SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Solid propellants under tension loading dilate significantly, Therefore, they may be aptly called dilatable materials.
A Jacobian formulation of the pressure gradient force for use in models with topography following coordinates is proposed. It can be used in conjunction with any vertical coordinate system and is easily implemented.
A principal component analysis (PCA) is applied to the Southern Hemisphere (SH) total column ozone following the method established for analyzing the data in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) in a companion paper. The interannual variability (IAV) of extratropical O-3 in the SH is characterized by four main modes, which account for 75% of the total variance. The first two leading modes are approximately zonally symmetric and relate to the Southern Hemisphere annular mode and the quasi-biennial oscillation. The third and fourth modes exhibit wavenumber-1 structures. Contrary to the Northern Hemisphere, the third and fourth are nor related to stationary waves. Similar results obtained for the 30 100-hPa geopotential thickness.The decreasing O3 trend in the SH is captured in the first mode. The largest trend is at the South Pole, with value similar to-2 Dobson Units (DU)/yr. Both the spatial pattern and trends in the column ozone are captured by the Goddard Earth Observation System chemistry-climate model (GEOS-CCM) in the SH.
Four honeycomb sandwich panels, representing 1/16th arc segments of a 10-m diameter barrel section of the heavy lift launch vehicle, were manufactured under the NASA Composites for Exploration program and the NASA Space Launch Systems program. Two configurations were chosen for the panels: 6-ply facesheets with 1.125 in. honeycomb core and 8-ply facesheets with 1.000 in. honeycomb core. Additionally, two separate carbon fiber/epoxy material systems were chosen for the facesheets: inautoclave IM7/977-3 and out-of-autoclave T40-800b/5320-1. Smaller 3.00- by 5.00-ft panels were cut from the 1/16th barrel sections. These panels were tested under compressive loading at the NASA Langley Research Center. Furthermore, linear eigenvalue and geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis was performed to predict the compressive response of the 3.00- by 5.00-ft panels. This manuscript summarizes the experimental and analytical modeling efforts pertaining to the panel composed of 8-ply, IM7/977-3 facesheets (referred to Panel A). To improve the robustness of the geometrically nonlinear finite element model, measured surface imperfections were included in the geometry of the model. Both the linear and nonlinear models yield good qualitative and quantitative predictions. Additionally, it was predicted correctly that the panel would fail in buckling prior to failing in strength. Furthermore, several imperfection studies were performed to investigate the influence of geometric imperfections, fiber misalignments, and three-dimensional (3 D) effects on the compressive response of the panel.
This report describes test results from an assessment of the acoustically treated 9x15 Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio in July of 2016. The tests were conducted in accordance with the recently adopted international standard ISO 26101-2012 on Qualification of Free Field Test Environments. This method involves moving a microphone relative to a source and comparing the sound pressure level versus distance measurements with theoretical inverse square law spreading.
This presentation provides a brief NASA-perspective of the major historical milestones in the development of space quality electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) components in the USA from the dawn of the space age through present.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This report describes test results from an assessment of the acoustically treated 9- by 15-Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio in June of 2019. The tests were conducted in accordance with the recently adopted international standard ISO 26101-2012 on Qualification of Free Field Test Environments. This method involves moving a microphone relative to a source and comparing the sound pressure level versus distance measurements with theoretical inverse square law spreading.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.
As discussed in the first chapter of this book, there are many different methods to measure a part using optical technology. Chapter 2 discussed the use of machine vision to measure macroscopic features such as length and position, which was extended to the use of interferometry as a linear measurement tool in chapter 3, and laser or other trackers to find the relation of key points on large parts in chapter 4. This chapter looks at measuring large parts to optical tolerances in the sub-micron range using interferometry, ranging, and optical tools discussed in the previous chapters. The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss specific metrology tools (such as interferometers or gauges), but to describe a systems engineering approach to testing large parts. Issues such as material warpage and temperature drifts that may be insignificant when measuring a part to micron levels under a microscope, as will be discussed in later chapters, can prove to be very important when making the same measurement over a larger part. In this chapter, we will define a set of guiding principles for successfully overcoming these challenges and illustrate the application of these principles with real world examples. While these examples are drawn from specific large optical testing applications, they inform the problems associated with testing any large part to optical tolerances. Manufacturing today relies on micrometer level part performance. Fields such as energy and transportation are demanding higher tolerances to provide increased efficiencies and fuel savings. By looking at how the optics industry approaches sub-micrometer metrology, one can gain a better understanding of the metrology challenges for any larger part specified to micrometer tolerances. Testing large parts, whether optical components or precision structures, to optical tolerances is just like testing small parts, only harder. Identical with what one does for small parts, a metrologist tests large parts and optics in particular to quantify their mechanical properties (such as dimensions, mass, etc); their optical prescription or design (i.e. radius of curvature, conic constant, vertex location, size); and their full part shape. And, just as with small parts, a metrologist accomplishes these tests using distance measuring instruments such as tape measures, inside micrometers, coordinate measuring machines, distance measuring interferometers; angle measuring instruments such as theodolites, autocollimators; and surface measuring instruments including interferometers, stylus profilers, interference microscopes, photogrammetric cameras, or other tools. However, while the methodology may be similar, it is more difficult to test a large object for the simple reason that most metrologists do not have the necessary intuition. The skills used to test small parts or optics in a laboratory do not extrapolate to testing large parts in an industrial setting any more than a backyard gardener might successfully operate a farm. But first, what is a large part? A simple definition might be the part's size or diameter. For optics and diffuse surface parts alike, the driving constraint is ability to illuminate the part's surface. For reflective convex mirrors, large is typically anything greater than 1 meter. But, for refractive optics, flats or convex mirrors, large is typically greater than 0.5 meter. While a size definition is simple, it may be less than universal. A more nuanced definition might be that a large part is any component which cannot be easily tested in a standard laboratory environment, on a standard vibration isolated table using standard laboratory infrastructure. A micro-switch or a precision lens might be easily measured to nanometer levels under a microscope in a lab, but a power turbine spline or a larger telescope mirror will not fit under that microscope and may not even fit on the table.
The Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts Information Management System (EPIMS) database was selected by the International Space Station Parts Control Board for providing parts information to NASA managers and contractors. Parts data is transferred to the EPIMS database by converting parts list data to the EP1MS Data Exchange File Format. In general, parts list information received from contractors and suppliers does not convert directly into the EPIMS Data Exchange File Format. Often parts lists use different variable and record field assignments. Many of the EPES variables are not defined in the parts lists received. The objective of this work was to develop an automated system for translating parts lists into the EPIMS Data Exchange File Format for upload into the EPIMS database. Once EEE parts information has been transferred to the EPIMS database it is necessary to screen parts data in accordance with the provisions of the SSQ 25002 Supplemental List of Qualified Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical Parts, Manufacturers, and Laboratories (QEPM&L). The SSQ 2S002 standards are used to identify parts which satisfy the requirements for spacecraft applications. An additional objective for this work was to develop an automated system which would screen EEE parts information against the SSQ 2S002 to inform managers of the qualification status of parts used in spacecraft applications. The EPIMS Database Conversion and SSQ 25002 User Interfaces are designed to interface through the World-Wide-Web(WWW)/Internet to provide accessibility by NASA managers and contractors.
Due to the various parts found in a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), analyzation of every part is not feasible or needed. Based on previous mathematical modeling experience of high velocity cryogenic equipment, the environmental traits of location of the part, temperature range, fluid velocity, pressure range, and elevation variation of fluid flow as being significant factors were determined. Six parts categories were developed. The part categories are: (1) fuel turbomachinery, (2) oxidizer, (3) combustion devices, (4) valves, (5) ducts, and (6) lines. Due to a suspicion that superficial failure modes exist, six status codes were developed. The codes are: (1) part is in service presently, (2) part is out-of-service due to its own failure, (3) part is out-of-service due to engine (or some other part failure), (4) part is out-of-service because it's retired/obsolete (time related), (5) never fired-scrapped due to own problem or part is store, and (6) part is out-of-service for repair. It was suggested that to properly model failure behavior of SSME parts that: (1) significant factors contributing to failure must be examined, (2) relatively precision based on real life data must be examined, and (3) alternative definitions of failure must be initialized by the engineers.
The foundation of NASA's Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) parts program is standardization. Standardization helps to reduce the number of unknown variables present as a project or program progresses; unknown variables equate to unknown risk. NASA spacecraft are usually 'one-offs' or at least part of a very short run, and every new part that is used represents a risk that has to be understood and mitigated as necessary. This equates directly to time and cost. Standardization of component parts is used to provide a foundation of known, dependable, qualified parts upon which a safe, reliable system can be built. In addition, the evaluation and selection of parts for the standard parts list unifies the activity under one group of experts rather than having engineers on each project overlapping and duplicating efforts. Thus, the project support engineers are able to concentrate on understanding and mitigating the risks for the non standard parts required to meet specific requirements of their project. Rapid technology change is producing conditions that make any form of parts-based standardization increasingly difficult, particularly the use of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) parts and assemblies. There are many complications to COTS-based standardization. COTS parts change rapidly and unpredictably, often have different characteristics fiom manufacturer to manufacturer, frequently are only available through distribution, have no universal specification and have variable and unpredictable radiation characteristics. This presentation will discuss some potential approaches to COTS parts standardization. Further into the future, in three to five years perhaps, the use of COTS boards and boxes will be extensive and standardization at these levels of assembly will be necessary. In five to ten years, most major spacecraft functions will probably be performed by COTS boards. How will this be achieved? What role will the parts engineer play, if any? This presentation will borrow from the lessons of the past to suggest some scenarios for the future.
The part versus whole training is discussed. Common sense dictates that a massive body of knowledge should not be taught as a whole. For the same reason, if a part of the task is very difficult, one should not go over the task in its entirety. Repetitive training on the difficult part should lead to better results. Several part training methods were developed, including: pure part, progressive part, repetitive part, retrogressive and isolated parts. The question was posited whether training on parts of a task is a beneficial enterprise. The way the task will be disassembled for the part training needs to be determined. It is argued that the effectiveness of part training depends on the degree to which a task is decomposable.
Object tracking from videos is still a challenging task due to various changes throughout a video sequence including occlusions, motion blur, scale and other deformation changes. In this paper, we propose a selective parts-based approach, using correlation filters, that makes choices based on a consensus of the parts and global tracking. Moreover, we further enhance our parts-based approach by introducing a segmentation-assisted parts initialization. In addition, we present a genetic algorithm-based method to autonomously select various parameters of the tracking algorithm, as opposed to the common practice of manually tuning those parameters. In contrast to existing part-based methods, the proposed method does not dilute accurate tracking by averaging results over multiple parts at every frame. Instead, we take a selective approach based on the relative weight of the responses across parts. Moreover, we only make location corrections when a part diverges, and rely on these location corrections to maintain an accurate appearance model. In the case of occlusions, which are among the main reasons for using a parts-based approach, our proposed approach consistently achieves the best performance. It is due to the ability to handle occlusion and not dilute decisions with incorrect parts, that our proposed approach enables state-of-the-art performance. The approach we propose was evaluated on videos from three different challenging benchmark datasets. Our approach has resulted in better overall precision and success rates for three different base tracking approaches.