Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NEXT-C”

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.

26 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Rocket Propulsion 21 Steering Committee Meeting (RP21) NASA In-Space Propulsion Update

In-house Support of NEXT-C Contract Status Thruster NEXT Long Duration Test post-test destructive evaluation in progress Findings will be used to verify service life models identify potential design improvements Cathode heater fabrication initiated for cyclic life testing Thruster operating algorithm definition verification initiated to provide operating procedures for mission users High voltage propellant isolator life test voluntarily terminated after successfully operating 51,200 h Power processor unit (PPU) Replaced all problematic stacked multilayer ceramic dual inline pin capacitors within PPU Test bed Rebuilt installed discharge power supply primary power board Completed full functional performance characterization Final test report in progress Transferred PPU Testbed to contractor to support prototype design effort.

Electric Propulsion↗
NASA NTRS2019

Overview of Electric Propulsion Projects at NASA Glenn Research Center

NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) is currently leading the development of multiple electric propulsion systems to flight readiness. The Advanced Electric Propulsion System is a 12.5 kW Hall thruster system that is being developed by the Solar Electric Propulsion Technology Demonstration Mission (SEP TDM) project, under the sponsorship of the Space Technology Mission Directorate. NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster-Commercial (NEXT-C) is 7 kW class gridded ion thruster system that being developed under the sponsorship of the Science Mission Directorate. NASA GRC is also providing electric propulsion discipline support to the Power and Propulsion Element and the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) missions, which will be the first applications for these technologies, respectively. Lower technology readiness level (TRL) projects are underway for applications including CubeSats, small spacecraft and Mars exploration vehicles. Under the sponsorship of the Small Spacecraft Technology Program, NASA GRC has performed numerous independent verification and validation tests of CubeSat class electric propulsion systems in support of a growing number of small US businesses that are developing these systems. Lastly, three technology development efforts focused on 100 kW EP strings led by Aerojet Rocketdyne, Ad Astra and MSNW were recently completed.

Smith, Bryan K.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Challenges Associated with In-Situ Calibration of Load Cells in Force Limited Vibration Testing

The difference in mounting configuration between flight and test can significantly impact the effectiveness of the test in environmental vibration testing. Many tests are performed with large electrodynamic shakers, which utilize interfaces that seek to replicate a fixed base, such as slip tables and head expanders. This fixed base configuration is rarely seen in flight configurations; rather a more realistic configuration would include a flexible mounting structure with its own compliance and dynamics. This causes significant over and under tests in various frequency bands depending on the differences between the test article and fixture dynamics. The traditional way of avoiding these high loads is to limit the acceleration responses at multiple locations on the test article. However, the effectiveness of this approach is highly dependent upon the validity of the test article’s analytical in order to derive accurate acceleration response limit specifications. Also this technique requires limiting the acceleration responses at many locations throughout the test article, which may not be implementable due to such things as access and cleanliness issues An improved environmental vibration testing technique known as force limiting incorporates measurements of the forces between the test article and shaker system interface and limiting them to a specification that more accurately replicates the interface impedance of the structure the test article will be mounted to in flight. In effect this transforms the high mechanical impedance at the test article to shaker interface to more closely match the mechanical impedance of the flight interface, which avoids producing the unrealistically high interface loads. Typically force gauges or load cells are used to measure these interface forces. However, utilizing load cells can present a multitude of challenges depending upon such things as their installation method, geometric layout, and test fixture setup. Regardless, it is extremely important to perform an in-situ calibration of the load cells prior to vibration testing at any significant levels. This paper will discuss the challenges associated with utilizing load cells during the NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster – Commercial (NEXT-C) gridded ion thruster proto-flight vibration test performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center’s Structural Dynamics Laboratory.

Kenneth J Pederson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Challenges Associated with In-Situ Calibration of Load Cells in Force Limited Vibration Testing

The difference in mounting configuration between flight and test can significantly impact the effectiveness of the test in environmental vibration testing. Many tests are performed with large electrodynamic shakers, which utilize interfaces that seek to replicate a fixed base, such as slip tables and head expanders. This fixed base configuration is rarely seen in flight configurations; rather a more realistic configuration would include a flexible mounting structure with its own compliance and dynamics. This causes significant over and under tests in various frequency bands depending on the differences between the test article and fixture dynamics. The traditional way of avoiding these high loads is to limit the acceleration responses at multiple locations on the test article. However, the effectiveness of this approach is highly dependent upon the validity of the test article’s analytical in order to derive accurate acceleration response limit specifications. Also this technique requires limiting the acceleration responses at many locations throughout the test article, which may not be implementable due to such things as access and cleanliness issues An improved environmental vibration testing technique known as force limiting incorporates measurements of the forces between the test article and shaker system interface and limiting them to a specification that more accurately replicates the interface impedance of the structure the test article will be mounted to in flight. In effect this transforms the high mechanical impedance at the test article to shaker interface to more closely match the mechanical impedance of the flight interface, which avoids producing the unrealistically high interface loads. Typically force gauges or load cells are used to measure these interface forces. However, utilizing load cells can present a multitude of challenges depending upon such things as their installation method, geometric layout, and test fixture setup. Regardless, it is extremely important to perform an in-situ calibration of the load cells prior to vibration testing at any significant levels. This paper will discuss the challenges associated with utilizing load cells during the NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster – Commercial (NEXT-C) gridded ion thruster proto-flight vibration test performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center’s Structural Dynamics Laboratory.

K. J. Pederson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Nuclear Propulsion for Deep Space Science Missions

The use of nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) 1 and nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) 2 systems on deep space science missions to the outer planets and into the interstellar medium 3 can yield significant spacecraft system and mission performance benefits and improvements relative to the use of conventional chemical propulsion systems. Several recent and ongoing programs are developing the technologies and systems required to realize a near-term deep space nuclear propulsion capability. NTP provides improved propulsion efficiencies compared to chemical propulsion, while also providing substantial thrust. This combination of high thrust and increased specific impulse (I_sp) provides high acceleration and extended thrusting periods, enabling greatly reduced trip-times on certain types of missions compared to various propulsive alternatives. For examples, compared to a baseline mission using chemical propulsion, NTP-powered missions to Jupiter or Uranus could deliver approximately 2.4-3.6 times more payload (in the case of Jupiter, the payload delivery is significantly larger than the Juno spacecraft). In this comparison, the higher end of the payload advantage is obtained when the trip time is held equal for the NTP-powered vehicle and a vehicle using a chemical propulsion departure stage. NTP systems are presently under development by multiple government agencies. NASA’s Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project aims to demonstrate a hydrogen-fed NTP engine at 900 s specific impulse (I_sp) and approximately 10-15 klb_f of thrust. DARPA’s Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program is targeting a demonstration of an NTP system in the cislunar space between the Earth and the Moon. An appropriately phased development plan that applies the development of the reactor technology for an NTP engine in this performance class and leverages mature, existing liquid rocket component hardware provides a path to a lower cost propulsion system that can be realized on a shorter development schedule. NEP, with high Isp in the 2,000-8,000 s range, can also provide advantages over chemical propulsion, including a much greater payload delivery mass and the flexibility for planners to trade between delivered mass and a wider window of mission trajectory options. Electric propulsion (EP) systems have demonstrated great utility, performing notably on the Dawn mission to enable rendezvous and orbital insertion at two separate bodies, Vesta and Ceres. An NEP-powered vehicle would have a similar capability to visit multiple bodies, loitering at each before moving to the next. A 10 kW_e NEP system provides a power- rich environment on the spacecraft that is simply not possible using present radioisotope power systems, giving mission planners more scientific instrument and communication hardware options. Several programs and projects are presently developing NEP systems and subsystems in the 10 kW_e power range, leveraging past reactor work and recent nuclear power generation risk-reduction demonstration activities such as the Demonstration Using Flattop Fission (DUFF) and the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY (KRUSTY). The goal of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Joint Energy Technology Supplying On-Orbit Nuclear Power (JETSON) program is an in-space demonstration vehicle that has a 10 kW_e -class fission power source. These past and present efforts can be combined with the ongoing development of 10 kW_e -class electric propulsion systems (notably the NEXT-C ion thruster or the Hall-effect thrusters for Power and Propulsion Element of the Lunar Gateway) to provide a pathway to a low-cost, reliable NEP system for deep space science application.

Kurt A. Polzin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Nuclear Propulsion for Deep Space Science Missions

The use of nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) 1 and nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) 2 systems on deep space science missions to the outer planets and into the interstellar medium 3 can yield significant spacecraft system and mission performance benefits and improvements relative to the use of conventional chemical propulsion systems. Several recent and ongoing programs are developing the technologies and systems required to realize a near-term deep space nuclear propulsion capability. NTP provides improved propulsion efficiencies compared to chemical propulsion, while also providing substantial thrust. This combination of high thrust and increased specific impulse (I_sp) provides high acceleration and extended thrusting periods, enabling greatly reduced trip-times on certain types of missions compared to various propulsive alternatives. For examples, compared to a baseline mission using chemical propulsion, NTP-powered missions to Jupiter or Uranus could deliver approximately 2.4-3.6 times more payload (in the case of Jupiter, the payload delivery is significantly larger than the Juno spacecraft). In this comparison, the higher end of the payload advantage is obtained when the trip time is held equal for the NTP-powered vehicle and a vehicle using a chemical propulsion departure stage. NTP systems are presently under development by multiple government agencies. NASA’s Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project aims to demonstrate a hydrogen-fed NTP engine at 900 s specific impulse (I_sp) and approximately 10-15 klb_f of thrust. DARPA’s Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program is targeting a demonstration of an NTP system in the cislunar space between the Earth and the Moon. An appropriately phased development plan that applies the development of the reactor technology for an NTP engine in this performance class and leverages mature, existing liquid rocket component hardware provides a path to a lower cost propulsion system that can be realized on a shorter development schedule. NEP, with high Isp in the 2,000-8,000 s range, can also provide advantages over chemical propulsion, including a much greater payload delivery mass and the flexibility for planners to trade between delivered mass and a wider window of mission trajectory options. Electric propulsion (EP) systems have demonstrated great utility, performing notably on the Dawn mission to enable rendezvous and orbital insertion at two separate bodies, Vesta and Ceres. An NEP-powered vehicle would have a similar capability to visit multiple bodies, loitering at each before moving to the next. A 10 kW_e NEP system provides a power- rich environment on the spacecraft that is simply not possible using present radioisotope power systems, giving mission planners more scientific instrument and communication hardware options. Several programs and projects are presently developing NEP systems and subsystems in the 10 kW_e power range, leveraging past reactor work and recent nuclear power generation risk-reduction demonstration activities such as the Demonstration Using Flattop Fission (DUFF) and the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY (KRUSTY). The goal of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Joint Energy Technology Supplying On-Orbit Nuclear Power (JETSON) program is an in-space demonstration vehicle that has a 10 kW_e -class fission power source. These past and present efforts can be combined with the ongoing development of 10 kW_e -class electric propulsion systems (notably the NEXT-C ion thruster or the Hall-effect thrusters for Power and Propulsion Element of the Lunar Gateway) to provide a pathway to a low-cost, reliable NEP system for deep space science application.

Kurt A. Polzin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SERENE: Saturn Enceladus Return Explorer with Nuclear Electric Propulsion

A ‘quick’ Enceladus sample return mission concept was developed based on the scientist recommendations at the recent ‘Accelerating Space Science with Nuclear Technology Workshop’. The Nuclear Electric Propulsion spacecraft assumed a follow-on 40 kWe nuclear reactor using the demonstrated 40 kWe Fission Surface Power system, expected in the early 2030s. The NEP vehicle also utilized a set of NEXT-C ion thrusters as well as planned Artemis commercial launchers. By launching the 40 kW NEP vehicle on a Starship and adding the propellants of 15 tankers, the 27t probe could be sent on a direct trajectory to Saturn (no Earth or Jupiter flybys) where NEP was used for Saturn capture, spiral down, spiral up and return to the Earth. A small lander obtained the surface Enceladus sample. Using the 40 kW NEP provided a round-trip time of only 16.5 years. A second option was more attractive from a science perspective whereby the NEP vehicle would deliver a large, 6t chemical lander to low Enceladus orbit where it would grab and return a sample to Earth (similar to the recent Orbilander design but in reverse). After deploying the lander, the NEP vehicle would stay in Saturn space performing a moon tour by orbiting four more moons and mapping the large moon of Titan. This option took slightly longer (18.5 yrs) due to the chemical return leg limitations. Both options demonstrated the agility, payload capability, and sample return goals the workshop recommended. An all-chemical option with two stages was roughly analyzed but took 21.5 yrs and required a Jupiter gravity assist.

Nuclear Electric Propulsion↗