SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Abstracts are presented for 60 technical memoranda and 5 technical papers published in technical journals or presented by MSFC personnel in FY 1980. Conference and reference publications are cited along with contractor reports and papers cleared for presentation.
We implemented a two- and three-dimensional finite difference/front tracking technique to solve liquid-vapor phase change problems. The mathematical and the numerical features of the method were explained in great detail in our previous reports, Briefly, we used a single formula representation which incorporated jump conditions into the governing equations. The interfacial terms were distributed as singular terms using delta functions so that the governing equations would be the same as conventional conservation equations away from the interface and in the vicinity of the interface they would provide correct jump conditions. We used a fixed staggered grid to discretize these equations and an unstructured grid to explicitly track the front. While in two dimensions the front was simply a connection of small line segments, in three dimensions it was represented by a connection of small triangular elements. The equations were written in conservative forms and during the course of computations we used regriding to control the size of the elements of the unstructured grid. Moreover, we implemented a coalescence in two dimensions which allowed the merging of different fronts or two segments of the same front when they were sufficiently close. We used our code to study thermocapillary migration of bubbles, burst of bubbles at a free surface, buoyancy-driven interactions of bubbles, evaporation of drops, rapid evaporation of an interface, planar solidification of an undercooled melt, dendritic solidification, and a host of other problems cited in the reference.
This presentation discusses active control of turbine tip clearance from a control systems perspective. It is a subset of charts that were presented at the 2003 meeting of the International Society of Air Breathing Engines which was held August 31 through September 5 in Cleveland, Ohio. The associated reference paper is cited at the end of the presentation. The presentation describes active tip clearance control research being conducted by NASA to improve turbine engine systems. The target application for this effort is commercial aircraft engines. However, it is believed that the technologies developed as part of this research will benefit a broad spectrum of current and future turbomachinery. The first part of the presentation discusses the concept of tip clearance, problems associated with it, and the benefits of controlling it. It lays out a framework for implementing tip clearance controls that enables the implementation to progress from purely analytical to hardware-in-the-loop to fully experimental. And it briefly discusses how the technologies developed will be married to the previously described ACC Test Rig for hardware-in-the-loop demonstrations. The final portion of the presentation, describes one of the key technologies in some detail by presenting equations and results for a functional dynamic model of the tip clearance phenomena. As shown, the model exhibits many of the clearance dynamics found in commercial gas turbine engines. However, initial attempts to validate the model identified limitations that are being addressed to make the model more realistic.
A thermoelastic constitutive model for shape memory alloys (SMAs) and SMA hybrid composites (SMAHCs) was recently implemented in the commercial codes MSC.Nastran and ABAQUS. The model is implemented and supported within the core of the commercial codes, so no user subroutines or external calculations are necessary. The model and resulting structural analysis has been previously demonstrated and experimentally verified for thermoelastic, vibration and acoustic, and structural shape control applications. The commercial implementations are described in related documents cited in the references, where various results are also shown that validate the commercial implementations relative to a research code. This paper is a companion to those documents in that it provides additional detail on the actual input files and solution procedures and serves as a repository for ASCII text versions of the input files necessary for duplication of the available results.
This paper documents a check standard wind tunnel test conducted in the Langley 0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel (0.3M TCT) that was designed and analyzed using the Modern Design of Experiments (MDOE). The test designed to partition the unexplained variance of typical wind tunnel data samples into two constituent components, one attributable to ordinary random error, and one attributable to systematic error induced by covariate effects. Covariate effects in wind tunnel testing are discussed, with examples. The impact of systematic (non-random) unexplained variance on the statistical independence of sequential measurements is reviewed. The corresponding correlation among experimental errors is discussed, as is the impact of such correlation on experimental results generally. The specific experiment documented herein was organized as a formal test for the presence of unexplained variance in representative samples of wind tunnel data, in order to quantify the frequency with which such systematic error was detected, and its magnitude relative to ordinary random error. Levels of systematic and random error reported here are representative of those quantified in other facilities, as cited in the references.
The lack of clear references to and descriptions of data sets in published literature limits the usefulness of data, as well as the reproducibility and credibility of scientific findings.
When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.
The objective of this document is to assess the value of launch collision avoidance (COLA) practices and provide recommendations regarding its implementation for NASA robotic missions. The scope of this effort is limited to launch COLA screens against catalog objects that are either spacecraft or debris. No modifications to manned safety COLA practices are considered in this effort. An assessment of the value of launch COLA can be broken down into two fundamental questions: 1) Does collision during launch represent a significant risk to either the payload being launched or the space environment? 2) Can launch collision mitigation be performed in a manner that provides meaningful risk reduction at an acceptable level of operational impact? While it has been possible to piece together partial answers to these questions for some time, the first attempt to comprehensively address them is documented in reference (a), Launch COLA Operations: an Examination of Data Products, Procedures, and Thresholds, Revision A. This report is the product of an extensive study that addressed fundamental technical questions surrounding launch collision avoidance analysis and practice. The results provided in reference (a) will be cited throughout this document as these two questions are addressed. The premise of this assessment is that in order to conclude that launch COLA is a value-added activity, the answer to both of these questions must be affirmative. A "no" answer to either of these questions points toward the conclusion that launch COLA provides little or no risk mitigation benefit. The remainder of this assessment will focus on addressing these two questions.
The objective of this document is to assess the value of collision on launch assessment (COLA, often referred to as “launch COLA”) practices and provide recommendations regarding its implementation for NASA robotic missions. The scope of this effort is limited to launch COLA screens against catalog objects that are either spacecraft or debris. No modifications to manned safety launch COLA practices are considered in this effort. An assessment of the value of launch COLA can be broken down into two fundamental questions: 1) Does collision during launch represent a significant risk to either the payload being launched or the space environment? 2) Can launch collision mitigation be performed in a manner that provides meaningful risk reduction at an acceptable level of operational impact? While it has been possible to piece together partial answers to these questions for some time, the first attempt to comprehensively address them is documented in reference (a), Launch COLA Operations: an Examination of Data Products, Procedures, and Thresholds, Revision A. This report is the product of an extensive study that addressed fundamental technical questions surrounding launch collision avoidance analysis and practice. The results provided in reference (a) will be cited throughout this document as these two questions are addressed. The premise of this assessment is that in order to conclude that launch COLA is a value-added activity, the answer to both of these questions must be affirmative. A “no” answer to either of these questions points toward the conclusion that launch COLA provides little or no risk mitigation benefit. The remainder of this assessment will focus on addressing these two questions.
This data release contains nucleosynthesis predictions for the r-process abundances presented in Côté, Eichler, Yagüe, Vassh et al. (2021) for compact object merger ejecta based on the publicly available simulation trajectories of Rosswog et al. (2013). All ejecta for the merger scenarios considered here are very neutron-rich (Ye ~ 0.016-0.11). Calculations were performed with the PRISM code (Mumpower et al. 2018) which accounts for nuclear reheating (here with a reheating efficiency of 50%). Results are reported for several different theoretical nuclear physics inputs but all calculations make use of the GEF fission yield prescription (see Vassh et al. 2019). All abundances are given at 1 Myr (10^6 years) post-merger. Please see the README file for more details and references. When using these nucleosynthesis yields, please cite this Zenodo data release (Vassh et al. 2021), and refer to Vassh et al. (2019) and Côté, Eichler, Yagüe, Vassh et al. (2021) for further details on the nuclear data applied as well as Rosswog et al. (2013), Piran et al. (2013), and Korobkin et al. (2012) for further details on the merger ejecta trajectories.
Abstract. This paper describes the development of a new reference controller framework for fixed and floating offshore wind turbines that greatly facilitates controller tuning and represents standard industry practices. The reference wind turbine controllers that are most commonly cited in the literature have been developed to work with specific reference wind turbines. Although these controllers have provided standard control functionalities, they are often not easy to modify for use on other turbines, so it has been challenging for researchers to run representative, fully dynamic simulations of other wind turbine designs. The Reference Open-Source Controller (ROSCO) has been developed to provide a modular reference wind turbine controller that represents industry standards and performs comparably to or better than existing reference controllers. The formulation of the ROSCO controller logic and tuning processes is presented in this paper. Control capabilities such as tip speed ratio tracking generator torque control, minimum pitch saturation, wind speed estimation, and a smoothing algorithm at near-rated operation are included to provide modern controller features. A floating offshore wind turbine feedback module is also included to facilitate growing research in the floating offshore arena. All of the standard controller implementations and control modules are automatically tuned such that a non-controls engineer or automated optimization routine can easily improve the controller performance. This article provides the framework and theoretical basis for the ROSCO controller modules and generic tuning processes. Simulations of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 5 MW reference wind turbine and International Energy Agency 15 MW reference turbine on the University of Maine semisubmersible platform are analyzed to demonstrate the controller's performance in both fixed and floating configurations, respectively. The simulation results demonstrate ROSCO's peak shaving routine to reduce maximum rotor thrusts by over 10 % compared to the NREL 5 MW reference wind turbine controller on the land-based turbine and to reduce maximum platform pitch angles by nearly 30 % when using the platform feedback routine instead of a more traditional low-bandwidth controller.
Forecasting techniques currently in use in estimating or predicting the demand for air cargo in various markets are discussed with emphasis on the fundamentals of the different forecasting approaches. References to specific studies are cited when appropriate. The effectiveness of current methods is evaluated and several prospects for future activities or approaches are suggested. Appendices contain summary type analyses of about 50 specific publications on forecasting, and selected bibliographies on air cargo forecasting, air passenger demand forecasting, and general demand and modalsplit modeling.
Recently emerging methodology for optimal design of aircraft treated as a system of interacting physical phenomena and parts is examined. The methodology is found to coalesce into methods for hierarchic, non-hierarchic, and hybrid systems all dependent on sensitivity analysis. A separate category of methods has also evolved independent of sensitivity analysis, hence suitable for discrete problems. References and numerical applications are cited. Massively parallel computer processing is seen as enabling technology for practical implementation of the methodology.
Recently emerging methodology for optimal design of aircraft treated as a system of interacting physical phenomena and parts is examined. The methodology is found to coalesce into methods for hierarchic, non-hierarchic, and hybrid systems all dependent on sensitivity analysis. A separate category of methods has also evolved independent of sensitivity analysis, hence suitable for discrete problems. References and numerical applications are cited. Massively parallel computer processing is seen as enabling technology for practical implementation of the methodology.
The techniques of propellant selection and characterization and the compromises that may be forced on the designer by the change of a propellant parameter are discussed. Rules for the selection of a general propellant type are presented. The characterization of various propellant properties is then approached parameter by parameter. Tailoring pitfalls and compromises are identified whenever possible, and appropriate cross references are used. Related design criteria monographs frequently are cited for a more detailed treatment of the topic under discussion. A list of source references is provided. These references, coupled with established texts in the field, should give the depth of knowledge necessary to the designer to aid in the selection of the most nearly optimum propellant for the design application.
Revised handbook presents quantitative data, in the form of graphs and charts, pertaining to thermodynamic properties of specific cryogenic fluids and several metals. References to sources of data are cited.
Abstracts of primary documents containing original experimental data on the properties of adhesives and sealants at cryogenic temperatures are presented. The most important references mentioned in each document are cited. In addition, a brief annotation is given for documents considered secondary in nature, such as republications or variations of original reports, progress reports leading to final reports included as primary documents, and experimental data on adhesive properties at temperatures between about 130 K and room temperature.
This special bibliography lists 724 articles, papers, and reports which discuss various aspects of the use of the space environment for materials science research or for commercial enterprise. The potentialities of space processing and the improved materials processes that are made possible by the unique aspects of the space environment are emphasized. References identified in April, 1978 are cited.