Compensation of Velocity Divergence Caused by Dynamic Response for Hardware-in-the-Loop Docking Simulator

The hardware-in-the-loop simulation on the ground is effective to test the contact dynamics of the spacecraft in space. However, it is very challenging due to the simulation velocity divergence caused by the time delay. In this study, a compensation approach for the velocity divergence caused by the dynamic response of the motion simulator is proposed. Traditional delay compensation requires the time delay or the delay model to be known. In practice, the dynamic response of the motion simulator is time varying and unknown. This motivates development of the model-free compensation approach. It compensates the contact force from the real-time response error of the motion simulator and the real-time identified contact stiffness and damping. The proposed compensation approach is easy to implement since it does not require the dynamic response model of the motion simulator. Simulations and experiments are used to verify the effectiveness of the proposed compensation approach.

[1]  Masaru Uchiyama,et al.  Delay time compensation based on coefficient of restitution for collision hybrid motion simulator , 2014, Adv. Robotics.

[2]  Yangsheng Xu,et al.  A Ground Experiment System of Free-floating Robot For Capturing Space Target , 2007, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[3]  Yangsheng Xu,et al.  Survey of modeling, planning, and ground verification of space robotic systems , 2011 .

[4]  Atsushi Konno,et al.  Hybrid simulation of a dual-arm space robot colliding with a floating object , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[5]  Ou Ma.  Contact dynamics modelling for the simulation of the Space Station manipulators handling payloads , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[6]  Atsushi Konno,et al.  Delay Time Compensation for a Hybrid Simulator , 2010, Adv. Robotics.

[7]  Ou Ma,et al.  Using advanced industrial robotics for spacecraft Rendezvous and Docking simulation , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[8]  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.

[9]  K. Alder,et al.  Role of estimation in real-time contact dynamics enhancement of space station engineering facility , 1996, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..

[10]  Ou Ma,et al.  Model order reduction for impact-contact dynamics simulations of flexible manipulators , 2007, Robotica.

[11]  H. G. Hatch,et al.  DYNAMIC SIMULATION OF LUNAR MODULE DOCKING WITH APOLLO COMMAND MODULE IN LUNAR ORBIT , 1967 .

[12]  Farhad Aghili,et al.  Task verification facility for the Canadian special purpose dextrous manipulator , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.99CH36288C).

[13]  K. Yoshida,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF CONTACT/IMPACT DYNAMICS BETWEEN A SPACE ROBOT WITH A COMPLIANT WRIST AND A FREE-FLYING OBJECT , 2012 .

[14]  Junichiro Kawaguchi,et al.  Simulation system for a space robot using six-axis servos , 1991, Adv. Robotics.

[15]  Feng Gao,et al.  A key point dimensional design method of a 6-DOF parallel manipulator for a given workspace , 2015 .

[16]  Ou Ma,et al.  Use of industrial robots for hardware-in-the-loop simulation of satellite rendezvous and docking , 2012 .

[17]  George Yang,et al.  Validation of A Satellite Docking Simulator using the SOSS Experimental Testbed , 2006, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[18]  Jennifer D. Mitchell,et al.  Integrated Docking Simulation and Testing with the Johnson Space Center Six‐Degree‐of‐Freedom Dynamic Test System , 2008 .

[19]  Mason A. Peck,et al.  Historical review of air-bearing spacecraft simulators , 2003 .

[20]  Ou Ma,et al.  A review of space robotics technologies for on-orbit servicing , 2014 .

[21]  Hongnian Yu,et al.  Use of an orthogonal parallel robot with redundant actuation as an earthquake simulator and its experiments , 2012 .

[22]  Alex Simpkins,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd Edition (Ljung, L.; 1999) [On the Shelf] , 2012, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[23]  Ou Ma,et al.  On the Validation of SPDM Task Verification Facility , 2004 .

[24]  Christian Lange,et al.  VALIDATION PROCESS OF THE STVF HARDWARE-IN-THE-LOOP SIMULATION FACILITY , 2005 .

[25]  Lennart Ljung,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User , 1987 .

[26]  M Zebenay,et al.  Analytical and experimental stability investigation of a hardware-in-the-loop satellite docking simulator , 2013, 1309.3512.

[27]  Wen-Hong Zhu,et al.  Emulation of a space robot using a hydraulic manipulator on ground , 2002, Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292).

[28]  Ou Ma,et al.  MDSF - A generic development and simulation facility for flexible, complex robotic systems , 1997, Robotica.

[29]  Daniel Choukroun,et al.  Modeling, Stability Analysis, and Testing of a Hybrid Docking Simulator , 2014, ArXiv.

[30]  Junwei Han,et al.  Time Problems in HIL Simulation for On-orbit Docking and Compensation , 2007, 2007 2nd IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications.

[31]  John R. Glaese,et al.  Space station docking mechanism dynamic testing , 1988 .

[32]  Venkata Dinavahi,et al.  Real-Time FPGA-Based Analytical Space Harmonic Model of Permanent Magnet Machines for Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulation , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[33]  Marcello Romano,et al.  Laboratory Experimentation of Autonomous Spacecraft Approach and Docking to a Collaborative Target , 2007 .