SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Robot turned off if acceleration exceeds preset value. Signals from accelerometer on robot arm pass through filter and amplifier, eliminating high-frequency noise and hydraulic-pump pulsations. Data digitized and processed in computer. Unit controls other machines that perform repetitive movements, including rotary tables, tracked vehicles, conveyor lines, and elevators.
A conventional aircraft hydraulic system design approach was selected to provide fluid power for the Space Shuttle Orbiter. Developing the power unit, known as the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), to drive the hydraulic pumps presented a major technological challenge. A small, high speed turbine drive unit powered by catalytically decomposed hydrazine and operating in the pulse mode was selected to meet the requirement. Because of limitations of vendor test facilities, significant portions of the development, flight qualification, and postflight anomaly testing of the Orbiter APU were accomplished at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) test facilities. This paper discusses the unique requirements of attitude, gravity forces, pressure profiles, and thermal environments which had to be satisfied by the APU, and presents the unique test facility and simulation techniques employed to meet the ground test requirements. In particular, the development of the zero-g lubrication system, the development of necessary APU thermal control techniques, the accomplishment of integrated systems tests, and the postflight investigation of the APU lube oil cooler behavior are discussed.
The thrust vector control systems of the solid rocket boosters are turbine-powered, electrically controlled hydraulic systems which function through hydraulic actuators to gimbal the nozzles of the solid rocket boosters and provide vehicle steering for the Space Shuttle. Turbine power for the thrust vector control systems is provided through hydrazine fueled auxiliary power units which drive the hydraulic pumps. The solid rocket booster auxiliary power unit resulted from trade studies which indicated significant advantages would result if an existing engine could be found to meet the program goal of 20 missions reusability and adapted to meet the seawater environments associated with ocean landings. During its maturation, the auxiliary power unit underwent many design iterations and provided its flight worthiness through full qualification programs both as a component and as part of the thrust vector control system. More significant, the auxiliary power unit has successfully completed six Shuttle missions.
Technique useful in reducing clogging of fluid lines. Metal nitrate impurities precipitated from N2O4 by cooling N2O4 in heat exchanger and passing through hydraulic pump. Precipitate removed by fine membrane filter. Technique developed for cleaning of liquid N2O4 adaptable to cleaning of variety of industrial fluids, including fuels.
A FORTRAN computer code is described that could be used to design and optimize a free-displacer, free-piston Stirling engine similar to the RE-1000 engine made by Sunpower. The code contains options for specifying displacer and power piston motion or for allowing these motions to be calculated by a force balance. The engine load may be a dashpot, inertial compressor, hydraulic pump or linear alternator. Cycle analysis may be done by isothermal analysis or adiabatic analysis. Adiabatic analysis may be done using the Martini moving gas node analysis or the Rios second-order Runge-Kutta analysis. Flow loss and heat loss equations are included. Graphical display of engine motions and pressures and temperatures are included. Programming for optimizing up to 15 independent dimensions is included. Sample performance results are shown for both specified and unconstrained piston motions; these results are shown as generated by each of the two Martini analyses. Two sample optimization searches are shown using specified piston motion isothermal analysis. One is for three adjustable input and one is for four. Also, two optimization searches for calculated piston motion are presented for three and for four adjustable inputs. The effect of leakage is evaluated. Suggestions for further work are given.
An overview of the United States Space Shuttle Orbiter APU, which provides power to the Orbiter vehicle hydraulic system, is presented. Three complete APU systems, each with its own separate fuel system, supply power to three dedicated hydraulic systems. These in turn provide power to all Orbiter vehicle critical flight functions including launch, orbit, reentry, and landing. The basic APU logic diagram is presented. The APU includes a hydrazine-powered turbine that drives a hydraulic pump and various accessories through a high-speed gearbox. The APU also features a sophisticated thermal management system designed to ensure safe and reliable operation in the various launch, orbit, reentry, and landing environments.
Group One of the NASA Lunar Enabler Project has designed the primary chassis and boom structures for the lunar vehicle. Both components also feature V-clamps that were adapted to interface connections within the structure. The chassis features a front end, rear end section, middle cross-section, and face plate. The rear section contains an extra compartment for the engine, hydraulic pump, fuel bottles, and oil reservoir necessary for the wheel drives. Each section consists of tubular aluminum 6061-T6. The boom features four degrees of freedom system, where the minimum factor of safety of any part is 1.5 (but, normally much higher). It consists of a tapered upper boom, lower boom, and three elbows that complement the articulation joints. Each section of the boom has been constructed from aluminum 6061-T6. There are four joints and eight V-clamps in the boom assembly. The V-clamps feature support rings that prevent axial rotation. They provide easy adaptability and assembly.
Managing several tasks concurrently is an everyday part of cockpit operations. For the most part, crews handle concurrent task demands efficiently, yet crew preoccupation with one task to the detriment of performing other tasks is one of the more common forms of error in the cockpit. Most pilots are familiar with the December 1972 L1011 crash that occurred when the crew became preoccupied with a landing gear light malfunction and failed to notice that someone had inadvertently bumped off the autopilot. More recently a DC-9 landed gear-up in Houston when the crew, preoccupied with an stabilized approach, failed to recognize that the gear was not down because they had not switched the hydraulic pumps to high. We have recently started a research project to study why crews are vulnerable to these sorts of errors. As part of that project we reviewed NTSB reports of accidents attributed to crew error; we concluded that nearly half of these accidents involved lapses of attention associated with interruptions, distractions, or preoccupation with one task to the exclusion of another task. We have also analyzed 107 ASRS reports involving competing tasks; we present here some of our conclusions from those ASRS reports. These 107 reports involved 21 different types of routine tasks crews neglected at a critical moment while attending to another task. Sixty-nine percent of the neglected tasks involved either failure to monitor the current status or position of the aircraft or failure to monitor the actions of the pilot flying or taxiing. Thirty-four different types of competing activities distracted or preoccupied the pilots. Ninety percent of these competing activities fell into one of four broad categories: communication (e.g., discussion among crew or radio communication), heads-down work (e.g., programming the FMS or reviewing approach plates), responding to abnormals, or searching for VMC traffic. We will discuss examples of each of these four categories and suggest things crews can do to reduce their vulnerability to these and similar situations.
Buoyancy Generation: Various technology attempts include melting a wax, which pushes directly against a piston (U.S. Patent 5,291,847) or against a bladder (Webb Research), using ammonia or Freon 21 (U.S. Patent 5,303,552), and using solar heat to expand an oil (www.space.com, April, 10, 2002). All these heat-activated buoyancy control designs have thus far proved impractical and have ultimately failed during repeated cycling in ocean testing. JPL has demonstrated fully reversible 10 C encapsulated wax phase change, which can be used to change buoyancy without electrical hydraulic pumps. This technique has greatly improved heat transfer and much better reversibility than previous designs. Power Generation: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) systems have been designed that transfer deep, cold sea water to the surface to generate electricity using turbine cycles with ammonia or water as the working fluid. JPL has designed several UUV systems: 1) Using a propeller water turbine to generate power on a gliding submersible; 2) Employing a compact CO2 turbine cycle powered by moving through thermoclines; and 3) Using melted wax to directly produce power through a piston-geared generator.
Topics covered include: Nanotip Carpets as Antireflection Surfaces; Nano-Engineered Catalysts for Direct Methanol Fuel Cells; Capillography of Mats of Nanofibers; Directed Growth of Carbon Nanotubes Across Gaps; High-Voltage, Asymmetric-Waveform Generator; Magic-T Junction Using Microstrip/Slotline Transitions; On-Wafer Measurement of a Silicon-Based CMOS VCO at 324 GHz; Group-III Nitride Field Emitters; HEMT Amplifiers and Equipment for their On-Wafer Testing; Thermal Spray Formation of Polymer Coatings; Improved Gas Filling and Sealing of an HC-PCF; Making More-Complex Molecules Using Superthermal Atom/Molecule Collisions; Nematic Cells for Digital Light Deflection; Improved Silica Aerogel Composite Materials; Microgravity, Mesh-Crawling Legged Robots; Advanced Active-Magnetic-Bearing Thrust- Measurement System; Thermally Actuated Hydraulic Pumps; A New, Highly Improved Two-Cycle Engine; Flexible Structural-Health-Monitoring Sheets; Alignment Pins for Assembling and Disassembling Structures; Purifying Nucleic Acids from Samples of Extremely Low Biomass; Adjustable-Viewing-Angle Endoscopic Tool for Skull Base and Brain Surgery; UV-Resistant Non-Spore-Forming Bacteria From Spacecraft-Assembly Facilities; Hard-X-Ray/Soft-Gamma-Ray Imaging Sensor Assembly for Astronomy; Simplified Modeling of Oxidation of Hydrocarbons; Near-Field Spectroscopy with Nanoparticles Deposited by AFM; Light Collimator and Monitor for a Spectroradiometer; Hyperspectral Fluorescence and Reflectance Imaging Instrument; Improving the Optical Quality Factor of the WGM Resonator; Ultra-Stable Beacon Source for Laboratory Testing of Optical Tracking; Transmissive Diffractive Optical Element Solar Concentrators; Delaying Trains of Short Light Pulses in WGM Resonators; Toward Better Modeling of Supercritical Turbulent Mixing; JPEG 2000 Encoding with Perceptual Distortion Control; Intelligent Integrated Health Management for a System of Systems; Delay Banking for Managing Air Traffic; and Spline-Based Smoothing of Airfoil Curvatures.
The SSRMS Module 1 software is part of a system for monitoring an adaptive, closed-loop control of the motions of a robotic arm in NASA s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, where buoyancy in a pool of water is used to simulate the weightlessness of outer space. This software is so named because the robot arm is a replica of the Space Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). This software is distributed, running on remote joint processors (RJPs), each of which is mounted in a hydraulic actuator comprising the joint of the robotic arm and communicating with a poolside processor denoted the Direct Control Rack (DCR). Each RJP executes the feedback joint-motion control algorithm for its joint and communicates with the DCR. The DCR receives joint-angular-velocity commands either locally from an operator or remotely from computers that simulate the flight like SSRMS and perform coordinated motion calculations based on hand-controller inputs. The received commands are checked for validity before they are transmitted to the RJPs. The DCR software generates a display of the statuses of the RJPs for the DCR operator and can shut down the hydraulic pump when excessive joint-angle error or failure of a RJP is detected.
The Antenna Logic Controller (ALC) software controls and monitors the motion control equipment of the 4,000-metric-ton structure of the Deep Space Network 70-meter antenna. This program coordinates the control of 42 hydraulic pumps, while monitoring several interlocks for personnel and equipment safety. Remote operation of the ALC runs via the Antenna Monitor & Control (AMC) computer, which orchestrates the tracking functions of the entire antenna. This software provides a graphical user interface for local control, monitoring, and identification of faults as well as, at a high level, providing for the digital control of the axis brakes so that the servo of the AMC may control the motion of the antenna. Specific functions of the ALC also include routines for startup in cold weather, controlled shutdown for both normal and fault situations, and pump switching on failure. The increased monitoring, the ability to trend key performance characteristics, the improved fault detection and recovery, the centralization of all control at a single panel, and the simplification of the user interface have all reduced the required workforce to run 70-meter antennas. The ALC also increases the antenna availability by reducing the time required to start up the antenna, to diagnose faults, and by providing additional insight into the performance of key parameters that aid in preventive maintenance to avoid key element failure. The ALC User Display (AUD) is a graphical user interface with hierarchical display structure, which provides high-level status information to the operation of the ALC, as well as detailed information for virtually all aspects of the ALC via drill-down displays. The operational status of an item, be it a function or assembly, is shown in the higher-level display. By pressing the item on the display screen, a new screen opens to show more detail of the function/assembly. Navigation tools and the map button allow immediate access to all screens.
This report contains the results of a techno-economic assessment (TEA) conducted of a heat integrated post-combustion CO2 capture process with Hitachi advanced solvent for retrofit into an existing coal-fired power plant (but treated as greenfield plant on cost analysis). The process has been developed by the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy (UK CAER). EPRI was chiefly responsible for this analysis, with significant input from WorleyParsons, Hitachi Power Systems America (Hitachi) and UK CAER. The project also involves the design, fabrication, installation, testing, and analyses of a slipstream facility located at L&GE-KU’s E.W. Brown Generating Station to demonstrate the UK CAER carbon capture system that could utilize heat integration with the main power plant. The design, start-up, and baseline of the pilot system was performed with a generic 30 wt% MEA solvent to obtain data for direct comparison with the DOE/NETL Reference Case followed by testing Hitachi’s proprietary solvent H3-1. In this techno-economic analysis, two cases utilizing the UK CAER process are compared, using different approach temperatures and solvent, against the DOE/NETL Reference Case (Case 10). The results are shown comparing the energy demand for post-combustion CO2 capture and the net higher heating value (HHV) efficiency of the power plant integrated with the post-combustion capture (PCC) plant. A levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) assessment was performed showing the costs of the options presented in the study. The key factors contributing to the reduction of LCOE were identified as CO2 partial pressure increase at the flue gas inlet, thermal integration of the process, and performance of the Hitachi H3-1 solvent. Recent UK CAER process pilot-scale testing data and process simualtion data showed that the packing heights of absorber and stripper columns were significantly oversized in the prelimanary TEA (Task 2 of this project) and thus updated in this final TEA for the H3-1 case only. In addition, the solvent make-up cost for H3-1 was updated based on lattest test results. Finally, a heat integration with the main power plant was applied in this final TEA to increase overall energy effciency for both the MEA and H3-1 cases. Additonal reductions in capital and operational costs are expected but not taken into account here. Shorter columns result in reduced pressure drops, smaller blower head and pump hydraulic head requirements. An increase in overall energy efficiency resuls in a decreased size of the power plant, the CCS and a reduced parasitic steam requirement to the CCS. The net efficiency of the UK CAER integrated PC power plant with CO2 capture changes from 26.2% for the Reference Case 10 plant in 2010 revised DOE/NETL baseline report to 27.6% for the MEA options considered, and 29.1% for the options utilizing the Hitachi advanced solvent. The UK CAER Process + Hitachi case also produces an extra 30.9 MW of generation compared to the UK CAER Process + MEA case and total 60.9 MW more than DOE Case 10. LCOE ($/MWh) values are $172.08/MWh for the MEA option and $157.65/MWh for the Hitachi H3-1 solvent cases considered in comparison to $189.59/MWh in January 2012 dollar for the Reference Case 10. The UK CAER CCS process with MEA case lowers energy consumption for CO2 capture to 1340 Btu/lb-CO2 captured as compared to 1540 Btu/lb-CO2 in the Reference Case 10. The UK CAER CCS process with H3-1 case further lowers energy consumption for CO2 capture to 973 Btu/lb-CO2 captured, for an advantage of 36.8% less energy consumption than Case 10. The study also shows 38.1% less heat rejection associated with the carbon capture system from 3398 MBtu/hr (Case 10) to 2104 MBtu/hr for the UK CAER + MEA system. Heat rejection is reduced to 2464 MBtu/hr in the UK CAER + H3-1 case, for a 27.5 % decrease compared to Case 10. Modeling outputs show that in the UK CAER process, the cooling water that is 2-5°C cooler than conventional cooling tower water can be achieved for ambient conditions common to the midwest and other regions. The results from the techno-economic assessment show that the proposed technology can be investigated further as a viable alternative to conventional CO2 capture technology. The evaluation also shows the effect of the critical parameters on the LCOE, with the main variables being the approach temperature and CO2 partial pressure increase at the flue gas inlet. A summary of the key advantages of the UK CAER Process + H3-1 case for LCOE and other economic factors compared to the DOE Case 10 is as follows: • A lower variable operating cost by $1.56/MWh ($1.08MWh less than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 11.7% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower COE by $25.32MWh ($13.94/MWh lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 16.9% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower LCOE by $31.94/MWh ($17.51/MWh lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 16.9% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower cost of CO2 captured by $18.65/tonne CO2 ($9.44/tonne CO2 lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 30.4% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10 • A lower cost of CO2 avoided by $34.95/tonne CO2 ($18.53 tonne CO2 lower than the UK CAER Process + MEA Case), a 38.7% reduction compared to the DOE Case 10
The hydraulic forces caused by annular pressure seals were investigated. The measured inlet and exit loss coefficients of the flow through the seals were much smaller than the conventional values. The results indicate that the damping coefficient and the inertia coefficient of the fluid film in the seal are not affected much by the rotational speed or the eccentricity of the rotor, though the stiffness coefficient seemed to be influenced by the eccentricity.
Slickwater hydraulic fracturing is becoming a prevalent approach to economically recovering shale hydrocarbon. It is very important to understand the proppant’s transport behavior during slickwater hydraulic fracturing treatment for effective creation of a desired propped fracture geometry. The currently available models are either oversimplified or have been performed at limited length scales to avoid high computational requirements. Another limitation is that the currently available hydraulic fracturing simulators are developed using only single-sized proppant particles. Motivated by this, in this work, a computationally efficient, three-dimensional, multiphase particle-in-cell (MP-PIC) model was employed to simulate the multi-size proppant transport in a field-scale geometry using the Eulerian–Lagrangian framework. Instead of tracking each particle, groups of particles (called parcels) are tracked, which allows one to simulate the proppant transport in field-scale geometries at an affordable computational cost. Then, we found from our sensitivity study that pumping schedules significantly affect propped fracture surface area and average fracture conductivity, thereby influencing shale gas production. Motivated by these results, we propose an optimization framework using the MP-PIC model to design the multi-size proppant pumping schedule that maximizes shale gas production from unconventional reservoirs for given fracturing resources.
The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) consists of four independent hydraulic systems. The SLS CS TVC system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Each hydraulic system nominally provides hydraulic power to one RS-25 engine and two actuators. Additionally, each system provides redundant control capability to one actuator on each of its neighboring systems. The RS-25 uses hydraulic power to control propellant valves, and the TVC actuators are used to move the engine in the pitch and yaw gimbal planes. The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Space Shuttle heritage hardware directly reused on SLS includes the Orbiter TVC hydraulic servo-actuators (with two slight design modifications), the Orbiter hydraulic circulation pumps, the Orbiter gimbal block/bearing, and the Solid Rocket Booster hydraulic pumps. The Solid Rocket Booster APU turbines are powered by hot gas produced by a catalyzed hydrazine decomposition. The SLS Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) is derived from the Space Shuttle Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU); on the SLS Core Stage, the CAPU turbine is spun using cold gas tapped-off from the RS-25 to CS liquid hydrogen autogenous pressurization line. The remaining hardware in the TVC system (hydraulic Filter Manifold (FM), hydraulic Supply Accumulator (SA), hydraulic Return Accumulator (RA), Hydraulic Reservoir, Exhaust Gas Heat Exchanger (EGHE)) as well as the avionics providing control and telemetry (TVC Actuator Controller (TAC) and CAPU Controller (CAPUC) are new components developed for SLS. This paper is the first installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, the overall design architecture of the CS TVC is presented, with a focus on the interfaces between the TVC actuators, the engines, their hydraulic power systems, and the avionics that provide commands from the SLS Vehicle Management (VM) software to effect stable and robust flight control for the integrated SLS launch vehicle.
The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) consists of four independent hydraulic systems. The SLS CS TVC system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Each hydraulic system nominally provides hydraulic power to one RS-25 engine and two actuators. Additionally, each system provides redundant control capability to one actuator on each of its neighboring systems. The RS-25 uses hydraulic power to control propellant valves, and the TVC actuators are used to move the engine in the pitch and yaw gimbal planes. The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Space Shuttle heritage hardware directly reused on SLS includes the Orbiter TVC hydraulic servo-actuators (with two slight design modifications), the Orbiter hydraulic circulation pumps, the Orbiter gimbal block/bearing, and the Solid Rocket Booster hydraulic pumps. The Solid Rocket Booster APU turbines are powered by hot gas produced by a catalyzed hydrazine decomposition. The SLS Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) is derived from the Space Shuttle Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU); on the SLS Core Stage, the CAPU turbine is spun using cold gas tapped-off from the RS-25 to CS liquid hydrogen autogenous pressurization line. The remaining hardware in the TVC system (hydraulic Filter Manifold (FM), hydraulic Supply Accumulator (SA), hydraulic Return Accumulator (RA), Hydraulic Reservoir, Exhaust Gas Heat Exchanger (EGHE)) as well as the avionics providing control and telemetry (TVC Actuator Controller (TAC) and CAPU Controller (CAPUC) are new components developed for SLS. This paper is the first installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, the overall design architecture of the CS TVC is presented, with a focus on the interfaces between the TVC actuators, the engines, their hydraulic power systems, and the avionics that provide commands from the SLS Vehicle Management (VM) software to effect stable and robust flight control for the integrated SLS launch vehicle.
The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Space Shuttle heritage hardware directly reused on SLS includes the Orbiter TVC hydraulic servo-actuators (with two slight design modifications), the Orbiter hydraulic circulation pumps, the Orbiter gimbal block/bearing, and the Solid Rocket Booster hydraulic pumps. The Core Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) is derived from the Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). The Orbiter and Solid Rocket Booster APU turbines are powered by hot gas produced by catalyzed hydrazine decomposition. On the SLS Core Stage, the CAPU turbine is spun using cold gas tapped-off from the RS-25 to CS liquid hydrogen autogenous pressurization line. While direct reuse or slight modification of existing hardware may seem to be a triple-win for a program in cost, schedule, and technical risk mitigation, those benefits can only be realized when its degree of application in a new system is carefully and thoughtfully managed. The heritage hardware reuse should be prescribed within the heritage design capability and reuse environments must lie within the envelope of heritage qualification testing. Despite the significant test and flight experience of the Shuttle heritage hardware components, successful integration with the newly designed CS TVC components and incorporation into the stage design proved to be a challenge which required re-qualification of the heritage hardware as well as thorough integrated testing to support flight certification. Examples of the challenges that were overcome include: re-qualifying heritage hardware to survive new shock and vibration environments, certifying performance of extensively modified heritage hardware, regenerating design insight due to lack of available heritage vendor data, showing compliance to modern structural design standards, translation of heritage requirements for analog avionics to modern digital avionics, and interfacing heritage mechanical hardware with newly designed avionics. This paper is the second installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. This paper will discuss several engineering challenges encountered during the development process for SLS CS TVC and how they were successfully overcome to reach flight readiness.