ESA Document - Emits - ESA
ESA Document - Emits - ESA ESA Document - Emits - ESA
s 8 7 1 2 6 5 Figure 4-92: Thruster configuration The minimum force to be produced by each thruster is 2.6 kN. 4.4.5.3.3 Entry modes design 3 4 HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 350 of 422 For the EDL system, the GNC modes are cascaded as in the case of the MSR mission. Manual control is allowed during the final part of the entry, the descent and the landing phases. De-orbit De-orbit De De-orbit orbit mode mode mode Entry Entry Entry mode mode mode Descent Descent Descent mode mode mode Landing Landing Landing mode mode mode Figure 4-93: Entry modes
s 4.4.5.4 Control laws generation HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 351 of 422 For the control laws generation a trade-off has been made between two possible alternatives: Non-Linear Dynamic Inversion and Model-Based Predictive Control. Non-Linear Dynamic Inversion (NLDI) control techniques uses a model of the plant and the system dynamics under control. In case of a nonlinear plant, this technique uses a two-controller level scheme design: a feedback component to linearize the dynamics and a performance enhancement component of the resulting linear system. NLDI control technique computes a model of the dynamics of the vehicle during its flight. Then, it inverts the model to cancel all expected dynamics, and finally it inserts the desired vehicle response to the resulting plant dynamics. Model Based Predictive Control (MBPC) involves four control elements that use a linearized model of the plant under control around a set of well pre-defined trimmed points. The elements are as follows: a process model (a linearized system model obtained experimentally off-line), a predictor equation (a forward algorithm which will run for several steps to predict the behavior of the plant), a known future reference trajectory (previously obtained by other means and off-line), and a cost function (quadratic cost future process output error and controls). For the NLDI solution the controller is able to handle smoothly non-linearities, coupled aerodynamics effects and other uncertainties like Earth atmospheric and gravity disturbances. By having a broad model of the plant, NLDI can cover the full flight envelope, eliminating pointper-point design gain-scheduling. In addition, NLDI can handle a variety of vehicle plants when design evolves or updates. On the other hand, for the MBPC solution the controller is able to minimise the number of constraints when calculating the optimal trajectory and improve the failure forecasting function in the FDIR (fault detection identification and recovery) subsystem. Assuming a linearized model of the plant for a pre-defined interval of the flight, the predictor equation is based on the linearized equations of motion around this steady state flight condition. The NLDI solution requires an acurate model of the non-linear plan (masses, moments of inertia,…), and good aerodynamic data bases for all Mach number ranges (extensive wind tunnel campaigns). The MBPC solution requires a plant linearization on a wide rage of set points along the nominal trajectory, and on-line optimisation problem to be solved on-board inside a dedicated processor. The cost function for the quadratic optimal problem is based on a single criteria (minimum integral of the heat flux). The final selection is done for the Non-Linear Dynamic Inversion (NLDI) shown in Figure 4-94.
- Page 299 and 300: s Figure 4-48: MAV Power Inputs HMM
- Page 301 and 302: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 303 and 304: s 4.3.5.4.2 Power storage HMM Asses
- Page 305 and 306: s Figure 4-52: Regenerative Fuel Ce
- Page 307 and 308: s Figure 4-54: Solar irradiance on
- Page 309 and 310: s 450.00 400.00 350.00 300.00 250.0
- Page 311 and 312: s 4.3.6.1 Budgets HMM Assessment St
- Page 313 and 314: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 315 and 316: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 317 and 318: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 319 and 320: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 321 and 322: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 323 and 324: s Surface Surface Container MAV Con
- Page 325 and 326: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 327 and 328: s 4.3.9.3 Baseline design 4.3.9.3.1
- Page 329 and 330: s Bio-Lock Masses: Core Samples No.
- Page 331 and 332: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 333 and 334: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 335 and 336: s Figure 4-72: Entry Velocity (L) a
- Page 337 and 338: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 339 and 340: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 341 and 342: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 343 and 344: s 2 3.9 233 923.1 347 923 12.3 352
- Page 345 and 346: s Figure 4-85: Communications MEV/M
- Page 347 and 348: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 349: s 4.4.5.3.2 GNC equipment HMM Asses
- Page 353 and 354: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 355 and 356: s Finally, the Figure 4-97 shown th
- Page 357 and 358: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 359 and 360: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 361 and 362: s velocity (m/sec) altitude (km) 50
- Page 363 and 364: s 4.5 Mars Ascent Vehicle 4.5.1 Tra
- Page 365 and 366: s Term Value Unit Radius of equator
- Page 367 and 368: s 4.5.2.1 Requirements and design d
- Page 369 and 370: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 371 and 372: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 373 and 374: s Inclination (deg) 47.5 47 46.5 46
- Page 375 and 376: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 377 and 378: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 379 and 380: s 4.5.3 Structures HMM Assessment S
- Page 381 and 382: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 383 and 384: s 4.5.5 Thermal HMM Assessment Stud
- Page 385 and 386: s 4.5.5.3 Baseline thermal design H
- Page 387 and 388: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 389 and 390: s Crew Ingress/Egress Hatch: HMM As
- Page 391 and 392: s Element 3: Mars Ascent Vehicle HM
- Page 393 and 394: s 4.5.7.5 Budgets Characteristic Va
- Page 395 and 396: s PER DAY PER MISSION DRINKING WATE
- Page 397 and 398: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 399 and 400: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
s<br />
8<br />
7<br />
1 2<br />
6<br />
5<br />
Figure 4-92: Thruster configuration<br />
The minimum force to be produced by each thruster is 2.6 kN.<br />
4.4.5.3.3 Entry modes design<br />
3<br />
4<br />
HMM<br />
Assessment Study<br />
Report: CDF-20(A)<br />
February 2004<br />
page 350 of 422<br />
For the EDL system, the GNC modes are cascaded as in the case of the MSR mission. Manual<br />
control is allowed during the final part of the entry, the descent and the landing phases.<br />
De-orbit De-orbit De De-orbit orbit<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
Entry<br />
Entry<br />
Entry<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
Descent<br />
Descent<br />
Descent<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
Landing<br />
Landing<br />
Landing<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
mode<br />
Figure 4-93: Entry modes