Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Program verification”

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 649 records · Page 36

Hyper-X Engine Testing in the NASA Langley 8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel

Airframe-integrated scramjet engine tests have been completed at Mach 7 in the NASA Langley 8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel under the Hyper-X program. These tests provided critical engine data as well as design and database verification for the Mach 7 flight tests of the Hyper-X research vehicle (X-43), which will provide the first-ever airframe-integrated scramjet flight data. The first model tested was the Hyper-X Engine Model (HXEM), and the second was the Hyper-X Flight Engine (HXFE). The HXEM, a partial-width, full-height engine that is mounted on an airframe structure to simulate the forebody features of the X-43, was tested to provide data linking flowpath development databases to the complete airframe-integrated three-dimensional flight configuration, and to isolate effects of ground testing conditions and techniques. The HXFE, an exact geometric representation of the X-43 scramjet engine mounted on an airframe structure that duplicates the entire three-dimensional propulsion flowpath from the vehicle leading edge to the vehicle base, was tested to verify the complete design as it will be flight tested. This paper presents an overview of these two tests, their importance to the Hyper-X program, and the significance of their contribution to scramjet database development.

Huebner, Lawrence D.↗

NASA's aircraft icing analysis program

An overview of the NASA ongoing efforts to develop an aircraft icing analysis capability is presented. Discussions are included of the overall and long term objectives of the program as well as current capabilities and limitations of the various computer codes being developed. Descriptions are given of codes being developed to analyze two- and three-dimensional trajectories of water droplets, airfoil ice accretion, aerodynamic performance degradation of components and complete aircraft configurations, electrothermal deicer, fluid freezing point depressant antideicer and electro-impulse deicer. The need for bench mark and verification data to support the code development is also discussed, and selected results of experimental programs are presented.

Shaw, R. J.↗

A detailed description of the uncertainty analysis for High Area Ratio Rocket Nozzle tests at the NASA Lewis Research Center

A preliminary uncertainty analysis has been performed for the High Area Ratio Rocket Nozzle test program which took place at the altitude test capsule of the Rocket Engine Test Facility at the NASA Lewis Research Center. Results from the study establish the uncertainty of measured and calculated parameters required for the calculation of rocket engine specific impulse. A generalized description of the uncertainty methodology used is provided. Specific equations and a detailed description of the analysis are presented. Verification of the uncertainty analysis model was performed by comparison with results from the experimental program's data reduction code. Final results include an uncertainty for specific impulse of 1.30 percent. The largest contributors to this uncertainty were calibration errors from the test capsule pressure and thrust measurement devices.

Kenneth J. Davidian↗

A detailed description of the uncertainty analysis for high area ratio rocket nozzle tests at the NASA Lewis Research Center

A preliminary uncertainty analysis was performed for the High Area Ratio Rocket Nozzle test program which took place at the altitude test capsule of the Rocket Engine Test Facility at the NASA Lewis Research Center. Results from the study establish the uncertainty of measured and calculated parameters required for the calculation of rocket engine specific impulse. A generalized description of the uncertainty methodology used is provided. Specific equations and a detailed description of the analysis is presented. Verification of the uncertainty analysis model was performed by comparison with results from the experimental program's data reduction code. Final results include an uncertainty for specific impulse of 1.30 percent. The largest contributors to this uncertainty were calibration errors from the test capsule pressure and thrust measurement devices.

Davidian, Kenneth J.↗

NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) Component Verification Testing

Component testing is a critical facet of the comprehensive thruster life validation strategy devised by the NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) program. Component testing to-date has consisted of long-duration high voltage propellant isolator and high-cycle heater life validation testing. The high voltage propellant isolator, a heritage design, will be operated under different environmental condition in the NEXT ion thruster requiring verification testing. The life test of two NEXT isolators was initiated with comparable voltage and pressure conditions with a higher temperature than measured for the NEXT prototype-model thruster. To date the NEXT isolators have accumulated 18,300 h of operation. Measurements indicate a negligible increase in leakage current over the testing duration to date. NEXT 1/2 in. heaters, whose manufacturing and control processes have heritage, were selected for verification testing based upon the change in physical dimensions resulting in a higher operating voltage as well as potential differences in thermal environment. The heater fabrication processes, developed for the International Space Station (ISS) plasma contactor hollow cathode assembly, were utilized with modification of heater dimensions to accommodate a larger cathode. Cyclic testing of five 1/22 in. diameter heaters was initiated to validate these modified fabrication processes while retaining high reliability heaters. To date two of the heaters have been cycled to 10,000 cycles and suspended to preserve hardware. Three of the heaters have been cycled to failure giving a B10 life of 12,615 cycles, approximately 6,000 more cycles than the established qualification B10 life of the ISS plasma contactor heaters.

Herman, Daniel A.↗

An assessment of space shuttle flight software development processes

In early 1991, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Office of Space Flight commissioned the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) of the National Research Council (NRC) to investigate the adequacy of the current process by which NASA develops and verifies changes and updates to the Space Shuttle flight software. The Committee for Review of Oversight Mechanisms for Space Shuttle Flight Software Processes was convened in Jan. 1992 to accomplish the following tasks: (1) review the entire flight software development process from the initial requirements definition phase to final implementation, including object code build and final machine loading; (2) review and critique NASA's independent verification and validation process and mechanisms, including NASA's established software development and testing standards; (3) determine the acceptability and adequacy of the complete flight software development process, including the embedded validation and verification processes through comparison with (1) generally accepted industry practices, and (2) generally accepted Department of Defense and/or other government practices (comparing NASA's program with organizations and projects having similar volumes of software development, software maturity, complexity, criticality, lines of code, and national standards); (4) consider whether independent verification and validation should continue. An overview of the study, independent verification and validation of critical software, and the Space Shuttle flight software development process are addressed. Findings and recommendations are presented.

Source record↗

An Overview-NASA LeRC Structures Program

The Structures and Acoustics Division of the NASA Lewis Research Center has its genesis dating back to 1943. It has been an independent Division at Lewis since 1979. Its two primary capabilities are performance and life analysis of static and dynamic systems such as those found in aircraft and spacecraft propulsion systems and experimental verification of these analyses. Research is conducted in-house, through university grants and contracts, and through cooperative programs with industry. Our work directly supports NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST), Smart Green Engine, Fast Quiet Engine, High-Temperature Materials and Processing (HiTEMP), Hybrid Hyperspeed Propulsion, Rotorcraft, High-Speed Research (HSR), and Aviation Safety Program (AvSP). A general overview is given discussing these programs and other technologies that are being developed at NASA LeRC.

Zaretsky, Erwin V.↗

Software Development Technologies for Reactive, Real-Time, and Hybrid Systems: Summary of Research

This research is directed towards the implementation of a comprehensive deductive-algorithmic environment (toolkit) for the development and verification of high assurance reactive systems, especially concurrent, real-time, and hybrid systems. For this, we have designed and implemented the STCP (Stanford Temporal Prover) verification system. Reactive systems have an ongoing interaction with their environment, and their computations are infinite sequences of states. A large number of systems can be seen as reactive systems, including hardware, concurrent programs, network protocols, and embedded systems. Temporal logic provides a convenient language for expressing properties of reactive systems. A temporal verification methodology provides procedures for proving that a given system satisfies a given temporal property. The research covered necessary theoretical foundations as well as implementation and application issues.

Manna, Zohar↗

Spitzer Space Telescope in-orbit checkout and science verification operations

Spitzer Space Telescope, the fourth and final of NASA's great observatories, and the first mission in NASA's Origins Program was launched 25 August 2003 into an Earth-trailing solar orbit. The observatory was designed to probe and explore the universe in the infrared. Before science data could be acquired, however, the observatory had to be initialized, characterized, calibrated, and commissioned. A two phased operations approach was defined to complete this work. These phases were identified as In-Orbit Checkout (IOC) and Science Verification (SV). Because the observatory lifetime is cryogen-limited these operations had to be highly efficient. The IOC/SV operations design accommodated a pre-defined distributed organizational structure and a complex, cryogenic flight system. Many checkout activities were inter-dependent, and therefore the operations concept and ground data system had to provide the flexibility required for a 'short turn-around' environment. This paper describes the adaptive operations system design and evolution, implementation, and lessons-learned from the completion of IOC/SV.

space verification↗

Control Requirements to Support Manual Piloting Capability

The manual piloting requirements specified under the NASA Constellation Program involved Cooper-Harper ratings, which are a qualitative and subjective evaluation from experienced pilots. This type of verification entails a significant investment of resources to assess a completed design and is not one that can easily or meaningfully be applied upfront in the design phase. The evolution of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program to include an independently developed propulsion system from an international partner makes application of Cooper-Harper based design requirements inadequate. To mitigate this issue, a novel solution was developed to reformulate the necessary piloting capability into quantifiable requirements. A trio of requirements was designed which specify control authority, precision, and impulse residuals enabling propulsion design within specified guidance and control boundaries. These requirements have been evaluated against both the existing Orion design and the proposed ESA design and have been found to achieve the desired specificity. The requirement set is capable of being applied to the development of other spacecraft in support of manual piloting.

Merancy, Nujoud↗

Space transportation system payload interface verification

The paper considers STS payload-interface verification requirements and the capability provided by STS to support verification. The intent is to standardize as many interfaces as possible, not only through the design, development, test and evaluation (DDT and E) phase of the major payload carriers but also into the operational phase. The verification process is discussed in terms of its various elements, such as the Space Shuttle DDT and E (including the orbital flight test program) and the major payload carriers DDT and E (including the first flights). Five tools derived from the Space Shuttle DDT and E are available to support the verification process: mathematical (structural and thermal) models, the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory, the Shuttle Manipulator Development Facility, and interface-verification equipment (cargo-integration test equipment).

Everline, R. T.↗

Programming - What is Next?

The paper provides an introduction to the track: “Program- ming - What is Next?”, organized by the authors as part of ISoLA 2021: the 9th International Symposium On Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. A total of 14 papers were pre- sented in the track, with responses to the question: what are the trends in current more recent programming languages, and what can be expected of future languages?. The track covers such topics as general-purpose programming languages, domain-specific languages, formal methods and modeling languages, textual versus graphical languages, and application programming versus embedded programming.

Steffen, Bernhard↗

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗

Ice classification algorithm development and verification for the Alaska SAR Facility using aircraft imagery

The Alaska SAR Facility (ASF) at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks is a NASA program designed to receive, process, and archive SAR data from ERS-1 and to support investigations that will use this regional data. As part of ASF, specialized subsystems and algorithms to produce certain geophysical products from the SAR data are under development. Of particular interest are ice motion, ice classification, and ice concentration. This work focuses on the algorithm under development for ice classification, and the verification of the algorithm using C-band aircraft SAR imagery recently acquired over the Alaskan arctic.

Holt, Benjamin↗

MESA: Scalable Runtime Verification Tool Using Actors

This work presents our runtime verification approach implemented by the tool MESA (MEssage-based System Analysis) which allows for using concurrent monitors to check for properties specified in linear temporal logic and finite state machines.We employ the actor programing model to implement MESA where monitors are captured by concurrent actors that communicate via messaging. The paper also presents a case study where MESA is used to monitor flights in National Airspace System of United States using live air traffic data stream. The case study which motivated this work in the first place shows that our approach is effective.We also perform empirical study by conducting experiments using monitoring systems with different numbers of concurrent monitors and different layers of indexing.This paper describes our experiments, evaluates our results,and discusses challenges faced during the study. The evaluation shows our approach is scalable.

runtime verification, concurrency, actor programin↗

Prepared to launch

The verification of the interface between the preflight prepare-to-launch and flight program, targeting load, and flight program initialization was described. This is done using the digital command system coupled with a flight program patch and a memory dump command, the 6D/LVDC simulator, and a program trace through phase 1 initialization.

Source record↗

Effects of motion on jet exhaust noise from aircraft

The various problems involved in the evaluation of the jet noise field prevailing between an observer on the ground and an aircraft in flight in a typical takeoff or landing approach pattern were studied. Areas examined include: (1) literature survey and preliminary investigation, (2) propagation effects, (3) source alteration effects, and (4) investigation of verification techniques. Sixteen problem areas were identified and studied. Six follow-up programs were recommended for further work. The results and the proposed follow-on programs provide a practical general technique for predicting flyover jet noise for conventional jet nozzles.

Chun, K. S.↗