Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Aerospace Structural Testing

Andrew E Lovejoy; Dawn C Jegley; Mark W Hilburger; Adam Przekop

NASA NTRS · 20205011135

Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Aerospace Structural Testing

Andrew E Lovejoy·Dawn C Jegley·Mark W Hilburger·Adam Przekop

Abstract

Large-scale testing of aerospace structures is frequently the final step in a development project to validate the structural performance, and that typically involves a large cost and time investment. In order to ensure that the testing provides the required data, avoiding errors that can result in an unsuccessful test and failure to meet objectives is critical. Presented herein are five lessons learned to provide insight to those conducting tests in order to help them avoid known pitfalls that may result in an unsuccessful test. Five subject large-scale tests are described, and include two composite wing tests, a composite hybrid-wing body center section test, a full-scale 27.5-ft diameter metallic barrel test, and an 8-ft diameter metallic barrel test. Problems identified during the testing and mitigation approaches to solve the problems are presented, then the lessons learned are summarized.

Explore related subjects

Lessons Learned Large-scale Testing

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Andrew E Lovejoy, Dawn C Jegley, Mark W Hilburger, Adam Przekop. Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Aerospace Structural Testing. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011135

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2024

Lessons Learned from Particulate Characterization Laboratory Anomalies

The White Sands Test Facility chemistry laboratory provides quality control for cleanroom operations including cleanliness verification of aerospace hardware by particulate counts and non-volatile residue determinations, particulate counts for liquid hypergolic propellants, gaseous helium and nitrogen propellant pressurizing agents used for ground support equipment and flight test article valve actuation, gaseous oxygen primarily used for component testing, and deionized water for refurbished propellant hardware flushing. Cleanliness verification includes particulate counts and non-volatile residue determinations to industry standard, NASA, and program specifications and levels. Particulate counts are typically to customer-specified specifications and levels including JPR 5322.1H (2016) Levels 50 and 100, Orion (MPCV 70156. Revision H (2018)) Level 100, RPTSTD-8070-0001 Revision 3 (2022), and IEST-STD-CC1246E (2013) Levels 50 and 100. The laboratory issues high pressure filter holders containing membrane filters to test operations personnel, who collect samples by flowing the required volumes of fluid through the filter holder, and the filter holder is returned to the lab for counting. A passing particulate count is required before testing may proceed. Rapid data reduction and issuing of reports indicating a pass or fail of the particulate specification are required. Corrective action and resampling invariably occurs if a sample fails. Consequently, the laboratory must maintain the highest degree of reliability to facilitate quality data used to decide if testing may proceed. Experience and continual improvements have enabled reliability. However, anomalies attributed to lab processes and hardware including filter holders, membranes, and Petri dishes have been encountered. This paper presents a summary of problems, solutions, successes, and lessons learned from particle counting experience for over 35 years.

Lessons Learned↗

NASA NTRS2023

Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Aerospace Structural Testing

Large-scale testing of aerospace structures is frequently the final step in a development project to validate the structural performance, and that step typically involves a large cost and time investment. To ensure that the testing provides the required data, avoiding errors that can result in an unsuccessful test and failure to meet objectives is critical. Five lessons learned are presented herein to provide insight to those conducting tests in order to help them avoid known pitfalls that may result in an unsuccessful test. Five large-scale tests are described, and include two composite wing tests, a composite hybrid-wing body center section test, a full-scale 27.5-ft diameter metallic barrel test, and an 8-ft diameter metallic barrel test. Problems identified during the testing and mitigation approaches to solve the problems are presented, then the lessons learned are identified and discussed.

Lessons Learned↗

NASA NTRS2021

Spacecraft Line-of-Sight Jitter Management and Mitigation Lessons Learned and Engineering Best Practices

Predicting, managing, controlling, and testing spacecraft line-of-sight (LoS) jitter caused by micro-vibrations due to on-board internal disturbance sources is a formidable multidisciplinary engineering task. It is especially challenging for those missions hosting high-performance (e.g., nano-radian/milli-arcsecond class), vibration-sensitive optical sensor payloads with stringent pointing stability requirements. The Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) are planning technically aggressive spaceflight missions that include ultra-high-performance optical payloads with delicate, highly vibration-sensitive scientific and observational instruments. The guidance, navigation, and control community of practice will need to leverage collective experiences and document their best practices and lessons learned to address future micro-vibration challenges. To identify lessons learned and best practices the NASA Engineering & Safety Center sponsored a 2-day Spacecraft LoS Jitter Workshop in late 2019. The workshop’s goal was to provide a multidisciplinary forum to elicit deeper understanding of the issues related to addressing the spacecraft LoS jitter/micro-vibration problem. The primary objective was to identify, document, and share lessons learned, best practices, and preferred options for jitter-related analysis and test activities. Representatives from NASA, ESA, along with NASA’s industrial partners, independent consultant subject matter experts, and members of academia participated in the workshop. This paper describes the motivation for the workshop and summarize the identified findings and recommendations.

Lessons Learned↗