Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “VEHICLE PERFORMANCE MARGIN”

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.

335 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

WIRE-21 Sensor Irradiation Experiment Ready for HFIR Insertion

The ability to deploy new nuclear fuels for current or future reactor concepts requires a wealth of data regarding fuel performance during normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and design-basis accidents. Most of these data have historically been collected during experiments in materials test reactors, ideally with online instrumentation to collect as much data as possible. However, advanced instrumentation could also allow for in situ monitoring of fuel operating conditions during commercial reactor operation to maximize fuel utilization, reduce unnecessary conservativism in design margins, and improve operator understanding of limiting peaking factors. The latter approach would complicate fuel handling, particularly during refueling, unless the instrumentation could be placed inside the fuel rods and transmitted wirelessly to a receiver located outside the fuel’s primary pressure boundary. To this end, Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC) developed wireless sensors based on inductive coupling that can transmit information regarding fuel centerline temperatures and rod internal pressures wirelessly from within a fuel rod to a nearby instrument thimble. After testing these sensors in lower-power university research reactors, the next step is to perform high neutron fluence testing to characterize the performance of these wireless sensors under conditions that are more representative of the intended application—in this case, light-water reactors (LWRs). The removable Be (RB) positions of the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) provide the neutron flux, experiment volume, and access to instrument leads required to achieve these sensor testing goals. This report summarizes the design, analysis, and assembly of the Wireless Instrumented RB Experiment 2021 (WIRE-21). This is the most highly instrumented irradiation experiment ever performed in HFIR. The experiment will use seven different sensing techniques to measure temperature, pressure, neutron flux, and neutron fluence during reactor operation. In addition to WEC’s wireless temperature and pressure sensors, WIRE-21 includes an array of thermocouples, self-powered neutron detectors, spatially distributed fiber optic temperature sensors, passive SiC temperature monitors, and flux wires. The design of WIRE-21 and the cabling that was installed in HFIR also provide the infrastructure to enable accelerated, economical testing of advanced sensor technologies while leveraging the extremely high neutron flux that is available in HFIR. The containment for WIRE-21 is similar to previous RB irradiation vehicles but includes a few modifications, most notably the use of integrated compression seals to pass a larger number of sensor leads through the experiment’s pressure boundary. In addition to the sensor leads, inert gas lines are passed into the experiment to enable active temperature control and the ability to pneumatically actuate a bellows-driven pressure sensor. WIRE-21 is targeting component temperatures (300–350°C) and neutron fluence levels (~10 22 n/cm 2 ) that would be expected in the plenum region of LWR fuels, except for the active sensing region of the wireless temperature sensor, which is targeting LWR fuel centerline temperatures (~800–1,100°C). WIRE-21 was successfully assembled, passed all nondestructive examination, and was delivered to HFIR for insertion during upcoming cycle 498 (April 2022).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2022

Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing Software Implementation

On February 18th, 2021, the Mars 2020 project's Perseverance Rover successfully touched down on the Martian surface after nearly eight years of development. The Mars 2020 Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) System largely leveraged heritage from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) EDL System while employing targeted technological advancements. The landing process is autonomously directed by a software behavior implemented in the rover's primary flight computer called the EDL Timeline that assumes control of the vehicle six days before atmospheric entry. In addition to performing the critical function of landing the rover on the Martian surface, the EDL timeline behavior must co-exist in a non-partitioned software and system environment with other high-level functions that accomplish the goals for the rest of the mission. Due to the criticality of EDL, the potential for loss of mission, and a need for complete system autonomy, the standard for how the EDL Timeline interacts with other functions in the system is highly constrained. This paper first walks through the basics of the EDL Timeline mechanics and how the behavior is designed to account for internal system variations and environmental unknowns. It then summarizes the interactions between the EDL timeline and other high-level system behaviors like spacecraft mode transitions and system fault protection, focusing on the complications that arise when passing spacecraft control between executive functions. Although the MSL-inherited EDL System is reliable and capable, targeted updates and a thorough verification and validation program were required for Mars 2020. This paper discusses changes made to close vulnerabilities discovered during both MSL and Mars 2020 development cycles, landing system capability enhancements that were enabling for Mars 2020's mission, and how these updates were integrated with the heritage system. It then describes how both analysis and testing campaigns were utilized to verify and validate all aspects of EDL and system behaviors that run during the six days before landing, as well as the operational workarounds that were needed to address problems found during the development and commissioning process. Finally, this paper imparts lessons learned from Mars 2020 EDL development, implementation, and operations, emphasizing how systems designed to conduct time-critical mission events with low margin of error can be improved in the future.

Stehura, Aaron↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗
NASA NTRS2011

From Paper to Production to Test: An Update on NASA's J-2X Engine for Exploration

The NASA/industry team responsible for developing the J-2X upper stage engine for the Space Launch System (SLS) Program has made significant progress toward moving beyond the design phase and into production, assembly, and test of development hardware. The J-2X engine exemplifies the SLS Program goal of using proven technology and experience from more than 50 years of United States spaceflight experience combined with modern manufacturing processes and approaches. It will power the second stage of the fully evolved SLS Program launch vehicle that will enable a return to human exploration of space beyond low earth orbit. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) is under contract to develop and produce the engine, leveraging its flight-proven LH2/LOX, gas generator cycle J-2 and RS-68 engine capabilities, recent experience with the X-33 aerospike XRS-2200 engine, and development knowledge of the J-2S tap-off cycle engine. The J- 2X employs a gas generator operating cycle designed to produce 294,000 pounds of vacuum thrust in primary operating mode with its full nozzle extension. With a truncated nozzle extension suitable to support engine clustering on the stage, the nominal vacuum thrust level in primary mode is 285,000 pounds. It also has a secondary mode, during which it operates at 80 percent thrust by altering its mixture ratio. The J-2X development philosophy is based on proven hardware, an aggressive development schedule, and early risk reduction. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and PWR began development of the J-2X in June 2006. The government/industry team of more than 600 people within NASA and PWR successfully completed the Critical Design Review (CDR) in November 2008, following extensive risk mitigation testing. Assembly of the first development engine was completed in May 2011 and the first engine test was conducted at the NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC), test stand A2, on 14 July 2011. Testing of the first development engine will continue through the autumn of 2011, be paused for test stand modifications to the passive diffuser, and then restart in the spring of 2012. This testing will be followed by specialized powerpack testing intended to examine the design and operating margins of the engine turbomachinery. The development plan beyond this point leads through more system-level, engine testing of several samples, analytical model validation activities, functional and performance verification, and then ultimate certification to support human spaceflight. This paper will discuss the J-2X development background, provide top-level information on design and development planning, and will explore some of the development challenges and mitigation activities pursued to date.

Kynard, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2014

Time and Frequency-Domain Cross-Verification of SLS 6DOF Trajectory Simulations

The SLS GNC team and its partners have developed several time- and frequency-based simulations for development and analysis of the proposed SLS launch vehicle. The simulations differ in fidelity and some have unique functionality that allows them to perform specific analyses. Some examples of the purposes of the various models are: trajectory simulation, multi-body separation, Monte Carlo, hardware in the loop, loads, and frequency domain stability analyses. While no two simulations are identical, many of the models are essentially six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) representations of the SLS plant dynamics, hardware implementation, and flight software. Thus at a high level all of those models should be in agreement. Comparison of outputs from several SLS trajectory and stability analysis tools are ongoing as part of the program's current verification effort. The purpose of these comparisons is to highlight modeling and analysis differences, verify simulation data sources, identify inconsistencies and minor errors, and ultimately to verify output data as being a good representation of the vehicle and subsystem dynamics. This paper will show selected verification work in both the time and frequency domain from the current design analysis cycle of the SLS for several of the design and analysis simulations. In the time domain, the tools that will be compared are MAVERIC, CLVTOPS, SAVANT, STARS, ARTEMIS, and POST 2. For the frequency domain analysis, the tools to be compared are FRACTAL, SAVANT, and STARS. The paper will include discussion of these tools including their capabilities, configurations, and the uses to which they are put in the SLS program. Determination of the criteria by which the simulations are compared (matching criteria) requires thoughtful consideration, and there are several pitfalls that may occur that can severely punish a simulation if not considered carefully. The paper will discuss these considerations and will present a framework for responding to these issues when they arise. For example, small event timing differences can lead to large differences in mass properties if the criteria are to measure those properties at the same time, or large differences in altitude if the criteria are to measure those properties when the simulation experiences a staging event. Similarly, a tiny difference in phase can lead to large gain margin differences for frequency-domain comparisons of gain margins.

VanZwieten, Tannen↗
NASA NTRS2017

Time and Frequency-Domain Cross-Verification of SLS 6DOF Trajectory Simulations

The Space Launch System (SLS) Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) team and its partners have developed several time- and frequency-based simulations for development and analysis of the proposed SLS launch vehicle. The simulations differ in fidelity and some have unique functionality that allows them to perform specific analyses. Some examples of the purposes of the various models are: trajectory simulation, multi-body separation, Monte Carlo, hardware in the loop, loads, and frequency domain stability analyses. While no two simulations are identical, many of the models are essentially six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) representations of the SLS plant dynamics, hardware implementation, and flight software. Thus at a high level all of those models should be in agreement. Comparison of outputs from several SLS trajectory and stability analysis tools are ongoing as part of the program's current verification effort. The purpose of these comparisons is to highlight modeling and analysis differences, verify simulation data sources, identify inconsistencies and minor errors, and ultimately to verify output data as being a good representation of the vehicle and subsystem dynamics. This paper will show selected verification work in both the time and frequency domain from the current design analysis cycle of the SLS for several of the design and analysis simulations. In the time domain, the tools that will be compared are MAVERIC, CLVTOPS, SAVANT, STARS, ARTEMIS, and POST 2. For the frequency domain analysis, the tools to be compared are FRACTAL, SAVANT, and STARS. The paper will include discussion of these tools including their capabilities, configurations, and the uses to which they are put in the SLS program. Determination of the criteria by which the simulations are compared (matching criteria) requires thoughtful consideration, and there are several pitfalls that may occur that can severely punish a simulation if not considered carefully. The paper will discuss these considerations and will present a framework for responding to these issues when they arise. For example, small event timing differences can lead to large differences in mass properties if the criteria are to measure those properties at the same time, or large differences in altitude if the criteria are to measure those properties when the simulation experiences a staging event. Similarly, a tiny difference in phase can lead to large gain margin differences for frequency-domain comparisons of gain margins.

Johnson, Matthew↗
NASA NTRS2001

Water Flow Performance of a Superscale Model of the Fastrac Liquid Oxygen Pump

As part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's ongoing effort to lower the cost of access to space, the Marshall Space Flight Center has developed a rocket engine with 60,000 pounds of thrust for use on the Reusable Launch Vehicle technology demonstrator slated for launch in 2000. This gas generator cycle engine, known as the Fastrac engine, uses liquid oxygen and RP-1 for propellants and includes single stage liquid oxygen and RP-1 pumps and a single stage supersonic turbine on a common shaft. The turbopump design effort included the first use and application of new suction capability prediction codes and three-dimensional blade generation codes in an attempt to reduce the turbomachinery design and certification costs typically associated with rocket engine development. To verify the pump's predicted cavitation performance, a water flow test of a superscale model of the Fastrac liquid oxygen pump was conducted to experimentally evaluate the liquid oxygen pump's performance at and around the design point. The water flow test article replicated the flow path of the Fastrac liquid oxygen pump in a 1.582x scale model, including scaled seal clearances for correct leakage flow at a model operating speed of 5000 revolutions per minute. Flow entered the 3-blade axial-flow inducer, transitioned to a shrouded, 6- blade radial impeller, and discharged into a vaneless radial diffuser and collection volute. The test article included approximately 50 total and static pressure measurement locations as well as flush-mounted, high frequency pressure transducers for complete mapping of the pressure environment. The primary objectives of the water flow test were to measure the steady-state and dynamic pressure environment of the liquid oxygen pump versus flow coefficient, suction specific speed, and back face leakage flow rate. Initial results showed acceptable correlation between the predicted and experimentally measured pump head rise at low suction specific speeds. Likewise, only small circumferential variations in steady-state were observed from 80% to 120% of the design flow coefficient, matching the computational predictions and confirming that the integrated design approach has minimized any exit volute-induced distortions. The test article exhibited suction performance trends typically observed in inducer designs with virtually constant head rise with decreasing inlet pressure until complete pump head breakdown. Unfortunately, the net positive suction head at 3% head fall-off occurred far below that predicted at all tested flow coefficients, resulting in a negative net positive suction head margin at the design point in water. Additional testing to map the unsteady pressure environment was conducted and cavitation-induced flow disturbances at the inducer inlet were observed. Two distinct disturbances were identified, one rotating and one stationary relative to the fixed frame of reference, while the transition from one regime to the next produced significant effects on the steady state pump performance. The impact of the unsteady phenomena and the corresponding energy losses on the unexpectedly poor pump performance is also discussed.

Skelley, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS1999

Water Flow Performance of a Superscale Model of the Fastrac Liquid Oxygen Pump

As part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's ongoing effort to lower the cost of access to space, the Marshall Space Flight Center has developed a rocket engine with 60,000 pounds of thrust for use on the Reusable Launch Vehicle technology demonstrator slated for launch in 2000. This gas generator cycle engine, known as the Fastrac engine, uses liquid oxygen and RP-1 for propellants and includes single stage liquid oxygen and RP-1 pumps and a single stage supersonic turbine on a common shaft. The turbopump design effort included the first use and application of new suction capability prediction codes and three-dimensional blade generation codes in an attempt to reduce the turbomachinery design and certification costs typically associated with rocket engine development. To verify the pump's predicted cavitation performance, a water flow test of a superscale model of the Fastrac liquid oxygen pump was conducted to experimentally evaluate the liquid oxygen pump's performance at and around the design point. The water flow test article replicated the flow path of the Fastrac liquid oxygen pump in a 1.582x scale model, including scaled seal clearances for correct leakage flow at a model operating speed of 5000 revolutions per minute. Flow entered the 3-blade axial-flow inducer, transitioned to a shrouded, 6-blade radial impeller, and discharged into a vaneless radial diffuser and collection volute. The test article included approximately 50 total and static pressure measurement locations as well as flush-mounted, high frequency pressure transducers for complete mapping of the pressure environment. The primary objectives of the water flow test were to measure the steady-state and dynamic pressure environment of the liquid oxygen pump versus flow coefficient, suction specific speed, and back face leakage flow rate. Results showed excellent correlation between the predicted and experimentally measured pump head rise at low suction specific speeds. Likewise, only small circumferential variations in steady-state impeller exit and radial diffuser pressure distributions were observed from 80% to 120% of the design flow coefficient, matching the computational predictions and confirming that the integrated design approach has minimized any exit volute-induced distortions. The test article exhibited suction performance trends typically observed in inducer designs with virtually constant head rise with decreasing inlet pressure until complete pump head breakdown. Unfortunately, the net positive suction head at 3% head fall-off occurred far below that predicted at all tested flow coefficients, resulting in a negative net positive suction head margin at the design point in water. Additional testing to map the unsteady pressure environment was conducted and interesting rotating phenomena at the inducer inlet were observed. These rotating phenomena's cell numbers, direction, and speed were correlated with pump operating parameters. The impact of the unsteady phenomena and their corresponding energy losses on the unexpectedly poor pump performance is also discussed.

Skelley, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2003

Ultra-High-Temperature Ceramics Evaluated for Aeropropulsion Use

Ultra-high-temperature ceramics (UHTC) are a group of materials consisting of zirconium diboride (ZrB2) or hafnium diboride (HfB2) plus silicon carbide (SiC), and in some instances, carbon (C). They offer a combination of properties that make them candidates for airframe leading edges on sharp-bodied reentry vehicles. These UHTCs perform well in the environment for such applications (i.e., air at low pressures). The purpose of this study at the NASA Glenn Research Center was to examine three of these materials under conditions more representative of a propulsion environment: that is, higher oxygen partial pressure and total pressure. Relatively long, multiple-exposure cycles were emphasized. We completed an in-house study of ZrB2 plus 20 vol% SiC (abbreviated as ZS), ZrB2 plus 14 vol% SiC and 30 vol% C (ZSC), and SCS-9a SiC fiber-reinforced ZrB2 plus 20 vol% SiC (ZSS). HfB2-based compositions were not included in the study because of their high cost. The capability of UHTC for propulsion applications must be compared with that of mature, available, and commercially used ceramics such as silicon nitride (e.g., AS-800) to put things in proper perspective. In terms of mechanical properties, UHTCs fall short in terms of strength and fracture toughness. At about 1300 C, the creep resistance of ZS appears to be superior to the creep resistance reported for AS-800. However, the stress rupture life for Si3N4 under stress and temperature conditions similar to those used in this study is measured in hundreds of hours. Because of oxidation, ZS could not achieve such lives. In terms of oxidation resistance, acceptable amounts of material recession in 1 hour to thousands of hours, depending on the specific propulsion application, are on the order of 100 to 300 mm. This converts to an acceptable range of parabolic recession rate constants kp" of approximately less than or equal to 10(exp -1) to 10(exp -2) square millimeters per hour for a 1-hr application. For a 100-hr application, an acceptable range of kp" would be less than or equal to those values divided by 100. For the more oxidation resistant ZS material, measured parabolic recession rate constants were 4.7 x 10(exp -3) millimeters per hour at 1327 C, 7.8 x 10(exp -2) square millimeters per hour at 1627 C, and 1.3 millimeters per hour at 1927 C. Thus, recession rate constants for ZS are acceptable at 1327 C for a 1-hr application, but here silicon nitride is a superior material. At 1627 C, ZS oxidation is marginal for a 1-hr application, but dimensional growth would be an issue. In a 100-hr application, ZS cannot be considered at any temperature. Our cursory examination of thermal shock, both from a theoretical and experimental viewpoint, indicated that the ZS and ZSC UHTCs are inferior to AS-800 silicon nitride. On the basis of this limited study, UHTCs are not ready to be considered as aeropropulsion materials for any applications longer than a few minutes. Current materials suffer from aggressive oxidation and moisture attack (Quynhgiao Nguyen, NASA Glenn, and Raymond C. Robinson, QSS Group, Inc., Cleveland, OH, 2002, private communication), and they are susceptible to thermal shock. For long-term propulsion applications, major improvements in environmental durability are needed. Work is in progress to improve the oxidation resistance of UHTC materials.

Levine, Stanley R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Engineering with Modular Patched Conics for Entry Systems and TPS (TEMPEST)

Brief Presenter Biography (35 word limit): Bohdan Wesely is an Aerospace Engineer in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at Ames. He has worked on a variety of projects for NASA including integrated TPS (thermal protection system) flight hardware deliveries and testing services for commercial partners. Introduction: TEMPEST is a new trajectory analysis framework that is designed to fill the gap between dedicated flight mechanics tools and aerothermal and TPS sizing tools. The project started as an SJSU master’s thesis and has since evolved into a general conceptual design tool capable of studying a wide variety of entry problems. Development is ongoing in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at NASA ARC. Why TEMPEST: Space missions involving entry into a planetary atmosphere involve a series of unique requirements across multiple disciplines. Whether it is traditional entry descent and landing (EDL), or aerocapture, the vehicle must navigate to its target landing location or orbit state, and the TPS must protect the payload during entry. The design process typically involves iterative handoffs between various flight mechanics, flow solver, and material response level tools. During the early conceptual phase, a wide variety of feasible trajectories are simulated in a Monte Carlo scenario which broadly satisfy the mission or landing requirements. Next, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC), and other flow solver analyses are performed at various key trajectory points to generate an aero-database, heating and TPS design requirements also emerge at this stage. At this point, with updated aerodynamics from the various flow solvers, trajectories can be re-run, this in turn can change the required freestream conditions for the CFD tools, and as a project progresses, these analyses converge, and uncertainty is reduced. However, there is always a “hand-off” occurring between two inherently coupled phenomena. Analysis Description: One of the goals with TEMPEST is to use a variety of first principles estimation methods coupled with an atmosphere model to predict vehicle aerothermodynamics across the entire flight regime while propagating a 3 or 6 degree of freedom (DoF) trajectory. Aerodynamics methods include modified Newtonian, Maxwell and Cercignani- Lampis-Lord (CLL) for continuum, transitional, and free molecular flow regimes. Aerothermodynamics include boundary layer and reference enthalpy methods, and Mutation++ for non-equilibrium chemistry modeling. TEMPEST is also capable of stitching multiple trajectory segments together to study mission scenarios like multi-pass aerocapture and aero-gravity assists. Most of the program is implemented in MATLAB using modern system objects, it relies on several C++ shared libraries for supporting tools like Gmsh, the Global Reference Atmospheric Model (GRAM), and Mutation++. The various first principles aerothermal estimation methods are discretized across either a structured axisymmetric panel mesh or an unstructured tri-mesh generated from an open-source tool such as Gmsh, this allows solutions on the same mesh to be compared across tools such as CB-Aero. CFD Coupling. A physics-aware, gaussian process CFD anchoring scheme is proposed to adjust the various first principles methods as a CFD database is populated. One goal for this anchoring module is to inform the project where CFD should be run. Full knowledge of the entire trajectory, atmosphere, and aerothermodynamics allows for easier identification of high sensitivity areas and uncertainty quantification. While the first principles effects are well known and proven accurate in existing tools such as CB- Aero and Cart3D, a physics aware CFD anchoring scheme increases tool credibility across a project lifecycle. Material Response Modeling. Correct TPS sizing is critical for optimizing mass for science payloads and ensuring mission success. The process typically involves a thermal analysis along the trajectory with surface heating environments as a boundary condition. Several design constraints are maximum bondline temperature and maximum recession with various margining techniques. The material response tool FIAT, developed out of NASA Ames, is currently being integrated into the TEMPEST environment. TPS recession, shape change, mass loss, and mass property alteration are all factors that can perturb an entry trajectory. For missions like Mars 2020, recession was minimal and was safely handled separately as a post process. For missions such as Jupiter Galileo with a high TPS mass fraction or asteroid entries, recession plays a major role. The proposed fully coupled scheme is to use an epoch-based approach where the trajectory integration is halted after a recession threshold, the energy balance and FIAT are solved at each panel, the mesh, aerodynamics, and mass properties are updated, and the trajectory continues. Several computational tradeoffs have been made during the development of TEMPEST to limit the cost of a single trajectory and preserve its utility as a conceptual, rapid iteration tool. Conclusion: Development of TEMPEST is ongoing and the project is still in its infancy. This talk aims to showcase its unique capabilities to support future NASA entry systems missions.

Bohdan O Wesely↗
NASA NTRS2023

Fully Coupled Aeroelastic Stability Analysis of Adaptive Shape Memory Alloy Structural Technologies for Airframe Noise Reduction

This final report documents work performed by ATA Engineering, Inc., (ATA) to develop computational models and analyze the coupled fluid-structure response of two types of noise treatments applied to the leading-edge-slat component of a high-lift system typical of modern transport aircraft. The first treatment is a slat-gap filler (SGF), which closes the gap between the suction surfaces of a deployed slat and an aircraft main wing, and the second treatment is a slat-cove filler (SCF), which replaces the recirculating flow on the slat cove with a surface that promotes flow attachment. The representative airframe chosen for this work was NASA’s High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) in a baseline high-lift configuration. Superelastic shape memory alloys (SMAs) have been identified as enabling materials for these structural treatments. Since the technology elements rely upon having a highly reconfigurable structure, designs were assessed for their static aeroelastic deflection as well as their dynamic aeroelastic stability using coupled computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and nonlinear computational structural dynamics (NL-CSD) tools. Specifically, fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problems were solved computationally using the CFD solver Loci/CHEM and the NL-CSD solver Abaqus. As a part of the overall project, a similar capability was implemented using the CFD solver FUN3D coupled to Abaqus, although that work is documented in a separate report and that FSI framework was not used to analyze any of NASA’s SGF and SCF configurations. The technical approach consisted of solving for the flow field around the entire vehicle using a global CFD model, followed by extraction of relevant local subdomain data for CFD and NL-CSD co-simulations. The SGF design was analyzed using both 2D and 3D co-simulations to predict quasi-static aeroelastic deformations and to assess dynamic aeroelastic stability, whereas the SCF was analyzed in 2D only. SGF static aeroelastic response predictions focused on characterizing the deformed shape, with maximum displacements predicted to be on the order of magnitude of the technology element panel thickness. SGF dynamic aeroelastic response predictions used Partial Floquet analysis of the temporal evolution of selected nodal displacements to quantify the sign and magnitude of aeroelastic damping. Results suggest that the CRM-HL operating conditions would result in a dynamically stable response. The simulated dynamic pressure was also increased up to a factor of about four, and resulting responses suggest that predicted dynamic stability would be achieved with some margin.

Fluid Structure Interaction↗