Green Propulsion: A NASA GSFC Assessment
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Henry W Mulkey↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “GSFC”
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.
NASA GSFC EEE Parts Failure Analysis: Isolating Integrated Circuit Electrical Damage
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
EEE↗
Towards Picometer-Level Metrology with the GSFC Ultra-Stable Structures Laboratory (USSL)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Breann Sitarski↗
Automation at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Shannon D Bull↗
An Integrated Platform for Mission Performance: Goddard Space Flight Center's Meta Information System
Successful management of NASA Goddard Space Flight Centers portfolio of mission projects (i.e. spacecraft, spacecraft instruments / subsystems, and ground systems) depends upon numerous processes, data and information resources coming together throughout the life-cycle of the projects to enable sound decision-making, risk reduction, conformance with requirements and continual improvement. In the summer of 2012, GSFC SMA management recognized that the set of legacy data systems used to support the SMA mission and responsibilities at GSFC were not effective, integrated nor on par with best practices. Accordingly, GSFC SMA management launched a project to transform the GSFC electronic management system to create and deploy an integrated, state-of-the-market information system for process performance, data management and analytics that is currently operating in support of GSFC overall mission performance. The information system, known as Meta, provides controlled, process-based applications, integrated data management, and analytics for a robust set of integrated applications. Since the inception of the project, a lean, award-winning SMA project team has thus far designed, configured and managed the system to serve as an integrated platform for 18 applications that support key processes for GSFC and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters, such as internal Management System assessments, Supplier Assessments, Supplier Research & Analysis, Problem Reporting for in-house mission projects, On-orbit Anomaly Reporting for GSFC-operated spacecraft, GSFC Project Life-Cycle Reviews, Risk Management and Reporting, and SMA Project Team Reporting. The system has experienced steady growth in utilization with 1,917 users (NASA employees and support contractor personnel) and 44 gigabytes of data and related files managed by the system as of the end of April 2018. Overall, Meta has achieved increasing levels of process management and real-time data / information integration to enable improved process performance, richer analytics and informed decision-making. This paper will present and examine the need, goals, approach and design driving the management and operation of the Meta information system and its ongoing growth as an integrated platform for advancing NASA mission performance.
Integration↗
Constellation X-Ray Mission and Support
This Fourth Annual Report summarizes work performed by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) for NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) under Cooperative Agreement NCC5-368. The Agreement is entitled Constellation X-ray Mission Study and SAO continues to perform work under the overall direction of Dr. Harvey Tananbaum, the SAO Principal Investigator for the program. Mr. Robert Rasche is the SAO Program Manager and is responsible for day-to-day program management at SAO and coordination with GSFC. The report summarizes the main areas of SAO activity. Most of the work has been done jointly with personnel from GSFC and Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). We describe SAO participation in these efforts. As is appropriate to a Cooperative Agreement, SAO continued to work with GSFC in an integrated team mode. SAO was involved in the overall mission management, technology development, scientific direction, and mission definition. While formal overall management responsibility resides with GSFC, scientific lead and subordinate responsibilities continue to be shared by GSFC and SAO. The work performed by SAO is consistent with the SAO proposal 'Constellation X-ray Mission Study and Optics Development' dated September 1997, which was the basis for establishing the Cooperative Agreement under which SAO is currently funded. Over time, the scope of the effort has expanded somewhat to accommodate the needs of the project. Work, except for meeting support and high priority program tasks, has been at a level of effort. Priorities and work progress have been closely coordinated with the Constellation-X Project Formulation Manager at GSFC. Funding limitations constrained the work accomplished during this period. Nonetheless, a significant amount of work was accomplished. Under the Agreement, SAO performed work in seven major areas of activity. These areas related to: Constellation X-ray Mission Facility Definition Team and Study Management; Science Support; Spectroscopy X-ray Telescope (SXT); Systems Engineering; Travel in Support of the Work Effort; In-house Management and Coordination.
Grady, Jean↗
Green Propellant Landing Demonstration at U.S. Range
The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.
Propellant↗
Green Propellant Loading Demonstration at U.S. Range
The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.
Green Propellant↗
Goddard Space Flight Center solar array missions, requirements and directions
The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) develops and operates a wide variety of spacecraft for conducting NASA's communications, space science, and earth science missions. Some are 'in house' spacecraft for which the GSFC builds the spacecraft and performs all solar array design, analysis, integration, and test. Others are 'out of house' spacecraft for which an aerospace contractor builds the spacecraft and develops the solar array under direction from GSFC. The experience of developing flight solar arrays for numerous GSFC 'in house' and 'out of house' spacecraft has resulted in an understanding of solar array requirements for many different applications. This presentation will review those solar array requirements that are common to most GSFC spacecraft. Solar array technologies will be discussed that are currently under development and that could be useful to future GSFC spacecraft.
Gaddy, Edward↗
Mission Study and Optics Development Support for Constellation X
This document is the Final Report for NASA Cooperative Agreement NCC5-268 between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO). The Agreement is entitled "Constellation X-ray Mission Study and Optics Development." The report is required by the terms of the Agreement. There were four modifications to the Agreement. The period of performance was from February 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999. The report summarizes the main areas of SAO activity. Other than the design and analysis related to the SXT Mirror (see Section 4.0), most of the work was carried out jointly with personnel from GSFC and Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Consequently, we do not mean to imply that such activities were carried out exclusively by SAO. Rather, we have tried to describe the SAO participation in these efforts.The report summarizes the main areas of SAO activity. Other than the design and analysis related to the SXT Mirror (see Section 4.0), most of the work was carried out jointly with personnel from GSFC and Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Consequently, we do not mean to imply that such activities were carried out exclusively by SAO. Rather, we have tried to describe the SAO participation in these efforts. As is appropriate to a Cooperative Agreement, SAO worked with GSFC in an integrated team mode. SAO was involved in the mission management, technology development, and mission definition. The organization is shown in Figure 1. While overall management responsibility resided with GSFC, scientific lead and subordinate responsibilities were shared between GSFC and SAO.
Tananbaum, H.↗
Goddard Space Flight Center Solar Array Missions, Requirements and Directions
The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) develops and operates a wide variety of spacecraft for conducting NASA's communications, space science, and earth science missions. Some are "in house" spacecraft for which the GSFC builds the spacecraft and performs all solar array design, analysis, integration, and test. Others are "out of house" spacecraft for which an aerospace contractor builds the spacecraft and develops the solar array under direction from GSFC. The experience of developing flight solar arrays for numerous GSFC "in house" and "out of house" spacecraft has resulted in an understanding of solar array requirements for many different applications. This presentation will review those solar array requirements that are common to most GSFC spacecraft. Solar array technologies will be discussed that are currently under development and that could be useful to future GSFC spacecraft.
Gaddy, Edward↗
Comparison of Snow Mass Estimates from a Prototype Passive Microwave Snow Algorithm, a Revised Algorithm and a Snow Depth Climatology
While it is recognized that no single snow algorithm is capable of producing accurate global estimates of snow depth, for research purposes it is useful to test an algorithm's performance in different climatic areas in order to see how it responds to a variety of snow conditions. This study is one of the first to develop separate passive microwave snow algorithms for North America and Eurasia by including parameters that consider the effects of variations in forest cover and crystal size on microwave brightness temperature. A new algorithm (GSFC 1996) is compared to a prototype algorithm (Chang et al., 1987) and to a snow depth climatology (SDC), which for this study is considered to be a standard reference or baseline. It is shown that the GSFC 1996 algorithm compares much more favorably to the SDC than does the Chang et al. (1987) algorithm. For example, in North America in February there is a 15% difference between the GSFC 198-96 Algorithm and the SDC, but with the Chang et al. (1987) algorithm the difference is greater than 50%. In Eurasia, also in February, there is only a 1.3% difference between the GSFC 1996 algorithm and the SDC, whereas with the Chang et al. (1987) algorithm the difference is about 20%. As expected, differences tend to be less when the snow cover extent is greater, particularly for Eurasia. The GSFC 1996 algorithm performs better in North America in each month than dose the Chang et al. (1987) algorithm. This is also the case in Eurasia, except in April and May when the Chang et al.(1987) algorithms is in closer accord to the SDC than is GSFC 1996 algorithm.
Foster, J. L.↗
Surface Figure Measurement at 20K: Silicon Carbide and Cesic Mirrors
This report presents the facility, methods, and results of testing cryogenically-cooled spherical mirrors, using standard phase-shifting interferometry, at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Two mirrors were supplied to GSFC by the European Space Technology Center, so that GSFC could render a second, independent cryo-measurement of their surface figures at 20K. These mirrors, produced by Galileo Avionica and its partners, demonstrate the technology of silicon carbide and SiC-composite lightweighted mirrors, designed for high accuracy (10 nm rms surface figure error) at both room temperature and 20K. The two mirrors provided for testing at GSFC include one made of sintered silicon carbide (mirror blank by Bettini), and a second made of the C/Si/SiC composite known as Cesic (supplied by ECM). Both mirrors are f/2 spheres with 150 mm clear aperture, and with integral mounts. At GSFC, the mirrors will be measured first at at room temperature, making use of standard techniques, with a predicted uncertainty of 2 nm. Then each mirror will be tested in the cryostat, down to 20K: first freely supported and, second, mounted to a Cesic plate that models a Cesic optical bench. The uncertainty of the resultant surface figure error is predicted to be about 5 nm rms. Details of the uncertainty budget are discussed in a related poster. GSFC's techniques and results can be usefully compared to the measurements performed on the same two mirrors by and for Galileo Avionica, who used a somewhat different test configuration and alignment approach.
Blake, Peter↗
Benefits of Spacecraft Level Vibration Testing
NASA-HDBK-7008 Spacecraft Level Dynamic Environments Testing discusses the approaches, benefits, dangers, and recommended practices for spacecraft level dynamic environments testing, including vibration testing. This paper discusses in additional detail the benefits and actual experiences of vibration testing spacecraft for NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) flight projects. JPL and GSFC have both similarities and differences in their spacecraft level vibration test approach: JPL uses a random vibration input and a frequency range usually starting at 5 Hz and extending to as high as 250 Hz. GSFC uses a sine sweep vibration input and a frequency range usually starting at 5 Hz and extending only to the limits of the coupled loads analysis (typically 50 to 60 Hz). However, both JPL and GSFC use force limiting to realistically notch spacecraft resonances and response (acceleration) limiting as necessary to protect spacecraft structure and hardware from exceeding design strength capabilities. Despite GSFC and JPL differences in spacecraft level vibration test approaches, both have uncovered a significant number of spacecraft design and workmanship anomalies in vibration tests. This paper will give an overview of JPL and GSFC spacecraft vibration testing approaches and provide a detailed description of spacecraft anomalies revealed.
Spacecraft Vibration Test↗
Gaps in Thermal Design Guidelines in the Goddard Space Flight Center GOLD Rules
The GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) GOLD Rules (Goddard Open Learning Design; GSFC-STD-1000) provide a reasonably comprehensive list of guidelines for the design and testing of spacecraft and instruments based on the long heritage of successful GSFC missions. In general, all GSFC missions are required to comply with the GOLD Rules across a number of subsystems or to seek waivers to particular GOLD rules where compliance is not practical, either due to the risk posture of a mission or the cost and/or schedule associated with compliance. In thermal subsystems, GOLD Rules are applied to design margins throughout the project life cycle and include temperature margins, heater power margins, and two-phase transport margins. However, no explicit guidance is provided for two thermal design aspects: heater control authority (for stability requirements) and cryogenic design margins (which are often not reasonable to express in terms of temperatures). This can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency among projects when demonstrating GOLD Rules compliance. Two current GSFC projects, TIRS-2 (Thermal InfraRed Sensor 2) and WFIRST (Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope), are both missions with cryogenic aspects and active thermal control for stability. This paper seeks to outline the characterization of cryogenic margins during the design process for TIRS-2 and WFIRST as well as the project derived guidelines for heater control authority margin. This effort serves as potential first steps for updating the GOLD Rules to address these two areas in guiding thermal designs at GSFC.
Modeling↗
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↗
An Evaluation of A Physics-Based Firn Model and A Semi-Empirical Firn Model Across the Greenland Ice Sheet (1980–2020)
The Greenland Ice Sheet's (GrIS) firn layer buffers the ice sheet's contribution to sea level rise by storing meltwater in its pore space. However, available pore space and meltwater retention capability is lost due to ablation of the firn layer and refreezing of meltwater as near-surface ice slabs in the firn. Understanding how firn properties respond to climate is important for constraining the GrIS's future contribution to sea level rise in a warming climate. Observations of firn density provide detailed information about firn properties, but they are spatially and temporally limited. Here we use two firn models, the physics-based SNOWPACK model and the Community Firn Model configured with a semi-empirical densification equation (CFM-GSFC), to quantify firn properties across the GrIS from 1980 through 2020. We use an identical forcing (Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2) atmospheric reanalysis) for SNOWPACK and the CFM-GSFC in order to isolate firn model differences. To evaluate the models, we compare simulated firn properties, including firn air content (FAC), to measurements from the Surface Mass Balance and Snow on Sea Ice Working Group (SUMup) dataset of snow and firn density. Both models perform well (mean absolute percentage errors of 14 % in SNOWPACK and 16 % in the CFM-GSFC), though their performance is hindered by the spatial resolution of the atmospheric forcing. In the ice-sheet-wide simulations, the 1980–1995 average spatially integrated FAC (i.e., air volume in the firn) for the upper 100 m is 34 645 km 3 from SNOWPACK and 28 581 km 3 from the CFM-GSFC. The discrepancy in the magnitude of the modeled FAC stems from differences in densification with depth and variations in the sensitivity of the models to atmospheric forcing. In more recent years (2005–2020), both models simulate substantial depletion of pore space. During this period, the spatially integrated FAC across the entire GrIS decreases by 3.2 % (−66.6 km 3 yr −1 ) in SNOWPACK and 1.5 % (−17.4 km 3 yr −1 ) in the CFM-GSFC. These differing magnitudes demonstrate how model differences propagate throughout the FAC record. Over the full modeled record (1980–2020), SNOWPACK simulates a loss of pore space equivalent to 3 mm of sea level rise buffering, while the CFM-GSFC simulates a loss of 1 mm. The greatest depletion in FAC is along the margins and especially along the western margin where observations and models show the formation of near-surface, low-permeability ice slabs that may inhibit meltwater storage.
Megan Thompson-Munson↗
Photographic consulting services for earth resources program at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
A comparison of prints from ERTS photography revealed significant differences in the image quality produced at GSFC, the EROS facility at Sioux Falls, and Eastman Kodak in Rochester. Based on this survey photographic quality was improved significantly at Sioux Falls, and improvements were suggested for optical and contact printers at the GSFC. Based on a test in which 365 meters of Eastman Electron Recording Film (ESTAR Base) SO-438 were processed the 1-sigma variation in process control from all sources is about + or - 0.04 at a density of 1.0. Variations from film and from processing were approximately equal contributors to the overall tolerance. Distortion produced by the Kodak Colorado printer at GSFC covers a range of about 0.04%, a small value compared to that caused by other factors in the ERTS system. The edge fringing inherent in the color film materials used at GSFC also seems to be a small factor in the unsharpness of ERTS color prints. MTF and granularity measurements were made on processed film samples supplied by GSFC. MTF values were above 0.70 out to 42 cycles/mm for all stages of contact printing in the ERTS system.
Source record↗