Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Vibration & Acoustic Testing”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

Acoustically Induced Vibration of Structures: Reverberant Vs. Direct Acoustic Testing

Large reverberant chambers have been used for several decades in the aerospace industry to test larger structures such as solar arrays and reflectors to qualify and to detect faults in the design and fabrication of spacecraft and satellites. In the past decade some companies have begun using direct near field acoustic testing, employing speakers, for qualifying larger structures. A limited test data set obtained from recent acoustic tests of the same hardware exposed to both direct and reverberant acoustic field testing has indicated some differences in the resulting structural responses. In reverberant acoustic testing, higher vibration responses were observed at lower frequencies when compared with the direct acoustic testing. In the case of direct near field acoustic testing higher vibration responses appeared to occur at higher frequencies as well. In reverberant chamber testing and direct acoustic testing, standing acoustic modes of the reverberant chamber or the speakers and spacecraft parallel surfaces can strongly couple with the fundamental structural modes of the test hardware. In this paper data from recent acoustic testing of flight hardware, that yielded evidence of acoustic standing wave coupling with structural responses, are discussed in some detail. Convincing evidence of the acoustic standing wave/structural coupling phenomenon will be discussed, citing observations from acoustic testing of a simple aluminum plate. The implications of such acoustic coupling to testing of sensitive flight hardware will be discussed. The results discussed in this paper reveal issues with over or under testing of flight hardware that could pose unanticipated structural and flight qualification issues. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to understand the structural modal coupling with standing acoustic waves that has been observed in both methods of acoustic testing. This study will assist the community to choose an appropriate testing method and test setup in the planning stages.

Reverberant acoustic field↗
NASA NTRS2008

10.2 Thermal-Structural Testing

Objective: Test a C/SiC Ruddervator Subcomponent under relevant thermal, mechanical & dynamic loading a) Thermal-structural mission cycling for re-entry and hypersonic cruise conditions; b) High-temperature modal survey to study the effect of heating on mode shapes, natural frequencies and damping. Supports NASA ARMD Hypersonics Material & Structures Program. Partners: NASA Dryden / Langley / Glenn, Lockheed-Martin, Materials Research & Design, GE CCP Test Phases - Phase 1: Acoustic-Vibration Testing (LaRC) completed - Phase 2: Thermal-Mechanical Testing (DFRC) in assembly - Phase 3: Mechanical Testing (DFRC) in assembly

Hudson, Larry D.↗
NASA NTRS1974

A comparison of acoustic and random vibration testing of spacecraft

Before selecting the most suitable testing technique in a particular case, it has to be considered which of the two methods duplicates better the distribution of vibration responses to be expected during the actual launch phase. An investigation is conducted of the case of a large, low density spacecraft launched by a vehicle which produces significant acoustic noise and transmits relatively little vibration through the mechanical path provided by the vehicle structure in the area of the spacecraft interface. Criteria for vibration-acoustic equivalence are discussed along with tests conducted with the Synchronous Meteorological Satellite, the Radio Astronomy Explorer, and the Orbiting Geophysical Spacecraft. The investigation indicates that the vibration test is generally a poor substitute for an acoustic study.-

Bangs, W. F.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Qualification of Electrical Ground Support Equipment for New Space Programs

With the Space Shuttle program coming to an end, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is moving to a new space flight program that will allow expeditions beyond low earth orbit. The space vehicles required to comply with these missions will be carrying heavy payloads. This implies that the Earth departure stage capabilities must be of higher magnitudes, given the current propulsion technology. The engineering design of the new flight hardware comes with some structural, thermal, propulsion and other subsystems' challenges. Meanwhile, the necessary ground support equipment (GSE) used to test, validate, verify and process the flight hardware must withstand the new program specifications. This paper intends to provide the qualification considerations during implementation of new electrical GSE for space programs. A team of engineers was formed to embark on this task, and facilitate the logistics process and ensure that the electrical, mechanical and fluids subsystems conduct the proper level of testing. Ultimately, each subsystem must certify that each piece of ground support equipment used in the field is capable of withstanding the strenuous vibration, acoustics, environmental, thermal and Electromagnetic Interference (EMf) levels experienced during pre-launch, launch and post-launch activities. The benefits of capturing and sharing these findings will provide technical, cost savings and schedule impacts infon11ation to both the technical and management community. Keywords: Qualification; Testing; Ground Support Equipment; Electromagnetic Interference Testing; Vibration Testing; Acoustic Testing; Power Spectral Density.

SotoToro, Felix A.↗
NASA NTRS2017

InSight System Acoustic Requirement Evolution

The InSight Mars lander is to be launched to Mars in 2018 on a rocket, contained within an aeroshell designed for Mars entry. The primary mission objective is to deliever an ultra-sensitive seismometer to the Martian surface for scientific investigations. The preliminary InSight PF acoustic requirement (the heritage Phoenix environment, 139.8 dB overall SPL maximum expected environment) was reduced significantly when the Launch vehicle was selected as the InSight launch vehicle (134.5 dB overall SPL maximum expected environment). This reduction would have resulted in a very low Lander Deck random vibration at SEIS, and other instruments inside the aeroshell, during the system Protoflight (PF) acoustic test with questionable workmanship value. To mitigate this concern JPL and Launch vehicle contractor agreed to increase the InSight PF acoustic test requirement to enhance workmanship testing for science instruments and assemblies inside the aeroshell. The actual InSight system acoustic test vibration responses at the SEIS instrument are compared to the predicted responses.

O'Connell, Michael↗
NASA NTRS1984

Design and development of Shuttle Get-Away-Special experiment G-0074

An experiment to investigate more versatile, lower cost surface tension propellant acquisition approaches for future satellite and spacecraft propellant tanks is designed to demonstrate a propellant off-load capability for a full-tank gallery surface tension device, such as that employed in the shuttle reaction control subsystem, and demonstrate a low-cost refillable trap concept that could be used in future orbit maneuver propulsion systems for multiple engine restarts. A Plexiglas test tank, movie camera and lights, auxiliary liquid accumulator, control electronics, battery pack, and associated valving and plumbing are used. The test liquid is Freon 113, dyed blue for color movie coverage. The fully loaded experiments weighs 106 pounds and is to be installed in a NASA five-cubic-foot flight canister. Vibration tests, acoustic tests, and high and low temperature tests were performed to quality the experiment for flight.

Orton, G. F.↗
NASA NTRS2016

James Webb Space Telescope Optical Telescope Element/Integrated Science Instrument Module (OTIS) Status

The James Webb Space Telescope Optical Telescope Element (OTE) and Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM) are integrated together to form the OTIS. Once integrated, the OTIS undergoes primary mirror center of curvature optical tests, electrical and operational tests, acoustics and vibration testing at the Goddard Space Flight Center before being shipped to the Johnson Space Center for cryogenic optical testing of the OTIS. In preparation for the cryogenic optical testing, the JWST project has built a Pathfinder telescope and has completed two Optical Ground System Equipment (OGSE) cryogenic optical tests with the Pathfinder. In this paper, we will summarize optical test results to date and status the final Pathfinder test and the OTIS integration and environmental test preparations

Feinberg, Lee↗
NASA NTRS2016

James Webb Space Telescope Optical Telescope Element Integrated Science Instrument Module (OTIS) Status

The James Webb Space Telescope Optical Telescope Element (OTE) and Integrated ScienceInstrument Module (ISIM)are integrated together to form the OTIS. Once integrated, the OTIS undergoes primary mirrorcenter of curvatureoptical tests, electrical and operational tests, acoustics and vibration testing at the Goddard SpaceFlight Center beforebeing shipped to the Johnson Space Center for cryogenic optical testing of the OTIS. In preparationfor the cryogenicoptical testing, the JWST project has built a Pathfinder telescope and has completed two OpticalGround SystemEquipment (OGSE) cryogenic optical tests with the Pathfinder. In this paper, we will summarize opticaltest results todate and status the final Pathfinder test and the OTIS integration and environmental test preparations

Feinberg, Lee↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗
NASA NTRS2022

Environmental Testing of Contamination Sensitive Instruments and Optics in Non-Cleanliness Controlled Facilities

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Optical Telescope Element + Integrated Science Instrument Module (OTIS) went through environmental testing at the Goddard Space Flight Center. The vibration and acoustic tests occurred outside of cleanrooms. These areas are typically around ISO Class 8, far out of specifications for JWST. Through collaboration between the OTIS Mechanical and Contamination Engineering teams, a portable clean enclosure was designed, built, and verified to prevent contamination of the sensitive OTIS assembly. This manuscript describes the process of designing and building this enclosure, including materials selection and High Efficiency Particle Air (HEPA) filtration. This enclosure also provided environmental control with a portable air conditioning unit to control the relative humidity level enabling personnel to work within it. The manuscript emphasizes working in a systematic order to maintain cleanliness and integrity. “Clean as you go” during construction was a top priority to ensure that this critical Ground Support Equipment (GSE) was acceptable. The process of installing the walls and then sealing their internal and external surfaces with approved films was critical to maintaining OTIS integrity. This proved important because OTIS was in the enclosure for months longer than originally planned. This manuscript concludes by reviewing the process used to verify that the OTIS clean enclosure could achieve acceptable contamination level fallout accumulation for use during the vibration and acoustic testing and then verifying that the predicted performance was achieved after testing was complete.

Contamination Control, James Webb Space Telescope,↗