Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Navigation Errors”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1978

Experimental determination of the navigation error of the 4-D navigation, guidance, and control systems on the NASA B-737 airplane

Navigation error data from these flights are presented in a format utilizing three independent axes - horizontal, vertical, and time. The navigation position estimate error term and the autopilot flight technical error term are combined to form the total navigation error in each axis. This method of error presentation allows comparisons to be made between other 2-, 3-, or 4-D navigation systems and allows experimental or theoretical determination of the navigation error terms. Position estimate error data are presented with the navigation system position estimate based on dual DME radio updates that are smoothed with inertial velocities, dual DME radio updates that are smoothed with true airspeed and magnetic heading, and inertial velocity updates only. The normal mode of navigation with dual DME updates that are smoothed with inertial velocities resulted in a mean error of 390 m with a standard deviation of 150 m in the horizontal axis; a mean error of 1.5 m low with a standard deviation of less than 11 m in the vertical axis; and a mean error as low as 252 m with a standard deviation of 123 m in the time axis.

Knox, C. E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Onboard Navigation Error Analysis for Aerocapture at Uranus

Capturing into an orbit around Uranus using aerocapture allows one to design a mission with faster interplanetary trajectories and less propellant requirements. Such an aerocapture mission would rely on the onboard Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) subsystems to successfully capture into an orbit around Uranus. Uncertainty in the state information and the noise in the sensor measurements induce navigation errors in the guidance and control subsystems, which can affect the overall performance of the aerocapture mission at Uranus. Understanding the effect of these navigation errors on mission performance is essential. To this end, this work considers different sensors with varying quality to understand their impact on the overall mission performance. In addition, this paper studies the impact of the uncertainty in the initial states used to initialize the onboard navigation filter and understands their effect on mission performance. This paper also shows the onboard navigation errors obtained from the Linear Covariance (LinCov) analysis and uses them for verification and validation (V\&V) of the results from Program to Optimize and Simulate Trajectories-II (POST2).

Aerocapture↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Onboard Navigation Error Analysis for Aerocapture at Uranus

Capturing into an orbit around Uranus using aerocapture allows one to design a mission with faster interplanetary trajectories and less propellant requirements. Such an aerocapture mission would rely on the onboard Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) subsystems to successfully capture into an orbit around Uranus. Uncertainty in the state information and the noise in the sensor measurements induce navigation errors in the guidance and control subsystems, which can affect the overall performance of the aerocapture mission at Uranus. Understanding the effect of these navigation errors on mission performance is essential. To this end, this work considers different sensors with varying quality to understand their impact on the overall mission performance. In addition, this paper studies the impact of the uncertainty in the initial states used to initialize the onboard navigation filter and understands their effect on mission performance. This paper also shows the onboard navigation errors obtained from the Linear Covariance (LinCov) analysis and uses them for verification and validation (V&V) of the results from Program to Optimize and Simulate Trajectories-II (POST2).

Pardha Sai Chadalavada↗
NASA NTRS2006

Pilot Navigation Errors on the Airport Surface: Identifying Contributing Factors and Mitigating Solutions

A taxonomy of navigation errors (pilot deviations) during taxi operations was developed that defines 3 classes of errors: planning, decision, and execution errors. This taxonomy was applied to error data from 2 full-mission simulation studies that included trials that replicated current-day operations and trials with advanced cockpit technologies including datalink, electronic moving maps (EMM), and head-up displays (HUDs). Pilots committed navigation errors on 17% of current-day operations trials (in low-visibility and night), distributed roughly equally across the 3 error classes. Each error class was associated with a unique set of contributing factor s and mitigating solutions. Planning errors were mitigated by technologies that provided an unambiguous record of the clearance (datalink and the EMM, which possessed a text-based clearance). Decision errors were mitigated by technologies that provided both local and global awareness including information about the distance to and direction of the next turn, current township location, and a graphical depiction of the route (as provided by the EMM and HUD together). Execution errors were best mitigated by the HUD, which disambiguated the environment and depicted the clear ed taxi route. Implications for technology design and integration are provided.

Hooey, Becky L.↗
NASA NTRS1990

A numerical algorithm to propagate navigation error covariance matrices associated with generalized strapdown inertial measurement units

The design and operation of a Strapdown Navigation Analysis Program (SNAP) developed to perform covariance analysis on spacecraft inertial-measurement-unit (IMU) navigation errors are described and demonstrated. Consideration is given to the IMU modeling subroutine (with user-specified sensor characteristics), the data input procedures, state updates and the simulation of instrument failures, the determination of the nominal trajectory, the mapping-matrix and Monte Carlo covariance-matrix propagation methods, and aided-navigation simulation. Numerical results are presented in tables for sample applications involving (1) the Galileo/IUS spacecraft from its deployment from the Space Shuttle to a point 10 to the 8th ft from the center of the earth and (2) the TDRS-C/IUS spacecraft from Space Shuttle liftoff to a point about 2 h before IUS deployment. SNAP is shown to give reliable results for both cases, with good general agreement between the mapping-matrix and Monte Carlo predictions.

Weir, Kent A.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Autonomous Navigation Error Propagation Assessment for Lunar Surface Mobility Applications

The NASA Vision for Space Exploration is focused on the return of astronauts to the Moon. While navigation systems have already been proven in the Apollo missions to the moon, the current exploration campaign will involve more extensive and extended missions requiring new concepts for lunar navigation. In this document, the results of an autonomous navigation error propagation assessment are provided. The analysis is intended to be the baseline error propagation analysis for which Earth-based and Lunar-based radiometric data are added to compare these different architecture schemes, and quantify the benefits of an integrated approach, in how they can handle lunar surface mobility applications when near the Lunar South pole or on the Lunar Farside.

Welch, Bryan W.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Navigation errors encountered using weather-mapping radar for helicopter IFR guidance to oil rigs

In 1978 a joint NASA-FAA helicopter flight test was conducted to examine the use of weather-mapping radar for IFR guidance during landing approaches to oil rig helipads. The following navigation errors were measured: total system error, radar-range error, radar-bearing error, and flight technical error. Three problem areas were identified: (1) operational problems leading to pilot blunders, (2) poor navigation to the downwind final approach point, and (3) pure homing on final approach. Analysis of these problem areas suggests improvement in the radar equipment, approach procedure, and pilot training, and gives valuable insight into the development of future navigation aids to serve the off-shore oil industry.

Phillips, J. D.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Analysis of DGPS/INS and MLS/INS final approach navigation errors and control performance data

Flight tests were conducted jointly by NASA Langley Research Center and Honeywell, Inc., on a B-737 research aircraft to record a data base for evaluating the performance of a differential DGPS/inertial navigation system (INS) which used GPS Course/Acquisition code receivers. Estimates from the DGPS/INS and a Microwave Landing System (MLS)/INS, and various aircraft parameter data were recorded in real time aboard the aircraft while flying along the final approach path to landing. This paper presents the mean and standard deviation of the DGPS/INS and MLS/INS navigation position errors computed relative to the laser tracker system and of the difference between the DGPS/INS and MLS/INS velocity estimates. RMS errors are presented for DGPS/INS and MLS/INS guidance errors (localizer and glideslope). The mean navigation position errors and standard deviation of the x position coordinate of the DGPS/INS and MLS/INS systems were found to be of similar magnitude while the standard deviation of the y and z position coordinate errors were significantly larger for DGPS/INS compared to MLS/INS.

Hueschen, Richard M.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sensitivity of back‐projection algorithm (BPA) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image formation to initial position, velocity, and attitude navigation errors

Abstract The Back‐Projection Algorithm (BPA) is a time‐domain‐matched filtering technique to form synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. To produce high‐quality BPA images, precise navigation data for the radar platform must be known. Errors in position, velocity, or attitude result in improperly formed images that are corrupted by shifting and blurring. The contribution of this paper is the development of analytical expressions that characterise the relationship between navigation errors and image formation errors from an inertial navigation point of view, where trajectory estimation errors in position, velocity, and attitude propagate through time and cause compounding errors in the vehicle state vector. These analytical expressions are verified via simulated image formation and real‐data image formation.

Lindstrom, Colton↗
NASA NTRS1992

Airborne gravimetry, altimetry, and GPS navigation errors

Proper interpretation of airborne gravimetry and altimetry requires good knowledge of aircraft trajectory. Recent advances in precise navigation with differential GPS have made it possible to measure gravity from the air with accuracies of a few milligals, and to obtain altimeter profiles of terrain or sea surface correct to one decimeter. These developments are opening otherwise inaccessible regions to detailed geophysical mapping. Navigation with GPS presents some problems that grow worse with increasing distance from a fixed receiver: the effect of errors in tropospheric refraction correction, GPS ephemerides, and the coordinates of the fixed receivers. Ionospheric refraction and orbit error complicate ambiguity resolution. Optimal navigation should treat all error sources as unknowns, together with the instantaneous vehicle position. To do so, fast and reliable numerical techniques are needed: efficient and stable Kalman filter-smoother algorithms, together with data compression and, sometimes, the use of simplified dynamics.

Colombo, Oscar L.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Dynamic errors in a tuned flexure-mounted strapdown gyro

Motion induced errors in a tuned, flexure-mounted strapdown gyro are investigated. Analytic expressions are developed for errors induced by linear vibrations, angular motion, and detuning. Sensor-level errors (gyro drift rate) and system-level errors (navigation errors) that are stimulated by an actual dynamic motion environment are computed.

Bortz, J. E., Sr.↗
NASA NTRS2010

The Effects of Speed Uncertainty on a Separation Assurance Algorithm

Trajectory prediction is central to separation assurance, because it is necessary to accurately predict where an aircraft will be in the future to avoid losses of separation. In any system in the field there will always be uncertainty associated with trajectory prediction. This uncertainty is a product of many different sources including wind prediction errors, pilot intent, surveillance errors, navigation errors and aircraft weight. The purpose of this study is to parametrically analyze the effects of aircraft speed errors on conflict detection and to analyze the performance of a conflict resolution algorithm when these speed errors are present. Results show that a speed error of +/- 10% of the cruise speed can result in about 30% of the conflicts not being detected ten minutes before the loss of separation. It can also result in 50% more resolutions being performed to maintain separation.

Lauderdale, Todd A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Relative Effects of Trajectory Prediction Errors on the AAC Autoresolver

Trajectory prediction is fundamental to automated separation assurance. Every missed alert, false alert and loss of separation can be traced to one or more errors in trajectory prediction. These errors are a product of many different sources including wind prediction errors, inferred pilot intent errors, surveillance errors, navigation errors and aircraft weight estimation errors. This study analyzes the impact of six different types of errors on the performance of an automated separation assurance system composed of a geometric conflict detection algorithm and the Advanced Airspace Concept Autoresolver resolution algorithm. Results show that, of the error sources considered in this study, top-of-descent errors were the leading contributor to missed alerts and failed resolution maneuvers. Descent-speed errors were another significant contributor, as were cruise-speed errors in certain situations. The results further suggest that increasing horizontal detection and resolution standards are not effective strategies for mitigating these types of error sources.

Lauderdale, Todd↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exploiting Measurement Uncertainty Estimation in Evaluation of GOES-R ABI Image Navigation Accuracy Using Image Registration Techniques

In evaluating GOES-R Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) image navigation quality, upsampled sub-images of ABI images are translated against downsampled Landsat 8 images of localized, high contrast earth scenes to determine the translations in the East-West and North-South directions that provide maximum correlation. The native Landsat resolution is much finer than that of ABI, and Landsat navigation accuracy is much better than ABI required navigation accuracy and expected performance. Therefore, Landsat images are considered to provide ground truth for comparison with ABI images, and the translations of ABI sub-images that produce maximum correlation with Landsat localized images are interpreted as ABI navigation errors. The measured local navigation errors from registration of numerous sub-images with the Landsat images are averaged to provide a statistically reliable measurement of the overall navigation error of the ABI image. The dispersion of the local navigation errors is also of great interest, since ABI navigation requirements are specified as bounds on the 99.73rd percentile of the magnitudes of per pixel navigation errors. However, the measurement uncertainty inherent in the use of image registration techniques tends to broaden the dispersion in measured local navigation errors, masking the true navigation performance of the ABI system. We have devised a novel and simple method for estimating the magnitude of the measurement uncertainty in registration error for any pair of images of the same earth scene. We use these measurement uncertainty estimates to filter out the higher quality measurements of local navigation error for inclusion in statistics. In so doing, we substantially reduce the dispersion in measured local navigation errors, thereby better approximating the true navigation performance of the ABI system.

navigation performance↗