks have occurred in effort to satisfy their user missions' needs. Each new requirement has made the networks more unique and harder to integrate. The cultural challenges, however, have proven to be a significant obstacle for integration. Over the past few decades of use, user missions and network personnel alike have grown accustomed to the processes by which services are provided by the NASA communications and navigation networks. The culture established by each network has created several challenges that need to be overcome in order to effectively integrate the networks. As with any change, there has been resistance, an apprehension to explore automation of existing processes, and a working environment that attempts to indirectly influence change without mandating compliance. Overcoming technical and cultural challenges is essential to successfully integrating the networks and although the challenges are numerous, the integration of the networks promises a more efficient space communications network for NASA and its customers, as well as potential long-term cost savings to the agency. This paper, Challenges of Integrating NASA Legacy Communications Networks, will provide a brief overview of the current NASA space communications networks as well as the an overview of the process implemented while performing the SCaN Trade Studies and an introduction to the requirements driving integration of the SCaN Networks. This paper will describe in detail the challenges experienced, both technical and cultural, while working with NASA space communications network-specific personnel. The paper will also cover lessons learned during the performance of architecture trade studies and provide recommendations for ways to improve the process.
The path independent (P-I) integrals in elastic plastic fracture mechanics which have been proposed in recent years to overcome the limitations imposed on the J integral are reviewed. The P-I integrals considered herein are the J integral by Rice, the thermoelastic P-I integrals by Wilson and Yu and by Gurtin, the J* integral by Blackburn, the J sub theta integral by Ainsworth et al., the J integral by Kishimoto et al., and the delta T sub p and delta T* sub p integrals by Atluri et al. The theoretical foundation of these P-I integrals is examined with emphasis on whether or not path independence is maintained in the presence of nonproportional loading and unloading in the plastic regime, thermal gradients, and material inhomogeneities. The similarities, differences, salient features, and limitations of these P-I integrals are discussed. Comments are also made with regard to the physical meaning, the possibility of experimental measurement, and computational aspects.
The objective of this paper is to review the path-independent (P-I) integrals in elastic plastic fracture mechanics which have been proposed in recent years to overcome the limitations imposed on the J-integral. The P-I integrals considered are the J-integral by Rice (1968), the thermoelastic P-I integrals by Wilson and Yu (1979) and Gurtin (1979), the J-integral by Blackburn (1972), the J(theta)-integral by Ainsworth et al. (1978), the J-integral by Kishimoto et al. (1980), and the Delta-T(p) and Delta T(p)-asterisk integrals by Alturi et al. (1982). The theoretical foundation of the P-I integrals is examined with an emphasis on whether or not the path independence is maintained in the presence of nonproportional loading and unloading in the plastic regime, thermal gradient, and material inhomogeneities. The simularities, difference, salient features, and limitations of the P-I integrals are discussed. Comments are also made with regard to the physical meaning, the possibility of experimental measurement, and computational aspects.