Results for “GUIDED MISSILES” — Page 4

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design and Technology Maturation of the Stratospheric Projectile Experiment of Entry Dynamics

The supersonic and transonic dynamic stability of blunt-body reentry vehicles currently poses large risks in all of NASA’s ongoing entry missions (MSR SRL, MSR EES, and Dragonfly). These projects have allocated millions of dollars to testing and modeling efforts to buy down risk by using the current state-of-the-art (SoA) facilities at NASA’s disposal. While these facilities have heritage in supplying dynamics data to reentry missions, their availability is severely limited – particularly with the high number of concur-rent projects requesting simultaneous testing– and are costly when considering the science density per dollar. None of the current SoA facility methodologies allow the test model to have the dynamics fully develop through a flight relevant free-stream profile and as such require extrapolations with resultant high uncertainties in order to relate the test dynamics to flight expectations. SPEED is a NASA Ames Center Innovation Fund (CIF) project that is developing a highly tailorable and cost-effective test methodology to better assess the dynamic stability of blunt-body reentry vehicles via a stratospheric balloon flight. This is accomplished by dropping a suite of instrumented capsules from a stratospheric balloon to gain a statistically relevant dataset of scaled reentry vehicles in mission relevant free-flight conditions. This presentation will walk through how the test methodology is being implemented specifically for the Mars Sample Return (MSR) Earth Entry System (EES) geometry in an awarded Flight Opportunities Program (FOP) test flight in early CY24. SPEED Application to MSR: SPEED consists of three main mechanical systems: the Drop Platform, the Projectile, and the test Capsule. SPEED is being developed as a set of guidelines and recommendations for how to test with the proposed Concept of Operations (Conops) since the specific design parameters will vary depending on the specific project’s reference trajectory and entry vehicle design. As such, this presentation will walk through the development time-line as shown in Fig. 2. This is meant to serve as a blueprint for further missions as desired. Mechanical and Avionics Design. The SPEED test platform designed for the MSR-EES capsule geometry with nominal entry parameters has the ability to carry 10 Capsules to altitude instrumented with: 1. 3-Axis Accelerometer 2. IMU 3. Gyroscope 4. Magnetometer 5. Pressure Transducer cruciform 6. Uplook and Horizon Cameras To package the avionics/instrumentation suite, the capsule is approximately 1’ in diameter with the Outer Mold Line (OML) centroid-scaled from the full EES design. The internal volume is gutted and custom-shaped to fit the desired instrumentation suite, as well as to allow for the positioning of ballast mass such that the Center of Gravity is analogous to the flight vehicle. All structural components in the Capsule and Projectile are 3D printed, which significantly reduces the cost of each flight unit to around $1500 including all instrumentation, avionics, and structural components. Flight Conops. The test Capsule is accelerated to the desired altitude and Mach number while stowed in the Projectile, a missile-like vehicle consisting of steel ballast in the nose, a low-drag OML, and an Ejection Mechanism to reliably release the Capsule into the free-flow supersonic conditions. For the MSR-EES design, the capsule employs ~3kg of ballast mass at the nose to accelerate the 1.25kg test Capsule to ~Mach 1.7 at 23km altitude. This requires an initial release altitude of 40km, the quoted limit of a 80kg payload by the FOP-contracted balloon provider. Once the Ejection Mechanism avionics detect the proper conditions, the spring-loaded Ejection Mechanism will release and – guided by the sabot – expose the test Capsule to the desired test conditions for ~5 seconds of free-flight in the supersonic/transonic regimes. Dynamics in the subsonic regime will also be captured with the instrumentation suite with post-flight recovery operations aimed at recovering the high-G-load capable SD cards after the planned hard impact landings. Testing and Development: In the few months the SPEED project has worked the development of MSR-EES flight test, the team has performed lab and drone based testing which this presentation will overview. After the first design phase, the team fabricated Engineering Demonstration Units (EDUs) of all subsystems to perform validation testing shown in Fig. 5. After validation was completed on the subsystem level, a drone-drop test was performed at the recreational flight ceiling of 400ft altitude to assess the SPEED systems in a flight environment. Parameters such as in-flight stability, hard impact landing performance, and avionics performance were quantified and qualified. The FY23 CIF will culminate in a helicopter drop test aboard an Air National Guard Blackhawk. This will prepare the team for the CY24 FOP stratospheric balloon flight that should provide the final verification to begin offering the test platform for mission support. Focus of Presentation: This presentation will outline the technology maturation path of the SPEED implementation to the MSR-EES capsule baseline as well as the details regarding the mechanical system, avionics and instrumentation, and flight operations. Note that a complementary presentation is being submitted for a methodology overview of the SPEED test platform, introducing the testing technique and benefits as well as the full application space of the technology.

pitch damping coefficient↗

NASA NTRS1980

Assessment of analytic methods for the prediction of aerodynamic characteristics of arbitrary bodies at supersonic speeds

Trends toward the automation of the design process for airplanes and missiles accentuate the need for analytic techniques for the prediction of aerodynamic characteristics. A number of computer codes have been developed or are under development which show promise of significantly improving the estimation of aerodynamic characteristics for arbitrarily-shaped bodies at supersonic speeds. The programs considered range in complexity from a simple linearized solution employing slender body theory to an exact finite difference solution of the Euler equations. The results from five computer codes are compared with experimental data to determine the accuracy, range of applicability, ease of use, and computer time and cost of the programs. The results provide a useful guide for selecting the appropriate method for treating bodies at the various levels of an automated design process.

Landrum, E. J.↗

DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 2, July-December 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 195 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part III: Chernobyl Source Term Release Dynamics and Reconstruction of Events During the Active Phase, A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 218 Second ANS Workshop on the Safety of Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants, R. A. Bari; 234 Elements of a Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, C. M. Hopper; 243 Rickover, Excellence, and Criticality Safety Programs, R. E. Wilson; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 249 Transient Analysis of the PIUS Advanced Reactor Design with the TRAC-PF1/MOD2 Code, B. E. Boyack, J. L Steiner, S. C. Harmony, H. J. Stumpf, and J. F. Lime; 278 The Hierarchy-By-Interval Approach to Identifying Important Models that Need Improvement in Severe-Accident Simulation Codes, T. J. Heames, M. Khatib-Rahbar, J. E. Kelly, R. P. Jenks-Johnson, and Y.-S. Chen; 290 RELAP5/MOD3 Code Coupling Model, R. P. Martin; 299 Missiles Caused by Severe Pressurized-Water Reactor Accidents, R. Krieg; DESIGN FEATURES: 310 Validation of COMMIX with Westinghouse AP-600 PCCS Test Data, J. G. Sun, T. H. Chien, J. Ding, and W T. Sha; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 321 Spent Nuclear Fuel Characterization for a Bounding Reference Assembly for the Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel, S. D. Kahook, R. L. Garrett, L. R. Canas, and M J. Beckum; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 332 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 335 Reactor Coolant System Blowdown at Wolf Creek on September 17, 1994, J. V. Kauffman and S. L. Israel; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 344 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Oueener; 349 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1995; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 320 Symposium on Acceptability of Risk From Radiation—Application to Manned Space Flight; 320 24th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference; 361 Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection— Modern Developments and Tendencies in Radiation Biology; 362 1997 IEEE Sixth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants; 354 The Authors; 360 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 36.

05 NUCLEAR FUELS↗

DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 2, July-December 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 195 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part III: Chernobyl Source Term Release Dynamics and Reconstruction of Events During the Active Phase, A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 218 Second ANS Workshop on the Safety of Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants, R. A. Bari; 234 Elements of a Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, C. M. Hopper; 243 Rickover, Excellence, and Criticality Safety Programs, R. E. Wilson; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 249 Transient Analysis of the PIUS Advanced Reactor Design with the TRAC-PF1/MOD2 Code, B. E. Boyack, J. L Steiner, S. C. Harmony, H. J. Stumpf, and J. F. Lime; 278 The Hierarchy-By-Interval Approach to Identifying Important Models that Need Improvement in Severe-Accident Simulation Codes, T. J. Heames, M. Khatib-Rahbar, J. E. Kelly, R. P. Jenks-Johnson, and Y.-S. Chen; 290 RELAP5/MOD3 Code Coupling Model, R. P. Martin; 299 Missiles Caused by Severe Pressurized-Water Reactor Accidents, R. Krieg; DESIGN FEATURES: 310 Validation of COMMIX with Westinghouse AP-600 PCCS Test Data, J. G. Sun, T. H. Chien, J. Ding, and W T. Sha; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 321 Spent Nuclear Fuel Characterization for a Bounding Reference Assembly for the Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel, S. D. Kahook, R. L. Garrett, L. R. Canas, and M J. Beckum; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 332 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 335 Reactor Coolant System Blowdown at Wolf Creek on September 17, 1994, J. V. Kauffman and S. L. Israel; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 344 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Oueener; 349 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1995; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 320 Symposium on Acceptability of Risk From Radiation—Application to Manned Space Flight; 320 24th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference; 361 Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection— Modern Developments and Tendencies in Radiation Biology; 362 1997 IEEE Sixth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants; 354 The Authors; 360 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 36.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRS2011

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners (Second Edition)

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured, and logical analysis method aimed at identifying and assessing risks in complex technological systems for the purpose of cost-effectively improving their safety and performance. NASA's objective is to better understand and effectively manage risk, and thus more effectively ensure mission and programmatic success, and to achieve and maintain high safety standards at NASA. NASA intends to use risk assessment in its programs and projects to support optimal management decision making for the improvement of safety and program performance. In addition to using quantitative/probabilistic risk assessment to improve safety and enhance the safety decision process, NASA has incorporated quantitative risk assessment into its system safety assessment process, which until now has relied primarily on a qualitative representation of risk. Also, NASA has recently adopted the Risk-Informed Decision Making (RIDM) process [1-1] as a valuable addition to supplement existing deterministic and experience-based engineering methods and tools. Over the years, NASA has been a leader in most of the technologies it has employed in its programs. One would think that PRA should be no exception. In fact, it would be natural for NASA to be a leader in PRA because, as a technology pioneer, NASA uses risk assessment and management implicitly or explicitly on a daily basis. NASA has probabilistic safety requirements (thresholds and goals) for crew transportation system missions to the International Space Station (ISS) [1-2]. NASA intends to have probabilistic requirements for any new human spaceflight transportation system acquisition. Methods to perform risk and reliability assessment in the early 1960s originated in U.S. aerospace and missile programs. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is an example. It would have been a reasonable extrapolation to expect that NASA would also become the world leader in the application of PRA. That was, however, not to happen. Early in the Apollo program, estimates of the probability for a successful roundtrip human mission to the moon yielded disappointingly low (and suspect) values and NASA became discouraged from further performing quantitative risk analyses until some two decades later when the methods were more refined, rigorous, and repeatable. Instead, NASA decided to rely primarily on the Hazard Analysis (HA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methods for system safety assessment.

Stamatelatos,Michael↗

NASA NTRS2017

Landsat at 45: How it Changed the Way We See the Earth

On October 24, 1946, more than 10 years before the launch of the first artificial satellite Sputnik, scientists at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico placed a camera on top of a captured German V-2 ballistic missile. As the rocket flew to an altitude of about 65 miles - just above the generally recognized border of outer space - the 35-millimeter motion picture camera snapped a frame every one and a half seconds. Minutes later, the missile came crashing back down and slammed into the ground at more than 340 mph, but the film survived and gave us our first glimpse of Earth from space. Earth Resources Technology Satellite aka Landsat It was images like those first grainy black and white pictures and later those taken by America's first astronauts in the 1960's that inspired the development of the Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS). From the unique vantage point of space, we could now observe Earth using a variety of different instruments to monitor changes over time. The ERTS-1 satellite, wisely renamed Landsat-1, was launched aboard a Delta rocket on July 23, 1972, into a Sun-synchronous polar orbit at an altitude of about 560 miles. In this unique orbit, Landsat could observe the same point on the Earth every 18 days, always with the same solar illumination, allowing for precise monitoring of changes on the ground over time. Landsat-1, derived from the highly successful Nimbus weather satellites, carried two instruments that allowed it to take images not only in visible light but also in infrared, well-suited to track changes in vegetation over time. Designed to last only one year, Landsat-1 actually operated for nearly three years, by which time it had been joined in space by Landsat-2, a near identical copy of the original. Since then, ever more sophisticated instruments were flown aboard Landsat-3 through -8, with Landsat-9 planned for launch in 2020, acquiring millions of images of Earth over more than four decades. At first, images from Landsat were processed by NASA and hardcopies sold to users for a fee, a somewhat tedious process. Since 2008, images have been made available to all interested users by the US Geological Survey (USGS) at no cost via the Internet in near real time. So, how can Landsat help? In short, Landsat looks. And looks. And proves Yogi right. Space-based images from Landsat and other similar satellites offer a unique and critical capability to observe land use over time by providing repetitive observations of the Earth otherwise unavailable. The data provided by the images can be used by scientists and politicians to inform wise decisions in areas such as agriculture, climate, ecosystems and biodiversity, energy, forest management, human health, fire, natural disasters, urban growth and water management. This overview article doesn't allow for examples from each of these disciplines, but details can be found at the following website: https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/how_landsat_helps/. One third of the US economy is influenced by climate, weather and natural hazards, providing strong economic incentives to sustain a healthy space-based Earth observation program. One example, however, may be illustrative of how Landsat and other space-based observations can be helpful in monitoring and documenting some effects of global climate change. It had been noted since the 1970's that permafrost in subarctic areas like Siberia was melting at an accelerating rate. It also became apparent that this led to the formation of hundreds of melt lakes and the liberation of large quantities of methane, a gas that in the short-term has more potent greenhouse effects than carbon dioxide. The methane turned the water in these lakes blue, making them easy to track over time by satellite. Additionally, the newly released methane has been carbon dated to tens of thousands of years ago, meaning that it had remained frozen since the last Ice Age and therefore hadn't been accounted for in models of the Earth's overall carbon balance. Release of sufficient methane by an increasingly warming climate could actually cause a positive feedback loop in global warming, melting more permafrost and releasing yet more methane. Further monitoring by Landsat and other platforms will reveal whether this process is reversible or whether we've passed the tipping point. In addition to the highly successful Landsat series of satellites, NASA and other agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operate a fleet of other Earth observing platforms, many with more specific research goals such as monitoring sea ice levels or atmospheric carbon content. Several instruments aboard the International Space Station also contribute to this overall effort to better understand short- and long-term changes to the Earth. Many of these missions are guided by the 2009 Decadal Survey published by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Europe, Russia and China all see the value of space-based Earth observation by deploying their own fleet of satellites.

Uri, John↗