Author Topic: No residuals  (Read 5897 times)

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
No residuals
« on: April 17, 2015, 06:39:39 PM »
I come across the phrase "No residuals" in descriptions of the outcome of an engine burn.  What does it signify?

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: No residuals
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2015, 10:02:48 PM »
It means the burn was right on the money.

In an engine burn, a "residual" is the difference between the desired and actual delta-V. There are three components X, Y and Z. After doing a major burn (e.g., with the Service Propulsion System on the CSM), the astronauts read the residuals from the computer, and if they were large enough they would use the reaction control system to "null" them out.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: No residuals
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2015, 10:17:46 PM »
The term "residual" is also used in flight dynamics when computing an orbit from observations, e.g., range and range rate (Doppler) from a radar or transponder, view angles from a telescope or antenna, etc.

Because of noise and other impairments, a given set of orbital elements is unlikely to exactly match every single observation so the computer looks for the best "least-squares" fit. That is, it finds the orbital elements that minimizes the sum of the squares of the differences between the modeled and measured values for each observation. A little over two hundred years ago, Carl Friedrich Gauss proved that this gives the most likely values when the measurement errors are all independent and noise-like.

These differences are known as "residuals", and when you hear a FIDO say an orbit is "converging" he means the computer has found a trajectory with acceptably low residuals. When you hear "guidance is converging" (e.g., during a launch) it means the guidance system has managed to get the rocket where it wants to be at a given time, with low residual errors.

Because residuals summarize how well an entire tracking or guidance system is operating you will often see them plotted in mission reports. Ideally they should appear noise-like, so if you see skews or other non-random patterns it's a strong clue that there's an error or failure somewhere that needs to be fixed (e.g., wrong coordinates for a tracking station) or that your model is insufficient, e.g., it doesn't account for all the significant forces acting on your spacecraft.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 10:25:57 PM by ka9q »

Offline Dalhousie

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 614
Re: No residuals
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2015, 10:56:22 PM »
Thank you!

Online Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
Re: No residuals
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2015, 12:29:21 AM »
I wonder how big the error margins were. I understand the range and speed error were very small due to the very precise way that was measured, but the two other axis?
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: No residuals
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2015, 04:17:57 AM »
Because of their much longer wavelengths, radio antennas are inherently less precise than optical telescopes in measuring angles. But the accuracy of cooperative tracking (coherent Doppler ranging transponders) is so good that you don't really need those other measurements.

I do believe the rendezvous radar on the LM made use of angle measurements as well as round trip times. The angle resolvers on the antenna were the apparent source of the high interrupt rate that nearly ruined the Apollo 11 landing.

Optical tracking is used mainly for non-cooperative targets like natural objects, spent rockets, dead satellites, etc. There's an international group of volunteers that regularly turn out accurate orbital elements for classified satellites from their optical observations.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: No residuals
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2015, 08:33:27 PM »
You can also have residuals in the rotational sense too.  There is no such thing as perfect or ideal RCS placement.  Trying to yaw, for example, could induce a roll as well.  The DAP was reasonably good at figuring out which combination of thrusters to fire to produce the desired "pure" attitude change, but only because it was so grindingly unsophisticated in each axis.

Most of the retro- and posigrade main-engine burns were done in closed-loop fashion.  The AGC simply measured the acceleration produced and then stopped the engine when the desired delta-v had been achieved.  However, a liquid-fuel rocket continues producing thrust after its propellants have been cut off.  The thrust decay curve looks like the left half of an inverted parabola -- that is, it decays according to a second-order function.  You can sort of predict it, but not with sufficient accuracy all the time.  It lets you estimate how much delta-v will result from decaying thrust and send the engine-stop command in advance.  SpaceX, for example, discovered the hard way on one of its Falcon 1 test flights that thrust decay is not always predictable to within a small enough epsilon.

The question always arises, if you can determine residuals the instant the burn ends, then why can't you just program the system to make them go away.  The answer is, as it often is, that the ability to measure something often far oustrips our ability to control it.  The accelerometers can measure accelerations as tiny as 0.1 ft s-2.  But getting the SPS to shut off exactly on time and decay its thrust exactly on the curve was not a guarantee.  Hence each burn was checked, and the best check is still the onboard measurements.  Within a second or so after cutoff the accuracy of the burn could be known.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: No residuals
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2015, 04:05:41 AM »
SpaceX, for example, discovered the hard way on one of its Falcon 1 test flights that thrust decay is not always predictable to within a small enough epsilon.
Was that the one with the collision between the second stage engine nozzle and the top of the first stage? I cringed when I saw that.

Quote
Hence each burn was checked, and the best check is still the onboard measurements.  Within a second or so after cutoff the accuracy of the burn could be known.
Right, and then it could be trimmed with short burns of the RCS engines. I believe they were usually performed manually.