Results for “standards development” — Page 37

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

vaned diffuser↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor Vaned Stage Geometry and Aerodynamic Performance

Since its inception in the early 2010s, the NASA High Efficiency Centrifugal Compressor (HECC) has been enigmatic for the propulsion research community: experimental data and numerical simulations of the stage have generally not aligned in their quantifications of performance metrics. Typically, the fault for these disagreements is assigned to the numerical simulations as the simulations are models, and models are inherently incomplete representations of the experiment. This “incompleteness” may manifest in assumptions regarding roughness or heat transfer, simplifications of the flow path (i.e., neglecting bleed flows), or the oft-scapegoated turbulence model. In the case of HECC, recent work showed unexpected discrepancies between the intended impeller geometry defined in the design report (termed Design-Intent) and the manufactured impeller used in the experimental campaigns (termed As-Manufactured). That work used numerical simulations to establish that the geometric differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured impellers were significant enough to result in drastically different performance predictions for the HECC vaneless diffuser configuration. The Design-Intent impeller simulations over predicted the performance relative to the experiment, whereas the As-Manufactured simulations better represented the experimental data, both in terms of one-dimensional performance metrics and spanwise flow profiles. This effort expands on that work by examining in detail the geometry and aerodynamic performance of the HECC vaned diffuser configuration. Further differences between the Design-Intent and As-Manufactured geometries have been discovered in the vaned diffuser and exit guide vanes, and these differences are documented herein. The summations of the geometric differences for all of the components were used to create two numerical models of HECC vaned diffuser configuration: the Design-Intent simulations which are generated from the original geometry definitions given in the design report and the As-Manufactured simulations which are the best available representation of the manufactured compressor hardware used in the experimental test campaigns. In congruence with the earlier vaneless diffuser work, the numerical predictions of the Design-Intent choked mass flow rate, total pressure ratio, and efficiency were notably greater than that of the As-Manufactured simulations. To increase confidence in the experimental dataset, measurements from a recent test campaign conducted in 2024 are used to validate the original experimental data acquired from 2012 to 2014 with good repeatability overall, especially considering the passage of time and differences in the data acquisition systems between the test campaigns. Both numerical simulations were then extensively evaluated against the experimental data. The As-Manufactured simulations provided better estimates of the stage performance than the Design-Intent cases in terms of most performance metrics. Nonetheless, more detailed results still show opportunities for improvement. Despite a more accurate representation of the physical hardware, characterization of the impeller work input remains a challenge even for rigorously developed numerical models.

centrifugal compressor↗

NASA NTRS2012

Returning an Entire Near-Earth Asteroid in Support of Human Exploration Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

This paper describes the results of a study into the feasibility of identifying, robotically capturing, and returning an entire Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) to the vicinity of the Earth by the middle of the next decade. The feasibility of such an asteroid retrieval mission hinges on finding an overlap between the smallest NEAs that could be reasonably discovered and characterized and the largest NEAs that could be captured and transported in a reasonable flight time. This overlap appears to be centered on NEAs roughly 7 m in diameter corresponding to masses in the range of 250,000 kg to 1,000,000 kg. The study concluded that it would be possible to return a approx.500,000-kg NEA to high lunar orbit by around 2025. The feasibility is enabled by three key developments: the ability to discover and characterize an adequate number of sufficiently small near-Earth asteroids for capture and return; the ability to implement sufficiently powerful solar electric propulsion systems to enable transportation of the captured NEA; and the proposed human presence in cislunar space in the 2020s enabling exploration and exploitation of the returned NEA. Placing a 500-t asteroid in high lunar orbit would provide a unique, meaningful, and affordable destination for astronaut crews in the next decade. This disruptive capability would have a positive impact on a wide range of the nation's human space exploration interests. It would provide a high-value target in cislunar space that would require a human presence to take full advantage of this new resource. It would offer an affordable path to providing operational experience with astronauts working around and with a NEA that could feed forward to much longer duration human missions to larger NEAs in deep space. It represents a new synergy between robotic and human missions in which robotic spacecraft would retrieve significant quantities of valuable resources for exploitation by astronaut crews to enable human exploration farther out into the solar system. The capture, transportation, examination, and dissection of an entire NEA would provide valuable information for planetary defense activities that may someday have to deflect a much larger near-Earth object. Transportation of the NEA to lunar orbit with a total flight time of 6 to 10 years would be enabled by a ~40-kW solar electric propulsion system with a specific impulse of 3,000 s. The flight system could be launched to low-Earth orbit (LEO) on a single Atlas V-class launch vehicle, and return to lunar orbit a NEA with at least 28 times the mass launched to LEO. Longer flight times, higher power SEP systems, or a target asteroid in a particularly favorable orbit could increase the mass amplification factor from 28-to-1 to 70-to-1 or greater. The NASA GRC COMPASS team estimated the full life-cycle cost of an asteroid capture and return mission at approx.$2.6B.

asteroid mining↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigation of Lunar-Inspired Geopolymer Concrete Formulations Mixed and Cured in Microgravity on the International Space Station (ISS)

The research outlined in this presentation investigates the use of various lunar regolith simulants in geopolymer lunar concrete mixes mixed and cured on the International Space Station (ISS). The motivation for this work is to study the effects of gravity on the microstructure of alkali-activated materials cured with heat, and to develop materials for the construction of long-term infrastructure on the lunar surface with in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). ISRU for construction materials reduces the cost and mass of payloads related to lunar construction. The advantage of geopolymer concrete as opposed to traditional portland cement concrete is that water acts as a medium for the polymerization reaction and leaves the system throughout the process, reducing its demand. Twelve samples of lunar regolith simulant and a solution composed of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate were sent to the ISS. The three simulants were OPRH2N, OPRL2N, and JSC-1AF, using only particles less than 53 µm in diameter to increase reactivity of the simulant. Simulant to solution ratios were determined by workability while mixing. The simulant and solution were sealed Burst Pouches® along with 2 other sealed bags to prevent material from leaking. Crew member F-14 conducted testing on the ISS by introducing the solution to the simulant in the Burst Pouch®, mixing the sample with a spatula, and then clamping the specimen in the fresh state to prevent flow inside the Burst Pouch®. These specimens were then put in a thermos heated to 80C via sealed drinking water bags to cure for 24 hours with a temperature logger. The cured specimens remained in microgravity for at least 28 days and were returned from the ISS in February 2025. The specimens were then brought to the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) to analyze. Material characterization consisted of conducting Micro-CT tests of entire samples in their sealed apparatus to a resolution of 25µm. 2D image slices were saved in each orthogonal direction of each specimen at a 0.03 mm step size from the 3D model to conduct analytical porosity calculations. Representative samples from each specimen were sampled to perform helium gas pycnometery and were then mounted in resin for SEM imaging, EDS, and nanoindentation. Porosity was analyzed analytically using micromechanics modelling with the assistance of the NASA Multiscale Analysis Tool (NASMAT), as well as the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) servers (V. Saseendran & N. Yamamoto, 2024). Density was measured using helium gas pycnometery and was then compared to the theoretical density for experimental porosity calculation. Due to the samples’ non-uniform shape being cured in a pouch, traditional compression and tensile strength testing could not be performed. Nanoindentation was conducted at Clarkson University to determine the microhardness and reduced modulus of elasticity. Results from flight samples can be compared to ground samples currently in DLR’s possession to determine the effect on microstructure from being mixed and cured in microgravity. This study gives further insight and understanding of geopolymer lunar concrete and its viability as a lunar construction material with ISRU.

Adam Johnson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Performance Assessment of LunaNet’s Augmented Forward Signal

LunaNet provides a common set of interoperable specifications for communication and position, navigation and time (PNT) services and interfaces soon to be implemented in lunar vicinity. The LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS) provides the design for the GNSS-like Augmented Forward Signal (AFS), which enables orbiting and surface users in lunar space, such as Artemis, to estimate their position, velocity, and time. The specification of AFS defines two orthogonal signal components on a single carrier: the in-phase component (AFS-I), a lower-chip-rate data channel tailored for applications where low SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) is critical (e.g., IoT devices or search and rescue), and the quadrature component (AFS-Q), a high-chip-rate data-less pilot signal for high-precision, robust lunar navigation and positioning applications. An initial description of AFS was provided in [1], with initial analysis results shown in [2] and [3] and the current signal in space description provided in [4]. As part of NASA's Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation Systems (LCRNS) project, this work expands upon the initial analysis results and proposes a new expanded set of AFS-Q spreading codes that exceed the cross-correlation and autocorrelation sidelobe performance of L1C and other GNSS signals, while providing additional expansion capabilities for future provider satellites. A set of 420 codes was selected from a Weil-based code derived from the prime number 10247, which is larger than the 10243 prime number used to derive Beidou’s B1C Weil sequences. Both the initial set of 210 codes and the expanded set of 420 codes are shown to provide the best cross-correlation of any 10230-chip satellite navigation codes. The performance is demonstrated for hierarchical sets of spreading codes optimized and organized in sets of 30 codes. The new codes were developed using an optimization approach and correlation methodology described in [5]. The work also compares LunaNet’s AFS to terrestrial GNSS signals in terms of acquisition, tracking, and data demodulation performance. Performance is evaluated for receivers that only track the 1.023 MCPS data channel spreading code for low SWaP IoT use cases, as well as for receivers that track both the 1.023 MCPS data channel and the 5.115 MCPS pilot channel spreading code for high-performance use cases. Performance is assessed in the presence of interference and thermal noise. The analysis is performed in terms of expected operating conditions on the lunar surface. Several unique flexibility aspects of the augmented forward signal are described, including the use of the Q channel’s secondary and tertiary codes to enable variable coherent integrations during acquisition. This is compared to GNSS signals such as L5/E5 and MBOC in terms of achievable processing gain for interference mitigation versus acquisition complexity. The work details acquisition and tracking techniques used to optimally acquire and track the primary, secondary, and tertiary codes on the Q channel, as well as acquisition of the I channel spreading code. Acquisition of the 8 ms Q channel spreading code is also compared to joint acquisition of the I and Q channel primary codes in noise and interference environments.

LCRNS↗

NASA NTRS2005

Introduction to Flight Test Engineering [Introduction Aux Techniques Des Essais En Vol]

Flight test is at the core of what organizations must do in order to validate the operation and systems on an aircraft. While the AGARDograph series 300 and 160 series deal with aspects of this testing, this volume pulls it all together as an introduction to the process required to do effective flight test engineering. This volume was originally published in 1995. Its utility has been proven in that many flight test organizations and universities have requested copies for their engineers and students. It was felt that re-issuing it in a new format designed for electronic publication would be valuable to the community. This second printing changes none of the text, but rather reformats it. All the original references to AGARD (instead of RTO) are left in place so that none of the flavor of the original publication is lost. This is the Introductory Volume to the Flight Test Techniques Series. It is a general introduction to the various activities and aspects of Flight Test Engineering that must be considered when planning, conducting, and reporting a flight test program. Its main intent is to provide a broad overview to the novice engineer or to other people who have a need to interface with specialists within the flight test community. The first two Sections provide some insight into the question of why flight test and give a short history of flight test engineering. Sections 3 through 10 deal with the preparation for flight testing. They provide guidance on the preliminary factors that must be considered; the composition of the test team; the logistic support requirements; the instrumentation and data processing requirements; the flight test plan; the associated preliminary ground tests; and last, but by no means least, discuss safety aspects. Sections 11 through 27 describe the various types of flight tests that are usually conducted during the development and certification of a new or modified aircraft type. Each Section offers a brief introduction to the topic under consideration, and the nature and the objectives of the tests to be conducted. It lists the test instrumentation (and, where appropriate, other test equipment and facilities) required, describes the test maneuvers to be executed, and indicates the way in which the test data is selected, analyzed, and presented. The various activities that should take place between test flights are presented next. Items that are covered are: who to debrief; what type of reports to send where: types of data analysis required for next flight; review of test data to make a comparison to predicted data and some courses of action if there is not good agreement; and comments on selecting the next test flight. The activities that must take place upon completion of the test program are presented. The types of reports and briefings that should take place and a discussion of some of the uses of the flight test data are covered. A brief forecast is presented of where present trends may be leading.

Test facilities↗