Handling qualities implications for crewed spacecraft operations

Handling qualities embody those qualities or characteristics of an aircraft that govern the ease and precision with which a pilot is able to perform the tasks required in support of an aircraft role. These same qualities are as critical, if not more so, in the operation of spacecraft. A research, development, test, and evaluation process was put into effect to identify, understand, and interpret the engineering and human factors principles which govern the pilot-vehicle dynamic system as they pertain to space exploration missions and tasks. Toward this objective, piloted simulations were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center and Ames Research Center for earth-orbit proximity operations and docking and lunar landing. These works provide broad guidelines for the design of spacecraft to exhibit excellent handling characteristics. In particular, this work demonstrates how handling qualities include much more than just stability and control characteristics of a spacecraft or aircraft. Handling qualities are affected by all aspects of the “pilot-vehicle dynamic system,” including the motion, visual and aural cues of the vehicle response as the pilot performs the required operation or task. A holistic approach to spacecraft design, including the use of manual control, automatic control, and pilot intervention/supervision is described. The handling qualities implications of design decisions are demonstrated using these pilot-in-the-loop evaluations of docking operations and lunar landings.

[1]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Part-task simulation of synthetic and enhanced vision concepts for lunar landing , 2010, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[2]  C. R. Jarvis,et al.  Flight-test evaluation of an on-off rate command attitude control system of a manned lunar-landing research vehicle , 1967 .

[3]  John L. Goodman,et al.  History of Space Shuttle Rendezvous and Proximity Operations , 2006 .

[4]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Cooper-Harper Experience Report for Spacecraft Handling Qualities Applications , 2013 .

[5]  Karl D. Bilimoria,et al.  Effects of Control Power and Inceptor Sensitivity on Lunar Lander Handling Qualities , 2011 .

[6]  W. H. Peters,et al.  Apollo experience report: Guidance and control systems - Digital autopilot design development , 1973 .

[7]  George E. Cooper,et al.  Handling qualities and pilot evaluation , 1986 .

[8]  Chad R. Frost,et al.  Dynamic Coupling and Control Response Effects on Spacecraft Handling Qualities During Docking , 2009 .

[9]  F. Bennett Apollo experience report: Mission planning for lunar module descent and ascent , 1972 .

[10]  Robert F. Stengel Manual attitude control of the lunar module , 1969 .

[11]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Aviation Automation: The Search for A Human-centered Approach , 1996 .

[12]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Investigation of Reaction Control System Design on Spacecraft Handling Qualities for Docking , 2009 .

[13]  Alastair K. Cooke Rotary‐Wing Control and Handling Qualities , 2010 .

[14]  P. L. Deal,et al.  A study of Gemini-Agena docking using a fixed-base simulator employing a closed-circuit television system , 1965 .

[15]  D. C. Cheatham,et al.  Handling qualities for pilot control of Apollo lunar-landing spacecraft. , 1966 .

[16]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Synthetic and Enhanced Vision System for Altair Lunar Lander , 2009 .

[17]  D. R. Riley,et al.  Effect of target angular oscillations on pilot-controlled Gemini-Agena docking , 1966 .

[18]  J E PENNINGTON,et al.  VISUAL ASPECTS OF A FULL-SIZE PILOT-CONTROLLED SIMULATION OF THE GEMINI-AGENA DOCKING. NASA TN D-2632. , 1965, NASA contractor report. NASA CR. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[19]  Michael Engle Operational Considerations for Manned Lunar Landing Missions - Lessons Learned from Apollo , 2004 .

[20]  Jeffery A. Schroeder,et al.  Control and display combinations for blind vertical landings , 1992 .

[21]  David A. Mindell Digital Apollo: Human and Machine in Spaceflight , 2008 .

[22]  J. C. Harpold,et al.  Apollo experience report: Mission planning for Apollo entry , 1972 .

[23]  Eric Mueller,et al.  Orion Handling Qualities During ISS Proximity Operations and Docking , 2011 .

[24]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Investigation of Control System and Display Variations on Spacecraft Handling Qualities for Docking with Stationary and Rotating Targets , 2010 .

[25]  Marc M. Cohen,et al.  From Apollo LM to Altair: Design, Environments, Infrastructure, Missions, and Operations , 2009 .

[26]  Tye Brady,et al.  Approach phase ΔV considerations for lunar landing , 2009, 2009 IEEE Aerospace conference.

[27]  Richard Leslie,et al.  LaSRS++ - An object-oriented framework for real-time simulation of aircraft , 1998 .

[28]  J E Pennington,et al.  Comparison of results of two simulations employing full-size visual cues for pilot-controlled Gemini-Agena docking. NASA TN D-3687. , 1967, Technical note. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[29]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Fusion of Synthetic and Enhanced Vision for All-Weather Commercial Aviation Operations , 2007 .

[30]  Robert L. Hirsh,et al.  Developing a prototype ALHAT Human System Interface for landing , 2011, 2011 Aerospace Conference.

[31]  George E. Cooper,et al.  The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities , 1969 .

[32]  P. L. Deal,et al.  Remote pilot-controlled docking with television , 1965 .

[33]  Eric Mueller,et al.  Handling Qualities Evaluation of Pilot Tools for Spacecraft Docking in Earth Orbit , 2011 .

[34]  Laurence R. Young,et al.  On Adaptive Manual Control , 1969 .

[35]  Karl D. Bilimoria Effects of Control Power and Guidance Cues on Lunar Lander Handling Qualities , 2009 .

[36]  K.R. Duda,et al.  Design and analysis of lunar lander manual control modes , 2009, 2009 IEEE Aerospace conference.

[37]  Laura M. Major,et al.  Apollo looking forward: Crew task challenges , 2009, 2009 IEEE Aerospace conference.

[38]  H. E. Smith,et al.  Lunar module pilot control considerations , 1968 .