1 / 35

On-Orbit Assembly of Flexible Space Structures with SWARM

On-Orbit Assembly of Flexible Space Structures with SWARM. Jacob Katz , Swati Mohan, and David W. Miler MIT Space Systems Laboratory AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010 April 22, 2010. Autonomous On-Orbit Assembly. Enabling technology for Large telescopes Orbiting solar arrays

nadda
Download Presentation

On-Orbit Assembly of Flexible Space Structures with SWARM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. On-Orbit Assembly of Flexible Space Structures with SWARM Jacob Katz, Swati Mohan, and David W. Miler MIT Space Systems Laboratory AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010 April 22, 2010

  2. Autonomous On-Orbit Assembly Enabling technology for • Large telescopes • Orbiting solar arrays • Interplanetary spacecraft • Challenges • Flexible structures (solar panels, lightweight materials) • Multiplepayloads with uncertain parameters

  3. Self-assemblingWirelessAutonomousReconfigurableModules (SWARM) Testbed • 2007-2009 (Phase II) SBIR sponsored by MSFC • 2D flat floor demonstration • Goals: maneuvering and docking with flexibility • Hardware: • SPHERES on propulsion module • Flexible segmented beam • Docking ports docking port SPHERES satellite flexible beam element propulsion module

  4. Key Challenges • Requirements for assembly • Follow trajectories for positioning and docking • Minimize vibrational disturbances • Desired • Handle parameter uncertainty for unknown payloads • Fewer actuators than degrees of freedom: underactuated control • This talk: • Ideas for adaptive control • Initial hardware testing

  5. Incremental Test Plan

  6. Test 1: Beam Control

  7. SWARM as a Robot Manipulator δ3 δ2 ki δ1 mi y 0 x

  8. SWARM Dynamics δ3 Beam joints modeled as torsional springs δ2 Fy δ1 y 0 x Fx “Linear in the parameters” Inertia Matrix Inertia Matrix Coriolis Matrix Coriolis Matrix Potential Terms Potential Terms

  9. SWARM Dynamics δ3 Beam joints modeled as torsional springs δ2 Fy δ1 y 0 x Fx underactuated

  10. Simplified Dynamic Model • Most important measurement for docking is tip deflection • Reduces complexity of dynamic model for control and estimation δf k1 y 0 x

  11. Nonlinear Adaptive Control for Robot Manipulators Tracking Error weighted tracking error tracking time constant state vector Control Law kinematic regressor parameter vector control vector adaptive feed-forward PD term PD gains adaptation gains Adaptation Law • dim(τ) = dim(q), how do we apply this to underactuated control?

  12. Underactuated Adaptive Control Main idea: perform tracking in a lower dimensional task space y subject to For example: weighted combination of beam deflection and base rotation

  13. Underactuated Adaptive Control Main idea: perform tracking in a lower dimensional task space y

  14. Underactuated Adaptive Control Main idea: perform tracking in a lower dimensional task space y Important to note inherent sacrifice in underactuated control • Lose guarantee of tracking convergence for arbitrary state trajectories • Best we can do is achieve tracking in the output space • Need to show zero output error implies convergence of internal states

  15. Side View Image DSP Estimator LED(X,Y) State Estimate Beam State Estimation Overview Requirement • Provide an estimate of beam state variables Design • Camera mounted to SPHERES body frame • Observe infrared LED on beam end • Calculate beam deflection using LED position • State estimate relative to SPHERES body frame

  16. Image Processing Demonstration DSP Estimator X pixels Threshold Time (s) Centroid pixels Y

  17. Image Plane X u f Z ≈ Beam Len Beam Estimator Schematic View IR LED DSP Estimator • Measure beam angle directly using perspective projection • Differentiate δfusing LQE Perspective Projection

  18. Beam Simulation • Full nonlinear model built in Simulink/SimMechanics • Simulation of SWARM thrusters, camera, and control/estimation system • Autocoding capability for rapid deployment and testing

  19. Test 1: Beam Maneuvering Test

  20. Toward Assembly: Tests 3, 4, 6

  21. Typical Assembly Sequence Docking Beam Maneuvering Beam Docking

  22. Typical Assembly Sequence Docking Beam Maneuvering Beam Docking

  23. Typical Assembly Sequence Docking Beam Maneuvering Beam Docking

  24. Typical Assembly Sequence Docking Beam Maneuvering Beam Docking

  25. Test 6: Hardware Assembly Test

  26. Trajectory Tracking Performance

  27. Test 3: Beam Docking

  28. Trajectory Tracking Performance

  29. Conclusions and Future Work Conclusions • Robot manipulator analogy is a useful tool for analyzing flexible assembly problem • Adaptive control with a simple dynamic model looks promising but further testing will be required to compare it to other methods Future Work • Adaptive control in hardware testing • Look into better trajectories for beam vibration control • 6DOF extensions and on-orbit assembly testing with SPHERES Acknowledgments: This work was performed under NASA SBIR Contract No. NNM07AA22C Self-Assembling Wireless Autonomous Reconfigurable Modules.

  30. Backup Slides

  31. Perpendicular Docking

  32. Stability for Fully Actuated Adaptive

  33. Flexible Structure Dynamics Shahravi, 2005

  34. Docking Drives Control Approach 1. Move • (+) Trajectory specified for satellite end (collocated) • (-) Requires accurate pointing and low vibration 2. Damp 3. Dock • (+) Relative metrology to guide beam end into docking port • (-) Trajectory specified for docking end (non-collocated) • Start simple: collocated trajectory with beam damping

  35. Dynamics Derivation Q1 m1,I1 Q2 Kinetic Energy: Q3 Potential Energy: m2,I2 m3,I3 Inertia Matrix Coriolis Matrix Potential Terms m4,I4

More Related