Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LED Driver”

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.

60 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

Design for Reliability and Safety Approach for the NASA New Launch Vehicle

The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is in the midst of a space exploration program intended for sending crew and cargo to the international Space Station (ISS), to the moon, and beyond. This program is called Constellation. As part of the Constellation program, NASA is developing new launch vehicles aimed at significantly increase safety and reliability, reduce the cost of accessing space, and provide a growth path for manned space exploration. Achieving these goals requires a rigorous process that addresses reliability, safety, and cost upfront and throughout all the phases of the life cycle of the program. This paper discusses the "Design for Reliability and Safety" approach for the NASA new crew launch vehicle called ARES I. The ARES I is being developed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in support of the Constellation program. The ARES I consists of three major Elements: A solid First Stage (FS), an Upper Stage (US), and liquid Upper Stage Engine (USE). Stacked on top of the ARES I is the Crew exploration vehicle (CEV). The CEV consists of a Launch Abort System (LAS), Crew Module (CM), Service Module (SM), and a Spacecraft Adapter (SA). The CEV development is being led by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). Designing for high reliability and safety require a good integrated working environment and a sound technical design approach. The "Design for Reliability and Safety" approach addressed in this paper discusses both the environment and the technical process put in place to support the ARES I design. To address the integrated working environment, the ARES I project office has established a risk based design group called "Operability Design and Analysis" (OD&A) group. This group is an integrated group intended to bring together the engineering, design, and safety organizations together to optimize the system design for safety, reliability, and cost. On the technical side, the ARES I project has, through the OD&A environment, implemented a probabilistic approach to analyze and evaluate design uncertainties and understand their impact on safety, reliability, and cost. This paper focuses on the use of the various probabilistic approaches that have been pursued by the ARES I project. Specifically, the paper discusses an integrated functional probabilistic analysis approach that addresses upffont some key areas to support the ARES I Design Analysis Cycle (DAC) pre Preliminary Design (PD) Phase. This functional approach is a probabilistic physics based approach that combines failure probabilities with system dynamics and engineering failure impact models to identify key system risk drivers and potential system design requirements. The paper also discusses other probabilistic risk assessment approaches planned by the ARES I project to support the PD phase and beyond.

Safie, Fayssal, M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Incorporation of Human Risk Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) With Mishap Investigations to Un-Silo Knowledge

NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has been a central driver in efforts to understand, mitigate, and communicate the 29 human systems risks monitored by the board. As a result of the collaboration between research, operations, and technical authorities, large bodies of knowledge have been collected and digested to represent the current understanding of the risks. As a part of these bodies of knowledge, directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) have been developed to communicate the current understanding of the causal relationship of the hazards, contributing factors, countermeasures, other risks, and outcomes that contribute to the overall risk. This risk knowledge is applied in a theoretical sense for potential incidents during exploration even while informed by surveillance data. However, there have been mishaps and close calls during past space exploration that intersect with one or more of the Human System Risks DAGs and knowledge bases. The purpose of this exercise was to un-silo this risk knowledge and connect it to the close call of EVA 23 through the development of a DAG representing the intersection of the HSRB Risks and the events of the close call. The development of the DAG occurred through an iterative process, with each iteration expanding and/or refining the nodes and connections described by the source materials. In addition to the risk documentation developed by the HSRB, lessons learned and other mishap investigation documents were utilized to understand the events that led to water entering the helmet of a crewmember on the EVA. New nodes specific to the events of EVA 23 were interconnected with existing HSRB DAG nodes and edges. Nodes within the DAG were defined within a “DAG-tionary” with any updates to a definition that may have previously existed from the HSRB DAGs, and edges were recorded in a matrix. Both the DAG-tionary and matrix describe where nodes and edges are present across the Risk and Mishap DAG. This DAG will then be reviewed by experts outside of HSRB and HRP to confirm that interpretations of the non-health related events (such as the engineering nodes) are represented accurately. DISCUSSION This process highlighted a method by which the knowledge generated among the contributing members of the HSRB Risks can be effectively adapted and utilized through the tools employed by the Risk Custodian teams. By leveraging these tools, new context and insights to the information at hand can be brought forward to address current spaceflight challenges. Moreover, un-siloing this knowledge through future DAGs and other efforts can drive interprofessional collaboration and foster communication. This will enable teams to work together more effectively, leveraging their diverse expertise to tackle the complex challenges of space exploration and human research. Ultimately, this collaboration will bring NASA closer to achieve agency goals and contribute to the overall shared mission and vision.

Samuel Jacobs↗
NASA NTRS2012

The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report

Solar irradiance, the flux of the Sun s output directed toward Earth, is Earth s main energy source.1 The Sun itself varies on several timescales over billions of years its luminosity increases as it evolves on the main sequence toward becoming a red giant; about every 11 years its sunspot activity cycles; and within just minutes flares can erupt and release massive amounts of energy. Most of the fluctuations from tens to thousands of years are associated with changes in the solar magnetic field. The focus of the National Research Council's September 2011 workshop on solar variability and Earth's climate, and of this summary report, is mainly magnetically driven variability and its possible connection with Earth's climate variations in the past 10,000 years. Even small variations in the amount or distribution of energy received at Earth can have a major influence on Earth's climate when they persist for decades. However, no satellite measurements have indicated that solar output and variability have contributed in a significant way to the increase in global mean temperature in the last 50 years. Locally, however, correlations between solar activity and variations in average weather may stand out beyond the global trend; such has been argued to be the case for the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, even in the present day. A key area of inquiry deals with establishing a unified record of the solar output and solar-modified particles that extends from the present to the prescientific past. The workshop focused attention on the need for a better understanding of the links between indices of solar activity such as cosmogenic isotopes and solar irradiance. A number of presentations focused on the timescale of the solar cycle and of the satellite record, and on the problem of extending this record back in time. Highlights included a report of progress on pyroheliometer calibration, leading to greater confidence in the time history and future stability of total solar irradiance (TSI), and surprising results on changes in spectral irradiance over the last solar cycle, which elicited spirited discussion. New perspectives on connections between features of the quiet and active areas of the photosphere and variations in TSI were also presented, emphasizing the importance of developing better understanding in order to extrapolate back in time using activity indices. Workshop participants reviews highlighted difficulties as well as causes for optimism in current understanding of the cosmogenic isotope record and the use of observed variability in Sun-like stars in reconstructing variations in TSI occurring on lower frequencies than the sunspot cycle. The workshop succeeded in bringing together informed, focused presentations on major drivers of the Sun-climate connection. The importance of the solar cycle as a unique quasi-periodic probe of climate responses on a timescale between the seasonal and Milankovitch cycles was recognized in several presentations. The signal need only be detectable, not dominant, for it to play this role of a useful probe. Some workshop participants also found encouraging progress in the top-down perspective, according to which solar variability affects surface climate by first perturbing the stratosphere, which then forces the troposphere and surface. This work is now informing and being informed by research on tropospheric responses to the Antarctic ozone hole and volcanic aerosols. In contrast to the top-down perspective is the bottom-up view that the interaction of solar energy with the ocean and surface leads to changes in dynamics and temperature. During the discussion of how dynamical air-sea coupling in the tropical Pacific and solar variability interact from a bottom-up perspective, several participants remarked on the wealth of open research questions in the dynamics of the climatic response to TSI and spectral variability. The discussion of the paleoclimate record emphasized that the link between solar varbility and Earth s climate is multifaceted and that some components are understood better than others. According to two presenters on paleoclimate, there is a need to study the idiosyncrasies of each key proxy record. Yet they also emphasized that there may be an emerging pattern of paleoclimate change coincident with periods of solar activity and inactivity, but only on long timescales of multiple decades to millennia. Several speakers discussed the effects of particle events and cosmic-ray variability. These are all areas of exciting fundamental research; however, they have not yet led to conclusive evidence for significant related climate effects. The key problem of attribution of climate variability on the timescales of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum were directly addressed in several presentations. Several workshop participants remarked that the combination of solar, paleoclimatic, and climate modeling research has the potential to dramatically improve the credibility of these attribution studies.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of NASA ISRU Plans, Priorites, and Activities

Introduction:The National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) of the United States ofAmerica (US) has initiated the Artemis Moon to Marsprogram to send astronauts (the first woman andperson of color) back to the lunar surface, create asustainable human lunar exploration program, andlead the first human exploration mission to the Marssurface in the 2030’s [1]. A major objective of thisprogram is to characterize the resources that exist onthe Moon and Mars, and learn how to utilize them forsustained and affordable exploration. Commonlyknown as In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), thesearch for, acquisition, and processing of resources inspace has the potential to greatly reduce thedependency on transporting mission consumables andinfrastructure from Earth, thereby reducing missioncosts, risks, and dependency on Earth.ISRU is Enabling: Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into mission commoditiessuch as rocket propellants, life support consumables,and fuel cell reactants, ISRU enhances and evolvesthe cis-lunar, lander, and surface transportationsystems required for human exploration; expandingand enhancing HOW humans can explore and returnfrom the Moon. Through the extraction andprocessing of resources into metals, silicon, and othermanufacturing and construction feedstock, ISRUenhances and allows for the expansion of criticalinfrastructure using in situ manufacturing andconstruction capabilities that influence WHAT humanscan do on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. Becauseof this, ISRU supports and enables commercialinvolvement beyond NASA and governmentalagencies by both lowering the cost of sustainedtransportation to/from/on the Moon as well assupporting the market required for needing thesetransportation systems. Strategic Framework:To achieve this vision,NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD) ensures the coordinated development ofISRU and other critical space and surfaceinfrastructure elements such as propulsion, power,manufacturing, construction, and robotics through theStrategic Technology Architecture Roundtable(STAR) process. Through STAR, an integratedframework and process has been created allowing forcapabilities and technologies to be linked andassessed, gaps to be identified, specifications andmetrics to be established, and provide a means toprioritize and implement technology development andmissions. A critical part of the STAR effort has beenthe establishment of the Strategic Framework thatorganizes all work under four major Thrusts (Go,Land, Live, and Explore) and identifies the drivingOutcomes for each of these Thrusts. From the Thrustsand Outcomes, all work can be categorized and linkedbetween Capability Areas, and Technology Gaps canbe identified and addressed (Figure 1.)Figure 1. Strategic Framework and STAR FrameworkISRU Envisioned Future: To drive thedevelopment of technologies and capabilities, theSTAR process starts with establishing a ‘grand vision’of where each Outcome and Capability is aiming tobe considered complete. For ISRU, the EnvisionedFuture is “Scalable ISRU production/utilizationcapabilities including sustainable commodities on thelunar and Mars Surface”. This involves starting with10’s of metric tons of products, but evolves into 100’sto 1000’s of metric tons of water, oxygen, propellants,construction and manufacturing feedstock, andcommodities for habitat and food production andoperations. For ISRU, the ‘Prospect to Product’philosophy starts with Destination Reconnaissance &Resource Assessment, followed by ResourceAcquisition, Isolation, and Preparation, leading intoResource Processing (which is further subdivided intomission consumables and feedstocks for constructionand manufacturing). The ISRU Envisioned Futurealso considers what resources are available andattempts to address what and when these resourceswill be evaluated and harnessed, as well asconsidering which products/commodities can beobtained for early use and which ones require moretime and/or users of refined products.It Takes an Architecture: ISRU does not existon its own. By definition, it requires customers/users SHORT TITLE HERE: A. B. Author and C. D. Authorto use the products/commodities produced by ISRUsystems. Also, for an ISRU capability to exist, itmust obtain products and services from other systemsand infrastructure. An important aspect of the STARprocess and the ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is to identify and link all of these systems andcapabilities to achieve the desired end state (Figure2).Figure 2. ISRU as Part of a Larger ArchitectureISRU Capability Drivers: The guidingprinciples for NASA’s Space TechnologyDevelopment for Artemis are to develop criticaltechnologies and capabilities that enable (i) asustainable Lunar surface presence, (ii) the future goalof sending humans to Mars, and (iii) promotingcritical technologies to enable future science andcommercial missions. It is a major goal of theArtemis campaign to establish some sort of base campat the lunar South Pole by approximately the end ofthe decade. The ISRU Envisioned Futures Prioritiesstrategy is aligned with the Artemis campaign todevelop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities in thistimeframe that could lead to sustained surfaceoperations, infrastructure growth, and commercialoperations in the next decade (Figure 3).Figure 3. ISRU Dual Path to Full Implementation and CommercializationState of the Art and Gaps: To achieve theenvisioned future, an extensive effort was performedto understand the State of the Art (SOA) for ISRUgoing back decades, and to assess the SOA against thenear and long-term goals and objectives of the ISRUStrategic Outcome objectives. While the releasedISRU Envisioned Futures Priorities only includes atop-level definition of both the SOA and Gaps, furtherinformation on these for ISRU can be found in theISRU Gap Assessment Study performed for theInternational Space Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG) [2]. To provide further guidance to industryand academia, a top level assessment was performedand provide that divides critical areas of ISRUcapabilities and technologies into 3 categories:Significant Funding, Partially Covered/MoreRequired, and Limited/No Funded Activities.Envisioned Future Priorities- Next Steps forISRU: While a significant amount of work over abroad range of technology areas has been performedover the last several years for lunar ISRU, to reach theenvisioned future for ISRU, a lot more work isrequired at the technology level leading to bothsystems and technology demonstrations in the nearfuture. To guide investments within NASA, industry,and academia, 5 specific areas of high priority wereidentified. These are:1.Complete development of the Water and Oxygen Mining Paths and close technology gaps, with emphasis on oxygen extraction from Highland regolith and parallel paths for polar water mining.2.Expand development of metal extraction and feedstock for manufacturing and construction, with emphasis on aluminum and initial/easy to obtain/make construction feedstocks leading to more refined metals and other regolith resources. Also, evaluate biologically inspired/derived technologies in bio-mining, bio-plastic, and other feedstock commodities.3.Ensure the resource assessment needed for future ISRU commercial operations is coordinated with both near/long-term science objectives as well as Artemis mission locations of interest.4.Initiate NASA and industry-led system-level analyses, integration, and testing activities for ISRU capabilities. While significant work has been performed at the technology and subsystemlevel, it is now important to understand how these technology investments can be leveraged and utilized in actual systems and applications5.Initiate lunar ISRU technology flight demonstrations leading to initial ‘Pilot Plant’ end-to-end production capability demonstrations, led by industry

ISRU↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Electric Sail Design Sensitivities

Electric Sails (E-Sails) are a promising propulsion technology that seek to enable high characteristic propellentless acceleration for spacecraft to reach distant and/or difficult to reach orbits such as rapid transit to heliopause. The E-Sail system exchanges momentum by using positively charged electrostatic tethers to repel solar wind photons to push it through space. This concept was first theorized by Pekka Janhunen in 2004 with further developments occurring including a NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts Phase 1 and Phase 2 hosted out of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). These developments led to further maturation of the overall system, and this paper is designed to help identify different design sensitivities of an integrated Electric Sail system. To approach this, a small team at MSFC took an in-house developed three degrees of freedom (3DoF) simulation tool and a trajectory modelling tool to look at different design parameters and to determine a potential ideal E-Sail configuration. An E-Sail system has different design architectures including a barbell design, hub and spoke design, and a potential hybrid solution. The barbell design features two equally massed satellites that spin around a central point in the tether system. The hub and spoke design features a large central spacecraft with small end spacecraft to aid in formation control of the overall E-Sail system. Leveraging elements from both the hub and spoke, and barbell design, a hybrid option exists where one could have a larger central mass and one or two tethers extended to a smaller end mass [2]. In summary, the hub and spoke design is the ideal configuration for E-Sail with tethers spanning kilometers to achieve the designed design characteristic acceleration of at least one mm/s2 with this architecture being the focus of this study. Different key design parameters were varied as part of this study. These parameters include the total number of tethers, the length of the tethers, spin rate, relative spacecraft mass, tether voltage, inertia per tether, and impact of slew rate changes. These results started from an internal MSFC technology demonstration mission design and then the parameters were varied with engineering judgement to ensure that the results were consistent with expected results. These were varied in the MSFC 3DoF tool and compared to baseline results to generate a candidate ideal E-Sail design system. These results were then used to help inform the mission analysis design for the system. The 3DoF trajectory optimization was performed in the Astrodynamics and Space Science Enabling Toolbox (ASSET) and utilized collocation optimization of control vector pointing with the objective function being transfer duration. A representative model of the E-Sail force was derived as a function of the Sun-pointing vector direction. This model was initialized with a zero Sun Incidence Angle (SIA) trajectory for the initial guess generation, then with a portion of the mission optimized SIA time history for fast outbound transfers. After the trajectory is hyperbolic relative to a heliocentric frame, the SIA is maintained at 0 degrees except for any needed trajectory correction maneuvers. This trajectory optimization looked at different characteristic acceleration values to analyze the impact it had on mission performance. As a result of this study, the team can best inform mission designers and technology development efforts to mature the E-Sail system. This study will allow mission designers to have defined rules-of-thumb to design an E-Sail system to meet desired mission needs as well as providing several sample mission profiles. These design drivers will inform maturation efforts on which design requirements to consider for an integrated E-Sail design.

E-Sail↗
NASA NTRS2006

Orbiter Return-To-Flight Entry Aeroheating

The Columbia accident on February 1, 2003 began an unprecedented level of effort within the hypersonic aerothermodynamic community to support the Space Shuttle Program. During the approximately six month time frame of the primary Columbia Accident Investigation Board activity, many technical disciplines were involved in a concerted effort to reconstruct the last moments of the Columbia and her crew, and understand the critical events that led to that loss. Significant contributions to the CAIB activity were made by the hypersonic aerothermodynamic community(REF CAIB) in understanding the re-entry environments that led to the propagation of an ascent foam induced wing leading edge damage to a subsequent breech of the wing spar of Columbia, and the subsequent breakup of the vehicle. A core of the NASA hypersonic aerothermodynamics team that was involved in the CAIB investigation has been combined with the United Space Alliance and Boeing Orbiter engineering team in order to position the Space Shuttle Program with a process to perform in-flight Thermal Protection System damage assessments. This damage assessment process is now part of the baselined plan for Shuttle support, and is a direct out-growth of the Columbia accident and NASAs response. Multiple re-entry aeroheating tools are involved in this damage assessment process, many of which have been developed during the Return To Flight activity. In addition, because these aeroheating tools are part of an overall damage assessment process that also involves the thermal and stress analyses community, in addition to a much broader mission support team, an integrated process for performing the damage assessment activities has been developed by the Space Shuttle Program and the Orbiter engineering community. Several subsets of activity in the Orbiter aeroheating communities support to the Return To Flight effort have been described in previous publications (CFD?, Cavity Heating? Any BLT? Grid Generation?). This work will provide a description of the integrated process utilized to perform Orbiter tile damage assessment, and in particular will seek to provide a description of the integrated aeroheating tools utilized to perform these assessments. Individual aeroheating tools will be described which provide the nominal re-entry heating environment characterization for the Orbiter, the heating environments for tile damage, heating effects due to exposed Thermal Protection System substrates, the application of Computational Fluid Dynamics for the description of tile cavity heating, and boundary layer transition prediction. This paper is meant to provide an overall view of the integrated aeroheating assessment process for tile damage assessment as one of a sequence of papers on the development of the boundary layer transition prediction capability in support of Space Shuttle Return To Flight efforts.

Campbell, Charles H.↗