Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 59 – uploaded by Christopher DeGraw

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
minutes with an OS.Pipe error as seen in Fig. B.2. When propagating 10 satellites, the system would fail within 45 seconds.

Figure 59 minutes with an OS.Pipe error as seen in Fig. B.2. When propagating 10 satellites, the system would fail within 45 seconds.

Related Figures (170)

Figure 2.1: Current COSMoS System. HWIL simulation quality is the guiding design principle behind COSMoS. There-
Figure 2.1: Current COSMoS System. HWIL simulation quality is the guiding design principle behind COSMoS. There-
Figure 2.2: Control scheme with strict noumenonological and phenomenonological separation.
Figure 2.2: Control scheme with strict noumenonological and phenomenonological separation.
2.3. Real-Time Operation We are assuming that flight software and hardware operate at 1 Hz for general oper-
2.3. Real-Time Operation We are assuming that flight software and hardware operate at 1 Hz for general oper-
run in proximity to the phenomenon, but it still maintains the distinction between factor: The two processes on the agent represent a quasi-noumenonological process data provided to an agent executable, such as flight software, and data available to
run in proximity to the phenomenon, but it still maintains the distinction between factor: The two processes on the agent represent a quasi-noumenonological process data provided to an agent executable, such as flight software, and data available to
Figure 2.6: Asynchronous host to agent to software state data diagram before simu- lation start.
Figure 2.6: Asynchronous host to agent to software state data diagram before simu- lation start.
Figure 2.7: Asynchronous host to agent to software state data diagram after first transmission.
Figure 2.7: Asynchronous host to agent to software state data diagram after first transmission.
Figure 2.8: Agent plans a maneuver.
Figure 2.8: Agent plans a maneuver.
Figure 2.9: Host receives maneuver plan and re-propagates states.
Figure 2.9: Host receives maneuver plan and re-propagates states.
‘igure 2.10: Agent receives new states and host resumes asynchronous propagation.
‘igure 2.10: Agent receives new states and host resumes asynchronous propagation.
‘*The system was unable to parallelize due to issues discussed in Chapter & relative to these equations: Looking at the asynchronous communication inequality
‘*The system was unable to parallelize due to issues discussed in Chapter & relative to these equations: Looking at the asynchronous communication inequality
the network in a COSMOS simulation: Assuming a worst case scenario where over 1 second, all 10 agents require state updates, send system status updates, and require Looking at bandwidth inequality requires examining all expected data packets on
the network in a COSMOS simulation: Assuming a worst case scenario where over 1 second, all 10 agents require state updates, send system status updates, and require Looking at bandwidth inequality requires examining all expected data packets on
Figure 3.4: 8-hour test mean packet round-trip time
Figure 3.4: 8-hour test mean packet round-trip time
Figure 3.5: 8-hour test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 3.5: 8-hour test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 4.1: Conceptual design of the COSMoS system. while the planned functions will be discussed in Chapter &
Figure 4.1: Conceptual design of the COSMoS system. while the planned functions will be discussed in Chapter &
Figure 4.2: COSMoS Simulation Data Flow benchmark test. Here, the simulation data flow is largely asynchronous with the hos
Figure 4.2: COSMoS Simulation Data Flow benchmark test. Here, the simulation data flow is largely asynchronous with the hos
Figure 5.1: Sense HAT[34] provide proof of concept for integrating hardware devices into the MADNS framework
Figure 5.1: Sense HAT[34] provide proof of concept for integrating hardware devices into the MADNS framework
The Sense HAT comes equipped with the following sensors[35]: For the purpose: of testing MADNS and COSMoS, the accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope, pres-
The Sense HAT comes equipped with the following sensors[35]: For the purpose: of testing MADNS and COSMoS, the accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope, pres-
In a case where the hardware driver had to be built for the simulation, this would nec-
In a case where the hardware driver had to be built for the simulation, this would nec-
and generated the data presented below.
and generated the data presented below.
The round-trip packet time nearly perfectly matches the desired 20 Hz operation
The round-trip packet time nearly perfectly matches the desired 20 Hz operation
Figure 6.2: Packet-round trip time standard deviation Figure 6.1: Mean packet round-trip time
Figure 6.2: Packet-round trip time standard deviation Figure 6.1: Mean packet round-trip time
Figure 6.3: 6-minute test mean packet round-trip time set at 20 Hz. The results are seen below: Another test was performed for 6-minutes with the simulation processing rate still
Figure 6.3: 6-minute test mean packet round-trip time set at 20 Hz. The results are seen below: Another test was performed for 6-minutes with the simulation processing rate still
Figure 6.4: 6-minute test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 6.4: 6-minute test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 6.5: 1-hour test mean packet round-trip time
Figure 6.5: 1-hour test mean packet round-trip time
Figure 6.6: 1-hour test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 6.6: 1-hour test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 6.7: 8-hour test mean packet round-trip time
Figure 6.7: 8-hour test mean packet round-trip time
Figure 6.8: 8-hour test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 6.8: 8-hour test packet-round trip time standard deviation
Figure 6.9: 8-hour test maximum temperature by agent
Figure 6.9: 8-hour test maximum temperature by agent
Figure 6.10: 8-hour test mean temperature by agent to process HWIL interface data while simultaneously propagating orbits. The HWIL results are discussed further in Chapter 7.
Figure 6.10: 8-hour test mean temperature by agent to process HWIL interface data while simultaneously propagating orbits. The HWIL results are discussed further in Chapter 7.
Figure 6.11: IRIDUM-8 4-hour orbit plot
Figure 6.11: IRIDUM-8 4-hour orbit plot
“igure 6.12: IRIDIUM-8 4-hour angular momentum
“igure 6.12: IRIDIUM-8 4-hour angular momentum
Figure 6.13: COSMoS 4-hour simulation all orbits
Figure 6.13: COSMoS 4-hour simulation all orbits
Orbit plot from IRIDIUM-8 Figure 6.14: IRIDUM-8 1-hour orbit plot with guidance command
Orbit plot from IRIDIUM-8 Figure 6.14: IRIDUM-8 1-hour orbit plot with guidance command
Figure 6.15: IRIDIUM-8 1-hour angular momentum with guidance command
Figure 6.15: IRIDIUM-8 1-hour angular momentum with guidance command
Figure 6.16: IRIDUM-16 1-hour orbit plot without guidance command Orbit plot from IRIDIUM-16
Figure 6.16: IRIDUM-16 1-hour orbit plot without guidance command Orbit plot from IRIDIUM-16
Figure 6.17: IRIDIUM-16 1-hour angular momentum without guidance command
Figure 6.17: IRIDIUM-16 1-hour angular momentum without guidance command
Figure 6.18: 1-hour COSMoS test maximum temperature by agent
Figure 6.18: 1-hour COSMoS test maximum temperature by agent
Figure 6.19: 1-hour COSMoS test mean temperature by agent
Figure 6.19: 1-hour COSMoS test mean temperature by agent
Figure 7.1: 3-minute gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.1: 3-minute gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.2: 3-minute temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.2: 3-minute temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.3: 6-minute gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.3: 6-minute gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.4: 6-minute temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.4: 6-minute temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.5: 1-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.5: 1-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.6: 1-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.6: 1-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.7: 8-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.7: 8-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.8: 8-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.8: 8-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.9: 1-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.9: 1-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.10: 1-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.10: 1-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.11: 1-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.11: 1-hour gyro, accel, and magnetometer measurements
Figure 7.12: 1-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.12: 1-hour temp, pressure, and dt measurements
Figure 7.13: 1-hour COSMoS test maximum temperature by agent
Figure 7.13: 1-hour COSMoS test maximum temperature by agent
Figure 7.14: 1-hour COSMoS test mean temperature by agent
Figure 7.14: 1-hour COSMoS test mean temperature by agent
The most important thing here is that host_simulation_function return any mes- sages needed by the system for logging, exiting, or any other purpose not directly related to the simulation. def start_agent_simulation(simConfigData, initialStateData, HWILinterface,
The most important thing here is that host_simulation_function return any mes- sages needed by the system for logging, exiting, or any other purpose not directly related to the simulation. def start_agent_simulation(simConfigData, initialStateData, HWILinterface,
Figure B.1: Long delays found while using Multiprocessing. Process The Multiprocessing.Queue structures do not fail gracefully. During the November-January rewrite of the MADNS system, multiple tasks were launched as separate processes. Experiments with the Multiprocessing.Pool and Multipro- cessing.Process libraries showed that processing functions created using Pool were significantly slower than those made with Process, so the MADNS code base used Process. The reason for the slow performance of Pool became apparent during heavy testing of the MADNS system. Early benchmark tests came back with the terrible results seen in Fig. B.1.
Figure B.1: Long delays found while using Multiprocessing. Process The Multiprocessing.Queue structures do not fail gracefully. During the November-January rewrite of the MADNS system, multiple tasks were launched as separate processes. Experiments with the Multiprocessing.Pool and Multipro- cessing.Process libraries showed that processing functions created using Pool were significantly slower than those made with Process, so the MADNS code base used Process. The reason for the slow performance of Pool became apparent during heavy testing of the MADNS system. Early benchmark tests came back with the terrible results seen in Fig. B.1.
Figure B.2: Speedup caused by serial processing The system was set to run at 20 Hz on both the host and agents, but each message had a round-trip time of 1.1 seconds. The problem was tracked to the host computer, where approximately 1.0 of the 1.1 second delay occurred. This was due to the system simply freezing when the Multiprocessing. Queue library failed. In low-usage cases, this problem could be rectified by setting a lower timeout on the Queue. get() commands, but that caused serious problems with heavy usage. In two cases, during particularly heavy usage, the host computer hung completely and required manual rebooting by disconnecting the power. Once the host was set to process all counter packets in serial, Fig. B.1 shows that the time delay was reduced to 50ms on each round trip as would be expected with the 20 Hz processing rate. The delay seen
Figure B.2: Speedup caused by serial processing The system was set to run at 20 Hz on both the host and agents, but each message had a round-trip time of 1.1 seconds. The problem was tracked to the host computer, where approximately 1.0 of the 1.1 second delay occurred. This was due to the system simply freezing when the Multiprocessing. Queue library failed. In low-usage cases, this problem could be rectified by setting a lower timeout on the Queue. get() commands, but that caused serious problems with heavy usage. In two cases, during particularly heavy usage, the host computer hung completely and required manual rebooting by disconnecting the power. Once the host was set to process all counter packets in serial, Fig. B.1 shows that the time delay was reduced to 50ms on each round trip as would be expected with the 20 Hz processing rate. The delay seen
Figure C.1: 8-hour packet round-trip time for agents 1-5 Fig. C.1 demonstrates that no counter packets were lost during the benchmark af
Figure C.1: 8-hour packet round-trip time for agents 1-5 Fig. C.1 demonstrates that no counter packets were lost during the benchmark af
Figure C.3: 8-hour test packet round-trip time agents 11-15
Figure C.3: 8-hour test packet round-trip time agents 11-15
Figure C.4: 8-hour test packet round-trip time agents 16-2(
Figure C.4: 8-hour test packet round-trip time agents 16-2(
Figure C.6: 8-hour test packet maximum round trip time
Figure C.6: 8-hour test packet maximum round trip time
Figure C.7: 8-hour test packet minimum round trip time
Figure C.7: 8-hour test packet minimum round trip time
‘igure C.8: 8-hour test packet round trip time range
‘igure C.8: 8-hour test packet round trip time range
Figure C.9: 8-hour test packet average round trip time
Figure C.9: 8-hour test packet average round trip time
Figure C.10: 8-hour test packet round trip time standard deviation
Figure C.10: 8-hour test packet round trip time standard deviation
Figure C.13: 8-hour measured temperature agents 6-10 Figure C.14: 8-hour measured temperature agents 11-15
Figure C.13: 8-hour measured temperature agents 6-10 Figure C.14: 8-hour measured temperature agents 11-15
Figure C.15: 8-hour measured temperature agents 16-20
Figure C.15: 8-hour measured temperature agents 16-20
Figure C.16: 8-hour measured temperature agents 21-22
Figure C.16: 8-hour measured temperature agents 21-22
Figure C.17: 8-hour maximum temperature by agent
Figure C.17: 8-hour maximum temperature by agent
Figure C.18: 8-hour minimum temperature by agent
Figure C.18: 8-hour minimum temperature by agent
Figure C.19: 8-hour average temperature by agent
Figure C.19: 8-hour average temperature by agent
Figure C.20: 8-hour temperature standard deviation by agent
Figure C.20: 8-hour temperature standard deviation by agent
Figure C.21: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 1-5
Figure C.21: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 1-5
Figure C.22: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 6-10
Figure C.22: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 6-10
Figure C.23: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 11-15
Figure C.23: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 11-15
Figure C.24: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 16-20
Figure C.24: 8-hour measured CPU usage agents 16-20
Figure C.26: 8-hour recorded HWIL gyro, accelerometer, and magnetometer
Figure C.26: 8-hour recorded HWIL gyro, accelerometer, and magnetometer
Figure C.27: 8-hour recorded temperature, pressure, and calculated packet At
Figure C.27: 8-hour recorded temperature, pressure, and calculated packet At
Figure D.6: Classical orbital elements from agent 11
Figure D.6: Classical orbital elements from agent 11
Figure D.7: Angular momentum agent 11
Figure D.7: Angular momentum agent 11
Figure D.10: Classical orbital elements from agent 12
Figure D.10: Classical orbital elements from agent 12
Figure D.11: Angular momentum agent 12
Figure D.11: Angular momentum agent 12
Figure D.14: Classical orbital elements from agent 13
Figure D.14: Classical orbital elements from agent 13
Figure D.15: Angular momentum agent 13
Figure D.15: Angular momentum agent 13
Figure D.17: Orbit plot from agent 14
Figure D.17: Orbit plot from agent 14
Figure D.18: Classical orbital elements from agent 14
Figure D.18: Classical orbital elements from agent 14
Figure D.19: Angular momentum agent 14
Figure D.19: Angular momentum agent 14
Figure D.21: Orbit plot from agent 15
Figure D.21: Orbit plot from agent 15
Figure D.25: Orbit plot from agent 17
Figure D.25: Orbit plot from agent 17
Figure D.27: Angular momentum agent 17 Figure D.26: Classical orbital elements from agent 17
Figure D.27: Angular momentum agent 17 Figure D.26: Classical orbital elements from agent 17
Figure D.29: Orbit plot from agent 18
Figure D.29: Orbit plot from agent 18
Figure D.30: Classical orbital elements from agent 1&
Figure D.30: Classical orbital elements from agent 1&
Figure D.31: Angular momentum agent 18
Figure D.31: Angular momentum agent 18
Figure D.33: Orbit plot from agent 20
Figure D.33: Orbit plot from agent 20
Figure D.37: Orbit plot from agent 33
Figure D.37: Orbit plot from agent 33
Figure D.38: Classical orbital elements from agent 33
Figure D.38: Classical orbital elements from agent 33
Figure D.39: Angular momentum agent 33
Figure D.39: Angular momentum agent 33
Figure D.43: 1-hour maximum temperature by agent
Figure D.43: 1-hour maximum temperature by agent
Figure D.44: 1-hour minimum temperature by agent
Figure D.44: 1-hour minimum temperature by agent
Figure D.45: 1-hour average temperature by agent
Figure D.45: 1-hour average temperature by agent
Figure D.46: 1-hour temperature standard deviation by agent
Figure D.46: 1-hour temperature standard deviation by agent
Figure D.47: 1-hour measured CPU usage agents 1-5
Figure D.47: 1-hour measured CPU usage agents 1-5
Figure D.48: 1-hour measured CPU usage agents 6-10
Figure D.48: 1-hour measured CPU usage agents 6-10
Figure D.49: 1-hour recorded HWIL gyro, accelerometer, and magnetometer
Figure D.49: 1-hour recorded HWIL gyro, accelerometer, and magnetometer
Figure D.50: 1-hour recorded temperature, pressure, and calculated packet At
Figure D.50: 1-hour recorded temperature, pressure, and calculated packet At
Figure D.55: Orbit plot from agent 33
Figure D.55: Orbit plot from agent 33
Figure D.56: Classical orbital elements from agent 33
Figure D.56: Classical orbital elements from agent 33
Figure D.57: Angular momentum agent 33
Figure D.57: Angular momentum agent 33
Figure D.61: 1-hour maximum temperature by agent
Figure D.61: 1-hour maximum temperature by agent
Figure D.62: 1-hour minimum temperature by agent
Figure D.62: 1-hour minimum temperature by agent
Figure D.63: 1-hour average temperature by agent
Figure D.63: 1-hour average temperature by agent
Figure D.64: 1-hour temperature standard deviation by agent
Figure D.64: 1-hour temperature standard deviation by agent
Figure D.65: 1-hour recorded HWIL gyro, accelerometer, and magnetometer
Figure D.65: 1-hour recorded HWIL gyro, accelerometer, and magnetometer
Related topics:
Computer ScienceHardware In The LoopReal Time SimulationHardware In the Loop SimulationSoftware In the Loop
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved