SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “virtual time”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

1,106 records · Page 62

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1999

Diagnostic Clast-Texture Criteria for Recognition of Impact Deposits

It is difficult to find definitive evidence for impact in the geological record because there are many endogenous geological processes that can produce diamictites similar to those generated by impact ejecta. The classic impact criteria of shock fabrics in certain minerals, and iridium layers, for example, may be either difficult to find, or long-since erased from the impact site (shock fabrics also anneal with time). It is important to be able to recognize impact-generated materials in order to understand earth's crustal development and biological evolution. In future exploration of Mars and other solar-system bodies, recognition of impact materials will be important for elucidating planetary evolution, planetary volatile inventories, and exobiological issues. The cobble depicted is typical of many that have been found in diamictite deposits in Belize generated by the Chicxulub K-T impact event. The pebbles are roughly-hewn in general shape with smoothed corners and edges. Surfaces are almost uniformly frosted (on both protuberances and hollows), but some asperities are glazed. Optical microscopy and thin-section petrographic microscopy reveal the frosting to be only a few microns thick, with a well-defined granular structure; grains are the same size as those composing the bulk of the limestone, but their clearer appearance may represent annealing. One or two adjacent pebble faces are often decorated with striated gouges and closely-spaced hemispherical depressions representing indentation hollows produced by well-rounded impacting clasts of up to 0.5 cm in diameter. Some of the impactors are still embedded in the cobble surface. Non-destructive x-ray diffraction techniques showed the impactors to be of the same mineralogy as the target cobble. We believe this unusual glazing and frosting to be related to the impact event, but this must be reconciled with its survival for over 60 my. since it is composed of one of the most alterable substances, CaCO3. We focus, however, on the non-fractured rounded pebbles that appear to have impacted the larger cobble as a swarm of clasts, probably encountered during ballistic flight. It cannot be defined whether the cobble swept through the pebble cloud, or the pebbles rained upon a slowermoving cobble. Two interesting questions arise: (1) Where did large numbers of such well rounded pebbles come from in the ejecta curtain?, and (2) How did they embed themselves in a nominally brittle rock without suffering damage? Are the well-rounded pebbles crystalline (devitrified) melt spherules? Further investigations are in progress. If the cobble was cold and brittle, impact of well-rounded pebbles would have produced Hertzian fracture patterns (a) in the virtually elastically isotropic cobble target. For penetration depths of about 0.5 of the impactor diameter, the pebbles would require a relative impact velocity sufficient to cause pebble fragmentation and crushing, and the development of a complex Hertzian-Boussinesq fracture field (b) involving deep fracturing and lateral surface spalling (impact velocities > 50 m/s). The existing relationship could only evolve by the impact of cold, hard pebbles into a soft, plastic cobble surface (c). For limestone to have been plastic, it must have been at elevated temperature, but to prevent calcification of the material, the ambient pressure must also have been elevated. This would be possible either in the impact's gas plume, or within the confines of a thin aerodynamically-produced shock bow generated by supersonic ballistic motion of the cobble. In the latter case, it is implied that the cobble swept through the pebbles rather than vice-versa. Although there are high T-P conditions associated with volcanism, such textures have not been reported on volcaniclastic materials, nor from other high T-P environments; e.g., metamorphic (as far as the authors are aware). We propose that this very easily recognizable embedding and indentation surface texture can be used as a diagnostic criterion for the recognition of impact ejecta. The term "peening texture" is suggested, because it is absolutely analogous to the plastic-deformation induced, metal-surface textures generated by ball-bearing bombardment used in engineering metallurgy to work-harden metal surfaces. Additional information is contained in the original (Figures).

Marshall, J. R.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Configuration and Intraseasonal Duration of Interannual Anomalies of the Great Plains Low-Level Jet

Despite the fact that the low-level jet of the southern Great Plains (the GPLLJ) of the U.S. is primarily a nocturnal phenomenon that virtually vanishes during the daylight hours, it is one of the most persistent and stable climatological features of the low-level continental flow during the warm-season months, May through August. We have used significant-level data to validate the skill of the GEOS-1 Data Assimilation System (DAS) in realistically detecting this jet and inferring its structure and evolution. We have then carried out a 15-year reanalysis with the GEOS-1 DAS to determine its climatology and mean diurnal cycle and to study its interannual variability. Interannual anomalies of the meridional flow associated with the GPLLJ are much smaller than the mean diurnal fluctuations, than random intraseasonal anomalies, and than the mean wind itself. There are three maxima of low-level meridional flow variance over the Great Plains and the Gulf of Mexico: a 1.2 m2 s-2 peak over the southeast Texas, to the east and south of the mean velocity peak, a 1.0 m2 s-2 peak over the western Gulf of Mexico, and a .8 m2 s-2 peak over the upper Great Plains (UGP), near the Nebraska/South Dakota border. Each of the three variance maxima corresponds to a spatially coherent, jet-like pattern of low-level flow interannual variability. There are also three dominant modes of interannual variability corresponding to the three variance maxima, but not in a simple one-to-one relationship. Cross-sectional profiles of mean southerly wind over Texas remain relatively stable and recognizable from year to year with only its eastward flank showing significant variability. This variability, however, exhibits a distinct, biennial oscillation during the first six to seven years of the reanalysis period and only then. This intermittent biennial oscillation (IBO, one of the three modes discussed in the previous paragraph) in the lowlevel flow is restricted to the region surrounding eastern Texas and is also evident in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data set from about 1978 to 1985 or 1986 and again from 1995 to 2000. It is evident as well in surface pressure in both the GEOS-1 and NCEP/NCAR sets. The interannual anomalies do not necessarily persist uniformly throughout an entire season, but can fluctuate from one part of the season to the next. To estimate the characteristic sub-seasonal time scales for coherence of these fluctuations, we have taken the weekly anomaly of low-level wind at each point of the domain from the climatological average for that given point and that given week of the season and computed the covariance of its fluctuations over all weeks and over all years with the weekly climatological anomaly of the meridional wind at each of the three reference points discussed above. The typical duration of a coherent interannual anomaly within a given warm season increases with decreasing latitude from 2 to 3 weeks over the UGP, to 6 to 7 weeks over eastern Texas. Coherence over the western Gulf of Mexico is intermediate between the two with a typical duration of 4 to 5 weeks. There appears to be evidence that the interannual anomalies over Texas the Gulf propagate to the UGP after a week and those over the Gulf propagate there after 2 to 3 weeks. There also appears to be some reverse propagation of interannual anomalies over the UGP to Texas and to the Gulf after a period of about one week. The interannual anomalies in southerly flow over eastern Texas seem to correlate well with interannual anomalies of surface temperature and (negative) ground wetness and over western Texas.

Helfand, H. M.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Solar Dynamics Observatory Guidance, Navigation, and Control System Overview

The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) was designed and built at the Goddard Space Flight Center, launched from Cape Canaveral on February 11, 2010, and reached its final geosynchronous science orbit on March 16, 2010. The purpose of SDO is to observe the Sun and continuously relay data to a dedicated ground station. SDO remains Sun-pointing throughout most of its mission for the instruments to take measurements of the Sun. The SDO attitude control system (ACS) is a single-fault tolerant design. Its fully redundant attitude sensor complement includes sixteen coarse Sun sensors (CSSs), a digital Sun sensor (DSS), three two-axis inertial reference units (IRUs), and two star trackers (STs). The ACS also makes use of the four guide telescopes included as a part of one of the science instruments. Attitude actuation is performed using four reaction wheels assemblies (RWAs) and eight thrusters, with a single main engine used to provide velocity-change thrust for orbit raising. The attitude control software has five nominal control modes, three wheel-based modes and two thruster-based modes. A wheel-based Safehold running in the attitude control electronics box improves the robustness of the system as a whole. All six modes are designed on the same basic proportional-integral-derivative attitude error structure, with more robust modes setting their integral gains to zero. This paper details the final overall design of the SDO guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) system and how it was used in practice during SDO launch, commissioning, and nominal operations. This overview will include the ACS control modes, attitude determination and sensor calibration, the high gain antenna (HGA) calibration, and jitter mitigation operation. The Solar Dynamics Observatory mission is part of the NASA Living With a Star program, which seeks to understand the changing Sun and its effects on the Solar System, life, and society. To this end, the SDO spacecraft carries three Sun-observing instruments: Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI), led by Stanford University; Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA), led by Lockheed Martin Space and Astrophysics Laboratory; and Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE), led by the University of Colorado. The basic mission is to observe the Sun for a very high percentage of the 5-year mission (10-year goal) with long stretches of uninterrupted observations and with constant, high-data-rate transmission to a dedicated ground station to be located in White Sands, New Mexico. These goals guided the design of the spacecraft bus that will carry and service the three-instrument payload. Overarching design goals for the bus are geosynchronous orbit, near-constant Sun observations with the ability to fly through eclipses, and constant HGA contact with the dedicated ground station. A three-axis stabilized ACS is needed both to point at the Sun accurately and to keep the roll about the Sun vector correctly positioned with respect to the solar north pole. This roll control is especially important for the magnetic field imaging of HM I. The mission requirements have several general impacts on the ACS design. Both the AIA and HMI instruments are very sensitive to the blurring caused by jitter. Each has an image stabilization system (ISS) with some ability to filter out high frequency motion, but below the bandwidth of the ISS the control system must compensate for disturbances within the ACS bandwidth or avoid exciting jitter at higher frequencies. Within the ACS bandwidth, the control requirement imposed by AIA is to place the center of the solar disk no more than 2 arc sec, 3 , from a body-defined target based on one of the GTs that accompany the instrument. This body-defined target, called the science reference boresight (SRB), was determined from the postlaunch orientation of the GTs by averaging the bounding telescope boresights for pitch to get a pitch SRB coordinate, and by averaging the bounding boresights for yaw toet the yaw SRB coordinate. The location of this SRB in the 0.5-deg field-of-view for each GT then becomes the central target for each telescope; one GT is selected for use as the ACS controlling guide telescope (CGT) at any given time. Fine Sun-pointing is effected based on this SRB for all three instruments when the Sun is within the linear range of the CGT. In addition to limiting jitter, HMI science requires averaging several observations, making the instrument sensitive to low frequency motion that induces differential motion between each observation. This requires the spacecraft attitude to be stable about the roll axis to approximately 10 arcsec over a ten-minute period. Instrument calibrations require that the spacecraft point the SRB up to 2.5 degrees in pitch and yaw away from the center of the Sun, placing the Sun outside the field-of-view of the guide telescopes. In such instances, when the GTs cannot provide the definitive target for the ACS, on-board attitude determination combined with ephemeris prediction of the Sun direction must provide the definitive target. EVE is capable of observing the Sun with less dependence on attitude control. However, the ground data processing needs for calibrations result in the most strict attitude knowledge requirements for the mission: [35,70,70] arcsec, 3 , of knowledge with respect to the center of the solar disk. In addition to driving the ACS sensor selection, the knowledge requirements, which have their effect primarily during Inertial mode calibrations, drive the accuracy requirements for the solar ephemeris. The need to achieve and maintain geosynchronous orbit (GEO) drove the need for high-efficiency propulsive systems and appropriate attitude control. The main engine provided high specific impulse for the maneuvers to attain GEO, while the smaller ACS thrusters managed the disturbance torques of the larger engine and provided the capability for much smaller adjustment burns on orbit. SDO s large solar profile means that solar radiation pressure is a large torque disturbance, and the momentum buildup from this disturbance and the GEO altitude drives the ACS to use thrusters to manage vehicle momentum. The demanding data capture budget for the mission, however, requires SDO to avoid frequent thruster maneuvers, while concerns about on-orbit jitter restrict the maximum desired wheel speeds desired from the RWAs. The plan for on-orbit wheel speed and momentum management will be discussed as well as what is now being done in operation after the jitter environment was characterized. The SDO ACS hardware complement is single-fault tolerant. Two main processors carry virtually identical copies of the command and data handling and ACS software, and two identical attitude control electronics (ACE) boxes carry Coldfire processors with contingency ACS software and other hardware interface cards; the ACE structure allows reaction wheels to be commanded by the Sun-pointing Safehold independent of the Mil Std 1553 data bus. The sixteen Adcole CSSs are grouped into primary and backup sets of eight sensors, each set providing the ability to calculate a sun vector. Each set of eight eyes provides full 4 -steradian coverage. The Adcole DSS comprises an optics head and a separate electronics box providing a 1553 data interface. The electronics box is mounted inside the Faraday cage created by the spacecraft bus module. The DSS head with its 32- deg square FOV is mounted on the instrument module with its boresight along the spacecraft X axis, nearly aligned with the Sun during observations. Adcole has designed the DSS calibration parameters so that the accuracy is 0.24 arcminutes within 10 deg of the boresight, and diminishes to 3 arcminutes as the Sun moves towards the edges of its FOV . This DSS calibration scheme provides higher accuracy attitude determination over the range of the instrument calibration maneuvers.

Morgenstern, Wendy M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Gandalf Staff: A Mobile Tool for Lunar Exploration (2nd year of development)

The Gandalf Staff is a mobile tool designed to be a flexible device supporting crewed and uncrewed operations on the lunar surface. The core of the device is a 24v battery with communications and data storage systems. Initial optional components supporting crewed Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) include a LiDAR and 360˚ camera. These provide 3D mapping of the traverse for documentation, and to aid future planning. The mapping also creates outreach opportunities for the public to “stand beside” the astronaut in Virtual Reality (VR). The staff provides external lighting for field site illumination in the south polar region low sun angle environment. Navigation instruments for crew position determination with Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) are also included. The staff itself can be used as a walking aid or as a splint for Incapacitated Crew Rescue (ICR). As a stand-alone device, the staff operates as a long duration untended science platform collecting environmental data and sending it to a lunar base station. The stand-alone mode requires connection to an auxiliary power source (e.g. solar array) and energy storage system (e.g. battery), so it could become an electrical recharging station. To make rapid progress in the 1st year, and also to demonstrate innovative project management techniques, NASA guided a private industry partner, T STAR, in leading Capstone Engineering student teams at Texas A&M University (TAMU) for proof-of-concept development and testing. These teams developed the power system and demonstrated successful integration of LiDAR, WiFi communications, and external lighting subsystems. Another industry team at Jacobs Technology prototyped a tripod to hold the staff upright. For the 2nd year (FY’22), NASA will again collaborate with partners to prototype enhanced power and lighting concepts. Year 2 will also add new capability for LunaSAR and geophysical science instrumentation using a heat probe. The heat probe is based upon Apollo heritage but modified to measure subsurface volatile ice regimes at the Artemis landing site. Components of the Gandalf Staff can be developed, tested, and deployed independently, or on the integrated staff, rovers, or utility trailers. The project supports crew safety, lunar sample curation, mission science, and public outreach goals of NASA. PLAIN TEST SUMMARY: Gandalf Staff is a 24v battery powered mobile tool for the lunar surface supporting crewed geologic field site exploration, or as a stand-alone science platform. As a tool assisting astronauts conducting field geology, the Gandalf Staff provides external lighting to illuminate shadowed regions on the surface. It also documents the process of collecting rocks and dust samples using a LiDAR (laser range instrument) and cameras. The staff provides a beacon for emergency location of astronauts and augments communications when the astronauts are blocked by large boulders. As a standalone science platform, the Gandalf Staff provides a power system for instruments and sensors to measure the lunar environment over long periods of time. The staff gathers data and sends the results to a lunar base station for analysis.

External Lighting↗

NASA NTRS1996

Evaluation of an Anthropometric Human Body Model for Simulated EVA Task Assessment

One of the more mission-critical tasks performed in space is extravehicular activity (EVA) which requires the astronaut to be external to the station or spacecraft, and subsequently at risk from the many threats posed by space. These threats include, but are not limited to: no significant atmosphere, harmful electromagnetic radiation, micrometeoroids, and space debris. To protect the astronaut from this environment, a special EVA suit is worn which is designed to maintain a sustainable atmosphere (at 1/3 atmosphere) and provide protection against the hazards of space. While the EVA suit serves these functions well, it does impose limitations on the astronaut as a consequence of the safety it provides. Since the astronaut is in a virtual vacuum, any atmospheric pressure inside the suit serves to pressurize the suit and restricts mobility of flexible joints (such as fabric). Although some of the EVA suit joints are fixed, rotary-style joints, most of the mobility is achieved by the simple flexibility of the fabric. There are multiple layers of fabric, each of which serves a special purpose in the safety of the astronaut. These multiple layers add to the restriction of motion the astronaut experiences in the space environment. Ground-based testing is implemented to evaluate the capability of EVA-suited astronauts to perform the various tasks in space. In addition to the restriction of motion imposed by the EVA suit, most EVA activity is performed in a micro-gravity (weight less) environment. To simulate weightlessness EVA-suited testing is performed in a neutral buoyancy simulator (NBS). The NBS is composed of a large container of water (pool) in which a weightless environment can be simulated. A subject is normally buoyant in the pressurized suit; however he/she can be made neutrally buoyant with the addition of weights. In addition, most objects the astronaut must interface with in the NBS sink in water and flotation must be added to render them "weightless". The implementation of NBS testing has proven to invaluable in the assessment of EVA activities performed with the Orbiter and is considered to be a key step in the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). While the NBS testing is extremely valuable, it does require considerable overhead to maintain and operate. It has been estimated that the cost of utilizing the facility is approximately $10,000 per day. Therefore it is important to maximize the utility of NBS testing for optimal results. One important aspect to consider in any human/worksite interface is the considerable wealth of anthropometric and ergonomic data available. A subset of this information specific to EVA activity is available in NASA standard 3000. The difficulty in implementing this data is that most of the anthropometric information is represented in a two-dimensional format. This poses some limitations in complete evaluation of the astronaut's capabilities in a three-dimensional environment. Advances in computer hardware and software have provided for three-dimensional design and implementation of hardware with the advance of computer aided design (CAD) software. There are a number of CAD products available and most companies and agencies have adopted CAD as a fundamental aspect of the design process. Another factor which supports the use of CAD is the implementation of computer aided manufacturing (CAM) software and hardware which provides for rapid prototyping and decreases the time to product in the design process. It is probable that most hardware to be accessed by astronauts in EVA or IVA (intravehicular activity) has been designed by a CAD system, and is therefore represented in three-dimensional space for evaluation. Because of the implementation of CAD systems and the movement towards early prototyping, a need has arisen in industry and government for tools which facilitate the evaluation of ergonomic consideration in a three-dimensional environment where the hardware has been designed by the CAD tools. One such product is Jack which was developed by the University of Pennsylvania with funding from several government agencies, including NASA. While the primary purpose of Jack is to model human figures in a ground-based (gravity) environment, it can be utilized to evaluate EVA-suited activities as well. The effects of simulated gravity must be turned off by turning off "behaviors". Although Jack provides human figures for manipulation, the primary instrument to be evaluated for EVA mobility is the work envelope provided by the EVA suit. An EVA Jack suit model has been developed by NASA-JSC and was utilized in this study. This suit model provided a more restrictive motion environment as expected for an EVA suited subject. As part of this study, the anthropometric dimensions for a 50th percentile male were compared with basic anthropometric data and were found to be representative for the population group expected in the NASA flight program. The joints for the suit were created in a manner which provided consistent performance with EVA reach envelopes published in NASA standard #3000.

Etter, Brad↗

NASA NTRS2015

Exercise Equipment Usability Assessment for a Deep Space Concept Vehicle

With international aspirations to send astronauts to deep space, the world is now faced with the complex problem of keeping astronauts healthy in unexplored hostile environments for durations of time never before attempted by humans. The great physical demands imparted by space exploration compound the problem of astronaut health, as the astronauts must not only be healthy, but physically fit upon destination arrival in order to perform the scientific tasks required of them. Additionally, future deep space exploration necessitates the development of environments conducive to long-duration habitation that would supplement propulsive vehicles. Space Launch System (SLS) core stage barrel sections present large volumes of robust structure that can be recycled and used for long duration habitation. This assessment will focus on one such conceptual craft, referred to as the SLS Derived Habitat (SLS-DH). Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC) Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) has formulated a high-level layout of this SLS-DH with parameters such as floor number and orientation, floor designations, grid dimensions, wall placement, etc. Yet to be determined, however, is the layout of the exercise area. Currently the SLS-DH features three floors laid out longitudinally, leaving 2m of height between the floor and ceilings. This short distance between levels introduces challenges for proper placement of exercise equipment such as treadmills and stationary bicycles, as the dynamic envelope for the 95th percentile male astronauts is greater than 2m. This study aims to assess the optimal equipment layout and sizing for the exercise area of this habitat. Figure 1 illustrates the layout of the DSH concept demonstrator located at MSFC. The exercise area is located on the lower level, seen here as the front half of the level occupied by a crew member. This small volume does not allow for numerous or bulky exercise machines, so the conceptual equipment has been limited to a treadmill and stationary bicycle. With the most current treadmill aboard the International Space Station (ISS), the Combined Operational Load-Bearing External Resistance Treadmill (COLBERT), being located in an International Standard Payload Rack (ISPR), the bottom of the conceptual treadmill features a height of 38in. Making the treadmill flush with the floor would be impossible in this rack configuration, as the distance from the outer wall of the spacecraft to the bottom floor would be too shallow. From preliminary sizing, the 38in required for the bottom of the treadmill combined with a 78in operational envelope for a 95th percentile may not be accommodated in the exercise area in a vertical orientation. Figure 2 demonstrates the volume required (in maroon) for an ISPR-bound treadmill in the concept demonstrator. Early indications as seen in this figure indicate that the crew members would contact the ceiling in such an arrangement. An assessment will be conducted to evaluate various orientations of exercise equipment in the concept demonstrator. Orientations to be tested include putting the bottom of the treadmill on the wall, having the treadmill at an angle in the floor both horizontally and vertically, and having a shorter (non-rack bound) treadmill in a vertical orientation on the floor. This assessment will yield findings regarding sizing of the area and how well participants feel they could exercise in such an environment. Due to the restrictions of assessing a microgravity vehicle in a normal-gravity environment, simulations in MSFC's Virtual Environments Lab (VEL) may be necessary. Final deliverables will include recommendations regarding the location and size of possible exercise equipment aboard the SLS-Derived DSH.

Rhodes, Brooke M.↗

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 NTRS1994

Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory

1. Forward reaching movements made during body rotation generate tangential Coriolis forces that are proportional to the cross product of the angular velocity of rotation and the linear velocity of the arm. Coriolis forces are inertial forces that do not involve mechanical contact. Virtually no constant centrifugal forces will be present in the background when motion of the arm generates transient Coriolis forces if the radius of body rotation is small. 2. We measured the trajectories of arm movements made in darkness to a visual target that was extinguished as movement began. The reaching movements were made prerotation, during rotation at 10 rpm in a fully enclosed rotating room, and postrotation. During testing the subject was seated at the center of the room and pointed radially. Neither visual nor tactile feedback about movement accuracy was present. 3. In experiment 1, subjects reached at a fast or slow rate and their hands made contact with a horizontal surface at the end of the reach. Their initial perrotary movements were highly significantly deviated relative to prerotation in both trajectories and end-points in the direction of the transient Coriolis forces that had been generated during the reaches. Despite the absence of visual and tactile feedback about reaching accuracy, all subjects rapidly regained straight movement trajectories and accurate endpoints. Postrotation, transient errors of opposite sign were present for both trajectories and endpoints. 4. In a second experiment the conditions were identical except that subjects pointed just above the location of the extinguished target so that no surface contact was involved. All subjects showed significant initial perrotation deviations of trajectories and endpoints in the direction of the transient Coriolis forces. With repeated reaches the trajectories, as viewed from above, again became straight, but there was only partial restoration of endpoint accuracy, so that subjects reached in a straight line to the wrong place. Aftereffects of opposite sign were transiently present in the postrotary movements. 5. These observations fail to support current equilibrium point models, both alpha and lambda, of movement control. Such theories would not predict endpoint errors under our experimental conditions, in which the Coriolis force is absent at the beginning and end of a movement. Our results indicate that detailed aspects of movement trajectory are being continuously monitored on the basis of proprioceptive feedback in relation to motor commands. Adaptive compensations can be initiated after one perturbation despite the absence of either visual or tactile feedback about movement trajectory and endpoint error. Moreover, movement trajectory and end-point can be remapped independently.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS).

Non-NASA Center↗