Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “flight data system”

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.

At least 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRS1971

Correlation of Apollo oxygen tank thermodynamic performance predictions

Parameters necessary to analyze the stratified performance of the Apollo oxygen tanks include g levels, tank elasticity, flow rates and pressurized volumes. Methods for estimating g levels and flow rates from flight plans prior to flight, and from quidance and system data for use in the post flight analysis are described. Equilibrium thermodynamic equations are developed for the effects of tank elasticity and pressurized volumes on the tank pressure response and their relative magnitudes are discussed. Correlations of tank pressures and heater temperatures from flight data with the results of a stratification model are shown. Heater temperatures were also estimated with empirical heat transfer agreement with flight data when fluid properties were averaged rather than evaluated at the mean film temperature.

Patterson, H. W.↗
NASA NTRS1975

An automated atmospheric sampling system operating on 747 airliners

An air sampling system that automatically measures the temporal and spatial distribution of selected particulate and gaseous constituents of the atmosphere has been installed on a number of commercial airliners and is collecting data on commercial air routes covering the world. Measurements of constituents related to aircraft engine emissions and other pollutants are made in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (6 to 12 km) in support of the Global Air Sampling Program (GASP). Aircraft operated by different airlines sample air at latitudes from the Arctic to Australia. This system includes specialized instrumentation for measuring carbon monoxide, ozone, water vapor, and particulates, a special air inlet probe for sampling outside air, a computerized automatic control, and a data acquisition system. Air constituents and related flight data are tape recorded in flight for later computer processing on the ground.

Perkins, P.↗
NASA NTRS1976

An automated atmospheric sampling system operating on 747 airliners

An air sampling system that automatically measures the temporal and spatial distribution of particulate and gaseous constituents of the atmosphere is collecting data on commercial air routes covering the world. Measurements are made in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (6 to 12 km) of constituents related to aircraft engine emissions and other pollutants. Aircraft operated by different airlines sample air at latitudes from the Arctic to Australia. This unique system includes specialized instrumentation, a special air inlet probe for sampling outside air, a computerized automatic control, and a data acquisition system. Air constituent and related flight data are tape recorded in flight for later computer processing on the ground.

Perkins, P. J.↗
NASA NTRS1981

The use of frequency methods in rotorcraft system identification

A new approach to model structure determination is examined. Flight data from the Rotor Systems Research Aircraft (RSRA) are transformed into the frequency domain and truncated to provide band limiting. The stepwise regression technique is then used to identify a quasistatic state-space model from the transformed data. The data processing requirements for both time domain and frequency domain identification are discussed and the results of the two techniques are compared.

Duval, R. W.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Visible and infrared spin scanning radiometer /VISSR/ atmospheric sounder /VAS/ ground data system

The interactive system developed at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center to receive data from the infrared radiometer on GOES-4 in near real time and to perform interactive display and analysis of the 12-channel infrared imagery is described. The system is minicomputer based and uses a menu approach in guiding the analyst through spacecraft instrument programming, area and band selection, image acquisition, enhancement, analysis, and presentation of results. The system is linked by dual port disks to Goddard's Atmospheric and Oceanographic Information Processing System for comparing the sounding results with parameters derived from conventional data and from time lapse analysis of visible and IR imagery from other geostationary satellites. It is pointed out that the system hardware and software are being expanded to add capabilities for the integration and assimilation of VAS data with data from other sources, the comparison of severe storm observations from space with special ground network data, and the development of diagnostic models.

Dalton, J. T.↗
NASA NTRS1978

DSN radio science system, Mark III-78

Mark III-78, is one of eight DSN Data Systems which provide major data types and functional capabilities to flight projects. It includes the equipment, software, personnel, documentation, procedures, and resources necessary to deliver the required data to flight projects. A system definition is given along with key characteristics, functional description, system configuration, testing, implementation status, and system schedule.

Berman, A. L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-59 Air Data Probe Calibration Wind Tunnel Test

NASA's aeronautical innovators are working with Lockheed Martin to design and build a supersonic X-plane, the X-59, under the the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD) Project, that produces a gentle thump rather than a loud sonic boom. The plane will be used to collect human response data over select U.S. communities. The data from the X-59 test flights will be provided to U.S. and international regulators to potentially allow supersonic flight over land, drastically reducing travel time within the U.S. and around the world. Two wind tunnel tests were conducted in the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel to calibrate the nose probe for the X-59. The probe was successfully tested and calibrated at 19 Mach numbers between Mach 0.25 and Mach 1.7. Most data were collected using continuous roll angle sweeps at a set Mach number and pitch angle. About 725 high quality data runs were recorded during testing to be used in the calibration of the probe. A backup nose probe was also run through the same test matrix as the primary probe. The probe will be the primary instrument for the flight test of the X-59 for determining angle of attack, angle of sideslip, airspeed, and pressure altitude of the aircraft in flight. Knowing the aircraft's speed and attitude is critical for flight safety and is also critical data for the Sonic Boom mission. Areas of interest for the test were sea level takeoff and landing at Mach 0.2, subsonic cruise at Mach 0.9, and supersonic cruise at Mach 1.4. During Phase I flight testing, the air data nose probe and air data system as a whole will be further calibrated in flight to account for additional installed effects of the airframe on the air data system.

X-59↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-59 Air Data Probe Calibration Wind Tunnel Test

NASA's aeronautical innovators are working with Lockheed Martin to design and build a supersonic X-plane, the X-59, under the the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD) Project, that produces a gentle thump rather than a loud sonic boom. The plane will be used to collect human response data over select U.S. communities. The data from the X-59 test flights will be provided to U.S. and international regulators to potentially allow supersonic flight over land, drastically reducing travel time within the U.S. and around the world. Two wind tunnel tests were conducted in the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel to calibrate the nose probe for the X-59. The probe was successfully tested and calibrated at 19 Mach numbers between Mach 0.25 and Mach 1.7. Most data were collected using continuous roll angle sweeps at a set Mach number and pitch angle. About 725 high quality data runs were recorded during testing to be used in the calibration of the probe. A backup nose probe was also run through the same test matrix as the primary probe. The probe will be the primary instrument for the flight test of the X-59 for determining angle of attack, angle of sideslip, airspeed, and pressure altitude of the aircraft in flight. Knowing the aircraft's speed and attitude is critical for flight safety and is also critical data for the Sonic Boom mission. Areas of interest for the test were sea level takeoff and landing at Mach 0.2, subsonic cruise at Mach 0.9, and supersonic cruise at Mach 1.4. During Phase I flight testing, the air data nose probe and air data system as a whole will be further calibrated in flight to account for additional installed effects of the airframe on the air data system.

X-59↗
NASA NTRS1982

A modular data system for Spacelab experiments

This overview describes a flexible system of electronic and mechanical building blocks with characteristics and capabilities suitable for construction of a flight-capable experiment data management system. The initial space application of this modular system, called the Spacelab Payload System Modular Electronics (SPSME), is the data system for the Nuclear Radiation Monitor (NRM) on Spacelab Mission 2.

Frost, W. O.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Flight test of a full authority Digital Electronic Engine Control system in an F-15 aircraft

The Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC) system considered is a relatively low cost digital full authority control system containing selectively redundant components and fault detection logic with capability for accommodating faults to various levels of operational capability. The DEEC digital control system is built around a 16-bit, 1.2 microsecond cycle time, CMOS microprocessor, microcomputer system with approximately 14 K of available memory. Attention is given to the control mode, component bench testing, closed loop bench testing, a failure mode and effects analysis, sea-level engine testing, simulated altitude engine testing, flight testing, the data system, cockpit, and real time display.

Barrett, W. J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

IT Data Mining Tool Uses in Aerospace

Data mining has a broad spectrum of uses throughout the realms of aerospace and information technology. Each of these areas has useful methods for processing, distributing, and storing its corresponding data. This paper focuses on ways to leverage the data mining tools and resources used in NASA's information technology area to meet the similar data mining needs of aviation and aerospace domains. This paper details the searching, alerting, reporting, and application functionalities of the Splunk system, used by NASA's Security Operations Center (SOC), and their potential shared solutions to address aircraft and spacecraft flight and ground systems data mining requirements. This paper also touches on capacity and security requirements when addressing sizeable amounts of data across a large data infrastructure.

Monroe, Gilena A.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Experimental characterization of the effects of pneumatic tubing on unsteady pressure measurements

Advances in aircraft control system designs have, with increasing frequency, required that air data be used as flight control feedback. This condition requires that these data be measured with accuracy and high fidelity. Most air data information is provided by pneumatic pressure measuring sensors. Typically unsteady pressure data provided by pneumatic sensing systems are distorted at high frequencies. The distortion is a result of the pressure being transmitted to the pressure sensor through a length of connective tubing. The pressure is distorted by frictional damping and wave reflection. As a result, air data provided all-flush, pneumatically sensed air data systems may not meet the frequency response requirements necessary for flight control augmentation. Both lab and flight test were performed at NASA-Ames to investigate the effects of this high frequency distortion in remotely located pressure measurement systems. Good qualitative agreement between lab and flight data are demonstrated. Results from these tests are used to describe the effects of pneumatic distortion in terms of a simple parametric model.

Whitmore, Stephen A.↗
NASA NTRS1976

The development and flight test of an electronic integrated propulsion control system

Advanced technical features of the electronic integrated propulsion control system (IPCS) and flight evaluation tests of IPCS (F-111E with TF30-P-9 engines as test vehicle) are described. Nine baseline flight tests and 15 IPCS flight tests were conducted. Instrumentation, data acquisition and data processing systems, software maintenance procedures, flight test procedures, flight safety criteria, flight test results, and ground and flight testing of the aircraft system are described. Advantages conferred by IPCS include: faster accelerations (both gas generator and afterburner performance), better thrust and flight control, reduced flight idle thrust, reduced engine ground trim, extended service ceiling, automatic stall detection, and stall recovery detection.

Johnson, H. J.↗