Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “real and complex analysis”

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.

425 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

MOBI and FEANICS Programming in Labview

The flight software engineering branch provides design and development of embedded real-time software applications for flight and supporting ground systems to support the NASA Aeronautics and Space Programs. In addition, this branch evaluates, develops and implements new technologies for embedded real-time systems, and maintains a laboratory for applications of embedded technology. This branch supports other divisions and is involved with many other projects. My mentor Rochelle and I are involved in the Fluids and Combustion Facility (FCF) project, the MOBI project, and the FEANICS project. The Fluids and Combustion Facility (FCF) will occupy two powered racks on the International Space Station (ISS). It will be a permanent modular, multiuser facility to accommodate microgravity science experiments onboard the ISS's U.S. Laboratory Module. FCF will support NASA Human Exploration and Development of Space program objectives requiring sustained, systematic research in the disciplines of fluid physics and combustion science. The fluids experiment is called FIR and the combustion experiment is called CIR. The MOBI Experiment is an experiment that is performed to understand the physics of bubble segregation and resuspension in an inertia, monodisperse gas-liquid suspension, and to understand how bubble pressure resists segregation in suspensions with continuous phase inertia. The main focus of FEANICS and the solid combustion experiments will be to conduct basic and applied scientific investigations in fire-safety to support NASA's Bioastronautics Initiative. Based on data obtained in microgravity and experience gained from the beginning of the U.S. manned space program, these normal gravity flammability assessments have been assumed to be conservative with respect to flammability in all environments. However, some of the complex interactions that govern ignition and flame growth can only be evaluated in the long durations of microgravity available on the ISS. Before any of these projects actually go to the ISS, they are going to be tested on NASA's KC-135 Low-G airplane, the KC-135 Low-G Flight Research aircraft (a predecessor of the Boeing 707) is used to fly parabolas to create 20-25 seconds of weightlessness so that the astronauts can experience and researchers can investigate the effects of zero gravity. My mentor and I have been working with Labview to write the programs that are going to acquire, analyze and present the data acquired from these Test flights on the KC-135. We have been working closely with electrical, and mechanical engineers to make sure the program and the hardware can communicate and perform the operations necessary for the flight test. LabVIEW delivers a powerful graphical development environment for signal acquisition, measurement analysis, and data presentation, giving you the flexibility of a programming language without the complexity of traditional development tools. The programming of the control panel and the code are both done in GUIs which allow for flexibility in the code and the program.

Rios, Jeffrey N.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact of NASA’s Entry Systems Modeling Project on Planetary Mission Design

Planetary missions continue to grow larger and more complex. Furthermore, the current focus on human exploration of the Moon and Mars, as well as Mars Sample Return(MSR), place increas-ingly stringent requirements on the reliability of the entry, descent, and landing (EDL) system that ensures the safe delivery of payload or crew to their destination. Planetary EDL is an area in which mission designers are critically reliant on modeling and simulation to demonstrate the reliability of the system, as there are no ground facilities that are able to fully test these systems in a flight-relevant environment. NASA’s state-of-the-art modeling and simulation capability must continually evolve to meet the needs of the next generation of planetary EDL. To accomplish this aim, NASA’s Entry Systems Modeling (ESM) Project was formed in 2013and is funded bythe Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD) and Science Mission Directorate (SMD). ESM is the Agency’s only cross-cutting effort for advancing entry systems modeling and simulation capabilities across a range of technical disciplines and Solar System destinations. ESM is a portfolio project covering a variety of mid-TRL research efforts within four core EDL-related areas of investment: (1) Thermal protection material modeling, (2) Shock layer kinetics and radiation, (3) Aerosciences, and (4) Guidance, navigation, and con-trol. The material modeling group creates detailed material response modelsof thermal protection systems (TPS)from the micro to macro scale, and at the fun-damental and engineering levels. Shock layer kinetics and radiation focuses on radiative heating of space-craft, quantum chemistry and benchmark experiments for validation.Aerosciences is a broad research area that impacts many aspects of entry systems, including parachutes, aerodynamics, and turbulent heating augmentation due to TPS roughness.The guidance, navigation,and control effort under ESM is expanding the capabilities of NASA’s main flight mechanics tool, POST2, for use on high-performance computing architectures and to generalize interoperability with external applications for more detailed end-to-end simula-tion.In addition, several focusedresearch topics have been approvedto augment ESM’s core portfolio. These include efforts for deep post-flight analysis of Mars 2020/MEDLI2 flight data; development ofTPS failure models; improvement of hypersonic wakeflow models; and a recently concluded effort to provide material response models for NuSil-coated PICA heat-shield material. This presentation will discuss each of these investment areas and demonstrate via real mission examples how advances to the state-of-the-art enabled by ESM are directly impacting the missions of today and tomorrow, including InSight, Mars 2020, Mars Sample Return, Orion, and Dragonfly.

Entry Systems Modeling↗
NASA NTRS2019

Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) New Observing Strategies (NOS) and NOS-Testbed (NOS-T)

With the advancement of space hardware technologies such as smaller spacecraft, component and instrument miniaturization and high performance space processors, and with the advancement of software technologies in artificial intelligence, big data analysis and autonomous decision making, Earth Science is looking at novel ways to observe phenomena that previously could not have been studied or would have been too expensive to study with traditional missions. In particular, the New Observing Strategies (NOS) component of the NASA Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) Program aims at leveraging these novel technologies as well as low cost and easy access to space to acquire multi-temporal or simultaneous multi-angular, multi-locations, multi-resolution and multi-spectral observations that will provide better multi-source measurements and will build a more dynamic and comprehensive picture of Earth Science phenomena that need to be studied and analyzed. For applications such as water resources management, air quality monitoring, biodiversity studies or disaster management, NOS will integrate the use of small instruments, small spacecraft, constellations of spacecraft and networks of sensors to design new missions that will provide the necessary measurements to improve future forecast and science modeling systems.Measurement acquisition will therefore be approached as a system of systems rather than on a mission basis, and a system of this complexity should not be expected to work without full integration and experimental characterization. Although most of the individual technologies enabling to link and coordinate multi-source observations are more or less mature, a few technologies need to be developed and all of them need to be integrated and tested as a system. In order for this validation to occur, the AIST Program is developing the NOS Testbed that includes 3 main goals:1.Validate novel NOS technologies, independently and as a system2.Demonstrate novel distributed operations concepts3.Socialize new Distributed Spacecraft Mission (DSM) and SensorWeb (SW) technologies and concepts to the science community by significantly retiring the risk of integrating these new technologies.The NOS Testbed will consist of multiple sensing nodes, simulated or actual, representing space, air and/or ground measurements, that are interconnected by a communications fabric (infrastructure that permits nodes to transmit and receive data between one another and interact with each other). Each node will be supported by hardware capabilities required to perform nodes monitoring and command & control, as well as intelligent "onboard" computing. The nodes will work together in a collaborative manner to demonstrate optimal science capabilities. The testbed will enable to validate technologies such as inter-node communication models, techniques and protocols; inter-node coordination; real-time data fusion and understanding; planning; sensor re-targeting; etc. Additionally, the testbed will have the capability to interact with various mission design tools, OSSEs and one or several forecast models. More details about the NOS Testbed will be presented at the confererence.

Earth Science missions; Advanced information Syste↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving the Fidelity of Capability & Resource Weighting in A Probalistic Risk Assessment Model for Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to provide an evidence-based, data-driven estimate of how medical system capabilities affect mission outcomes. IMPACT maps condition incidence to available resources thereby facilitating the calculation of outcome metrics that allow the estimation of mission medical risk. Conditions can be nominally categorized as either treated or untreated depending on the availability of necessary diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. This categorization enables IMPACT to estimate the effect of various medical system configurations on mission outcomes such as crew mortality, disability, crew member down-time, return to duty/recovery, and need for evacuation. IMPACT currently employs an equal weighting, “partial credit” approach to define treatment in which each of the capabilities associated with a given condition contributes an equal amount to management of the condition. This feature enables IMPACT to report values in between “fully untreated” and “fully treated” based on the proportion of capabilities available within the model. However, as is normal in medical/clinical practice, not all individual capabilities contribute equally to medical care. For example, the ability to provide intramuscular epinephrine during an anaphylactic episode contributes more likelihood of overall management success than does the administration of oral diphenhydramine. We hypothesize that weighting the relative contribution of each capability to each specific condition will improve outcome prediction and therefore will better provide mission planners with more nuanced and accurate options when designing space medical systems. METHODS Using a five-point Fibonacci scaling sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8) subject matter experts from NASA’s Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element assigned relative contribution weighting values to each identified capability within IMPACT. Since the relative importance of each capability varies depending on the specific condition, the resulting “partial” weighting was completed for more than 1,600 individual weighting assignments for 666 capabilities across 121 conditions. Each assignment required three-physician concurrence based on the overall importance of the capability to the diagnosis and management of the condition being considered and the difficulty with which it could be improvised by the crew. Once complete, 100,000 IMPACT simulations were run for a 6-month Lunar mission with a 30-day surface stay to evaluate the effect of this modification of the model. RESULTS Partial weighting significantly decreased predicted task time loss (TTL), evacuation, and loss of crew life without causing significant changes to the recommended medical system design. CONCLUSIONS The paucity of real-world referent data to support long-duration space missions of this type limits the ability to judge one predictive analytics method as superior to another. However, since the proposed method significantly reduces and optimizes outcome risks—without changing the medical system design—incorporating a partial weighting methodology is likely to provide a more accurate and operationally-relevant representation of medical risk without compromising IMPACTs ability to inform overarching medical system requirements.

Steller JG↗
NASA NTRS2019

Supporting Crew Autonomy in Deep Space Exploration: Preliminary Onboard Capability Requirements and Proposed Research Questions. Technical Report of the Autonomous Crew Operations Technical Interchange Meeting

Communication delays are a critical challenge posed by long duration deep space exploration. Space missions historically have relied on an ever-present Mission Control Center (MCC) to direct operations in near real-time. As unanticipated anomalies that defeat fault detection and resolution systems do arise, the lack of real-time communication will significantly weaken what the MCC support represents: a reliable safety net for the flight crew through its deep and diverse areas of expertise and investigative resources. As a consequence, future space vehicles and habitats need to be equipped with capabilities to support the flight crew to operate with little or no ground support. Considerations must be given to vehicle and mission designs that will fortify the traditionally ground-centered safety net and forge new support systems, when communication delays exist. In August 2018, NASA’s Human Research Program, through its Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element, convened a Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) on Autonomous Crew Operations at NASA Ames Research Center. The goal of the meeting was to gather input from NASA centers, industry, academia, and branches of the Department of Defense (DoD) to address how intelligent technologies can be applied to augment onboard capabilities to support crew anomaly response. The TIM featured 24 presentations by 29 speakers and hosted a total of 59 attendees, including 43 from 5 NASA centers (Ames, Johnson, Langley, Marshall, and Jet Propulsion Lab) and 4 from the DoD (3 from Army Research Lab and 1 from Naval Postgraduate School), with remaining attendees from academia (e.g., UC Davis, CMU) and industry (e.g., IBM, Siemens). Discussions were centered around three themes: standards and guidelines, lessons learned in analog environments, and technologies. To help provide a framework for discussion, a concept matrix describing anomaly response processes was created prior to the TIM (Figure 1, page 6). The matrix captures the steps involved (monitoring and detection, diagnosis, solution development and evaluation, solution implementation and verification, resolution documentation) as well as the resources and capabilities required to support these steps (data, knowledge, analysis, synthesis, resource management). A wallpaper size printout of the matrix was utilized at the TIM to solicit attendee inputs along the three themes; the activity garnered 108 submissions of ideas. Overall, what emerged from TIM discussions was a picture of mismatch between crew anomaly response needs and support that can be provided by existing intelligent technologies. The needs are broad, spanning multiple steps and processes/resources, with many of which lacking support from existing technologies, such as knowledge management throughout the steps of problem solving (especially in resolution documentation) and manpower management. The solutions provided by existing intelligent technologies are specific to the steps/processes that they are designed to support and constrained to solving only problems similar to those that have occurred before. What is lacking from technologies is typically made up by humans, specifically their complex critical thinking, creative problem solving, and domain expertise. In the end, the TIM highlighted the pressing need to support responses to onboard anomalies during autonomous crew operations, particularly those that have eluded the system tests, inspection, and other assurance processes. Such anomalies can potentially threaten crew and vehicle safety, as well as significantly impact overall operations with additional workload. These fairly rare events are difficult to anticipate and prepare for, given the state-of-the-art in intelligent technologies. This is true even for anomalies that stem from “unknown knowns”—cases in which there is sufficient external information to characterize the problem but the overall pattern fails to be recognized by the problem solver, or in which the internal knowledge needed to solve a problem is held tacitly and potentially accessible by the problem solver but not articulated. It follows that the ability to tackle anomalies lies not only with the availability of relevant information and knowledge but also their accessibility in times of need. To that end, we propose research questions along the following three broad themes: • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information available? • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information accessible? • How intelligent technologies can help support the crew operating as a team in anomaly response processes?

autonomous crew operations↗
NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Crew-Centric Onboard Mission Operations Planning and Execution Tool: Year 2

Currently, mission planning for the International Space Station (ISS) is largely affected by ground operators in mission control. The task of creating a week-long mission plan for ISS crew takes dozens of people multiple days to complete, and is often created far in advance of its execution. As such, re-planning or adapting to changing real-time constraints or emergent issues is similarly taxing. As we design for future mission operations concepts to other planets or areas with limited connectivity to Earth, more of these ground-based tasks will need to be handled autonomously by the crew onboard.There is a need for a highly usable (including low training time) tool that enables efficient self-scheduling and execution within a single package. The ISS Program has identified Playbook as a potential option. It already has high crew acceptance as a plan viewer from previous analogs and can now support a crew self-scheduling assessment on ISS or on another mission. The goals of this work, a collaboration between the Human Research Program and the ISS Program, are to inform the design of systems for more autonomous crew operations and provide a platform for research on crew autonomy for future deep space missions. Our second year of the research effort have included new insights on the crew self-scheduling sessions performed by the crew through use on the HERA (Human Exploration Research Analog) and NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) analogs. Use on the NEEMO analog involved two self-scheduling strategies where the crew planned and executed two days of EVAs (Extra-Vehicular Activities). On HERA year two represented the first HERA campaign where we were able to perform research tasks. This involved selected flexible activities that the crew could schedule, mock timelines where the crew completed more complex planning exercises, usability evaluation of the crew self-scheduling features, and more insights into the limit of plan complexity that the crew could effectively self-schedule. In parallel we have added in new features and functionality in the Playbook tool based off of our insights from crew self-scheduling in the NASA analogs. In particular this year we have added in the ability for the crew to add, edit, and remove their own activities in the Playbook tool, expanding the type of planning and re-planning possible in the tool and opening up the ability for more free form plan creation. The ability to group and manipulate groups of activities from the plan task list was also added, allowing crew members to add predefined sets of activities onto their mission timeline. In addition we also added a way for crew members to roll back changes in their plan, in order to allow an undo like capability. These features expand and complement the initial self-scheduling features added in year one with the goal of making crew autonomous planning more efficient. As part of this work we have also finished developing the first version of our Playbook Data Analysis Tool, a research tool built to interpret and analyze the unobtrusively collected data obtained during the NASA analog missions through Playbook. This data which includes user click interaction as well as plan change information, through the Playbook Data Analysis Tool, allows us to playback this information as if a video camera was mounted over the crewmember's tablet. While the primary purpose of this tool is to allow usability analysis of crew self-scheduling sessions used on the NASA analog, since the data collected is structured, the tool can automatically derive metrics that would be traditionally tedious to achieve without manual analysis of video playback. We will demonstrate and discuss the ability for future derived metrics to be added to the tool. In addition to the current data and results gathered in year two we will also discuss the preparation and goals of our International Space Station (ISS) onboard technology demonstration with Playbook. This technology demonstration will be preformed as part of the CAST payload starting in late 2016.

onboard planning↗
NASA NTRS2000

NPSS on NASA's IPG: Using CORBA and Globus to Coordinate Multidisciplinary Aeroscience Applications

Within NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication (HPCC) program, the NASA Glenn Research Center is developing an environment for the analysis/design of aircraft engines called the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS). The vision for NPSS is to create a "numerical test cell" enabling full engine simulations overnight on cost-effective computing platforms. To this end, NPSS integrates multiple disciplines such as aerodynamics, structures, and heat transfer and supports "numerical zooming" between O-dimensional to 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensional component engine codes. In order to facilitate the timely and cost-effective capture of complex physical processes, NPSS uses object-oriented technologies such as C++ objects to encapsulate individual engine components and CORBA ORBs for object communication and deployment across heterogeneous computing platforms. Recently, the HPCC program has initiated a concept called the Information Power Grid (IPG), a virtual computing environment that integrates computers and other resources at different sites. IPG implements a range of Grid services such as resource discovery, scheduling, security, instrumentation, and data access, many of which are provided by the Globus toolkit. IPG facilities have the potential to benefit NPSS considerably. For example, NPSS should in principle be able to use Grid services to discover dynamically and then co-schedule the resources required for a particular engine simulation, rather than relying on manual placement of ORBs as at present. Grid services can also be used to initiate simulation components on parallel computers (MPPs) and to address inter-site security issues that currently hinder the coupling of components across multiple sites. These considerations led NASA Glenn and Globus project personnel to formulate a collaborative project designed to evaluate whether and how benefits such as those just listed can be achieved in practice. This project involves firstly development of the basic techniques required to achieve co-existence of commodity object technologies and Grid technologies; and secondly the evaluation of these techniques in the context of NPSS-oriented challenge problems. The work on basic techniques seeks to understand how "commodity" technologies (CORBA, DCOM, Excel, etc.) can be used in concert with specialized "Grid" technologies (for security, MPP scheduling, etc.). In principle, this coordinated use should be straightforward because of the Globus and IPG philosophy of providing low-level Grid mechanisms that can be used to implement a wide variety of application-level programming models. (Globus technologies have previously been used to implement Grid-enabled message-passing libraries, collaborative environments, and parameter study tools, among others.) Results obtained to date are encouraging: we have successfully demonstrated a CORBA to Globus resource manager gateway that allows the use of CORBA RPCs to control submission and execution of programs on workstations and MPPs; a gateway from the CORBA Trader service to the Grid information service; and a preliminary integration of CORBA and Grid security mechanisms. The two challenge problems that we consider are the following: 1) Desktop-controlled parameter study. Here, an Excel spreadsheet is used to define and control a CFD parameter study, via a CORBA interface to a high throughput broker that runs individual cases on different IPG resources. 2) Aviation safety. Here, about 100 near real time jobs running NPSS need to be submitted, run and data returned in near real time. Evaluation will address such issues as time to port, execution time, potential scalability of simulation, and reliability of resources. The full paper will present the following information: 1. A detailed analysis of the requirements that NPSS applications place on IPG. 2. A description of the techniques used to meet these requirements via the coordinated use of CORBA and Globus. 3. A description of results obtained to date in the first two challenge problems.

Lopez, Isaac↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗