IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Fuel Level Measurement On Spacecraft, discussion & ideas
Doug M.
post Sep 7 2012, 07:44 AM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8-August 12
Member No.: 6511



We got answers!

Here's what the good people at Mars Outreach have to say.

QUOTE
1) As of today (having just completed an Orbit Trim Maneuver (OTM)), Odyssey has 17.3 kg, +3.0 / -5.0 propellant.

2) 1.9 kg is obligated for a follow-on OTM in January 2014. Odyssey utilizes approximately 1 kg / year and historically has budgeted 1 kg / year for unexpected safing events. So, propellant life should be between 5.2 to 9.2 years. These numbers are based on no onboard anomalies that would require propellant above the safing budget, no changes in Odyssey's basic operations (three operating reaction wheels, high gain antenna and solar array servos (motors) continue to function normally, etc.) and no further programmatic maneuvers. Consideration is being given to performing a procedure in the future that has the potential to refine the +3 / -5 uncertainty of fuel remaining.

When prop is exhausted, the mission ends because the spacecraft is no longer able to desaturate the reaction wheels and / or provide thruster control; the spacecraft can no longer be pointed to maintain communications and solar panel illumination.

3) The statement is basically correct: THEMIS, which is comprised of two imagers, visible and infrared, and two instruments of the Gamma Ray Suite, High Energy Neutron Detector and the Neutron Spectrometer, all continue to operate and gather science data. The Gamma Ray Spectrometer of the Gamma Ray Suite and Marie have both been decommissioned.


Thanks again for your questions and your interest in Mars exploration!


Wow! Okay, so what comes to mind from this?

Well, the first thing is that there's an awfully large uncertainty in the amount of fuel left. 17.3 kg +3 / -5 ? The range of uncertainty is almost half the total amount of fuel. I wonder why; and I also wonder what the "procedure" might be to narrow the range.

Second is, they have a fair amount of propellant left -- enough for at least another five years of operation. So, barring mechanical failure, Odyssey should see the arrival of MAVEN (2014) and quite possibly of Mars Insight (September 2016 if they make their launch window) and ExoMars Part One (ditto).



Doug M.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 7 2012, 01:24 PM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2504
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (Doug M. @ Sep 7 2012, 12:44 AM) *
The range of uncertainty is almost half the total amount of fuel. I wonder why...

The amount of remaining propellant is only known by keeping track of the measured delta-V of all maneuvers and assuming a relationship between delta-V and used propellant mass, but that relationship is variable and imperfectly known.

Most ways of narrowing this down would involve using more fuel, which is clearly not a great idea.

A google search for "spacecraft fuel remaining estimate" turned up an interesting paper about various methods of determining remaining propellant, but most require special hardware that Odyssey doesn't have. Bookkeeping is usually good enough.

http://yspm.net/pdf/11_AnikE.pdf

Also, the usage rate is quite variable depending on torques, atmospheric density, solar activity, etc.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 7 2012, 01:53 PM
Post #3


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



The challenges on keeping track on the exact amount of fuel remaining was one of the reasons why the burned Stardust to depletion when they switched it off...to find out exactly how much was left compared to their various means of measuring it. It's not easy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 7 2012, 02:10 PM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2504
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



Re Stardust: good reference on that in http://www.spaceops2012.org/proceedings/do...5-Paper-001.pdf


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 7 2012, 02:23 PM
Post #5


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Oh - glad something got published on that - thanks for the ref Mike.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Greenish
post Sep 7 2012, 02:56 PM
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 219
Joined: 14-November 11
From: Washington, DC
Member No.: 6237



Also note that the initial propellant load was 348.7 kg (source: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/mission/spacecraft/) so the uncertainty is only about 2% of that, even though it's a large fraction of what remains.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tom Tamlyn
post Sep 7 2012, 03:30 PM
Post #7


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 1-July 05
From: New York City
Member No.: 424



QUOTE
The range of uncertainty is almost half the total amount of fuel. I wonder why


What Mike said. The accuracy of the bookkeeping method decreases over time, because of the accumulation of errors due to the uncertainty of the calculations. According to the arrival press kit, Odyssey launched with 353 kilograms of fuel. After using up 95% of its fuel over the course of a decade of maneuvers, a substantial percentage uncertainly as to the last drops is what you would expect.*

____________
* The Apollo mission struggled unsuccessfully to develop an accurate fuel gauge for the command module based on analysis of the attenuation of radiation sources transmitted through the fuel. Eventually the program manager, Joe Shea, killed the gauge project, saying that "'[w]e don't need anything that complicated.' Shea had a Karmann Ghia which didn't even need a fuel gauge, because it had a little reserve fuel tank that he could switch to. And that's what they ended up doing for the [thruster system] fuel tanks. They had a big tank that they used during the mission, and a little tank, not to be touched unless the big tank ran out, but that could get the crew home safely. No more nuclear gas gauge." Cox & Murray, Apollo: the Race to the Moon (1989) at 175-76. This is the finest book written for lay readers about spacecraft engineering and spaceflight operations, IMO of course.

Edit: Sorry Greenish, your reply wasn't there when I started working on mine.

This post has been edited by Tom Tamlyn: Sep 7 2012, 03:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Sep 7 2012, 03:54 PM
Post #8


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Pure speculation here...but I wonder if a good measurement of MODY's fuel could be made during this OTM by measuring the altitude gain from the burn (which will be of known duration). The delta between expected & actual might indicate the spacecraft's current total mass, subtracting that which was expended for the burn.

I can't think of a direct technique to measure fuel levels in free fall/variable microgravity at all. You could do so during periods of acceleration in a variety of ways, though. Least intrusive instrumentation-based method would be an acoustic generator/receiver pair: basically, shake the tank at a predetermined high freq, measure the amplitude of the response; the more fuel mass remaining, the lower the amplitude.

Don't think you'd want to use aircraft-style capacitive fuel probes. They'd work, but they've never been the most reliable technology...plus, you gotta punch holes in the tank to mount them.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paolo
post Sep 7 2012, 04:07 PM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1729
Joined: 3-August 06
From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E
Member No.: 1004



QUOTE (nprev @ Sep 7 2012, 05:54 PM) *
I can't think of a direct technique to measure fuel levels in free fall/variable microgravity at all.


you could spin up the probe and measure its moment of inertia. that of course would require lots of fuel...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 7 2012, 04:21 PM
Post #10


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



The problem with the thrust/acceleration problem is that you're not exactly sure what the performance of the thrusters is any more. It's uncertainty is probably more than our fuel uncertainty. F=MA and all that...but while IMU's will give you A, F has error bars that then induce errors in M.

The thermal inertia idea is one that's been put out there as an option for Cassini as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Sep 7 2012, 04:30 PM
Post #11


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Ah. Did not realize that thruster performance predictability degraded that much over time; thanks, Doug.

That's it, then; the models are what we got. Can't make useful direct measurements with more than one variable uncontrained beyond the error limits of the models.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RoverDriver
post Sep 7 2012, 05:12 PM
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 976
Joined: 29-September 06
From: Pasadena, CA - USA
Member No.: 1200



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 7 2012, 09:21 AM) *
The problem with the thrust/acceleration problem is that you're not exactly sure what the performance of the thrusters is any more. It's uncertainty is probably more than our fuel uncertainty. F=MA and all that...but while IMU's will give you A, F has error bars that then induce errors in M.

The thermal inertia idea is one that's been put out there as an option for Cassini as well.


I wonder if precise measurements of angular acceleration from reaction wheels could make the measurements more accurate.

Paolo


--------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions, ideas and information included here are my own,and should not be intended to represent opinion or policy of my employer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Sep 7 2012, 05:37 PM
Post #13


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Could be, Paolo.

I'm forced to question whether ANY onboard solutions would provide significant improvement in the margin of error, though. The more indirect the measurement, the more cumulative error builds up. Gotta look at off-platform means.

The best independent method would be precision real-time monitoring of position change during & after maneuvers with later data comparison with models as is done with Earth-orbiting spacecraft (GPS augmentation of same in particular).

Certainly not an option at Mars, nor for any solitary spacecraft in deep space, and there's still gonna be more residual error than you'd want to accept for your car's fuel gauge.

Very difficult problem.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doug M.
post Sep 7 2012, 06:05 PM
Post #14


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8-August 12
Member No.: 6511



QUOTE (nprev @ Sep 7 2012, 06:37 PM) *
The best independent method would be precision real-time monitoring of position change during & after maneuvers with later data comparison with models as is done with Earth-orbiting spacecraft (GPS augmentation of same in particular).


If you had multiple (>3) orbiters, could you use them to make precise measurements of each others' positions?


Doug M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RoverDriver
post Sep 7 2012, 06:13 PM
Post #15


Member
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 976
Joined: 29-September 06
From: Pasadena, CA - USA
Member No.: 1200



QUOTE (nprev @ Sep 7 2012, 09:37 AM) *
Could be, Paolo.

I'm forced to question whether ANY onboard solutions would provide significant improvement in the margin of error, though. The more indirect the measurement, the more cumulative error builds up. Gotta look at off-platform means.

The best independent method would be precision real-time monitoring of position change during & after maneuvers with later data comparison with models as is done with Earth-orbiting spacecraft (GPS augmentation of same in particular).

Certainly not an option at Mars, nor for any solitary spacecraft in deep space, and there's still gonna be more residual error than you'd want to accept for your car's fuel gauge.

Very difficult problem.


Hmm, what about monitoring Doppler shift at one of the DSN stations while using a reaction wheel? You don't get absolute position but the relative position and speed could be measured quite accurately.

Paolo


--------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions, ideas and information included here are my own,and should not be intended to represent opinion or policy of my employer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 12:19 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.