Document
Orion Abort Flight Test
Peggy Hayes
NASA Dryden
FTO Flight Dynamics Lead
Recent Abort Flight Test Events
• Pad Abort 1 flight test occurred on 6 May 2010 from White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Abort Flight Test
Orion’s Launch Abort System (LAS) provides an emergency escape system for the crew Abort Flight Test Objectives: Provide adequate testing to demonstrate proper performance and function of the LAS throughout the required flight envelope Validate key abort models LAS performance and functionality Parachute system performance and functionality Separation aerodynamics Separation mechanism performance Pathfinder for Orion system integration and ground operations procedures
Orion Spacecraft Overview
Crew Module • Provides safe habitat for crew • Allows reentry and landing as a stand alone module • ISS “lifeboat” capability Launch Abort System • Safely removes the crew from launch vehicle in an emergency • Protects crew module from atmospheric loads and heating • Jettisons after successful pad operations and first stage flight Service Module • Supports crew module from launch through separation • Accommodates unpressurized cargo or mission science equipment Spacecraft Adapter • Provides connection to launch vehicle • Protects Service Module components
Components of Program Constellation
Earth Orion - Departure Crew Stage Exploration Vehicle Ares V - Heavy Lift Launch Lunar Vehicle Lander
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Ares I - Crew Launch Vehicle
Launch Abort System (LAS) and
Crew Module (CM)
Nose Cone
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Abort Motor Test Firing
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Jettison Motor Firing
ORION
LAUNCH ABORT SYSTEM JETTISON MOTOR :;;
DEMONS ~ RA W O~ ~
.. .. - ... ; ... .' q1 I111' ~ ) f~ ~ V: it tO~8 . .
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Attitude Control Motor Firing
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Pad Abort 1 (PA-1)Trajectory Cartoon
Event 1. AM/ACM ignition 2. AM burnout 3. Begin re-orientation 4. End re-orientation 5. LAS Jettison 6. FBC jettison 7. Drogue mortar fire 8. Pilot mortar fire 9. LAS touchdown 10. Reach 33 ft/sec descent rate
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
11. CM touchdown PA-1 test at White Sands was designed to fly a due North trajectory,
At KSC, the pad abort trajectory ‘dog-legs’ towards the ocean
Launch Abort Vehicle (LAV) Controller Info
• For PA-1, LAV controller was developed by Orbital-Dulles – PID controller, had heritage from Pegasus – On-board gain scheduling based on mass properties changes – Roll-yaw coupling (p-beta) which used a yaw command to dampen roll rates – Timer-based guidance • 0-2 seconds; open-loop pitch-over to get downrange; commanded pitch & yaw • 2-10 seconds; downrange guidance; commanded alpha & beta • 10-21 seconds; reorientation guidance; commanded alpha & beta • All commands turned into attitude rate commands in FSW before they were passed to the ACM controller
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Mobile Operations Facility (MOF) Overview
Telemetry, video, timing distribution, and processing equipment racks (7) LM Command, Control, and Monitoring System racks - not shown (3.5) Video Monitors (4) Chute Installation Chute Installation
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Workstation displays (21) DFI Installation Acoustic Blankets Chutes Intercom panels (18) Acoustic Blanket Installation Acoustic Blanket Installation
WSMR Tracking Optics
CM
Dee Site has wide
LAS Bill Site has wide
FOV camera FOV camera and 2 mounts total
FBC
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Footage from various video sites
• PA-1 Compilation video
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Personal Experiences / Lessons Learned
• Launch Fever, noun: An unwillingness to miss an important deadline
despite known problems.
– High speed film camera in crew module
– SIGI-2 issues
– ACM controller issues
– Coyote
• Managing emotions associated with the launch
– Went through various failure scenarios
• Tip-over risk
• High vibration associated with the initial pull-away
• Risk of loss of controller authority with jet interaction
• Risk of parachute failure
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
– Stress near T-0
• Coping techniques
• Estimating probability of mission success
– 81 unique PA-1 related risks
Lessons Learned (continued)
• Project pace & travel (4 years)
• Number of different organizations involved – always complicated
– Flight Test Office was the responsible flight test organization
– On some level, you needed to be Al Haig-like
• Lessons Learned take awhile to process, then recognize & identify
– Project collected Lessons Learned just after launch
– Lessons Learned in wind placard story
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Lessons Learned – wind placards story
• Surprised at how ‘basic’ things became issues that grew quickly out
of control (the ‘how-did-we-get-here?’ phenomenon)*
– Wind placards were an example of this
• Early on, LM Mission Analysis group identified an issue with the
winds modeling in GRAM-99 with the WSMR RRA (wasn’t
consistent with weather balloon data, RRA data from the 1980’s)
• FTO agreed to go with the WSMR RRA from GRAM-2007 put into
GRAM-99, our concern was that the weather balloon data hadn’t
been blessed by the Air Force organization (AFCCC) that certifies
RRAs
• Using this RRA caused the LM Mission Analysis group to develop
placards that were very restrictive, and it became a lot of work to get
these placards expanded to reasonable operational levels
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
• Control room operations were down to a minimal staff (due to MOF
size), support personnel were available, but communication was
sometimes spotty
* Still working to define all the lessons learned here
Lessons Learned (continued)
Altitude Above WGS-84 Reference Ellipsoid (tt) 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 1· 10 10 .0 10.7 13.0 13.4 15 .0 16 .7 17 .3 17 .5 19.8 21.2 22.6 23 .4 23 .0 23 .0 23.0 11-20 10 .1 11.0 12.8 13.9 15 .2 15.8 16 .8 19.0 20.5 22.1 24.4 24.9 25.5 25.5 25 .5 21-30 10 .7 11.7 13.6 13.7 14.4 15.5 16 .7 17 .3 19.1 20.4 21.1 22.0 22.7 22.7 22 .7 31-40 10 .3 12.5 13.9 14.5 15 .1 15 .7 17 .1 17 .6 19.0 18.5 18.5 19.7 17.6 17 .6 17 .6 41- 50 11.4 12.4 13.5 13 .9 16 .8 16 .6 17.8 17 .4 17.0 17 .6 18.6 18.4 18 .4 18 .4 15 .'
51-60 13.0 13 .3 14.3 14.6 16.2 16 .4 16 .1 16.6 17 .1 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 11.1 15.'
Iii 61 -70 11.7 12.1 12.8 13 .2 14.5 15.1 15.2 14.9 15.3 14.7 14.5 15.3 16.4 16 .4 16.4 QI 71-80 11.4 11.7 12.8 12.9 12.8 14.6 14.8 14.0 14.2 14 .7 15.7 15.7 17.0 17.0 17.0 ..
QI "- 81-90 10 .7 11.3 12.5 12.4 13.0 13.6 14.2 13.6 13.6 14.8 16.5 17.0 17.9 17.9 17.9 QO 91-100 10.1 11.9 11.3 12.3 13.0 12.6 13.0 13.9 14 .4 13.9 14.8 15 .7 15 .7 15.7 QI 11.2
C j
"'C 101-110 11.0 10.4 11.9 12.0 13 .3 12 .7 13.1 13.5 14.4 12.6 14.8 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8
-
,2 aI 111-120 8.8 10.2 10.2 11.0 11.5 12 .1 13.3 12 .0 11.1 12.1 11.4 11.5 12.2 12.2 12 .2 .s::.
.... III 121-130 9.8 10.7 9.6 9.8 10 .3 10 .0 13.0 11.9 10.4 11.0 14.1 11.8 11.8 11 .8 8.'
t:: C ,_ 131 - 140 0 CLI 8.3 8.3 8.' 9.6 10.3 12 .6 8.9 9.5 10 .2 9.9 13 .0 10.3 9.1 9.1 9.1 "'C > Z 141- 150 C 7.3 8.7 8.5 8.9 9.9 12 .1 11.6 11.5 12 .4 12.6 12 .2 10.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 C 151-160 8.2 9.6 11.0 10.9 11.0 11.2 U .2 11.7 12.5 12.4 13.3 13.6 12.2 12.2 12 .2 b 0 ~ U 161-170 8.7 10.5 10.9 12.4 12.0 12 .4 U .6 12 .7 13.4 12 .8 13.5 13.9 14.3 14.3 14 .3 E - C 171- 180 11.0 12.4 12. 7 13.0 14 .5 14 .5 14.5 14.6 14.6 15.1 15.9 16.0 16 .0 16 .0 ra 9.'
,2 U "- 181- 190 10 .4 11.7 13.8 14.2 15.2 15.6 15.1 16 .4 16.2 16.6 17 .1 16.6 16 .6 16 .6 15.'
'9j 1:) 191-200 11.8 13.7 15.8 15.3 15 .7 18 .6 18 .3 17 .6 18.8 18.2 18.7 19.8 1 8. 5 18 .5 18 .5
- QI
QI 201-210 15.8 16.9 17.8 19 .2 19.3 20.4 20.8 22.4 21.8 23 .2 23 .7 23 .7 23.7 12.6 14.8 "- '0 211-220 13 .8 15.9 17 .5 18.1 19.2 21.2 21.9 22.9 24.1 25 .0 25 .1 26.0 25.9 25 .9 25 .9 "- 0
i 0
221-230 14.4 16.4 18.8 20.5 21.3 24 .3 25 .0 25 .8 27.7 29.3 30.7 33 .2 33.4 33 .4 33.4 III U CLI QI .... 231-240 17 .6 20.1 21.2 23 .1 25 .3 26.4 28.7 29.6 31.5 33.4 35.9 36.1 36 .1 36 .1 0 15.'
C CLI 241-250 15.8 19.5 20.9 23 .1 24.8 26.9 27.8 29.0 31.3 32.9 34 .' 37 .2 38.4 38.4 3 8. 4 U ~ 251-260 16.3 18.3 22.5 24.4 27.5 30 .1 32.2 34 .7 36.1 37 .9 39.5 39 .5 QI 21.3 26.3 39.5 .s::.
-
....
261-270 14.4 16.0 19.7 19.8 21.5 24.2 26.3 26.6 30 .0 31.4 33 .0 35.9 37.5 37.5 37 .5
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
:l ~ 271-280 12.1 14.2 15.6 19.0 20.7 21.9 23 .9 24.7 26.3 29.4 31.8 32 .1 34 .6 34.6 34.6 ....
E 281-290 10 .7 12.5 14.1 15.6 17.5 19.9 20.9 22.0 23 .5 27.4 27.8 29.8 32.4 32 .4 32 .4 :l 291-300 9.3 10.9 11.8 13.6 17 .3 18.2 20.4 23.1 23.4 24.6 26.2 26.2 26.2 E 15 .' 22.'
~ 301-310 9.7 10.0 11.8 14.6 14.0 15.6 17 .2 19.0 20.2 21.4 22 .8 23 .0 26.2 26.2 26.2 ~ 311-320 9.7 9.2 11.8 12.4 14.2 16 .2 17 .4 17 .4 19.1 20.1 22.2 24.3 25 .5 25.5 25 .5
- 321-330 8.9 10.7 10.7 11.7 14.3 15.2 16 .6 19.1 19.3 20.9 21.5 24.5 25.5 25.5 25 .5
331-340 8.' 9.6 11.1 13.2 13.8 15.6 17 .5 17 .2 19.6 22.1 24.0 24.2 27.5 27.5 27.5 341-350 8.7 10.5 12.0 12.6 14.2 15.2 16 .3 19.3 19.5 21.3 23.6 23.0 25.9 25 .9 25 .9 351-360 8.5 9.6 11.7 14.0 14.8 16 .1 16 .4 17 .4 19.8 2 0.4 22.0 24.7 26.6 26.6 26.6
Proposed wind placard table, not the actual table used for launch
Weather go/no-go call plan progression
• Plan A: GNC & Dryden meteorologist would make the call
• Plan B: at their request, involved LM Mission Analysis personnel in
weather center; GNC & Dryden MET still make the call
• Plan C: Senior Ops helps GNC in control room when complex
placards are developed; GNC, Dryden MET, Sr. Ops, FTA lead
make the call once we see data from weather center
• Plan D: As placard issue becomes more complex & controversial,
the decision gets pushed up to the Mission Management Team
(MMT is Orion PM & his support staff)
– Used 5 weather balloons on day of launch
– Had 924 MHz profiler next to launch site
– Flying in the windiest part of the year for White Sands (March - May)
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
– 4 day launch window (Thursday – Sunday); can’t go the following week
due to another higher priority program’s launch
– Day before the launch, briefing MMT on weather-101
Lessons Learned (continued)
• After all that, balloon data showed that we were go for flight, but from the
Ops recovery team and then from flight data, we learned
that we were flying in 3-sigma GRAM winds that day
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Lessons Learned (continued)
• Wind Placards
– Don’t involve people in the process who don’t have decision making
authority; or if you do involve them, make sure they have associated
with them a decision maker who has authority
– During flight operations, a data or analysis briefing needs to come with a
recommendation (ties back to authority)
• At earlier stages of the project, analysts tend to show you all the
data, so decisions can be collectively made by the team – this isn’t
useful or productive during operations
– Additional LLs in work
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Altitude Time History from flight
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Apogee was 10,386.0 feet (geodetic)
CM downrange was 6907.5 feet (SIGI measured)
Total flight time was 134.4 seconds
PA-1 Flight Test Ground Track
32.425 .... .. .. . . . . ........... .. . . . . . ........... .. . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . ........... .. . . . . . ............. . . .. . . .... .
32.42 .... . .................... . ......... .. :-----""""'--_ .... - ....... ....... . . .............. . .... .
Ci ...... ... . , ....... ,., ...... .. , ...... . .. .. ...... . : ......... . .. ....... : ... .. .. ..... ..... .
! 32.415
..
"C
-
- SIGIl Day of Flight
-
-' -- SIGI2 Day of Flight z • eM Lawu:h Stool ..... .... .. .... : ........... .. ... .. . : .. .. .. . .. ....... .
32.41 • eM Landing Location · .
· .
· .
A FEe Landing Location · .
· .
V LAS Landing Location · .
· .
· .
o Reorientation : : · .
o LAS Jettison Project Orion: Flight Test Office 32.405 .......... . ............ . ...... . .... . .. ....... . .......... ... . ....... . ... .
o FEe Jettison o Drogue Deploy o Main Deploy -106.405 -106.4 -106 .395 -106.39 -106.385 -106.38 -106.375 E Longitude (deg)
Post-flight data comparisons to simulation
• ANTARES simulation runs done using post-flight updated simulation
models for
– Abort Motor thrust profile from flight
– Attitude Control Motor thrust profile from flight
– Meterology day-of-flight atmospheric model
– Mass Properties
– Parachutes (higher fidelity models incorporated)
• Still waiting for day-of-flight aerodynamic models to come in
– Possible that drag is not as high as pre-flight aero models predict?
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
Flight Data compared to dispersed simulation runs
•
FT A Altitude 12000 iCERT Runs 11000 - Nom Run - BET Data 10000 g 8000 Q) "0 ::::J :;::::;
-
~
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
3000L-------~--------~--------~--------L-------~--------~------~ o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (sec)
Ground Track
•
Ground Track 32.44 iCERT Runs - Nom Run 32.435 - BET Data 32.43 '§l 32.425 2- Q) "0 j 32.42 32.415
Project Orion: Flight Test Office
32.41 32 . 405L------L------~----~------~----~-------L------L------L----~ -106.415 -106.41 -106.405 -106.4 -106. 395 -106. 39 -106. 385 -106. 38 -106. 375 -106. 37 Longitude (deg)
Winds blowing from West to the East
CM East Wind Velocity iCERT Runs -- Nom Run - BETData ':>(;~\,..f'"'t;io
~~
~ .?:' ·0 Qi > -0 c ~ U; w '" , ~ ""~
Project Orion: Flight Test Office -40
/ I ,,J -60 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (sec)