David J. Petrick
Goddard Space Flight Center
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by David J. Petrick.
ieee aerospace conference | 2006
Semion Kizhner; Karin Blank; Thomas P. Flatley; Norden E. Huang; David J. Petrick; Phyllis Hestnes
One of the main traditional tools used in scientific and engineering data spectral analysis is the Fourier integral transform and its high performance digital equivalent - the fast Fourier transform (FFT). Both carry strong a-priori assumptions about the source data, such as being linear and stationary, and of satisfying the Dirichlet conditions. A recent development at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), known as the Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT), proposes a novel approach to the solution for the nonlinear class of spectral analysis problems. Using a-posteriori data processing based on the empirical mode decomposition (EMD) sifting process (algorithm), followed by the normalized Hilbert transform of the decomposed data, the HHT allows spectral analysis of nonlinear and nonstationary data. The EMD sifting process results in a non-constrained decomposition of a source numerical data vector into a finite set of intrinsic mode functions (IMF). These functions form a nearly orthogonal, derived from the data basis (adaptive basis). The IMFs can be further analyzed for spectrum content by using the classical Hilbert Transform. A new engineering spectral analysis tool using HHT has been developed at NASA GSFC, the HHT data processing system (HHT-DPS). As the HHT-DPS has been successfully used and commercialized, new applications pose additional questions about the theoretical basis behind the HHT EMD algorithm. Why is the fastest changing component of a composite signal being sifted out first in the EMD sifting process? Why does the EMD sifting process seemingly converge and why does it converge rapidly? Does an IMF have a distinctive structure? Why are the IMFs nearly orthogonal? We address these questions and develop the initial theoretical background for the HHT. This will contribute to the development of new HHT processing options, such as real-time and 2D processing using field programmable gate array (FPGA) computational resources, enhanced HHT synthesis, and will broaden the scope of HHT applications for signal processing
ieee aerospace conference | 2014
David J. Petrick; Alessandro Geist; Dennis Albaijes; Milton Davis; Pietro Sparacino; Gary Crum; Robin Ripley; Jonathan Boblitt; Thomas Flatley
This paper details the design architecture, design methodology, and the advantages of the SpaceCube v2.0 high performance data processing system for space applications. The purpose in building the SpaceCube v2.0 system is to create a superior high performance, reconfigurable, hybrid data processing system that can be used in a multitude of applications including those that require a radiation hardened and reliable solution. The SpaceCube v2.0 system leverages seven years of board design, avionics systems design, and space flight application experiences. This paper shows how SpaceCube v2.0 solves the increasing computing demands of space data processing applications that cannot be attained with a standalone processor approach. The main objective during the design stage is to find a good system balance between power, size, reliability, cost, and data processing capability. These design variables directly impact each other, and it is important to understand how to achieve a suitable balance. This paper will detail how these critical design factors were managed including the construction of an Engineering Model for an experiment on the International Space Station to test out design concepts. We will describe the designs for the processor card, power card, backplane, and a mission unique interface card. The mechanical design for the box will also be detailed since it is critical in meeting the stringent thermal and structural requirements imposed by the processing system. In addition, the mechanical design uses advanced thermal conduction techniques to solve the internal thermal challenges. The SpaceCube v2.0 processing system is based on an extended version of the 3U cPCI standard form factor where each card is 190mm × 100mm in size. The typical power draw of the processor card is 8 to 10W and scales with application complexity. The SpaceCube v2.0 data processing card features two Xilinx Virtex-5 QV Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA), eight memory modules, a monitor FPGA with analog monitoring, Ethernet, configurable interconnect to the Xilinx FPGAs including gigabit transceivers, and the necessary voltage regulation. The processor board uses a back-to-back design methodology for common parts that maximizes the board real estate available. This paper will show how to meet the IPC 6012B Class 3/A standard with a 22-layer board that has two column grid array devices with 1.0mm pitch. All layout trades such as stack-up options, via selection, and FPGA signal breakout will be discussed with feature size results. The overall board design process will be discussed including parts selection, circuit design, proper signal termination, layout placement and route planning, signal integrity design and verification, and power integrity results. The radiation mitigation techniques will also be detailed including configuration scrubbing options, Xilinx circuit mitigation and FPGA functional monitoring, and memory protection. Finally, this paper will describe how this system is being used to solve the extreme challenges of a robotic satellite servicing mission where typical space-rated processors are not sufficient enough to meet the intensive data processing requirements. The SpaceCube v2.0 is the main payload control computer and is required to control critical subsystems such as autonomous rendezvous and docking using a suite of vision sensors and object avoidance when controlling two robotic arms. For this application three SpaceCube processing systems are required, each with two processor cards.
adaptive hardware and systems | 2015
David J. Petrick; Nat Gill; Munther A. Hassouneh; R. G. Stone; Luke Winternitz; Luke Thomas; Milton Davis; Pietro Sparacino; Thomas P. Flatley
The SpaceCube™ v2.0 system is a high performance, reconfigurable, hybrid data processing system that can be used in a multitude of applications including those that require a radiation hardened and reliable solution. This paper provides an overview of the design architecture, flexibility, and the advantages of the modular SpaceCube v2.0 high performance data processing system for space applications. The current state of the proven SpaceCube technology is based on nine years of engineering and operations. Five systems have been successfully operated in space starting in 2008 with four more to be delivered for launch vehicle integration in 2015. The SpaceCube v2.0 system is also baselined as the avionics solution for five additional flight projects and is always a top consideration as the core avionics for new instruments or spacecraft control. This paper will highlight how this multipurpose system is currently being used to solve design challenges of three independent applications. The SpaceCube hardware adapts to new system requirements by allowing for application-unique interface cards that are utilized by reconfiguring the underlying programmable elements on the core processor card. We will show how this system is being used to improve on a heritage NASA GPS technology, enable a cutting-edge LiDAR instrument, and serve as a typical command and data handling (C&DH) computer for a space robotics technology demonstration.
Archive | 2010
Daniel Espinosa; Alessandro Geist; David J. Petrick; Thomas P. Flatley; Jeffrey Hosler; Gary Crum; Manuel Buenfil
ieee aerospace conference | 2014
David J. Petrick; Daniel Espinosa; Robin Ripley; Gary Crum; Alessandro Geist; Thomas Flatley
Archive | 2010
Alessandro Geist; Thomas P. Flatley; Michael R. Lin; David J. Petrick
ieee aerospace conference | 2002
Semion Kizhner; David J. Petrick; Thomas P. Flatley; Phyllis Hestnes; Marit Jentoft-Nilsen; Karin Blank
Archive | 2011
Michael Lin; Thomas Flatley; John Godfrey; Alessandro Geist; Daniel Espinosa; David J. Petrick
Archive | 2017
Michael R. Lin; David J. Petrick; Kevin M. Ballou; Daniel Espinosa; Edward F. James; Matthew A. Kliesner
Archive | 2017
David J. Petrick; Alessandro Geist; Michael R. Lin; Gary R. Crum