Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “launch separation”

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 NTRS2017

Differential Drag Demonstration: A Post-Mission Experiment with the EO-1 Spacecraft

Differential drag is a technique for altering the semimajor axis, velocity, and along-track position of a spacecraft in low Earth orbit. It involves varying the spacecraft's cross-sectional area relative to its velocity direction by temporarily changing attitude and solar array angles, thus varying the amount of atmospheric drag on the spacecraft. The technique has recently been proposed and used by at least three satellite systems for initial separation of constellation spacecraft after launch, stationkeeping during the mission, and potentially for conjunction avoidance. Similarly, differential drag has been proposed as a control strategy for rendezvous, removing the need for active propulsion. In theory, some operational missions that lack propulsion capability could use this approach for conjunction avoidance, though options are typically constrained for spacecraft that are already in orbit. Shortly before the spacecraft was decommissioned, an experiment was performed using NASA's EO-1 spacecraft in order to demonstrate differential drag on an operational spacecraft in orbit, and discover some of the effects differential drag might manifest. EO-1 was not designed to maintain off-nominal orientations for long periods, and as a result the team experienced unanticipated challenges during the experiment. This paper will discuss operations limitations identified before the experiment, as well as those discovered during the experiment. The effective displacement that resulted from increasing the drag area for 39 hours will be compared to predictions as well as the expected position if the spacecraft maintained nominal operations. A hypothetical scenario will also be examined, studying the relative risks of maintaining an operational spacecraft bus in order to maintain the near-maximum drag area orientation and hasten reentry.

orbital lifetim↗
NASA NTRS2018

Sensor Data Quality and Angular Rate Down-Selection Algorithms on SLS EM-1

The NASA Space Launch System Block 1 launch vehicle is equipped with an Inertial Navigation System (INS) and multiple Rate Gyro Assemblies (RGA) that are used in the Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) algorithms. The INS provides the inertial position, velocity, and attitude of the vehicle along with both angular rate and specific force measurements. Additionally, multiple sets of co-located rate gyros supply angular rate data. The collection of angular rate data, taken along the launch vehicle, is used to separate out vehicle motion from flexible body dynamics. Since the system architecture uses redundant sensors, the capability was developed to evaluate the health (or validity) of the independent measurements. A suite of Sensor Data Quality (SDQ) algorithms is responsible for assessing the angular rate data from the redundant sensors. When failures are detected, SDQ will take the appropriate action and disqualify or remove faulted sensors from forward processing. Additionally, the SDQ algorithms contain logic for down-selecting the angular rate data used by the GNC software from the set of healthy measurements. This paper explores the trades and analyses that were performed in selecting a set of robust fault-detection algorithms included in the GN&C flight software. These trades included both an assessment of hardware-provided health and status data as well as an evaluation of different algorithms based on time-to-detection, type of failures detected, and probability of detecting false positives. We then provide an overview of the algorithms used for both fault-detection and measurement down selection. We next discuss the role of trajectory design, flexible-body models, and vehicle response to off-nominal conditions in setting the detection thresholds. Lastly, we present lessons learned from software integration and hardware-in-the-loop testing.

Park, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2018

Sensor Data Quality and Angular Rate Down-Selection Algorithms on SLS EM-1

The NASA Space Launch System Block 1 launch vehicle is equipped with an Inertial Navigation System (INS) and multiple Rate Gyro Assemblies (RGA) that are used in the Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) algorithms. The INS provides the inertial position, velocity, and attitude of the vehicle along with both angular rate and specific force measurements. Additionally, multiple sets of co-located rate gyros supply angular rate data. The collection of angular rate data, taken along the launch vehicle, is used to separate out vehicle motion from flexible body dynamics. Since the system architecture uses redundant sensors, the capability was developed to evaluate the health (or validity) of the independent measurements. A suite of Sensor Data Quality (SDQ) algorithms is responsible for assessing the angular rate data from the redundant sensors. When failures are detected, SDQ will take the appropriate action and disqualify or remove faulted sensors from forward processing. Additionally, the SDQ algorithms contain logic for down-selecting the angular rate data used by the GN&C software from the set of healthy measurements. This paper provides an overview of the algorithms used for both fault-detection and measurement down selection.

Park, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2020

Radiometric Degradation Curves for the ASTER VNIR Processing Using Vicarious and Lunar Calibrations

The Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) onboard Terra platform, which was launched in 1999, has three separate subsystems: a visible and near-infrared (VNIR) radiometer, a shortwave-infrared radiometer, and a thermal-infrared radiometer. The ASTER VNIR bands have been radiometrically corrected for approximately 14 years by the sensor degradation curves estimated from the onboard calibrator according to the original calibration plan. However, this calibration by the onboard calibrator encountered a problem; specifically, it is inconsistent with the results of vicarious calibration and cross calibration. Therefore, the ASTER VNIR processing was applied by the radiometric degradation curves calculated from the results of three calibration approaches, i.e., the onboard calibrator, the vicarious calibration, and the cross calibration since February 2014. Even though the current degradation curves were revised, the inter-band and lunar calibrations show some inconsistencies owing to the different traceability in the bands by different calibration approaches. In this study, the current degradation curves and their problems are explained, and the new curves that are derived from the vicarious calibration with lunar calibration are discussed. The new degradation curves that have the same traceability in the bands will be used for future ASTER VNIR processing.

ASTER; Vicarious calibration; Lunar calibration; R↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Adaptable, Deployable, Entry and Placement Technology (ADEPT) Enabling Advanced Entry, Descent, and Landing Capabilities for SmallSat Missions

The Adaptable, Deployable Entry and Placement Technology (ADEPT) is a mechanically deployable low-ballistic coefficient aeroshell entry system which performs entry, descent, and landing (EDL) functions for a broad range of planetary destinations including Mars, Venus, Titan and Earth. The deployable system allows mission planners to develop an aeroshell design that is stowed like a folded umbrella, and yet prior to the EDL mission segment, transforms into a deployed, near-rigid low ballistic coefficient configuration. The ADEPT architecture is scalable from a sub-1m class to 6m diameter entry vehicles for Venus and and it has been studied at up to 15m – 20m scale for human exploration class missions. There has been growing interest in performing interplanetary missions with small spacecraft as secondary payloads and ADEPT offers small satellite mission designers the ability to consider Aeroassist technologies to expand mission applications. The ADEPT architecture introduces a new approach for entry vehicle design. It deploys a flexible 3D woven carbon fabric as the primary drag surface. It is capable of surviving high aerothermal heating during entry, while maintaining a robust impermeable membrane that provides high drag for vehicle deceleration. The ADEPT project team has advanced this decelerator technology via systems-level testing at the one meter diameter (nano-ADEPT) scale. A subsonic aeroloads test (May 2015) and a pathfinder arc-jet aeroheating test (Sept 2015) and a successful sounding rocket flight (SR-1) launch of a 0.7 meter deployed diameter ADEPT (September 2018). The SR-1 flight experiment demonstrated most of the primary end-to-end mission stages including: launch in a stowed configuration, separation and deployment in zero-g, exo-atmospheric conditions, and passive ballistic re-entry of a 70 degree half-angle cone geometry. The ADEPT SR-1 sounding rocket flight experiment had to address challenges such as stowing within the constrained payload envelope, fabric folding, and packaging concerns.

Paul Wercinski↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ascent Aborts 2 Flight, Reconstruction of Structural Dynamics (Couple Loads Transients)

- This work describes the elements of AA2 post-flight data analysis, couple loads analysis, and comparisons of the flight data with the results of analytical methods transiently. - The measured transient responses ranged from rigid body frequencies (zero Hz) to 150 Hz. - The analytical methods consisted of defining and determining all forcing functions, i.e., buffet, aerodynamics, thrusts from the abort motor and the carrier lunch vehicle motor, and the initial conditions at pre-separation. - Mathematical models representing the mechanics of Orion abort is relatively complex because 1) two motors (carrier’s and LAS’s) are operating at the same time at pre-separation, and 2) the separation occurs in atmosphere. - Other challenges consist of determining the aerodynamics with plume-on condition at every millisecond of the flight ranging from transonic to supersonic (i.e., Mach 1.1 to Mach 1.6), and defining the mechanics of separation of LAS from the launch vehicle.

Launch Vehicle↗
NASA NTRS2011

Launch Pad Escape System Design (Human Spaceflight)

A launch pad escape system for human spaceflight is one of those things that everyone hopes they will never need but is critical for every manned space program. Since men were first put into space in the early 1960s, the need for such an Emergency Escape System (EES) has become apparent. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has made use of various types of these EESs over the past 50 years. Early programs, like Mercury and Gemini, did not have an official launch pad escape system. Rather, they relied on a Launch Escape System (LES) of a separate solid rocket motor attached to the manned capsule that could pull the astronauts to safety in the event of an emergency. This could only occur after hatch closure at the launch pad or during the first stage of flight. A version of a LES, now called a Launch Abort System (LAS) is still used today for all manned capsule type launch vehicles. However, this system is very limited in that it can only be used after hatch closure and it is for flight crew only. In addition, the forces necessary for the LES/LAS to get the capsule away from a rocket during the first stage of flight are quite high and can cause injury to the crew. These shortcomings led to the development of a ground based EES for the flight crew and ground support personnel as well. This way, a much less dangerous mode of egress is available for any flight or ground personnel up to a few seconds before launch. The early EESs were fairly simple, gravity-powered systems to use when thing's go bad. And things can go bad very quickly and catastrophically when dealing with a flight vehicle fueled with millions of pounds of hazardous propellant. With this in mind, early EES designers saw such a passive/unpowered system as a must for last minute escapes. This and other design requirements had to be derived for an EES, and this section will take a look at the safety design requirements had to be derived for an EES, and this section will take a look at the safety design aspects for a launch pad escape system.

Maloney, Kelli↗
NASA NTRS2014

Launch Vehicle Control Center Architectures

Launch vehicles within the international community vary greatly in their configuration and processing. Each launch site has a unique processing flow based on the specific launch vehicle configuration. Launch and flight operations are managed through a set of control centers associated with each launch site. Each launch site has a control center for launch operations; however flight operations support varies from being co-located with the launch site to being shared with the space vehicle control center. There is also a nuance of some having an engineering support center which may be co-located with either the launch or flight control center, or in a separate geographical location altogether. A survey of control center architectures is presented for various launch vehicles including the NASA Space Launch System (SLS), United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V and Delta IV, and the European Space Agency (ESA) Ariane 5. Each of these control center architectures shares some similarities in basic structure while differences in functional distribution also exist. The driving functions which lead to these factors are considered and a model of control center architectures is proposed which supports these commonalities and variations.

Watson, Michael D.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Space Nuclear Power Public and Stakeholder Risk Communication

The 1986 Challenger accident coupled with the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident increased public concern about the safety of spacecraft using nuclear technology. While three nuclear powered spacecraft had been launched before 1986 with little public interest, future nuclear powered missions would see significantly more public concern and require NASA to increase its efforts to communicate mission risks to the public. In 1987 a separate risk communication area within the Launch Approval Planning Group of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was created to address public concern about the health, environmental, and safety risks of NASA missions. The lessons learned from the risk communication strategies developed for the nuclear powered Galileo, Ulysses, and Cassini missions are reviewed in this paper and recommendations are given as to how these lessons can be applied to future NASA missions that may use nuclear power systems and other potentially controversial NASA missions.

Galileo↗
NASA NTRS2007

Integrated System Test Approaches for the NASA Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) is being developed by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to provide crew access to the International Space Station (ISS) and, together with the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV), serves as one component of a future launch capability for human exploration of the Moon. During the system requirements definition process and early design cycles, NASA defined and began implementing plans for integrated ground and flight testing necessary to achieve the first human launch of Ares I. The individual Ares I flight hardware elements: the first stage five segment booster (FSB), upper stage, and J-2X upper stage engine, will undergo extensive development, qualification, and certification testing prior to flight. Key integrated system tests include the Main Propulsion Test Article (MPTA), acceptance tests of the integrated upper stage and upper stage engine assembly, a full-scale integrated vehicle dynamic test (IVDT), aerodynamic testing to characterize vehicle performance, and integrated testing of the avionics and software components. The Ares I-X development flight test will provide flight data to validate engineering models for aerodynamic performance, stage separation, structural dynamic performance, and control system functionality. The Ares I-Y flight test will validate ascent performance of the first stage, stage separation functionality, and a highaltitude actuation of the launch abort system (LAS) following separation. The Orion-1 flight test will be conducted as a full, un-crewed, operational flight test through the entire ascent flight profile prior to the first crewed launch.

Cockrell, Charles E., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Investigating Premature Ignition of Thruster Pressure Cartridges by Vibration-Induced Electrostatic Discharge

Pyrotechnic thruster pressure cartridges (TPCs) are used for aeroshell separation on a new NASA crew launch vehicle. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) during TPC acceptance testing indicated that internal assemblies moved during shock and vibration testing due to an internal bond anomaly. This caused concerns that the launch environment might produce the same movement and release propellant grains that might be prematurely ignited through impact or through electrostatic discharge (ESD) as grains vibrated against internal surfaces. Since a new lot could not be fabricated in time, a determination had to be made as to whether the lot was acceptable to fly. This paper discusses the ESD evaluation and a separate paper addresses the impact problem. A challenge to straight forward assessment existed due to the unavailability of triboelectric data characterizing the static charging characteristics of the propellants within the TPC. The approach examined the physical limitations for charge buildup within the TPC system geometry and evaluated it for discharge under simulated vibrations used to qualify components for launch. A facsimile TPC was fabricated using SS 301 for the case and surrogate worst case materials for the propellants based on triboelectric data. System discharge behavior was evaluated by applying high voltage to the point of discharge in air and by placing worst case charge accumulations within the facsimile TPC and forcing discharge. The facsimile TPC contained simulated propellant grains and lycopodium, a well characterized indicator for static discharge in dust explosions, and was subjected to accelerations equivalent to the maximum accelerations possible during launch. The magnitude of charge generated within the facsimile TPC system was demonstrated to lie in a range of 100 to 10,000 times smaller than the spark energies measured to ignite propellant grains in industry standard discharge tests. The test apparatus, methodology, and results are described in this paper.

Woods, Stephen S.↗
NASA NTRS2014

LARES Mission: Separation and Retention Subsystem

As part of the Lares (LAser RElativity Satellite) mission, an all-Italian scientific mission launched with the Vega maiden flight in February 2012, a mechanical separation and retention subsystem (SSEP) has been developed to retain the LARES satellite during launch and release it in the final orbit. The design flow was based on the identification of the driving requirements and critical areas to guide the trade-off, design, analysis and test activities. In particular, the SSEP had to face very high environmental loads and to minimize the contact areas with the satellite that had a spherical shape. The test activity overview is provided.

Bursi, Alessandro↗
NASA NTRS2023

The Assembly, Test, and Integration of LOFTID (Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelera-tor)

R.J. Bodkin Biography Mr. Bodkin worked in industry for a rapid prototype company focusing on UAVs and manned experimental aircraft. Later he served as the Inflation System Lead on IRVE-II and 3 and the Re-Entry Vehicle Lead for LOFTID at NASA Langley Research Center. Introduction: The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID), developed in partnership with United Launch Alliance (ULA) and flown in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Joint Polar Satellite System-2 (JPSS-2) satellite, demonstrated Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology has progressed and is ready for mission infusion. LOFTID’s success demonstrates that aeroshells are not limited to the internal diame-ter of the launch vehicle payload fairing, allowing larger payloads to be deployed to the surfaces of planetary bodies with atmospheres. The challenges of assembling, integrating, and testing this revolutionary spacecraft will be dis-cussed as well as issues associated with doing this with a fixed launch date the project did not control. Assembly: Because LOFTID flew as a rideshare partner with JPSS-2, it was constrained with addi-tional schedule, milestone, and technical require-ments that were beyond the project’s control. As-sembly of the LOFTID hardware was challenged with the normal mechanical fit issues while also having to navigate the SARS-COVID-II pandemic. Challenges ranged from availability of team per-sonnel required on-site for vehicle assembly to dif-ficulties associated with team collaboration while working remotely and increased costs and lead times of components due to supply chain con-straints. Numerous additional challenges cascaded from the additional time required. Integration: LOFTID flew as a secondary pay-load to JPSS-2 in a mission-unique configuration, directly under JPSS-2 primary payload, inside the Payload Adapter that integrated JPSS-2 to the Atlas V launch vehicle. A mission unique Payload Adapt-er Separation System (PASS) was required to sepa-rate the Payload Adapter from the Launch Vehicle prior to the start of the LOFTID flight demonstra-tion. Development of this system was challenging due to a shortened development schedule resulting from the iterative nature of Payload Adapter devel-opment with the partners at ULA. Preparations to integrate the main segments of the LOFTID vehicle posed unique challenges of having to accommodate issues with a fixed launch date that led to some cre-ative solutions to the integration. The partnership agreement with ULA and JPSS-2 resulted in a mass simulator designed to be installed late in the inte-gration in the event the LOFTID vehicle was not ready in time.. Test: LOFTID testing was carried out in several phases. Some components were tested at the com-ponent level, others at the sub-system levels and then finally the integrated vehicle level. This culmi-nated with the Complete Systems Test (CST) per-formed in a vacuum chamber as one of the final checkouts prior to disassembly for re-packing of the aeroshell. CST challenges will be discussed as well as obstacles encountered post-CST. After CST, the vehicle was disassembled so the HIAD could be repacked, and the vehicle was reassembled for ac-ceptance vibration testing. Testing concluded with the fully assembled vehicle being shipped to the launch site for final testing and integrations with the Payload Adapter to JPSS-2 for launch and opera-tions. Conclusion: The challenges posed by the AI&T for LOFTID could inform the planetary community of some of the opportunities and challenges of de-veloping technologies on a rideshare with a rela-tively small budget.

R.J. Bodkin↗
NASA NTRS2009

Return to Flying Duties Following Centrifuge or Vibration Exposures

Introduction: In an effort to determine the human performance limits for vibration in spacecraft being developed by NASA, astronauts were evaluated during a simulated launch profile in a centrifuge/vibration environment and separate vibration-only simulation. Current USAF and Army standards for return to flight following centrifuge exposures require 12-24 hours to pass before a crewmember may return to flying duties. There are no standards on vibration exposures and return to flying duties. Based on direct observation and provocative neurological testing of the astronauts, a new standard for return to flying duties following centrifuge and/or vibration exposures was established. Methods: 13 astronaut participants were exposed to simulated launch profiles in a + 3.5 Gx bias centrifuge/vibration environment and separately on a vibration table at the NASA-Ames Research Center. Each subject had complete neurological evaluations pre- and post-exposure for the centrifuge/vibration runs with the NASA neurological function rating scale (NFRS). Subjects who participated in the vibration-only exposures had video oculography performed with provocative maneuvers in addition to the NFRS. NFRS evaluations occurred immediately following each exposure and at 1 hour post-run. Astronauts who remained symptomatic at 1 hour had repeat NFRS performed at 1 hour intervals until the crewmember was asymptomatic. Results: Astronauts in the centrifuge/vibration study averaged a 3-5 point increase in NFRS scores immediately following exposure but returned to baseline 3 hours post-run. Subjects exposed to the vibration-only simulation had a 1-3 point increase following exposure and returned to baseline within 1-2 hours. Pre- and post- vibration exposure video oculography did not reveal any persistent ocular findings with provocative testing 1 hour post-exposure. Discussion: Based on direct observations and objective measurement of neurological function in astronauts following simulated launch profiles, asymptomatic individuals are allowed to return to flying duties within 3 hours following centrifuge/vibration and 2 hours after vibration-only exposures.

Scheuring, Richard A.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Aerodynamic results of an abort separation effects test (IA8) conducted in the NASA/ARC 14-foot transonic wind tunnel on a model (6-OTS) of the Rockwell International launch configuration integrated vehicle

Experimental aerodynamic investigations were conducted on a 6-OTS 0.015-scale model. The Ames dual sting support separation rig was used to obtain grid-type data for tank-booster abort from orbiter (SSV). Freestream data were obtained for the orbiter to provide a baseline for evaluation of proximity effects. Data were obtained at Mach numbers from 0.32 to 1.1, and Reynolds number per foot varying from 2.1 million to 3.9 million. Data are not presented. Because of balance failure, a very substantial portion of the test was run with a dummy balance in the tank boosters configuration.

Campbell, J. H.↗