Sae aerospace control and guidance systems committee
Subcommittee A – Aeronautics and Surface Vehicles
Download 92.78 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 8.0 Subcommittee B – Missiles and Space Vehicles
- 9.0 Subcommittee C – Avionics and Systems Integration
Subcommittee A – Aeronautics and Surface Vehicles7.1 “Unified Control Concept for JSF,” Greg Walker, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics The Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft variant presents unique opportunities for highly augmented control concepts. The customer has placed some unique requirements on the design to minimize pilot workload and risk of cognitive failure during STOVL operations. The requirements are aimed at making the F-35 a safer aircraft to fly than the Harrier. The LM team conducted a thorough trade study to examine the benefits of various control concepts explored in past simulation studies and flight demonstrations. The Unified STOVL Control Concept was selected as being easier to fly resulting in reduced training burden for new pilots. Favorable results have been obtained through initial piloted evaluations conducted in the NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simulator. Further risk reduction is also being performed in flight testing on the UK VAAC Harrier research aircraft. Mr. Walker will present an overview of the F-35 STOVL Concept of Control trade study and a top-level overview of the Unified STOVL Control mode. 7.2 "Recent Projects on the USAF Total In-flight Simulator (TIFS)," Eric Ohmit, Calspan Corporation This presentation details the history and development of the USAF Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS) over a period of over 30 years. This includes the description of two of the most recent programs conducted on the aircraft. These programs include the X-40 IAG&C Autoland demonstration and the ITT Viking Airborne Natural Gas detection system. The TIFS was developed in the 70’s with its twin the CTIFS. The TIFS has been in operation for over 30 years. In 1998 the TIFS was modified with its new simulation cockpit nose in support of the NASA HSCT program. The USAF discontinued operation of the TIFS in 1998 and Calspan took over operation of the aircraft under a CRADA with the USAF in 1999, an N-number was assigned by the FAA in January 2001. The first program conduced under the CRADA was the X-40IAG&C Autoland demonstration. This program was a risk reduction program which showed the IAG&C algorithm could accommodate single and multiple control surface failures, reconfigure the flight control system and the trajectory as necessary to provide an acceptable touchdown location and sink rate. This program also demonstrated autonomous steep approaches to touchdown under control of the IAG&C controller without pilot intervention. The second program was the ITT Viking Airborne Natural Gas detection system. This program utilized the avionics nose and installed over 2200 lbs of equipment in the TIFS. This program was a quick turn type of program typical of the TIFS with an initial enquiry of the feasibility and cost of the TIFS operation in January 04 with the completion of the flight test program in September ’04. A successful demonstration of the Viking system was completed with the Viking detecting all leaks at the Cheyenne range as well as others which the DOE did not know about. The performance capabilities of the aircraft were also provided and two videos of the TIFS program were shown. The TIFS is available as an In-Flight Simulator as well as a test platform for other programs. 7.3 “Full Mission Simulation of a Rotorcraft Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Landing in a Non-Cooperative Environment,” Dr. Colin Theodore, Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division Accurate, reliable autonomous landing of Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) remains a challenging and important capability for operational systems to achieve greater mission flexibility, less operator involvement and more rapid sortie turnaround. However, current technologies for the landing of UAVs are mostly limited to using an external pilot, recovery net, or auto-land capability requiring landing site based instrumentation or radar. These current technologies preclude UAVs from landing in un-prepared environments where the terrain profile is unknown and possibly cluttered. In addition to this, in a cluttered environment such as an urban canyon, GPS signals may be intermittent (due to occlusion or jamming) and cannot be relied upon for guidance and navigation. This presentation presents interim results of a US Army Science and Technology (STO) program that is formulated to address some of the current limitations with the landing of VTOL UAVs. The Precision Autonomous Landing Adaptive Control Experiment (PALACE) is a three-year program that seeks to mature and integrate vision-based guidance and control technologies for the autonomous landing task of VTOL UAVs in both simulation and flight experiments. The first year (FY03) of the program defined the system architecture and demonstrated and validated the core machine vision technologies independently in simulation and flight. The second year (FY04) involves the simulation of a full mission, from take-off to landing, using realistic vehicle dynamics and controls, as well as a mission manager to coordinate the work of the vision technologies. The development, testing and evaluation of the integrated simulation in the second year of the PALACE program is the focus of this presentation. The third year (FY05) involves transitioning from the simulation environment to flight evaluations and demonstrations of landing of a rotorcraft UAV in a non-cooperative and cluttered environment without the aid of GPS. 7.4 "X-43A Flights 2 and 3 Overview," Luat Nguyen/NASA This presentation will provide an overview of the Hyper-X/X-43A program with particular focus on the second (mach 7) and third (Mach 10) flights. The rationale and objectives of the program will be reviewed and the overall approach to meeting these goals will be discussed. The presentation will then cover the lessons learned from the first flight failure and their application to the Return to Flight effort. These include hardware and software changes as well as improvements to how analyses and design/development activities were conducted and reviewed. The highly successful second flight will be summarized with emphasis on the major findings and their impact on meeting the goals of the program. The paper will then discuss the Mach 10 flight -- the additional challenges associated with it, how they were addressed, and the results that were achieved from the flight. 8.0 Subcommittee B – Missiles and Space Vehicles8.1 “X-43A Flights 2 and 3 GNC Performance,” Ethan Baumann for Catherine Bahm, NASA Dryden The Hyper-X program was created to demonstrate the free-flight operation of an airframe integrated scramjet vehicle. To achieve this goal, the Hyper-X research vehicle was required to successfully separate from its launch vehicle, maintain the required test conditions during the scramjet operation, and descend to the ocean. The program conducted two successful flight tests. The first successful mission to Mach 7 occurred on March 27th, 2004. The final mission was to Mach 10 and occurred on November 16th, 2004. This presentation provides an overview of the X-43A’s performance during the Mach 7 & Mach 10 missions. In addition, the Mach 10 Mission’s unique challenges along with the Guidance & Controls lessons learned from the previous Mach 7 mission are discussed along with their application to the Mach 10 mission’s software update. 8.2 "The NASA Human Exploration Program," Linda Fuhrman/Draper In January of 2004, President Bush outlined a new Vision for Exploration and directed NASA to focus its efforts on Human and Robotic exploration of our Solar System “…and beyond.” This Vision calls for a manned return to the Moon by 2020 and manned missions to Mars potentially as early as 2030. Given the current lack of Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles (HLLVs), this can pose interesting guidance and control problems not encountered during the Apollo program. In this paper we will outline the scope of the Vision for Exploration, and the current plans for manifesting that Vision into reality. In addition, several examples of GN&C issues (such as precision landing on the Lunar polar far side) and potential solutions will be discussed. 8.3 "Radioisotope Power System Candidates for Unmanned Exploration Missions," Tibor Balint/JPL NASA’s Advanced Program and Integration Office (APIO) established two teams (the Strategic and Capability Roadmap Teams) to perform roadmapping activities. The final recommendation will be established by the middle of the next fiscal year, with inputs from the various disciplines within NASA and from outside advisory groups. These groups include the Mars Exploration Program Assessment Group (MEPAG), the Outer Planets Advisory Group (OPAG), the Solar System Exploration Subcommittee (SSES), with recommendations by the National Academies reported in the 2003 Decadal Survey. Both NASA and the science community recognized Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) as an important enabling technology for our space exploration efforts. Currently two RPSs are under development by NASA, DoE and several industry partners. Both systems are designed to generate >110We at BOL. The MMRTG with static power conversion was down selected for the Mars Science Laboratory mission, while the SRG with dynamic power conversion could be envisioned for Lunar mission as early as the first years of the next decade. In addition, NASA and DoE is considering the development of small-RPSs in the 10s to 100s of milliwatts and 10s of watts power ranges, respectively. These RPSs would be ideally suited for solar system exploration missions, where the spacecraft must operate for a long duration, measured in years, independently from solar availability. 8.4 "Capability Focused Technology Investment," Dan Thompson, AFRL Dayton In FY04, the Air Vehicle Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory began a process to convert its planning to be capability-based, i.e. more end user focussed by articulating the technology deliverables in terms of warfighter capabilities. Over the course of FY04, the Air Vehicle Directorate evolved a set of seven capability vectors, as well as their enabling attributes, i.e. the measurable characteristics that make up the capability. Further, the key technology products that comprise each attribute were derived. This capbility/attribute/product construct allows the Air Vehicles Directorate to more clearly describe technology contributions towards end-user application, in warfighter terms, while also addressing capability and attribute costs, and TRL 6 technology transition time frames. This presentation discusses a recent “snap-shot” of the state of progress for the CFTI planning process. 9.0 Subcommittee C – Avionics and Systems Integration9.1 “Flight Control for Organic Air Vehicles,” Dale Enns, Honeywell The Organic Air Vehicle (OAV) is a ducted fan unmanned aerial vehicle that can hover and maneuver to provide camera images to a soldier on a ground station. It is organic in the sense that it is an asset of a small group of soldiers. The vehicle is flown both autonomously and with operator in the loop in adverse weather including wind disturbances. Vehicle attitude is controlled with control vanes in the exit of the duct and engine throttle and attitude commands are used to control vehicle position and camera heading. Sensors include 3 rate gyros, 3 accelerometers in a MEMS inertial measurement unit, GPS, barometric altimeter, magnetometer, and engine rpm. The control law is an application of Multi-Application Control (MACH), which is a reusable dynamic inversion control law that is parameterized with control system requirements and vehicle data including the vehicle mass properties, aerodynamic and propulsion, and reference geometry. The control law for OAV consists of four nested inner to outer loops (rate, attitude, velocity, position). We use proportional plus integral compensation in all of the loops. For operator in the loop flight, the control law tracks commands for velocity and camera heading rate. For autonomous flight the vehicle tracks position commands based on waypoints. The control system is linearized and obligatory stability and stability margins analyses are conducted. Simulations of closed loop behavior including trajectory commands, sensor errors, and wind disturbances have been conducted. The vehicle closed loop performance was verified in flight and shown to be consistent with simulations and analyses. These flights included hover and low speed testing while tethered and free flights (off-tether) where larger duration, range, altitude and speed conditions were evaluated. Demonstration flights were accomplished at Ft. Benning, Georgia where the OAV flew and collected video imagery from around the McKenna Military Operations in Urban Terrain site. 9.2 “Verification and Validation of Intelligent and Adaptive Control Systems,” James Buffington, Lockheed-Martin Emerging military aerospace system operational goals, such as autonomy, will require advanced safety-critical control systems consisting of unconventional requirements, system architectures, software algorithms, and hardware implementations. These emerging control systems will significantly challenge current verification and validation (V&V) processes, tools, and methods for flight certification. Ultimately, transition of advanced control systems that enable transformational military operations will be decided by affordable V&V strategies that reduce costs and compress schedules for flight certification. This paper describes the approach and results for a study of V&V needs for emerging safety-critical control systems in the context of military aerospace vehicle flight certification. 9.3 "Validation of a Proposed Change to the TCAS Change 7 Algorithm, " Carl Jezierski, Federal Aviation Administration The Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) was introduced into revenue service in 1991 to prevent the tragedies experienced over the Grand Canyon (6/30/1956, Lockheed Constellation and DC-7 in VFR conditions), San Diego (9/25/1978, Boeing 727 and Cessna 172), Cerritos (8/31/1986, DC-9 and a single engine Piper). Since its initial introduction, the TCAS II logic has evolved with one FAA and one European mandated change. This presentation briefly reviews the history of these changes and discusses the validation process for a proposed modification to the algorithm in light of the 2002 Lake Constance midair collision. 9.4 “UAV See and Avoid Employing Vision Sensors,” Eric Portilla, Northrup Grumman Corp. Collision avoidance is comprised of many layers of protection ranging from high level procedures defined by the FAA, to the pilot’s eyes and reaction acting as a last line of defense to See and Avoid. In order for UAV’s to truly meet an equivalent level of safety of a manned vehicle this See and Avoid function must be autonomously reproduced. While the functionality of “detection by sight” can easily be matched by a vision sensor, the real time assessment and processing performed by a onboard pilot is a much more difficult problem. This presentation summarizes the approaches and current technologies being evaluated to provide UAV’s with the See and Avoid capabilities required for equivalent level of safety. Directory: people -> faculty faculty -> Handling Indivisibilities faculty -> Michael Oppenheimer) curriculum vita (January 2014) michael oppenheimer faculty -> Loan Deficiency Payment (ldp) faculty -> Jaimie Baron Download 92.78 Kb. Share with your friends:
|