Results for “Shape Memory Effect” — Page 22

NASA NTRS1985

Workshop on Advances in NASA-Relevant, Minimally Invasive Instrumentation

The purpose of this meeting is to highlight those advances in instrumentation and methodology that can be applied to the medical problems that will be encountered as the duration of manned space missions is extended. Information on work that is presently being done by NASA as well as other approaches in which NASA is not participating will be exchanged. The NASA-sponsored efforts that will be discussed are part of the overall Space Medicine Program that has been undertaken by NASA to address the medical problems of manned spaceflight. These problems include those that have been observed in the past as well as those which are anticipated as missions become longer, traverse different orbits, or are in any way different. This conference is arranged in order to address the types of instrumentation that might be used in several major medical problem areas. Instrumentation that will help in the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and psychological areas, among others will be presented. Interest lies in identifying instrumentation which will help in learning more about ourselves through experiments performed directly on humans. Great emphasis is placed on non-invasive approaches, although every substantial program basic to animal research will be needed in the foreseeable future. Space Medicine is a rather small affair in what is primarily an engineering organization. Space Medicine is conducted throughout NASA by a very small skeleton staff at the headquarters office in Washington and by our various field centers. These centers include the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Throughout these various centers, work is conducted in-house by NASA's own staff scientists, physicians, and engineers. In addition, various universities, industries, and other government laboratories perform research that cannot be effectively carried out in-house. At the moment, approximately 50% of the work is performed in-house and 50% is extramural. The area of bioinstrumentation pervades every one of our problem areas. In each, equipment or procedures are being developed that will allow more clinical work to be done in a ground-based or spacecraft setting. Although work of this kind goes on throughout the NASA organization and through its grants and contracts in the community at large, the major thrust of it is concentrated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which plays a lead role in this type of research and acts as the lead center in bioinstrumentation for NASA. It is recognized that there is much additional research being pursued in this area which would be potentially valuable to NASA and could, with some stimulation from, be made more applicable to NASA's needs. It is hoped, therefore, that the proceedings of this conference will be used as the basis for developing research strategies to be used as a road map to point the way in which NASA's own sponsored program should proceed over the course of the next three years. Additionally, it is hoped that the conference will highlight additional areas in which NASA should be involved either in-house or through the sponsorship of non-NASA scientists. NASA would also like to get an idea of which areas should be emphasized or perhaps de-emphasized among those that it is currently pursuing. In considering these questions, the discussion should concern itself not so much with whether a particular procedure or piece of equipment would work in a spacecraft, but rather, with whether the procedures that are advocated are at the state-of-the-art or beyond the state-of-the-art and whether they hold promise of giving additional insight into the problems to be confronted as humans venture into space for longer and longer periods of time.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Order Methods in NASA’s Next Generation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Tools

The missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) routinely produce unique requirements and challenges for development and application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods. NASA presently embodies four distinct Mission Directorates: Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations. These missions generate requirements for systems that operate in a wide variety of environments. They range from the high-speed flight of aerodynamically optimized vehicles operating in the earth’s atmosphere to spacecraft designed for missions that don’t favor aerodynamic optimization, some operating in the atmosphere of planets and planetary moons such as Mars and Venus or Saturn’s moon Titan. Systems supporting these vehicles, such as rocket and jet propulsion, reaction control systems, fluid and thermal transfer systems, etc. can also generate their own unique set of flow phenomena that challenge today’s CFD methodology. Through the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), NASA annually conducts state-of-the-discipline assessments in fifteen distinct engineering disciplines. These assessments are performed by the NASA Technical Fellows that lead Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) of recognized experts in these fifteen areas. In the Aerosciences discipline, three topics have been identified as the top challenges for the discipline: aero-plume interaction prediction, unsteady separated flows, and aerothermodynamic prediction. These challenge areas are defined by the Agency’s high-risk projects and problems on which the NESC is requested to perform independent testing, analysis, and assessments. When viewed as a whole, these tests, analyses, and assessments provide a clear view of the recurring technical challenges facing Agency engineers and researchers and can be used to guide future research and technology development. The present state-of-the-art in the application of CFD at NASA is the use of Reynolds-Averaged Navier- Stokes (RANS) solvers, primarily executed in a steady-state mode of operation. In isolated cases, Unsteady RANS (URANS) solvers have been employed when steady RANS solutions produce poorly converging or oscillating results or in cases, such as aeroelastic analysis, which require unsteady aerodynamic simulation. For most traditional external and internal aerodynamic flows, structured overset grids or unstructured grids are employed to minimize geometric modeling and grid generation times. Grid adaptation, primarily as a series of coarse-grain intermediate processing steps is also seeing use on particularly complex flow problems and configurations. In the case of aerothermodynamic flows, engineers have been forced to continue to employ structured grid techniques as the present unstructured grid methodology has proven inadequate in the prediction of surface heating. In the area of aero-plume interaction modeling, two-gas, frozen chemistry simulation is generally the state-of-the- art, with some production solvers capable of predicting flows with only a single gas component. Prediction of flows falling into the afore-mentioned top Aerosciences technical challenges have severely stressed the present state-of-the-art in CFD prediction and for some problems, such as unsteady separated flows and aero-plume interaction cases, engineers have begun employing Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Hybrid RANS/LES techniques. In some isolated aero-propulsion interaction cases, chemically reacting flow simulations have been applied. These methods are highly evolutionary and engineers have little experience in their application, so they cannot be heavily relied upon in today’s application environment. Therefore, this leads one to muse over which numerical technologies will be included in the CFD tools that will be employed 30 years in the future. This presentation will describe specific technical problems that have stressed NASA’s traditional CFD methods to their breaking point and will link these issues to the Agency’s top Aerosciences technical challenges. The discussion will then shift to the characteristics of future CFD solvers that will be required to attack these challenges and how these characteristics differ from the present state-of-the- art. High-order methods certainly appear to have a place in the development of future CFD tools and some of the physical characteristics of our most challenging problems suggest that high-order methods are the only way to effectively solve them. But there are some relatively severe implementation issues that face these methods, particularly in the area of general applicability and robust operation as an engineering tool. Desired characteristics of next-generation CFD solvers will be discussed and the author’s view of which emerging numerical technologies might be employed to address these attributes will also be presented

David M Schuster↗