[.

(]}.//157525
JPLD-3893
Space Station
Technology Development Mission
Experiment Definition Study
Technology Theme:
Space Structures (Dynamics and Control)
Volume 4: Final Report
H.C. Briggs
J.C. Mankins
December 1986
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
.lPL
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena. California
\ \U\U\ \\\\\ \\\\ U\U \\\\\ \\\\\ \\U\ \\U\ \\\\ \U\
CA038113
~
~
3 1176 01328 8031
JPLD-3893
V I - 2:- UJAf Iv --: . ". _V7 1/'/ .. /J' ',I.JJ,:.'j d-tALt-; L./ u/.;:.I .
/ f , --
..J / / <---7' . "'::'A -'J '<-v <- ... _ .I-- r j
.JJ /I.A_ t.:.:/-!' '/'c' _v- / j
-r k .. / '- - .. f ',., . -, I ' / '" , k {! d..h;:
t/ } / j J t:. A ( , ,,'...t-<:. I (-t.,..1 / , ,,- I :...{...2. - - -
J-'---.-I -( _1 i...<.1 (C ... '-
/ )
- - 90.
Space Station
Technology Development Mission
Experiment Definition Study
Technology Theme:
Space Structures (Dynamics and Control)
Volume 4: Final Report
H.C. Briggs
J.C. Mankins
December 1986
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
JPL
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California
The research descnbed In thiS publicatIOn was carned out by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. Callfomla Institute of Technology. under a contract With the NatIOnal
Aeronautics and Space Administration
ac
ACCESS
ACES
ACOSS
ADCLS
AFRPL
ANAL
AFWL
AGS
ALL
ALT
AKSR
AKSU
APACM
APS
ARGOS
arcsec
ATSE
ATSR
BET
CAD
CDA
CDMS
CIS
cm
COFS
COSMIC
CR
CSI
DARPA
dc
DMSP
DOD
DOPLID
DSN
GLOSSARY
alternating current
Assembly Concept of Construction of Erectable Space Structures
Advanced Control Evaluation for Spacecraft
Active Control Of Space Structures
Advanced Data Collection and Location System
Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory
Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories
Air Force Weapons Laboratory
advanced gimbal system
Airborne Laser Laboratory
altimeter
Advanced Mechanically Scanned Radiometer
Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit
Atmospheric Physical and Chemical Monitors
angular pointing system
Data Collection and Platform Location
arcsecond
Antenna Technology Shuttle Experiment
Along-Track Scanning Radiometer
base excitation table
computer-aided design
command and data acquisition
Command and Data Management System
Cryogenic Interferometer/Spectrometer
centimeter
Control of Flexible Structures
Coherent Optical System of Modular Imaging Collectors
Correlation Radiometer
control/structure interaction
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
direct current
Defense Meteorological Satellite program
Department of Defense
doppler lidar
deep space network
iii
DTA
EASE
EMF
EMF
Eos
EosDIS
ERBE
ERBI
ESA
ESSC
ESTAR
EVA
F/P-INT
GEOSAR
GLRS
GN&C
GOMR
GSFC
HAC
HIRIS
HIRS
HST
Hz
IOC
IVA
IR-RAD
JPL
JSC
KARS
kg
lAC
LaRC
lASA
LDR
LDSA
LEO
dynamic test article
Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA
electromotive force
Enhanced MDM Pallet
Earth Observing System
Earth Observing System Data and Information System
Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Earth Radiation Budget Instrument
European Space Agency
Earth Science System Committee
Electronically Steered Thinned Array Radiometer
extravehicular activity
Submillimeter Spectrometer
Land-Related Synthetic Aperture Radar
Geodynamics Laser Ranging System
guidance, navigation, and control
Global Ozone Monitoring Radiometer
Goddard Space Flight Center
high-authority controller
High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer
High-Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder
Hubble Space Telescope
hertz
initial operating capability
intravehicular activity
Infrared Radiometer
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Johnson Space Center
Kearfott Attitude Reference System
kilogram
low-authority controller
Langley Research Center
Laser Atmospheric Sounder and Altimeter
Large Deployable Reflector
large deployable space antenna
low Earth orbit
iv
LFKR
LKED
u{SC
LOS
LSRF
LSS
LVDT
m
MAG
ME
MLA
MLS
MODIS
MPD
MRIR
MSAT
MSE
msec
MSFC
NASA
NCIS
NOAA
OAST
OCI
OMV
OSSA
OSTP
OVLBI
PACOSS
PIE
PMR
POCC
Quasat
RAM
RF
RFI
Low-Frequency Microwave Radiometer
linear momentum-exchange device
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
line of sight
Large Space Reflector Facility
large space structure
linear variable differential transformer
meter
Magnetosphere Fields Detector
momentum exchanger
Multispectral Linear Array
Microwave Limb Sounder
Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer
Magnetosphere Particles Detector
Medium-Resolution Imaging Radiometer
Mobile Satellite
modal strain energy
millisecond
Marshall Space Flight Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Nadir Climate Interferometer/Spectrometer
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology
Ocean Color Instrument
Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle
Office of Space Science and Applications
Office of Science and Technology Planning
orbiting very long baseline interferometry
Passive and Active Control of Space Structures
payload integration equipment
Pressure Modulated Radiometer
Payload Operation Control Center
Quasar satellite
random access memory
radio frequency
radio frequency interference
v
rIDS
RMS
ROM
RSA
R&T
RT&E
S&R
SAFDE
SAFE
SAM
SAR
SBL
SBR
SCATT
SCM
SDI
SDSS
SEASAR
SEM
SHAPES
SISP
SSMI
STEP
SUSIM
TAS
TDMX
TDRSS
VCOSS
VIS/UV
VLBI
root mean square
Remote Manipulator System
read-only memory
representative system article
research and technology
research, technology, and engineering
Search and Rescue
Solar Array Flight Dynamic Experiment
Solar Array Flight Experiment
Sensing with Active Microwaves
Synthetic Aperture Radar
Space-Based Laser
Space-Based Radar
scatterometer
Solar Constant Monitor
Strategic Defense Initiative
STEP Dedicated Support System
Sea-Related Synthetic Aperture Radar
Space Environmental Monitor
Spatial, High-Accuracy Position-Encoding Sensor
Surface Imaging and Sounding Package
Special Sensor Microwave Imager
Space Technology Experiment Platform
Solar UV Spectral Irradiance Monitor
triangulation sensor
technology development mission experiment
Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System
Vibration Control of Space Structures
Visible/UV Spectrometer
very long baseline interferometer
vi
CONTENTS
GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 SUMMARY OF THE JPL TDMXs
1.2.1 Introduction .
1.2.2 Overview of the TDMXs
1.3 TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
Leverage Technology Advancement Needs
Need for an In-Space Research,
Technology, and Engineering Program.
From the Past
1.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR IN-SPACE TESTING
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
Control System Interaction With
Structural Dynamics
Joints .
Ground Testing
Examples from Flight Experience
Testing on Space Station
1.5 IN-SPACE CONSTRAINTS
1.6 RELATED PROGRAMS ..
1.6.1 Research Programs
1.6.2 Research Facilities
1.6.3 Missions
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-5
1-7
1-8
1-8
1-9
1-9
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
1-17
1-18
2. INTRODUCTION.. .............. . 2-1
vii
3.
4.
5.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MISSION EXPERIMENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION .....
3. 2 OVERVIEW OF EACH TDMX
3.2.1 TDMX 2071 Flight Dynamics Identification
3.2.2 TDMX 2411 Advanced Adaptive Control
3.2.3 TDMX 2412 Distributed Control
3.2.4 TDMX 2413 Dynamic Disturbance
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT NEEDS
4.2 NEED FOR AN IN-SPACE RT&E PROGRAM
4.3 FROM THE PAST
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
434
Workshop on Modeling. Analysis and
Optimization Issues for Large Space
Structures - May 1982
Structural Dynamics Workshop - September 1983
DOD/NASA Controls-Structures Interactions
Conference - November 1986
Workshops and Planning
JUSTIFICATION FOR IN-SPACE TESTING
5.1 CONTROL SYSTEM INTERACTION WITH STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
5.2 JOINTS
5.3 GROUND TESTING
5.4 EXAMPLES FROM FLIGHT EXPERIENCE
5.5 TESTING ON SPACE STATION ....
viii
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-4
3-6
3-6
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-6
4-6
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-4
5-5
5-5
6. IN-SPACE CONSTRAINTS 6-1
6.1 SAFETY . 6-1
6.2 EXPERIMENT ACCESSIBILITY 6-2
6.3 REMOTE OPERATION . 6-2
6.4 ASSEMBLY AND STOW 6-3
6.5 THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT 6-3
6.6 POWER LIMITATIONS 6-4
6.7 BASEBODY ISOLATION 6-4
6.8 CONCLUSION 6-4
7. RELATED PROGRAMS 7-1
7.1 RESEARCH PROGRAMS 7-1
7.1.1 Ground Programs 7-1
7.1.2 Flight Programs 7-21
7 2 RESEARCH FACILITIES 7-35
7.2 1 Ground Facility Programs 7-35
7.2 2 Flight Facility Programs 7-40
7.3 MISSIONS . 7-49
7.3.1 Large Deployable Reflector (LOR) 7-49
7.3.2 Earth Observing System (Eos) 7-53
8. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
ix
FilUres
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
7-1.
7-2.
7-3.
7-4.
7-5.
7-6.
7-7.
7-8.
7-9.
7-10.
7-11.
7-12.
7-13.
7-14.
7-15.
7-16.
7-17.
Conceptual Illustration of TDHX 2071: Flight Dynamics
Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Conceptual Illustration of TDHX 2411: Advanced Adaptive
Control ............. . . . 3-5
Conceptual Illustration of TDHX 2412: Distributed
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Conceptual Illustration of TDHX 2413: Dynamic
Disturbance . . . . . 3-8
ACOSS Tetrahedron Model 7-5
ACOSS Draper Labs Spacecraft Model 7-6
TRW VCOSS Control Device Locations 7-11
TRW VCOSS Truss Damper . 7-12
TRW VCOSS Momentum-Exchange Device 7-12
TRW VCOSS Isolator Control Mount . 7-14
TRW VCOSS Isolator Control Device 7-14
VCOSS Test Article at the Marshall Space Flight Center 7-15
PACOSS RSA Configuration . . . . . 7-18
NASA Solar Array Flight Dynamic Experiment . . . . 7-22
ATSE in Deployed Configuration (Free-Flyer Not Shown)
MSFC Large Space Structure (LSS) Simulation
Future MSFC LSS Simulation
EMF CDMS Block Diagram with Space Technology
Experiment Platform (STEP) Option . . . .
Large Space Reflector Mission Applications
Conceptual Illustration of a Large Space Reflector Facility
(LSRF) , Based at the Initial Operating Capability (IOC)
Space Station ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .
Large Deployable Reflector (LOR) Telescope Configuration
x
7-28
7-36
7-37
7-41
7-43
7-48
7-51
7-18.
7-19.
7-20.
Tables
7-1.
7-2.
7-3.
7-4.
7-5.
7-6.
7-7.
7-8.
7-9.
7-10.
7-11.
7-12.
Earth Observing System (Eos) Platform Illustration
Pointing Stability Drivers . . . . .
Selected Articulated EOS Instruments
ACOSS Bibliography . . . . . . . . . .
ACOSS Control Design and Analysis Theories
Overview of RSA Components . . . .
RSA Component Damping Concept Summary
Solar Array Structural Characteristics
Solar Array Dynamic Characteristics
Cantilever Measured Modal Frequencies
Sensor Specifications
NOAA Polar Platform Payload
Eos Strawman Payload . . .
Eos Pointing Requirements
Articulated Instruments and System Elements
xi
7-54
7-61
7-63
7-2
7-4
7-20
7-20
7-21
7-24
7-38
7-39
7-57
7-58
7-60
7-62
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This volume focuses on the programmatic context of the Space
Structures (Dynamics and Control) theme technology flight experiments to be
accommodated on the Space Station; that is, the context formed by the
developmental history of the control and identification of large space
structures, the state of the art during the mission definition period, and
the remaining technology needs as identified by program planners in the
structures community. It is the intent of this volume to explain, place in
context, and justify the four currently proposed Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) technology flight experiments of this theme.
After briefly summarizing the four experiments, the technology needs
addressed by the experiments are presented in terms of the leverage
technologies, the need for in-space technology development, and a review of
technology needs as determined by structures and controls technologists at
prior workshops. The experiments have been carefully defined to address as
many of these needs as is practical in order to maximize their utility.
Since the in-space testing proposed by these experiments is
expensive, complex, and risky, the case supporting such testing is reviewed
with the intent of explaining the shortcomings of ground test programs for
large space structures and presenting some recent results from Shuttle-borne
structural work. It is clearly the contention of this document that a
coordinated mix of carefully prepared ground and space technology development
programs will be required.
Following the discussion of the reasons for in-space testing, this
report turns to the constraints imposed upon the technology development
mission experiment (TDMX) designer. Obviously, factors such as available
launch mass and the austere environment of on-orbit manned operations will
shape the experiments. The safety of the mission equipment in nominal and
failed configurations will be essential. While the flight experiments of the
Space Station era may be viewed as progressive extensions of ground test
techniques, much remains to be developed in the art of testing itself.
The majority of this volume is devoted to a review of the many
programs, past and future, that shape the current JPL TDMX definitions. A
moderately detailed discussion of some 12 programs is presented so that the
experiments will not appear to be isolated programs without precursors or
community. The U.S. has a substantial track record in development of control
of large space structures; Space Station-based flight experiments are both
timely and crucial to further progress.
The discussion of related programs is organized around research
programs and research facilities. Within each, there are ground programs and
flight programs. For those programs that have been completed, critical
results are summarized to present a quantification of the state of the art
and to demonstrate lessons learned. When future programs are presented, the
technology needs and challenges are discussed as areas of growth. The
1-1
missions that depend upon the timely maturation of these technologies are
also presented to demonstrate a constituency for the experiments of this
theme.
The control/structure interaction community is not dominated by any
one agency such as the Department of Defense (DOD) but is comprised of DOD,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), industry, and
academia. Symposia, workshops, and personnel mobility have been the primary
coordination mechanisms in the past. New emphasis is being placed on
programmatic coordination among sponsoring organizations. Given the expense
of control/structure interaction programs and the widespread technical
capability in industry and government organizations, the tendency will be
toward interagency programs and national facilities.
1.2 SUMMARY OF THE JPL TDMX.s
1.2.1 Introduction
The objectives of the Space Structures (Dynamics and Control) theme
are derived from the 1986 draft "Objectives for National Space Technology
Experiments" of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST).
There, the objectives for the theme are "to obtain data from an instrumented
Space Station to validate the station characteristics, to provide a
technology base for large space structure assembly, to investigate the many
aspects of flexible structures control, and to provide a basis to update
ground-based models and simulations." These objectives are stated in the
context of providing a "means to put forth the advocacy and plans for
nationally-sponsored space-based experimentation using the Space Station and
other space facilities."
In the four JPL Space Station technology development mission
experiments within this theme, these objectives have been narrowed in scope
to cover only structural system identification, adaptive and distributed
control, and disturbance isolation. OVerall, the experiments support the
technical objective to develop and validate the technology data base required
for confidence in design and control of large flexible spacecraft.
1.2.2 OVerview of the TDMX.s
A generic test article for use with all the JPL TDMX.s in this theme
has been defined and used in detail experiment plans. An antenna test
article will be employed and modeled as the controlled plant for
experimentation. For each mission, ground and Shuttle experiments have been
conceived as precursors to the Space Station experiments to test the
feasibility of the mission experiments, and to check the applicability of the
mission control concepts. The Shuttle experiments form a potentially
important transition from the controlled environment of the ground test
facility to the operational environment of the Space Station by providing the
features of in-space operations while maintaining modest control over the
test environment.
1-2
1.2.2.1 TDMX 2071 Fli&ht Qynamics Identification. The purpose of TDMX 2071
is to develop the technology necessary to perform autonomous, in-space system
identification, including the capability to estimate the shape, orientation,
surface quality, flight dynamics parameters, and mass properties of various
components of the Space Station.
The test article for TDMX 2071 will consist of an antenna reflector
attached to a boom structure deployed on the Space Station. A scanning laser
beam will illuminate the antenna surface, which will be outfitted with
retroreflectors, and a sensor will detect deformations in the antenna surface
from the reflected light.
The proposed precursor ground experiment will utilize a dynamically
scaled model for the demonstration of geometrical and modal identification
algorithms. Similarly, the proposed precursor Shuttle experiment will focus
on modal identification of the Remote Manipulator System (RMS).
1.2.2.2 TDMX 2411 Advanced Adaptive Control. The purpose of TDMX 2411 is to
develop the technology necessary to apply adaptive control techniques to the
control of large, in-space flexible structures.
The mission equipment will include computers/data processors and
sensor monitors that are common to TDMX 2071, TDMX 2412, and TDMX 2413. A
six-degrees-of-freedom gimballed torquing device, on which the boom is
mounted, will provide rotations and mechanical excitations for the antenna.
Sensors and actuators will be placed on the reflector and booms and the
adaptive control algorithms executed on mission processors. The adaptive
control laws will be based on sensor-data-generated feedback control action
to suppress shape and figure distortion in the reflector and booms due to
vibration modes excited by mechanical disturbances and component motions.
The precursor ground experiments will utilize a dynamically scaled
model of the antenna support boom with actuators and sensors attached to
different parts of the boom. Adaptive control commands to actively damp out
the vibrations to restore the reflector shape will be evaluated. The
precursor Shuttle experiments will employ the Shuttle RMS as the test
article. The control system, through adaptive control techniques, will
actively damp out vibrations induced by disturbance torques.
1.2.2.3 TDMX 2412 Distributed Control. TDMX 2412 supports the development of
the technology necessary to apply distributed control techniques to the
control of large, in-space flexible structures. The distributed control
algorithms will be packaged in control software to reside in the mission
computers during the experiment. The use of distributed control techniques
for the control of spaceflight systems whose structural modes exhibit a high
degree of flexibility, and are generally characterized by hinged appendages
and loosely coupled components, will be demonstrated and evaluated.
The ground precursor experiments will employ a dynamically scaled
model of the antenna support boom. The distributed control algorithms will
actively damp out the vibrations and restore the shape of the boom. In the
1-3
Shuttle experiments, the Shuttle RKS will be utilized since it is dynamically
similar to the antenna boom. The performance of the control algorithms will
be evaluated for the impact of the O-g environment.
1.2.2.4 TPMX 2413 Dynamic Disturbance. TDMX 2413 will investigate,
demonstrate and evaluate the use of disturbance control techniques for
suppressing and isolating the vibration originating from disturbance forces
and torques that are typically experienced in an operational space
environment in which manned and autonomous payload operations are routinely
performed. The disturbance control will involve disturbance suppression and
isolation algorithms used in the control software of distributed control
techniques and vibration isolation hardware that uses active and passive
vibration isolation methods.
The precursor ground tests will add a vibration isolation unit to the
dynamically scaled model of the antenna boom. By slewing the model through a
large angle, vibrations will be induced which will be suppressed and isolated
via active damping under command of the control software. The Shuttle
experiments will demonstrate isolation with the Shuttle RMS in a similar
manner after taking into account the O-g environment.
1.3 TECHNOLOGY R E Q U I ~ S
1.3.1 Leverage Technology Advancement Needs
The Space Structures (Dynamics and Control) experiments will advance
several needed leverage technologies. These technologies are fundamental to
the initial operating capability (IOC) Space Station and other large
spacecraft now being planned and designed. Of course, the most obvious of
these is the technology of large space structures. Future scientific
missions are planning large, multi-instrument spacecraft, and missions such
as multiband communications satellites require 20-meter reflectors in
geosynchronous orbit. The technology of large structures is fundamental to
these programs.
A second key leverage technology is that of joints and the
interactions of flexible, articulated members that joints make possible.
Designers are turning to folded, deployable structures to meet launch
constraints and high-performance instruments that require slew, articulation
and retargeting. Joints are notorious for nonlinear behavior, poorly
understood dissipative mechanisms, and a total lack of a dynamic scaling data
base. Present projections of the dynamic properties of deployable structural
systems exhibit an order of magnitude uncertainty.
.1.3.2 Need For An In-Space Research, Technology, and Engineering Program
Typically the guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) subsystem of a
spacecraft is responsible for the pointing, manuevering, and retargeting
commands to support the requirements of on-board instruments and other
subsystems. These tasks for current spacecraft, which behave as rigid
bodies, are difficult given the requirements for autonomous operation and
fault tolerance. For future spacecraft, GN&C subsystem technologies must
1-4
cope with significant structural f1exibi1ities within its control band of
frequencies. These structural disturbances may be produced by external
forces, on-board equipment vibrations, or event the forces produced by the
GN&C actuators. Future GN&C algorithms must not only take these
f1exibi1ities into account, but must do so based upon very poor a priori
information and autonomously measured on-orbit updates.
Advances in these technologies will benefit many applications and
provide increased spacecraft capabilities, lower system operating costs, and
increased reliability.
In addition to the traditional GN&C system functional requirement to
provide accurate attitude control, large space atructures and large antennas
will require an increasing ability to control the static configuration and
structural dynamic responses. These systems will be operated in a dynamic,
nonuniform environment which provides system disturbances through station
keeping and docking activities. Growth in the physical system will produce
such significant changes in the attitude dynamical parameters that the
spacecraft control systems must adapt or be continually updated.
These new control system functions require system identification
techniques and hybrid active/passive control techniques that cannot be
reliably demonstrated in ground testing. Obviously the physical size of
these spacecraft will stretch and exceed current facilities. In addition,
new testing methodologies will be required to support the test articles and
reduce environmental inputs such as acoustic disturbances, air currents, and
temperature distributions. Even if these developments are successful, they
will lead to very large and complex testing programs that will require
verification if their results are to be utilized.
A "national capability" that supports a broad research and technology
(R&T) community built around industry, academia, national laboratories, and
the government is needed. In analogy to the wind tunnel support given the
aeronautics community, this capability will be used to develop new ideas,
theories, models, and hardware to respond to national needs. The environment
of space is unique, and given the complexity of evolving spacecraft systems,
cannot be sufficiently simulated in ground testing. A dynamics and control
development plan that is responsive to Space Station IOC and future growth
must be based upon an in-space RT&E program.
1.3.3 From the Past
The prior discussions have focused upon the needs presently seen for
the application of large space structures control to future spacecraft.
These statements are a logical outgrowth of the many development programs of
the past. The needs analyses performed in the workshops of the past have
been surprisingly accurate and most probably account for the advanced
position of technology today.
In May 1982, Langley Research Center, Air Force Office of Scientific
Research, and Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories sponsored a workshop
in Williamsburg, Va, on "Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization Issues for
Large Space Structures." (Ref. 7) This workshop ranged over many topics
including structure control interaction, structural and structural dynamic
1-5
modeling, thermal analysis, testing, design, and optimization. The
interdisciplinary area of control structure interaction was clearly
emphasized.
Control structure interaction was identified as an emerging
discipline but the constituent technologies were described as immature.
Ground testing was perceived as a major challenge in large space
structure applications because of gravitational and atmospheric effects.
Flight data would be necessary to substantiate analytical corrections for
suspension systems, gravitational, and atmospheric effects in order to obtain
confidence in the analyses.
At the time, a state-of-the-art assessment identified four critical
areas in large space structures control: deployment and maneuvering control
analysis, synthesis/analysis tools and methods for robust control designs,
identification/adaptive methods for high performance, and system
architecture/mechanizations.
The workshop report emphasized that ground testing will be very
difficult if not impossible because of the large size of the test articles,
gravity stiffening, small motions, and non1inearities. As a result, the
tests will be directed toward analytical verification using model or partial
structures, leaving the flight configuration to be verified by analysis, not
test
A year and a half later, the Structural Dynamics Workshop at the Air
Force Weapons Laboratory, 19-22 September 1983, brought key industry and
government personnel together to identify critical issues affecting the
application of control methodology to large space structures. (Ref. 1)
The highest priority concern of the panelists dealt with accurate
modeling and performance assessment of complex systems entailing controls,
optics, and structures subject to random disturbances. This issue would be
resolved by the development and use of a cost-effective, practical,
comprehensive, and accurate simulation tool for evaluating spacecraft
pointing systems.
The on-orbit design-to-performance methodology issues dealt with a
system design philosophy whereby the controls and structural system is
designed, launched, and then implemented on-orbit by the sequential
activation and tuning of subsystems. This bootstrap implementation
methodology is necessary for those systems that cannot be sufficiently tested
on the whole in ground tests or those systems that cannot be constructed on
orbit without some control system in operation and for which it is necessary
to achieve some certainty that system performance goals can be attained.
This issue would be resolved by the rational development and documentation of
a methodology for on-orbit design-to-performance that would then be used to
coordinate the integration of supporting design methOdologies.
The other major issues dealt with new aspects of control design for
large space structures. Structural control issues included control schemes
for active vibration suppression and controlled articulation of mechanical
subassemblies. The robust control theory issue dealt with the development
and, more particularly, the application of control design methodologies which
1-6
are insensitive to plant modeling inaccuracies and parameter variations.
Control validation experiments are a means for resolving the issue of
practically realizable performance and validating design approaches.
Achieving confidence in a design approach is necessary in order to believe
that the spacecraft will meet its performance requirements. The large size,
complexity, and high performance of future spacecraft appear to preclude
comprehensive ground test and performance validation prior to launch. The
seventh critical issue identified in the controls technology area was the
availability of suitable space-qualified actuators and sensors for structural
control.
Workshops such as these clearly set the program structure being
followed in the technology development for control of large space structures.
The TDMXs of this theme are following the recommended sequence of analysis,
ground test, and flight test, although the majority of the attention is
placed upon the mission flights aboard the Space Station.
1.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR IN-SPACE TESTING
The spacecraft systems proposed for ambitious future missions include
design elements such as large carrier structures, a wide assortment of high-
performance scientific instruments, and a requirement for autonomous
operation. Although these features are evolutionary, the methods available
in the present-day technology base cannot be used to design them without
incurring significant risk. Once the spacecraft is placed in orbit,
insufficient modifications could be made to it to make up for unpredicted or
inaccurately predicted system parameters. Neither retrieval nor in-space
retrofit appear to be viable alternatives to expanding the pre-miss ion-
implementation technology base via an in-space research, technology, and
engineering (RT&E) experimentation program.
Interaction of the GN&C system with the carrier structural dynamics
is one of the biggest breaks from traditional system design caused by the
planned missions. Work on defining the nature of this interaction and the
development of methods to design control systems that must operate in the
presence of this interaction have been underway for the last decade.
A second feature of these systems is the wide variation in expected
structural dynamic properties once they are placed in space. These systems
are inherently nonlinear, which makes the estimation of on-orbit performance
from ground test data via scaling laws quite difficult. Investigations into
the characteristics of such components as joints and the functioning of
deployment mechanisms has begun only recently.
In the following sections, the nature of the control/structure
interaction problem will be explained along with a description of the scaling
problems inherent in jointed structure. Although ground testing will provide
much meaningful data, future spacecraft design will cause increasing
difficulty in this area. The discussion of joints leads naturally into the
difficulties of ground testing of large space structures.
1-7
1.4.1 Control System Interaction With Structural Dynamics
Present satellites are relatively small spacecraft with compact,
stiff structural systems. As a result, the GN&C systems of these spacecraft
can be run at bandwidths of 2 to 5 Hz and still meet performance
requirements. The design of such GN&C systems does not depend on more than a
vague knowledge about the probable structural frequency ranges.
Future large spacecraft will have many structural frequencies between
0.01 and 5.0 Hz, right in the performance band of the GN&C system. In
addition, the scientific instruments planned for these spacecraft are capable
of much higher performance but depend upon very accurate pointing and very
low jitter. The GN&C system will have to take into account the structural
f1exibilities excited during pointing to minimize the instrument jitter. To
do this requires either accurate a priori knowledge of the structural
parameters or the ability to take measurements and update the GN&C system
after commencing operation.
1.4.2 Joints
Joints in structure intended for use in space are the archetypical
nonlinear element. The two descriptive modeling parameters of joints that
vary most significantly are stiffness and damping. Uncertainties about the
in-space operational values of these two parameters are a prime motivation
for flight experimentation.
Realizable joints are not perfect in that the operating stiffness and
dissipation depend upon the manufacturing tolerances and the loads carried by
the joint. The operational consequence of an imperfect joint is that the
frequencies of the structure will depend upon the usage. Unfortunately, the
dependence function is not well known for expected on-orbit operating
conditions.
Ground measurements of structural frequencies (and performances of
subsystems like the GN&C system that depend upon accurate knowledge of such
characteristics) may not reflect on-orbit values. Specifically, during
ground testing of the elements of the structure, the dead weight creates an
internal load across joints that is not present on orbit.
Accurately predicting the on-orbit frequencies of the structure is
very important to the GN&C system design. Various algorithms will be used to
quickly settle out any structural disturbances created by external events.
The difficulty is that all known algorithms that provide the required
performance depend heavily upon an accurate a priori model of the structural
dynamics. The required accuracy is well beyond our present ability to
predict on-orbit parameters given ground test data.
An obvious solution to the need for accurate data is to measure the
characteristics after assembly, update the control system, and then place the
spacecraft in service. This suffers from several flaws and further
experience must be gained in making meaningful on-orbit measurements through
research, planning, and flight tests.
1-8
1.4.3 Ground Testing
It is easy to see that the ground test environment is not the same as
the on-orbit environment yet it is widely known that spacecraft have been
qualified for space use based upon ground-test data for years. Large space
structures are really quite large and made of very lightweight components.
The ground experiment designer must choose either complex suspension systems
or increased strength of the test article, and both solutions make the ground
test a less faithful simulation of on-orbit conditions. For very large
structures, these suspension systems are simply not practical.
1.4.4 Examples from Flight Experience
As an example of the nature of the unexpected that might occur during
on-orbit structural dynamic testing, consider the following results from the
Solar Array Flight Dynamic Experiment (SAFDE) of Shuttle flight STS-4lD.
First, the solar array sheet exhibited significant unpredicted curl during
the dark portions of the orbit causing the sheet to be out of the
specifications for measurement. The vibration data taken during the tests
w i ~ the curling present did not match the preflight analyses because the
models did not contain the curling mechanisms. Postflight correction of the
models improved the match with measured data while data taken during the
sunlit times of the orbit matched the preflight models well.
This and other phenomena reflect the presence of significant
nonlinear behavior and were not anticipated. Improvements to the analytical
models were only partially successful. The test article was extremely simple
in comparison to anticipated large space structures, yet provided valuable
data about on-orbit testing.
Obviously, all possible ground testing will be accomplished;
nonetheless, flight tests and experiments will be required. A combination of
on-orbit component tests and reduced-order system tests may suffice to verify
the ground tests. Most probably, test flights with one or more large
assemblages will be required to reduce risks acceptably.
1.4.5 Testing on Space Station
All TDMX mission scenarios within this theme include technology
validation based upon experiments conducted on the Space Station. The Space
Station offers a unique blend of operational and testing environments not
offered by ground test facilities nor captive Shuttle test flights. The
Space Station is vitally important for at least the following four reasons:
(1) The commitment of the Space Station program to technology
development will ensure a modest amount of control over the
gradual evolution of the key features.
(2) The Space Station offers a facility where lengthy technology
validation programs can be supported.
(3) The Space Station offers manpower with its permanent skilled
crew.
1-9
(4) The Space Station resources and facilities are considerable and
do not need to be duplicated by the mission equipment.
1.5 IN-SPACE CONSTRAINTS
Historically, technology development has been best accomplished in
familiar situations where external influences on the system behavior can be
controlled. Indeed, the nature of scientific testing is to account for or
control all inputs.
The testing of large scale-space systems does not allow this initial
investigative period in a well-behaved test environment. In-space testing
itself is an untried process and there must be significant consideration of
the constraints imposed by the new testing environment. The development of
large spacecraft will proceed more along the lines of an on-orbit design to
performance philosophy than the prior practices of thorough prototype testing
followed by exhaustive proof testing of each production article.
None of the following constraints on the testing of large space
systems on orbit are new. They are collected here as a short list of the
peripheral issues in designing the TDMXs themselves. All of the JPL TDMX
definitions in the Space Structures (Dynamics and Control) theme recognize
these issues and have prepared plans to address them.
Safety. Probably the most pervasive issue is safety. The flight
experiments will take place in a very fragile manned environment. In
recognition of this, an extensive organizational review process is in place
to thoroughly examine the experiments. Early understanding of this process
and careful planning will be needed to successfully prepare the mission for
these examinations. As a result of safety issues, experiment performance
levels may be lowered.
Experiment Accessibility. Whether an experiment is executed while
attached to the Shuttle or the Space Station, experiment accessibility to the
equipment will be limited. Extravehicular activity (EVA) will be restricted
and the availability of a trained mission specialist will be constrained. As
a result, repair of failed equipment will be limited to simple exchange of
line replaceable units and repair of structural failures will be severely
limited. Manual adjustment or alignment of equipment will be limited to what
can be accomplished immediately after deployment.
The lack of direct sensory feedback for experimenters will make the
causes of unexpected phenomena difficult to determine and is counter to most
ground-test experience. The remote observations that are available will be
synthetic observations mediated by band-limited sensors, communication
channels, and displays. This must be considered in order to understand
observations and to differentiate real and derived effects.
Remote Operation. Initial on-orbit tests will be executed from Space
Station Payload Operation Control Center (POCC) in a remote-controlled
fashion. Visual feedback through video monitors and real-time data displays
1-10
may be augmented by on-board dialogue with the mission payload specialist.
Interactive investigation of unexpected as well as predicted behavior is
central to the development of the theme technologies.
Assembly and Stow. Projected limitations on available mission launch
mass to the Space Station will require one or more of unpackaging, assembly,
deployment and alignment. Whether these are done by EVA astronaut or by an
automatic machine, the structural dynamic properties of the test article will
be affected and may cloud the test results with uncontrolled factors and
phenomena.
The Harsh Environment. The experience base is quite sparse for
certain key environmental factors that will affect the TDKX equipment. For
example, the degradation of composite material, the large temperature swings
that occur from orbital noon to orbital midnight, foreign object impacts,
control system residual gas clouds, natural particles, or an accident during
proximity operations must be anticipated in light of the limited on-orbit
repair capability.
Power Limitations. Power consumption and temperature control
requirements can be expected to grow as larger structures and more
operationally realistic scenarios cause growth in the power and heat budgets.
To supplement the power available, experiments may provide power augmentation
at their expense.
Basebody Isolation. On Space Station, significant interaction
between the experiment structures and the Station structure can be expected,
and is a major difference between ground and on-orbit testing. Most
environmental isolation techniques used in ground tests will probably prove
to be prohibitively expensive.
In conclusion, a significant experience base in ground testing
techniques of isolation and control will provide limited benefit to in-space
research and development testing. Conclusive results will be achieved only
by careful control of environmental inputs, clever reasoning, and deductive
interpretation of measured results. Remote-controlled interaction with the
experiment will be essential to eliminating false returns and providing a
clear understanding of observed phenomena.
1.6 RELATED PROGRAMS
The bulk of the material presented in this document to establish the
context for the TDMX mission designs consists of summaries of programs in
control of flexible structures. For the purpose of this overview, the
reviews have been greatly pruned and only the general nature of the program
presented. For more in-depth coverage, including schedules and results,
refer to the later sections. The programs are generally broken down into
research programs and facilities.
1-11
1.6.1 Research Programs
Research programs develop a technology through ground test and flight
test to point of adoption by a production program. Some of the programs may
be generic, such as Active Control of Space Structures (ACOSS) which focused
on control/structure interactions, or they may be development programs for a
potential application, such as the proposed Antenna Technology Shuttle
Experiment (ATSE) flight experiment for the Kobile Satellite (KSAT) program.
(Ref. 17)
1.6.1.1 Ground Prolrams.
1.6.1.1.1 Active Control Of Space Structures CACOSS). The ACOSS program
was sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to
develop a unified structural dynamics and control technology base. The
program began in 1976, covered 8 years, and encompassed basic analytical
investigations into the control of large space structures, detailed
experimental brassboard development, and proof-of-concept demonstrations.
The overall ACOSS program was motivated by mission planning objectives
requiring deployment of large flexible structures, which must have stability
augmentation or dynamic shape control to meet performance requirements.
(Ref. 4)
The ACOSS program consisted of some 17 contracted efforts and drew
DOD participation. Since the completion of ACOSS several of these agencies
sponsored programs to carry the technology into specific development
programs. NASA Control of Flexible Structures (COFS), Air Force Wright
Aeronautical Laboratories (AFWAL) Vibration Control of Space Structures
(VCOSS) and Passive and Active Control of Space Structures (PACOSS), and many
of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) programs find their roots in the
ACOSS program.
The ACOSS programs produced many contributions to the
interdisciplinary engineering field of structural dynamics and control system
interaction. A large part of the practical advancement of modern control
theory, the existence of several integrated computer-aided design systems,
and several advanced digital control computers are traceable to ACOSS-funded
programs.
The later ACOSS programs used a large model of an optical spacecraft
The model presented the expected structural dynamic characteristics in that
the panel modes were within the attitude control bandwidth and were
interleaved with the structural bending modes.
The experimental programs under ACOSS first focused on verification
of the basic theories and then turned to implementation issues as the test
articles became more realistic. Lockheed demonstrated high authority/low
authority control and system identification on a 2-meter-diameter aluminum
plate. General Dynamics built a 68-inch by l03-inch plate suspended by
cantilever beams called the fly swatter plate.
The ACOSS program has been the largest contributor to the technology
base for control of large space structures. Without its timeliness, scope,
and breadth, many of the present programs would not have been undertaken.
1-12
Several technology development programs followed ACOSS under the sponsorship
of other agencies. The VCOSS program funded development of actuators and
sensors based upon analytical studies of the ACOSS spacecraft model and
experimental evaluation in the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) facility.
Many mission development programs are direct users of the ACOSS technology
base, including Space-Based Laser (SBL) , Space-Based Radar (SBR) , Airborne
Laser Laboratory (ALL), Mobile Satellite (MSAT) , Large Deployable Reflector
(LDR) , and many of the proposed SDI missions.
1.6.1.1.2 Vibration Control Of Space Structures (VCOSS).
VCOSS is a cooperative technology development program sponsored by
AFWAL and MSFC. The program began in 1981 with a dual contract award to
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc. (LMSC) , and TRW Space and Technology
Group (TRW) for analysis and system design. In 1983, the VCOSS II contract
was awarded to TRW to build and experimentally evaluate selected actuator and
sensor hardware in the MSFC test facility. The program has focused on sensor
and actuator development for the control of large space structures.
(Refs. 2, 3, 5 and 9)
The VCOSS I parallel contracts resulted in two different designs for
the control systems. LMSC used a high- and low-authority controller
(HAC/LAC) with accelerometer sensors and pivoted proof-mass actuators. TRY
used decentralized controllers with paired sensors and actuators including
accelerometers, fiber-optic interferometers, momentum exchange actuators,
linear truss damping actuators, and linear active isolators.
The design goal was to reduce the response to the disturbances; that
is to say, active rejection of disturbances as measured by a 1ine-of-sight
performance metric. System optimization included consideration of total
system weight, power consumption, thermal control, cost, and launch volume.
Technology readiness for the candidate actuators and sensors was evaluated
and program plans prepared for follow-on hardware development efforts.
The follow-on program was designated VCOSS II because it built upon
the results of the two VCOSS studies and utilized the structural dynamic test
capability of MSFC to evaluate the new contractor designed and fabricated
actuator and sensor hardware. The laboratory testing carried out under VCOSS
II will form the basis for Space Shuttle flight experiments, thus providing
flight confirmation of the analytical and laboratory results.
The main goal of the VCOSS II program was the demonstration of the
application of realizable sensor and actuator hardware to a laboratory
structure and the understanding of the structural dynamics of the complete
system. TRW designed, fabricated, and delivered an optical position
measurement system and five linear momentum exchange actuators. The program
report, including the MSFC test results and evaluation of the delivered
hardware, will be available early in FY'87.
The VCOSS II hardware has been installed in the MSFC test facility
and will be part of the hardware suite for the Advanced Control Evaluation
for Spacecraft (ACES) program. This is a near-term program, jointly
1-13
sponsored by DOD and NASA/KSFC, to evaluate leading control techniques on a
common test structure.
1.6.1.1.3 Passive and Active Control of Space Structures <PACOSS).
The PACOSS program sponsored by AFWAL is directed toward developing
technology that integrates passive damping techniques with active control
design. Special consideration is being given to passive damping techniques
to reduce the bandwidth over which damping must be provided by active means.
This approach will result in less complicated control systems with fewer
sensors and actuators, lower cost, and enhanced reliability.
(Ref. 18)
To provide an analytic test bed for the development of PACOSS
technology, a representative system article (RSA) has been developed. The
RSA is intended to represent system dynamics generic to planned and
conceptual space systems. Complementary experimental testing must be
performed to validate the analytic methods and technology. The required
analysis and verification will be accomplished through the implementation of
PACOSS technology on a dynamic test article (DTA) which is derived from the
RSA such that it possesses similar dynamic characteristics and opportunities
for application of passive and active control.
An important aspect of the RSA design process is that the
substructures were designed to permit incorporation of passive damping
treatments. This approach is essential to successful and efficient damping
treatment.
The selected RSA configuration consists of a variety of elements,
each of which is traceable to one or more future space systems. The
configuration serves as a bridge between the experimental analysis and
verification of damping treatments to be performed using a dynamic test
article, and evaluation of the developed technology on future space systems.
The analyses demonstrate that, for a given slew situation and
performance requirement, implementation of both passive and active damping in
an integrated control approach give the desired performance while reducing
the number of active control components and the total energy expenditure.
This can lead to more robust and reliable systems which may be less expensive
than those required for active control alone.
1.6.1.2 F1i&ht Prolrams. Very few structures-oriented test programs have
flown, the most notable being SAFDE. Most of the future large structure
programs, however, are planning flight experiments to demonstrate the key
component technologies on test articles that accurately represent the system
concepts; for example, ATSE and MSAT. The only research and development
program planned is the COFS investigations into structures measurement and
control/structure interaction. Each of the TDMXs of this theme plan flight
experiments as verification of the experiment design and ground test prior to
the TDMX mission.
1-14
1.6.1.2.1 Solar Array Fli&ht Dynamic Experiment (SAFPE). SAFDE flew in
September 1984 on Shuttle flight STS-4lD to investigate on-orbit large space
structure dynamic testing. The solar array has extremely large area-to-
weight ratios and low natural frequencies and cannot be dynamically tested in
a l-g environment due to air dumping
The structural dynamic natural frequencies and mode shapes were
measured and several characteristics of nonlinear structures were observed.
For example, the first mode exhibited a natural frequency that varied from
0.059 Hz to 0.072 Hz with increasing amplitude of excitation. Similarly, the
damping in this mode varied from 8 percent at large amplitudes to 2 percent
at small amplitudes.
SAFDE illustrated a number of points significant to control structure
interaction of large space structures and may well be representative of the
"surprises" which may be expected to occur. The SAFDE program did confirm
the viability of on-orbit test definition of large space structure dynamic
characteristics.
1.6.1.2.2 Control of Flexible Structures. COFS is sponsored by OAST and
managed at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). The program will perform
four to six Shuttle-based structural control flight experiments in the
mid-1990s. The COFS program will provide tested controls/structures
interaction analysis tools, validated in-space controls test methods to
support future spacecraft systems identification, and methodology to predict
spacecraft performance by analysis, limited ground tests, and in-space tests
The program is structured in three segments. COFS I will flight test
a large truss beam cantilevered from the Shuttle bay. COFS II will focus on
three-dimensional structures by testing a large antenna-like structure
attached to the COFS I beam. COFS III will investigate multibody dynamics,
possibly utilizing the Space Station. Each program segment will include
methodology development, ground test, and in-space experiments.
The COFS I program will focus on beam dynamics and control. The key
technologies are systems identification, testing methods, and distributed
controls. The COFS I flight test article will be a 60-meter deployable truss
beam erected out of the Shuttle cargo bay with multiple proof-mass actuator
stations. COFS II will investigate three-dimensional dynamics and control.
The key technologies are systems identification, shape definition, distri-
buted controls, and adaptive controls. The test article configuration will
include a short boom and area surface object attached to the end of the COFS
I beam. The COFS III program will focus on the multibody dynamic technolo-
gies of test methods, system identification, model sensitivities, analysis
verification, and Space Station supporting technology.
The ground test technology development will investigate scaling laws
for joints (both linear and three-dimensional) and damping methodology. The
investigation will cover elements, components, mated systems, and their
growth.
1-15
1.6.1.2.3 Antenna TecbnololY Sbuttle Experiment. ATSE is proposed to test
the critical technologies associated with large deployable space antennas
(LDSAs). The ATSE will be conducted from the Space Shuttle in the early
1990s and will involve the deployment, characterization, and control of a
20-meter-class antenna. (Ref. 17)
Of these potential LDSA applications, the mobile communications
application could be of significant interest to the commercial sector. The
overall objective of ATSE is to test in situ the technologies critical to the
design and utilization of LDSAs for projects including KSAT-2, orbiting very
long baseline interferometers (VLBIs) and Earth remote-sensing systems. The
specific objectives of the ATSE project include the demonstration of
astronaut-assisted construction of large flexible truss structures in space,
verification of the in-flight performance of an antenna system representative
of those to be used in applications, and demonstration of in-flight
measurement and control techniques for LDSA.
The ATSE program has been defined, costed, and awaits approval for an
FY'87 start.
1.6.1.2.4 Stability and Control of Larle Coupled Structures in Motion
In FY'86, OAST committed to expanding the in-space experiments
program and solicited experiment proposals for experiment definition and
development programs that are supportive of the technology directions of the
OAST R&T program. The objective of the flight experiments program is to
provide the technical data and operational confidence for successful
technology development, verification, and use. (Ref. 23)
In response to this call for proposals, several of the structural
dynamics and control technologies were unified into a definition phase
proposal for a discipline experiment. The flight experiment objective is to
demonstrate coordinated system identification and control strategies for
multiple, connected large structures in motion.
For the proposed flight experiment, a flexible basebody with one or
more large, flexible appendages will be used as a test bed for algorithm
evaluations under operational conditions. Flight dynamics identification
techniques will be used to estimate modeling parameters and to determine
overall control system effectiveness. Adaptive control algorithms will be
evaluated to determine the proper mix of control techniques best suited to a
variety of system topologies and pathologies.
The definition phase proposal is in the process of approval for an
FY'87 start.
1.6.1.2.5 ACCESS/EASE. On November 29 and December I, 1985, during
Shuttle mission STS-6lB, two experiments were performed to evaluate manual
assembly, deployment, and construction of space structures. In the Assembly
Concept of Construction of Erectable Space Structures (ACCESS) demonstration,
1-16
the astronauts erected a 45-foot truss tower, while in the Experimental
Assembly of Structures in EVA (EASE) effort, they assembled and disassembled
a l2-foot pyramid truss. The two astronauts worked during two six-hour EVA
periods, evaluating the work efforts required to assemble structures in
space. The Langley truss tower was constructed using hand-laid assembly of
more than 100 components on a l2-foot assembly jig. When construction was
completed the astronauts evaluated their ability to transport and place the
large structures by carrying and turning the 45-foot tower. The crew built
and disassembled the MSFC EASE pyramid eight times. No structural dynamics
evaluations of the structures were involved. (Refs. 10 and 12)
1.6.2 Research Facilities
1.6.2.1 Ground Facility Programs.
1.6.2.1.1 The Ground Test Facility at Marshall Space Flight Center. As a
key component in their NASA-sponsored Control Technique Verification Program,
MSFC has constructed a large-scale control and structural dynamics test
facility within the Systems Dynamics Laboratory. The facility presently
contains a complex test article typical of a large antenna spacecraft,
control and instrumentation electronics, and a five-degrees of-freedom gimbal
suspension system. Active programs in evaluation of proof-mass actuators and
an optical position measurement system, in application of proportional cold
gas thrusters, and in the comparison of several control system design
methodologies are typical of the Laboratory's coverage of the ground testing
of large space structures.
The main test article is a 45-foot-ta11 dynamic model of a spacecraft
with an offset reflector suspended from the gimbal system. The sensors
include rate gyros, triaxial accelerometers, and the optical displacement
measurement system for the mast provided by the VCOSS program. Actuators
include the gimbal torquers on the suspension system, the VCOSS linear
momentum-exchange devices, and Aerojet bidirectional, proportional cold gas
reaction jets now in design. The main large space structure characteristics
that might affect the control system are: a low fundamental vibrational mode
frequency, modal frequencies that are densely packed, large inertias and
generalized masses for vibrational modes, low structural damping, and
uncertainties in the dynamics model. Measured frequencies for the
cantilevered mast range from 0.114 Hz to 6.5 Hz.
The mast is a spare Voyager ASTROMAST, is extremely lightweight
(about 5 pounds) and is approximately 45 feet in length. It is constructed
almost entirely of S-GLASS and is of the type flown on the Solar Array Flight
Experiment (SAFE).
Two three-axis linear accelerometers and two three-axis rate
gyroscopes are available for use as the control system sensors. Complete
electrical interfacing, including pulse handling, unit conversion, and
maintenance of the coordinate system, is handled by the COSMEC-I computer
system at a 50-Hz sample rate.
In addition, the VCOSS II linear momentum-exchange device (LMED)
proof-mass actuators, and optical position measurement system have been
1-17
installed on the mast. The optical position measurement system measures two
lateral displacements and rotation about the vertical axis of the LMED
station. New nitrogen gas thrusters will provide attitude control torques by
producing bidirectional, proportionally controlled forces at the mast tip.
The MSFC ACES program will verify several of the most promising large
space structure (LSS) control design techniques through their application to
the test article. Candidate techniques include high authority/low authority,
positivity, and model error sensitivity suppression from the DARPA ACOSS
program as well as H infinity design and maximum entropy/optimal projection.
1.6.2.2 Flight Facility Programs.
1.6.2.2.1 EMP/STEP. The Advanced HDM Pallet/Space Technology Experiment
Platform (EMF/STEP) program supports structural dynamics flight experiments
with payload integration and analysis support, flight hardware, and flexible
data acquisition and multiplexer electronics.
The STEP Dedicated Support System (SDSS) consists of three hardware
elements: a Spacelab pallet, an avionics element, and a payload integration
equipment (PIE) element. The command and data management system provides for
control, from within the Shuttle cabin or from the ground command center, of
the experiment sequencing, data collection, data recording, and data
transmission. The cabin-mounted control unit is a microcomputer that can
communicate with all Shuttle facilities has program and data storage, and
supports standardized configuration, scheduling, and transmission functions.
The smart multiplexer controls the data transmission switching and experiment
data collection through reprogrammable signal paths.
The EMF/STEP program is managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center
and contracted to McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
1.6.3 Missions
1 . 6 ~ 3 . l Large Deployable Reflector <LPR).
The LDR is a dedicated astronomical observatory operating in the
spectral range between 30 and 1000 micrometers wavelength which will be
placed in orbit above the Earth's obscuring atmosphere. The NASA Office of
Space Science and Applications (OSSA) has scheduled the LDR for a new start
sometime in the 1990s.
The present concept for the LDR telescope is based on a 20-meter-
diameter reflector. The primary mirror is a filled aperture made up of
hexagonal panels. The optical configuration is a four-mirror two-stage
system with a passive primary mirror. The active optical elements for figure
control are at the quaternary mirror. In this concept, the first stage is a
segmented 20-meter-diameter mirror that forms an approximate image. The
second stage "tunes up" the wavefront to the desired high acuity via a small
monolithic structure located at a real image of the primary mirror. These
miniature mirror segments are arranged in an identical pattern to the primary
mirror segments and are actively adjusted so that each segment causes the
1-18
reflected wavefront to be perfectly phased and directed to a common focus in
the LDR experiment package.
The truss that supports the mirrors is based on a unique self-
deployable truss concept that was conceived at LaRC and developed by the
Astro Aerospace Corp. The PAC truss concept has the advantage that the
deployment is inherently strongly synchronized and mechanical packaging 1s
quite efficient.
The control subsystem concept incorporates both the control functions
of attitude and pointing control and the quaternary mirror figure control.
The basic attitude information is obtained from the coarse star trackers and
the inertial reference unit. The desired relative coordinates of the target
image and the guide star image on the quadrant detector of the fine pointing
sensor is then established. Coarse and fine control of the line of sight is
performed by the control moment gyroscopes and the tip and tilt of the
overall quaternary mirror, respectively.
1-19
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
This is the fourth of the volumes in the JPL Space Station
TeChnology Development Mission Experiment Definition Study for FY'86. It
covers the Space Structures (Dynamics and Control) theme encompassing four
Space Station technology development mission experiments (TDMXs). They are
TDHX 2071, Flight Dynamics Identification; TDMX 2411, Advanced Adaptive
Control; TDMX 2412, Distributed Control; and TDMX 2413, Dynamic Disturbance.
This volume focuses on the context of the experiments; that is, the
programmatic and technological context formed by the developmental history of
the control and identification of large space structures, the state of the art
during the mission definition period, and the remaining needs as identified by
prozram planners in the structures community. It is the specific intent of
this volume to explain, place in context, and justify the four experiments of
this theme.
This objective is approached by first summarizing the four experiments
briefly. For more details, the individual TDMX reports should be consulted
The technology needs addressed by the experiments are next presented
in terms of the leverage technologies, the need for in-space technology
development, and a review of technology needs as determined by structures and
controls technologists at workshops The experiments have been carefully
defined to address as many of these needs as is practical in order to maximize
their utility.
Since the in-space testing proposed by these experiments is expensive,
c o ~ l e x , and risky, the case supporting such testing is reviewed with the
intent of explaining the shortcomings of ground test programs for large space
structures and presenting some recent results from Shuttle-borne structural
work. It is clearly the contention of this document that a coordinated mix of
carefully prepared ground and space technology development programs is
required.
Next, this report turns to the constraints imposed upon the TDMX
designer. Obviously, factors such as available launch mass and the austere
environment of manned operations on orbit will shape the experiments.
Tremendous pressure can be expected to demonstrate the safety of the mission
equipment in nominal and failed configurations. Several other factors, some
rather obvious, are discussed in terms of the limitations they impose upon the
experiment design. While the flight experiments of the Space Station era may
be viewed as progressive extensions of ground test techniques, much remains to
be developed in the art of testing itself.
The majority of this volume is devoted to a review of the many
prOlrams, past and future, that shape the technology development experiment
definitions. A moderately detailed discussion of some 12 programs is
presented. These establish the proposed TDMXs as natural extensions of
current research and planning, rather than isolated programs without
precursors or community. The U.S. has a substantial track record of
2-1
development in control of large space structures to the extent that Space
Station-based flight experiments are both timely and crucial to further
progress.
The discussion of related programs is organized around research
programs and research facilities. Within each, there are ground programs and
flight programs. For those programs that have completed, critical results are
summarized to present a quantification of the state of the art and to
demonstrate lessons learned. When future programs are presented, the
technology needs and challenges are discussed as areas of growth. The
missions that depend upon the timely maturation of these technologies are also
presented to demonstrate a constituency for the experiments of this theme.
The participants in these programs come from the large structure
control/structure interaction (CSI) community, not just the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The community is not dominated
by anyone agency, such as the Department of Defense (DOD), but is comprised
of DOD, NASA, industry, and academia. Coordination is therefore difficult.
Symposia, workshops and personnel mobility have been the primary coordination
mechanisms in the past. New emphasis is being placed on programmatic
coordination among sponsoring organizations by higher authorities who must
defend program plans before Congress. Given the expense of these programs and
the widespread technical capability in industry and government organizations,
the tendency will be toward interagency programs and national facilities.
2-2
SECTION 3
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MISSION EXPERIMENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The objectives of the Space Structures (Dynamics and Control) theme
are derived from the 1986 draft "Objectives for National Space Technology
Experiments" of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST). There,
the objectives for the theme are "to obtain data from an instrumented Space
Station to validate the station characteristics, to provide a technology base
for large space structure assembly, to investigate the many aspects of
flexible structures control, and to provide a basis to update ground-based
models and simulations." These objectives are stated in the context of
providing a "means to put forth the advocacy and plans for nationally
sponsored space-based experimentation using the Space Station and other space
facilities."
In the four JPL Space Station TDMXs within this theme, these
objectives have been narrowed in scope to cover only structural system
identification, adaptive and distributed control, and disturbance isolation.
In general the theme programmatic objectives are to:
(1) Monitor the status of present and near-term programs (COFS II,
SOLAR MAX, LDR, etc.) in terms of ground and flight
demonstration results to determine evolutionary requirements
and concepts for Space Station in-space research and
technology (R&T) (1994 and beyond).
(2) Develop R&T plans and requirements to advance identified high
leverage technology drivers.
(3) Develop technology requirements supporting Space Station
growth in a timely fashion.
The JPL experiments support the technical objective to develop and validate
the technology data base required for confidence in design and control of
large flexible spacecraft.
3.2 OVERVIEW OF EACH TDMX
A generic test article for use with all JPL TDMXs in this theme has
been defined and used in developing detailed experiment plans. Application
and testing of mission control concepts with Space Station components have
been considered, but, because of the high cost factor, risk of unforeseen
difficulties, and interference with normal Space Station operations, an
antenna test article will be employed and modeled as the controlled plant for
experimentation.
For each mission, ground and Shuttle experiments have been
conceived as precursors to the Space Station experiments which are objectives
of the programs. These precursor experiments are intended to test the
3-1
feasibility of the mission experiments, and to check the applicability of the
mission control concepts in a cost-effective manner, before implementing the
TDMX. The Shuttle experiments form a potentially important transition from
the controlled environment of the ground test facility to the operational
environment of the Space Station. Shuttle-based experimentation provides the
features of in-space operations while maintaining modest control over the test
environment. Implementation of this phase of the projected in-space research,
technology, and engineering (RT&E) program will depend upon Shuttle
manifesting availability during the pre- and early-Station eras.
3.2.1 TDHX 2071 Flight Dynamics Identification
The purpose of TDMX 2071 is to develop the technology necessary to
perform autonomous, in-space system identification, including the capability
to estimate the shape, orientation, surface quality, flight dynamics
parameters, and mass properties of various components of the Space Station.
A conceptual definition of the experiment has been developed for
implementation on the Space Station (see Figure 3-1). The mission experiment
will center upon an antenna reflector attached to a boom structure deployed on
the Space Station. Retroreflector targets, typically mirrors, will be placed
on the antenna surface. A scanning laser beam will illuminate the antenna
surface and the retroreflectors, and a sensor will detect deformations in the
antenna surface from the reflected light.
Ground- and Shuttle-based dynamics experiments will act as
forerunners for TDMX 2071. The proposed ground experiment will utilize a
dynamically scaled model for the demonstration of geometrical and modal
identification algorithms. Similarly, the proposed Shuttle experiment will
focus on modal identification of the Remote Manipulator System (RMS) as the
test article.
The objectives for TDMX 2071 are:
(1) Establish a large space system control technology data base
with substantial reduction in uncertainties in control and
structural dynamic interactions.
(2) Systematic measurement of structural parameters, e.g.,
damping, and their effects on open-loop and closed-loop system
responses.
(3) Validation of critical control methods, architectures, and
hardware for control of large structural systems.
(4) Verification and establishment of a quantitative level of
confidence to provide guidance for improving ground test
simulation and analytical tools of prediction.
(5) Validation of identification and control algorithm
mechanization techniques within dedicated, flight-qualified
computers.
3-2
W
I
W
e GEOMETRY 10
e MASS PROPERTIES 10
eMODAllD
HUB
(WITH RATE
GYROS)
ANTENNA
STRUCTURE
---
SYSTEM
IDENTIFICATION
REFLECTOR SURFACE
(WITH RETROREFLECTORS)
IN-FLIGHT AND
GROUND ANALYSES
LASER AND OPTICAL
SENDOR (e. g., SHAPES)
THREE-DOF PROXIMITY
SENSOR
FEED
INSTRUMENTATION
SUPPORT BOOM
SIX-DOF MECHANICAL
(GIMBALLED)
TORQUER
Figure 3-1. Conceptual Illustration of TDMX 2071
Flight Dynamics Identification
3.2.2
(6) Validation of prototype sensors and actuators for evolutionary
large space structure identification and control applications
(7) Measurement of in-flight, environmental dynamic disturbances
within systems of large flexible structures.
TDMX 2411 Advanced Adaptive Control
The TDMX 2411 will develop the technology necessary to apply
adaptive control techniques to the control of a large, in-space flexible
structure (see Figure 3-2).
A mission of 90 operational days has been planned. The mission
equipment will include computers/data processors and sensor monitors that are
common to TDMX 2071, TDMX 2412, and TDMX 2413. The experiments use an antenna
structure that is comprised of a reflector supported by a two-part boom. A
six-degrees-of-freedom gimballed torquing device, on which the boom is
mounted, will provide rotations and mechanical excitations for the antenna.
Sensors and actuators will be placed on the reflector and booms and the
adaptive control algorithms executed on mission processors. The adaptive
control laws will be based on sensor-data-generated feedback control action to
suppress shape and figure distortion in the reflector and booms due to
vibration modes excited by mechanical disturbances and component motions.
A preliminary set of ground and Shuttle experiments has been
developed as precursors to the TDMX 2411. The ground experiments will utilize
a dynamically scaled model of the antenna support boom with actuators and
sensors attached to different parts of the boom. Adaptive control commands to
actively damp out the vibrations to restore the reflector shape will be
evaluated. The Shuttle experiments will employ the Shuttle RKS as the test
article and a series of short and rapid torquing disturbances will be
commanded to induce structural vibrations. The sensors will detect shape
distortion and pointing misalignment, and the actuators will, through adaptive
control commands, actively damp out the vibrations.
evaluate:
The objectives for TDMX 2411 are to develop, demonstrate, and
(1) Flight system performance and stability improvement sensing
strategies and mechanization.
(2) Control gain update methodologies and reconfiguration schemes
(3) Adaptive control algorithms for compensation of gross system
model uncertainties and changes.
(4) Autonomous error estimation methods.
3-4
W
I
VI
EXCITATION/
DISTURBANCE
MONITOR PERFORMANCE
VARIATION
REFERENCE +' + OUTPUT
'--____ ~ - - - - .. T .... (PERFORMANCE GAUGE)
DETERMINE CAUSE
CHANGE CONTROL OR
ESTIMATOR ACCORDINGLY
HUB
(RIB-ROOT
ACTUATORS,
RATE GYROS)
REFLECTOR SURFACE
(WI TH RETROREFLECTORS)
LASER AND OPTICAL
SENSOR (e. g., SHAPES)
THREE-DOF PROXIMITY
SENSOR
INSTRUMENTATION
SUPPORT BOOM
SIX-OOF MECHANICAL
(GIMBALLED)
TORQUER
Figure 3-2. Conceptual Illustration of TDMX 2411
Advanced Adaptive Control
3.2.3 TDMX 2412 Distributed Control
TDMX 2412 supports the development of the technology necessary to
apply distributed control techniques to the control of large, in-space
flexible structures (see Figure 3-3).
A mission of 90 operational days is planned utilizing the same
mission equipment as TDMX 2071, TDMX 2411, and TDMX 2413. The experiment will
demonstrate the use of distributed controls in which the antenna structure
will be tested as a modeled control plant. The distributed control algorithms
will be packaged in control software to reside in the mission computers during
the experiment. The use of distributed control techniques for the control of
spaceflight systems whose structural modes exhibit a high degree of
flexibility, and are generally characterized by hinged appendages and loosely
coupled components, will be demonstrated and evaluated.
The ground precursor experiments will employ a dynamically scaled
model of the antenna support boom. Sensors and actuators will be placed along
the boom. The distributed control algorithms will actively damp out the
vibrations and restore the shape of the boom. In the Shuttle experiments, the
Shuttle RMS will be utilized since it is dynamically similar to the antenna
boom. The performance of the control algorithms will be evaluated for the
impact of the O-g environment.
3.2.4
The underlying objectives for TDMX 2412 are:
(1) Proof of design and implementation of distributed control
laws.
(2) Study of control capability of available actuators for
control.
(3) Evaluation of sensing capability of available sensors.
(4) Test of design algorithms and portable/pre-package control
software.
TDMX 2413 Dynamic Disturbance
TDMX 2413 will investigate, demonstrate, and evaluate the use of
disturbance control techniques for suppressing and isolating the vibration
originating from disturbance forces and torques that are typically experienced
in an operational space environment in which manned and autonomous payload
operations are routinely performed (see Figure 3-4). The disturbance control
will involve disturbance suppression and isolation algorithms used in the
control software of distributed control techniques and vibration isolation
hardware that uses active and passive vibration isolation methods.
A mission of 90 operational days is planned for TDMX 2413. The
mission equipment is common to TDMX 2071, TDMX 2411, and TDMX 2412. All
experiments will use the antenna reflector and support booms. During the
final phases of the mission, a vibration isolation unit will be placed between
3-6
W
I
.......
HUB
IRIB-ROOT
ACTUATORS,
RATE GYROS)
EXCITATION/
DISTURBANCE
REFERENCE + +
CONTROLLER
{OPTIMAl ESTIMATOR
CONTROL LAWS, (STEADY -STATE
DISTRIBUTED KALMAN FILTER)
ACTUATION)
REflECTOR SURFACE
IWITH RETROREFLfCTORS)
LASER ANO OPTICAL
SENSOR Ie. g., SHAPES)
THREE-DOF PROXIMITY
SENSOR
I NSTRUMENlATION
SUPPORT BOOM -
SIX-DOF MECHANICAL
IGIMBALLfD)
TORQUER
Figure 3-3. Conceptual Illustration of TDMX 2412
Distributed Control
OUTPUT
(PERFORMANCE)
\"oJ
I
00
COMMAND
SIGNAL
GENERATOR
HUB

ACTUATORS,
RATE GYROS)
I- CMG
SHAPE (FIGURE),
ATTITUOE!
ORIENTATION
AND RATES
STRUCTURAL
TORQUES
DYNAMICS
(RAW DATA)
PROCESSING I-
(ANTENNA
i - STRUCTURE)
I
I
I
I
I
I .--__ -L' --------,

CONTROL LAWS
- DISTRIBUTED CONTROLS
FEED
- DISTURBANCE SUPPRESSION
REFlECTOR SURFACE
(WITH RETROREFLECTORS)
VIBRATION
ISOLATION
UNIT
LASER AND OPTICAL
SENSOR (e.g SHAPES)
THREE-DOF PROXIMITY
SENSOR
INSTRUMENTATION
SUPPORT BOOM
SIX-DOF MECHANICAL
(GIMBALLED)
TORQUER
Figure 3-4. Conceptual Illustration of TDMX 3413
Dynamic Disturbance
,I
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
the gimballed torquer and the main support boom for tests to reduce
disturbance transmission effects.
The precursor ground tests will add a vibration isolation unit to
the dynamically scaled model of the antenna boom. By slewing the model
through a large angle, vibrations will be induced which will be suppressed and
isolated via active damping under command of the control software. The
Shuttle experiments will demonstrate isolation with the Shuttle RMS in a
similar manner after taking into account the O-g environment.
The objectives for TDMX 2413 are:
(1) Investigate command techniques that minimize flexible body
vibrations.
(2) Evaluate antenna jitter induced by slewing commands issued by
different open-loop command profile generators.
(3) Evaluate closed-loop feedback control.
(4) Design and evaluate disturbance control techniques.
(5) Evaluate effectiveness of a basebody vibration isolation unit.
3-9
SECTION 4
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
4.1 LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT NEEDS
The Space Structure (Dynamics and Control) flight experiments will
advance several needed leverage technologies. These technologies are
fundamental to the initial operating capability (lOe) Space Station and other
larze spacecraft now being planned and designed. Of course, the most obvious
of these is the technology of large space structures. Future scientific
missions are planning multi-instrument spacecraft not only for reasons of cost
efficiency but also as new opportunities to study phenomena with multiple,
cooperative instruments. Certain missions such as multiband communications
satellites require 20-meter reflectors with 50-meter booms (or larger) in
geosynchronous orbit to meet spectrum use and land coverage requirements.
Larse structure assembly has been demonstrated on orbit and the composite
materials development has brought compact, lightweight structural concepts to
a state of acceptance in spacecraft design.
A second key leverage technology is that of joints and the
interactions of flexible, articulated members that joints make possible.
Constraints of launch vehicle volume and mass are forcing designers to turn to
folded, deployable structures with members that deploy autonomously. However,
hiBb performance requires slew, articulation, and retargeting of instruments
and supporting structures in pursuit of complex mission goals. Joints are
notorious for nonlinear behavior, poorly understood dissipative mechanisms,
and a total lack of a dynamic scaling data base. Present projections of the
dynamic properties of deployable structural systems exhibit an order of
magnitude uncertainty.
The Space Station guidance, navigation and control (GN&C)
subsystem is responsible for the pointing, maneuvering, and retargeting
ca..ands to support a wide variety of instruments, observations, and
experiments. These tasks, for current spacecraft which behave as rigid
bodies, are already difficult given the requirements for autonomous operation
and fault tolerance. For future spacecraft the problems are worsened, as the
GN&C subsystem must cope with significant structural flexibilities within its
band of control frequencies. These flexibilities will produce structurally
induced motion at the attitude sensors that can produce false estimates of the
spacecraft state. These structural disturbances may be produced by external
forces, on-board equipment vibrations, or even the forces produced by the GN&C
actuators. Future GN&C algorithms must not only take these flexibilities into
account, but must do so based upon very poor a priori information and
autonomously measured on-orbit updates.
To provide measurement of structural disturbances and control
fo%ces to counter them, the development of new sensors and actuators is
required. Since the structural systems are large, lightweight, and sparse,
distributed sensors and actuators are needed that do not overload the
structure. These need extended high-power bandwidths to control the low-
frequency structural modes with large generalized masses, increased precision
4-1
to achieve the extreme system performances required, and low noise and
vibration levels to minimize induced disturbances.
Advances in these technologies will benefit many applications and
provide increased spacecraft capabilities, lower system operating costs, and
increased reliability. Applications of these leverage technologies include:
(1) Autonomous functions and real-time control.
(2) Modeling.
(3) Vibration isolation and suppression.
(4) Damping characteristics and controls.
(5) Static and dynamics identification (testing).
(6) Disturbance isolation and controls.
(7) Aerodynamic maneuvering.
(8) Attitude control and stabilization.
(9) Antennas/satellite deployment and recovery.
(10) Rendezvous and proximity operations.
(11) Orbital guidance, navigation, and pointing.
(12) Tethered operations.
4.2 NEED FOR AN IN-SPACE RT&E PROGRAM
In addition to the traditional GN&C system functional requirement
to provide accurate attitude control, large space structures and large
antennas will require an increasing ability to control the static
configuration and structural dynamic responses. These systems will be
operated in dynamic, nonuniform environment which provides system disturbances
through station keeping and docking activities. Growth in the physical system
will produce such significant changes in the attitude dynamical parameters
that the spacecraft control systems must adapt or be continually updated.
These new control system functions require system identification
techniques and hybrid active/passive control techniques that cannot be
reliably demonstrated in ground testing. Obviously the physical size of these
spacecraft will stretch and exceed the capabilities of current facilities. In
addition, new testing methodologies will be required to support the test
articles and reduce environmental inputs such as acoustic disturbances, air
currents, and temperature distributions. Even if these developments are
successful, they will lead to very large and complex testing programs that
will require verification if their results are to be utilized.
4-2
A "national capability" that supports a broad R&T community built
around industry, academia, national laboratories, and the government is
needed. (See, for example, "Laboratory Testing of Large Space Structures -- A
National Facility Approach," by H. C. Briggs and J. Pearson, Ninth DARPA
Strategic Space Symposium, October 1983.) In analogy to the wind tunnel
support given the aeronautics community, this capability will be used to
develop new ideas, theories, models, and hardware to respond to national
needs. The environment of space is unique, and given the complexity of
evolving spacecraft systems, can not be sufficiently simulated in ground
testing. A space structures dynamics and control development plan that is
responsive to Space Station IOC, future growth, and a wide range of ambitious,
large-scale missions, must be based upon an in-space RT&! program.
4.3 FROM THE PAST
The prior sections have focused upon the needs presently seen for
the application of large space structure control to future spacecraft. These
statements are a logical outgrowth of the many development programs of the
past. The needs analyses performed in the workshops of the past have been
surprisingly accurate and most probably account for the advanced position of
technology today.
4.3.1 Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Optimization Issues for Large
Space Structures - May 1982
In May 1982, Langley Research Center, Air Force Office of
Scientific Research, and Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories sponsored
a workshop in Williamsburg, Va, on "Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization
Issues for Large Space Structures." (Ref. 7) This workshop ranged over many
topics, including control structure interaction (CSI), structural and
structural dynamic modeling, thermal analysis, testing, design, and
optimization. The interdisciplinary area of control structure interaction was
clearly emphasized.
Control structure interaction was identified as an emerging
discipline. Although the system performance requirements dictated the
integration of these two disciplines into a design approach, the
presentations at the workshop revealed the immaturity of the constituent
technologies. Theoretical considerations dominated the research. The report
cited the need for ground test and analysis programs involving relatively
complex structures and associated control systems and careful space flight
experiments to build the necessary confidence and experience.
Ground testing was perceived as a major challenge in large space
structure applications because of gravitational and atmospheric effects. To
derive maximum benefit from ground testing, it would be necessary to have
flight data to substantiate analytical corrections for suspension systems,
gravitational, and atmospheric effects. Such data are needed to obtain
confidence in the analyses necessary to justify programmatic commitment to
real mission applications.
4-3
At the 1982 workshop, a state-of-the-art assessment identified
four critical areas in large space structure control: deployment and
aaneuvering control analysis; synthesis/analysis tools and methods for robust
control designs; identification/adaptive methods for high performance; and
system architecture/mechanizations. Progress has since been made in several
of these areas. For example, many experimental tests have been performed;
however, most of these have involved only simple test articles and many of the
analysis/measurement discrepancies remain unresolved. Improved computer-aided
design (CAD) aoftware and great strides have been made with the CONTROL-C and
Matrix-X programs.
The workshop report emphasized that ground testing will be very
difficult if not impossible because of the large size of the test articles,
gravity stiffening, small motions, and nonlinearities. As a result, the tests
will be directed toward analytical verification using model or partial
structures, leaving the flight configuration to be verified by analysis, not
test.
4.3.2 Structural Dynamics Workshop - September 1983
A year and a half later, the Structural Dynamics Workshop at the
Air Force Weapons Laboratory, 19-22 September 1983, brought key industry and
government personnel together to identify critical issues affecting the
application of control methodology to large space structures. The workshop
generated a comprehensive statement by industry representatives of the state
of the art, a five-year plan to address the critical issues, and a publication
containing the major points of the workshop. The attendees focused on the
active control of space structures and organized the critical technology
issues into four major areas: vibration disturbances, structures, controls,
and interactions. (Ref. 1)
The controls technology area was subdivided into three technical
areas: algorithms, implementation, and evaluation. The algorithm area has
been defined to generally include control theory, control system design
methodology, and control system design approaches. Implementation includes
control system component design issues such as sensor and actuator concepts
which satisfy control system design requirements for bandwidth, dynamic range,
resolution, noise, and interfaces. The evaluation area includes analytic and
hardware test methodologies for determining the performance capabilities of
structural dynamics control concepts, system and subsystem designs, and
components.
Seven key technology issues were identified by the workshop's
controls panel. They are summarized and presented in prioritized order in the
following discussion. To support the technology development plan, the
resolution of the issue is stated as a target development item or capability.
Since these issues are applicable to active control to large space structures
without regard to the end use of the structural system, they represent an
independent statement of the same technology needs as those addressed by this
TDMX theme document.
4.3.2.1 Modeling and Performance Assessment. The highest priority concern
of the panelists deals with accurate modeling and performance assessment of
4-4
'.1... ~ I ' ' ' ' ' -"., .... " ~ ~ - ...--... .... ~ - ,,- ." __ -_..,._,_-., ... ./? - ... _ .. ~ . . r '" .. ,..., -
complex systems entailing controls, optics, and structures subject to random
disturbances. The issue would be resolved by the development and use of a
cost-effective, practical, comprehensive, and accurate simulation tool for
evaluating spacecraft pointing systems. This could be achieved in several
steps. The first step includes a specification of the desirable
characteristics that the analysis tool should have and an assessment of
existing tools relative to these requirements. The next step should entail
development of analysis tool enhancements needed to meet requirements, and the
third step should illustrate the evaluation methodology with a design example.
4.3.2.2 On-Orbit Desi&n-to-Performance MethodololY. The on-orbit design-
to-performance methodology issues deal with a system design philosophy whereby
the controls and structural system is designed, launched, and then implemented
on orbit by the sequential activation and tuning of subsystems. At each
state, system configurations and/or parameters are determined from sensor
measurements obtained in previous stages. This bootstrap implementation
methodology is necessary for those systems that cannot be sufficiently tested
on the whole in ground tests or those systems that cannot be constructed on
orbit without some control system in operation. This parameter adaptive
design approach is necessary to achieve some certainty that system performance
goals can be attained.
This issue would be resolved by the rational development and
documentation of a methodology for on-orbit design-to-performance that would
then be used to coordinate the integration of supporting design methodologies
4.3.2.3 Structural Control. Structural control issues include control
schemes for active vibration suppression and controlled articulation of
mechanical subassemblies. This issue is resolved by the development and
experimental validation of design methods which quantify the performance
effects of structural perturbations and control interactions and which
synthesize controller designs to reduce these effects to tolerable levels.
4.3.2.4 Robust Control Theory. The robust control theory issue deals with
the development and, more particularly, the application of control design
methodologies which are insensitive to plant modeling inaccuracies and
parameter variations. The utility of robustness improvement techniques,
design with modeling uncertainty, and hierarchical (coordinated) control
architectures need to be better understood and quantified. The performance
limits of these design methodologies in comparison with traditional design
approaches need to be understood. These issues can best be addressed by
executing control design methodologies against specific structural dynamics
control problems and evaluating the resulting designs both analytically and
experimentally.
4.3.2.5 Control Validation Experiments. Control validation experiments
are a means for resolving the issue of practically realizable performance.
The performance of large spacecraft is most likely to be limited by unknown
factors that could be identified by critical experiments. Critical technology
4-5
experiments would also validate design approaches for retargeting slew
algorithms, vibration isolation subsystems, and the effects of control system
interaction with various control loops and structural dynamics.
4.3.2.6 Confidence. Achieving confidence in a design approach is
necessary in order to believe that the spacecraft will meet its performance
requirements. Heretofore, spacecraft systems performance has been validated
prior to launch. The large size, complexity, and high performance of future
spacecraft appear to preclude comprehensive ground test and performance
validation prior to launch. This issue is resolved by a specification of
those tests and analyses necessary to certify performance of the system and
state what, if any, ground tests, integration tests, scaled tests, and space
tests are needed and the requirements of each recommended test.
4.3.2.7 Availability of Flicht Hardware. The seventh critical issue
identified in the controls technology area is the availability of suitable
space-qualified actuators and sensors for structural control. Certainly a
high-torque low-noise slew actuator is one key required development.
Continued actuator development is necessary to scale magnetic and flex-pivot
isolators to larger systems. Structural identification and estimation sensor
development may also be necessary but sensor requirements must first be
established.
4.3.2.8 Other Issues. Additional critical issues were also identified but
were given a lower priority than the seven issues described above. These
issues include open- and closed-loop retargeting algorithms, n-body control
approaches, isolation systems, sensors, signal processors, linear actuators,
and structural model tests.
4.3.3 DOD/NASA Controls-Structures Interactions (CSI) Conference -
November 1986.
During November 1986, the first annual joint DOD/NASA Controls-
Structures Interactions (CSI) Conference was held. Results of that conference
are not yet available; they will be incorporated in a later version of this
document.
4.3.4 Workshops and Planning
Workshops such as these clearly set the program structure being
followed in the technology development for control of large space structures.
Simple analytical modeling and simple model testing have led to several
nationally known design methodologies and a few large-scale test programs.
Realistic flight configurations are being designed and analyzed and test
program planning has moved toward on-orbit Shuttle-borne tests. While the
ground testing has focused on component and scale model tests as recommended,
some design philosophies, such as the on-orbit design-to-performance, have not
4-6
received wide acceptance. The JPL TDMXs of this theme follow the recommended
sequence of analysis, ground test, and flight test, although the majority of
the attention is placed upon the mission flights aboard the Space Station.
4-7
SECTION 5
JUSTIFICATION FOR IN-SPACE TESTING
The spacecraft systems proposed for future missions incorporate
design characteristics such as large carrier structures, a wide assortment of
high-performance scientific instruments and a requirement for autonomous
operation. Although these features are evolutionary, the methods available in
the present-day technology base cannot be used to design them without
incurring significant risk. For example, given the wide variations in
estimates of the vibration characteristics of large jointed structures
available today, the community consensus is that, in all probability, no
operational system could consistently meet the instrument performance
requirements. Once the spacecraft is placed in orbit, insufficient
modifications could be made to its structural characteristics, the available
actuator and sensor suite, or the on-board computational power to salvage the
mission. Neither retrieval nor in-space retrofit appear to be viable
alternatives to expanding the technology base via an in-space RT&E
experimentation program.
Interaction of the GN&C system with the carrier structural
dynamics is one of the biggest breaks from traditional system design caused by
the planned missions. Work has been underway for the last decade on defining
the nature of this interaction and developing methods to design control
systems that must operate in the presence of this interaction.
A second feature of these systems is the wide variation in
expected structural dynamic properties once they are placed in space. These
systems are inherently nonlinear; the estimation of on-orbit performance from
ground-test data via scaling laws is quite difficult. Investigations into the
characteristics of such components as joints and the functioning of deployment
mechanisms have been begun only recently.
In the following discussion, the nature of the control/structure
interaction problem will be explained along with a description of the scaling
problems inherent in jointed structure. Although ground testing will provide
much meaningful data, future spacecraft will cause increasing difficulty in
this area. The discussion of joints leads naturally into the difficulties of
ground testing of large space structures.
5.1 CONTROL SYSTEM INTERACTION WITH STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Present satellites are relatively small with compact, stiff
structural systems and very few scientific instruments deployed on flexible,
articulated booms. The GN&C systems can be run at bandwidths of 2 to 5 Hz and
still meet performance requirements. As a result, the design of the GN&C
system does not depend on more than vague knowledge about the probable
structural frequency ranges.
Future large spacecraft will have many structural frequencies
between 0.01 and 5.0 Hz, right in the performance band of the GN&C system. In
addition, the systems and scientific instruments planned for these spacecraft
5-1
are significantly more complex than current designs. These instruments are
therefore capable of much higher performance but depend upon very accurate
pointing and very low jitter. The GN&C system will have to take into account
the structural flexibilities excited during pointing to minimize the
instrument jitter. To do this requires either accurate a priori knowledge of
the structural parameters or the ability to take measurements and update the
GN&C system after commencing operation.
As an example of control/structure interaction, consider the
problem of control spillover. Suppose the control design goal is to reduce
jitter at an instrument caused by structural excitations at its attach point
in the frequency band from 0.1 to 1.0 Hz. The structural systems planned for
multipayload missions will be large and lightweight, leading to many
structural modes of vibration in this frequency range. The control system
will be given a set of sensors, such as accelerometers and rate gyros, with
which to estimate the amount of disturbance present in the structural modes at
any time. To still the structure, or at least reduce the vibration levels at
chosen instruments, the controller will employ algorithms to compute forces to
be applied through actuators. These actuators might be the attitude control
momentum wheels or specially designed proof-mass dampers. Because these
forces are applied to the structure at a particular place, they affect all
modes of vibration, not just the target modes within the performance band. It
is quite possible to add energy to some modes and thereby excite them instead
of dissipating their energy and quieting them. Of course, the control system
can be designed to avoid this for every mode known, but very few operational
algorithms can guarantee they will not destabilize those modes they do not
know about or understand only poorly. This is precisely the difficulty facing
designers of large space structures that leads to the need for in-space
testing.
5.2 JOINTS
Joints in structures intended for use in space are the arche-
typical nonlinear element. As such they do not behave in the l-g environment
of the ground test lab the same way they do in the O-g environment of space.
The two descriptive modeling parameters of joints that vary most significantly
are stiffness and damping. The joint stiffness contributes to the natural
frequency of vibration of the assembled structure and the damping contributes
to the energy diSSipation rates for the structure. Uncertainties about the
in-space operational values of these two parameters is a prime motivation for
flight experiments.
Given a limited payload volume per launch vehicle, large
structures will either be assembled on orbit or deployed via folding
mechanisms. Both lead naturally to joints connecting major structural
members. The relatively small size of the launch volume versus the operating
size of a large structure indicates many thousands of joints will be used in a
structure. This enormous number of joints can be expected to noticeably
influence the overall behavior of the structure.
A joint is simply a mechanical piece that can exhibit great
flexibility during assembly or deployment and then fixed stiffness during
operation. Realizable joints are not perfect in that the operating stiffness
5-2
and dissipation depend upon the manufacturing tolerances and the loads carried
by the joint. The latter means that under high loads the joint contributes a
certain stiffness to the assemblage but under lower loads the stiffness is
different. The result is that the frequencies of the structure will depend
upon the operating conditions and usages. Furthermore. the dependence
function is not well-known for expected on-orbit operating conditions.
This is why ground measurements of structural frequencies (and
performances of subsystems like the GN&C system that depend upon accurate
knowledge of these characteristics) may not reflect on-orbit values.
Specifically. during ground testing the elements of the structure support the
weight. transferring the resulting internal loads from element to element
through the joints to the support points where the loads are reacted. It is
this deadweight internal load across joints that is not present on orbit.
If the deadweight internal loads could be reacted at every point
on the ground-test article. the loads would not need to be carried to support
points. This should lead to joint loads similar to those in O-g. This
objective might be nearly achieved with very many suspension cables; however.
this approach typically leads to problems of the suspension system interacting
with the test results. A recent idea is to perform the test measurements with
progressively more supports and to extrapolate the behavior out to the case of
infinitely many supports or O-g. (Ref. 21)
It is structural damping that causes initial disturbances in a
structure to gradually decay out and allow the system to come to rest. Most
metallic structures have so little damping that visible disturbances can take
several minutes to settle out. The dissipation in joints is expected to
increase the damping in space structures by about an order of magnitude. In
general. this is a helpful phenomenon. but when trying to compare ground test
results (taken in one regime of joint damping) to on-orbit measurements (taken
in another damping regime), little may be accomplished.
Accurately predicting the on-orbit frequencies of the structure is
very important to the GN&C system design. This system will be responsible for
pointing the spacecraft instruments and payloads and removing motion and
jitter transmitted to instruments through their attachments. Various
algorithms will be used to avoid the excitation of the structural modes of
vibration due to attitude adjustments and to quickly settle out any structural
disturbances created by external events. The difficulty is that all known
algorithms that provide the required performance depend heavily upon an
accurate a priori model of the structural dynamics. The required accuracy is
well beyond our present ability to predict on-orbit parameters given ground
test data.
An obvious solution to the need for accurate data is to measure
the characteristics after assembly. update the control system. and then place
the spacecraft in service. This suffers from at least three flaws: the
system must be known sufficiently well that the update is small and simple;
radical changes would affect fuel consumption, actuator sizes. etc.; and
allowing for such wide variations simply is not affordable. The present
community consensus is that we could not be close enough without at least some
on-orbit testing prior to design of operational systems.
5-3
Second, some systems cannot be assembled safely or remain on orbit
without some form of GN&C system operative. Bringing up such a system is then
a bootstrap process of build-measure-update, build-measure-update, etc. The
present community consensus is that the probability of success of such a
scheme would not warrant the monetary investment because not enough
preparatory work has been done to believe unforeseen difficulties will not
arise.
Third, getting meaningful on-orbit measurements may not be
possible with current measurement hardware and identification algorithms. The
test environment for such on-orbit measurements is not at all like the ground
test lab. There are many severe operational constraints like limited
manpower, limited electrical power for excitation and instrumentation, and
virtually uncontrollable environmental factors such as temperature. Further
experience must be gained in making meaningful on-orbit measurements through
research, planning, and flight tests.
5.3 GROUND TESTING
It is easy to see that the ground-test environment is not the same
as the on-orbit environment, yet it is widely known that spacecraft have been
qualified for space use based upon ground test data for years. The difference
to be faced in the future is on the nature of the spacecraft. Large space
structures are really quite large, orders of magnitude larger than present
spacecraft. A typical present-day communication satellite may be 15 feet
tall, 10 feet in diameter and weigh 2000 pounds. These satellites are compact
and dense and do not unfold on orbit. The main structural frame is small and
very stiff which leads to structural frequencies above 20 Hz.
The large structures planned for future use are made of very
lightweight components such as multibay trusses of slim, thin-walled tubes.
If assembled on the ground, these spacecraft could not support the weight of
themselves and their payloads. This leads the ground experiment designer to
either complex suspension systems or increasing the strength of the test
article. Both solutions make the ground test a less faithful simulation of
on-orbit conditions.
Some tests have been accomplished by suspending the test article
on long pendulous cables or on a large flat air table. These techniques give
good support of the spacecraft weight and allow freedom of motion in the
horizontal plane. On the negative side, they restrict the simulations to
certain, perhaps unrealistic, motions and may add weight and stiffness to the
test article through the attachments. For very large structures, these
suspension systems are simply not practical.
Environmental test chambers are available that can produce
realistic thermal-vacuum simulations for present spacecraft. All
communications satellites today go through individual extended duration
performance checkouts in such test chambers prior to launch. Test chambers as
large as 40 feet in diameter by 100 feet in length are available but these are
not large enough to perform structural dynamic tests for large-structure
articles including suspension systems.
5-4
5.4 EXAMPLES FROM FLIGHT EXPERIENCE
As an example of the nature of the unexpected that might occur
during on-orbit structural dynamic testing, consider the following results
fram the Solar Array Flight Dynamic Experiment (SAFDE) of Shuttle flight
STS-4lD. First, the solar array sheet exhibited significant unpredicted curl
during the dark portions of the orbit. The displacements of the sheet and the
position measurement reflectors was large enough to be out of the
specifications for measurement. This curling was not present in the sunlit
of the orbit. The vibration data taken during the tests with the
curling present did not match the preflight analyses because the models did
not contain the curling mechanisms. Postflight correction of the models
improved the match with measured data, but significant differences remain.
The measured data taken during the sunlit periods of the orbit matched the
preflight models well.
As a second example from the same experiment, the damping of the
first bending mode measured 8 percent of critical for large displacement
amplitudes, much higher than expected or present in any other mode. For low
lewIs of displacement, the damping was approximately 2 percent. Although the
cause of the higher damping is unconfirmed, it is thOUght to be due to
unamdeled slippage and dissipation in the base rotation joint. The first
bending mode contains the largest motion at the base joint and therefore
dissipates more energy and appears to have a larger damping value.
Both phenomena reflect the presence of significant nonlinear
behavior and neither were anticipated. Postflight improvements to the
analytical models were only partially successful. The test article was
extremely simple in comparison to anticipated large space structures yet
valuable data about on-orbit testing.
Obviously, all possible ground testing will be implemented.
Scaled dynamic models and components will be thoroughly tested by every means
available. Simulations for integrated systems will be constructed and
everything possible will be learned. Nonetheless, flight tests and
experiments will be required. A combination of on-orbit component tests and
redmced order system tests may suffice to verify the ground tests. Most
prObably, test flights with one or more large assemblages will be required to
redQce risks to acceptable levels.
5.S TESTING ON SPACE STATION
All of the JPL TDMX mission scenarios within this theme culminate
in technology validation based upon experiments conducted on the Space
Station. The Space Station offers a unique blend of operational and testing
environments not offered by ground test facilities nor captive Shuttle test
flights. These include:
(1) The Space Station itself is a large flexible structure with
many interacting subsystems. The dynamic properties will
also change in a slow, predictable manner as the Space
Station operational capabilities evolve. This is precisely
the type of environment where operational identification and
5-5
control methods will be employed, yet the commitment of the
Space Station program to technology development will ensure
only a modest amount of control over these features.
(2) The Space Station offers a long-term, in-space test facility
where technology validation programs that are six to twelve
months long can be supported. The gradual reconfiguration of
the TDMX mission equipment set can be supported by the
Shuttle resupply flights and periodic extravehicular activity
(EVA) efforts. The significant data communications,
computation and control facilities will allow long-duration
ground-directed experimentation.
(3) The Space Station offers manpower with its permanent skilled
crew. Periodic adjustment, maintenance, and reconfiguration
of the mission equipment set will be required as well as
unscheduled repairs.
(4) The Space Station resources and facilities are considerable
and do not need to be duplicated by the mission equipment.
By hosting the TDMX missions aboard the Space Station,
significant savings in the data communications, power
generation, thermal control, mass transport, and servicing
systems can be realized.
5-6
SECTION 6
IN-SPACE CONSTRAINTS
The difficulty of simulating on-orbit conditions during ground
test has been addressed in the prior sections. As a result of interactions
between the ground test support equipment and the test article, the value of
ground tests will be limited to component evaluation and procedure
verification. This has been the major justification for in-space research and
development flights and has focused a lot of attention on the shortcomings of
ground test. The purpose of this section is give equal time to the difficult
aspects of testing in space.
Historically, the testing of new procedures and the investigation
of new phenomena has been best accomplished in familiar situations where
external influences on the system behavior can be controlled. Indeed, the
nature of scientific testing is to account for or control all inputs that can
significantly affect system behavior. In this manner, cause and effect can be
established and the system performance extrapolated to more operationally
realistic environments.
The testing of large-scale space systems does not allow this
initial investigative period in a well-behaved test environment. On the
whole, ground testing can do little to predict the in-space test results, much
less the operational performance. The body of in-space testing experience is
quite small. In fact, the most gain in the early flight experiments will be
in in-space testing methodology, not the development of the tested technology
In-space testing itself is an untried process. Although the TDMXs
will be preceded by a significant amount of Shuttle-based testing, there will
be significant consideration of the constraints imposed by the new testing
environment. The development of large spacecraft will proceed more along the
lines of on-orbit design-to-performance philosophy than the prior practices of
thorough prototype testing followed by exhaustive proof testing of each
production article.
None of the following constraints on the on-orbit testing of large
space systems are new. They are collected here not as ammunition against in-
space testing but as a short use of the peripheral issues of designing the
TDHX experiments themselves. All of the JPL TDHX definitions in the Space
Structures (Dynamics and Control) theme recognize these issues and have
prepared plans to address them.
6.1 SMETI
Probably the most pervasive issue is safety. The flight
experiments will take place in a very fragile manned environment. In
recognition of this, an extensive organizational review process is in place to
thoroughly examine the experiments. Those experiments involving man-assisted
deployment, large moving structures, high power radiation, and significant
basebody interaction will be closely scrutinized. Early understanding of
6-1
this process and careful planning will be needed to successfully prepare the
mission for these examinations.
As a result of safety issues, experiment performance levels may be
expected to be lowered Actuator authority must be restrained to insure fail-
safe operation in all system failure modes. Propulsion systems will be
limited in authority, volume of expendables, and dispersion of exhaust
products. The choice of propellants may well be restricted to nonreactive
chemistries. Assuring fail-safe operation of autonomous control systems will
be particularly difficult. Antenna view factors and radio frequency (RF)
power levels will be closely scrutinized for possible interference with Space
Station operations
6.2 EXPERIMENT ACCESSIBILITY
Whether an experiment is executed while attached to the Shuttle or
the Space Station, manned access to the equipment will be limited. EVA will
be restricted due to the increased risk during EVA, required crew preparation
time, and crew support required for the EVA astronaut. Furthermore, the
availability of a trained mission specialist will be constrained by crew
manifest limits and program budgets. The utility of an EVA astronaut will be
affected by the development of tools, workstations, and procedures. Tele-
operated remote servicers with high levels of dexterity may not be available
until late in the sequence of TDMX experiments.
As a result, repair of failed equipment will be limited to simple
exchange of line replaceable units with very little on-site diagnostics.
Repair of structural failures will be more severely limited until these
techniques are themselves developed. Manual adjustment or alignment of
equipment will be limited to what can be accomplished immediately after
deployment.
The lack of direct sensory feedback for experimenters will make
understanding and debugging experiment processes difficult. This will make
the cause for unexpected phenomena difficult to determine and is counter to
most ground test experience. For example, loose or failing structural
components that would be readily identifiable in ground test by rattles,
buzzes, or noises will only show up in nonlinear structural response signals
or jerky motions seen on video monitors.
The remote observations that are available will be synthetic
observations mediated by band-limited sensors, communication channels, and
displays. While all possible account will be taken of these features during
experiment design, they must be considered in order to understand unexpected
phenomena and to differentiate real and derived effects.
6.3 REMOTE OPERATION
Many present-day ground tests are conducted in a remote-controlled
fashion. Controlled environment tests, such as thermal vacuum tests, are a
prime example. Initial on-orbit tests will be executed from a Space Station
Payload Operation Control Center (POCC) in a similar fashion. Visual feedback
6-2
through video monitors and real-time data displays may be augmented by on-
board dialogue with the mission payload specialist. The high bandwidth
communications channels required to support such remote operations are in
place in the Shuttle via the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS)
In the future, true tele-operation of experiments might employ
force-reflecting manipulators. This might expand the scope of manual
adjustments, equipment repair, and diagnostics available to the experiment
designer. Such a remote manipulator will make a variety of view points and
sensing points available on demand to the experimenter during the
investigative and debugging processes.
Fully autonomous experiment control will reduce the manhours
required to acquire data. Subject to operational limitations, the experiment
might run continuously. For the TDMXs of the Dynamics and Control theme,
however, autonomous operation runs counter to the whole idea of
experimentation. Interactive investigation of unexpected, as well as
predicted, behavior is central to the development of the theme technologies.
6.4 ASSEMBLY AND STOW
Projected limitations on available mission launch mass to the
Space Station have a critical impact on the design of TDMXs beyond the obvious
minimization of weight. Most test articles will be packaged in a sturdy,
dense configuration to fit within the launch vehicle and survive the loads and
accelerations of launch. They will therefore require one or more of
unpackaging, assembly, deployment, and alignment. Whether these are done by
EVA astronaut or by an automatic machine, the structural dynamic properties of
the test article will be affected.
Since the same constraints will be applied to an operational
system, these might be viewed as simply realistic aspects of the test. To the
extent they cloud the test results with uncontrolled factors and phenomena,
they are undesirable.
During the inactive periods
and equipment might require disassembly
refurbishment and reassembly for reuse.
only a very limited extent.
6.5 THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT
of the experiment, the test article
and warehousing, with subsequent
Space Station will supply these to
The experience base for certain key environmental factors that
will affect the TDMX equipment is quite sparse. For example, the degradation
of composite material due to atomic oxygen is a prime concern. Controlling
the temperature and thermal deformation of structural components such as
joints and truss links will be central to understanding system dynamic
behavior. The large temperature swings that occur from orbital noon to
orbital midnight may radically alter the system responses through variations
in stiffness parameters and internal loads.
6-3
Damage due to foreign object impacts, control system residual gas
clouds, and natural particles must be anticipated in light of the limited on-
orbit repair capability. The damage due to an accident during proximity
operations is also possible. This might result in both redundant structural
load paths, residual strength, and remotely reconfigurab1e electronics
systems.
6.6 POWER LIMITATIONS
Although early Shuttle-based experiments will enjoy a glut of
power, the more ambitious experiments of later Space Station-based flights
will certainly be constrained by both the available electrical power and heat
rejection capacity. As experience with on-orbit testing leads to more
qualified hardware, power consumption and temperature control requirements can
be expected to grow. More importantly, after the early experiments
demonstrate the ability to test without endangering crew safety, larger
structures utilized in more operationally realistic scenarios will cause
growth in the power and heat budgets. While this may be viewed as realistic,
the experiments carry an additional burden of experiment control and sensing
instrumentation. To supplement the power available, experiments may provide
power augmentation at their expense. This will obviously raise the cost,
increase the mass, and increase the complexity of the experiments.
Consideration must also be given to the method of resupply of expendables for
those long-duration experiments.
6.7 BASEBODY ISOLATION
A major difference between ground testing and on-orbit testing is
the lack of a seismic foundation to provide dynamic isolation of the test
article from the support transported excitations. On the Space Station,
significant interaction between the experiment structures and the Space
Station structure can be expected. Not only does Space Station structure
provide flexible support to the experiment, but it will transmit significant
structural disturbances due to day-to-day operations. Major dynamic events
that will require consideration include Shuttle docking and Space Station
reboost.
Interference from the support environment can also be expected in
other arenas. Radio frequency interference (RFI) from other experiments and
Space Station functions must be anticipated. Impingement of exhaust plumes
from the Shuttle and other proximity operations might damage components or
provide dynamic excitation. Environmental isolation techniques used in ground
tests, such as air current curtains and seismic masses, will probably prove to
be prohibitively expensive.
6.8 CONCLUSION
A significant experience base in ground testing techniques of
isolation and control will provide limited benefit to in-space research and
development testing. The flexible basebody support and dynamic environment of
manned on-orbit facilities will necessitate incorporation of novel techniques
6-4
and extensive preparation. Conclusive results will be achieved only by
careful control of environmental inputs, clever reasoning, and deductive
interpretation of measured results. Remote-controlled interaction with the
experiment will be essential to eliminating false returns and providing a
clear understanding of observed phenomena.
While the same may be said about ground testing, and about ground
testing of large space systems in particular, safety, budgetary limits, and
limited flight opportunities make them especially important to the Dynamics
and Control TDMXs.
6-5
SECTION 7
RELATED PROGRAMS
This section reviews the several programs in dynamics and control
of large space structures. The section is broken down into a review of
research programs and facilities.
7.1 RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Research programs develop a technology through ground test and
flight test to point of adoption by a production program. The programs may
be generic, such as Active Control of Space Structures (ACOSS) which focused
on control/structure interactions, or they may be development programs for a
potential application, such as the Antenna Technology Shuttle Experiment
(ATSE), which is a proposed flight experiment for the Mobile Satellite (MSAT)
program.
7.1.1 Ground Programs
7.1.1.1 Active Control of Space Structures CACOSS). The ACOSS program
was sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to
develop a unified structural dynamics and control technology base. The
program began in 1976, covered 8 years, and encompassed three major phases.
Phase I began the basic analytical investigations into the control of large
space structures. Phase IA provided detailed experimental brassboard
development and Phase II covered experiment testing and proof-of-concept
demonstrations. The overall ACOSS program was motivated by mission planning
objectives requiring deployment of large flexible structures, usually for
surveillance, space defense, or communications applications, which must have
stability augmentation or dynamic shape control to meet performance
requirements. Achievement of these system objectives is quite difficult and
usually requires near diffraction-limited performance for aperture diameters
greater than 5 meters. (Ref. 4)
The objectives of the ACOSS program were to:
(1) Develop a unified technology base in structural dynamics and
control for large precision space structures.
(2) Demonstrate the application of this technology to specific
DARPA mission concepts through analysis and simulation.
(3) Verify this technology through ground-based proof-of-concept
experiments.
The ACOSS program consisted of some 17 contracted efforts with
the Draper Laboratories, Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. (LMSC) , TRW,
General Dynamics, Control Dynamics, and Honeywell. The ACOSS bibliography is
included as Table 7-1. This DARPA-sponsored program drew DOD participation
through the Air Force Weapons Laboratory (AFWL), the Air Force
7-1
Table 7-1. ACOSS Bibliography
RADC-TR-79-268, -Actively Controlled Structures Theory,- Vol I, 'Theory of
Design Methods', and Vol II, 'Application of Design
Methods,' Draper Labs.
RADC-TR-80-79, ACOSS ONE, General Dynamics.
RADC-TR-80-l30, ACOSS TWO, Hughes.
RADC-TR-80-l3l, ACOSS THREE, Lockheed.
RADC-TR-80-78, ACOSS FOUR, Draper.
RADC-TR-82-2l, ACOSS FIVE, Lockheed.
RADC-TR-80-377 , ACOSS SIX, Draper.
RADC-TR-8l-24l, ACOSS SEVEN, General Dynamics.
RADC-TR-8l-242, ACOSS EIGHT, TRW.
RADC-TR-8l-240, ACOSS NINE, Control Dynamics Co.
RADC-TR-84-l8S, ACOSS ELEVEN, Draper,
RADC-TR-84-28, ACOSS TWELVE, Lockheed.
RADC-TR-83-5l, ACOSS FOURTEEN, Control Dynamics Co.
RADC-TR-82-198, ACOSS FIFTEEN, Control Dynamics Co.
RADC-TR-82-225, ACOSS SIXTEEN, Honeywell.
RADC-TR-84-l86, ACOSS SEVENTEEN, Control Dynamics Co.
7-2
Rocket Propulsion Laboratory (AFRPL) , and the Air Force Wright Aeronautical
Laboratories (AFWAL). Several NASA centers, such as Marshall Space Flight
Center (MSFC), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and Langley Research Center
(LaRc) , also participated. Since the completion of ACOSS, several of these
agencies sponsored programs to carry the technology into specific development
programs. NASA Control of Flexible Structures (COFS), AFWAL Vibration
Control of Space Structures (VCOSS) and Passive and Active Control of Space
Structures (PACOSS), and many of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)
programs find their roots in the ACOSS program.
The ACOSS programs produced many contributions to the immature
field of control of large space structures, including an understanding of
"spillover" and the development of design techniques to limit and avoid the
possible loss of stability it produces. ACOSS programs created the
environment for the development of the inter-disciplinary engineering field
of structural dynamics and control system interaction. A large part of the
practical advancement of modern control theory, the existence of several
integrated computer-aided design systems, and several advanced digital
control computers are traceable to ACOSS-funded programs. A resurgence in
the interest in laboratory experimental work is also a result of the later
ACOSS programs which focused on verification of basic principles and proof of
concept.
The ACOSS program utilized analytical studies of requirements and
capabilities and basic research to produce control system design
methodologies that specifically addressed the design and implementation
issues of control of large space structures. The difficulties of control
system design include spillover, model parameter uncertainties and
v riations, and large system order. A few of the design methodologies are
listed in Table 7-2. Further descriptions of these techniques can be found
in the ACOSS reports.
The analytical studies generally utilized one of two models. The
early programs used a six-bar, four-node tetrahedron model (see Figure 7-1).
The model had fixed actuator and sensor types and locations. This model was
small enough that a full-order evaluation model for nominal and perturbed
stability and performance evaluations was tractable. The programs evaluated
reduced-order control designs and found modal damping achievable in the
presence of observation and control spillover.
The tetrahedron model elements supported axial forces only,
resulting in three translation degrees of freedom at each node and twelve
modes for the system. Six collocated actuators and sensors were presumed to
be supporting the three base nodes. Velocity and position were measured and
the dynamics of the actuators and sensors were neglected. The modes were
assumed to be lightly damped with 0.5 percent damping in each mode. The
design model was based upon the first eight modes. The control system
objective was to acquire 10 percent damping in modes 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the
design model when evaluated against the full-order nominal and perturbed
models. The system excitation was initial displacement and velocity in the
first eight modes.
7-3
Table 7-2. ACOSS Control Design and Analysis Theories
Low-Authority Control
High-Authority Control
Modal Cost Analysis
System Identification
Frequency Shaping
General Dynamics
TRW
Model Error Sensitivity Suppression
Disturbance Accommodation
Stability Ensuring Methodology
System Identification
Adaptive Control
Draper Labs
Reduced-Order Modeling
Reduced-Order Controller
Modern Modal Control
Structural Damping Augmentation
The following, taken from the ACOSS TWELVE report by Lockheed, is
typical of the results of the studies using the tetrahedron. The design
goals of 10 percent modal damping and vertex settling within 20 seconds were
easily achieved using the six collocated actuators and sensor in the support
legs of the structure. Many different control laws performed adequately.
Major conclusions could not be drawn, however, because this problem 1) is not
representative of actual, complex structures; 2) does not require low-order
design model selection; 3) uses a design model which is too large compared to
the evaluation model; and 4) requires very modest closed-loop performance.
Lockheed found that many control design strategies could be invoked to
produce acceptable closed-loop performance for this model.
The later analytical programs used a large model of an optical
spacecraft which was simplified yet realistic (Figure 7-2). The spacecraft
was an unconstrained flexible body with flexible solar panel arrays and an
equipment bus. The system was excited by persistent sinusoidal disturbances
and performance was based on line-of-sight and wavefront criteria. The model
presented the expected structural dynamic characteristics in that the panel
modes were within the attitude-control bandwidth and were interleaved with
the structural bending modes.
The structural model was based on finite elements and contained
84 modes. The first structural bending mode was at 2.3 Hz but the first
solar panel mode was at 0.3 Hz. The assumed modal damping ranged from
0.1 percent to 0.5 percent. The disturbances were modeled as 5 Hz and 10 Hz
7-4
10
+Z /MEMBER
I /' NUMBER
1

x
Figure 7-1. ACOSS Tetrahedron Model
7-5
NODE
/NUMBER
3

7
TEATIA.AY
y
SECONOA.R'f
SOLAR PA.NELS
Figure 7-2. ACOSS Draper Labs Spacecraft Model
7-6
sinusoidal excitations on the mirror support structure. The control
objective functions were based upon line-of-sight jitter and defocus
expressed as linear functions of the nodal displacements. Design freedom was
allowed in choice of control law philosophy and in choice of actuators and
sensors. The control system had to be realizable and there were restrictions
against over-simplification.
The experimental programs under ACOSS first focused on
verification of the basic theories, then turned to implementation issues as
the test articles became more realistic. The Lockheed minibeam and maxibeam
experiments demonstrated low-authority control of low-frequency beam
structures. The Lockheed TOYSAT experiment used a rigid center section with
two flexible cantilever beams suspended with a rigid body rotation freedom.
They demonstrated high-authority control using accelerometers, velocity
sensors, and electrosis actuators.
As examples of more complex experiments, several programs
utilized simple structures that exhibited the dense modal packing not found
in beam structures. Lockheed demonstrated HAC/LAC (high-authority/low-
authority control) and system identification on a 2-meter-diameter aluminum
plate. The sensor was based upon multichannel microphase optics and pivoted
proof-mass actuators were designed and utilized. General Dynamics built a
68-inch by l03-inch plate suspended by cantilever beams called the fly
swatter plate. The experiment used rate gyro sensors and torque wheel
actuators to demonstrate the model error sensitivity suppression methodology.
The ACOSS program has been the largest contributor to the
technology base for control of large space structures. Without its
timeliness, scope, and breadth, many of the present programs would not have
been undertaken. Several technology development programs followed ACOSS
under the sponsorship of other agencies. The VCOSS program funded
development of actuators and sensors based upon analytical studies of the
ACOSS spacecraft model and experimental evaluation in the MSFC facility.
Many mission development programs are direct users of the ACOSS technology
base, including Space-Based Laser (SBL) , Space-Based Radar (SBR) , Airborne
Laser Laboratory (ALL), MSAT, Large Deployable Reflector (LOR), and many of
the proposed SDI missions.
7.1.1.2 Vibration Control Of Space Structures (VCOSS). VCOSS is a
cooperative technology development program sponsored by AFWAL and MSFC. The
program began in 1981 with a dual contract award to LMSC, and TRW Space and
Technology Group (TRW) for analysis and system design. In 1983, the VCOSS II
contract was awarded to TRW to build and experimentally evaluate selected
actuator and sensor hardware in the MSFC test facility. The program has
focused on sensor and actuator development for the control of large space
structures. (Refs. 2, 3, 5 and 9)
VCOSS I studied the application of active vibration control for
the elastic modes of the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory ACOSS Model #2.
This analytical effort involved development of stiff and flexible versions of
the ACOSS analytical model; the selection of a control system, sensors, and
actuators; and the analytical study of the degree of active vibration mode
7-7
control possible as a function of spacecraft total mass and alignment
accuracy.
The VCOSS I parallel contracts resulted in two different designs
for the control systems. LMSC used a high- and low-authority controller
(HAC/LAC) with accelerometer sensors and pivoted proof-mass actuators. TRW
used decentralized controllers with paired sensors and actuators including
accelerometers, fiber-optic interferometers, momentum exchange actuators,
linear truss damping actuators, and linear active isolators.
The most important part of the program was the assessment and
application of active vibration control devices to a specific spacecraft.
The development of spacecraft structural models and attitude control systems
were not of prime interest and for that reason the program used an existing
spacecraft design. The Draper Laboratories Model #2 was selected as the
specific spacecraft and supplied to the contractors.
The Draper Model #2 represented an optical reconnaissance
spacecraft with a folded line of sight (LOS) that involved three mirrors and
a focal plane. The mirror set was supported by a lightweight open truss
work. An equipment bus with dual solar arrays was attached to the spacecraft
near the focal plane. Disturbances were modeled as band-limited white noise
with three discrete frequencies input at the equipment bus and several points
on the truss. More than thirty structural modes were considered for control
of the LOS errors.
The design goal was to reduce the response to the disturbances
such that the closed-loop LOS errors were below the open-loop errors by a
factor of 70,000; that is to say, active rejection of disturbances as
measured by a line-of-sight performance metric. Other goals implicit in the
design process were:
(1) Use physically realizable control devices with reasonable
performance parameters.
(2) Emphasize active control design.
(3) Acknowledge the impact of the solution on other control
functions such as attitude control.
The assumptions under which the actuator and sensor hardware were
selected included:
(1) Rigid body motions were controlled by other systems.
(2) Static figure control was not addressed.
(3) Only system dynamic LOS error was to be controlled.
These restrictions were made to allow definitive device selections.
7-8
System optimization included consideration of total system
weight, power consumption, thermal control, cost, and launch volume.
Technology readiness for the candidate actuators and sensors was evaluated
and program plans prepared for follow-on hardware development efforts.
The program was organized into two phases. The first addressed
vibration control integration into the spacecraft control system design
process and the second considered the design iteration and assessment. In
Phase I, the contractors assessed the available and potential sensors,
actuators, and control system hardware, and prepared a plan for integrating
these devices into a system design. Trade studies were performed among the
various types and extent of active control mechanization. In Phase II, the
contractors performed computer studies to delineate the dynamic performance
of the vibration-controlled spacecraft based upon LOS figure of merit
performance. The designs were iterated and trades performed to increase the
accuracy of pointing control vs. relative weight, cost, complexity, and
reliability.
The LMSC VCOSS A study focused on the system performance
limitations imposed by actuator, sensor, and signal-processing hardware. An
iterative system design methodology which includes hardware constraints was
shown to be effective in producing implementable control system designs. The
LMSC hardware selection for the VCOSS study includes: (1) pivoted proof-mass
dampers, (2) accelerometers, and (3) a candidate digital processor
architecture. The report makes significant contributions in the area of
high-frequency actuator dynamics impact on the control system design.
Realistic actuation was found to require straightforward
modifications to the HAC/LAC design methodology to guarantee stability
robustness due to the combined effects of spillover/compensation rolloff and
LAC/actuator interaction. Through the use of HAC frequency shaping and
passive damping actuator augmentation, the desired high-frequency stability
margin can be guaranteed for any realistic proof-mass actuator. The impact
of realistic actuators on performance robustness was shown to be minimal,
requiring no design modifications at all.
The effects of actuator/sensor modeling errors and the
combination of these errors with spacecraft modeling uncertainty were seen to
be a problem solvable with frequency-domain error criteria like singular
value decomposition of the system return difference.
For the baseline LMSC VCOSS control system implementation,
analysis of the line-of-sight performance indicates that linear proof-mass
actuators installed to control mirror tilt will directly influence the
desired performance metric and provide adequate modal control. The actuators
are placed in sets of three beneath each of the primary, tertiary, and
secondary/focal plane mirrors. Each driver acts in the z-direction which
gives x and y tilt plus defocus control. Collocated accelerometers are
placed at each proof-mass actuator location. Thus, the baseline system
provides nine collocated actuators and sensors plus a focal plane
processor/alignment system output which provides a direct measure of LOS
error. All LAC mechanizations require the collocated sensor outputs while
HAC and adaptive systems require the focal plane sensor to evaluate the
performance metric.
7-9
In summary, combinations of appropriate frequency shaping,
hardware selection, and realistic assessment of model error can allow large
space structure (LSS) hardware realizations to produce predictable
performance. LMSC felt it remained to test the validity of these statements
through appropriate ground and flight experiments.
The TRW VCOSS B effort applied modern control techniques and
state-of-the-art hardware concepts to an active vibration-controlled
spacecraft design. They went on to define a follow-on program for developing
and testing the hardware technology.
The TRW VCOSS vibration control baseline design consists of three
independent control systems: truss dampening, .omentum exchange, and active
isolation. The locations of the control devices are shown in Figure 7-3.
The truss-dampening controller provides stiffness and damping to upper and
lower support structures. The momentum-exchange controller damps the
metering truss vibrations, particularly in the X direction. After these two
control loops are closed, the precision structure becomes rather stiff. This
permits the use of a high-bandwidth active-isolation controller to
drastically reduce the LOS and focus errors.
The locations of the truss dampers were selected on the basis of
their effectiveness in controlling critical modes. In addition to
considering all existing truss members, all possible connections between two
nodes that do not interfere with the optical path were also considered.
Twelve truss elements, seven existing and five additional, were selected and
are shown in Figure 7-3. The axial deformation of the truss element is
measured by fiber-optic interferometer with its fiber fixed at the two ends
of the truss element.
The truss dampening is accomplished by placing the selected
actuator in series with the truss element to be controlled. This counteracts
axial forces distributed through the truss due to vibrational disturbances.
A control location through the neutral axis of the truss element will not
create unwanted residual bending and allows a neater overall device package
using less hardware. In Figure 7-4, the truss is separated into two sections
where loads at the device interface flow from the truss through the device to
the truss again. The ball bushing and shaft maintain the device alignment
under load. An area through the truss-dampening device has been left free
for the fiber-optic sensing device to be place. In Figure 7-4, it may be
seen stretched along the inside wall of the truss.
The momentum-exchange controller consists of collocated
momentum-exchange actuators and accelerometers. The objective of this
control loop is to reduce vibrations of the metering truss. The control
device locations are shown in Figure 7-3. The control devices are all
uncoupled through diagonal control gains so that the control law can be
implemented by simple analog electronics.
The momentum-exchange devices use an accelerated mass to provide
structural vibration force lateral to truss elements to dampen input
disturbances. Figure 7-5 details the actuators attached to the controlled
structure through integrating aluminum hardware. The single-axis and
7-10
TRUSS DAMPENING CONTROL
(INDICATED BY DARKENED STRUTS)
MOMENTUM EXCHANGE CONTROL
(INDICATED BY DARKENED CIRCLE
IN MIDDLE OF STRUCTURE) ~
ACTIVE ISOLATION CONTROL
(BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND
DIRTY BOX)
EQUIPMENT SECTION
(DIRTY BOX)
Figure 7-3. TRW VCOSS Control Device Locations
7-11
GRAPHITE EPOXY TUBE
0.01" THICK
THOMSON BALL IUlHING
IUl'R 12
KIMCO ACTUATER
, LA2O-2I&
Figure 7-4. TRW VCOSS Truss Damper
-'--- GRAPHITE EPOXY TUBE --+-
liNGLE AXIS CONTROL DUAL AXIS CONTROL
Figure 7-5. TRW VCOSS Komentum-Exchange Device
7-12
dual-axis devices are identically mounted with the exception of the extra
face and components on the dual-axis control. Each mounting face secures an
accelerometer and the coil side of the linear electromagnetic actuator.
The active isolator is a nonco110cated system placed between the
metering truss and the equipment bay. The tilt in the X and Y axes of the
detector and the three mirrors is measured by four triangulation sensors
(TASs). These measurements are used to estimate the LOS errors. Four
accelerometers are mounted on the back of the detector and the mirrors. The
defocus is estimated from the accelerometer and TAS measurements. The
resulting active isolator by itself is very effective in reducing the LOS
error but it has almost no control over the defocus error. The LOS and
defocus goals can be met with all three control systems active.
The isolator actuators are located at three points on the
structure, with three degrees of freedom controlled at each point
(Figure 7-3). Each isolator mount will actively control the structure with
devices having the capability of providing variable stiffness in three
degrees of freedom (Figure 7-6). This enables the isolators to control both
10w- and high-frequency disturbances directly between the equipment section
and the structure.
A close-up of one isolator actuator with integrating hardware is
shown in Figure 7-7. The actuator is encased in a graphite epoxy tube with
one end attached to the tube and the other attached to a stainless steel
shaft. The shaft is allowed to move in the axial direction only, with the
use of a linear ball bushing. The shaft serves two purposes: to keep the
actuator coil mechanism aligned to its permanent magnet counterpart and to
add overall stiffness to the control device. Both ends of the control device
are attached to a rigid surface through a spherical bearing so as not to
induce any residual bending stresses in the device.
The follow-on program was designated VCOSS II because it built
upon the results of the two VCOSS studies and utilized the structural dynamic
test capability of MSFC (Figure 7-8) to evaluate the new contractor designed
and fabricated actuator and sensor hardware. The laboratory testing carried
out under VCOSS II will form the basis for Space Shuttle flight experiments,
thus providing flight confirmation of the analytical and laboratory results.
The VCOSS II contract was awarded to TRW in March 1984 and was
completed in July 1986. TRW designed, fabricated, and delivered an optical
position measurement system and five linear momentum-exchange actuators. The
program report, including the MSFC test results and evaluation of the
delivered hardware, will be available early in FY'87.
The VCOSS II program contained four phases that encompass the
design of a simplified control system and its required components, the
construction of the sensor and actuator hardware, testing of the system in
cooperation with MSFC, the analysis of the dynamic test data, revision of the
control system as required, and comparison of the results with analytic
predictions. The program planned two independent test periods at the MSFC
facility with an intensive review, analysis, and redesign between tests to
optimize the results.
7-13
ISOLATER
CONTROL MOUNT
Figure 7-6.
THOMSON BALL BUSHING
" SUPER
I
DIRTYBO)c
TRW VCOSS Isolator Control Mount
IUMCO ACTUATOR
LA2O-21
KARON
... ERICAL BEARING
KR12CNO
12PLAClSI
Figure 7-7. TRW VCOSS Isolator Control Device
7-14
CD 3 AXIS Ace EL S.
3 AXIS RATE GYROS
~ 3 AX IS RATE G-YROS
3 AX IS ACCELS.
, _ at ... srt II CIIlIIICUI
J _ .'A STIC LIltS II aw-nsl
4 lin ... " SlAm ClCClS IIKI
14 CllUlCUI
lICllttlllG ACt
Figure 7-8. VCOSS Test Article at the Marshall Space Flight Center
7-15
The main goal of the program was the demonstration of the
application of realizable sensor and actuator hardware to a laboratory
structure and the understanding of the structural dynamics of the complete
system.
The technique employed by TRW was the exchange of momentum of the
structural mass to the proof mass of an actuator mounted on the structure.
TRW's approach was to adapt, Where possible, the commercially available
hardware to demonstrate feasibility. The basic principle of the momentum
exchanger (ME) is to transfer the motion energy of the structure to the
moving mass of the linear motor Which then dissipates this energy
electromagnetically. An input force disturbance to the structure ideally
results in motion of the ME moving mass and no motion of the structure. The
ME platform is a two-axis vibration absorber with each axis consisting of a
linear motor, a coaligned accelerometer, and a moving mass position
transducer.
To provide controller performance data, a structural motion
optical sensor was also developed by TRW. Each of three sensor channels
measures the translational motion of a structure-mounted laser diode source.
The sensor channel measures source motion in two dimensions lateral to the
sensor line of sight. The TRW sensor is adaptable to either analog or
digital signal processing. For high-bandwidth applications with 1 percent
position sensing accuracy, analog processing is sufficient. For maximum
accuracies, typically one part in 25,000, but with a lower bandwidth, digital
signal processing is desired.
The linear proof-mass actuator was constructed around a
commercial linear motor. To maximize the ratio of the moving mass to the
fixed mass, the motor was modified to allow the coil to remain fixed while
moving the magnet and flux return assembly. Each actuator contains a
high-quality accelerometer coaligned with the actuator force axis and a
coaligned linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) to measure the
position of the moving mass. Each actuator station contains two orthogonally
mounted actuators.
As used in an active damping control system, the structural
velocity is derived by integration of the accelerometer signal, amplified by
a design gain factor and fed back to the actuator input channel. When the
feedback is implemented in a digital controller, anti-aliasing filters are
required to band-limit the accelerometer signal. Resistively tuned, four
pole Bessel filters set for 50-Hz cutoff were selected by TRW.
In addition to a controller based on collocated velocity
feedback, TRW designed a controller containing digital compensation for ME
actuator dynamics. The compensator accounted for stiction (which is the
minimum force level required to break the bearings loose and obtain motion of
the moving mass) and inherent electrodynamic damping (which is due to the
back electromotive force (EMF) produced by structure-borne motion of the
actuator). Simulation of the system performance indicated inclusion of the
compensator provides an additional 6 db vibration suppression over a
controller with no actuator dynamics.
7-16
The simulations also indicated the actuator performance was
greatly limited by the I-inch moving mass motion limits, the large Coulomb
friction found in the bearings, and the parameter sensitivity of the
coapensator dynamics.
Preliminary test results indicate a lower than predicted actuator
peziormance due to significant hysteresis observed during cyclic excitations.
Although confirmation is expected in the final contract report, magnetic flux
leatage into the bearings and shaft is suspected. Nonmagnetic 302 stainless
steel bearings were chosen over 440c magnetic stainless to minimize the
stietion due to ball bearing magnetization. The preliminary results indicate
a change to beryllium copper balls will be required to eliminate the
effects. In addition, the secondary flux path through the shaft
will be eliminated by conversion to an anodized aluminum shaft.
The VCOSS II hardware has been installed in the MSFC test
facility and will be part of the hardware suite for the Advanced Control
Evaluation for Spacecraft (ACES) program. This is a near-term program,
jofmtly sponsored by DOD and NASA/MSFC, to evaluate leading control
teChniques on a common test structure.
7.1.1.3 Passive and Active Control of Space Structures (PACOSS). The
PADDSS program sponsored by AFWAL is directed toward developing technology
that integrates passive damping techniques with active control design. The
goal is to provide systems that can meet performance objectives, are more
tolerant to uncertainties in plant design and disturbances, are less costly
to produce, and require less on-orbit maintenance to assure operation.
Special consideration is being given to passive damping techniques to reduce
the bandwidth over which damping must be provided by active means, to reduce
the number of modes controlled by the active system over the complete
bandwidth, and to provide increased stability margins. This approach will
re5&lt in less complicated control systems with fewer sensors and actuators,
lover cost, and enhanced reliability. (Ref. 18)
To provide an analytic test bed for the development of PACOSS
teChnology, a representative system article (RSA) has been developed
(FIaure 7-9). The RSA is intended to represent system dynamics generic to
pt.aned and conceptual space systems. The RSA is not a mission-specific
sp2ecraft but a representation of several missions and requirements in one
system. Associated performance measures are taken from the applicable

Complementary experimental testing must be performed to validate
th. analytic methods and technology. The required analysis and verification
will be accomplished through the implementation of PACOSS technology on a
DyDamic Test Article (DTA) which is derived from the RSA such that it
possesses similar dynamic characteristics and opportunities for application
of passive and active control.
An important aspect of the RSA design process is that the
substructures were designed to permit incorporation of passive damping
treatments. This approach is essential to successful and efficient damping
treatment.
7-17
ANTENNA
TRIPOD
RING TRUSS
Figure 7-9. PACOSS RSA Configuration
7-18
A survey of Air Force and NASA mission models revealed a strong
requirement for relatively large, lightweight structures possessing the
ability for precise pointing and, in some instances, rapid retargeting.
Attainment of these characteristics requires structural vibration control
through active and/or passive means and, thus, such systems are the target
for PACOSS technology.
Based upon the results of the mission survey, the performance
requirements considered in the definition of the RSA are primarily those of
surveillance, radar, and optical systems. The quantities of primary
importance are line-of-sight stability, stability rate, and settling time.
The RSA will address a composite of performance requirements and demonstrate
traceable results to all space systems of interest.
Selection and design of the RSA configuration utilized the modal
strain energy (KSE) method; energy distribution was a primary design
consideration in all aspects of the initial design phases. The KSE method
identifies the locations in a structure where viscoelastic materials would be
effective in dissipating energy. The motivation for this method lies in the
coupled stiffness and damping properties of viscoelastic materials.
Additionally, KSE provides a useful tool to estimate modal loss factors
throughout the design process. For any system, not just the RSA, KSE and
damping mechanisms must be addressed in the early stages of configuration
selection and member sizing if design constraints are to be met.
The selected RSA configuration consists of a variety of elements,
each of which is traceable to one or more future space systems. Also, each
component poses specific challenges for passive or active controls and lends
itself to unique applications of passive damping. Table 7-3 summarizes the
RSA components and Table 7-4 presents candidate damping technologies
applicable to each. This configuration serves as a bridge between the
experimental analysis and verification of damping treatments to be performed
using a dynamic test article, and evaluation of the developed technology on
future space systems.
The results of analytical modeling of closed-loop control system
performance quantitatively indicate the performance improvement achievable
with just 5 percent modal damping. Previous studies performed under the
PACOSS program have shown that a modal damping ratio of 5 percent in
structures of this size is attainable through passive damping augmentation
using discrete viscoelastic dampers. The structure with 5 percent .odal
damping demonstrates a faster settling time than a nominally damped
0.2 percent structure with the resulting response dominated by a single mode.
Therefore, if further performance improvement using active control is
desired, the active system would be required to control only a single
flexible mode. In addition, passive damping augmentation giving 5 percent
modal damping effectively eliminated an instability present in the closed-
loop system with nominal 0.2 percent damping.
The design and analysis of the RSA point to several implications
regarding the role passive damping will play in design and development of
future large space systems. Specifically, passive damping technology can
work in concert with other technologies to allow future Air Force and
7-19
Table 7 - 3. Overview of RSA COllponents
Component
Box Truss
R.ing Truss
Tripod
Equipment
Platform
Antenna
Solar
Arrays
Size
(m)
2Ox20x2.S
22.4 dia
base: 20
height: 20
10
5 dia
20
Function
Primary support & subsystem
carrier
Central support hub
Secondary support
Equipment support
Earth communications
Power generation
Table 7 -4. RSA Component Damping Concept Summary
Damping Concept Applicable Components
Constrained Layer Antenna Support Tubes
Treatment Tripod Legs
Joint Damping Box Truss Corner Joints
Box Truss/Ring Truss Interface
Elongational Damping Tension Kembers
Element
Extensional Shear Damper Equipment Platform Support Truss
Tuned Mass Damper Solar Arrays
7-20
civilian space systems to meet their performance goals. This complementary
behavior can be enhanced if considered throughout the design process.
The analyses demonstrate that the degree of passive damping which
can be designed into future systems can play a major role in improving
performance and simplifying active vibration control systems. Specifically,
for a given slew situation and performance requirement, implementation of
both passive and active damping in an integrated control approach give the
desired performance while reducing the number of active control components
and the total energy expenditure. This can lead to more robust and reliable
systems which may be less expensive than those required for active control
alone. (Ref. 14)
7.1.2 Flight Programs
Very few structures-oriented test programs have flown, the most
notable being SAFDE. Most of the future large structure programs, however,
are planning flight experiments to demonstrate the key component technologies
on test articles that accurately represent the system concepts. These
programs include ATSE for MSAT. The only research and development program
planned is the COFS investigations into structures measurement and
control/structure interaction. Each of the TDMXs of this theme plan flight
experiments as verification of the experiment design and ground test prior to
the TDMX mission.
7.1.2.1 Solar Array Fli&ht RYnamic Experiment (SAFPE). To investigate
the feasibility of on-orbit large space structure testing, a dynamic
augmentation experiment, SAFDE, was added to the Solar Array Flight
Experiment (SAFE). The experiments flew in September 1984, on Shuttle flight
STS-41D (Figure 7-10). The solar array has extremely large area-to-weight
ratios and low natural frequencies (see Table 7-5). In atmospheric
conditions, air damping dominates over the structural damping, and the array
cannot be dynamically tested in a l-g environment.
Table 7-5. Solar Array Structural Characteristics
Array weight
Blanket
Mast
Container
Cover assembly
Natural frequencies
Array length
Array width
7-21
225 kg
132 kg
40 kg
40 kg
14 kg
0.033 - 0.4 Hz
3100 cm
400 cm
7
-
2
2

.

o

.
-
4

I

,
.
.
.

G
I

~

Q
,

.
.
.
t

r
a
.

SAFDE was part of a multimission payload that consisted of SAFE,
SAFDE, the Langley Research Center Photogrammetric Experiment with similar
objectives but different techniques than SAFDE, and a solar cell calibration
experiment. Although SAFDE and the photogrammetric experiment both measured
solar array dynamic deflections, SAFDE could only be operated during orbital
night to maintain adequate visibility of the reflected laser diode
illumination. The photogrammetric experiment required good sunlight
illumination and was conducted at orbital noon.
To control the dynamic test environment, the Shuttle was operated
in a "quiescent" mode for 10 minutes prior to the experiment. Input
excitation was obtained from impulse pairs from the vernier reaction control
system. Data was taken for 12 minutes, recorded, and reduced after the
flight. Due to safety concerns about exciting the 100 percent deployed array
on the dark side, only 70 percent deployment tests were performed on SAFDE.
Data was obtained on all targets, on all tests, even though some
targets were outside the sensor design range due to the array darks ide
curvature. The maximum measured curvature was 40 centimeters in depth. The
structural parameters were estimated using time-domain curve fit of the data
to obtain modal damping and a fast Fourier transform technique to obtain
modal amplitude and phase.
The solar array was dynamically evaluated both at orbital
midnight by the SAFDE and at orbital noon by the photogrammetric experiment.
Because of the unexpected curvature formed on the dark side, the noon test
evaluation closely matched the pretest analytical model. Since the pretest
models did not include the mechanisms causing the curvature, the SAFDE
experiment tested a different, unmodeled structural configuration.
Subsequent post-test analyses, using a model that had been modified to
account for the blanket curvature, demonstrated an improved understanding of
the test results but differences remain.
The structural dynamic natural frequencies and mode shapes were
measured for four modes between 0.06 Hz and 0.18 Hz (see Table 7-6). Four of
the first five solar array modes were successfully identified. Several
characteristics of nonlinear structures were observed. For example, the
first mode, out of plane bending, exhibited a natural frequency that varied
from 0.059 Hz to 0.072 Hz with increasing amplitude of excitation.
Similarly, the damping in this mode varied from 8 percent at large amplitudes
to 2 percent at small amplitudes.
7-23
Table 7-6. Solar Array Dynamic Characteristics
Analytical Mode Test Damping
Frequency Shape Frequency
,
Hz Hz
0.064 out of plane 0.059-0.072 2-8
bending
0.067 in plane not identified
bending
0.115 1st torsion 0.089-0.092 1-2
0.179 2nd out of 0.121 2-4
plane bending
0.213 2nd torsion 0.172 2
The Solar Array Flight Dynamic Experiment illustrated a number of
points significant to control structure interaction of large space
structures. The solar array was more than just an advanced solar array. It
was, in fact, representative of a generic class of future large space
structures The type of construction, strength-to-weight ratios, natural
frequencies, and, most importantly, the inability to adequately dynamic test
on the ground are all synonymous with large space structures. Although
normal care was taken in design to prepare the solar array for on-orbit use,
the anomaly did occur. As such, it may well be representative of the
"surprises" which may be expected to occur. The SAFDE program did
demonstrate and confirm the viability of on-orbit test definition of large
space structure dynamic characteristics.
7.1.2.2 Control of Flexible Structures (COFS). COFS is a multiyear
program sponsored by OAST and managed by the COFS Project Office at NASA
Langley Research Center. The program will perform four to six Shuttle-based
structural control flight experiments in the mid-1990s. This program will
actively solicit cooperative industrial participation and includes a special
government-funded Guest Investigator Program to support university
participation. The initial contracts have been awarded in preparation for
the COFS I flight around 1990.
The COFS program objective is to develop and validate the
technology data base required for confidence in design and control of large
flexible spacecraft. The program will develop and validate design and
7-24
analysis tools; develop and demonstrate ground test methods; and conduct
generic in-space experiments to validate ground test technology and analysis
tools.
The program is structured in three segments. COFS I will flight
test a large truss beam cantilevered from the Shuttle bay. COFS II will
focus on three-dimensional structures by testing a large antenna-like
structure attached to the COFS I beam. COFS III will investigate multibody
dynamics, possibly utilizing the Space Station. Each program segment will
include methodology development, ground test and in-space experiments.
The COFS I program will focus on beam dynamics and control during
two Shuttle flight experiments. The key technologies are systems
identification, testing methods, and distributed controls. The COFS I
technology goals are:
(1) Validate ground test methods.
(2) Develop and validate in-space test methods.
(3) Verify control/structure interaction analytical tools.
(4) Assess scaling effects.
(5) Evaluate distributed controls methods.
The COFS I flight test article will be a 60-meter deployable
truss beam erected out of the Shuttle cargo bay. Multiple proof-mass
actuator stations will be provided along the length of the beam. A total of
111 sensors including rate gyros, linear accelerometers, angular
accelerometers, strain gauges, thermistors, and optical measurement systems
will be provided. Several ground tests of scaled dynamic models will be
conducted beginning in FY'S7
The test article will be mounted on the Space Technology
Experiment Platform (STEP) carrier system being developed by MSFC through
contract with McDonnell Douglas Corporation. The STEP provides modular
lengths of Space Lab pallets for attachment of the payload within the Shuttle
cargo bay, a rotation device to allow extension of the beam outside the bay
mold line, emergency separation devices, and a versatile avionics suite. The
latter provide access to the Shuttle communications system and computers as
well as interfaces for scientific instruments on the test article.
The emphasis in COFS II will shift to the investigation of
three-dimensional dynamics and control. The key technologies are systems
identification, shape definition, distributed controls, and adaptive
controls. The test article configuration will include a short boom and area
surface object attached to the end of the COFS I beam. This area surface
object may be an antenna reflector, a box truss, or simple mesh disk
depending upon programmatic design criteria. Reaction jets will be provided
behind the area object and articulation control at the beam elbow will be
available in addition to all COFS I actuators and sensors.
7-25
The COFS II objectives for large, flexible, three-dimensional
structures are:
(l) Develop and evaluate combined theoretical, hybrid ground
testing, and on-orbit testing procedures.
(2) Compare predicted control characteristics with actual
on-orbit test results.
(3) Develop capability to identify systems characteristics and
control unpredicted dynamic disturbances.
(4) Evaluate techniques to identify system element failures and
reconfigure control system.
(5) Develop and evaluate control technologies of articulation,
maneuvering, pointing. alignment, and shape control.
With the more complex test configuration of the COFS II flight,
the following technology needs can be addressed.
(1) Manuever control.
(2) Articulation.
(3) Pointing.
(4) Shape control (quasi-static).
(5) Alignment.
(6) Systems identification (modal complexity).
(7) Deployment dynamics.
(8) Adaptive controls.
The two COFS II flights are expected to take place in the early
1990s with contractor selection and ground testing beginning some four to
five years prior.
The COFS III program will focus on the multibody dynamic
technologies of test methods, system identification, model sensitivities,
analysis verification and Space Station supporting technology. The program
goals are:
(1) Validate control/structure interaction analysis tools for
mu1tibody concepts.
(2) Evaluate modeling sensitivities.
(3) Develop vibration suppression methods .

7-26
(4) Develop ground test methods.
(5) Correlate scaled ground tests with full-scale flight data.
(6) Timely development of Space Station supporting technology.
The ground test technology development will investigate scaling
laws for joints (both linear and three-dimensional) and damping methodology.
The investigation will cover elements, components, mated systems, and their
growth.
In summary, the COFS program will provide tested contro1s/
structures interaction analysis tools, validated in-space controls test
methods to support future spacecraft systems identification, and methodology
to predict spacecraft performance by analysis, limited ground tests, and in-
space tests.
7.1.2.3 Antenna Technology Shuttle Experiment CATSE). ATSE is proposed
as a relatively low-cost experiment to test the critical technologies
associated with large deployable space antennas (LDSAs) and to provide a data
base for the verification and further development of LDSA key technologies
and analytical modeling tools The ATSE will be conducted from the Space
Shuttle in the early 1990s and will involve the deployment, characterization,
and control of a 20-meter class antenna (Figure 7-11). The antenna which
will be used is a Lockheed 20-meter wrap-rib reflector with offset feed
designed to operate at L-band frequencies (1.6 GHz). Deployment of this
antenna will include demonstration of EVA deployment techniques of large
truss structures (i.e., the feed and reflector support masts) and the
automatic unfurling of the wrap-rib antenna in a O-g environment.
Characterization will include measurement of the mechanical and thermal
response of the antenna to natural and induced disturbances.
Characterization of the RF pattern will be a test of the overall antenna
efficiency and will be accomplished with the use of an illumination source
supported in the far field by a free flyer. This free flyer will be deployed
and retrieved by the Shuttle as part of ATSE. Control of the antenna will
include geometry sensing, controlling the feed-reflector line of position and
jitter, and to a limited extent, controlling the reflector shape. (Ref 17)
There exists a number of potentially fruitful applications for
large radio frequency antennas in space. These applications include
continental mobile communications, astrophysics (e.g., quasar radio
astronomy) and remote Earth sensing
Quasat, which stands for Quasar Satellite, is the name given to a
mission concept involving a free-flying earth-orbiting large radio telescope.
The spacecraft will observe astronomical radio sources simultaneously with
ground radio telescopes. The primary goal of Quasat is to provide a system
capable of collecting radio frequency data which will lead to a better
understanding of extremely high energy events taking place in a variety of
celestial objects including quasars, galactic nuclei, interstellar masers,
radio stars, and pulsars. Quasat's unique scientific contribution will be
the increased resolution in the emission brightness profile maps of the
celestial objects. Spacecraft such as the Quasat orbiting very long baseline
7-27
......
I
to.)
00
Figure 7-11. ATSE in Deployed Configuration (Free Flyer Not Shown)
interferometer (OVLBI) will operate in the 1.4 to 22 GHz frequency band and
will employ a 20-meter-diameter axisymmetric reflector with a multifrequency
feed system.
Of these potential LDSA applications, the mobile communications
application could be of significant interest to the commercial sector. Plans
already exist which call for the first generation of an L-band (1.6 GHz)
mobile communications system (KSAT) to be deployed in the 1990 time frame.
This system will utilize "small" antennas (less than 10-meter reflector) in
geosynchronous orbit. Because of the relatively small antenna size, testing
of mechanical systems and measurement of the RF patterns will be accomplished
on the ground.
To increase the capacity of the mobile communications system, the
KSAT-2 program will employ an antenna larger than 20 meters in diameter.
Antennas of this size are not capable of being adequately tested in a l-g
field. Thus, for these large antennas, there remain questions involving the
reliability of deployment, structural control, and RF pattern
characteristics The purpose of ATSE is to demonstrate the viability of
LDSA.
The overall objective of the ATSE project is to test in situ the
technologies critical to the design and utilization of LDSA. This will
enable both commercial and governmental application of LDSA technology for
projects including KSAT-2, orbiting VLBI, and Earth remote sensing systems.
The specific objectives of the ATSE project include the
demonstration of man-assisted construction of large flexible truss structures
in space, verification of the in-flight performance of an antenna system
representative of those to be used in applications, and demonstration of
in-flight measurement and control techniques for LDSA.
ATSE will encompass three sets of experiments. These experiments
fall into the broad categories of man-assisted deployment of large truss
structures; structural dynamic and thermodynamic characterization of the
antenna structure, reflector shape, pointing and vibration control; and radio
frequency pattern measurement.
to:
The objectives of the antenna structural system experiments are
(1) Develop and demonstrate the mechanisms and techniques that
accommodate man-assisted deployment of large flexible truss
structures in space.
(2) Demonstrate the reliability of kinematic deployment of the
reflector structure.
(3) Validate and refine the thermal and structural analytical
models used to predict the mechanical performance of the
test structure and subsequent applications.
7-29
(4) Characterize deployment initial position variation by
repeatedly partially restoring and redeploying the reflector
to the point of lockup to show the variations of the initial
geometry.
(5) Measure the aperture precision and the feed structure
alignment for each deployed geometry and configuration
correction.
(6) Measure the structural frequencies, mode shapes, and damping
characteristics for a selected set of structural modes for
the reflector and each mast.
(7) Refine the analytical performance prediction models with the
test data base and project the mechanical performance of a
full operational system.
The objectives of the stability, pointing and vibration control
experiments are to:
(1) Demonstrate on-orbit shape and alignment sensing and control
technology in order to measure the overall antenna shape to
an accuracy of 0.3 millimeter rms knowledge and to control
it with actuators to an accuracy of 1.0 millimeter rms.
(2) Validate the control design methodology used to design the
initial control system and the process of in-flight updates
of the control parameters based on the above, updated
on-orbit dynamic identification.
(3) Demonstrate active line-of-sight pointing and vibration
control design to show stability improvement over a passive
system and demonstrate antenna boresight pointing stability
performance of 0.01 degrees.
(4) Update and refine analytical tools and prediction models
with the test data base.
The objectives of the RF experiments are to:
(1) Measure the on-axis and off-axis beam patterns at L-band
under various thermal conditions and after on-orbit surface
adjustment.
(2) Correlate the measured RF performance with the measured
surface and feed alignment.
(3) Verify and update the mathematical and computer models of RF
performance analysis and prediction.
(4) Project the RF performance of an operational system
7-30
(5) Demonstrate the utility of on-orbit RF measurements of large
space antennas.
The antenna illumination system will consist of a free flyer to
support the RF illuminators and the tracking beacon. A SPARTAN series
spacecraft will be used to support the illuminators in the far field (9 to 21
kilometers) of the test antenna for the RF characterization experiment. The
SPARTAN spacecraft consists of a series of low cost, three-axis stabilized,
engineering support modules intended to provide instrumentation utilities for
short duration missions.
ATSE, including the SPARTAN, will occupy approximately half of
the cargo bay when in the stowed configuration and is anticipated to be one
of several payloads aboard the Shuttle. Since ATSE will levy prolonged
operating constraints on the Shuttle, require cooperative tracking with a
free flyer, and require extensive participation of the Shuttle crew in both
intravehicular activity (IVA) and EVA, the experiment will be conducted after
all other payload operations have been completed.
Upon achieving operational orbit, the Shuttle will deploy the
SPARTAN and maneuver to a position such that the SPARTAN is trailing the
Shuttle by 9 to 21 kilometers along the flight path. The antenna deployment
will take place in three steps: reflector mast extension, feed mast
extension, and reflector deployment. Data from selected instrumentation will
be collected to monitor the integrity and behavior of the structures during
deployment.
The antenna structure, control, and RF experiments will take
place after the entire antenna is deployed and locked in place. The
structure and control experiments will consist of measuring the antenna
geometry, characterizing the response to mechanical and thermal disturbances,
adjusting a portion of the reflector surface, and controlling the feed-hub
pointing, jitter and mast vibration damping. The RF experiments will consist
of measuring the RF pattern under a variety of conditions.
The RF pattern measurements will be used to determine the antenna
far field RF pattern, which is a measure of the antenna's overall perfor-
mance, under a variety of thermal and antenna alignment conditions. Charac-
terization of the RF pattern under each condition will require that the
signal strength and phase received by the antenna be measured over an
approximately 10 degrees by 10 degrees grid cantered on the antenna boresight
under quasi-static conditions. The Shuttle will be operated in a quiescent
mode while executing a sequence of pitch and roll maneuvers to scan the
measurement grid.
The ATSE program has been defined and costed for an FY'87 start.
7.1.2.4 Stability and Control of Large Coupled Structures in Motion. In
FY'86, OAST committed to expanding the in-space experiments program and
solicited experiment proposals for experiment definition and development
programs that are supportive of the technology directions of the OAST R&T
program. The objective of the flight experiments program is to provide the
7-31
technical data and operational confidence for successful technology
development, verification, and use. (Ref. 23)
In response to this call for proposals, JPL unified several of
the structural dynamics and control technologies into a definition phase
proposal for a discipline experiment. The flight experiment objective is to
demonstrate coordinated system identification and control strategies for
multiple, connected large structures in motion. The following objectives
will be achieved in sequential fashion:
(1) Demonstrate system identification techniques for geometry
measurement, mass properties determination, and structural
mode identification for use in initial system
characterization and overall system performance evaluation.
(2) Demonstrate hierarchical control strategies based upon
adaptive and distributed control algorithms for performance
and stability in a multibody, hierarchical control-loop
environment.
(3) Demonstrate disturbance rejection and isolation techniques
to minimize flexible body vibrations during commanded
maneuvers and to suppress and isolate basebody disturbances
in order to enhance payload performance.
The ground testing environment for large space structures is
complicated by the size and flexibility of dynamic test articles The
nonlinear effects of joints and complex suspension systems makes
extrapolation of ground results to on-orbit conditions questionable. For
spacecraft configurations consisting of multiple, loosely connected flexible
bodies, executing potentially large rigid body motions, the potential of
ground testing is significantly lessened. Adequate scaling laws do not exist
for most of the components, much less the collective system.
For the proposed flight experiment, a flexible basebody with one
or more large, flexible appendages will be used as a test bed for algorithm
evaluations under operational conditions. The basebody will have an attitude
control system with sensors and momentum wheels Typical attached test
structures include multiple manipulator arms and a large antenna on a
multisegment support boom. These appendages will operate under their control
system, either the manipulation control or pointing control as appropriate.
Varying degrees of dynamic coupling will be possible through tailoring of
subsystem mass and stiffness. Control system coupling and algorithms to
limit this coupling will be investigated
Flight dynamics identification techniques will be used to
estimate modeling parameters and to determine overall control system
effectiveness. Geometry and surface distortion will be measured by laser
optical and other sensing systems. Structural dynamic parameters are to be
estimated from measured responses to either naturally occurring excitation or
specially tailored injected excitations. Similarly, mass properties are to
be deduced from system responses to special commands chosen to highlight key
properties or responses to operational commands In all cases,

7-32
identification will be used to evaluate and update initial models and provide
ongoing measurements of experiment performance.
Adaptive control algorithms will be evaluated for those subsystem
control loops that handle structure with uncertain and/or time varying
parameters. Typically, large structures constructed on orbit or deployed
through highly jointed mechanisms exhibit such behavior. For those
applications with large articulated motions, adaptive techniques will be used
to maintain stability of the high-performance control systems. The control
strategy will be extended to include distributed control of large structural
elements when multiple, distributed actuator and sensor systems are present.
In particular, a series of evaluations will be performed to determine the
proper mix of control techniques best suited to a variety of system
topologies and pathologies. Special attention will be focused on techniques
to limit control system interactions in complex systems of attitude
controllers, articulation controllers, and vibrational dynamics controllers,
all striving for autonomous achievement of low-error motion control.
Disturbance rejection methods will be evaluated through a series
of test configurations employing rapid slewing of large system elements. The
control system algorithms will be evaluated for effectiveness in providing
both basebody stability and end effector or instrument pointing jitter
reduction.
In the definition and development phases, the results of COFS,
MSAT or other flight precursor experiments will be coordinated with the
target technology demonstrated in this experiment.
The definition phase proposal is in the process of approval for a
FY'87 start. It is anticipated that, following approval, this JPL flight
experiment proposal and the existing JPL TDMXs will be merged.
7.1.2.5 ACCESS/EASE. On November 29 and December 1, 1985, during Shuttle
Mission STS-61B, two experiments to evaluate manual assembly, deployment, and
construction of space structures were performed. In the Assembly Concept of
Construction of Erectable Space Structures (ACCESS) demonstration, the
astronauts erected a 45-foot truss tower; while in the Experimental Assembly
of Structures in EVA (EASE) effort, they assembled and disassembled a l2-foot
pyramid truss. The two astronauts worked during two six-hour EVA activity
periods, evaluating the work efforts required to assemble structures in
space. The Langley truss tower was constructed using hand-laid assembly of
more than 100 components on a l2-foot assembly jig. When construction was
completed, the astronauts evaluated their ability to transport and place the
large structures by carrying and turning the 45-foot tower. The crew built
and disassembled the MSFC EASE pyramid eight times. No structural dynamics
evaluations of the structures were involved. (Refs. 10 and 12)
The purpose of the EASE and ACCESS experiments was to evaluate
manual assembly techniques for large space truss structures. In developing
concepts for space construction, neutral buoyancy simulations are conducted
in large water tanks located at MSFC and the Johnson Space Center (JSC).
Because of water drag in these facilities, as well as the difficulty of
making structures and astronauts truly neutrally buoyant, the fidelity of
7-33
these simulations is in question. The EASE and ACCESS experiments provided
flight data for correlation of assembly rates and construction techniques
projected from neutral buoyancy simulations. The flight also provided a
unique opportunity to gain experience in orbital construction.
In the ACCESS experiment, the two astronauts first deployed a 10-
foot revolvable assembly fixture consisting of a central tubular mast and
three guide rails. Using prepackaged joints and members, they assembled a
bay of the truss on the guide rails, manually rotating the assembly fixture
to access the three sides of the truss. When the bay was complete, it was
raised and supported on the top half of the guide rails. This process was
repeated to build 10 bays of the structure.
In the EASE experiment, one astronaut was positioned in a foot
restraint located on the side of the work platform. The second astronaut,
connected by a tether to the Shuttle, worked without fixed restraints at the
tip of the structure.
On the second day of the experiments, the Shuttle RMS, fitted
with a manipulator foot restraint, was employed as a mobile work station for
a single astronaut. Both the ACCESS and EASE structures were manipulated to
demonstrate ease of handling. In addition, after reconstruction of nine bays
of ACCESS, an RMS-attached astronaut constructed a single bay and demonstated
repair by replacing a nodal joint and longitudinal member of the truss.
Other tasks performed were installation of a simulated instrumentation cable
and handling of two EASE beams as a simulation of Space Station elements.
The results reported in the following are preliminary but are
representative of the accomplishment times, quality of the ground
simulations, and difficulties encountered.
The crew assembled the 45-foot ACCESS tower in less than 30
minutes, indicating they preferred a fixed platform for pre-planned
assembly-line type work. The crew reported fatigue was apparent from the
intensive use of the hand and wrist muscles during the free-floating EASE
assembly. On the average, the EASE assembly took 22 percent less time than
the same task during underwater training.
Manual joining and maneuvering of the simulated Space Station
element was performed successfully. Both the 190-pound ACCESS and 480-pound
EASE structures could be manually maneuvered easily by an astronaut
restrained in the RMS work station. Construction and repair of the single
bay was accomplished readily, as was installation of the simulated cable.
The manipulator operator indicated the RMS construction simulations
underestimated the time required in space. Operationally, the most desirable
improvement in equipment was associated with the space gloves which caused
numbness in the hands during simulations and flight experiments.
Based upon the fidelity of the simulations demonstrated by the
EASE and ACCESS experiments, ground simulations suggest that Space Station
construction by EVA using manually erected structures is feasible. The issue
of the most desirable work station configuration for Space Station construc-
tion is still a subject of research and development. Issues in the
7-34
development of this system are the propulsion system, the degree of
automation, and initial costs of the system.
7.2 RESEARCH FACILITIES
The following section discusses ground and flight research
facilities (current and proposed) for this theme.
7.2.1 Ground Facility Programs
7.2.1.1 The Ground Test Facility at Marshall Space Fli&ht Center.
As a key component in their NASA-sponsored Control Technique Verification
Program, MSFC has constructed a large-scale control and structural dynamics
test facility within the Systems Dynamics Laboratory. The facility presently
contains a complex test article typical of a large antenna spacecraft,
control and instrumentation electronics, and a five-degrees-of-freedom gimbal
suspension system (Figure 7-12). Active programs in evaluation of proof-mass
actuators and an optical position measurement system, in application of
proportional cold gas thrusters, and in the comparison of several control
system design methodologies are typical of the Laboratory's coverage of the
ground testing of large space structures.
The MSFC control system focus is to verify the dynamic models and
control system methodologies. The large space structure dynamics and control
verification effort is divided into four interacting areas: 1) dynamic
modeling, 2) control law synthesis, 3) verification, and 4) the development
of hardware flight systems.
The main test article is a 45-foot-tall dynamic model of a
spacecraft with an offset reflector suspended from the gimbal system
(Figure 7-13). The reflector can be replaced with other flexible payloads as
required to tailor the dynamic modal characteristics of the test article
The sensors include rate gyros at both ends of the mast, triaxial accelerom-
eters at both ends of the mast and the optical displacement measurement
system for the mast provided by the VCOSS program. Actuators include the
gimbal torquers on the suspension system, the VCOSS linear momentum-exchange
devices, and Aerojet bidirectional, proportional cold gas reaction jets now
in design.
The total system is constructed and suspended in such a fashion
that the test article has the characteristics common to all large space
structures. In most previous spacecraft controls system designs, the control
engineer could specify structural constraints to ensure separation of the
control system and the dynamics of the structural. With present large
structure concepts, the control engineer no longer has the option of imposing
constraints on the structure. The main large space structure characteristics
that might affect the control system are: a low fundamental vibrational mode
frequency, modal frequencies that are densely packed, large inertias and
generalized masses for vibrational modes, low structural damping, and
uncertainties in the dynamics model.
7-35
RB,RBD,RBDD
ACCELEROMETER ~
ALGORITHM
GYRO
ALGOR ITHPJI
RP,RPD,RPDD
ACCELEROMETER
ALGORITHM
[PE]T
GYRO
ALGORITHM
NB
FRICTION YF
TORQUES
DISTURBANCE Yo
TORQUES
NPA
V ~ X
Yc
Z
CONTROL
ALGORITHM
~
1. SHAKE TABLE
2. 3 AXIS BASE ACCELEROMETERS
3. 3 AXIS BASE RATE GYROS
4. 3 AXIS TIP RATE GYROS
5. 3 AXIS TIP ACCELEROMETERS
Figure 7-12. MSFC Large Space Structure (LSS) Simulation
7-36
1. SHAKE TABLE
2. 3 AXIS BASE ACCELEROMETERS
3. 3AXIS BASE RATE GYROS
4. 3AXIS TIP RATE GYROS
5. 3AXIS TIP ACCELEROMETERS
6. BIDIRECTIONAL THRUSTERS
7. OPTICAL DETECTOR
8. REFLECTORS
9. lASER
10. 2GIMBAL SYSTEM
11. N2 BOTTLES
LIGHT PATH t-=;;;;...----I
3 METER ANTENNA
Figure 7-13. Future MSFC 15S Simulation
7-37
A range of modal frequencies is available through a selection of
payloads. Lower frequencies can be produced through the use of the offset
reflector and densely packed modal frequencies can be produced through the
use of a flexible cruciform payload. Measured frequencies and damping for
the cantilevered mast without any payload and with the cruciform are shown in
Table 7-7.
Table 7-7. Cantilever Measured Modal Frequencies
System Modes
1s t Bending (x)
(y)
2nd Bending(x)
(y)
3rd Bending(x)
(y)
4th Bending(x)
(y)
1st Torsion
2nd Torsion
Cruciform Modes
Horizontal Bending
Horizontal Bending
Horizontal Bending
Horizontal Bending
Horizontal Bending
Horizontal Bending
Vertical Bending
Vertical Bending
Vertical Bending
Wlo Cruciform
Freq Damping
0.144 0.35
No data No data
l.33 l.3
l.83 l.9
3.38 l.8
3.9 2.2
8.06 2.9
8.13 4.5
0.99 0.4
9.6 l.1
WI Cruciform
Freq Damping
No data No data
No data No data
l.36 l.9
l.83 l.9
3.24 l.7
3.74 2.0
6.36 l.1
6.67 l.9
0.38 0.6
3.02 0.3
0.38 0.5
l.149 0.5
6.42 0.7
6.88 0.4
7.33 0.4
7.71 0.2
l.14 0.8
6.76 l.1
7.06 l.2
(Taken from NASA TM-86496, "NASA/MSFC Ground Experiment For Large Structure
Control Verification," December, 1984.)

7-38
The mast is a spare Voyager ASTROMAST built by ASTRO Research,
Inc. The ASTROMAST is extremely lightweight (about 5 pounds) and
approximately 45 feet in length. It is constructed almost entirely of S-
GLASS and is of the type flown on the Solar Array Flight Experiment.
The test structure is mounted to the payload mounting plate of an
angular pointing system (APS). The APS actuators are the advanced gimbal
system (AGS) engineering model, produced by Sperry for the Spacelab program,
and a third (roll) gimbal designed and built in-house. The roll gimbal,
serving the vertical axis, provides a means of rotating the entire system to
produce different test scenarios.
The APS is connected to a base excitation table (BET) which is
attached to the building support structure. The BET provides controlled
translation motion in two directions through closed-loop servo control of
hydraulic excitation actuators. The servo control allows any type of BET
movement with the 0.5 to 10 Hz frequency limits of the actuators.
Six separately packaged inertial measurement assemblies are
available for use as the control system sensors. Two identical three-axis
linear accelerometers are mounted on the mast tip and the BET. Three Skylab
Apollo Telescope Mount rate gyroscopes are mounted on the APS faceplate. The
sixth package, the Kearfott Attitude Reference System (KARS) , is located on
the mast tip and contains three rate gyros and three accelerometers. The
instrument resolutions and bandwidths are given in Table 7-8. Complete
electrical interfacing, including pulse handling, unit conversion and
maintenance of the coordinate system, is handled by the COSMEC-I computer
system at a 50-Hz sample rate.
Sensor
ATM gyros
KARS gyros
Accelerometers
Table 7-8. Sensor Specifications
Resolution
2 arc-sec/sec
50 arc-sec/sec
11 micro-g
Bandwidth
12 Hz
70 Hz
25 Hz
In addition to these sensors and the APS gimbal torquers, the
VCOSS II linear momentum-exchange device (LMED) proof-mass actuators and
optical position measurement system have been installed on the mast. The
LMED actuators are packaged as two-axis stations positioned at the mid-length
and mast tip. The optical position measurement system detectors are mounted
on the APS faceplate and image the laser sources mounted at the mid-length
and tip LMED stations The optical system measures two lateral displacements
and rotation about the verticlal (axis) of the LMED station. New nitrogen
gas thrusters are presently in design and fabrication to provide attitude
control torques about the APS axes. The reaction jets will be mounted on the
mast tip and produce bidirectional, proportionally controlled forces.
7-39
The MSFC Advanced Control Evaluation for Structures (ACES)
program will verify several of the most promising LSS control design
techniques through their application to the test article. Candidate
techniques include high authority/low authority, positivity, and model error
sensitivity suppression from the DARPA ACOSS program as well as H infinity
design and maximum entropy/optimal projection.
7.2.2 Flight Facility Programs
7.2.2.1 EMf/STEP. The Enhanced KDM Pallet (EHP) program will design and
qualify experiment support equipment for Shuttle bay experiments. The Space
Technology Experiment Platform (STEP) option adds a high data rate recording
system to the EMf avionics to support scientific data collection and storage
on pallet. The design goals include maximum use of existing Spacelab
hardware, independence from the Shuttle general purpose computer, and easy
installation and removal of the high data rate system. The program supports
structural dynamics flight experiments with payload integration and analysis
support, flight hardware, and test sets for the pallet and avionics, and
flexible data acquisition and multiplexer electronics. (Refs. 6 and 8)
The STEP Dedicated Support System (SDSS) consists of three
hardware elements (Figure 7-14): a Spacelab pallet, an avionics element, and
a payload integration equipment (PIE) element. The PIE element consists of
modular equipment such as mounting platforms, pallet segments, a payload
rotation unit, emergency release mechanisms, and an electromechanical
connector panel. The rotation unit is designed to accommodate payloads
longer than the pallet, such as mast deployment canisters, and will provide
an attachment/separation interface utilizing marmon bands. The maximum
pallet capacity is 6600 pounds of which 5000 pounds is allocated to the test
article.
Active cooling is available through four cold plates on the
pallet with an experiment capacity of 3.7 kilowatts. The electrical power
control box supplies 1.5 kilowatts at 24 volts dc and 100 volts ampere at 115
volts 400 Hz ac. Power is supplied to the experiment through 17 remote
controlled relay switched circuits.
The Command and Data Management System (CDMS) consists of the
Data Display and Control Unit, the Smart Flexible Multiplexer Demultiplexer,
and the High Rate Digital Assembly. These elements together provide for
control, from within the Shuttle cabin or from the ground command center, of
the experiment sequencing, data collection, data recording, and data
transmission.
The cabin-mounted control unit is a microcomputer that can
communicate with all Shuttle facilities on the local network, of which the
pallet electronics are one such unit. This computer has bubble memory
program and data storage, read-only memory (ROM) program storage and a large
random access memory (RAM) store. System software supports standardized
configuration, scheduling, and transmission functions in either a pre-
programmed sequence or an interactive mode. Experiment unique software can
be stored and executed in the control unit.
7-40
.....
I
.j:-
t-'
ORBITER
kUSP
ORBITER
PTB
HIlt
POI
PSP
SSP
I CARRIER

48MBPS Ind 2MBPS DOWNLINK
!
REPRODUCE
T
I
AnnAn fO COftTRm.
HORR
I'
I
' LlRUlIIlIL OISCRETES.
DATA
I
1 MET/2 GttT

I
I
I DOtU *
RS232
I 1
GMT
BSOIO (MAHCnESTER BI-I.)

,
l_!
?
16 KBPS DOWNLINK

NRZ-L
HAM plus
CLOCK
]
PTB
I PAYLOADS
}.
HIGH RATE
1
I
1
I
,I
c:
"l:
71
I
SERiAl
SCIENCE
DATA
.,p to 16)
Th
(7) AYLOAD
MET TIME
(4) SERVICE
r
I
SIO (MANCHESTER BI-,)
UP TO 4
CHANNElS
J.
I
I
.d
K:
"T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 DPS UPliNK
(t MEGABIT/SEC)
DUAl-WIDE
IDISCRETE CfJlWfD
Sff04
PCB
DISCRETE STATUS DISCRETE COMMANDS
;)
ANALOG MONITOR
I
filSCRETE MONITORS

PAB
ANALOG CCIIWtOS
J-BOX
ANAlOG OITOR I
?
.ANAI III:
,
SIG.
I
ATCS
CONO.
NtoYER1nt'" HJIt
* RESIDES ON ORBITER AfD OR MID-DECk
Figure 7-14. EMP CDMS Block Diagram with Space Technology
Experiment Platform (STEP) Option
-,
I
..
71
+5V. +Z8V
-.
+5V. +28Y
+5' MAlOG
7'
.
+5' ANALOG
1
I
,
J

The smart multiplexer controls the data transmission switching
and experiment data collection. A wide variety of analog and digital formats
is available for interfacing scientific instruments. Transmission paths are
reprogrammab1e from the cabin control unit.
The EMF/STEP program is managed by the Marshall Space Flight
Center and contracted to McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
7.2.2.2 Lar&e Space Reflector Facility <LSRF>. As has already been
discussed, during the late 1990s and the early portion of the next century,
civil and defense systems will demand the utilization of space-based
reflectors of unprecedented size and extremely stringent performance
requirements. These large space reflectors will range from 10 to 100 meters
in size and will span the electromagnetic spectrum. Mission applications of
these large space reflector systems include Earth-oriented communications,
Earth remote sensing, observational astronomy and astrophysics, and
communications for planetary exploration. The Space Station will play a
major role in the evolutionary development of these technologies and systems
by providing a platform for large-scale, long-duration, technology flight
experimentation. (Ref. 16)
The role of the Space Station in large space reflector technology
development and system performance demonstration involves the accommodation
of a wide variety of technology demonstrations and operational activities on
the Space Station, including reflector deployment and/or assembly, mechanical
performance verification and configuration refinement, systematic diagnostics
of reflector surfaces, structural dynamics and controls research, overall
system performance characterization and modification, and reflector-to-
spacecraft integration and staging. A unique facility for Space Station-
based, large space reflector research and development is therefore proposed.
A preliminary concept for such a Space Station-based LSRF has been prepared.
7.2.2.2.1 Larle Space Reflector Applications. Following the mid-1990s,
advances in the capabilities of various space systems will depend upon the
successful development and application of large space reflector technologies
A summary forecast of large space reflector mission applications is provided
in Figure 7-15. In general, most or all of these reflector missions will
require accommodations by the Space Station, such as careful manipulation,
alignment, and precise pointing of very large and delicate space structures,
and spacecraft-reflector integration and launch. The success of each of
these increasingly ambitious missions will evolve out of earlier technology
flight demonstrations and upon increasingly complex facilities on the Space
Station.
Radio Astronomy. Projected for the mid-1990s, the Quasar
satellite (Quasat) mission represents the first generation of radio
frequency, orbiting very long baseline interferometry (OVLBI) satellites.
Quasat will require a surface precision of 0.8 millimeter rms for an antenna
aperture of 15 meters, which represents the upper bound for precision, mesh
7-42
MISSION APPLICATION
Radio Astronomy
Earth-oriented
Communications (RF)
Earth Resources
Remote Sensing (RF)
Submillimeter-wave,
Infrared Astronomy
Deep Space
Communications (Optical)
Optical Astronomy
1990
TDRSS
(5 M)
HST
(2.4 M)
1990
1995
QUASAT
(15 M)
2000 2005
OVLBI-II
(30 M)
2010
M-SAT-B M-SAT-C
(20 M) (55 M)
ADV. COMM.
(100 M)
SOIL MOISTURE RADIOMETERS
(10 M) (100 M)
LDR
(20 M)
OPTICAL DSN TERMINAL
(10 M)
COSMIC
(35 M)
OPTICAL ARRAY
(100 M)
1995 2000 2005 2010
Figure 7-15. Large Space Reflector Mission Applications
deployable antennas. These missions will probably require precursor
technology flight demonstrations, antenna deployment, checkout, and
adjustment on the Space Station.
Earth-Oriented COmmunications. Following the 1980s' lead of the
already operational TDRSS, Earth-oriented communications will gradually
evolve toward considerably larger radio frequency antennas. For example, in
the MSAT concept, offset-feed, multiple-beam antennas ranging from 20 meters
to 55 meters will be assembled at the Space Station and deployed to their
operational orbits. This mission class will require both precursor
technology flight demonstrations and Space Station accommodation.
Earth Resources Remote Sensin&. The Space Station will
facilitate or enable the deployment and construction of increasingly larger
Earth resources remote-sensing satellites, such as large soil moisture
radiometers. This mission class will involve an evolutionary growth in
reflector size from approximately 10 meters to 100 meters and beyond during
the Space Station era and will require Space Station deployment and assembly,
with the added requirement of continuing servicing and maintenance during
operations.
7-43
Submillimeter-wave Infrared Astronomy. The LDR. planned for the
late 1990s timeframe. will be a long-lived observatory in the far infrared to
submillimeter spectral region. LDR will incorporate a 20-meter reflector
made up of from 80 to 100 individual panels, supported by a deployed or
assembled truss structure. This mission class will present the Space Station
with significant challenges in space-based deployment and construction.
Deep Space Communications. With the advent of continuous manned
operations in Earth orbit. space-based facilities for communications with
deep space spacecraft will be implemented. An optical deep space network
(DSN) terminal will permit planetary spacecraft to use on-board
telecommunications subsystems that require less mass. less power. and smaller
volume than current. comparable data-rate microwave systems. This mission
class requires the initial assembly of a relatively small reflector system
and long-duration. uninterrupted operations.
Optical Astronomy. Following the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in
the early 1990s. still larger systems for optical astronomy. such as the
Coherent Optical System of Modular Imaging Collectors (COSMIC), will be
assembled at the Space Station. integrated with carrier spacecraft. and
launched into operational orbits. In the COSMIC concept, images that are
equivalent to a 35-meter aperture are obtained by rotating a 35-meter linear
optical array. This mission class places requirements on the Space Station
for the assembly. testing. and adjustment of very large, flexible. linear
structures
7.2 2.2.2 Technology Flight Experiments. The capability to successfully
assemble. test. adjust, and launch large space reflector missions from the
Space Station will develop through an integrated program of ground laboratory
efforts and flight demonstrations These technology flight experiment
concepts outline an evolutionary plan for the development of large space
reflectors and detail the role of the Space Station in accommodating and
enabling that process.
Specific research topics for Space Station-based reflector
technology flight experiments include: reflector deployment and/or assembly.
structural dynamics characterization and control (i.e., the TDMX proposed for
the space structures theme). overall system performance characterization and
modifisation. and selected end-to-end system/technology demonstrations.
Large Space Antenna Technology. During the mid-to-late 1990s, a
series of large space antenna technology flight experiments is proposed. The
objective of this experiment program is to demonstrate. evaluate, and advance
the structural systems technology needed for large space antennas and to
reduce significantly the risk associated with using this class of large.
high-precision structures for space applications

7-44
The complexity of large deployable antennas, along with the
It.itations of ground testing of this class of structures, dictates the need
for in-space demonstrations. Such demonstrations will address: (1) deployment
reliability, (2) system performance, (3) system identification, and (4)
cODfiguration refinement. Deployment reliability is the most important
aspect of antenna performance, however, it can only be realistically studied
in a O-g environment.
The Space Station is essential as a base for conducting the
large-scale, long-duration experiments required in this program. This
experiment program forms one of the cornerstones in terms of research data,
and in terms of inherited hardware for the subsequent structural dynamics and
controls experiments and the RF field pattern measurement experiments.
Large Reflector Dynamics and Controls. The large space systems
that are currently being planned for the next twenty years present
silftificant control problems because of their size, variable flight
configurations, and structural flexibility. These structures present
significant modeling challenges beyond the capabilities of present control
teChnology. Hence, there is a need to develop control architectures and
teChniques for real-time and on-orbit, sensing, processing, and system
identification.
Using a 20-meter antenna structure, a series of four Space
Station-based system identification and control technology experiments has
been proposed. The objectives of these experiments include (1) the
measurement of structural and system parameters and their effects on open-
and closed-loop dynamics, (2) the evaluation and validation of critical
control techniques, (3) the establishment of a large space structures data
base, and (4) the development of a quantitative level of confidence in ground
testing techniques, simulations, and analytic models.
The four proposed experiments are: (1) Flight Dynamics
Identification (TDMX 2071), (2) Advanced Adaptive Control (TDMX 2411), (3)
Distributed Control (TDMX 2412), and (4) Dynamic Disturbances (TDMX 2413)
(see the discussion in Section 3). One of the key objectives of this program
is to develop the technology base needed to perform controls and dynamics
checkout and test activities at the Space Station on operational large space
reflector systems.
RF Antenna Test Range Technology. RF field pattern measurements
of large space antennas cannot feasibly be made in a l-g field. Using the
2 ~ . e t e r and 50-meter large space antenna structures, a pair of RF
measurement technology experiments is proposed. The two experiments are:
(1) Multifunction Space Antenna Range Technology (TDMX 2211).
This experiment would use the 20-meter antenna to study
space-based RF pattern measurement. The experiment concept
utilizes a combination plane-polar and cylindrical near-
field probe configuration, and a far-field pattern
reconstruction technique that does not require precision
placement of the far-field RF probe.
7-45
(2) Mu1tibeam and Multifrequency Antenna Measurement Technology
(TDHX 2212). The experiment uses the 50-meter antenna and
extends the pattern measurement capability to include a
variety of antenna configurations at different frequencies.
One key objective of these two technology experiments is to
develop and demonstrate the technology base needed to install an operational
large space antenna RF field pattern test range, based at the Space Station.
Such an RF test range is essential to the successful implementation of
advanced missions involving applications of RF large space reflectors.
Hiib-Precision Reflector TecbnolQ&y Researcb. A single mid-to-
late 1990s technology flight experiment is proposed to study and demonstrate
a variety of high-precision, filled-aperture reflector systems, technologies,
and implementation approaches, addressing both astrophysics and deep space
communications. The configuration will utilize a truss structure that is
approximately 10 meters in diameter, seven reflector panels which are to be
attached to the structure on orbit, and appropriate technology components.
The proposed experiments are: (1) an early LDR technology flight experiment
to demonstrate the two-stage optics concept, and (2) an early space-based,
deep space optical communications technology flight experiment, including
acquisition techniques, precise angular measurements, determination of link
bit error rates and the demonstration of long-duration communications.
7.2.2.2.3 Technology-Enabling Space Station Functions and Activities. In
order to enhance or enable the projected evolutionary development and
application of large space reflector technologies, the Space Station must
accommodate the following activities:
(1) Large-scale, precision structure deployment or assembly.
(2) Very high-precision, filled-aperture assembly.
(3) Structure mechanical verification and adjustment.
(4) Radio frequency field pattern measurement.
(5) End-to-end system testing.
(6) Long-duration performance testing and evaluation.
(7) Reflector/spacecraft integration and launch.
(8) Operational repair, maintenance, and configuration changes
of large space reflector system.
The anticipated space reflector systems are typically large
flexible structures requiring considerable volume for operations. The
reflectors are simultaneously massive, extremely complex mechanically, and
quite delicate. The Space Station's RMS must be able to reach the reflector
in order to support deployment, assembly, and adjustment tasks. Moreover,
different experimental and operational reflector activities will require
7-46
varying degrees of vibration isolation during pointing. The potential impact
of these large reflectors on other users of the Space Station is a
significant accommodation issue.
Baseline Space Station Capability. As currently planned, the
baseline Space Station will support reflector research, development, and
application by providing a very large structure upon which to conduct
operations. However, the current Space Station reference configuration lacks
any specialized facility for the deployment, assembly, checkout, test,
adjustment, and launch of technology flight experiment or operational systems
utilizing large space reflectors. Multiple-view pointing, required levels of
vibration isolation, and the basic manipulation that is required for this
class of structures cannot be directly accommodated by the Space Station's
baseline facilities. A specialized facility for research and the
implementation of large space reflector systems at the Space Station seem to
be required
7.2.2.2 4 Large Space Reflector Facility. An integrated, space-based
facility is needed to enable and enhance the development and implementation
of the next generations of space systems using large reflector technologies
An LSRF, based at the Space Station, would provide the capability to conduct
a wide variety of needed activities, including both applied technology
research and operational system deployment, demonstration, evaluation, and
adjustment for large reflector missions.
As currently envisioned (see Figure 7-16), the LSRF concept
incorporates the following elements:
(1) A reflector pointing system.
(2) An articulated truss structure
(3) An LSRF-Space Station interface adaptor.
(4) A shroud/shield.
(5) Structure characterization sensors.
(6) Near-field and far-field probes and illuminators.
(7) Space Station support: the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle
(OMV) , the RMS, EVA, robotics.
In order to implement the LSRF, the following technology
requirements of the facility need to be addressed:
(1) Space-assembled/deployed very large, precision, space
structures.
(2) Automated space-assembled and deployed large, very high-
precision, space structures.
7-47
Figure 7-16. Conceptual Illustration of a Large Space
Reflector Facility (LSRF), Based at the
Initial Operating Capability (IOC) Space Station
7-48
(3) High-load, flight-qualified joints/articulation.
(4) Precision structure characterization and control.
(5) Very robust, high-accuracy pointing systems.
(6) Detailed modeling of thermal effects and controls on large
space structures.
(7) Space-qualified instrumentation.
(8) Fusion of data from multiple and various sensors.
The LSRF concept builds directly upon the anticipated technology
developments of the planned, Space Shuttle-based Control of Flexible
Structures experiment program (COFS I, II, III), the Spatial, High-Accuracy
Position-Encoding Sensor (SHAPES) activity, and Space Shuttle-based Antenna
Technology Shuttle Experiment (ATSE). The proposed LSRF concept entails an
evolutionary, rather than a monolithic, development and implementation The
proposed LSRF concept is founded upon an incremental, cost-effective
implementation which would begin from a basic large structure manipulation
capability, and then would develop by means of technology flight experiments
to include the capability for structure deployment, assembly, structure
characterization and control, RF antenna field pattern measurements, selected
mission assembly and test capabilities, and high precision-reflector
assembly.
7 2 2.2 5 Conclusions During the years ahead, a large number of planned
civil and defense systems will require the utilization of very large space
reflector technologies The Space Station can playa major role in the
implementation of these technologies, participating both in their development
and as a facility for the deployment and testing of operational flight
reflector systems. However, the Space Station's baseline capabilities must
be significantly augmented in order to achieve these ends. The LSRF concept
represents a high-value, enabling option for the integration of a wide
variety of in-space reflector technology research and development activities
in a single, common facility. An evolutionary implementation approach of the
proposed LSRF, coupled with extensive commonality of subsystems and support
requirements, promises to significantly enhance and expedite the development
of large space reflectors while holding costs at a minimum.
7.3 MISSIONS
The following section reviews mission applications of large space
structure controls and dynamics technology.
7.3.1 Large Deployable Reflector (LOR)
The LOR is a dedicated astronomical observatory to be placed in
orbit above the Earth's obscuring atmosphere. It will operate in the
spectral range between 30 and 1000 micrometers wavelength. The NASA Office
7-49
of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) has scheduled the LDR for a new
start sometime in the 1990s. (Ref. 19)
In response to recent trends for LDR concepts to become more
complex and to increase in both cost and weight, JPL developed a "minimum"
LDR concept that met the science requirements while keeping the cost and
complexity at a minimum. The recent development of lightweight graphite
epoxy-honeycomb primary reflector panels of high precision and the concept of
two-stage optics gives sufficient encouragement that the LDR requirements
could be met.
The present JPL concept for the LDR telescope is based on a 20-
meter diameter reflector (Figure 7-17). The primary mirror is a filled
aperture made up of 84 hexagonal panels, each approximately 2 meters edge-to-
edge. The optical configuration is a four-mirror two-stage system. The
primary mirror is passive. The active optical elements for figure control
are at the quaternary mirror. The primary mirror panels are supported by a
deployable "PAC truss" backup structure at the vertices of each hexagon.
It is anticipated that the LDR will be initially delivered to the
Space Station for assembly, alignment, and checkout before being boosted into
higher orbit.
The key to the optical system approach is to upgrade the optical
performance through a two-stage optics concept. In this concept, the first
stage is a segmented 20-meter-diameter mirror that forms an approximate
image. The second stage "tunes up" the wavefront to the desired high acuity
The optical element that does this tuning is a small monolithic structure
located at a real image of the primary mirror. These miniature mirror
segments are arranged in an identical pattern to the primary mirror segments
and are actively adjusted so that each segment causes the reflected wavefront
to be perfectly phased and directed to a common focus in the LDR experiment
package.
The compact second stage of the two-stage optical system consists
of two mirrors located in a central column. The tertiary mirror forms the
image of the primary mirror (reflected in the face of the secondary mirror)
on the small quaternary mirror, which is segmented and active. This
placement of the wavefront correcting element at the image of the primary is
important. In this position, it acts as though the correction were applied
to the primary and, hence, the correction is applicable to all objects within
the field of view of the LDR. If it were placed elsewhere, the correction
would apply only to the on-axis image.
The primary reflector truss structure provides support for the
segmented primary reflector, the reflector 10-meter sunshield, and its
support structure. It attaches to the optical bench which will be pre-
assembled and aligned before launch. The optical bench support structure is
the primary load carrying element for the LDR during boost. The primary
reflector support structure is a self-deployable PAC truss that passively
supports 84 2-meter-diameter structural composite panels. The sunshield
support structure, which consists of thin-wall composite tubes, terminates at
the perimeter of the truss and deploys as an integral part of the PAC truss
The sunshield itself consists of multilayer insulation blankets that either

7-50
Figure 7-17
I
I
I
I FOCUS
I PRIMARY
I SEGMENTS
I
SUNSHIElO
l ... "'"
.......
I
I

tHERMAL
SHIRO
TERTIARY
I
I
I
I
I
ACTIVE I
QUATERNARY I
I
10 - MTER

Large Deployable Reflector (LOR) Telescope Configuration
7-51
deploy from canisters attached from its support structure or unfold as part
of the truss deployment sequence. The deployed truss structure, with Space
Station assembly capability, will be mounted to the optical bench. The
primary reflector panels will be mounted on the truss structure, checked for
alignment relative to a best fit parabola, and then adjusted by means of
their interface hardware with the truss.
The PAC truss is based on a unique self-deployable truss concept
that was conceived at the Langley Research Center (LaRC) and developed by the
Astro Aerospace Corp. The PAC truss concept, in particular, has the
advantage that the deployment is inherently strongly synchronized. This
synchronized deployment is accommodated by a large number of single-degree-
of-freedom hinge-type joints. The excellent mechanical packaging efficiency
results from a double-fold scheme where the stowed width of one bay is equal
to 3.5-tube diameters and the stowed package height is equal to twice the
depth of the deployed truss. The triangular shape of the cells of the truss
lends itself nicely to three support points for each reflector panel. Since
the vertical truss members remain parallel during all phases of deployment,
the support posts for the sunshield can be integrated at the perimeter of the
truss and not interfere with its deployment. This concept truss, like other
generic truss structures, has good deployed stiffness.
The control subsystem concept incorporates both the control
functions of attitude and pointing control and the quaternary mirror figure
control. The basic attitude information is obtained from the coarse star
trackers and the inertial reference unit. The information from the coarse
star tracker is handed over to the fine star tracker, which, during the fine
track mode, tracks a guide start that is offset from the target object being
observed A laser beam direction equivalent to the guide star direction is
developed and transferred to the fine pointing sensor in the LDR focal plane.
The desired relative coordinates of the target image and the guide star image
(represented by the laser) on the quadrant detector of the fine pointing
sensor is then established. This information is used for coarse and fine
controls of the line of sight, which are performed by the control moment
gyroscopes and the tip and tilt of the overall quaternary mirror,
respectively.
To adjust to an overall rms figure accuracy of 3 micrometers, the
LDR is first pointed to a selected bright object and its gross figure errors
are reduced by the translations and rotations of the whole quaternary mirror
using information from the wave front sensor in the focal plane. In this
manner, its figure is acquired and calibrated, and the LDR is then pointed to
the target The figure sensor takes measurements on multiple locations
across the primary mirror, providing primary mirror surface errors for figure
control. However, the control is not performed at the primary mirror but at
the quaternary mirror, which is an image of the primary at a 20 to 1 reduced
size. Since the figure control is performed at the quaternary mirror, the
figure sensor, measuring only distortions of the primary. would find the same
figure errors even if they were already compensated by the quaternary mirror
control. Therefore, under this scheme, the quaternary control must remember
its previous control positions as the primary mirror distortion changes with
respect to time It is recognized that over a certain amount of time, the
quaternary mirror control will lose its effectiveness due to accumulation of
sensor and actuator uncertainties. But this problem may be solved by either
7-52
repeating the figure acquisition and calibration procedure or by installing a
second figure sensor to monitor the figure in the quaternary mirror. The
combined information from both figure sensors will ensure the effectiveness
of the figure control at the quaternary mirror.
7.3.2 Earth Observing System (Eos)
To address the multidisciplinary problems confronting Earth
science in the next decades, NASA is studying the Earth Observing System, a
collection of instruments to be launched into sun-synchronous orbit in the
1990s as a primary mission aboard the Space Station polar platform. Eos will
allow long-term study of Earth's hydrological cycles, biochemical cycles, and
climate processes utilizing sensors which collectively cover the range of
wavelengths from ultraviolet through microwave. Instruments for surface
imaging and sounding, sensing with active microwaves, atmospheric monitoring,
and automated buoy data collection and location are provided. (Ref. 11)
The large-scale and varied articulation activity of many Eos
instruments present a challenging multipayload pointing control problem. The
proposed instrument set is nearly 10 times more massive than the entire
Landsat-D spacecraft, for example, and pointing control accuracy requirements
are in several cases tighter than 0.01 degrees.
Early platform configuration concepts accommodated the Eos
instrument set on a single, large (multilaunch) platform. To achieve the
required instrument pointing accuracy and stability on such a structure, a
distributed control system design approach consisting of interconnected but
dynamically isolated payload modules was considered. Results of a multibody
dynamic simulation demonstrate the feasibility of this approach, although
inertial actuators with a rather large torque capability of 20 newton meters
may be necessary for each of four payload modules.
Later platform configuration concepts accommodate a subgroup of
the instruments on each of several smaller (single launch) platforms (see
Figure 7-18). A reference attitude control system based on Space Telescope
attitude control system components for precision basebody control has been
examined. A multibody spacecraft flying model developed to study mUltiple
payload dynamic interactions aboard an on-orbit polar platform has been
analyzed. Results from the model support the need for local isolation or
cancellation of payload articulation momentum impulses.
In January of 1985, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and NASA's Eos program initiated a study of joint
utilization of the Space Station polar platforms. The initial study followed
the recommendations of the Office of Science and Technology Planning (OSTP)
and the NASA Earth Science System Committee (ESSC). An interagency team from
NASA, the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), NOAA, and JPL have studied how
to accommodate the various mission, payload, data system, and program
requirements within a joint utilization framework. (Ref. 20)
7-53
-.J
I
VI
.po
Figure 7-18. Earth Observing System (Eos) Platform Illustration
What has been developed is a reasonable framework for joint
utilization, suitable to carry further into an implementation study. Many
programmatic issues remain to be discussed, some of which can only be
addressed as details of the implementation of the Space Station platforms
unfold. It is expected that the scenarios and data system concept will be
revised as warranted by future studies and events.
The framework for joint utilization consists of three platforms
needed for initial operating capability, a strawman set of instrumentation,
and a joint data system architecture. The three platforms are needed to
deploy the entire instrument set of NOAA and NASA-Eos as well as to provide
nominal mission parameters for subsets of instruments. Two of the platforms
would be flown at 824 kilometers altitude, one in the morning and one in the
afternoon. This will provide NOAA with the required twice-daily global
coverage, as well as providing NOAA with suitable backup capability during
servicing. Eos would be a major co-inhabitant of the 824-kilometer afternoon
platform, and will provide selected instruments for the morning platform, as
well. An additional afternoon platform will be required by Eos to complete
the deployment of the Eos instrument payload.
An architecture for an integrated NOAA/Eos end-to-end information
system has been developed which meets the requirements of both the
operational and research communities Included is the provision for direct
uplink and downlink and direct broadcast capabilities for NOAA, and TDRSS
utilization for Eos NOAA and Eos intend to share a common control center at
GSFC for coordinating the command uplinks. The system would meet the
requirements of NOAA for near real-time access to data for weather forecasts,
and would facilitate access to data for researchers.
All the platforms must be Shuttle-serviceable at a nominal
interval of two years, and must provide a level of payload support (mass,
power, data handling, etc.) to accommodate the joint payloads.
The objectives of the JPL Eos program (Ref. 15) are.
(1) To define the NASA-EosjNOAA flight system and to assure its
compatibility with science objectives and polar platform
designs
(2) To support and advance NASA-Eos/NOAA project activities:
information system and instrument development, science,
technology, and mission design.
(3) To define and demonstrate payload servicing designs and
techniques.
The Earth Observing System is a long-duration Earth
investigations program consisting of multiple space platforms and an
extensive ground-based information system. Eos will be the centerpiece of
the Earth research and operational programs in the 19905, with international
participation in both instruments and spacecraft. The understanding of the
integrated functioning of the Earth as a system is the objective of the Eos
research. This is to be based upon understanding individual phenomena and
their interrelations utilizing long-term data sets. The Eos operational
7-55
objective is to meet all existing low Earth orbit (LEO) METSAT operational
goals and expand into a larger, more comprehensive NOAA program.
The combined NASA and NOAA goals will require a wide array of
remote sensing and in situ instruments amounting to 28 research and 16
operational instruments in approximately 15,000 kilograms. The decentralized
information system must provide early access to high-quality data with peak
data rates of 300 megabits per second and daily storage requirements of 10
13
bits per day.
These requirements will be met by two u.S. and one European Space
Agency (ESA) platform, each 2.5 times the size of any Earth-viewing
spacecraft under development. On-orbit servicing of the platforms and
payloads is an integral part of the system concept. The platform is divided
into core, carrier, and instrument subsystems. The core module, provided by
Space Station, will supply utilities such as power, attitude control, and
most communications. The carrier system provides payload-unique engineering
support for payloads and the instruments themselves are provided as
facilities or through an Announcement of Opportunity.
The full complement of instruments proposed by NOAA for the polar
platform, and the assignment of these instruments to morning or afternoon
crossing times, is shown in Table 7-9. The payload is derived from
continuations of, and upgrades to, the payloads of the NOAA-ATN series and
the Defense Meteorological Satellite (DMSP) program; future missions such as
the Navy's GEOSAT and N-ROSS, the European Space Agency's ERS-l, Canada's
RADARSAT, and the NASA-French Space Agency joint endeavor, TOPEX/POSEIDON; as
well as contributions from the commercial sector. Operational instruments
will be provided by NOAA and/or by other nations in cooperation with NOAA.
Both platforms would contain a common core set of twelve instruments for
meteorologic, oceanographic, and data services applications. The afternoon
payload would also consist of instruments that require a high degree of solar
illumination to operate effectively, such as sensors to monitor ocean color
and ozone. The morning platform would contain a high-resolution (probably
commercial) optical sensor for land systems monitoring It is highly
desirable that one (or both) platforms house a synthetic aperture radar
instrument for operational monitoring of sea ice and land cover.
Although the final Eos instrument payload will be the product of
an Announcement of Opportunity, Eos has a strawman payload as shown in
Table 7-10.
From the earliest TIROS weather satellites, NOAA policy has been
to provide direct broadcast data to users. Direct broadcasts are formatted
for low budget and sophisticated users, and vary from facsimile format to raw
data from which soundings can be calculated. The region reported to a given
user is the area within sight of sensors as the satellite passes overhead.
In addition to direct broadcast capability, NOAA will also
require onboard data storage for data playback at NOAA command and data
acquisition (CDA) stations, or via TDRSS .

7-56
Table 7-9. NOAA Polar Platform Payload
Instrument and Application
Solar-Terrestrial
Space Environmental Monitor (SEM)
Earth Radiation Budget Instrument (ERBI)
AtmospherefMeteorology:
Medium-Resolution Imaging Radiometer (MRIR)
High-Resolution Infrared Sounder (HIRS)
Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AKSU)
Global Ozone Monitoring Radiometer (GOMR)
Oceans/Coasts:
Sea-Related Synthetic Aperture Radar (SEASAR)
Scatterometer (SCATT)
Altimeter (ALT)
Low-Frequency Microwave Radiometer (LFMR)
Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI)
Along-Track Scanning Radiometer (ATSR)
Ocean Color Instrument (OCI)
Solid Earth(Vegetation
Multispectral Linear Array (MLA)
Land-Related Synthetic Aperture Radar (GEOSAR)
Data Services
Data Collection and Platform Location (ARGOS)
Search and Rescue (S&R)
7-57
Afternoon
Platform
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Morning
Platform
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 7-10. Eos Strawman Payload
Instrument and Application
Surface Ima&in& and Soundin& Packa&e (SISP):
Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS-T/KODIS-N)
High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (HIRIS)
Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI)
Advanced Mechanically Scanned Radiometer (AKSR)
Electronically Steered Thinned Array Radiometer (ESTAR)
Laser Atmospheric Sounder and Altimeter (LASA)
Geodynamics Laser Ranging System (GLRS)
Advanced Data Collection and Location System (ADCLS)
Sensin& with Active Microwaves (SAM):
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
Scatterometer (SCATT)
Radar Altimeter (ALT)
Atmospheric Physical and Chemical Monitors (APACM)
Correlation Radiometer (CR)
Nadir Climate Interferometer/Spectrometer (NCIS)
Dopplar Lidar (DOPLID)
Infrared Radiometer (IR-RAD)
Pressure Modulated Radiometer (PMR)
Microwave Limb Sounder (KLS)
VisiblefUV Spectrometer (VISfUV)
Submillimeter Spectrometer (F/P-INT)
Cryogenic Interferometer/Spectrometer (CIS)
Operational Temperature and Moisture Sounders:
Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU)
High-Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS)
Monitors:
Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)
Solar UV Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SUSIM)
Solar Constant Monitor (SCM)
Magnetosphere Particles Detector (KPD)
Magnetosphere Fields Detector (MAG)
7-58
Uplinks are also needed for world-wide user services. With each
generation of designs for NOAA-operated polar orbiting satellites, it has
been necessary to expand the capability for data collection from remote
platforms. Most platforms are rebroadcast from the satellite in real-time,
and are also carried on tape to a central message processing center. A
comparable message relay service permits location of aircraft or ships in
distress, and forwards distress calls to appropriate search and rescue
services.
The NOAA platform end-to-end information system must be capable
of rapidly processing the data from the platform, probably to the level of
geophysical units The data facility must also produce and distribute
directories of available data sets, and catalogs which include some measure
of the quality of the sets, in addition to browse files which include
synoptic analyses that the user community can use in selecting what part of
the massive quantity of data may contain the needed information. The system
must be highly reliable, with a corresponding high degree of redundancy, and
sized to "pipeline" process the flow of data from the platforms.
The end-to-end information system for Eos is termed the Earth
Observing System Data and Information System (EosDIS). Eos is fundamentally
an Earth science information system involving space observations, ground-
based observations, a data system capable of allowing access to Eos data and
related data sets, and a program of scientific data analysis and
interpretation The requirements for the EosDIS include: control center
operations with the capability for end-to-end data system performance
evaluation, platform status; subsystem, payload and instrument status; and a
capability for "telescience" operations. Telescience involves using the
tools of telecommunications for the purpose of conducting scientific
investigations from remote locations.
EosDIS will provide the science community with the capability to
access real-time data for quick-look processing by research groups and
target-of-opportunity requests, and will be able to support research field
experiments. In the longer time scale, EosDIS will provide the archival data
necessary for the various research specialty groups, and the ability to
perform retrospective research on a variety of problems. It is envisaged
that the EosDIS will support a user community of 10,000 with up to 200 active
users at anyone time.
The driving pointing requirements for the instruments of the Eos
Strawmam Instrument Compliment are summarized in Table 7-11.
The tightest pointing accuracy requirements, in the range of 20-
30 arcseconds, are imposed by the laser instruments. This level of control
will require a knowledge of boresight pointing direction to about
10 arcseconds (3 sigma) allowing roughly a factor of two from knowledge to
control accuracy. A stringent knowledge requirement of 1 arcsecond is
imposed by the imaging spectrometers HIRIS and TIMS. This level of knowledge
may be derived making use of known features in the image data to the extent
possible.
7-59
Table 7-11. Eos Pointing Requirements

LASA-B 20 arcsec
(3 sigma) LASA-R 20 arcsec
DOPLlD 20 arcsec
LASA-A 30 arcsec
Knowled&e: HlRlS 1 arc sec
(3 sigma) TIKS 1 arcsec
LASA-A,B 5 arcsec
DOPLlD 0.4 arcsec/5 msec
(3 sigma) lR-RAn 4 arcsec/l sec
VlSjUV 25 arcsec/10sec
Driving stability requirements range from 25 arcseconds in
10 seconds to 0.4 arcseconds in 5 milliseconds. The doppler lidar (DOPLlD)
requires a limit on high frequency jitter excursion of 0.4 arcseconds during
the round-trip light time of each laser pulse. The spectrometer VISjUV
requires that platform rigid body rates be below 25 arcseconds/10 seconds, or
2.5 arcseconds/seconds.
The envelope of pointing stability drivers is illustrated in
Figure 7-19 in terms of amplitude vs. frequency. The envelope boundary
represents an upper bound on the acceptable boresight disturbance amplitude
at each disturbance frequency.
The task of developing a pOinting control system that can achieve
this pointing performance is complicated by the large size and articulation
requirements of the instrument set. A sample of the articulated science
instrument and engineering system elements is shown in Table 7-12 and in
Figure 7-20.
Eos instrument pointing accuracy and stability requirements are
generally similar to those of current Earth observing spacecraft but must be
accommodated on a much larger spacecraft and with larger instruments. Design
tools have been developed to address the problems of payload interactions
aboard a flexible platform. A spacecraft flying model has been used to study
the effects of articulation activity and environmental disturbances on
instrument pointing control as an aid to the identification of carrier system
control requirements and implementations. Instrument disturbance
characteristics and platform structural models are being developed for these
purposes.
A payload module isolation scheme for large platforms has been
simulated with promising results. An amplitude reduction of at least an
order of magnitude is achieved across the interface between resource module
and payload module. Momentum compensated articulation of payloads will help
preserve disturbance-free pointing of the payload module Control torques in
the range of 20 newton meters are indicated.
7-60
100. (XX)
EXAMPlE: IR-RAD STABILITY REQMT
C arcsedl sec
i
10. CD)
40 arcsedsec
EXCURSION IN 1/2 CYCLE
i
~
1. (XX) CIS
E
NCIS
E
100
' VISlUv
~
KS
w SUB-ftW
~
10
e

~
1.0
LltSOF
HIRIS, T1MS
at
CONSTANT RAlE
DOPlID
0.1
0.01
10 100 1. (XX)
Figure 7-19. Pointing Stability Drivers
7-61
Table 7-12. Articulated Instruments and System Elements
Engineerin& Systems.
Solar panels
High-gain antenna
Reaction wheels
Science Instruments:
HIRIS, TIMS
SAR antenna
AMSR antenna
DOPLID
MLS
HRDI (F/P-INT)
SUSIM, SCM
single axis track
TDRSS track
high-frequency vibration
two axis offset pointing +-30 deg
three axis offset pointing +35 deg
pitch, +-35 deg yaw
rotary scan, 60 RPM
rotary scan
limb scan mirror
pointed optics
solar track, rotary mount
The platform reference attitude control system based on Space
Telescope components may be a viable means of achieving instrument pointing
requirements, subject to the development of mission adaptable isolation
elements to ease instrument integration constraints.
Dynamic noise accommodation and the development of local isolation and
decoupling interfaces will be of primary importance to successful Eos payload
integration. An instrument impulse limit in the range of 0.1 Newton meters/
second appears reasonable as a tentative payload interface requirement for
the reference platform configuration.

7-62
HIRIS SAR AMSR
DOPLID MLS HRDI
Figure 7-20. Selected Articulated Eos Instruments
7-63
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
1. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, "SBL Structural Dynamics Workshop."
(September 20, 1983).
2. Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory, "VCOSS Statement of Work."
Contract F33615-8l-C-3220 (June 3, 1981).
3. Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory, "VCOSS II Statement of Work,"
Contract F33615-83-C-3244 (March 29, 1983).
4. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., "ACOSS TWELVE Final R.eport."
RADC-TR-84-28 (1984)
5. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Hnc., "Vibration Control of Space
Structures, VCOSS A High- and Low- Authority Hardware Implementations"
AFWAL-TR-83-3074, Final Report (July, 1983).
6. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, "EMP/STEP PDR Kickoff Presentation."
7. NASA/Langley Research Center, "Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization
Issues for Large Space Structures." Conference Proceedings, NASA CP 2258
(Williamsburg, Va., May 13-14, 1982).
8. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, "STEP Dedicated Support System (SDSS)
User Interface Description." (June 25, 1986).
9. TRW Space and Technology Group, "Vibration Control of Space structures,
VCOSS B Momentum Exchange and Truss Dampening." AFWAL-TR-83-3075, Final
Report (July, 1983)
10 Aviation Week and Space Technololgy, (December 16, 1985) p. 20.
11. C.E. Bell and H. Lin, "Attitude and Articulation Control Concepts for the
Earth Observing System" AAS/AIOSS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference,
AAS 85-436 (Vail, Colorado; August 12-15, 1985).
12. M. F. Card, W. L. Heard, Jr., and D. L. Akin, "Construction and Control
of Lalrge Space structures," NASA TM-87689 (February, 1986).
13. Charles S. Draper Laboratories, "Actively Controlled structures Theory;"
Volume I, 'Theory of Design Methods,' and Volume II, 'Application of
Design Methods.' RADC-TR-79-268 (1979).
14 R. N Ghehling, 9Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace), "Active Augmentation
of a Passively Damped Representative Large Space System." Damping '86
Workshop (1986).
15. J. Gnat, Space Station System Requirements and Earth Observing System
Technical Review" JPL Review (June 24-26, 1986).
8-1
16. J. C. Mankins, R. Dickinson, R. Freeland, and N. Marzwe11 (Jet Propulsion
Laboratory), "Large Space Reflector Technology on the Space Station."
Paper AlAA-2302, AlAA Conference on Space Station in the 21st Century
(September 3-5, 1986).
17. L. D. Miller, "Preliminary Antenna Technology Shuttle Experiment,
Experiment Descriptioni Document." Revision D (February 28, 1986).
18. D. R. Morgenthaler and R. N. Gehling (Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace),
"Design and Analysis of the PACOSS Representative System." Damping '86
Workshop (1986).
19. P. N. Swanson, "A Lightweight Low Cost Large Deployable Reflector (LDR)."
JPL D-2283 (June, 1985)
20. D. Vane, Edtr./, "Joint Utilization of the Space Station Polar P1ataform
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Earth Observing System (EOS) Program of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)." JPL D-3440 (August, 1986).
21. B. K. Wada, C. PO. Kuo, and R. J. G1aaser, "Extension of Ground Based
Testing for Large Space Structures," Journal of Spacecrafta nd Rockets,
Vol. 23, No.2, (March/April, 1986).
22. H. B. Waites, S M. Seltzer, and D. K. Tollison, "NASA/MSFC Ground
Experiment for Large Structure Control Verification." NASA TM-86496
(December, 1984).
23. Y. Weber, III, "OAST Flight Experiments Program" JPL 10M TSPD-930-YJY-
86049 (June, 1986).
8-2
End of Document