SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “RAIL TRANSPORTATION”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

57 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2015

System-Level Experimental Validations for Supersonic Commercial Transport Aircraft Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Time Period

This report describes the work conducted under NASA funding for the Boeing N+2 Supersonic Experimental Validation project to experimentally validate the conceptual design of a supersonic airliner feasible for entry into service in the 2018 -to 2020 timeframe (NASA N+2 generation). The primary goal of the project was to develop a low-boom configuration optimized for minimum sonic boom signature (65 to 70 PLdB). This was a very aggressive goal that could be achieved only through integrated multidisciplinary optimization tools validated in relevant ground and, later, flight environments. The project was split into two phases. Phase I of the project covered the detailed aerodynamic design of a low boom airliner as well as the wind tunnel tests to validate that design (ref. 1). This report covers Phase II of the project, which continued the design methodology development of Phase I with a focus on the propulsion integration aspects as well as the testing involved to validate those designs. One of the major airplane configuration features of the Boeing N+2 low boom design was the overwing nacelle. The location of the nacelle allowed for a minimal effect on the boom signature, however, it added a level of difficulty to designing an inlet with acceptable performance in the overwing flow field. Using the Phase I work as the starting point, the goals of the Phase 2 project were to design and verify inlet performance while maintaining a low-boom signature. The Phase II project was successful in meeting all contract objectives. New modular nacelles were built for the larger Performance Model along with a propulsion rig with an electrically-actuated mass flow plug. Two new mounting struts were built for the smaller Boom Model, along with new nacelles. Propulsion integration testing was performed using an instrumented fan face and a mass flow plug, while boom signatures were measured using a wall-mounted pressure rail. A side study of testing in different wind tunnels was completed as a precursor to the selection of the facilities used for validation testing. As facility schedules allowed, the propulsion testing was done at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) 8 x 6-Foot wind tunnel, while boom and force testing was done at the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) 9 x 7-Foot wind tunnel. During boom testing, a live balance was used for gathering force data. This report is broken down into nine sections. The first technical section (Section 2) covers the general scope of the Phase II activities, goals, a description of the design and testing efforts, and the project plan and schedule. Section 3 covers the details of the propulsion system concepts and design evolution. A series of short tests to evaluate the suitability of different wind tunnels for boom, propulsion, and force testing was also performed under the Phase 2 effort, with the results covered in Section 4. The propulsion integration testing is covered in Section 5 and the boom and force testing in Section 6. CFD comparisons and analyses are included in Section 7. Section 8 includes the conclusions and lessons learned.

Magee, Todd E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Vertical Translation System for the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. The Common Habitat Vertical Translation System provides a means for transporting crew and cargo between decks in a Common Habitat spacecraft in gravity levels varying from 0g to 1g. A crowdsourcing campaign was conducted through the GrabCAD platform to initially solicit ideas for restraints and mobility aids, including vertical translation. Four of the five top responses repeated ideas that would be incorporated into features of the Vertical Translation System. The first was a safety barrier (to prevent falls into the opening between decks) that could collapse to form a floor surface covering the opening when not in use. The second idea was a folding ladder that could be stowed in the ceiling when not in use. The third idea was an elevator platform that could traverse the ladder. Several key driving requirements were established for the Vertical Translation System: it may not penetrate into or through the lower deck; it must work on the Earth, Moon, Mars, and in microgravity; it must be easy to operate; it must enable translation of any item that can fit through the Common Habitat’s 40” x 60” hatches, inclusive of suited and unsuited crew with any degree of incapacitation and any equipment or cargo item; and it must include three component systems – deploying floor / safety barriers, a deployable ladder, and an elevator platform. Additional requirements were established for each of the component systems. The safety barriers must form a roughly 40-inch tall, complete wall enclosure on all four sides when deployed; it must include an easy to open gate that allows access to/from the ladder when deployed; and when retracted, the safety barrier must form a smooth, load-bearing floor that can be walked on, and wheeled objects can be rolled across in gravity, without being a trip hazard. The deployable ladder must be composed of multiple ladders that work together; it must stow in the ceiling when not in use; and it must not penetrate into the 40” x 60” vertical passage corridor. The elevator platform must work with the deployable ladder system; it must be able to bridge any gap in ladders between decks; it must stop at each deck flush with the deck surface; it must be capable of transporting an incapacitated crew member as a single rescuer operation; it must be capable of transporting a full-size subsystems pallet; it must function as an elevator for a crew member carrying large objects; it must have safety functions to prevent falls from the platform, or crew/cargo collisions with edges of hatch openings, or entanglement with ladder rungs/structure; it must stow when not in use; and it must autonomously both connect itself to the ladder and deploy itself to any deck where needed when called (e.g., a crew member on any deck can call for the platform and it must connect itself to the ladders without assistance and translate to the requestor’s deck). These requirements were developed into a system concept with the assistance of a NASA Pathways Intern who also added the requirement to size the design based on the use of commercial components, using existing motors and other mechanisms to ensure that the resulting system could be inexpensively produced. The Floor and Safety Barrier consists of four panels, two roughly 40 inches long and two roughly 60 inches long that can fold into the floor on top of each other when not in use. The uppermost panel is load bearing and acts as the floor surface. When deployed, they connect with each other to form a rigid barrier surrounding the vertical passageway. One of the panels contains a hinged gate that can be opened when deployed to allow for access to/from the passageway. The Deploying Ladder consists of two ladder segments, one mounted on the ceiling of the lower deck and the other mounted on the ceiling of the mid deck. A rotating mechanism is mounted on the ladder to allow it to rotate into a horizontal position against the ceiling for stowage, or down to a vertical position for use. A second rotating mechanism is built into the ladder, allowing the rungs to rotate. A toothed surface intended to work with the elevator platform covers the front of the ladder rails and the top and bottom of the rails are designed to be flush when aligned with another ladder segment. The elevator platform is essentially a motorized, self-propelled deck. It has a mechanism that holds it in contact with the ladder rails and drives itself against the toothed surface. This mechanism allows the elevator platform to ascend or descend the ladder. In order to stow the platform when not in use, a set of short ladder rails (without rungs) are mounted to the ceiling of the mid deck. When the mid deck ladder is stowed, it is flush with these rails and the platform can drive itself onto those short rails for stowage. An additional mechanism on the platform can pitch its deck surface 90 degrees, such that when the ladder is to be stowed, the platform can fold up against the ceiling. As a consequence of the ladder and elevator platform design, the opening between decks in the Common Habitat was enlarged to ensure that the elevator platform can accept a payload up to 40”x60” in dimension.

Human Centered Design↗

NASA NTRS2015

Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period Phase 2

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), working in conjunction with General Electric Global Research (GE GR) and Stanford University, executed a 19 month program responsive to the NASA sponsored "N+2 Supersonic Validation: Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period" contract. The key technical objective of this effort was to validate integrated airframe and propulsion technologies and design methodologies necessary to realize a supersonic vehicle capable of meeting the N+2 environmental and performance goals. The N+2 program is aligned with NASA's Supersonic Project and is focused on providing system level solutions capable of overcoming the efficiency, environmental, and performance barriers to practical supersonic flight. The N+2 environmental and performance goals are outlined in the technical paper, AIAA-2014-2138 (Ref. 1) along with the validated N+2 Phase 2 results. Our Phase 2 efforts built upon our Phase 1 studies (Ref. 2) and successfully demonstrated the ability to design and test realistic configurations capable of shaped sonic booms over the width of the sonic boom carpet. Developing a shaped boom configuration capable of meeting the N+2 shaped boom targets is a key goal for the N+2 program. During the LM Phase 1 effort, LM successfully designed and tested a shaped boom trijet configuration (1021) capable of achieving 85 PLdB under track (forward and aft shock) and up to 28 deg off-track at Mach 1.6. In Phase 2 we developed a refined configuration (1044-2) that extended the under 85 PLdB sonic boom level over the entire carpet of 52 deg off-track at a cruise Mach number of 1.7. Further, the loudness level of the configuration throughout operational conditions calculates to an average of 79 PLdB. These calculations rely on propagation employing Burger's (sBOOM) rounding methodology, and there are indications that the configuration average loudness would actually be 75 PLdB. We also added significant fidelity to the design of the configuration in this phase by performing a low speed wind tunnel test at our LTWT facility in Palmdale, by more complete modelling of propulsion effects in our sonic boom analysis, and by refining our configuration packaging and performance assessments. Working with General Electric, LM performed an assessment of the impact of inlet and nozzle effects on the sonic boom signature of the LM N+2 configurations. Our results indicate that inlet/exhaust streamtube boundary conditions are adequate for conceptual design studies, but realistic propulsion modeling at similar stream-tube conditions does have a small but measurable impact on the sonic boom signature. Previous supersonic transport studies have identified aeroelastic effects as one of the major challenges associated with the long, slender vehicles particularly common with shaped boom aircraft (Ref. 3). Under the Phase 2 effort, we have developed a detailed structural analysis model to evaluate the impact of flexibility and structural considerations on the feasibility of future quiet supersonic transports. We looked in particular at dynamic structural modes and flutter as a failure that must be avoided. We found that for our N+2 design in particular, adequate flutter margin existed. Our flutter margin is large enough to cover uncertainties like large increases in engine weight and the margin is relatively easy to increase with additional stiffening mass. The lack of major aeroelastic problems probably derives somewhat from an early design bias. While shaped boom aircraft require long length, they are not required to be thin. We intentionally developed our structural depths to avoid major flexibility problems. So at the end of Phase 2, we have validated that aeroelastic problems are not necessarily endemic to shaped boom designs. Experimental validation of sonic boom design and analysis techniques was the primary objective of the N+2 Supersonic Validations contract; and in this Phase, LM participated in four high speed wind tunnel tests. The first so-called Parametric Test in the Ames 9x7 tunnel did an exhaustive look at variation effects of the parameters: humidity, total pressure, sample time, spatial averaging distance and number of measurement locations, and more. From the results we learned to obtain data faster and more accurately, and made test condition tolerances easy to meet (eliminating earlier 60 percent wasted time when condition tolerances could not be held). The next two tests used different tunnels. The Ames 11 ft tunnel was used to test lower Mach numbers of 1.2 and 1.4. There were several difficulties using this tunnel for the first time for sonic boom including having to shift the measurement Mach numbers to 1.15 and 1.3 to avoid flow problems. It is believed that the 11 ft could be used successfully to measure sonic boom but there are likely to be a number of test condition restrictions. The Glenn 8x6 ft tunnel was used next and the tunnel has a number of desirable features for sonic boom measurement. While the Ames 9x7 can only test Mach 1.55 to 2.55 and the 11 ft can only test Mach 1.3 and lower, the Glenn 8x6 can test continuously from Mach 0.3 to 2.0. Unfortunately test measurement accuracy was compromised by a reference pressure drift. Post-test analysis revealed that the drift occurred when Mach number drifted slightly. Test measurements indicated that if Mach number drift is eliminated, results from the 8x6 would be more accurate, especially at longer distances, than results from the 9x7. The fourth test in the 9x7, called LM4, used everything we learned to comprehensively and accurately measure our new 1044-02 configuration with a full-carpet shaped signature design. Productivity was 8 times greater than our Phase 1 LM3 test. Measurement accuracy and repeatability was excellent out to 42 in. However, measurements at greater distances require the rail in the aft position and become substantially less accurate. Further signature processing or measurement improvements are needed for beyond near-field signature validation.

Morgenstern, John↗