1 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Dr. Karl Bilimoria NASA Ames Research.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evaluation of a Precision Hover Task Using Time-Varying Cutoff Frequency Amanda K. Lampton, Ph.D. David H. Klyde Daniel J. Alvarez P. Chase Schulze Peter.
Advertisements

Wings Program Crosswind Takeoffs & Landings Chuck Pinney, CFIG Loss of directional control in takeoff & landings are #2 & #1 in order of aircraft accident.
Lunar Landing GN&C and Trajectory Design Go For Lunar Landing: From Terminal Descent to Touchdown Conference Panel 4: GN&C Ron Sostaric / NASA JSC March.
SPACECRAFT ACCIDENTS: EXAMINING THE PAST, IMPROVING THE FUTURE Apollo 13 Bryan Palaszewski working with the Digital Learning Network NASA Glenn Research.
Benoit Pigneur and Kartik Ariyur School of Mechanical Engineering Purdue University June 2013 Inexpensive Sensing For Full State Estimation of Spacecraft.
Preliminary Design Review Group 13 – Flapping Wing MAV NASA Parker Cook George Heller Joshua Nguyen Brittney Theis.
Aircraft Motion and Control
Aerodynamic Theory Review 2
Институт прикладной математики им. М.В.Келдыша РАН Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Projectile Motion Questions.
Orbital Operations – 2 Rendezvous & Proximity Operations
AGC and Manual Control of the Saturn V Booster Infoage Science/History Learning Center AGC and Manual Control of the Saturn V Booster Frank O’Brien Infoage.
EGN Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering
Boy Scouts Aviation Merit Badge Control Surfaces.
Development of Guidance and Control System for Parafoil-Payload System VVR Subbarao, Sc ‘C’ Flight Mechanics & Control Engineering ADE.
Projectile Motion And Centripetal acceleration
AAE450 Spring 2009 Hopper Trajectory February 26, 2009 [Alex Whiteman] [Mission Ops] [Lunar Descent] Page 1.
Panel 5: Simulations and Training Go for Lunar Landing: From Terminal Descent to Touchdown March 5, Tempe, AZ Henry Hoeh Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Feb 2005 P. 1 Adaptive Control of Robotic Landers: Simulation Requirements Nilesh Kulkarni Perot Systems, Inc., Adaptive Control & Evolvable Systems Group.
Autonomous Landing Hazard Avoidance Technology (ALHAT) Page 1 March 2008 Go for Lunar Landing Real-Time Imaging Technology for the Return to the Moon Dr.
1 Human Role in Lunar Landing Charles M. Oman, Ph.D. Director, Man Vehicle Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sensorimotor Adaptation Research.
Page No. 1 6/27/2015 On The Need for Lunar Lander Simulations: A Human Factors Perspective Robert S. McCann Human-Systems Integration Division NASA Ames.
ENG 450: Potential Projects Nilton O. Renno, Professor Manish Mehta, Graduate Student University of Michigan.
Hypersonic Reentry Dynamics Faculty Advisors Professor Mease (UC Irvine) Dr. Helen Boussalis (CSULA) Student Assistants Katie Demko Shing Chi Chan 7/12/2015NASA.
Aviation infrastructure planning.  Landing aids: Any illuminating light radio beacon, radar device communicating device or any system of such devices.
“Teaching the Science, Inspiring the Art, Producing Aviation Candidates!” Aerodynamics II Getting to the Point.
Virulent SophtWear Virul-Glider V1.0 Josh Smallman Mjumbe Poe Zach Clegg.
Stabilized Constant Descent Angle NPA’s
Situational Awareness / Photo and Video Flights WHY DISCUSS? Scratch Mitchell – CJAA 2015.
Pinch Hitters The Right Stuff for the Right Seat Flight Controls and Flight Instruments William J. Doyle, Jr., CFII, AGI, IGI, ASC
AVAT11001: Course Outline Aircraft and Terminology
Results of NASA/DARPA Automatic Probe and Drogue Refueling Flight Test Keith Schweikhard NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
READY OR NOT THE FLIGHT REVIEW. FLIGHT REVIEW A FLIGHT REVIEW IS REQUIRED WITHIN THE PREVIOUS 24 CALENDAR MONTHS TO ACT AS PIC.
There are 2 types of motion: vertical & horizontal. Both happen at the same time, but are separate during projectile motion.
Projectile Motion. Once released from the plane, the motion of the bomb is best described as being : (1)Independent motion in the x and y direction, each.
Projectile Motion. What is a Projectile? Projectile – an object that moves along a 2-D curved trajectory - does not have any propulsion when in flight.
ASAS - Impact Bengt Moberg Pilot, Scandinavian Airlines System ASAS Workshop Rome, April 29th, 2003 This picture is a fake.
Circling Pattern (Left Side Camera) Worksheet Target Coordinates______________ Altitude__________ Airspeed________ Time of Day___________________ Weather______________________.
Advanced Speed Guidance for Merging and Sequencing Techniques Chris Sweeney Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology MITRE Corporation Center.
S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Automated Solution of Realistic Near-Optimal Aircraft Trajectories Using Computational Optimal.
America will send a new generation of explorers to the moon aboard NASA’s Orion crew exploration vehicle. After that, on to MARS!!!
9-3 Angles of Elevation and Depression
My project on space By football fan and Lego boy.
DIRECTION TECHNIQUE CERTIFICATION Paris, April 2008 SL ASAS TN2 Workshop ppt ASAS & Business.
A Cockpit Display Designed to Enable Limited Flight Deck Separation Responsibility Walter W. Johnson & Vernol Battiste NASA Ames Research Center Sheila.
Measures and Models of Aviation Display Clutter
Trigonometry Angles of Elevation and Depression. Angle of Elevation The angle formed by the horizontal and the line of sight to a point above horizontal.
Measures and Models of Aviation Display Clutter June, 2009 NASA LaRC | NC State University | APTIMA.
OZ Human-Centered Flight Displays
Two-Dimensional Motion
Go For Lunar Conference
ASAS TN Third Workshop, April 2004, Toulouse Session 1 Use of the System by pilots and controllers Tony Henley.
Camera. “Up”, “Forward” and “Along” The three camera view vectors are defined as shown:
PHYSICS 103: Lecture 5 Agenda for Today: Review HW Solutions
1 Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document. Flight Symbology to Aid in Approach and Landing.
To start Which hits the ground first? What assumptions are you making?
Settling with Power (vortex ring state)
Final approach Instrument landing system
1 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 18 Jan 2012 Fundamentals of Piloted Spacecraft Handling Qualities NESC GN&C Technical Discipline Team Webcast Series.
1 MAAC Precision Aerobatics JUDGES TRAINING PRESENTATION 2016 MAAC Precision Aerobatics JUDGES TRAINING PRESENTATION 2016.
Projectile Review.
Instrument Landing System and Microwave Landing System
Robert Heffley Engineering
Lunar Descent Slide Suggestions & Questions
Lunar Descent Analysis
Projectile Motion.
Chapter 1 Introduction.
Projectile Motion Seo Physics.
Throttle, Yaw, Pitch, Roll
Presentation transcript:

1 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Dr. Karl Bilimoria NASA Ames Research Center “Go for Lunar Landing” Conference Tempe, AZ 4 – 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities Terminal Descent to Touchdown

2 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Handling Qualities –Ease & precision with which the pilot can execute a flying task –HQs depend on vehicle response, guidance cues, inceptors, etc. –Comprehensive standards exist for aircraft NASA has initiated an effort to study handling qualities of piloted spacecraft designed for Constellation program Lunar Lander experiment –May 2007 at Ames, on the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) –A first step in the handling qualities effort Background

3 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Precision Landing Task: Horizontal Profiles Two horizontal profiles –Centerline approach –250 ft offset approach Two horizontal profiles –Centerline approach –250 ft offset approach 1,350 ft Offset distance = 250 ft Landing Site Centerline Approach Left Offset Approach Land within 15 ft of target center

4 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Precision Landing Task: Vertical Profile INITIAL CONDITIONS: Distance = 1,350 ft Altitude = 500 ft Horizontal speed = 60 fps Vertical speed = –16 fps Pitch angle = 16 deg INITIAL CONDITIONS: Distance = 1,350 ft Altitude = 500 ft Horizontal speed = 60 fps Vertical speed = –16 fps Pitch angle = 16 deg Reference Trajectory 95 sec to touchdown Reference Trajectory 95 sec to touchdown Uncontrolled Trajectory 31 sec to impact Uncontrolled Trajectory 31 sec to impact Horiz spd = 0 Vert spd = –3 fps Dist = 0 Alt = 150 ft Trajectory based on Apollo missions: “Low Gate” to Touchdown

5 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Simulator Cab Layout Out the window field of view

6 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Cockpit Displays Guidance cues: –Roll, pitch, and yaw angles –Forward and lateral speeds –Altitude rate Guidance cues: –Roll, pitch, and yaw angles –Forward and lateral speeds –Altitude rate

7 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Evaluate a basic model of Apollo Lunar Module Study handling qualities for various combinations of: –Control power (various levels of acceleration) –Guidance (ON or OFF) Lunar Lander Experiment Objectives Control Power  Guidance  0.15X 0.2X 0.25X 0.3X 0.5X 1X (Baseline) ON Offset Approach OFF Centerline Approach Pilots fly 3 approaches in each cell – Cooper-Harper Rating – Workload Rating (NASA-TLX) – Comments Pilots fly 3 approaches in each cell – Cooper-Harper Rating – Workload Rating (NASA-TLX) – Comments

8 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Control Power Study – Guidance On Handling Qualities Rating Task Load Index Rating Level 1: Satisfactory without improvement Level 3: Improvement mandatory Level 2: Deficiencies warrant improvement Satisfactory for tasks that could result in crew or vehicle loss Not satisfactory for tasks that could result in crew or vehicle loss Evaluating a basic model of Apollo Lunar Module

9 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 5 March 2008 Lunar Lander Handling Qualities – Terminal Descent to Touchdown Control power study –Nominal configuration model is close to Level 1 boundary –Handling qualities degrade rapidly after control power drops below 50% of nominal value Guidance is essential for precision landing task –Lateral offset approach not flyable without guidance –Centerline approach very difficult to fly without guidance Suggested discussion topic: Does a ground-based simulator with high motion fidelity negate the need to build a LLRV-like vehicle for Cx? Concluding Remarks