Results for “Engineering Directorate” — Page 13

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) suit is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared to the current EMU and Apollo era suits and additional features will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS suit progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury. History has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight; therefore, currently planned training events to prepare for lunar missions and tasks during lunar surface EVAs were considered. Each scenario is ranked with likelihood and consequence scorings based on our current understanding of suit and application of Artemis design reference missions. The scoring allowed identification of the high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Mechanisms of injury, injury outcomes, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team; ergonomists; suit engineers; safety engineers; the flight operations directorate; flight doctors; astronauts; astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS); and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using these, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/longdistance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

JETT3: A Holistic, Integrated Analog for Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration

Since 1972, NASA astronauts have performed hundreds of Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) in support of Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station missions. Not since Apollo, however, have EVAs been driven by discovery-based principles of scientific exploration. Upcoming Artemis missions are challenged to build on lessons learned from Apollo, merging 50 years of EVA experience with the planetary science community’s expertise in the remote surface exploration of Mars. The highest-fidelity preparation for Artemis includes both operational and scientific underpinning to represent the complete, complex picture of lunar surface operations. The Joint EVA & Human Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT) is an interdisciplinary team providing such an environment for collaborative analog testing. JETT builds upon prior analog campaigns (e.g., [1, 2]) to provide high-fidelity environments for hardware and concept of operations development. Sponsored by the NASA EVA & Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), JETT includes representatives from EHP, NASA Engineering, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Human Health & Performance, and the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). JETT tests evaluate NASA reference designs for EVA (e.g., suits and tools), address gaps and risks for Artemis lunar surface operations, develop capabilities for EVA and science tasks, enable technology maturation, and provide training for Artemis EVA operations. JETT3, the final JETT field test of FY22, occurred Oct 3-11, 2022 in the San Francisco Volcanic Field north of Flagstaff, AZ. The test focused on developing the Artemis concept of operations and systems, including integrating an Artemis-like Science Team into a NASA Flight Control Team (FCT) to plan and execute a series of simulated lunar EVAs in an environment analogous to Artemis 3.

T. E. Caswell↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Tessa Reiber↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

JETT3: A Holistic, Integrated Analog for Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration

Since 1972, NASA astronauts have performed hundreds of Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) in support of Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station missions. Not since Apollo, however, have EVAs been driven by discovery-based principles of scientific exploration. Upcoming Artemis missions are challenged to build on lessons learned from Apollo, merging 50 years of EVA experience with the planetary science community’s expertise in the remote surface exploration of Mars. The highest-fidelity preparation for Artemis includes both operational and scientific underpinning to represent the complete, complex picture of lunar surface operations. The Joint EVA & Human Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT) is an interdisciplinary team providing such an environment for collaborative analog testing. JETT builds upon prior analog campaigns (e.g., [1, 2]) to provide high-fidelity environments for hardware and concept of operations development. Sponsored by the NASA EVA & Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), JETT includes representatives from EHP, NASA Engineering, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Human Health & Performance, and the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD). JETT tests evaluate NASA reference designs for EVA (e.g., suits and tools), address gaps and risks for Artemis lunar surface operations, develop capabilities for EVA and science tasks, enable technology maturation, and provide training for Artemis EVA operations. JETT3, the final JETT field test of FY22, occurred Oct 3-11, 2022 in the San Francisco Volcanic Field north of Flagstaff, AZ. The test focused on developing the Artemis concept of operations and systems, including integrating an Artemis-like Science Team into a NASA Flight Control Team (FCT) to plan and execute a series of simulated lunar EVAs in an environment analogous to Artemis 3.

T. E. Caswell↗

NASA NTRS2012

Elements of Engineering Excellence

The inspiration for this Contract Report (CR) originated in discussions with the director of Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Engineering who asked that we investigate the question: "How do you achieve excellence in aerospace engineering?" Engineering a space system is a complex activity. Avoiding its inherent potential pitfalls and achieving a successful product is a challenge. This CR presents one approach to answering the question of how to achieve Engineering Excellence. We first investigated the root causes of NASA major failures as a basis for developing a proposed answer to the question of Excellence. The following discussions integrate a triad of Technical Understanding and Execution, Partnership with the Project, and Individual and Organizational Culture. The thesis is that you must focus on the whole process and its underlying culture, not just on the technical aspects. In addition to the engineering process, emphasis is given to the need and characteristics of a Learning Organization as a mechanism for changing the culture.

Blair, J. C.↗

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.↗

NASA NTRS1974

Flight evaluation of advanced control systems and displays on a general aviation airplane

A flight-test program was conducted to determine the effect of advanced flight control systems and displays on the handling qualities of a light twin-engined airplane. A flight-director display and an attitude-command control system, used separately and in combination, transformed a vehicle with poor handling qualities during ILS approaches in turbulent air into a vehicle with good handling qualities. The attitude-command control system also improved the ride qualities of the airplane. A rate-command control system made only small improvements to the airplane's ILS handling qualities in turbulence. Both the rate- and the attitude-command control systems reduced stall warning in the test airplane, increasing the likelihood of inadvertent stalls. The final approach to the point of flare was improved by both the rate- and the attitude-command control systems. However, the small control wheel deflections necessary to flare were unnatural and tended to cause overcontrolling during flare. Airplane handling qualities are summarized for each control-system and display configuration.

Loschke, P. C.↗

NASA NTRS1993

EVA tools and equipment reference book

This document contains a mixture of tools and equipment used throughout the space shuttle-based extravehicular activity (EVA) program. Promising items which have reached the prototype stage of development are also included, but should not be considered certified ready for flight. Each item is described with a photo, a written discussion, technical specifications, dimensional drawings, and points of contact for additional information. Numbers on the upper left-hand corner of each photo may be used to order specific pictures from NASA and contractor photo libraries. Points of contact were classified as either operational or technical. An operational contact is an engineer from JSC Mission Operations Directorate who is familiar with the basic function and on-orbit use of the tool. A technical contact would be the best source of detailed technical specifications and is typically the NASA subsystem manager. The technical information table for each item uses the following terms to describe the availability or status of each hardware item: Standard - Flown on every mission as standard manifest; Flight specific - Potentially available for flight, not flown every mission (flight certification cannot be guaranteed and recertification may be required); Reference only - Item no longer in active inventory or not recommended for future use, some items may be too application-specific for general use; and Developmental - In the prototype stage only and not yet available for flight. The current availability and certification of any flight-specific tool should be verified with the technical point of contact. Those tools built and fit checked for Hubble Space Telescope maintenance are program dedicated and are not available to other customers. Other customers may have identical tools built from the existing, already certified designs as an optional service.

Fullerton, R. K.↗

NASA NTRS2003

The National Aerospace Initiative (NAI): Technologies For Responsive Space Access

The Secretary of Defense has set new goals for the Department of Defense (DOD) to transform our nation's military forces. The Director for Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) has responded to this challenge by defining and sponsoring a transformational initiative in Science and Technology (S&T) - the National Aerospace Initiative (NAI) - which will have a fundamental impact on our nation's military capabilities and on the aerospace industry in general. The NAI is planned as a joint effort among the tri-services, DOD agencies and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). It is comprised of three major focus areas or pillars: 1) High Speed Hypersonics (HSH), 2) Space Access (SA), and 3) Space Technology (ST). This paper addresses the Space Access pillar. The NAI-SA team has employed a unique approach to identifying critical technologies and demonstrations for satisfying both military and civilian space access capabilities needed in the future. For planning and implementation purposes the NAI-SA is divided into five technology subsystem areas: Airframe, Propulsion, Flight Subsystems, Operations and Payloads. Detailed technology roadmaps were developed under each subsystem area using a time-phased, goal oriented approach that provides critical space access capabilities in a timely manner and involves subsystem ground and flight demonstrations. This S&T plan addresses near-term (2009), mid-term (2016), and long-term (2025) goals and objectives for space access. In addition, system engineering and integration approach was used to make sure that the plan addresses the requirements of the end users. This paper describes in some detail the technologies in NAI-Space Access pillar. Some areas of emphasis are: high temperature materials, thermal protection systems, long life, lightweight, highly efficient airframes, metallic and composite cryotanks, advanced liquid rocket engines, integrated vehicle health monitoring and management, highly operable systems and payloads. Implementation strategies for NAI are also described.

Culbertson, Andrew↗

NASA NTRS2005

X-43D Conceptual Design and Feasibility Study

NASA s Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Program, in conjunction with the office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), developed an integrated hypersonic technology demonstration roadmap. This roadmap is an integral part of the National Aerospace Initiative (NAI), a multi-year, multi-agency cooperative effort to invest in and develop, among other things, hypersonic technologies. This roadmap contains key ground and flight demonstrations required along the path to developing a reusable hypersonic space access system. One of the key flight demonstrations required for systems that will operate in the high Mach number regime is the X-43D. As currently conceived, the X-43D is a Mach 15 flight test vehicle that incorporates a hydrogen-fueled scramjet engine. The purpose of the X-43D is to gather high Mach number flight environment and engine operability information which is difficult, if not impossible, to gather on the ground. During 2003, the NGLT Future Hypersonic Flight Demonstration Office initiated a feasibility study on the X-43D. The objective of the study was to develop a baseline conceptual design, assess its performance, and identify the key technical issues. The study also produced a baseline program plan, schedule, and cost, along with a list of key programmatic risks.

Johnson, Donald B.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Program Life-cycle Cost Analysis Model (LCAM)

The Constellation Program (CxP) is NASA's effort to replace the Space Shuttle, return humans to the moon, and prepare for a human mission to Mars. The major elements of the Constellation Lunar sortie design reference mission architecture are shown. Unlike the Apollo Program of the 1960's, affordability is a major concern of United States policy makers and NASA management. To measure Constellation affordability, a total ownership cost life-cycle parametric cost estimating capability is required. This capability is being developed by the Constellation Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Directorate, and is called the Lifecycle Cost Analysis Model (LCAM). The requirements for LCAM are based on the need to have a parametric estimating capability in order to do top-level program analysis, evaluate design alternatives, and explore options for future systems. By estimating the total cost of ownership within the context of the planned Constellation budget, LCAM can provide Program and NASA management with the cost data necessary to identify the most affordable alternatives. LCAM is also a key component of the Integrated Program Model (IPM), an SE&I developed capability that combines parametric sizing tools with cost, schedule, and risk models to perform program analysis. LCAM is used in the generation of cost estimates for system level trades and analyses. It draws upon the legacy of previous architecture level cost models, such as the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Architecture Cost Model (ARCOM) developed for Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA), and ATLAS. LCAM is used to support requirements and design trade studies by calculating changes in cost relative to a baseline option cost. Estimated costs are generally low fidelity to accommodate available input data and available cost estimating relationships (CERs). LCAM is capable of interfacing with the Integrated Program Model to provide the cost estimating capability for that suite of tools.

Prince, Andy↗

NASA NTRS2010

Air Data Boom System Development for the Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) Flight Experiment

In 2007, the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) chartered the NASA Engineering Safety Center (NESC) to demonstrate an alternate launch abort concept as risk mitigation for the Orion project's baseline "tower" design. On July 8, 2009, a full scale and passively, aerodynamically stabilized MLAS launch abort demonstrator was successfully launched from Wallops Flight Facility following nearly two years of development work on the launch abort concept: from a napkin sketch to a flight demonstration of the full-scale flight test vehicle. The MLAS flight test vehicle was instrumented with a suite of aerodynamic sensors. The purpose was to obtain sufficient data to demonstrate that the vehicle demonstrated the behavior predicted by Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis and wind tunnel testing. This paper describes development of the Air Data Boom (ADB) component of the aerodynamic sensor suite.

Woods-Vedeler, Jessica A.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Design and Analysis of Outer Mold Line Close-outs for the Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) Flight Experiment

In 2007, the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) chartered the NASA Engineering Safety Center (NESC) to demonstrate an alternate launch abort concept as risk mitigation for the Orion project's baseline "tower" design. On July 8, 2009, a full scale, passive aerodynamically stabilized Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) pad abort demonstrator was successfully launched from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility. Aerodynamic close-outs were required to cover openings on the MLAS fairing to prevent aerodynamic flow-through and to maintain the MLAS OML surface shape. Two-ply duct tape covers were designed to meet these needs. The duct tape used was a high strength fiber reinforced duct tape with a rubberized adhesive that demonstrated 4.6 lb/in adhesion strength to the unpainted fiberglass fairing. Adhesion strength was observed to increase as a function of time. The covers were analyzed and experimentally tested to demonstrate their ability to maintain integrity under anticipated vehicle ascent pressure loads and to not impede firing of the drogue chute mortars. Testing included vacuum testing and a mortar fire test. Tape covers were layed-up on thin Teflon sheets to facilitate installation on the vehicle. Custom cut foam insulation board was used to fill mortar hole and separation joint cavities and provide support to the applied tape covers. Flight test results showed that the tape covers remained adhered during flight.

Woods-Vedeler, Jessica A.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Validation of High-Fidelity CFD Simulations for Rocket Injector Design

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has the potential to improve the historical rocket injector design process by evaluating the sensitivity of performance and injector-driven thermal environments to the details of the injector geometry and key operational parameters. Methodical verification and validation efforts on a range of coaxial injector elements have shown the current production CFD capability must be improved in order to quantitatively impact the injector design process. This paper documents the status of a focused effort to compare and understand the predictive capabilities and computational requirements of a range of CFD methodologies on a set of single element injector model problems. The steady Reynolds-Average Navier-Stokes (RANS), unsteady Reynolds-Average Navier-Stokes (URANS) and three different approaches using the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) technique were used to simulate the initial model problem, a single element coaxial injector using gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen propellants. While one high-fidelity LES result matches the experimental combustion chamber wall heat flux very well, there is no monotonic convergence to the data with increasing computational tool fidelity. Systematic evaluation of key flow field regions such as the flame zone, the head end recirculation zone and the downstream near wall zone has shed significant, though as of yet incomplete, light on the complex, underlying causes for the performance level of each technique. 1 Aerospace Engineer and Combustion CFD Team Leader, MS ER42, NASA MSFC, AL 35812, Senior Member, AIAA. 2 Professor and Director, Computational Combustion Laboratory, School of Aerospace Engineering, 270 Ferst Dr., Atlanta, GA 30332, Associate Fellow, AIAA. 3 Reilly Professor of Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, 585 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907, Fellow, AIAA. 4 Principal Member of Technical Staff, Combustion Research Facility, 7011 East Avenue, MS9051, Livermore, CA 94550, Associate Fellow, AIAA. 5 J. L. and G. H. McCain Endowed Chair, Mechanical Engineering, 104 Research Building East, University Park, PA 16802, Fellow, AIAA. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1

Tucker, P. Kevin↗

NASA NTRS2006

SACD's Support of the Hyper-X Program

NASA s highly successful Hyper-X program demonstrated numerous hypersonic air-breathing vehicle related technologies including scramjet performance, advanced materials and hot structures, GN&C, and integrated vehicle performance resulting in, for the first time ever, acceleration of a vehicle powered by a scramjet engine. The Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate (SACD) at NASA s Langley Research Center played a major role in the integrated team providing critical support, analysis, and leadership to the Hyper-X Program throughout the program s entire life and were key to its ultimate success. Engineers in SACD s Vehicle Analysis Branch (VAB) were involved in all stages and aspects of the program, from conceptual design prior to contract award, through preliminary design and hardware development, and in to, during, and after each of the three flights. Working closely with other engineers at Langley and Dryden, as well as industry partners, roughly 20 members of SACD were involved throughout the evolution of the Hyper-X program in nearly all disciplines, including lead roles in several areas. Engineers from VAB led the aerodynamic database development, the propulsion database development, and the stage separation analysis and database development effort. Others played major roles in structures, aerothermal, GN&C, trajectory analysis and flight simulation, as well as providing CFD support for aerodynamic, propulsion, and aerothermal analysis.

Robinson, Jeffrey S.↗

NASA NTRS2006

STS-1: Columbia Briefings

A video presentation on an update of the STS-1 Columbia Shuttle is shown. Hugh Harris is the moderator. He introduces Don Phillips, Chief STS Test OPS, who presents the status of the vehicle. Terry William, Chief of Mechanical Systems, discusses the debonding of the panels. A question and answer period from the news media is shown. The various topics of discussion from the news media include: 1) Repair of thermal tiles; 2) Launch dates; and 3) Landing and launch sites and 4) Low pressure/high pressure tanking tests. An audio presentation is given of questions from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA Washington. On March 12, 1981, another STS-1 Columbia update is shown. Bob Schick, Shuttle Test Director, and Bob Sieck, Flight Project Engineer answers questions about the actual repair time of the panels and a very detailed description of the three areas of debonding is presented. A brief launch date statement from Dr. Allen Lovelace, Acting NASA Administrator is given and John Lardley, Shuttle Associate Director, discusses the flight readiness review.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2020

Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV) Damage Tolerance Life Analysis Methodology and Test Best Practices

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) Deputy Director requested an independent assessment to develop data to understand the limitations of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) computational methods used to predict fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN) behavior of small detectable cracks in thin metal liners for composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs). The NESC assessment team was also requested to demonstrate a test-based methodology for validating damage tolerance requirements for COPVs with elastically responding metal liners where LEFM methods are not appropriate. This report contains the outcome of the NESC assessment.

Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels; Linear Ela↗