Gilligan, R. | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2017

Thermal Design for Extra-Terrestrial Regenerative Fuel Cell System

The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Advanced Modular Power Systems (AMPS) Project is investigating different power systems for various lunar and Martian mission concepts. The AMPS Fuel Cell (FC) team has created two system-level models to evaluate the performance of regenerative fuel cell (RFC) systems employing different fuel cell chemistries. Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells PEMFCs contain a polymer electrolyte membrane that separates the hydrogen and oxygen cavities and conducts hydrogen cations (protons) across the cell. Solid Oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) operate at high temperatures, using a zirconia-based solid ceramic electrolyte to conduct oxygen anions across the cell. The purpose of the modeling effort is to down select one fuel cell chemistry for a more detailed design effort. Figures of merit include the system mass, volume, round trip efficiency, and electrolyzer charge power required. PEMFCs operate at around 60 C versus SOFCs which operate at temperatures greater than 700 C. Due to the drastically different operating temperatures of the two chemistries the thermal control systems (TCS) differ. The PEM TCS is less complex and is characterized by a single pump cooling loop that uses deionized water coolant and rejects heat generated by the system to the environment via a radiator. The solid oxide TCS has its own unique challenges including the requirement to reject high quality heat and to condense the steam produced in the reaction. This paper discusses the modeling of thermal control systems for an extraterrestrial RFC that utilizes either a PEM or solid oxide fuel cell.

thermal modeling↗

NASA NTRS2011

Benefit of "Push-pull" Locomotion for Planetary Rover Mobility

As NASAs exploration missions on planetary terrains become more aggressive, a focus on alternative modes of locomotion for rovers is necessary. In addition to climbing steep slopes, the terrain in these extreme environments is often unknown and can be extremely hard to traverse, increasing the likelihood of a vehicle or robot becoming damaged or immobilized. The conventional driving mode in which all wheels are either driven or free-rolling is very efficient on flat hard ground, but does not always provide enough traction to propel the vehicle through soft or steep terrain. This paper presents an alternative mode of travel and investigates the fundamental differences between these locomotion modes. The methods of push-pull locomotion discussed can be used with articulated wheeled vehicles and are identified as walking or inchinginch-worming. In both cases, the braked non-rolling wheels provide increased thrust. An in-depth study of how soil reacts under a rolling wheel vs. a braked wheel was performed by visually observing the motion of particles beneath the surface. This novel technique consists of driving or dragging a wheel in a soil bin against a transparent wall while high resolution, high-rate photographs are taken. Optical flow software was then used to determine shearing patterns in the soil. Different failure modes were observed for the rolling and braked wheel cases. A quantitative comparison of inching vs. conventional driving was also performed on a full-scale vehicle through a series of drawbar pull tests in the Lunar terrain strength simulant, GRC-1. The effect of tire stiffness was also compared; typically compliant tires provide better traction when driving in soft soil, however its been observed that rigid wheels may provide better thrust when non-rolling. Initial tests indicate up to a possible 40 increase in pull force capability at high slip when inching vs. rolling.

robotics↗