Go For Lunar Conference

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

7/30/04 Back To The Future Applying Thermal Control Experiences On Apollo Lunar Rover Project To Rovers For The Space Exploration.

Advertisements

AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM (AFCS)

Avionics Processing Evolution – Apollo to Constellation

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.

Contact Maneuvers.

12004 MAPLD/202Portillo Lunar Module Attitude Controller Assembly Digital Input Processing José Portillo Lugo

AA278A: Supplement to Lecture Notes 10. Controller Synthesis for Hybrid Systems Claire J. Tomlin Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Department.

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.

ATMOSPHERIC REENTRY TRAJECTORY MODELING AND SIMULATION: APPLICATION TO REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE MISSION (Progress Seminar Presentation - 2) K. Sivan (Roll.

VI. Descent and Terminal Guidance for Pinpoint Landing and Hazard Avoidance Session Chair: Dr. Sam W. Thurman.

AAE450 Spring 2009 Hopper Trajectory February 26, 2009 [Alex Whiteman] [Mission Ops] [Lunar Descent] Page 1.

The Lander is at a 25 km Lunar altitude and an orbital period of approximately 110 minutes. After separation occurs the Lander is completely self sufficient.

AAE450 Spring 2009 Analysis of Trans-Lunar Spiral Trajectory [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] February 12,

Panel 5: Simulations and Training Go for Lunar Landing: From Terminal Descent to Touchdown March 5, Tempe, AZ Henry Hoeh Northrop Grumman Corporation.

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

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.

Vertical Profile Navigation

Infoage Science/History Learning Center The Apollo Guidance Computer Architecture and Operation Frank O’Brien Infoage Science/History Learning Center.

Integrated Avionics Systems

Lunar Module Attitude Controller Assembly Digital Input Processing José Portillo

AVAT11001: Course Outline Aircraft and Terminology

Results of NASA/DARPA Automatic Probe and Drogue Refueling Flight Test Keith Schweikhard NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

Slide 1Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology Human-Interactive Autonomous Flight Manager for Precision Lunar Landing Lauren J. Kessler Laura.

B757 Review Questions. AutoFlight At what RA does flare mode engage? 45 feet RA.

20a - 1 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Attitude Control System (ACS) Eric Holmes, Code 591 Joe Garrick, Code 595 Jim Simpson, Code 596 NASA/GSFC August.

Multiple UAV Collision Avoidance with Realistic UAV Models Joel George and Debasish Ghose Guidance, Control, and Decision Systems Laboratory (GCDSL) Department.

1-212 th Aviation Regiment th AVIATION REGIMENT COMBAT MANEUVERING FLIGHT And POWER MANAGEMENT.

Introduction to Control / Performance Flight.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Automated Solution of Realistic Near-Optimal Aircraft Trajectories Using Computational Optimal.

Projectile Motion Let’s Go Skydiving! Speed is the distance traveled per unit time. Velocity is an object's speed and direction of motion. Acceleration.

Apollo 13 Crew The flight was commanded by James A. Lovell with John L. Swigert as command module pilot and Fred W. Haise as lunar module pilot.

Apollo Flight Path Clayton Cantrall. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Concept (LOR) One of three concepts considered for Apollo 11 mission One of three concepts.

Journey to the Moon Saturn V rocket powers Apollo 11's lift-off from Kennedy Space Centre Journey to the Moon.

Talk with an Astronaut Day 1. Concept Talk What is life like for an astronaut?

Smart Icing Systems Review, June 19-20, Aircraft Autopilot Studies Petros Voulgaris Vikrant Sharma University of Illinois.

Measures and Models of Aviation Display Clutter June, 2009 NASA LaRC | NC State University | APTIMA.

March /5/2016 At A Glance STARS is a real-time, distributed, multi-spacecraft simulation system for GN&C technology research and development. It.

Final Slides By: Kara Akgulian Mission Ops Locomotion Phase 1.

Physics Unit 3 FORCES Objectives: 5.3 -Determine Equilibrium Forces -Determine the motion of an object on an inclined plane with and without.

Ground Control Station Flight conTrol

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.

Apollo was a three-part spacecraft: 1. Command Module (CM)- held the crew's quarters and flight control section 2. Service module (SM)- for the propulsion.

1 Web Search What type of education do astronauts typically have? What other criteria, in addition to education, does the National Aeronautics.

Air Experience Flying.

Concerns new technology in fields of aviation, including space exploration and military defense systems. Design, development, testing, operation, and.

Digital Apollo: Human and Machine on the First Six Lunar Landings (MIT Press, 2007) David A. Mindell Dibner Professor History of Engineering and Manufacturing.

1 Ames Research Center Karl Bilimoria 18 Jan 2012 Fundamentals of Piloted Spacecraft Handling Qualities NESC GN&C Technical Discipline Team Webcast Series.

© GMV, 2016 Property of GMV All rights reserved Model Validation Framework for Launchers: Post-Flight Performance Analysis 6 TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Figure 13.1 A block diagram of a computer control system, including the signal converters. The signal is indicated as digital or analog.

Session Chair: Dr. Sam W. Thurman

Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Telecon Colloquium

RGS: Recovery Guidance System

Date of download: 11/4/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.

Level 2 Requirements (MRD)

Space Travel Present & Future

Lunar Descent Slide Suggestions & Questions

Lunar Observation Data for GIRO Landsat–8 Operational Land Imager

Digital Control Systems Waseem Gulsher

Lunar Descent Trajectory

The Golden Age Of Aircraft Design AVIONICS from Early Days till Now

Autonomous Operations in Space

Flight Controller and Ground Station Software

NASA Photo ID: S File Name: jpg Film Type: 4x5.

Presentation transcript:

Go For Lunar Conference Apollo GNC Overview D. Zimpfer March 5, 2008 Go For Lunar Conference Tempe, AZ (thanks to numerous members of the ALHAT team that created the individual slides)

Apollo LEM Cockpit

LEM GN&C Overview Summary Produced by Northrop Grumman GN&C Engineers Howard Berman (LM Flight Control System Integration/Analysis) And Mel Rimer (LM Flight Control System Analysis/Synthesis)

Typical Apollo Lunar Descent Trajectory Redesignation phase (146 sec typical length) (96 sec for Apollo 12, 6 redesignations) Apollo 12 Redesignation Phase (Human eyes as HDA sensor) Uprange from target [m] Altitude [m] Target view angle [deg] Time till touchdown [sec] Redesignation enabled 6800 1950 16 202 First redesignation 3800 800 12 172 Last redesignation 490 122 14 114 Redesignation disabled 470 115 106 Source: Klumpp, Allan. “Apollo Lunar-Descent Guidance”. June 1971. C.S. Draper Laboratory. (R-695) (Page 3, Figure 2) Source: “Apollo 12 Mission Report”, March 1970. Johnson Space Center. (NASA-TM-X-74200) Note: Numbers are taken from figures throughout chapter 4. Values are approximate.

Functional Flow of Apollo Astronauts and System Crew input P66 P64 Draper, C.S., Whitaker, H.P., Young, L.R. “The Roles of Mend and Instruments in Control and Guidance Systems for Spacecraft.” 15th International Astronautical Congress, Poland, 1964.

Review Inputs During Descent Designate a new landing aim point (via rotational hand controller) P65 Vehicle is pitched to the vertical position, translational velocities are nulled and the vertical-descent rate is set to 3 ft/sec P66 “Semi-auto mode” Crew controlled the attitude to maneuver the vehicle by commanding the nozzles in the form of an angular acceleration command signal Altitude and altitude rate were held constant by the computer, the crew could change these through the Rate of Descent switch P67 “Full manual mode” Crew controlled engine throttle manually Attitude was controlled by the Digital Autopilot This mode was rarely used because of the high workload required

Autonomy – The debate is not new