Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “carpet”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

3D Realistic Modeling of the Interaction of Quiet-Sun Magnetic Fields with the Chromosphere

High-resolution observations and 3D simulations suggest that a local dynamo operates near the surface and produces ubiquitous small-scale magnetic elements, thus contributing to the magnetic carpet in the photosphere and to the magnetic structure and dynamics of the solar atmosphere. It appears that the traditional mechanisms of chromospheric energy and mass transport by acoustic waves and shocks are likely to play a secondary role; instead, the primary drivers in the energetics and dynamics of the chromosphere and transition region are small-scale, previously unresolved, quiet-Sun magnetic fields. These fields appear as ubiquitous, rapidly changing (on the scale of a few seconds), tiny magnetic loops and magnetized vortex tubes. Questions then arise about their origin and dynamics in the chromosphere, their links to magnetic fields in the photosphere, and their role in the energy storage and exchange between subsurface layers and the chromosphere. In the talk we will present results of 3D radiative MHD simulations obtained with the StellarBox code and discuss the energetics and dynamical interlinks between the subphotospheric layers and low chromosphere, their effects on the structure of the chromosphere, and signatures of the fine-scale magnetic features in high-resolution spectro-polarimetric observations.

Quie-Sun↗
NASA NTRS2018

Two-Dimensional Planetary Surface Landers

We proposed to develop a new landing approach that significantly reduces development time and obviates the most complicated, most expensive, and highest-risk phase of a landing mission. The concept is a blanket- or carpet-like two-dimensional (2D) lander (~1-m × 1-m surface area and <1-cm thick) with a low mass/drag ratio, which allows the lander to efficiently shed its approach velocity and provide a more robust structure for landing integrity. The form factor of these landers allows dozens to be stacked on a single spacecraft for transport and distributed en masse to the surface. Lander surfaces will be populated on both sides by surface-mount, low-profile sensors and instruments, surface-mount telecom, solar cells, batteries, processors, and memory. Landers will also incorporate thin flexible electronics, made possible in part by printable electronics technology. The mass and size of these highly capable technologies further reduces the required stiffness and mass of the lander structures to the point that compliant, lightweight, robust landers capable of passive landings are possible. This capability avoids the costly, complex use of rockets, radar, and associated structure and control systems. This approach is expected to provide an unprecedented science payload mass to spacecraft mass ratio of approximately 80% (estimated based on current knowledge). This compared to ~1% for Pathfinder, ~17% for MER, and 22% for MSL rovers. Clearly, one difference is rovers vs. a lower capability lander. An outcome of the Phase I study is a clear roadmap for near-term demonstration and long-term technology development.

Landers↗
NASA NTRS2018

Sonic Boom Prediction and Mitigation using Three-Dimensional Earth Effects

As the industry progresses towards realizing a commercial supersonic aircraft, the push to reduce noise from sonic boom has intensified. This emphasizes the need to better understand and accurately model the underlying physics and seek ways to reduce modeling gaps in the calculation of sonic boom noise metrics. To answer this need, sonic boom prediction capability of the atmospheric propagation tool sBOOM is enhanced to include three-dimensional Earth effects during propagation. The discrete adjoint capability under three-dimensional effects is also enhanced to be helpful in design optimization. The differences in ground signatures, noise metrics, and carpet widths are compared against results obtained using flat Earth approximation and discussed. Finally, the developed capability is used in CFD based shape optimization to demonstrate the differences in aircraft outer mold line when ellipsoidal Earth effects during shape optimization for sonic boom mitigation.

Rallabhandi, Sriram K.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Field Evaluations of Sampling, Interviewing, and Flight Tracking of NASA's Low Boom Flight Demonstrator Aircraft

The first year’s effort identified sampling and interviewing as the principal risks to assessment of prompt reactions to overflights producing low-amplitude sonic booms. It also 1) established the utility of geo-information system-based route planning for LBFD flight missions, 2) developed and demonstrated a prototype of a geographically-distributed, Internet-enabled instrumentation system capable of wide-area tracking of LBFD aircraft in near-real time. The latter system permits synchronizing the conduct of interviews in multiple overflown communities with arrival times of shock waves at interviewing sites; and of measuring, archiving, and processing their acoustic signatures. Means were also recommended for constructing representative, telephone-based samples of eligible respondents living in households within carpet boom corridors adjacent to LBFD flight tracks, and for conducting interviews with cross-sectional (independent) samples of such respondents about their prompt reactions to exposure to low-amplitude sonic booms. A detailed study design was prepared and accepted by NASA for a set of single-contact attempt telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of households. The study design focused on testing automated and live agent interview completion rates obtainable without callbacks. A minimal (two monitoring station) version of the aircraft tracking system was built and installed near a civil airport in a successful demonstration of the system’s ability to detect and track aircraft movements. The field exercise also demonstrated the ability of the system to capture the acoustic emissions of departing aircraft, and to serve aircraft position and sound level information to remote, geographically-distributed analysts in near-real time. Upon approval of OMB and IRB of the detailed study plan, a stratified, nationally representative sample of landline and wireless telephone-subscribing households was constructed. A total of 12,734 telephone interview contact attempts of the sort required by a straightforward cross-sectional study design were then made. These contact attempts demonstrated the impracticality of conducting a time-critical, cross-sectional study of prompt community response to low-amplitude sonic booms by means of “independent” (single contact attempt per respondent for each LBFD flight mission) telephone samples of respondents. The observed interview completion rates for these single telephone contact attempts were so low (~ 1% to 3% for automated and live agent interviews, respectively) that: 1) the representativeness of collected opinions would be susceptible to intuitive challenge as inadequate, even absent conclusive evidence of non-representativeness. Refuting challenges to representativeness would have to demonstrate that the composition of the actual sample did not differ from that of the target population, a task that is tantamount to proving a negative; 2) the information required to refute allegations of non-representativeness would require a questionnaire considerably lengthier than that required simply to determine the prevalence of boom-induced startle and annoyance. Such a questionnaire would have to inquire about potentially sensitive and intrusive matters, including respondents’ age, gender, education, employment, home ownership, income, ethnicity, family size, and other demographic factors; and 3) unreasonable numbers of attempts would be required to re-contact households with unsuccessful initial contact attempts, given the limited time available for doing so. For example, if about 500 completed interviews were desired in a supersonically overflown community, approximately 50,000 automated interview attempts would have to be made within ten to fifteen minutes of each LBFD overflight. Such large numbers of contact attempts could well exceed the numbers of households available for interview in areas of similar boom exposure levels in some communities near LBFD flight tracks. Such large numbers of interviews could be cost-effectively undertaken only by means of automated (i.e., outgoing interactive voice response) interviewing, a data collection method ill-suited for complex and sensitive questionnaire items. The infeasibility of independent sampling for evaluating prompt responses to LBFD overflights in a cross-sectional study is due in large part to simple non-response: that is, potential respondents – particularly those contacted on wireless telephones – refusing to answer calls with unfamiliar caller IDs. It is also due in part, however, to 1) the lack of time to attempt to contact the same respondent more than once within a few minutes after the arrival of a shock wave at the respondent’s location; and 2) the need to place calls during weekday/daytime hours, when response rates are notably lower than during evenings and weekends. Despite the poor interview completion rates achieved under the above constraints, cross sectional assessments of delayed reactions to LBFD overflights could still be feasible, if multiple attempts could be made to contact respondents during evening and weekend time periods, over extended time periods. Detailed plans for a longitudinal (panel) sample were developed as an alternative to a cross sectional sample design.

Fidell, Sanford↗
NASA NTRS2018

Steering of Solar Sails Using Optical Lift Force

Optical wing structures were theoretically and numerically analyzed, and prototype arrays of wings called optical flying carpets were fabricated with solar sail material clear polyimide (CP1). This material was developed at NASA Langley to better withstand damaging ultraviolet radiation found in outer space. Various optical wing sizes and shapes were analyzed to develop design strategies for thrust and torque applications. The developed ray-tracing model has undergone continual advancement, and stands as an effective tool for modeling most types of solar sails. To our understanding, such a model does not exist else where. The distributed forces and torques have been reduced to a simple theoretical whereby the fundamental mechanics may be understood in terms of the numerically determined center of pressure off set from the center of mass. This description applies to any type of solar sail, affording our ray-tracing model a general utility. This research has established a foundation for understanding the force and torque afforded by optical wings. The study began by considering transparent wings and ended by considering wings having a reflecting face. The latter was found to afford the advantages of high thrust and both intrinsic and extrinsic torque. Our discovery of the intrinsic torque on optical wings (meaning that a moment arm is not required) has no analogy for a flat reflective solar sail, and therefore provides an extra degree of control that may be useful for sail craft attitude and navigation purposes.

Swartzlander, Gover↗
NASA NTRS2020

Development of a Weather-Robust Ground-Based System for Sonic Boom Measurements

This report describes Brigham Young University’s (BYU) development and testing of a weather-robust, ground-based system for sonic boom measurements, carried out in support of NASA’s Quiet Supersonic Flight (QSF) initiative. The microphone configuration system, referred to as the Compact Outdoor Unit for Ground-based Acoustical Recordings (COUGAR, for the BYU mascot), was tested at NASA’s 2018 Quiet Supersonic Flight (QSF18) campaign and at the subsequent 2019 Carpet Determination in Entirety Measurements (CarpetDIEM) program.

sonic boom↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nearfield Summary and Analysis of the Third AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop C608 Low Boom Demonstrator

A summary and statistical analysis of the nearfield Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) submissions for the Third AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop is provided with a focus on the C608 Low Boom Flight Test Demonstrator. The C608 is more complex in terms of geometry and propulsion boundary conditions than previous workshops cases and is more representative of vehicles with lower ground loudness and the potential for lower annoyance. The nearfield signatures submitted by the participants are propagated to the ground to compute statistics of loudness measures over the vehicle sonic boom carpet. Principle component analysis is used to extract the primary variation modes. Context from previous sonic boom workshops indicates that this workshop has the lowest variation even though the case is more challenging because it is quieter and more complex. The international state-of-the-art results documented in this summary indicates that nearfield CFD variation is low enough for meaningful low-boom design and can contribute toward the discussion of replacing the prohibition of overland supersonic flight with a certification standard.

sonic boom↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Third Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop Cases: Analysis Using the NASA PCBoom

This paper presents simulation results and analyses using the test cases provided for the Third Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The simulation focuses on propagation to the ground of sonic boom generated by supersonic aircraft accounting for atmospheric effects. The simulation results use the NASA PCBoom propagation code that features the latest updates on the ray tube area and kinematic ray tracing algorithms to better predict waveforms and sonic boom carpet edges, respectively.

low boom↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-59 CFD and Sonic Boom Assessments

X-59 is a NASA experimental demonstrator aircraft designed to mitigate the adverse impact of sonic boom through advanced aircraft shaping methodologies. The Lockheed Martin (LM) Corporation was awarded a contract to manufacture the X-59 to demonstrate unique boom shaping technologies and address system integration challenges to be able to limit maximum sonic boom perceived level of loudness to be less than 75 dB across the entire carpet while cruising at a Mach number of 1.4. Initial flights and envelope expansion of the X-59 is expected to begin in 2022, with community tests expected at multiple locations starting from early 2024. This paper discusses the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis and sonic boom assessment of the X-59.

John M. Morgenstern↗
NASA NTRS2020

Independent Analyses of Galveston QSF18 Social Survey

A set of independent analyses was performed of the findings of NASA’s QSF18 data collection exercise in Galveston, TX. These analyses included development of regression-based and other dosage-response relationships between the prevalence of annoyance with low-amplitude sonic booms and Perceived Level measures of single event and cumulative exposure. They also included detailed analyses of the effects of panelist attrition; of participation reminder messages sent to panelists; the ability to determine panelist locations at the time of exposure; and the effects of rattle and vibration on annoyance judgments, among other topics. The report summarizes the implications of its findings for the design of studies of community response to carpet booms created during future deployments of NASA’s X-59 aircraft, and recommends several design measures to improve the efficiency of data collection.

sonic boom↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nearfield Summary and Analysis of the Third AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop C608 Low Boom Demonstrator

A summary and statistical analysis of the nearfield Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)submissions for the Third AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop is provided with a focus onthe C608 Low Boom Flight Test Demonstrator. The C608 is more complex in terms of geometryand propulsion boundary conditions than previous workshop cases and is more representativeof vehicles with lower ground loudness and the potential for lower annoyance. The nearfieldsignatures submitted by the participants are propagated to the ground to compute statisticsof loudness measures over the vehicle sonic boom carpet. Principle component analysis isused to extract the primary variation modes. Context from previous sonic boom workshopsindicates that this workshop has the lowest variation even though the case is more challengingbecause it is quieter and more complex. The results documented in this summary indicate thatthe international state-of-the-art for nearfield CFD has a variation that is small enough formeaningful low-boom design and analysis. Low-boom configuration analysis methods with lowvariation are important tools to develop certification processes for addressing the prohibitionon overland supersonic commercial flight.

sonic boom CFD workshop c608↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Propagation Analysis of the 3rd Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop Cases using sBOOM

The 3rd Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop was held on January 4-5, 2020 in conjunction with the AIAA SciTech conference. The workshop had 23 participants who represented 6 different countries and 18 unique organizations that included government, industry, and academia. The workshop was attended by over 50 individuals. The motivation for the workshop stems from the goal of obtaining supersonic commercial overland flight. In order to replace the current prohibition with a certification standard, an international effort is required to quantify the accuracy and reliability of prediction methods. The workshops also identify deficiencies in existing methods where further research should be focused. The workshop consisted of two days with the first day focused on near-field computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and the second day on propagation techniques. For the atmospheric propagation portion of the workshop, two required cases and one optional case were prescribed for the participants to exercise their propagation implementations. This paper presents and discusses the results that were obtained using the sonic boom propagation code sBOOM. Results show that sonic boom carpets could be much different under arbitrary atmospheric conditions as opposed to standard atmospheric conditions. Additionally, several unique features when using sBOOM are presented.

Sonic Boom↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Summary of Propagation Cases of the Third AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop

A summary is provided for the propagation portion of the Third AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop held January 5, 2020 in conjunction with the AIAA SciTech 2020 conference. Near-field pressure waveforms for two cases were supplied at multiple azimuthal angles. Ground signatures across the breadth of the sonic boom primary carpet and their corresponding loudness metrics were requested. Each case had some required, as well as some optional, runs. The required cases included atmospheric profiles with measured data including winds. Optional cases included a level-acceleration sonic boom focusing case as well as prediction under standard atmospheric conditions. Participants provided ground signatures along with several loudness metrics using their best sonic boom prediction practices. All the participants' submissions are compared and discussed for each case. Noise or loudness measures are calculated and detailed comparisons and statistical analyses are performed and presented. Compared to previous workshops, the selected cases in the current workshop have much lower boom loudness levels. As was observed in the past workshops, the variation in the loudness measures and spread between participants' submissions increased as the computation proceeded from under-track locations towards the lateral cut-off. Lessons learned during this workshop are discussed and recommendations are made for potential improvements and possible subsequent workshops as we collectively attempt to refine our analysis methods.

SBPW3↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Secondary Sonic Boom Ray Path Prediction using sBOOM

Sonic boom ray path equations are solved numerically to show the extent of secondary booms compared to primary sonic boom carpet. Secondary booms are shown to reach altitudes of ~125 km before turning toward the ground and impinging at lateral distances of ~50 km and beyond. Exact closed-form solutions of the ray paths and their partial derivatives with respect to certain relevant parameters are derived for the simplified case of windless atmospheres and compared against numerical solutions. Ray tube areas are computed using the Jacobian of a single ray as opposed to the traditional technique of using 4 rays that are temporally and azimuthally perturbed. The ray tube areas corresponding to secondary booms can get 1000 times larger than those from primary booms. The numerically computed ray tube areas are verified using exact expressions for the special case of windless atmospheres. Finally, pressure scaling due to ray tube area changes and atmospheric stratification is presented and the shortcomings associated with the current atmospheric interpolation techniques are discussed. It is determined that piece-wise linear interpolation of the atmospheric temperature may be inadequate and could lead to numerical noise in the prediction of secondary booms.

Sriram K Rallabhandi↗
NASA NTRS2022

X-59 Sonic Boom Test Results from the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel

A wind tunnel test was conducted to investigate near-field sonic boom pressure signatures from a model of the X-59 Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator aircraft. A 1.62%-scale model of the aircraft in the C612A configuration was fabricated for the wind tunnel test, which took place in the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel in September and October 2021. The model had provisions for two different mounting options: a swept blade strut that attached at the top of model ahead of the inlet, and rear-entry sting that was made as one piece with a dummy nacelle, and which had a 2”-long cylindrical segment aft of the nozzle exit before tapering up in size. The blade strut allowed for a clean aft end of the model for evaluation of the shocks from that region, while the sting avoided the significant distortions of the flow and shocks from the blade strut along the top of the model. Both the sting and the strut had adapters that attached to a force balance. The model had alternate parts for ±0.5° deflections of the flaps, ailerons, and stabilator, and ±1° deflections of the T-tail horizontal surface. Off-body static pressure measurements of the flow field below the model were made by use of a pressure rail which had 420 orifices along its tip. The model was positioned at various heights from the rail by vertical movement of the wind tunnel strut, and at various longitudinal stations relative to the rail by means of a linear actuator mounted between the tunnel strut and the balance. The longitudinal positioning allowed multiple pressure signatures to be obtained along different portions of the rail. These signatures were aligned by accounting for the model longitudinal movement and then averaged to take out the effects of tunnel flow distortions and the interference of the rail flow field and shocks on the model pressure signatures. The test was run at approximate Mach numbers of 1.36, 1.4, and 1.47, and the model was set at various angles of attack and roll relative to the rail. Plots of the model signatures for all the variations of Mach number, model angles, control deflections, and height relative to the rail are provided throughout the report. Repeatability was generally very good and gave confidence in the quality of the measurements. The signatures measured at various heights from the rail provided insight into the aging of the model shocks as they propagated from 1.2 to 3 body lengths from the model. Off-track signatures up to 45° from centerline obtained by rolling the model gave indications of the shock flow fields across the width of the sonic boom carpet. The deflections of the various control surfaces allowed assessment of the boom sensitivity to the control surface movements.

Sonic boom↗
NASA NTRS2023

X-59 Sonic Boom Test Results from the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel

A wind tunnel test was conducted to investigate near-field sonic boom pressure signatures of the X-59 Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator aircraft. A 1.62%-scale model of the aircraft was fabricated for the wind tunnel test, which took place in the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel in September and October 2021. The model had provisions for being mounted by a swept blade strut that attached at top of model ahead of the inlet, or by a rear-entry sting that held the model at the location of the nacelle. The model had alternate parts for ±0.5° deflections of the flaps, ailerons, and stabilator, and ±1° deflections of the T-tail. Off-body static pressure measurements of the flow field below the model were made on a pressure rail which had 420 orifices along its tip. The model was positioned at various heights from the rail by vertical movement of the tunnel strut, and at various longitudinal stations relative to the rail by means of a linear actuator mounted between the wind tunnel strut and the balance. Spatial averaging of model pressure signatures acquired over a range of longitudinal positions reduced the effects of tunnel flow distortions and the interference of the rail flow field and shocks on the model pressure signatures. The test was run at approximate Mach numbers of 1.36, 1.4, and 1.47, and the model was set at various angles of attack and roll relative to the rail. Plots of the model signatures for representative variations of Mach number, model angles, control deflections, and height relative to the rail are provided throughout the report. Repeatability was generally very good and gave confidence in the quality of the measurements. The signatures measured at various heights from the rail provided insight into the aging of the model shocks as they propagated from 1.2 to 3 body lengths from the model. Off-track signatures up to 45° from centerline obtained by rolling the model gave indications of the shock flow fields across the width of the sonic boom carpet. The deflections of the various control surfaces allowed assessment of the boom sensitivity to the control surface movements.

Sonic boom↗
NASA NTRS2023

Split-Step Simulations to Assess the Effects of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Turbulence on the Dose Variability of N-Waves and Shaped Booms

The effects of atmospheric boundary layer turbulence on the loudness variability of a sonic boom N-wave and shaped boom are examined with split-step simulations. The shaped boom is representative of a design iteration of the NASA X-59 aircraft. Inhomogeneous atmospheric boundary layer turbulence is generated in the computational domain by a Fourier synthesis method. The N-wave and shaped boom are propagated through turbulent fields representing eight different convection levels measured at the NASA Kennedy Space Center and the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center. Probability density functions of the formation of caustic regions along the propagation direction are computed from the N-wave results, and a parameter to collapse the caustic PDFs that accounts for both fluctuation intensities and length scales is proposed. Statistical results concerning loudness metric variability are presented, and the standard deviations of several metrics are shown to collapse across different convection levels of turbulence for small nondimensional propagation distances. The loudness metric distributions are observed to be well approximated by a normal distribution for a given range of propagation distances, and become increasingly skewed as distance increases. A model function for the dose variability is proposed, and the function parameters are found to be related to the convection level of the turbulence. The model for the dose variability distribution is compared to simulation data that were not used to find the regression parameters of the model. At several nondimensional propagation distances, agreement is observed between the model and the simulation data. These results indicate that the model may be suitable for providing quick estimates of noise dose variability in the primary carpet region across a wide range of atmospheric boundary layer conditions.

Sonic boom↗
NASA NTRS2023

X-59 Sonic Boom Test Results from the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel

A wind tunnel test was conducted to investigate near-field sonic boom pressure signatures of the X-59 Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator aircraft. A 1.62%-scale model of the aircraft was fabricated for the wind tunnel test, which took place in the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel in September and October 2021. The model had provisions for being mounted by a swept blade strut that attached at top of model ahead of the inlet, or by a rear-entry sting that held the model at the location of the nacelle. The model had alternate parts for ±0.5° deflections of the flaps, ailerons, and stabilator, and ±1° deflections of the T-tail. Off-body static pressure measurements of the flow field below the model were made on a pressure rail which had 420 orifices along its tip. The model was positioned at various heights from the rail by vertical movement of the tunnel strut, and at various longitudinal stations relative to the rail by means of a linear actuator mounted between the wind tunnel strut and the balance. Spatial averaging of model pressure signatures acquired over a range of longitudinal positions reduced the effects of tunnel flow distortions and the interference of the rail flow field and shocks on the model pressure signatures. The test was run at approximate Mach numbers of 1.36, 1.4, and 1.47, and the model was set at various angles of attack and roll relative to the rail. Plots of the model signatures for representative variations of Mach number, model angles, control deflections, and height relative to the rail are provided throughout the report. Repeatability was generally very good and gave confidence in the quality of the measurements. The signatures measured at various heights from the rail provided insight into the aging of the model shocks as they propagated from 1.2 to 3 body lengths from the model. Off-track signatures up to 45° from centerline obtained by rolling the model gave indications of the shock flow fields across the width of the sonic boom carpet. The deflections of the various control surfaces allowed assessment of the boom sensitivity to the control surface movements.

Sonic boom↗