Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Assumptions”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 469 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Pulsed Plasma Acceleration Modeling in Detonation and Deflagration Modes

Gas-fed electromagnetic pulsed plasma accelerators discharge electrical energy into a gas to ionize and electromagnetically accelerate propellant in the domain. Efforts to model pulsed accelerators have either assumed that the discharge is short and completely transient, accelerating the gas by entraining it in a moving current sheet, or that the discharge is relatively long, establishing a stable quasi-steady current distribution pattern that accelerates a plasma flowing through it. There have been pulsed plasma accelerator tests that appear to fit somewhere between these two bounds, exhibiting some properties that are associated with the purely transient devices while also showing others that are associated with quasi-steady-state plasma acceleration. A model is presented based upon the premise that all pulsed plasma accelerators first form an accelerating current sheet (detonation mode accelerator). Depending upon the pulse length and the gas conditions in the dis- charge channel, the plasma sheet may reach the end of the accelerator before the discharge has completed a full half-cycle, wherein the proposed model transitions to a quasi-steady description of the acceleration process (deflagration mode accelerator). A review of the entire model is presented, highlighting improvements and upgrades implemented to aid in the stability of the numerical scheme used to model the gas flow in the channel and an improved treatment of current sheet mass shedding, which adds gas to the wake of the sheet. The assumptions employed to model the transition from detonation to deflagration mode are presented and used to generate solutions to the governing equations. The modeling of the deflagration-mode under the present assumptions results in very low deflagration impulse bits relative to those obtained at the end of the detonation mode, implying that the present assumptions and modeling of the deflagration mode may not represent a fruitful approach.

Polzin, Kurt A.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Pulsed Plasma Acceleration Modeling in Detonation and Deflagration Modes

Gas-fed electromagnetic pulsed plasma accelerators discharge electrical energy into a gas to ionize and electromagnetically accelerate propellant in the domain. Efforts to model pulsed accelerators have either assumed that the discharge is short and completely tran- sient, accelerating the gas by entraining it in a moving current sheet, or that the discharge is relatively long, establishing a stable quasi-steady current distribution pattern that accel- erates a plasma flowing through it. There have been pulsed plasma accelerator tests that appear to fit somewhere between these two bounds, exhibiting some properties that are associated with the purely transient devices while also showing others that are associated with quasi-steady-state plasma acceleration. A model is presented based upon the premise that all pulsed plasma accelerators first form an accelerating current sheet (detonation mode accelerator). Depending upon the pulse length and the gas conditions in the dis- charge channel, the plasma sheet may reach the end of the accelerator before the discharge has completed a full half-cycle, wherein the proposed model transitions to a quasi-steady description of the acceleration process (deflagration mode accelerator). A review of the entire model is presented, highlighting improvements and upgrades implemented to aid in the stability of the numerical scheme used to model the gas flow in the channel and an im- proved treatment of current sheet mass shedding, which adds gas to the wake of the sheet. The assumptions employed to model the transition from detonation to deflagration mode are presented and used to generate solutions to the governing equations. The modeling of the deflagration-mode under the present assumptions results in very low deflagration im- pulse bits relative to those obtained at the end of the detonation mode, implying that the present assumptions and modeling of the deflagration mode may not represent a fruitful approach.

Polzin, Kurt A.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Informing Algorithms from Ground Validation: The GPM Combined Algorithm

Ground validation (GV) for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission encompasses in-situ (e.g., gauge, disdrometer) measurements, ground radar products, and comprehensive datasets from dedicated airborne field campaigns. These datasets are used for direct validation of the precipitation products from GPM as well as to inform assumptions used by the algorithms that produce these products. This presentation will focus on current and potential such uses of GV data in the GPM combined radar-radiometer algorithm.The GPM combined algorithm, by virtue of using data from the Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and GPM Microwave Imager (GMI), is the most well-constrained instantaneous precipitation product from GPM. It also plays an important in role the passive microwave algorithms as a basis for the construction of brightness temperature-precipitation profile databases and is a calibrator for the multi- satellite gridded product IMERG. Since both radar and radiometer data are used as observational inputs, and even with these data the retrievals are underconstrained, microphysical properties of the hydrometeor profile that are relevant over the range of GMI and DPR wavelengths and incidence angles need to be assumed by the algorithm forward models. Such properties include the normalized intercept parameter (N w ) and shape parameter () of the particle size distribution, ice size-density relationship, and particle size-aspect ratio relationships. The sub-beam variability must also be prescribed in order to accurately simulate the observed radar reflectivity profiles without introducing significant biases. The sensitivity of the algorithm to these parameters, along with their mean values and variability, will be discussed. Examples of future directions include refinement with new data (particularly the assumptions related to ice), and seeking relationships between assumptions and observable or environmental data.

Munchak, Joe.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Observation of Absorbing Aerosols Above Clouds over the South-East Atlantic Ocean from the Geostationary Satellite SEVIRI – Part 1: Method Description and Sensitivity

High temporal resolution observations from satellites have a great potential for studying the impact of biomass burning aerosols and clouds over the South East Atlantic Ocean (SEAO). This paper presents a method developed to retrieve simultaneously aerosol and cloud properties in aerosol above cloud conditions from the geostationary instrument Meteosat Second Generation/Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (MSG/SEVIRI). The above-cloud Aerosol Optical Thickness (AOT), the Cloud Optical Thickness (COT) and the Cloud droplet Effective Radius (CER) are derived from the spectral contrast and the magnitude of the signal measured in three channels in the visible to shortwave infrared region. The impact of the absorption from atmospheric gases on the satellite signal is corrected by applying transmittances calculated using the water vapour profiles from a Met Office forecast model. The sensitivity analysis shows that a 10% error on the humidity profile leads to an 18.5% bias on the above-cloud AOT, which highlights the importance of an accurate atmospheric correction scheme. In situ measurements from the CLARIFY-2017 airborne field campaign are used to constrain the aerosol size distribution and refractive index that is assumed for the aforementioned retrieval algorithm. The sensitivities in the retrieved AOT, COT and CER to the aerosol model assumptions are assessed. Between 09:00-15:00 UTC, an uncertainty of 40% is estimated on the above-cloud AOT, which is dominated by the sensitivity of the retrieval to the single scattering albedo. The absorption AOT is less sensitive to the aerosol assumptions with an uncertainty generally lower than 17% between 09:00-15:00 UTC. Outside of that time range, as the scattering angle decreases, the sensitivity of the AOT and the absorption AOT to the aerosol model increases. The retrieved cloud properties are only weakly sensitive to the aerosol model assumptions throughout the day, with biases lower than 6% on the COT and 3% on the CER. The stability of the retrieval over time is analysed. For observations outside of the backscattering glory region, the time-series of the aerosol and cloud properties are physically consistent, which confirms the ability of the retrieval to monitor the temporal evolution of aerosol above cloud events over the SEAO.

Peers, Fanny↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigation of the Potential for Lidar & Polarimeter Combined Aerosol Retrievals Using Various Instrument Combinations

As a scientific community, we are motivated to achieve better observational capabilities for aerosols, to reduce uncertainties about aerosol’s role in climate. Encouraged by the National Academies Decadal Survey, many are looking to the synergy of lidar and polarimeter as a means of achieving improved measurements. Polarimetric observations of total-column radiances have excellent sensitivity to aerosol size distribution and absorption properties. Active lidar measurements have fewer wavelengths and view angles and therefore more limited sensitivity to aerosol microphysical properties such as complex refractive index. Yet the advantage of vertically resolved profiles is game-changing, especially given that models contain significant uncertainty about the vertical distribution of aerosol and that polarimeter and other passive retrievals must make assumptions about vertical distribution which can impact performance. To optimize the synergy, a joint polarimeter + lidar mission requires a joint retrieval. However, the exact instruments that will be launched on a future satellite are unknown, and the capabilities of polarimeters and lidars cover a large range. In this study, we perform information content analysis for a range of nominal instrument combinations. The methodology is ideal for assessing the impact of measurements and a priori information (assumptions and constraints) with respect to the desired retrieval products, and for comparing measurement systems. It has advantages that make it useful in advance of or in parallel with retrieval development, such as producing quantitatively useful comparisons even for retrieval scenarios that are significantly underdetermined and therefore impossible to retrieve without significant assumptions, and it is not impacted by retrieval-specific sources of error such as incomplete or incorrect convergence which can complicate the interpretation of a retrieval performance analysis. Here, we will derive the expected uncertainty in retrieved aerosol concentration, effective radius, fine mode fraction and single scattering albedo, for a combination of a polarimeter with various grades of lidar, from an elastic backscatter lidar, similar to the pathfinder CALIOP on the CALIPSO satellite, to a multi-wavelength high spectral resolution lidar.

Sharon P Burton↗
NASA NTRS2019

Uncertainties in the Geostationary Ocean Color Imager (GOCI) Remote Sensing Reflectance for Assessing Diurnal Variability of Biogeochemical Processes

Short-term (sub-diurnal) biological and biogeochemical processes cannot be fully captured by the current suite of polar-orbiting satellite ocean color sensors, as their temporal resolution is limited to potentially one clear image per day. Geostationary sensors, such as the Geostationary Ocean Color Imager (GOCI) from the Republic of Korea, allow the study of these short-term processes because their orbit permit the collection of multiple images throughout each day for any area within the sensor’s field of regard. Assessing the capability to detect sub-diurnal changes in in-water properties caused by physical and biogeochemical processes characteristic of open ocean and coastal ocean ecosystems, however, requires an understanding of the uncertainties introduced by the instrument and/or geophysical retrieval algorithms. This work presents a study of the uncertainties during the daytime period for an ocean region with characteristically low-productivity with the assumption that only small and undetectable changes occur in the in-water properties due to biogeochemical processes during the daytime period. The complete GOCI mission data were processed using NASA’s SeaDAS/l2gen package. The assumption of homogeneity of the study region was tested using three-day sequences and diurnal statistics. This assumption was found to hold based on the minimal diurnal and day-to-day variability in GOCI data products. Relative differences with respect to the midday value were calculated for each hourly observation of the day in order to investigate what time of the day the variability is greater. Also, the influence of the solar zenith angle in the retrieval of remote sensing reflectances and derived products was examined. Finally, we determined that the uncertainties in water-leaving “remote-sensing” reflectance (Rrs) for the 412, 443, 490, 555, 660 and 680 nm bands on GOCI are 8.05 × 10−4, 5.49 × 10−4, 4.48 × 10−4, 2.51 × 10−4, 8.83 × 10−5, and 1.36 × 10−4 sr−1, respectively, and 1.09 × 10−2 mg m−3 for the chlorophyll-a concentration (Chl-a), 2.09 × 10−3 m−1 for the absorption coefficient of chromophoric dissolved organic matter at 412 nm (ag (412)), and 3.7 mg m−3 for particulate organic carbon (POC). These Rrs values can be considered the threshold values for detectable changes of the in-water properties due to biological, physical or biogeochemical processes from GOCI.

Geostationary Ocean Color Imager (GOCI)↗
NASA NTRS2019

Observation of absorbing aerosols above clouds over the south-east Atlantic Ocean from the geostationary satellite SEVIRI – Part 1: Method description and sensitivity

High-temporal-resolution observations from satellites have a great potential for studying the impact of biomass burning aerosols and clouds over the south-east Atlantic Ocean (SEAO). This paper presents a method developed to simultaneously retrieve aerosol and cloud properties in aerosol above-cloud conditions from the geostationary instrument Meteosat Second Generation/Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (MSG/SEVIRI). The above-cloud aerosol optical thickness (AOT), the cloud optical thickness (COT) and the cloud droplet effective radius (CER) are derived from the spectral contrast and the magnitude of the signal measured in three channels in the visible to shortwave infrared region. The impact of the absorption from atmospheric gases on the satellite signal is corrected by applying transmittances calculated using the water vapour profiles from a Met Office forecast model. The sensitivity analysis shows that a 10 % error on the humidity profile leads to an 18.5 % bias on the above-cloud AOT, which highlights the importance of an accurate atmospheric correction scheme. In situ measurements from the CLARIFY-2017 airborne field campaign are used to constrain the aerosol size distribution and refractive index that is assumed for the aforementioned retrieval algorithm. The sensitivities in the retrieved AOT, COT and CER to the aerosol model assumptions are assessed. Between 09:00 and 15:00 UTC, an uncertainty of 40 % is estimated on the above-cloud AOT, which is dominated by the sensitivity of the retrieval to the single-scattering albedo. The absorption AOT is less sensitive to the aerosol assumptions with an uncertainty generally lower than 17 % between 09:00 and 15:00 UTC. Outside of that time range, as the scattering angle decreases, the sensitivity of the AOT and the absorption AOT to the aerosol model increases. The retrieved cloud properties are only weakly sensitive to the aerosol model assumptions throughout the day, with biases lower than 6 % on the COT and 3 % on the CER. The stability of the retrieval over time is analysed. For observations outside of the backscattering glory region, the time series of the aerosol and cloud properties are physically consistent, which confirms the ability of the retrieval to monitor the temporal evolution of aerosol above-cloud events over the SEAO.

cloud properties↗
NASA NTRS2020

Optimal filtering of overlapped pulses in microcalorimeter data

In this study, we present a general algorithm for processing microcalorimeter data with special applicability to data with high photon count rates. Conventional optimal filtering, which has become ubiquitous in microcalorimeter data processing, suffers from its inability to recover overlapped pulses without sacrificing spectral resolution. The technique presented here was developed to address this particular shortcoming and does so without imposing any assumptions beyond those made by the conventional technique. We demonstrate the performance of the algorithm with a dataset that approximately satisfies these assumptions and which is representative of a wide range of microcalorimeter applications. We also apply the technique to a highly non-linear dataset, examining the impact on performance in the limit that these assumptions break down.

Dallas Wulf↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Bulletin No. 21-04: Evaluating Appropriateness of LEFM Tools for COPV and Metal Pressure Vessel Damage Tolerance Life Verification

Human spaceflight composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) and metal pressure vessels can use linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) analysis to demonstrate damage tolerance life per ANSI/AIAA-S-081 for COPVs and ANSI/AIAA-S-080 for metal pressure vessels. LEFM analysis assumptions require that the crack tip plastic zone is small relative to the crack size and is completely surrounded by elastically responding material. Test and analysis have shown that LEFM tools (i.e., NASGRO*) can provide unconservative crack growth predictions for cracks in COPV liners that violate LEFM assumptions. COPV and metal pressure vessel designers should evaluate and address the violation of LEFM plasticity assumptions before using LEFM analysis tools for damage tolerance life verification.

COPV↗
NASA NTRS2022

A Cohesive Element Formulation for Simulation of General Mode I, II and III Delamination

Cohesive element formulations proposed thus far have assumed that Mode II and Mode III fracture processes, and hence traction-separation laws, are identical. However, experimental observations suggest that such an assumption may not hold in general. The approach described herein consists of a cohesive element formulation in which the assumption of identical Mode II and Mode III fracture processes is not required. This assumption is alleviated by estimating the normal to the delamination front based on the gradient of the displacement jumps determined within each element. The estimated normal is used to rotate the cohesive element coordinate system. Determining the displacement jumps in the rotated coordinate system enables the distinction between Mode II sliding, and Mode III tearing. This information is subsequently used to extend a recently proposed cohesive formulation, resulting in an approach that can simulate mixed-mode I/II/III fracture via prescribing piecewise-linear traction-separation laws combined with a 3D mixed-mode fracture criteria.

Delamination↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operational Workflow in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team

The return of scientifically selected samples from Mars would provide a rare opportunity for investigation with the full range of the latest technology available. To take full advantage of this opportunity, it is important to plan ahead to ensure the pristine nature of the samples upon arrival within the Earth environment until scientific investigations can begin. The NASA/ESA science community-driven MSR Science Planning Group – Phase 2 (MSPG2) delivered recommendations and guidance regarding curation (1) and science (2,3) activities to be performed on the samples under containment. High-level requirements for the infrastructure were also developed by MSPG2 (4). In order to prepare infrastructure-targeted input for the ESA and NASA facility studies planned in the 2022-2023 timeframe, the MSR agency-led Operational Scenarios Definition Team (MOSDT) was assembled to conceptualize the sample operations that will inform future architecture teams. Emphasis was placed on the responsibility of MOSDT to use community-defined requirements and to represent the view of the international scientific community. The main deliverable of MOSDT was an operational workflow for a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). Two other deliverables were produced: a report to narrate the workflow, and a list of instruments (see Hutzler et al., this conference). Activities described in the main sequence of the workflow range from engineering operations to curation to science, with the latter term being used here as the science to be done within a SRF. Side sequences (e.g. engineering inspection of hardware, head gas extraction) were also identified, and detailed when they would have a significant impact on the infrastructure of a SRF. It was necessary for the MOSDT to rely on assumptions for some steps and activities, and though these were kept to a minimum (and are described in both the report supporting the workflow and in the full presentation), in general, the assumptions and overall work were very conservative, as the impact of underestimating the scope of the SRF infrastructure was considered more detrimental than overestimating it. It is expected that future work will be able to confirm or inform these assumptions. The community was consulted during the course of the MOSDT work. This abstract’s aim is two-fold: on one hand, inform the scientific community and overall MSR stakeholders, to make the infrastructure studies and trade-off more understandable; on the other hand, to solicit feedback from a larger community audience for the next iterations planning for SRF design and activities.

Mars Sample Return↗
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

It Depends - An Overview of Probabilistic Risk Analysis Concepts

How do you understand the data and assumptions in your probabilistic analysis? The PRA analyst needs to understand the data and input assumptions to effectively communicate the system/mission's risks. The decision maker also needs to understand conservatisms and how to interpret uncertainty in the PRA results. Properties such as assumptions on the distributions, uncertainty, use of test data, and common cause modeling can be the subject of much discussion, but often are the leading drivers of a risk profile.

risk assessment↗
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

Diversity and Inclusion in Spacecraft Science Teams: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?

Introduction: Not only does the planetary science community lack diversity [1-3], the subset of the community that participates on spacecraft science team is even less diverse than the community as a whole [1, 4]. Results of 2020 Workforce Survey: Previous studies of the diversity of members of spacecraft science teams made incorrect assumptions about the nature of the data before collecting the data. Those analyses assumed a binary gender and ignored the existence of planetary scientists who are neither men nor women [4-6]. We present here results where demographic data was collected without assumptions; each individual surveyed supplied their own answers to demographic questions. The April 2020 survey of Planetary Scientists, which was conducted by the Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and funded by the American Astronomical Society (AAS)’s Division of Planetary Science (DPS) asked participants their gender with 4 possible responses: Woman, Man, Another identify (please specify if you wish), and Prefer not to answer. 32% of respondents chose Woman, 67% chose Man and 1% chose Another gender identity [1]. The survey also asked demographic questions on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identity, and disability. For a full list of questions, see https://dps.aas.org/sites/dps.aas.org/files/reports/2020/survey2020_questionnaire.pdf. In addition to demographic questions, the 2020 Workforce survey asked how many times respondents had been involved in Mission proposals as a Principal Investigator (PI) and, separately, as a Co-Investigator (CoI) [1]. Answers to questions about mission involvement were correlated with answers to demographic questions and the results show that members of historically underrepresented groups (non-white scientists, women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled scientists) were less likely to be involved in spacecraft mission proposals than were members of historically overrepresented groups [1]. The figures below show the correlated responses for four different axes of underrepresentation [1]. Note that while the figure on gender shows only Women and Men (due to the small percentage of folks answering “Another gender”), non-binary respondents are included in the LGBTQ+ community figure. Conclusion: Being part of a spacecraft science team is a goal for many planetary scientists. With it comes brand new data, more stable funding, and a sense of awe and exploration. It can lead to a cascade of opportunities from conference and public presentations, to membership in subsequent mission teams, and prestige in the community [4]. As a result, participation in spacecraft teams can be used a measure of success within the field. From the survey results, we see that members of historically excluded groups, even after they have overcome barriers to participating in the field, are still experiencing barriers to success within the field itself. Why?: The diminishing percentage of members of underrepresented groups as a career progresses has been referred to as a “leaky pipeline”. However, this fails to adequately capture the experiences of the members of these underrepresented groups as it implies a passive process. In order to capture the active processes (bias, discrimination, harassment, and other exclusionary behaviors) that contribute to low retention in the workforce, the term “Hostile Obstacle Course” is more useful [7,8]. It is these processes that need to be addressed in order to retain valued members of our community. Moving Forward: In order to broaden participation in planetary science, particularly mission science teams, we need to address conditions that create hostile workplace climates. What can mission teams and other groups do to address these conditions? First, each group/team needs to evaluate their own members to determine what specific barriers exist in their own interactions. One tool to accomplish this would be an anonymous survey designed to understand how team members feel about working within the group. Working with professionals who know how to create and analyze such surveys (often called “climate surveys” when applied to University students, for example) would ensure that the survey meets its goals and does not make assumptions that counter the meaningfulness of the results. Such professionals in EDIA (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) and workplace culture can make suggestions for policy changes that would eliminate hostile workplace conditions. Policy changes that are often suggested include instituting professional EDIA training for the team and/or for team leadership, instituting and following a code of conduct [9], including more interactive group activities in group meetings, etc. Training and information on EDIA is available for all members of the planetary science community. The first place to look would be in your University or Institution’s EDIA or human resources offices. Bystander Intervention is often offered as part of other meetings [10]. A newer offering is a Workshop on EDIA for Leaders in Planetary Science led by Julie Rathbun (first author of this abstract) and JA Grier (https://edialps.psi.edu/). This 3-day workshop gives participants the tools they need to enact positive change in their personal and professional spheres. The first workshop was help in November 2022 and another workshop will take place in the late spring 2023 with exact dates to be announced soon.

J. A. Rathbun↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Era of H-O-C-S Magma Solubility Modeling: Better, Faster, Stronger

H 2 O, CO 2 , and S are the most abundant volatiles in magmatic systems and are critical to understanding magma storage, phase equilibria, and volcanic eruptions. Models that consider all three of these components, however, may not allow for critical examination and adjustment of assumptions underlying the model, or provide benchmark testing or extensible interfaces. Thus, understanding why models produce different results can be challenging. We have gathered authors of established (D-Compress) and recent (VolFe, EVo, Sulfur_X, MAGEC) H-O-C-S volatile solubility models to work together to understand how and why our models diverge. We present a series of benchmark basalt degassing scenarios revealing that often understated model assumptions such as fO 2 buffer equations, fO 2 -Fe 3+ /ΣFe relationships, and even major element normalization routines have outsized effects on model results. All models consider S 2- and S 6+ melt species but with different approaches to sulfate/sulfide capacities, partition coefficients, and species fugacities, leading to divergence in the evolution of modeled gas compositions, melt S and Fe speciation, and fO 2 , with the extent of divergence depending on melt composition. Such scenarios enable meaningful intercomparison of existing models and lay the groundwork for a user-friendly yet powerful solubility modeling framework. Given our wealth of existing solubility literature, we suggest that the field of magmatic volatiles should focus now on the creation of modern tools and the modular implementation of existing model equations or methods, and that the evaluation of code usability, transparency, and benchmarking should be codified pillars of the peer-review process. As an example of such an endeavor, we present early work coupling these sulfur solubility models with VESIcal, an extensible and rigorously tested python library containing seven existing H 2 O-CO 2 solubility models. VESIcal includes the ability to extract, edit, and even interchange assumptions underlying any model. For example, users may combine or swap separately published H 2 O, CO 2 , and S models, as well as underlying model choices, such as Equations of State and redox models.

volatiles in magmas↗