Results for “Small Spacecraft Technology” — Page 25

NASA NTRS1960

NASA Conference on Thermal Radiation Problems in Space Technology: A Compilation of Summaries of the Papers Presented

This document contains summaries of the talks presented at a small NASA Conference on Thermal Radiation Problems in Space Technology held at the Langley Research Center on September 12 and 13, 1960. The conferees were NASA members and NASA contractors directly concerned with radiation characteristics of materials and with thermal problems of spacecraft. The purpose of the conference was not only to present significant research information but also to provide an opportunity for the conferees to become aware of each other's fields of interest, activities, techniques, and problems. As arranged herein, the first set of talks, mostly by the contractors, is concerned with surfaces and surface coatings, and with the determination of their pertinent characteristics. The second set of talks, mostly by NASA personnel, is concerned with spacecraft and their thermal problems.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2017

Deployable Propulsion and Power Systems for Solar System Exploration

NASA is developing thin-film based, deployable propulsion, power and communication systems for small spacecraft that could provide a revolutionary new capability allowing small spacecraft exploration of the solar system. The Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout reconnaissance mission will demonstrate solar sail propulsion on a 6U CubeSat interplanetary spacecraft and lay the groundwork for their future use in deep space science and exploration missions. Solar sails use sunlight to propel vehicles through space by reflecting solar photons from a large, mirror-like sail made of a lightweight, highly reflective material. This continuous photon pressure provides propellantless thrust, allowing for very high delta V maneuvers on long-duration, deep space exploration. Since reflected light produces thrust, solar sails require no onboard propellant. The Lightweight Integrated Solar Array and Transceiver (LISA-T) is a launch stowed, orbit deployed array on which thin-film photovoltaic and antenna elements are embedded. Inherently, small satellites are limited in surface area, volume, and mass allocation; driving competition between power, communications, and GN&C (guidance navigation and control) subsystems. This restricts payload capability and limits the value of these low-cost satellites. LISA-T is addressing this issue, deploying large-area arrays from a reduced volume and mass envelope - greatly enhancing power generation and communications capabilities of small spacecraft. The NEA Scout mission, funded by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Program and managed by NASA MSFC, will use the solar sail as its primary propulsion system, allowing it to survey and image one or more NEA's of interest for possible future human exploration. NEA Scout uses a 6U cubesat (to be provided by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory), an 86 sq m solar sail and will weigh less than 12 kilograms. NEA Scout will be launched on the first flight of the Space Launch System in 2018. Similar in concept to the NEA Scout solar sail, the LISA-T array is designed to fit into a very small volume and provide abundant power and omnidirectional communications in just about any deployment configuration. The technology is being proposed for flight validation as early as 2019 in a low earth orbit demonstration using a 3U cubesat, of which less than 1U will be devoted to the LISA-T power and propulsion system. By leveraging recent advancements in thin films, photovoltaics and miniaturized electronics, new mission-level capabilities will be enabled aboard lower-cost small spacecraft instead of their more expensive, traditional counterparts, enabling a new generation of frequent, inexpensive deep space missions.

Johnson, Les↗

NASA NTRS1992

Small experiments for the maturation of orbital cryogenic transfer technologies

The no-vent fill method is a promising approach to handle the problems of low-g venting during propellant transfer. A receiver tank is first cooled to remove thermal energy from the tank wall and the resultant vapor vented overboard. Then nozzles mix the incoming liquid and residual vapor in the tank maintaining a thermodynamic state which allows the tank to fill with liquid without venting. Ground based testing at NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) has demonstrated the no-vent fill process and attempted to bound its low-gravity performance. But, low-gravity testing is required to validate the method. As an alternative to using a dedicated spacecraft for validation the authors have formulated several small scale experiments to study no-vent fill in low-g. Cost goals quickly limited the search to two possibilities: a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle, or a small scale sounding rocket experiment. This paper will discuss the key issues of small scale experimentation and present a conceptual design of a sounding rocket experiment with liquid hydrogen for studying the fill process.

Chato, David J.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Planetary Science with Small Satellites: Opportunities and Challenges

Small satellites aren't anything particularly new. Earth orbiting small satellites go back 30 years or more. What is new is the proliferation and access to small satellite technologies and flight opportunities. This has been in large part due to the advent of the "cubesat" model, initially a means to develop student's engineering skills, but has since evolved into an industry and accepted method within government space agencies. Until very recently these smallsats were limited to Earth orbiting missions, but with the successful flight of the MarCO spacecraft and the upcoming launch of EM-1 cubesats, the Moon, Mars and beyond are now within reach. While all this is good news, we still have a ways to go before smallsats become true planetary science tools. One could argue that Deep Space 2 was the first planetary smallsat, launched in 1999 and having a mass of 2.3 kg (each probe) it hoped to demonstrate that "real" science could be done with a small (and less expensive) package. The DS2 failure shelved the idea of smallsats (even chilling some to "Class D" planetary missions in general) for nearly two decades. NASA has slowly come back around to smallsats for planetary missions, going so far as to support a range of mission studies (the Planetary Science Deep Space SmallSat Studies, or PSDS3, Program) and the creation of a new Program (SIMPLEx) to developed such missions for opportunistic flights. The MarCO success was hugely important in maintaining (and building) this forward momentum. However, we still have yet to demonstrate "real" science from a planetary smallsat and there are some fundamental disconnects between expectation and reality. This talk will discuss some of the opportunities and challenges that reside with planetary smallsats, focusing on two examples: LunaH-Map (the first SIMPLEx cubesat) and Aeolus (a Mars PSDS3 smallsat concept).

Colaprete, Anthony↗

NASA NTRS2008

Proven and Robust Ground Support Systems - GSFC Success and Lessons Learned

Over the past fifteen years, Goddard Space Flight Center has developed several successful science missions in-house: the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE), the Earth Observing 1 (EO-1) [1], and the Space Technology 5 (ST-5)[2] missions, several Small Explorers, and several balloon missions. Currently in development are the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) [3] and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)[4]. What is not well known is that these missions have been supported during spacecraft and/or instrument integration and test, flight software development, and mission operations by two in house satellite Telemetry and Command (T & C) Systems, the Integrated Test and Operations System (ITOS) and the Advanced Spacecraft Integration and System Test (ASIST). The advantages of an in-house satellite Telemetry and Command system are primarily in the flexibility of management and maintenance - the developers are considered a part of the mission team, get involved early in the development process of the spacecraft and mission operations-control center, and provide on-site, on-call support that goes beyond Help Desk and simple software fixes. On the other hand, care must be taken to ensure that the system remains generic enough for cost effective re-use from one mission to the next. The software is designed such that many features are user-configurable. Where user-configurable options were impractical, features were designed so as to be easy for the development team to modify. Adding support for a new ground message header, for example, is a one-day effort because of the software framework on which that code rests. This paper will discuss the many features of the Goddard satellite Telemetry and Command systems that have contributed to the success of the missions listed above. These features include flexible user interfaces, distributed parallel commanding and telemetry decommutation, a procedure language, the interfaces and tools needed for a high degree of automation, and instantly accessible archives of spacecraft telemetry. It will discuss some of the problems overcome during development, including secure commanding over networks or the Internet, constellation support for the three satellites that comprise the ST-5 mission, and geographically distributed telemetry end users.

Pfarr, Barbara↗

NASA NTRS2015

Ames Infusion Stories for NASA Annual Technology Report: Nano Entry System for CubeSat-Class Payloads

The Nano Entry System for CubeSat-Class Payloads led to the development of the Nano-Adaptable Deployable Entry and Placement Technology ("Nano-ADEPT"). Nano-ADEPT is a mechanically deployed entry, descent, and landing (EDL) system that stows during launch and cruise (like an umbrella) and serves as both heat shield and primary structure during EDL. It is especially designed for small spacecraft where volume is a limiting constraint.

Smith, Brandon↗

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↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Learning from Past Missions for Today’s Case Studies

As the small spacecraft industry continues to grow, the extensive selection of subsystem parts and service providers can present unique challenges in mission implementation. These challenges include inadequate trade studies, missing lessons learned, and unknown solutions to common pitfalls. Trade studies frequently fall short because products and services ultimately do not meet customer expectations; the actual outcomes of a particular service or technology are not always shared with others seeking similar practices. It is difficult to: quantify the viability and robustness of the desired products and services, truly understand what solutions exist, and account for unique failures from previous smallsat missions. One reason for the lack of information as input for trade studies is that it is problematic to capture and disseminate the relevant lessons learned, experienced anomalies, and programmatic issues in both the laboratory and on-orbit setting as these types of information can be extremely sensitive and are specific to each unique mission. Therefore, they are not always made publicly available. The utilization and sharing of existing tools, databases, and literature can help distribute useful information for future smallsat missions to hopefully avoid these common pitfalls. This paper will provide the required framework for current and future smallsat mission implementation by providing best practices and identifying helpful resources to assist with subsystem parts and services trade study selection.

Small Spacecraft↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Core Flight System (cFS) Community: Providing Low Cost Solutions for Small Spacecraft

In February 2015 the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) completed the open source release of the entire Core Flight Software (cFS) suite. After the open source release a multi-NASA center Configuration Control Board (CCB) was established that has managed multiple cFS product releases. The cFS was developed and is being maintained in compliance with the NASA Class B software development process requirements and the open source release includes all Class B artifacts. The cFS is currently running on three operational science spacecraft and is being used on multiple spacecraft and instrument development efforts. While the cFS itself is a viable flight software (FSW) solution, we have discovered that the cFS community is a continuous source of innovation and growth that provides products and tools that serve the entire FSW lifecycle and future mission needs. This paper summarizes the current state of the cFS community, the key FSW technologies being pursued, the development/verification tools and opportunities for the small satellite community to become engaged. The cFS is a proven high quality and cost-effective solution for small satellites with constrained budgets.

System↗

NASA NTRS2015

Technology Demonstration Missions

Technology Demonstration Missions (TDM) is in its third year of execution, being initiated in 2010 and baselined in January of 2012. There are 11 projects that NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has contributed to or led: (1) Evolvable Cryogenics (eCryo): Cyrogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Engineering Development Unit (EDU), a proof of manufacturability effort, used to enhance knowledge and technology related to handling cryogenic propellants, specifically liquid hydrogen. (2) Composites for Exploration Upper Stage (CEUS): Design, build, test, and address flight certification of a large composite shell suitable for the second stage of the Space Launch System (SLS). (3) Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC): Spaceflight to demo small, low-mass atomic clock that can provide unprecedented stability for deep space navigation. (4) Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM): Demo of high-performance, green propellant propulsion system suitable for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA)-class spacecraft. (5) Human Exploration Telerobotics (HET): Demonstrating how telerobotics, remote control of a variety of robotic systems, can take routine, highly repetitive, dangerous or long-duration tasks out of human hands. (6) Laser Communication Relay Demo (LCRD): Demo to advance optical communications technology toward infusion into deep space and near Earth operational systems, while growing the capabilities of industry sources. (7) Low Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD): Demo new supersonic inflatable decelerator and parachute technologies to enable Mars landings of larger payloads with greater precision at a wider range of altitudes. (8) Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Entry Descent & Landing Instrumentation (MEDLI): Demo of embedded sensors embedded in the MSL heat shield, designed to record the heat and atmospheric pressure experienced during the spacecraft's high-speed, hot entry in the Martian atmosphere. (9) Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP): 50-kW class spacecraft that uses flexible blanket solar arrays for power generation and an electric propulsion system that delivers payload from low-Earth orbit to higher orbits. (10) Solar Sail Demonstration (SSD): Demo to validate sail deployment techniques for solar sails that are propelled by the pressure of sunlight. (11) Terrestrial HIAD Orbit Reentry (THOR): Demo of a 3.7-m Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) entry vehicle to test second generation aerothermal performance and modeling.

McDougal, John↗

NASA NTRS1999

External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion and Its Potential for the Near Future

This paper examines External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion (EPPP), a propulsion concept that derives its thrust from plasma waves generated from a series of small, supercritical fission/fusion pulses behind an object in space. For spacecraft applications, a momentum transfer mechanism translates the intense plasma wave energy into a vehicle acceleration that is tolerable to the rest of the spacecraft and its crew. This propulsion concept offers extremely high performance in terms of both specific impulse (Isp) and thrust-to-weight ratio, something that other concepts based on available technology cannot do, The political concerns that suspended work on this type of system (i.e. termination of Project ORION) may now not be as insurmountable as they were in 1965. The appeal of EPPP stems from its relatively low cost and reusability, fast interplanetary transit times, safety and reliability, and independence from major technological breakthroughs. In fact, a first generation EPPP system based on modern-day technology (i.e., GABRIEL - an evolutionary framework- of EPPP concepts) may very well be the only form of propulsion that could realistically be developed to perform ambitious human exploration beyond Mars in the 21st century. It could also provide the most effective approach for deterrence against collision between earth and small planetary objects - a growing concern over recent years.

Bonometti, J. A.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Design and construction of a prototype ACTS propagation terminal

The launch schedule for the Advanced Communication Technology Satellite (ACTS) spacecraft did not leave sufficient time for completion of the prototype ACTS Propagation Terminals (APT) prior to initiation of the APT production phase. In fact, the approach used was to construct and test all subassemblies of the terminal with special emphasis on the technically challenging portions. These include the RF front end that uses a state-of-the-art down converter which integrates a low noise amplifier, mixer, post amplifier, filter, and local oscillator port frequency doubler into a single small package. In addition, a new digital receiver that uses the latest DSP technology was developed. Both of these subassemblies were thoroughly tested. The highest risk technology in the APT program was the digital receiver. Several candidate algorithms and DSP chips were investigated early on, primarily under JPL sponsorship. A receiver was constructed based on Texas Instruments chip. The final prototype digital receiver was one based on an Analog Devices chip. The design and test results are documented in a report prepared for this grant. A Primary Design Review (PDR) was conducted 30 May 1991, and a Critical Design Review was held 7 Jul. 1992. Final complete documentation of the APT's will appear in the form of three reports: a hardware description report, a report on the data collection code (ACTS VIEW), and a report on the preprocessing code.

Stutzman, Warren↗

NASA NTRS2013

Orbiting Rainbows: Optical Manipulation of Aerosols and the Beginnings of Future Space Construction

Our objective is to investigate the conditions to manipulate and maintain the shape of an orbiting cloud of dust-like matter so that it can function as an ultra-lightweight surface with useful and adaptable electromagnetic characteristics, for instance, in the optical, RF, or microwave bands. Inspired by the light scattering and focusing properties of distributed optical assemblies in Nature, such as rainbows and aerosols, and by recent laboratory successes in optical trapping and manipulation, we propose a unique combination of space optics and autonomous robotic system technology, to enable a new vision of space system architecture with applications to ultra-lightweight space optics and, ultimately, in-situ space system fabrication. Typically, the cost of an optical system is driven by the size and mass of the primary aperture. The ideal system is a cloud of spatially disordered dust-like objects that can be optically manipulated: it is highly reconfigurable, fault-tolerant, and allows very large aperture sizes at low cost. See Figure 1 for a scenario of application of this concept. The solution that we propose is to construct an optical system in space in which the nonlinear optical properties of a cloud of micron-sized particles are shaped into a specific surface by light pressure, allowing it to form a very large and lightweight aperture of an optical system, hence reducing overall mass and cost. Other potential advantages offered by the cloud properties as optical system involve possible combination of properties (combined transmit/receive), variable focal length, combined refractive and reflective lens designs, and hyper-spectral imaging. A cloud of highly reflective particles of micron-size acting coherently in a specific electromagnetic band, just like an aerosol in suspension in the atmosphere, would reflect the Sun's light much like a rainbow. The only difference with an atmospheric or industrial aerosol is the absence of the supporting fluid medium. This new concept is based on recent understandings in the physics of optical manipulation of small particles in the laboratory and the engineering of distributed ensembles of spacecraft clouds to shape an orbiting cloud of micron-sized objects. In the same way that optical tweezers have revolutionized micro- and nano-manipulation of objects, our breakthrough concept will enable new large scale NASA mission applications and develop new technology in the areas of Astrophysical Imaging Systems and Remote Sensing because the cloud can operate as an adaptive optical imaging sensor. While achieving the feasibility of constructing one single aperture out of the cloud is the main topic of this work, it is clear that multiple orbiting aerosol lenses could also combine their power to synthesize a much larger aperture in space to enable challenging goals such as exoplanet detection. Furthermore, this effort could establish feasibility of key issues related to material properties, remote manipulation, and autonomy characteristics of cloud in orbit. There are several types of endeavors (science missions) that could be enabled by this type of approach, i.e. it can enable new astrophysical imaging systems, exoplanet search, large apertures allow for unprecedented high resolution to discern continents and important features of other planets, hyperspectral imaging, adaptive systems, spectroscopy imaging through limb, and stable optical systems from Lagrange-points. Future micro-miniaturization might hold promise of a further extension of our dust aperture concept to other more exciting smart dust concepts with other associated capabilities.

Space Construction↗

NASA NTRS2000

Lessons Learned on Operating and Preparing Operations for a Technology Mission from the Perspective of the Earth Observing-1 Mission

The New Millennium Program's first Earth-observing mission (EO-1) is a technology validation mission. It is managed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and is scheduled for launch in the summer of 2000. The purpose of this mission is to flight-validate revolutionary technologies that will contribute to the reduction of cost and increase of capabilities for future land imaging missions. In the EO-1 mission, there are five instrument, five spacecraft, and three supporting technologies to flight-validate during a year of operations. EO-1 operations and the accompanying ground system were intended to be simple in order to maintain low operational costs. For purposes of formulating operations, it was initially modeled as a small science mission. However, it quickly evolved into a more complex mission due to the difficulties in effectively integrating all of the validation plans of the individual technologies. As a consequence, more operational support was required to confidently complete the on-orbit validation of the new technologies. This paper will outline the issues and lessons learned applicable to future technology validation missions. Examples of some of these include the following: (1) operational complexity encountered in integrating all of the validation plans into a coherent operational plan, (2) initial desire to run single shift operations subsequently growing to 6 "around-the-clock" operations, (3) managing changes in the technologies that ultimately affected operations, (4) necessity for better team communications within the project to offset the effects of change on the Ground System Developers, Operations Engineers, Integration and Test Engineers, S/C Subsystem Engineers, and Scientists, and (5) the need for a more experienced Flight Operations Team to achieve the necessary operational flexibility. The discussion will conclude by providing several cost comparisons for developing operations from previous missions to EO-1 and discuss some details that might be done differently for future technology validation missions.

Mandl, Dan↗

NASA NTRS1997

Intelligent Fasteners

Under a Small Business Innovation Research contract from Marshall Space Flight Center, Ultrafast, Inc. developed the world's first, high-temperature resistant, "intelligent" fastener. NASA needed a critical-fastening appraisal and validation of spacecraft segments that are coupled together in space. The intelligent-bolt technology deletes the self-defeating procedure of having to untighten the fastener, and thus upset the joint, during inspection and maintenance. The Ultrafast solution yielded an innovation that is likely to revolutionize manufacturing assembly, particularly the automobile industry. Other areas of application range from aircraft, computers and fork-lifts to offshore platforms, buildings, and bridges.

Source record↗