Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Thermal control”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

Thermal Control Technologies for Complex Spacecraft

Thermal control is a generic need for all spacecraft. In response to ever more demanding science and exploration requirements, spacecraft are becoming ever more complex, and hence their thermal control systems must evolve. This paper briefly discusses the process of technology development, the state-of-the-art in thermal control, recent experiences with on-orbit two-phase systems, and the emerging thermal control technologies to meet these evolving needs. Some "lessons learned" based on experience with on-orbit systems are also presented.

Swanson, Theodore D.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Chapter 9: MEMS Applications in Spacecraft Thermal Control and Chapter 13: Handling and Contamination Control Considerations for Critical Space Applications

Thermal control systems (TCS) are an integral part of all spacecraft and instruments. To operate properly all spacecraft components must be maintained within a specified temperature band, which in some instances can be quite tight (less than 1 degree C). Traditionally this is accomplished by "passive" designs, but with modem spacecraft and instruments it is increasingly necessary to use active thermal control technologies. Microelectromechanical System (MEMS) can be useful in developing an active TCS, and may be especially useful for small spacecraft. As the MEMS knowledge matures, the applications of MEMS in spacecraft thermal control emerges as a viable technology for thermal engineers. Potential applications include specialized thermal control coatings, thermal switches, and specialized filters for instruments. Although MEMS technology demonstrates benefits, it also poses challenges for thermal en,oineers due to the lack of in-flight MEMS data. As a consequence, in order to design a MEMS thermal control device and receive the full advantage, it is important to understand the potential impact of the space environment on MEMS devices and the design/operational constraints imposed in their use. An entire chapter is devoted to handling and contamination controls for Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) in space applications due to the importance of the topic area to final mission success. Handling and contamination control is discussed relative to the full life cycle from the very basic wafer level processing up through on orbit deployment. MEMS packaging will drive the need to tailor the Handling and Contamination Control Plan in order to assure adequacy of the overall program on a program by program basis. Plan elements are discussed at length to assist the user in preparing and implementing effective plans for both handling and contamination control to prevent deleterious effects.

Osiander, Robert↗
NASA NTRS1977

Instrument canister thermal control

A transient thermal analysis and test of a thermal control canister is described. The 1 x 1 x 3 m canister provides a uniform thermal environment for shuttle instrument payloads requiring fine temperature control, the design goal being operation between 0 C and 20 C with a range of plus or minus 1 C at any selected set-point temperature. The canister side walls are isothermalized by a system of longitudinal and circumferential heat pipes rejecting heat through feedback controlled, variable conductance heat pipes to side mounted radiators. A breadboard model of two side walls and two radiators was tested in a thermal vacuum chamber. The breadboard was stable over a wide range of effective environments, experiment dissipations, and control point temperature levels.

Harwell, W.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Trend analysis of in-situ spectral reflectance data from the Thermal Control Surfaces Experiment (TCSE)

The Thermal Control Surfaces Experiment (TCSE) on the LDEF was a comprehensive experiment that combined in-space measurements with extensive pre- and post-flight analyses of thermal control surfaces to determine the effects of exposure to the low earth orbit (LEO) space environment. The TCSE is the first space experiment to directly measure in-situ total hemispherical reflectance of thermal control surfaces in the same way they are routinely measured in the laboratory. In-space optical measurements performed by the TCSE provide the unique opportunity for trend analysis of the performance of materials in the space environment. Such trend analysis of flight data offers the potential to develop an empirical life time prediction model for several thermal control surfaces. For material research, trend analysis of the TCSE flight data, particularly the spectral data, can provide insight into the damage mechanisms of space exposure. Trend analysis for the TCSE samples has been limited to those materials that were not significantly eroded by the atomic oxygen (AO) environment. The performance of several materials on the LDEF mission was dominated by AO effects. Trend analysis was performed on both the detailed spectral reflectance measurements (in-space, pre-flight, and post-flight) and on the integrated solar absorptance. Results of this analysis for the five selected TCSE materials are presented along with the spectral flight data. Possible degradation and effects mechanisms will be discussed to better understand and predict the behavior of these materials in the LEO space environment.

Wilkes, Donald R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Predictive Thermal Control (PTC) Technology to Enable Thermally Stable Telescopes

The Predictive Thermal Control (PTC) technology development project is a multiyear effort initiated in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, to mature the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of critical technologies required to enable ultra-thermally-stable telescopes for exoplanet science. A key PTC partner is Harris Corporation (Rochester NY).

Stahl, H. Philip↗
NASA NTRS2021

CubeSat Active Thermal Control in Support of Advanced Payloads: The Active Thermal Architecture Project

The Active Thermal Architecture (ATA) is an advanced sub-1U Active Thermal Control technology (ATC) for high power payload support in 6U CubeSat form factors and above. The design utilizes a two-stage, single-phase mechanically pumped fluid loop coupled through a two-axis flexible rotary fluid hinge, to reject thermal power to a deployable tracking radiator. A COTS Ricor K508N cryocooler forms the second stage and provides cryogenic cooling to a custom Kevlar detector mount through a TMT pyrolytic graphene thermal strap. Passive vibration isolation and damping technologies prevent the transfer of jitter to the satellite systems. The ATA design utilizes state-of-the-art 3D fabrication techniques such as Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing (UAM) to directly embed the working fluid channels into the HX, radiator, and CubeSat chassis allowing for the miniaturization and simplification of the ATA system into an integrated thermal control solution. This paper will focus on the design and ground-based characterization and qualification of the ATA system and provide performance metrics for its use as a thermal support subsystem for advanced infrared electro-optical CubeSat payloads. The ATA project is funded through a NASA Small Satellite Technology Program (SSTP) and is a partnership between the Center for Space Engineering at Utah State University and the Jet Propulsions Laboratory. The ATA active thermal control system has been raised to a TRL of 6 and hopes to provide payload support to advanced missions such as the SABER-Lite and JPL CIRAS projects.

Mok, Mason↗
NASA NTRS2018

Impact of Fluid Flow Pressure drop on Temperature of Components Controlled by Mechanically Pumped Fluid Loop Thermal Control System

In a typical thermal control system that employs a mechanically pumped fluid loop to control component temperatures, fluid flow pressure drop is minimized to ensure that adequate fluid flow can be provided by the pump. Engineers often are overly concerned about violating a maximum pressure drop, almost treating it as a “wall” that should not be crossed. The true “wall” is the control of the temperatures of the components served by the loop to ensure that their temperatures do not violate their allowed limits. As a case study, for assessing this “constraint,” sensitivity analyses were undertaken to understand if this is truly a major constraint, and to assess the impact of pressure drop exceedance on the controlled components’ temperatures. The flow impedance is varied as a parameter to understand how it affects the controlled components’ temperatures. One key finding was that the temperatures of the controlled components is relatively insensitive to the flow impedance increases. This finding is obviously most relevant to this particular case study; however, this also provides the process and guidance for assessing the performance of other pump/loop combinations in terms of their sensitivity to pressure drop impedances.

Mastropietro, Arthur J.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Space Station thermal control system evolution

The thermal control system (TCS) for the space station assembly complete configuration includes a two-phase central thermal bus with a supplemental body mounted radiator system. Evolution of the space station from a heat rejection capacity of 75 kW to 300 kW will require scars to expand the thermal fluid distribution network, equipment replacement to enable greater thermal transport capacity, and enlargement of the heat rejection subsystem for increased heat rejection. The TCS requirements for assembly completion and growth are presented along with a review of the basic structure of the active and passive thermal control systems which include provisions for growth.

Bullock, Richard L.↗
NASA NTRS1975

NASA Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology Summer Workshop. Volume 8: Thermal control panel

Technology deficiencies in the area of thermal control for future space missions are identified with emphasis on large space structures and cold controlled environments. Thermal control surfaces, heat pipes, and contamination are considered along with cryogenics, insulation, and design techniques. Major directions forecast for thermal control technology development and space experiments are: (1) extend the useful lifetime of cryogenic systems for space, (2) reduce temperature gradients, and (3) improve temperature stability.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗