Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Knowledge distillation”

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.

An Overview of NASA’s Newest Engineering Model, ORDEM 4.0

Since the mid-1990s, one of the most important products produced by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO) has been the Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM). This series of models distills down our knowledge of the orbital debris environment to compute debris fluxes on satellites in a given orbit. This information can be used by spacecraft and upper stage designers and operators to design missions for better protection against the debris environment. The current version of the model is ORDEM 3.2, but the ODPO is working on the next generation of ORDEM, to be designated ORDEM 4.0. ORDEM 4.0 will include many known features from previous models, such as the ability to input a spacecraft orbit and time and to compute the flux as a function of debris size, impact speed, impact direction, and debris material densities, as well as uncertainty information on the flux. ORDEM 4.0 will update debris populations using the most recent measurements, including radar observations by the Haystack Ultrawideband Satellite Imaging Radar (HUSIR), NASA’s Goldstone radar, data from the new Space Surveillance Network Space Fence, and observations of Geosynchronous Earth Orbits (GEO) using the Eugene Stansbery-Meter Class Autonomous Telescope (ES-MCAT). The latest in situ impact data from returned hardware surfaces will be used. In addition, ORDEM 4.0 will introduce a parameterized debris shape model based on laboratory hypervelocity impact tests, such as DebriSat. This will allow analysts to implement shape characteristics in their damage equations and more accurately predict impact damage risk by debris of different shapes and orientations. This paper provides an overview of some of the new features forthcoming in ORDEM 4.0 and a status report on its development.

Mark Matney↗

An Overview of NASA’s Newest Engineering Model, ORDEM 4.0

Since the mid-1990s, one of the most important products produced by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO) has been the Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM). This series of models distills down our knowledge of the orbital debris environment to compute debris fluxes on satellites in a given orbit. This information can be used by spacecraft and upper stage designers and operators to design missions for better protection against the debris environment. The current version of the model is ORDEM 3.2, but the ODPO is working on the next generation of ORDEM, to be designated ORDEM 4.0. ORDEM 4.0 will include many known features from previous models, such as the ability to input a spacecraft orbit and time and to compute the flux as a function of debris size, impact speed, impact direction, and debris material densities, as well as uncertainty information on the flux. ORDEM 4.0 will update debris populations using the most recent measurements, including radar observations by the Haystack Ultrawideband Satellite Imaging Radar (HUSIR), NASA’s Goldstone radar, data from the new Space Surveillance Network Space Fence, and observations of Geosynchronous Earth Orbits (GEO) using the Eugene Stansbery-Meter Class Autonomous Telescope (ES-MCAT). The latest in situ impact data from returned hardware surfaces will be used. In addition, ORDEM 4.0 will introduce a parameterized debris shape model based on laboratory hypervelocity impact tests, such as DebriSat. This will allow analysts to implement shape characteristics in their damage equations and more accurately predict impact damage risk by debris of different shapes and orientations. This paper provides an overview of some of the new features forthcoming in ORDEM 4.0 and a status report on its development.

Mark Matney↗

Principles for Architecting Autonomous Systems

This paper distills principles for developing autonomous systems based on experience and lessons learned from past efforts. The purpose of these principles is to establish a common understanding and knowledge of architectural elements to guide the development of next-generation multi-mission autonomous systems and ensure the safe and productive operation of space assets. An attempt has been made to ground these principles in fundamentals that should withstand the test of time while allowing for and enabling the advancement of technologies. They are not intended to prescribe a design nor a software representation. There may be multiple designs that can honor these principles. These principles are focused on autonomy for robotic assets. As such, they do not address autonomy for crewed assets nor autonomy that can collectively generate intelligent behavior without top-level system cognizance (e.g., intelligent swarm behavior). These areas would be a subject of future efforts.

Day, John↗

IDEF3 formalization report

The Process Description Capture Method (IDEF3) is one of several Integrated Computer-Aided Manufacturing (ICAM) DEFinition methods developed by the Air Force to support systems engineering activities, and in particular, to support information systems development. These methods have evolved as a distillation of 'good practice' experience by information system developers and are designed to raise the performance level of the novice practitioner to one comparable with that of an expert. IDEF3 is meant to serve as a knowledge acquisition and requirements definition tool that structures the user's understanding of how a given process, event, or system works around process descriptions. A special purpose graphical language accompanying the method serves to highlight temporal precedence and causality relationships relative to the process or event being described.

Menzel, Christopher↗

Exploring data-driven modeling of boundary layer transition

Prediction of laminar-turbulent transition in boundary layer flows is an important component of predicting the aerodynamic performance of a number of aerospace configurations. According to the CFD Vision 2030 [1], transition modeling represents acriticalarea in CFD simulation capability that will remain a pacing item for the foreseeable future. The fact thattransition can take placevia either one of a myriad possible paths adds to the challenges inreliable transition predictions, despite a limited knowledge of the relevant input parameters. In the low disturbance environments typical of flight applications, transition is often initiated by small amplitude disturbances in the form of linear instability waves of the laminar boundary layer. These disturbances amplify linearly at first and eventually undergo a sequence of nonlinear interactions that result in transition to turbulence. Because the nonlinear phase is rather rapid, the amplification of boundary layer instabilities is governed by the linearstability theory over a majority of the distance leading up to the onset of transition. Semi-empirical transition correlations based on the linear stability theory have been successful in explaining the observed trends in transition location within a broad class of flows. However, the application of stability theory is highly non-robust and often requires a significant domain expertise. Recent work at the NASA Langley Research Center has beenaimed at bridging the gap between physics based transition analyses such as those based on linear stability theory and practical applications that require transition prediction by users that may not be well versed in transition physics. The applications of deep learning have been at the center of these efforts. This presentation will focus on the progress achieved thus far, highlighting the applications of neural networks to selectedtransition scenarios across a range of Mach numbers and flow configuration, as well as the lessons learnedand remaining challengeswithrespect to the selection of training data and neural networks architectures, hyperparameter tuning, and the physical insights distilled from the otherwise black-box models.

M. R. Malik↗

Development of Biomorphic Flyers

Biomorphic flyers have recently been demonstrated that utilize the approach described earlier in "Bio-Inspired Engineering of Exploration Systems" (NPO-21142), NASA Tech Briefs, Vol. 27, No. 5 (May 2003), page 54, to distill the principles found in successful, nature-tested mechanisms of flight control. Two types of flyers are being built, corresponding to the imaging and shepherding flyers for a biomorphic mission described earlier in "Cooperative Lander- Surface/Aerial Microflyer Missions for Mars Exploration" (NPO-30286), NASA Tech Briefs, Vol. 28, No. 5 (May 2004), page 36. The common features of these two types of flyers are that both are delta-wing airplanes incorporating bio-inspired capabilities of control, navigation, and visual search for exploration. The delta-wing design is robust to approx.40 G axial load and offers ease of stowing and packaging. The prototype that we have built recently is shown in the figure. Such levels of miniaturization and autonomous navigation are essential to enable biomorphic microflyers (<1 kg) that can be deployed in large numbers for distributed measurements and exploration of difficult terrain while avoiding hazards. Individual bio-inspired sensors that will be incorporated in a biomorphic flyer have been demonstrated recently. These sensors include a robust, lightweight (~6 g), and low-power (~40 mW) horizon sensor for flight stabilization. It integrates successfully the principles of the dragonfly ocelli. The ocelli are small eyes on the dorsal and forward regions of the heads of many insects. The ocelli are distinct from the compound eyes that are most commonly associated with insect vision. In many insects, the ocelli are little more than single-point detectors of short-wavelength light and behavioral responses to ocelli stimuli are hard to observe. The notable exception is found in dragonflies, where flight control is notably degraded by any interference with the ocellar system. Our team has discovered recently that the ocelli are a dedicated horizon sensor, with substantial optical processing and multiple spectral sensitivity. To our knowledge, this is the world s first demonstrated use of a "biomorphic ocellus" as a flight-stabilization system. The advantage of the ocelli over a similarly sized system of rate gyroscopes is that both attitude control and rate damping can be realized in one device. A full inertial unit and significant processing would otherwise be required to achieve the same effect. As a prelude to full autonomy, substantial stability augmentation is provided to the pilot at very low cost in terms of space, power, and mass. The sensor is about 40 times lighter than a comparable inertial attitude reference system. Other significant features of the biomorphic flyer shown in the figure include its ability to fly at high angles of attack ~30 and a deep wing chord which allows scaling to small size and low Reynold s number situations. Furthermore, the placement of the propulsion system near the center of gravity allows continued control authority at low speeds. These attributes make such biomorphic flyers uniquely suited to planetary and terrestrial exploration where small size and autonomous airborne operation are required.

Thakoor, Sarita↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗