Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
This report was prepared under NASA Contract NASW-61-l., Evaluation of Advanced Integrated Display and Control Systems - Simulation Phase, for.
Typology: Exams
1 / 199
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
FIRST AND SECOND SIMULATOR
EVALUATIONS OF ADVANCED
INTEGRATED DISPLAY
AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
by J. E. Burke, R. D. Huchingson, R. J. Kappa,
and H. E. Sewell, Jr.
Prepared by
LING-TEMCO-VOUGHT, INC.
Dallas, Texas
f Or
j
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM
111111# 00b
For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.
This report was prepared under NASA Contract NASW-61-l.,Evaluation of Advanced Integrated Display and Control Systems - Simulation Phase, for the Office of Advanced Research and Technology, Biotechnology Division. Mr. L. 0. Anderson is Technical Monitor for the program. The simulation programs described herein were initiated in August 1965 and caupleted in July 1966.
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. G. W. Hoover, LTV Consultant for Man-Machine Systems, in the application of analog display concepts.
Appreciation is extended to the following for their efforts in providing special equipment for the program; Norden Division of United Air- craft, suppliers of the Pathway Display System Demonstrator; Master Specialties Caupany, suppliers of cockpit switchlights; and Industrial Electronics Engineers, Inc., suppliers of the status-trend display.
The pilots who participated in the experimental simulation program included L4Xr J. R. Burriss, LCdr H. H. Love, and LCdr R. L. Mock, of the Bureau of Naval Representative Office at LTV.
iii
This report describes the first two simulator evaluations in a pro- gram to define advanced integrated displsy-control requirements for post-Apollo space vehicles. The test program was conducted in the LTV Manned Aerospace Flight Simulator employing a Space Analog Vertical Display and Horizontal Dis- play, space vehicle subsystems status-trend information, and dynamic simulation of motion and auditory cues. The two simulations differed primarily in the types of information presented on the Vertical Display: the First Evaluation featuring c cxnmandattitude information and the Second Evaluation presenting information on deviation of the vehicle flight path (velocity vector) fran the required (Nominal)path. The report^ describes^ in^ detail^ the^ simulation^ problem, hardware setup including equations, procedure,.measurements, test data, and interpretation of tests of significance and pilot questionnaires. The results of the first two simulations demonstrate that the Space Analog Display is a feasible means of control of space vehicles during orbital maneuvers with median injection point data on relevant psrsmeters generally within currently anticipated allowable errors. Comparisons are made between various variables both within and between evaluations and recommendations are provided for further improvement of the display presentation for future evaluation.
iv
In this format task performance formation would always be avail- able in that the effects of pilot control of vehicle attitude and thrust arc presented in the form of vehicle position and direction of motion with respect to the required path.
experimental flightswere flown in the LTVMFSby six,currentlyqualifled pilot subjects. A prime objective of this simulation was the evsluation of a space aualog vertical display wherein the view Is in the direction the space vehicle is moving, and is in proper relationship to the required
and heading errors; (2) What were the effects upon pilot performsncc when attaining the cisplanetary injecticm point fran initial on-path versus off-path positions; and
positional error versus me with a three-scale display of the same range (alti- tude and lateral position)?
The flight problem, and other aspects of the simulation setup were
performance between the Space Vehicle CommandAttitude display format of the
Test results indicate that this analog format, in a standard telc-
However, certain deficiencies were noted in the use of fixed display gain and in the presentation of certain analog displlur elements, which when corrected
The Space VehiLle Path Mode was not flyable when vehicle flight
achieve the results reported herein.
Pilot performance with vehicle on-path initial conditions was swrior to that with off-path initial conditions.
the single-scale path displw, except for lateral position error control where the three-scale configuration was superior.
sensitivity as error is decreased and a decrease in sensitivity as error is increased. Parsmeters^ affected^ would^ include^ vehicle^ flight^ path^ elevation and heading errors and altitude and lateral position errors. In addition, in order that the pilot may anticipate the consequences of vehicle attitude control inputs, it is recamended that quickening and/or prediction be in- vestigated stud incorporated.
vi
Four of the six flight performance parameters favoring the First Evaluation were highly significant (0.02 or better). These parameters were elevation error, heading error, altitude error, and roll energy expenditure. The level of significance for a fifth parsmeter, lateral error, could not be assessed because the First Evaluation reported this error as essentially zero. The sixth parameter, velocity error, was significant at a very low level
in the First Evaluation was the extremely fine display sensitivity to smsll errors which was achieved through the use of a comnand attitude presentation.
The three parameters favoring the Second Evaluation were highly significant (0.06 or better). These parameters were longitudinal error, pitch and yaw energy expenditure. An explanation for the lower control energy expenditure in pitch and yaw was that in the First Evaluation pilots tended to overcontrol by correcting for insignificant errors, whereas in the Second Evaluation pilots were less aware of very small deviations from an idealized vehicle flight path and,therefore, corrected much less often.
A ccpnparison of injection point data with representative space system performance requirements is shown below. System requirements listed as allow- able errors for interplanetary missions are based on the EMPIRE Program and Apollo. These requirements are the best available at the present time and subject to revision and more exact definition as interplanetary planning ad- vances.
Allowable Median Errors* Median Errors* Interplanetary Parameter First Evaluation Second Evaluation Ekrora
(out-of-plane) Zero
in- ane
Energy Expenditure (attitude control)
Pitch (^) ( Yaw Roll I%
N/A
WA WA
4 -^
will compare closely with that of the Space Vehicle CommandAttitude Mode of the First hraluation. Further, it will be shown that the Space Analog concept of information presentation meets the requirements of current and future space systems in a msnner that permits maximum manned participation and decision making during the most critical phases of space flight.
(2) Demonstration of a pilot's ability to recognize and correct possible malfunctions in the Space Analog will increase confidence and accep- tance of this form of information presentation.
(3) The application of advanced integrated information presentation to vehicle subsystem malfunction detection and correction, used in conjunction with Space Analog malfunction recognition and as pilot task loading, will demonstrate the advantages of these concepts in this area.
ix
2.5.1 Independent Variables. L .............
2.5.3 Pilot Questionnaire ...............
2.5.4 Pretraining ...................
2.5.5 Experimental Procedure .............
0BJTxmvEs .......................
THESIMUIM!IONPROBLEM .................
SIMULATIONSETUP ....................
3.3.2 Hybrid Computer Setup .............
SUBJECTS.........................
3.4.2 Evaluative Subjects ................
page
xii
3.5.2 Measurements .... t .............. 80
xiii
No.
24
25
26
FIGURES (contd.)
MEDIANROIlLAVERAGEABSOLUTEEBROR-FIRSTEVALUATION ......
MEDIANPITCHENEZGYEXPENDED-FIkSTEVAIlJATION .........
MElDIANYAWEiNERGYEXPENDEB-FIRSTEVALUATION..........
MEiDIANROLLENEEKX‘EXPENDED-FIRSTEVAIUATI@'l .........
MEDIAN VELOCITYRRRORATINJXTION -FIRSTEVALUATION. .....
MEDIANALTITUDE ERRORAT INJ.EXTION. FIRST EVAIUATION ......
MEDIAN LONGITUDINALPOSITION ERRORAT INJECTION - FIRSTEVALUATION .....................
' MEDIANFLIGHTPATHHEADINGERRORAT INJECTION - FIRST EVALUATION. ......................
MEDIAN FLIGHT PATH ELEiVATIONERRORAT INJECTION - FIRSTEVALUATION .......... .>^ ........
TYPICAL FLIGHT PROFILFa- SECONDEVALUATION ...........
VERTICAL DISPLAY PRFXENTATI~ - SPACEVEHICLE PATH MODE- SECONDEVALUATION... ... .... ...^ ..^ ....^ :
HORI!ZONTALDISPLAY PRESENTATION.^ SECONDEVALUATION.......
DIGITALPRIXCOUTFORMAT. SECOX'lDEVAllJATION. ..........
MEDIAN FLIGHT PATH ELEVATIONERRORAT INJECTION - SECONDEVALUATION....................
MEDIAN FLIGRT PATH HEADINGERRORAT INJECTION - SECONDEKAIiJATION....................
MEDIAN VELOCm ERRORAT INJECTION - SECONDEvAulATION .....
MEDIAN IATRRAL ERRORAT IKnXTION.^ SECOXDEVAIUATION ......
MEiDIANIONGITUDINALERRORAT INJECTION. SECONDEVALUATION ...
MEiDIANALTITUDE ERRORAT INJ'ECTION.^ SECONDEVALUATION .....
MEDIAN PITCH ENERGYEXPENDED- SECONDEVALUATION ........
MElDIANYAWENERGYEXPENDED- SECONDEVALUATION .........
MEDIAN ROLL ENERGYEXPENDED- SECONDEVALUATION.........
Pa@;e
54
56
.a
No.
1
2
SIMULATEDSPACEVEHICLE CHARACTERISTICSSUMMARY..... o..
SIMULATIONPILOTS EXPERIENCEAND QUALIFICATIONS........
SUBJECTSGROUPASSIGNMENT- FIRST EVALUATION.........
INITIALVEHICLECONDITIONS..................
MANN-WHITNEYflu,, TEST RESULTS- FIRST EVALUATION.......
On-Path vs. Off-Path with One-Scale and Three-Scales Grouped - One-Scale vs. Three-Scale, with On and Off-Path
On-Path vs. Off-Path with One-Scale and Three-Scale
COIeEmED- SECONDEVALUATION...............
COMPARISONOF THRFE-SCALEVERSUSONE-SCALEMEDIANPERFORMANCE AT INJECTION POINT - ON-PATHCONDITIONSONLY - SECONDEVALUATION....................
WITH SPACEMISSION ALLOWABLEERRORS................. l.ll
xvi
(4) Defined an initial integrated display and control configuration, baaed upon man's I'Undamental capabilities and limitations, to meet the mission requiranents of the generalized flight profile.
(5) Simulated this initial display and control configuration and evaluated display configuration performance under dynamic space flight con- ditions in the LTV MAPS.
(6) l!Mluated the results of simulation and recommended further studies needed. (This report.)
Studies (1) through (4) above, were accauplished as part of the Requirements Analysis Phase of this program which is summarized in Reference 4.
A schematic of the program to date is shown in Figure 1.
1.4 GEWRAL EV.ATION^ PLM
In the Requirements Analysis Phase, post Apollo space missions were first reduced to a generalized flight profile and then to basic flight phases and f'mdsmental information and control requirements. Concurrently, advanced display and control concepts developed by previous investigators were reviewed and the most pranising selected for incorporation, evaluation, and further development. The culmination of this analytic effort was an initial definition of displays and controls which serves as the base configuration for further development through realistic six-degrees-of-freedom simulation in the LTV MAPS; By operational evaluation and development through all the flight phases of the generalized flight profile, optimized integrated system requirements are being defined along with supporting simulation data.
Each simulation phase of this program consists of the following:
(1) Definition of a display-control configuration incorporating the concepts to be evaluated, a related flight phase environment, and test objectives.
(2) Implementation of a simulator setup including: MAFS crew station hardware, vehicle equations of motion, computer equations, supporting computer progrsmming, test experimental design, subject selection, test data requirements, data evaluation procedures , computer hardware setup and engineer- ing shakedown of the simulation complex.
(3) Formal testing.
(4) Test data evaluation.
(5) A report, containing a description of the simulation complex,
for additional analysis and testing of concepts requiring further development.
w
REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS PHASE
DISPLAY - CONTROL DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 5.0, LTV REPORT NO. 00.
t I ‘MOCK-UP .
SIMULATION PLAN
LTV REPORT NO. 00. I
SlMULAbN AND DEVELOPMENT PHASES
. w , SECOND SIMULATION EVALUATION LTV REPORT NO. 00. .
CURRENT MOCK-UP TO ILLUSTRATE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRESS
FIGURE 1 PROGRAM SCHEMATIC
