Search NASA⌕ Search

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.

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

221 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
DOE OSTI2024

Theoretical studies of chemical reactions related to the formation and growth of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and molecular properties of their key intermediates (Final Progress Report)

The formation mechanisms of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, (PAHs) – organic molecules carrying fused benzene rings – are of great interest to scientists and engineers due to their importance in combustion chemistry and astrochemistry. On Earth, PAHs are largely produced in incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and are considered as critical precursors to unwanted soot particles leading to combustion inefficiency and causing air pollution along with detrimental health effects. Simple PAH molecules initially formed in the gas phase, are further involved in a build-up process in combustion flames leading to larger PAH, bowl-shaped nanostructures, fullerenes, and solid-phase species including carbonaceous dust, graphene particles, and soot. In deep space, PAH and their derivatives are potential key intermediates and nucleation sites leading eventually to carbonaceous nanoparticles (“interstellar grains”). Therefore, the understanding of the key processes in the synthesis of PAHs along with their precursors and their degradation mechanisms in combustion systems and in interstellar, circumstellar, and planetary atmospheric environments will provide critical insights into how complex aromatic structures, carbonaceous nanoparticles, and fullerenes are formed and destroyed. Achieving this understanding is an important step in the development of the efficient combustion processes and of the ecofriendly devices with reduced environmental pollution as well as technological strategies for the production of hydrogen and solid carbon through thermal or plasma-assisted pyrolysis of natural gas and biomass. Also, the understanding of the key processes of PAH and soot growth will help in our comprehension of chemical evolution in the universe. Detailed information on the mechanisms and reliable rate constants of the key elementary chemical reactions involved in PAH formation and destruction processes and in inception of soot particles is often missing, with the main deficiencies being the absence of temperature- and pressure-dependent rate constants for the broad range of conditions occurring in various terrestrial and interstellar processes and the lack of data on the reaction products and their branching ratios. Complementary to experimental studies, these gaps in knowledge can be filled by using quantum chemical calculations of reaction potential energy surfaces providing us with accurate energies of reaction products, intermediates, and transition states, revealing the reaction mechanism, and giving the molecular properties required to compute rate constants for relevant reaction steps and product branching ratios using the RRKM-Master Equation (ME) method. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations can be used in cases when a reaction rate cannot be properly described by statistical theories. During the terminal renewal project period we employed these ab initio/RRKM-ME and MD approaches to complete our studies on several key reactions relevant to the formation/growth of PAH and inception of soot particles including (1) the reaction mechanism and kinetics of the resonance stabilized fulvenallenyl radical with propargyl and C 3 H 4 isomers; (2) the reaction mechanism and kinetics for the C + indene and C 2 + styrene reactions producing naphthyl or azulenyl radicals in low-temperature environments; (3) the MD study of non-equilibrium dimerization of acepyrene and coronene and its radical. The information derived from our theoretical calculations contributed to a better fundamental understanding of the reaction mechanisms and provide missing critical kinetic data to improve combustion models of hydrocarbon fuels and astrochemical models of the growth of carbonaceous molecules and particles in cold molecular clouds, circumstellar envelopes, and planetary atmospheres.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
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↗