SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Integrability”

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.

At least 127 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2005

Systems Engineering and Integration for Advanced Life Support System and HST

Systems engineering (SE) discipline has revolutionized the way engineers and managers think about solving issues related to design of complex systems: With continued development of state-of-the-art technologies, systems are becoming more complex and therefore, a systematic approach is essential to control and manage their integrated design and development. This complexity is driven from integration issues. In this case, subsystems must interact with one another in order to achieve integration objectives, and also achieve the overall system's required performance. Systems engineering process addresses these issues at multiple levels. It is a technology and management process dedicated to controlling all aspects of system life cycle to assure integration at all levels. The Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM) project serves as the systems engineering and integration function for the Human Support Technology (HST) program. AIM provides means for integrated test facilities and personnel for performance trade studies, analyses, integrated models, test results, and validated requirements of the integration of HST. The goal of AIM is to address systems-level integration issues for exploration missions. It will use an incremental systems integration approach to yield technologies, baselines for further development, and possible breakthrough concepts in the areas of technological and organizational interfaces, total information flow, system wide controls, technical synergism, mission operations protocols and procedures, and human-machine interfaces.

Kamarani, Ali K.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Systems Integration Processes for NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle

NASA's Exploration Initiative will require development of many new elements to constitute a robust system of systems. New launch vehicles are needed to place cargo and crew in stable low earth orbit. This paper examines the systems integration processes NASA is utilizing to ensure integration and control of propulsion and non-propulsion elements within NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV). The objective of the CLV is to provide the transportation capabilities to meet the Constellation Program requirements for delivering a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or other payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in support of the lunar and Mars missions. The CLV must successfully provide the capability within cost and schedule with an acceptable risk approach. This paper will describe in detail the systems engineering management processes that will be applied to assure CLV Project success through complete and efficient technical integration. Discussion of specific processes for requirements development and verification, integrated design and analysis, integrated simulation and testing and the integration of reliability, maintainability and supportability (RMS) into the design will also be included. The CLV Project is broken logically into elements by the major hardware groupings, and associated management, system engineering, and integration functions. The processes to be described herein are designed to integrate within these CLV elements and among the other Constellation projects. Launch vehicle stack integration (CLV to CEV, and Ground and Flight Operations integration) throughout the life cycle, including integrated vehicle performance through orbital insertion, recovery of the first stage, and reentry of the upper stage will also be discussed. The processes for decomposing requirements to the Elements and ensuring that requirements have been correctly validated, decomposed, allocated, and that the verification requirements are properly defined to ensure that the system design meets requirements will be discussed.

Reuter, James L.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Systems Integration Processes for NASA Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

NASA's Exploration Initiative will require development of many new elements to constitute a robust system of systems. New launch vehicles are needed to place cargo and crew in stable Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This paper examines the systems integration processes NASA is utilizing to ensure integration and control of propulsion and nonpropulsion elements within NASA's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), now known as the Ares I. The objective of the Ares I is to provide the transportation capabilities to meet the Constellation Program requirements for delivering a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or other payload to LEO in support of the lunar and Mars missions. The Ares I must successfully provide this capability within cost and schedule, and with an acceptable risk approach. This paper will describe the systems engineering management processes that will be applied to assure Ares I Project success through complete and efficient technical integration. Discussion of technical review and management processes for requirements development and verification, integrated design and analysis, integrated simulation and testing, and the integration of reliability, maintainability and supportability (RMS) into the design will also be included. The Ares I Project is logically divided into elements by the major hardware groupings, and associated management, system engineering, and integration functions. The processes to be described herein are designed to integrate within these Ares I elements and among the other Constellation projects. Also discussed is launch vehicle stack integration (Ares I to CEV, and Ground and Flight Operations integration) throughout the life cycle, including integrated vehicle performance through orbital insertion, recovery of the first stage, and reentry of the upper stage. The processes for decomposing requirements to the elements and ensuring that requirements have been correctly validated, decomposed, and allocated, and that the verification requirements are properly defined to ensure that the system design meets requirements, will be discussed.

Taylor, James L.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Integration and Testing Challenges of Small Satellite Missions: Experiences from the Space Technology 5 Project

The Space Technology 5(ST5) payload was successfully carried into orbit on an OSC Pegasus XL launch vehicle, which was carried aloft and dropped from the OSC Lockheed L-1011 from Vandenberg Air Force Base March 22,2006, at 9:03 am Eastern time, 6:03 am Pacific time. In order to reach the completion of the development and successful launch of ST 5, the systems integration and test(I&T) team determined that a different approach was required to meet the project requirements rather than the standard I&T approach used for single, room-sized satellites. The ST5 payload, part of NASA's New Millennium Program headquartered at JPL, consisted of three micro satellites (approximately 30 kg each) and the Pegasus Support Structure (PSS), the system that connected the spacecrafts to the launch vehicle and deployed the spacecrafts into orbit from the Pegasus XL launch vehicle. ST5 was a technology demonstration payload, intended to test six (6) new technologies for potential use for future space flights along with demonstrating the ability of small satellites to perform quality science. The main technology was a science grade magnetometer designed to take measurements of the earth's magnetic field. The three spacecraft were designed, integrated, and tested at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center with integration and environmental testing occurring in the Bldg. 7-1 0-15-29. The three spacecraft were integrated and tested by the same I&T team. The I&T Manager determined that there was insufficient time in the schedule to perform the three I&T spacecraft activities in series used standard approaches. The solution was for spacecraft #1 to undergo integration and test first, followed by spacecraft #2 and #3 simultaneously. This simultaneous integration was successful for several reasons. Each spacecraft had a Lead Test Conductor who planned and coordinated their spacecraft through its integration and test activities. One team of engineers and technicians executed the integration of all three spacecraft, learning and gaining knowledge and efficiency as spacecraft #1 integration and testing progressed. They became acutely familiar with the hardware, operation and processes for I&T, thus each team member had the experience and knowledge to safely execute I&T for spacecraft #2 and #3 together. The integration team was very versatile and each member could perform many different activities or work any spacecraft, when needed. Daily meetings between the three Lead TCs and technician team allowed the team to plan and implement activities efficiently. The three (3) spacecraft and PSS were successfully integrated and tested, shipped to the launch site, and ready for launch per the I&T schedule that was planned three years previously.

Sauerwein, Timothy A.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Streamlining Payload Integration

Payload integration onto space transport vehicles and the International Space Station (ISS) is a complex process. Yet, cargo transport is the sole reason for any space mission, be it for ferrying humans, science, or hardware. As the largest such effort in history, the ISS offers a wide variety of payload experience. However, for any payload to reach the Space Station under the current process, Payload Developers face a list of daunting tasks that go well beyond just designing the payload to the constraints of the transport vehicle and its stowage topology. Payload customers are required to prove their payload s functionality, structural integrity, and safe integration - including under less than nominal situations. They must also plan for or provide training, procedures, hardware labeling, ground support, and communications. In addition, they must deal with negotiating shared consumables, integrating software, obtaining video, and coordinating the return of data and hardware. All the while, they must meet export laws, launch schedules, budget limits, and the consensus of more than 12 panel and board reviews. Despite the cost and infrastructure overhead, payload proposals have increased. Just in the span from FY08 to FY09, the NASA Payload Space Station Support Office budget rose from $78M to $96M in attempt to manage the growing manifest, but the potential number of payloads still exceeds available Payload Integration Management manpower. The growth has also increased management difficulties due to the fact that payloads are more frequently added to a flight schedule late in the flow. The current standard ISS template for payload integration from concept to payload turn-over is 36 months, or 18 months if the payload already has a preliminary design. Customers are increasingly requiring a turn-around of 3 to 6-months to meet market needs. The following paper suggests options for streamlining the current payload integration process in order to meet customer schedule needs and reduce costs for both the integration support teams and the developers, without reducing quality or compromising safety. Issues for the key integration areas of planning, training, verification, and safety are presented in a Root-Cause Analysis study, with plausible solutions provided that involve technology and tools already available to the ISS community. Although based upon the ISS process, the payload integration techniques outlined herein also offer an integration template for any space transport endeavor.

Lufkin, Susan N.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Integrated Electrode Arrays for Neuro-Prosthetic Implants

Arrays of electrodes integrated with chip-scale packages and silicon-based integrated circuits have been proposed for use as medical electronic implants, including neuro-prosthetic devices that might be implanted in brains of patients who suffer from strokes, spinal-cord injuries, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The electrodes of such a device would pick up signals from neurons in the cerebral cortex, and the integrated circuit would perform acquisition and preprocessing of signal data. The output of the integrated circuit could be used to generate, for example, commands for a robotic arm. Electrode arrays capable of acquiring electrical signals from neurons already exist, but heretofore, there has been no convenient means to integrate these arrays with integrated-circuit chips. Such integration is needed in order to eliminate the need for the extensive cabling now used to pass neural signals to data-acquisition and -processing equipment outside the body. The proposed integration would enable progress toward neuro-prostheses that would be less restrictive of patients mobility. An array of electrodes would comprise a set of thin wires of suitable length and composition protruding from and supported by a fine-pitch micro-ball grid array or chip-scale package (see figure). The associated integrated circuit would be mounted on the package face opposite the probe face, using the solder bumps (the balls of the ball grid array) to make the electrical connections between the probes and the input terminals of the integrated circuit. The key innovation is the insertion of probe wires of the appropriate length and material into the solder bumps through a reflow process, thereby fixing the probes in place and electrically connecting them with the integrated circuit. The probes could be tailored to any distribution of lengths and made of any suitable metal that could be drawn into fine wires. Furthermore, the wires could be coated with an insulating layer using anodization or other processes, to achieve the correct electrical impedance. The probe wires and the packaging materials must be biocompatible using such materials as lead-free solders. For protection, the chip and package can be coated with parylene.

Brandon, Erik↗

NASA NTRS2014

2014 SRP Integration Transcript

HRP's mission is to reduce the risks to human health and performance during long-duration spaceflight. The HRP Integrated Research Plan (IRP) contains the research plans for the 32 risks that require research to characterize and mitigate. From its inception the "integrate" aspect of the IRP has denoted the integrated nature of risks to human health and performance. Even though each risk in the IRP has its own research plan and is tracked separately, the interrelated nature of health and performance requires that they be addressed in an integrative or holistic fashion so that the connectedness of physiological systems within the human body and the integrated response to spaceflight can be addressed. Common characteristics of the spaceflight environment include altered gravity, atmospheres, and light/dark cycles; space radiation; isolation; noise; and periods of high or low workload. Long-term exposure to this unique environment produces a suite of physiological effects such as stress; vision, neurocognitive, and anthropometric changes; circadian misalignment; fluid shifts; cardiovascular deconditioning; immune dysregulation; and altered nutritional requirements. Expanding cross-disciplinary integrative approaches that synthesize concepts or data from two or more disciplines would improve the identification and characterization risk factors, and enable the development of countermeasures relevant to multiple risks. Cross-disciplinary approaches might also help to illuminate problem areas that may arise when a countermeasure adversely impacts risks other than those which it was developed to mitigate, or to identify groupings of physiological changes that are likely to occur that may impact the overall risk posture. In 2014 HRP embarked on a pilot study that combined four SRPs (and 12 HRP risks) - Behavioral Health, Sensorimotor, Cardiovascular, and Bone/Muscle - specifically to discuss cross-disciplinary integration. The points outlined below were suggested to seed the discussion, within the bounding constraint that research plans must be feasible and relevant to the HRP mission. While these were suggested starting points, the overall guiding principle was to allow free discussion from panel members on any aspect of integrated research that they felt was important, Existing cross-disciplinary integration as documented in the IRP (HRR), Existing or needed integration already identified by HRP, but not yet well defined within the IRP, Areas of integration that are missing.

Steinberg, Susan↗

NASA NTRS2013

Challenges of Integrating NASAs Space Communication Networks

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.

Reinert, Jessica M.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project KDP-C Review

The topics discussed are the UAS-NAS project life-cycle and ARMD thrust flow down, as well as the UAS environments and how we operate in those environments. NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards, CA, is leading a project designed to help integrate unmanned air vehicles into the world around us. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System project, or UAS in the NAS, will contribute capabilities designed to reduce technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS. The project falls under the Integrated Systems Research Program office managed at NASA Headquarters by the agency's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. NASA's four aeronautics research centers - Armstrong, Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Glenn Research Center - are part of the technology development project. With the use and diversity of unmanned aircraft growing rapidly, new uses for these vehicles are constantly being considered. Unmanned aircraft promise new ways of increasing efficiency, reducing costs, enhancing safety and saving lives 460265main_ED10-0132-16_full.jpg Unmanned aircraft systems such as NASA's Global Hawks (above) and Predator B named Ikhana (below), along with numerous other unmanned aircraft systems large and small, are the prime focus of the UAS in the NAS effort to integrate them into the national airspace. Credits: NASA Photos 710580main_ED07-0243-37_full.jpg The UAS in the NAS project envisions performance-based routine access to all segments of the national airspace for all unmanned aircraft system classes, once all safety-related and technical barriers are overcome. The project will provide critical data to such key stakeholders and customers as the Federal Aviation Administration and RTCA Special Committee 203 (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) by conducting integrated, relevant system-level tests to adequately address safety and operational challenges of national airspace access by unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. In the process, the project will work with other key stakeholders to define necessary deliverables and products to help enable such access. Within the project, NASA is focusing on five sub-projects. These five focus areas include assurance of safe separation of unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft when flying in the national airspace; safety-critical command and control systems and radio frequencies to enable safe operation of UAS; human factors issues for ground control stations; airworthiness certification standards for UAS avionics and integrated tests and evaluation designed to determine the viability of emerging UAS technology. Five Focus Areas of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project Separation Assurance Provide an assessment of how planned Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) separation assurance systems, with different functional allocations, perform for UAS in mixed operations with manned aircraft Assess the applicability to UAS and the performance of NASA NextGen separation assurance systems in flight tests with realistic latencies and uncertain trajectories Assess functional allocations ranging from today's ground-based, controller-provided aircraft separation to fully autonomous airborne self-separation Communications Develop data and rationale to obtain appropriate frequency spectrum allocations to enable safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Develop and validate candidate secure safety-critical command and control system/subsystem test equipment for UAS that complies with UAS international/national frequency regulations, standards and recommended practices and minimum operational and aviation system performance standards for UAS Perform analysis to support recommendations for integration of safety-critical command and control systems and air traffic control communications to ensure safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Human Systems Integration Develop a research test bed and database to provide data and proof of concept for GCS - ground control station - operations in the NAS Coordinate with standards organizations to develop human-factors guidelines for GCS operation in the NAS Certification Define a UAS classification scheme and approach to determining Federal Aviation Regulation airworthiness requirements applicable to all UAS digital avionics Provide hazard and risk-related data to support development of type design criteria and best development practices Integrated Tests and Evaluation Integrate and test mature concepts from technical elements to demonstrate and test viability Evaluate the performance of technology development in a relevant environment (full-mission, human-in-the-loop simulations and flight tests)

outreach↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Custom Integration of Multiple Medical Functionalities

INTRODUCTION: Previous spaceflight experience and results from probabilistic risk assessment of spaceflight medical risk have highlighted the need for vital sign measurements, medical scopes, and clinical imaging tools for managing medical conditions during spaceflight. The Human Research Program’s Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element and the Mars Campaign Office’s Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) have performed ground-based evaluations of two Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) Multi-functional Integrated Medical (MIM) devices, which integrate various medical capabilities together in one device. The key findings from these evaluations are presented in a complementary presentation, leaving this presentation to focus on forward recommendations for customized integration of multiple medical functionalities. KEY COMPONENTS: The key features of a custom integration of multiple medical functionalities includes devices and capabilities that optimally reduce medical risk. The COTS MIM devices incorporated functionality for best supporting Earth-based, emergency, pre-hospital care. Our custom integration will use probabilistic risk assessment tools, such as the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT), to determine the optimal functionality to include based on medical risk minimization. An additional feature of custom integration includes the ability to adapt to different requirements within different vehicles and/or missions. The COTS MIM devices store data in patient specific records, however, the format of the records is not modifiable, and data are not easily transferred from the MIM device to a central data architecture outside of the manufacturer’s established system. Our concept for custom integration will use devices that have an open application programming interface, which can easily connect to independent data architectures and third-party visualization software. The ultrasound capabilities included within the COTS MIM devices did not satisfy many of the Artemis Research and Operations Working Group’s ultrasound functional needs, and therefore, incorporation of higher quality ultrasound capabilities within a customized integration will be beneficial. The COTS MIM devices included minimal procedural guidance and clinical decision support tools. Supplemental tools of this type would need to be supplied along with the COTS MIM devices if they were to be used operationally, so another advantage of customization is the ability to integrate these support tools along with the medical functionality, for a more streamlined user experience. CONCLUSION: Investigation of a customized integration of medical functionality provides a method for further understanding the needs of a long-term exploration spaceflight medical system. The crew members of these exploration missions will need to operate more and more independently from Earth-based ground support. Therefore, having an optimized, streamlined medical system, which contains the functionality and supporting information needed, while remaining within mission and vehicle constraints, will help to maintain crew health and performance, which is necessary for achieving high levels of mission success.

B E Lewandowski↗

NASA NTRS1974

Some self starting integrators for x Prime equals f (x, t)

The integration is discussed of the vector differential equation X = F(x, t) from time t sub i to t sub (i = 1) where only the values of x sub i are available for the the integration. No previous values of x or x prime are used. Using an orbit integration problem, comparisons are made between Taylor series integrators and various types and orders of Runge-Kutta integrators. A fourth order Runge-Kutta type integrator for orbital work is presented, and approximate (there may be no exact) fifth order Runge-Kutta integrators are discussed. Also discussed and compared is a self starting integrator ising delta f/delta x. A numerical method for controlling the accuracy of integration is given, and the special equations for accurately integrating accelerometer data are shown.

Lear, W. M.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Implementation of equivalent domain integral method in the two-dimensional analysis of mixed mode problems

An equivalent domain integral (EDI) method for calculating J-intergrals for two-dimensional cracked elastic bodies is presented. The details of the method and its implementation are presented for isoparametric elements. The total and product integrals consist of the sum of an area of domain integral and line integrals on the crack faces. The line integrals vanish only when the crack faces are traction free and the loading is either pure mode 1 or pure mode 2 or a combination of both with only the square-root singular term in the stress field. The EDI method gave accurate values of the J-integrals for two mode I and two mixed mode problems. Numerical studies showed that domains consisting of one layer of elements are sufficient to obtain accurate J-integral values. Two procedures for separating the individual modes from the domain integrals are presented. The procedure that uses the symmetric and antisymmetric components of the stress and displacement fields to calculate the individual modes gave accurate values of the integrals for all problems analyzed. The EDI method when applied to a problem of an interface crack in two different materials showed that the mode 1 and mode 2 components are domain dependent while the total integral is not. This behavior is caused by the presence of the oscillatory part of the singularity in bimaterial crack problems. The EDI method, thus, shows behavior similar to the virtual crack closure method for bimaterial problems.

Raju, I. S.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Integrated Simulation Design Challenges to Support TPS Repair Operations

During the Orbiter Repair Maneuver (ORM) operations planned for Return to Flight (RTF), the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) must grapple the International Space Station (ISS), undock the Orbiter, maneuver it through a long duration trajectory, and orient it to an EVA crewman poised at the end of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) to facilitate the repair of the Thermal Protection System (TPS). Once repair has been completed and confirmed, then the SRMS proceeds back through the trajectory to dock the Orbiter to the Orbiter Docking System. In order to support analysis of the complex dynamic interactions of the integrated system formed by the Orbiter, ISS, SRMS, and SSMS during the ORM, simulation tools used for previous ‘nominal’ mission support required substantial enhancements. These upgrades were necessary to provide analysts with the capabilities needed to study integrated system performance. Prevalent throughout this ORM operation is a dynamically varying topology. In other words, the ORM starts with the SRMS grappled to the mated Shuttle/ISS stack (closed loop topology), moves to an open loop chain topology consisting of the Shuttle, SRMS, and ISS, and then, at the repair configuration, extends the chain topology to one consisting of the Shuttle, SMS, ISS, and SSRMS/EVA crewman. The resulting long dynamic chain of vehicles and manipulators may exhibit significant motion between the Shuttle worksite and the EVA crewman due to the system flexibility throughout the topology (particularly within the SRMS/SSRMS joints and links). Since the attachment points of both manipulators span the flexible structure of the ISS, simulation analysis may also need to take that into consideration. Moreover, due to the lengthy time duration associated with the maneuver and repair, orbital effects become a factor and require the ISS vehicle control system to maintain active attitude control. Several facets of the ORM operation make the associated analytical efforts different from previous mission support, including: (1) the magnitude of the SRMS handled payload (Le., Orbiter class), (2) the orbital effects induced on the integrated system consisting of the large Shuttle and ISS masses connected by a light flexible SRMS, (3) long duration environmental consequences due to the lengthy operational times associated with the maneuver and repair of the TPS, (4) active attitude control (as opposed to free drift) interacting with the SRMS and SSRMS manipulators (also due to the length of the maneuver and repair), (5) relative dynamics between the EVA crewman and thc worksite influenced by the extended flexible topology. In order to meet these analysis challenges, an ORM simulation architecture was developed leveraging upon numerous pre-existing simulation elements to analyze the various subsystems individually. For example, core manipulator subsystem simulations for both the SRMS and SSRMS were originally combined to provide the dual-arm dynamics topology simulation (in the absence of orbital dynamics and vehicle control). This capability was later merged with the simulation used to analyze SRMS loading with a heavy payload in the orbital environment with an active payload control system (in this case, the ISS Attitude Control System (ACS)), configured for the ORM. The resulting worksite dynamics simulation, based off of the modified ORM simulation, provided the extended topological chain of vehicles and manipulators, while taking into account the orbital effects of both the Shuttle and ISS (as well as its ACS). Verification and validation (V&V) of these integrated simulations became a challenge in itself. A systematic approach needed to be developed such that integration simulation results could be tested against previous constituent simulations upon which these simulations were built. General V&V categories included: (1) core orbital state propagation, (2), stand-alone SRMS, (3) stand-alone SSRMS, (4) stand-alone ISS ACS, (5) integrated Shuttle, SRMS, ISS (with active ACS) in the orbital environment, and (5) dual-arm SRMS/SSRMS dynamics topology. Integrated simulation V&V run suites were created and correlated to verification runs from subsystem simulations, in order to establish the validity of the results. This paper discusses the simulation design challenges encountered while developing simulation capabilities to mirror the ORM operations. The paper also describes the incremental build approach that was utilized, starting with the subsystem simulation elements and integration into increasing more complex simulations until the resulting ORM worksite dynamics simulation had been assembled. Furthermore, the paper presents an overall integrated simulation V&V methodology based upon a subsystem level testing, integrated comparisons, and phased checkout.

Thermal Protection System↗

NASA NTRS2006

Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Avionics and Software Integration Overview

On January 14, 2004, the President of the United States announced a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) to develop and field a Constellation Architecture that will bring the Space Exploration vision to fruition. The Constellation Architecture includes a human-rated Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) segment, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), comprised of the First Stage (FS), Upper Stage (US), and Upper Stage Engine (USE) elements. The CLV s purpose is to provide safe and reliable crew and cargo transportation into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), as well as insertion into trans-lunar trajectories. The architecture's Spacecraft segment includes, among other elements, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), managed by the Johnson Space Flight Center (JSC), which is launched atop the CLV. MSFC is also responsible for CLV and CEV stack integration. This paper provides an overview of the Avionics and Software integration approach (which includes the Integrated System Health Management (ISHM) functions), both within the CLV, and across the CEV interface; it addresses the requirements to be met, logistics of meeting those requirements, and the roles of the various groups. The Avionics Integration and Vehicle Systems Test (ANST) Office was established at the MSFC with system engineering responsibilities for defining and developing the integrated CLV Avionics and Software system. The AIVST Office has defined two Groups, the Avionics and Software Integration Group (AVSIG), and the Integrated System Simulation and Test Integration Group (ISSTIG), and four Panels which will direct trade studies and analyses to ensure the CLV avionics and software meet CLV system and CEV interface requirements. The four panels are: 1) Avionics Integration Panel (AIP), 2) Software Integration Panel, 3) EEE Panel, and 4) Systems Simulation and Test Panel. Membership on the groups and panels includes the MSFC representatives from the requisite engineering disciplines, the First Stage, the Upper Stage, the Upper Stage Engine projects, and key personnel from other NASA centers. The four panels will take the results of trade studies and analyses and develop documentation in support of Design Analysis Cycle Reviews and ultimately the System Requirements Review.

Monell, Donald W.↗

NASA NTRS1994

(abstract) Pluto Integrated Camera-Spectrometer (PICS): a Low Mass, Low Power Instrument for Planetary Exploration

The concept we describe is an integrated instrument (a Pluto Integrated Camera-Spectrometer -- PICS) that will perform the functions of all three optical instruments required by the Pluto Fast Flyby Mission: the near-IR spectrometer, the camera, and the UV spectrometer. This integrated approach minimizes mass and power use. It also forced us early in the conceptual design to consider integrated observational sequences and integrated power management, thus ensuring compatible duty cycles (i.e., exposure times, readout rates) to meet the composite requirements for data collection, compression, and storage. Based on flight mission experience we believe that this integrated approach will result in substantial cost savings, both in reworking instrument designs during accommodation, as well as in sequence planning and integration. Finally, this integrated payload automatically yields a cohesive mission data set, optimized for correlative analysis. The presentation will provide details of the PICS instrument design and describe the fabrication and testing of the integrated SiC structure and optics at SSG Inc. Final integration and test plans for the prototype will also be described.

Pluto↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Joint Acceptance Attenuation Factor of Integrated Pressure with Unsteady Pressure-Sensitive Paint Measurements

The Unsteady Pressure-Sensitive Paint (uPSP) is widely used to measure the surface pressure of scaled models in wind tunnel tests. Compared to the conventional pressure transducers, uPSP has the advantage of high spatial resolution. With multiple high-speed Complementary Metal Oxide Superconductor (CMOS) cameras, the uPSP data collected with the camera pixels are mapped to the surface grid of the scaled model and converted to pressure. The shot noise is the dominant component of the noise in the uPSP measurement. The integrated pressure is usually computed on the grid nodes of a user-defined patch. The effect of shot noise is reduced in the integrated pressure on the patch; however, the measurement of the aerodynamic pressure may also be attenuated by the decorrelation of the flow pressure field being measured. This paper discusses the Joint Acceptance Attenuation Factor (JAAF) of the integrated pressure with uPSP measurements. The JAAF, a function of frequency, is defined as the ratio of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the integrated aerodynamic pressure on the patch to the average PSD of the aerodynamic pressure on the grid nodes of the patch. In this paper, the JAAF is investigated for the integrated pressure on rectangular patches, whose edges are defined in the direction along the streamline or across the streamline. Based on the assumption that the surface pressure field can be described by the Corcos model, the closed-form formulas to compute the JAAFs of the integrated pressure on the discrete grid nodes of a rectangular patch and over the continuous area of a rectangular patch are derived respectively. It is shown that the JAAF of the integrated pressure over the continuous area of a rectangular patch is the limit of that on discrete nodes of the rectangular patch when the number of nodes in each row or column goes to infinity. The closed-form formulas of the JAAF derived in this paper, with estimated parameters of the model, are verified with the measurements of the uPSP and the conventional pressure transducer collected in the Space Launch System Ascent Unsteady Aerodynamics Test at NASA Ames Research Center in November 2017. The closed-form formulas of the JAAF of the integrated pressure on the rectangular patches, based on the Corcos model, provide an efficient method to estimate the attenuation of integration by the decorrelation of the flow pressure field and set references for the comparison of the spectrum of the integrated uPSP measurements and the conventional pressure transducer measurements. The work described in this paper is a part of NASA’s development of a new state-of-the-art uPSP capability in production wind tunnels. Funding was provided by the NASA Aerosciences Evaluation and Test Capabilities Portfolio Office.

acoustics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Joint Acceptance Attenuation Factor of Integrated Pressure with Unsteady Pressure-Sensitive Paint Measurements

acoustics↗

NASA NTRS1979

Shuttle program. Onorbit navigation integrator results for typical shuttle orbits

Three types of navigation onorbit numerical integrators were evaluated: (1) power integrators with no delta-V incorporation, just coasting (using Taylor series expansion integrators); (2) coasting integrators using the Cowell method of special perturbations; and (3) coasting integrator using the Pines variation of parameter perturbation method. Results show that the super G integrator is a very simple and effective for 2 and 4 second time steps. Since IMU delta-V data can be easily incorporated in the integration scheme, its use as the standard onorbit navigation propagator for the maintenance of the current state was implemented in the onboard navigation software. The Pines formulation method with a Runge-Kutta-Gill fourth-order integrator method produces excellent results up to 300 second time steps. On orbit prediction with this method was implemented in the onboard onorbit navigation scheme. The Runge-Kutta third order, using Cowell's method, is an excellent general purpose determination integrator for time steps up to a 60 second duration.

Olszewski, O. W.↗