SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Building Envelope”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

195 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2012

Rapid Process to Generate Beam Envelopes for Optical System Analysis

The task of evaluating obstructions in the optical throughput of an optical system requires the use of two disciplines, and hence, two models: optical models for the details of optical propagation, and mechanical models for determining the actual structure that exists in the optical system. Previous analysis methods for creating beam envelopes (or cones of light) for use in this obstruction analysis were found to be cumbersome to calculate and take significant time and resources to complete. A new process was developed that takes less time to complete beam envelope analysis, is more accurate and less dependent upon manual node tracking to create the beam envelopes, and eases the burden on the mechanical CAD (computer-aided design) designers to form the beam solids. This algorithm allows rapid generation of beam envelopes for optical system obstruction analysis. Ray trace information is taken from optical design software and used to generate CAD objects that represent the boundary of the beam envelopes for detailed analysis in mechanical CAD software. Matlab is used to call ray trace data from the optical model for all fields and entrance pupil points of interest. These are chosen to be the edge of each space, so that these rays produce the bounding volume for the beam. The x and y global coordinate data is collected on the surface planes of interest, typically an image of the field and entrance pupil internal of the optical system. This x and y coordinate data is then evaluated using a convex hull algorithm, which removes any internal points, which are unnecessary to produce the bounding volume of interest. At this point, tolerances can be applied to expand the size of either the field or aperture, depending on the allocations. Once this minimum set of coordinates on the pupil and field is obtained, a new set of rays is generated between the field plane and aperture plane (or vice-versa). These rays are then evaluated at planes between the aperture and field, at a desired number of steps perceived necessary to build up the bounding volume or cone shape. At each plane, the ray coordinates are again evaluated using the convex hull algorithm to reduce the data to a minimal set. When all of the coordinates of interest are obtained for every plane of the propagation, the data is formatted into an xyz file suitable for FRED optical analysis software to import and create a STEP file of the data. This results in a spiral-like structure that is easily imported by mechanical CAD users who can then use an automated algorithm to wrap a skin around it and create a solid that represents the beam.

Howard, Joseph↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Lightweight Integrated Solar Array and anTenna (LISA-T) Big Power for Small Spacecraft

NASA is developing a space power system using lightweight, flexible photovoltaic devices originally developed for use here on Earth to provide low cost power for spacecraft. The Lightweight Integrated Solar Array and anTenna (LISA-T) is a launch stowed, orbit deployed array on which thin-film photovoltaic and antenna elements are embedded. The LISA-T system is deployable, building upon NASA's expertise in developing thin-film deployable solar sails such the one being developed for the Near Earth Asteroid Scout project which will fly in 2018. One of the biggest challenges for the NEA Scout, and most other spacecraft, is power. There simply isn't enough of it available, thus limiting the range of operation of the spacecraft from the Sun (due to the small surface area available for using solar cells), the range of operation from the Earth (low available power with inherently small antenna sizes tightly constrain the bandwidth for communication), and the science (you can only power so many instruments with limited power). The LISA-T has the potential to mitigate each of these limitations, especially for small spacecraft. Inherently, small satellites are limited in surface area, volume, and mass allocation; driving competition between their need for power and robust communications with the requirements of the science or engineering payload they are developed to fly. LISA-T is addressing this issue, deploying large-area arrays from a reduced volume and mass envelope - greatly enhancing power generation and communications capabilities of small spacecraft and CubeSats. The problem is that these CubeSats can usually only generate between 7W and 50W of power. The power that can be generated by the LISA-T ranges from tens of watts to several hundred watts, at a much higher mass and stowage efficiency. A matrix of options are in development, including planar (pointed) and omnidirectional (non-pointed) arrays. The former is seeking the highest performance possible while the latter is seeking GN&C simplicity. Options for leveraging both high performance, 'typical cost' triple junction thin-film solar cells as well as moderate performance, low cost cells are being developed. Alongside, UHF (ultrahigh frequency), S-band, and X-band antennas are being integrated into the array to move their space claim away from the spacecraft and open the door for more capable multi-element antenna designs such as those needed for spherical coverage and electronically steered phase arrays.

Space Exploration↗

NASA NTRS1991

System monitoring and diagnosis with qualitative models

A substantial foundation of tools for model-based reasoning with incomplete knowledge was developed: QSIM (a qualitative simulation program) and its extensions for qualitative simulation; Q2, Q3 and their successors for quantitative reasoning on a qualitative framework; and the CC (component-connection) and QPC (Qualitative Process Theory) model compilers for building QSIM QDE (qualitative differential equation) models starting from different ontological assumptions. Other model-compilers for QDE's, e.g., using bond graphs or compartmental models, have been developed elsewhere. These model-building tools will support automatic construction of qualitative models from physical specifications, and further research into selection of appropriate modeling viewpoints. For monitoring and diagnosis, plausible hypotheses are unified against observations to strengthen or refute the predicted behaviors. In MIMIC (Model Integration via Mesh Interpolation Coefficients), multiple hypothesized models of the system are tracked in parallel in order to reduce the 'missing model' problem. Each model begins as a qualitative model, and is unified with a priori quantitative knowledge and with the stream of incoming observational data. When the model/data unification yields a contradiction, the model is refuted. When there is no contradiction, the predictions of the model are progressively strengthened, for use in procedure planning and differential diagnosis. Only under a qualitative level of description can a finite set of models guarantee the complete coverage necessary for this performance. The results of this research are presented in several publications. Abstracts of these published papers are presented along with abtracts of papers representing work that was synergistic with the NASA grant but funded otherwise. These 28 papers include but are not limited to: 'Combined qualitative and numerical simulation with Q3'; 'Comparative analysis and qualitative integral representations'; 'Model-based monitoring of dynamic systems'; 'Numerical behavior envelopes for qualitative models'; 'Higher-order derivative constraints in qualitative simulation'; and 'Non-intersection of trajectories in qualitative phase space: a global constraint for qualitative simulation.'

Kuipers, Benjamin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Preliminary Findings of the Experimental Development Unit Cold Flow Test for a Generation Zero Nuclear Propulsion Engine

Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) technology will greatly benefit human travel to Mars by significantly shortening transit times, improving crew safety, and providing more mission flexibility than traditional chemical rockets. As part of DRACO follow-on work to develop, build, and fly a generation zero NTP engine, a full scale flight-like experimental design unit (EDU) reactor was constructed to collect sufficient on-ground performance data to characterize flow induced vibrations (FIV) of critical reactor structures/components, inform development of the engine and reactor control algorithm, and collect pressure drop and flow distribution data across the reactor. The fluid conditions for the test program were designed to achieve system responses equivalent to that of an operational engine through all phases of engine operation including reactor startup, mainstage operation, reactor shutdown, and reactor cooldown. Over 100 tests were executed, flowing either GN2 or GHe through the EDU at varying flow rates and pressures. This experiment provided early validation of flow behavior and vibration risks before nuclear testing, boosted critical subsystem TRLs, informed design iterations, and reduced future test costs. The steady-state flow parameters for the experiment were modeled in Ansys Thermal Desktop, allowing rapid tuning and experiment-informed updates to a flight-like test matrix. The EDU dynamic environment was characterized with accelerometers, strain gauges, and high-frequency pressure transducers all sampled at 20 kHz. While many narrow-band oscillations were identified, no significant FIV occurred; the reactor structural responses tend to be enveloped by typical launch vehicle ascent vibration environments (defined up to 2 kHz), although significant energy is also present at higher frequencies.

Flow Induced Vibration↗

DOE OSTI2026

Dynamic analysis of fully constrained Cable-Driven Parallel Robots for automated prefabricated component installation

This paper presents a dynamic analysis and validation framework to assess a fully constrained six-anchor Cable-Driven Parallel Robot (CDPR) for automated installation of prefabricated facade components. Compared with conventional eight-anchor systems, the six-anchor configuration simplifies setup and reduces cost, but it also reduces control authority, shrinks the wrench-feasible workspace, and tightens orientation limits. Consequently, it is unclear a priori whether dynamically feasible trajectories exist to move the end effector from pickup to the facade. A constrained trajectory optimization is formulated to enforce the system dynamics, cable-tension bounds, and pose/velocity limits, and the framework is evaluated in simulation at three levels: (i) an idealized reference model, (ii) a lab-scale prototype model incorporating measured anchor misalignments and identified damping, and (iii) a full-scale three-story building model with load decomposition for structural feasibility checks. Across these scenarios, the analysis shows that optimal, constraint-satisfying trajectories exist that move the end effector from pickup to installation while maintaining a near-plumb, level orientation at the final pose. Collectively, this multi-scale dynamic analysis and validation framework supports the deployment readiness of the six-anchor CDPR and provides a prototype-based sensitivity case study of how measured anchor placement deviations affect feasibility.

CDPR↗

NASA NTRS2016

Flat H Frangible Joint Evolution

Space vehicle staging and separation events require pyrotechnic devices. They are single-use mechanisms that cannot be tested, nor can failure-tolerant performance be demonstrated in actual flight articles prior to flight use. This necessitates the implementation of a robust design and test approach coupled with a fully redundant, failure-tolerant explosive mechanism to ensure that the system functions even in the event of a single failure. Historically, NASA has followed the single failure-tolerant (SFT) design philosophy for all human-rated spacecraft, including the Space Shuttle Program. Following the end of this program, aerospace companies proposed building the next generation human-rated vehicles with off-the-shelf, non-redundant, zero-failure-tolerant (ZFT) separation systems. Currently, spacecraft and launch vehicle providers for both the Orion and Commercial Crew Programs (CCPs) plan to deviate from the heritage safety approach and NASA's SFT human rating requirements. Both programs' partners have base-lined ZFT frangible joints for vehicle staging and fairing separation. These joints are commercially available from pyrotechnic vendors. Non-human-rated missions have flown them numerous times. The joints are relatively easy to integrate structurally within the spacecraft. In addition, the separation event is debris free, and the resultant pyro shock is lower than that of other design solutions. It is, however, a serious deficiency to lack failure tolerance. When used for critical applications on human-rated vehicles, a single failure could potentially lead to loss of crew (LOC) or loss of mission (LOM)). The Engineering and Safety & Mission Assurance directorates within the NASA Johnson Space Center took action to address this safety issue by initiating a project to develop a fully redundant, SFT frangible joint design, known as the Flat H. Critical to the ability to retrofit on launch vehicles being developed, the SFT mechanisms must fit within the same three-dimensional envelope as current designs as well as meet structural loads requirements. There is increased mass associated with the redundant design, and the goal is to minimize the weight impact as much as possible. These requirements presented significant challenges, both technically and financially; these challenges will be explored in this paper. Perhaps greater than the technical issues confronted during this design process, were the financial considerations. These were a significant part of the story of this design and development plan. Insufficient financial and labor resources were formidable barriers to completing this project. Nevertheless, JSC personnel successfully conducted several test series at JSC with very useful results. The many lessons learned drove design improvements, performance efficiency, and increased functional reliability. This paper examines the significant technical and financial challenges that these requirements posed to the project team. It discusses the evolution of the SFT frangible joint design, including optimization, testing, and successful partnering of the Johnson Space Center (JSC) engineering and JSC safety organizations, to enhance the flight safety margin for America's next generation of human-rated space vehicles.

Diegelman, Thomas E.↗

DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of DED and LPBF Fe-based Alloys Process Application Envelopes based on Performance, Process Economics, Supply Chain Risks, and Reactor-specific Targeted Components

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (AMMT) program aims to develop extreme-environment materials solutions for use in the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors and the sustainment of the current fleet. To achieve this objective, a combination of experiment, a computational tool, and machine learning (ML) for the design of materials is adopted for the maturation of materials for nuclear technology. Through advanced manufacturing techniques such as laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) and laser powder direct energy deposition (LP-DED), components with complex geometries can be fabricated with reduced time and effort. Such advanced manufacturing methods can also provide the opportunity to improve materials performance through optimized microstructures and mechanical properties. However, existing engineering alloys are not always well suited for fabrication with additive manufacturing (AM), as their compositions have been tuned to optimize fabrication via conventional methods. Thus, similar alloys with modified compositions that are better suited for AM can be studied for improved performance. Over the past three years, the AMMT teams from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) studied various known Fe-based alloys by evaluating their initial printability using LPBF, and an AMMT-developed down-selection and decision matrix reduced the number of alloys to be studied from six to three in fiscal year (FY) 2024. Additionally, in FY 2024, for parallel evaluation, these three alloys were studied using LPDED. While LPBF is better for small- to medium-sized components with high detail and internal features, LP-DED combines a material feed system to place the powder onto the exact spot where the laser will melt the material. This AM method can be easily scaled to extremely large components and provides high build rate speeds compared to those of conventional LPBF systems. Additionally, DED is a better choice for complex geometries and compositional gradients.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS1997

Parametric Flutter Analysis of the TCA Configuration and Recommendation for FFM Design and Scaling

The current HSR Aeroelasticity plan to design, build, and test a full span, free flying transonic flutter model in the TDT has many technical obstacles that must be overcome for a successful program. One technical obstacle is the determination of a suitable configuration and point in the sky to use in setting the scaling point for the ASE models program. Determining this configuration and point in the sky requires balancing several conflicting requirements, including model buildability, tunnel test safety, and the ability of the model to represent the flutter mechanisms of interest. As will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections, the current TCA design exhibits several flutter mechanisms of interest. It has been decided that the ASE models program will focus on the low frequency symmetric flutter mechanism, and will make no attempt to investigate high frequency flutter mechanisms. There are several reasons for this choice. First, it is believed that the high frequency flutter mechanisms are similar in nature to classical wing bending/torsion flutter, and therefore there is more confidence that this mechanism can be predicted using current techniques. The low frequency mode, on the other hand, is a highly coupled mechanism involving wing, body, tail, and engine motion which may be very difficult to predict. Second, the high frequency flutter modes result in very small weight penalties (several hundred pounds), while suppression of the low frequency mechanism inside the flight envelope causes thousands of pounds to be added to the structure. In order to successfully test the low frequency flutter mode of interest, a suitable starting configuration and point in the sky must be identified. The configuration and point in the sky must result in a wind tunnel model that (1) represents the low-frequency wing/body/engine/empennage flutter mechanisms that are unique to HSCT configurations, (2) flutters at an acceptably low frequency in the tunnel, (3) flutters at an acceptably low dynamic pressure in the tunnel, (4) allows sufficient weight for model buildability without inordinately high cost, and (5) has significant separation between the target flutter mechanism and other, potentially catastrophic, flutter mechanisms.

Baker, Myles↗

NASA NTRS2018

Computational Component Build-Up for the X-57 Distributed Electric Propulsion Aircraft

A computational study of the wing for the distributed electric propulsion X-57 Maxwell airplane configuration at cruise and takeoff/landing conditions was completed. Three unstructured-mesh, Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics methods, FUN3D, USM3D and Kestrel, were used to predict the performance buildup of components to the full X-57 configuration. The goal of the X-57 wing and distributed electric propulsion system design was to meet or exceed the required lift coefficient of 3.95 for a stall speed of 58 knots. The X-57 Maxwell airplane was designed with a small, high aspect ratio cruise wing that was designed for a high cruise lift coefficient of 0.75 at a cruise speed of 150 knots and altitude of 8,000 ft, with an angle of attack of approximately 0deg. The computational data indicates that the X-57 full aircraft drag would meet the cruise drag goal with a 25 count drag margin. The cruise configuration maximum lift coefficient is 2.07 and without including the stabilator is 1.86 at an angle of attack of 14 deg, predicted with the USM3D flow solver using the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model. The maximum lift coefficient for the high-lift wing (with the 30deg flap deflection) without the stabilator contribution is 2.60 at an angle of attack of 13 deg. For high-lift blowing conditions with 13.7 hp/prop, the maximum lift coefficient excluding the stabilator is 4.426 at (alpha) = 13 deg. Therefore, the lift augmentation from the high-lift propellers is 1.7 and the total lift augmentation from the high-lift system (30 deg flap deflection and the high-lift blowing) is 2.38. The drag for the high-lift wing with 30 deg flap deflection is much higher than the cruise wing configuration, but the high-lift system is used only during a small portion of the flight envelope. The pitching moment is relatively constant for both blown and unblown conditions when the stabilator is excluded. Modeling the full geometry has indicated some adverse effects from the fuselage on the wing and stabilator. At high angles of attack, the solutions with the USM3D flow solver using the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model indicates large flow separation on the wing upper surface between the two high-lift nacelles near the fuselage, and also a reduction in sectional lift on the stabilator in the first 50 percent of the stabilator semispan. However, the large flow separation near the fuselage is mostly eliminated in the solutions predicted with two codes, USM3D and Kestrel, using Hybrid Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes/Large Eddy Simulation turbulence models.

Deere, Karen A.↗

DOE OSTI2026

A Search for Successful and Choked Jets in Nearby Broad-lined Type Ic Supernovae

The observational link between long gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and broad-lined stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae (SNe Ic-BL) is well established. Significant progress has been made in constraining what fraction of SNe Ic-BL may power high- or low-luminosity GRBs when viewed at small off-axis angles. However, the GRB–SN connection still lacks a complete understanding in the broader context of massive-star evolution and explosion physics. Models predict a continuum of outcomes for the fastest ejecta, from choked to ultrarelativistic jets, and observations from radio to X-rays are key to probing these scenarios across a range of viewing angles and velocities. Here, we present results from a coordinated radio-to-X-ray campaign targeting nearby (z ≲ 0.1) SNe Ic-BL designed to explore this diversity. With eight new radio-monitored events and updated data for one previously observed SN, we further tighten constraints on the fraction of SNe Ic-BL as relativistic as SN 1998bw (GRB 980425). We identify SN 2024rjw as a new radio-loud event likely powered by strong interaction with circumstellar material, and add evidence supporting a similar interpretation for SN 2020jqm. We also establish new limits on the properties of radio-emitting ejecta with velocities consistent with cocoons from choked jets, highlighting SN 2022xxf as a promising cocoon-dominated candidate. These results refine our understanding of the continuum linking ordinary SNe Ic-BL, engine-driven explosions, and GRBs, and contribute to building a sample that will inform future multimessenger searches for electromagnetic counterparts to high-energy neutrinos.

O’Dwyer, Tanner [Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, M↗

NASA NTRS2016

Predictive Evaluations of Oxygen-Rich Hydrocarbon Combustion Gas-Centered Swirl Coaxial Injectors using a Flamelet-Based 3-D CFD Simulation Approach

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has embarked upon a joint project with the Air Force to improve the state-of-the-art of space application combustion device design and operational understanding. One goal of the project is to design, build and hot-fire test a 40,000 pound-thrust Oxygen/Rocket Propellant-2 (RP-2) Oxygen-Rich staged engine at MSFC. The overall project goals afford the opportunity to test multiple different injector designs and experimentally evaluate the any effect on the engine performance and combustion dynamics. To maximize the available test resources and benefits, pre-test, combusting flow, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis was performed on the individual injectors to guide the design. The results of the CFD analysis were used to design the injectors for specific, targeted fluid dynamic features and the analysis results also provided some predictive input for acoustic and thermal analysis of the main Thrust Chamber Assembly (TCA). MSFC has developed and demonstrated the ability to utilize a computationally efficient, flamelet-based combustion model to guide the pre-test design of single-element Gas Centered Swirl Coaxial (GCSC) injectors. Previous, Oxygen/RP-2 simulation models utilizing the Loci-STREAM flow solver, were validated using single injector test data from the EC-1 Air Force test facility. The simulation effort herein is an extension of the validated, CFD driven, single-injector design approach applied to single injectors which will be part of a larger engine array. Time-accurate, Three-Dimensional, CFD simulations were performed for five different classes of injector geometries. Simulations were performed to guide the design of the injector to achieve a variety of intended performance goals. For example, two GCSC injectors were designed to achieve stable hydrodynamic behavior of the propellant circuits while providing the largest thermal margin possible within the design envelope. While another injector was designed to purposefully create a hydrodynamic instability in the fuel supply circuit as predicted by the CFD analysis. Future multi-injector analysis and testing will indicate what if any changes occur in the predicted behavior for the single-element injector when the same injector geometry is placed in a multi-element array.

Richardson, Brian R.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SLS Integrated Modal Test Uncertainty Quantification using the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method

Uncertainty in structural loading during launch is a significant concern in the development of spacecraft and launch vehicles. Small variations in launch vehicle and payload mode shapes and their interaction can result in significant variation in system loads. In many cases involving large aerospace systems it is difficult, not economical, or impossible to perform a system modal test. However, it is still vital to obtain test results that can be compared with analytical predictions to validate models. Instead, the “Building Block Approach” is used in which system components are tested individually. Component models are correlated and updated to agree as best they can with test results. The Space Launch System consists of a number of components that are assembled into a launch vehicle. Finite element models of the components are developed, reduced to Hurty/Craig-Bampton models and assembled to represent different phases of flight. The only opportunity to obtain modal test data from an assembled Space Launch System will be during the Integrated Modal Test. There is always uncertainty in every model, which flows into uncertainty in predicted system results. Uncertainty Quantification is used to determine statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. For the Space Launch System, model uncertainty is at the Hurty/Craig-Bampton component level. Uncertainty in the Hurty/Craig-Bampton components is quantified using the hybrid parametric variation approach that combines parametric and nonparametric uncertainty. Uncertainty in model form is one of the biggest contributors to uncertainty in complex built-up structures. This type of uncertainty cannot be represented by variations infinite element model input parameters and thus cannot be included in a parametric approach. However, model-form uncertainty can be modeled using a nonparametric approach based on random matrix theory. The hybrid parametric variation method requires the selection of dispersion values for the Hurty/Craig-Bampton fixed-interface eigenvalues, and the Hurty/Craig-Bampton stiffness matrices. Component test/analysis frequency error is used to identify the fixed-interface eigenvalue dispersions, while test/analysis cross-orthogonality is used to identify stiffness dispersion values. The hybrid parametric variation uncertainty quantification approach is applied to the Space Launch System Integrated Modal Test configuration. Monte Carlo analysis is performed, and statistics are determined for modal correlation metrics, frequency response from Integrated Modal Test shakers to selected accelerometers, as well as other metrics for determining how well target modes are excited and identified. If the predicted uncertainty envelopes future Integrated Modal Test results, then there will be increased confidence in the utility of the component-based hybrid parametric variation uncertainty quantification approach.

Uncertainty Quantification↗

NASA NTRS2008

Leading Your Leaders

Even though working on a problem has been your primary effort for the past year, your leadership may have heard about this once in a briefing a decade ago. Now they are basically clueless. Pretend that you are talking to your daughter's fifth-grade class. Explain how your complicated gizmo works. If possible, do not use acronyms. Define your terms. Put your work in context. Assume your leader has no idea what you do, who you work for, or what your gizmo does. That is a good place to start. Remember, taking the next century to study the problem or spending the Gross National Product to invent a new solution are probably not going to be acceptable solutions. Real engineers and technicians build real hardware that works in the real world in a reasonable manner within a reasonable time at a reasonable cost. True, skimping on time or money can cause mistakes, but folks whose gizmos are delayed unreasonably or cost more than is practical get their programs canceled, force the business into bankruptcy, or give the market over to the competition. Real engineers and technicians always consider cost and schedule in their work. Raising questions is important. However, we are in the business of doing things. Engineers and technicians are paid to get things done. Yes, you have to identify the problem, frame the design, identify the tests, perform the analysis, and assemble the hardware. But the goal is to solve the problem. Nobody ever said flying in space was easy. We make it look easy the same way that an Olympic champion makes her sport look easy: by working hard at improving performance every day. Better are the results of a well-defined test. Remember that a test on a laboratory bench is always an approximation of reality, and rules similar to those for good analysis also apply. One should always be mindful of Mechelay's rule: "It is better to be stupid than to run a stupid test." Often we try to overtest. If a piece of hardware passes an unbelievably difficult test, then life is good. More often when an unbelievably difficult test fails, we are left with a very long discussion of why and what was wrong in the design or execution of the test. Make sure that the test is well defined. Even then, it is important to explain to your leaders what inherent accuracy (or error) the test conditions or equipment have and what the assumptions or initial conditions were for the test. Test results without a good understanding of the test's accuracy or the pedigree of the test assumptions are worth very little. Finally, there is flight test data. Always limited, never at the edge of the envelope, it still shows how the real hardware works in a combined environment. Flight experience is dangerous because it typically doesn't show how close to the edge of the cliff the equipment is operating, but it does demonstrate how the hardware really works. A flight test is the ultimate test, again taken with the knowledge that it is probably not the extreme but something more like the middle of the environmental and systems performance. Good understanding of a problem and its solution always relies on a combination of all these methods. Be sure to lead your leaders by using all the tools you have at your disposal. At the end of the day, decisions in space flight always come down to a risk trade. Our business is not remotely safe, not in the sense that the public, the media, or our legislators use the term. Everything we do has a risk, cost, schedule, or performance trade-off. For your leaders to make an appropriate decision, you need to educate them, lead them, talk with them, and engage them in the discussion until full understanding takes place. It's your job. *

Hale, Wayne N.↗

NASA NTRS2002

SMEX-Lite Modular Solar Array Architecture

For the most part, Goddard solar arrays have been custom designs that are unique to each mission. The solar panel design has been frozen prior to issuing an RFP for their procurement. There has typically been 6-9 months between RFP release and contract award, followed by an additional 24 months for performance of the contract. For Small Explorer (SMEX) missions, with three years between mission definition and launch, this has been a significant problem. The SMEX solar panels have been sufficiently small that the contract performance period has been reduced to 12-15 months. The bulk of this time is used up in the final design definition and fabrication of flight solar cell assemblies. Even so, it has been virtually impossible to have the spacecraft design at a level of maturity sufficient to freeze the solar panel geometry and release the RFP in time to avoid schedule problems with integrating the solar panels to the spacecraft. With that in mind, the SMEX-Lite project team developed a modular architecture for the assembly of solar arrays to greatly reduce the cost and schedule associated with the development of a mission- specific solar array. In the modular architecture, solar cells are fabricated onto small substrate panels. This modular panel (approximately 8.5" x 17" in this case) becomes the building block for constructing solar arrays for multiple missions with varying power requirements and geometrical arrangements. The mechanical framework that holds these modules together as a solar array is the only mission-unique design, changing in size and shape as required for each mission. There are several advantages to this approach. First, the typical solar array development cycle requires a mission unique design, procurement, and qualification including a custom qualification panel. With the modular architecture, a single qualification of the SMEX-Lite modules and the associated mechanical framework in a typical configuration provided a qualification by similarity to multiple missions. It then becomes possible to procure solar array modules in advance of mission definition and respond quickly and inexpensively to a selected mission's unique requirements. The solar array modular architecture allows the procurement of solar array modules before the array geometry has been frozen. This reduces the effect of procurement lead-time on the mission integration and test flow by as much as 50%. Second, by spreading the non-recurring costs over multiple missions, the cost per unit area is also reduced. In the case of the SMEX-Lite procurement, this reduction was by about one third of the cost per unit area compared to previous SMEX mission-unique procurements. Third, the modular architecture greatly facilitates the infusion of new solar cell technologies into flight programs as these technologies become available. New solar cell technologies need only be fabricated onto a standard-sized module to be incorporated into the next available mission. The modular solar array can be flown in a mixed configuration with some new and some standard cell technologies. Since each module has its own wiring terminals, the array can be arranged as desired electrically with little impact to cost and schedule. The solar array modular architecture does impose some additional constraints on systems and subsystem engineers. First, they must work with discrete solar array modules rather than size the array to fit exactly within an available envelope. The array area is constrained to an integer multiple of the module area. Second, the modular design is optimized for space radiation and thermal environments not greatly different from a typical SMEX LEO environment. For example, a mission with a highly elliptical orbit (e.g., Polar, SMEX/FAST) would require thicker coverglasses to protect the solar cells from the more intense radiation environment.

Lyons, John↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗