Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “thermal control future missions”

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

Baseline experimental investigation of an electrohydrodynamically assisted heat pipe

The increases in power demand and associated thermal management requirements of future space programs such as potential Lunar/Mars missions will require enhancing the operating efficiencies of thermal management devices. Currently, the use of electrohydrodynamically (EHD) assisted thermal control devices is under consideration as a potential method of increasing thermal management system capacity. The objectives of the currently described investigation included completing build-up of the EHD-Assisted Heat Pipe Test bed, developing test procedures for an experimental evaluation of the unassisted heat pipe, developing an analytical model capable of predicting the performance limits of the unassisted heat pipe, and obtaining experimental data which would define the performance characteristics of the unassisted heat pipe. The information obtained in the currently proposed study will be used in order to provide extensive comparisons with the EHD-assisted performance observations to be obtained during the continuing investigation of EHD-Assisted heat transfer devices. Through comparisons of the baseline test bed data and the EHD assisted test bed data, accurate insight into the performance enhancing characteristics of EHD augmentation may be obtained. This may lead to optimization, development, and implementation of EHD technology for future space programs.

Duncan, A. B.↗

Space Tug thermal control

Future development of full capability of the Space Tug will impose strict requirements upon the thermal design. Space Tug must be capable of steady-state and transient thermal operation during any given mission for durations of up to seven days and potentially longer periods of time. Maximum flexibility and adaptability of Space Tug to the mission model requires that the vehicle operate without attitude constraints throughout any specific mission. These requirements were translated into a preliminary design study for a geostationary deploy and retrieve mission definition for Space Tug to determine the thermal control design requirements. Results of the study are discussed with emphasis on some of the unique avenues pursued during the study, as well as the recommended thermal design configuration.

Ward, T. L.↗

Advanced Extravehicular Protective Systems (AEPS) study

A description is given of life support subsystem concepts for advanced extravehicular protective systems (AEPS) intended for use on future orbital, lunar surface, and Mars surface missions in the late 1970's and 1980's. Primary interest was centered around the thermal control and carbon dioxide control subsystems because they offer the greatest potential for total weight savings. Emphasis was placed on the generation of regenerable subsystem concepts; however, partially regenerable and expendable concepts were also considered. Previously conceived and developed subsystem concepts were included in the study. Concepts were evaluated on the basis of subsystem weight and volume, and subsystem contribution to parent vehicle weight and volume, which included spares, regeneration equipment, expendables, expandables storage penalty, power penalty, and process heating or cooling penalty. Results are presented showing total weight and volume penalty as a function of total mission extravehicular activity (EVA) hours, and showing EVA weight and volume as a function of EVA duration. Subsystem concepts are recommended for each life support function, and secondary concepts which should be developed are also identified.

Williams, J. L.↗

Aerothermodynamic heating analysis of aerobraking and aeromaneuvering orbital-transfer vehicles

The thermal-protection requirements of two aeroassisted orbital-transfer vehicles (AOTVs) are analyzed for return missions between the geosynchronous and Shuttle orbits. One of the designs is a specialized version of a previously proposed generic aerobraking vehicle that is capable of only delivery-type operations. The other is a high-lift aeromaneuvering vehicle that is optimized for low-earth orbit sortie missions involving large, multiple plane-inclination changes. The aerothermal environment of the aerobraking vehicle is analyzed using state-of-the-art methods for nonequilibrium-radiative and convective heating that incorporate refinements unique to the configuration. The heating analysis of the aeromaneuvering vehicle required the development of a flow-field model for rarefied-hypersonic flow over a lifting surface at incidence. The predicted aerothermodynamic heating characteristics for both vehicles are correlated with thermal-control requirements and flight performance capabilities for the specified mission guidelines. The results help identify technical issues related to the development of future operational systems.

Davies, C. B.↗

Multifunctional Cooling Garment for Space Suit Environmental Control

Future manned space exploration missions will require space suits with capabilities beyond the current state of the art. Portable Life Support Systems for these future space suits face daunting challenges, since they must maintain healthy and comfortable conditions inside the suit for longduration missions while minimizing weight and water venting. We have demonstrated the feasibility of an innovative, multipurpose garment for thermal and humidity control inside a space suit pressure garment that is simple, rugged, compact, and lightweight. The garment is a based on a conventional liquid cooling and ventilation garment (LCVG) that has been modified to directly absorb latent heat as well as sensible heat. This hybrid garment will prevent buildup of condensation inside the pressure garment, prevent loss of water by absorption in regenerable CO2 removal beds, and conserve water through use of advanced lithium chloride absorber/radiator (LCAR) technology for nonventing heat rejection. We have shown the feasibility of this approach by sizing the critical components for the hybrid garment, developing fabrication methods, building and testing a proof-of-concept system, and demonstrating by test that its performance is suitable for use in space suit life support systems.

Izenson, Michael G.↗

Performance Analysis of Magnetohydrodynamic Drag Modulation for Actively Controlled Aerocapture at Neptune

While the Ice Giants are a top priority for flagship missions in the NASA’s near-term future, current technologies limit the scientific payload and mission timeline for future Uranian and Neptunian missions due to the need for fuel for orbit insertion maneuvers. Thus, to maximize the scientific potential of future missions, atmospheric aerocapture has been heavily researched. While atmospheric aerocapture simulations have proven enabling for capturing around Neptune, its deep atmospheric pass requires an aeroshell with robust thermal protection systems (TPS). Magnetohydrodynamically-controlled aerocapture serves as a potential solution to the limitations of both fully propulsive orbit insertion and aerodynamically controlled aerocapture. Through NASA Langley’s high-fidelity flight dynamics simulation, the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II, both the aerodynamic-only and magnetohydrodynamic aerocapture methods were simulated and compared for identical missions to Neptune. After applying an optimized numerical predictor-corrector guidance algorithm for both methods, the results showed that magnetohydrodynamics has not only the control authority to successfully capture around Neptune, but also the unique advantage of a shallower atmospheric pass, decreasing the maximum heat load and the required TPS mass.

Danny N. Nguyen↗

Feasibility and Performance Analysis of Magnetohydrodynamics Control for Aerocapture at Neptune

NASA’s most recent Decadal Survey posed a mission to one of the Ice Giants as the top priority for flagship missions in the organization’s future. However, current technologies limit the amount of scientific payload available for future Uranian and Neptunian missions due to the need for fuel for orbit insertion maneuvers. Thus, to maximize the scientific potential of future missions, atmospheric aerocapture has been heavily researched. While atmospheric aerocapture simulations have proven enabling for capturing around Neptune, its deep atmospheric pass requires an aeroshell with thermal protection systems(TPS). Magnetohydrodynamically-controlled aerocapture serves as a potential solution to both fully-propulsive orbit insertion and atmospheric aerocapture. Through NASA Langley’s high-fidelity flight dynamics simulation, the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II, both the atmospheric and magnetohydrodynamic aerocapture methods were simulated and compared for identical missions to Neptune. After applying a guidance algorithm for both methods, the results showed that magnetohydrodynamics has not only the control authority to successfully capture around Neptune, but also the unique advantage of a shallower atmospheric pass which decreases the maximum heat load and the required TPS mass.

Danny Nguyen↗

LDEF materials overview

The flight and retrieval of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) provided an opportunity for the study of the low-Earth orbit (LEO) environment and long-duration space environmental effects (SEE) on materials that is unparalleled in the history of the U.S. Space Program. The 5-year, 9-month flight of LDEF greatly enhanced the potential value of all materials on LDEF to the international SEE community, compared to that of the original 1-year flight plan. The remarkable flight attitude stability of LDEF enables specific analyses of individual and combined effects of LEO environmental parameters on identical materials on the same space vehicle. NASA recognized this potential by forming the LDEF Space Environmental Effects on Materials Special Investigation Group (MSIG) to address the greatly expanded materials and LEO space environment analysis opportunities available in the LDEF structure, experiment trays, and corollary measurements so that the combined value of all LDEF materials data to current and future space missions will be addressed and documented. An overview of the interim LDEF materials findings of the principal investigators and the Materials Special Investigation Group is provided. These revelations are based on observations of LEO environmental effects on materials made in space during LDEF retrieval and during LDEF tray deintegration at the Kennedy Space Center, and on findings of approximately 1.5 years of laboratory analyses of LDEF materials by the LDEF materials scientists. These findings were extensively reviewed and discussed at the MSIG-sponsored LDEF Materials Workshop '91. The results are presented in a format that categorizes the revelations as 'clear findings' or 'obscure preliminary findings' (and progress toward their resolution), plus resultant needs for new space materials developments and ground simulation testing/analytical modeling, in seven categories: materials/environmental parameters and data bases; LDEF contamination; thermal control coatings and protective treatments; polymers and films; polymer-matrix composites; metals, ceramics, and optical materials; and systems-related materials. The utilization of LDEF materials data for future low-Earth orbit missions is also discussed, concentrating on Space Station Freedom. In general, the LDEF data is remarkably consistent; LDEF will provide a 'benchmark' for materials design data bases for satellites in low-Earth orbit. Some materials were identified to be encouragingly resistant to LEO SEE for 5.8-years; other 'space qualified' materials displayed significant environmental degradation. General contamination levels on LDEF were low, but molecular contamination was widespread; LDEF offers an unprecedented opportunity to provide a unified perspective of unmanned LEO spacecraft contamination mechanisms. New material development requirements for long-term LEO missions were identified and current ground simulation testing methods/data for new, durable materials concepts can be validated with LDEF results. LDEF findings are already being integrated into the design of Space Station Freedom.

Stein, Bland A.↗

Multifunctional Cooling Garment for Space Suit Environmental Control

Future manned space exploration missions will require space suits with capabilities beyond the current state of the art. Portable Life Support Systems for these future space suits face daunting challenges, since they must maintain healthy and comfortable conditions inside the suit for long-duration missions while minimizing weight and water venting. We have demonstrated the feasibility of an innovative, multipurpose garment for thermal and humidity control inside a space suit pressure garment that is simple, rugged, compact, and lightweight. The garment is a based on a conventional liquid cooling and ventilation garment (LCVG) that has been modified to directly absorb latent heat as well as sensible heat. This hybrid garment will prevent buildup of condensation inside the pressure garment, prevent loss of water by absorption in regenerable CO2 removal beds, and conserve water through use of advanced lithium chloride absorber/radiator (LCAR) technology for nonventing heat rejection. We have shown the feasibility of this approach by sizing the critical components for the hybrid garment, developing fabrication methods, building and testing a proof-of-concept system, and demonstrating by test that its performance is suitable for use in space suit life support systems.

Izenson, Michael↗

Developing a Foundation for Space-Based Two-Phase Thermal Control Systems: Future of 2-Phase Thermal Control

Two-phase thermal control systems in microgravity, with significant density differences between phases, pose challenges for many current and proposed spacecraft systems. Because of the lack of understanding of these effects and the inability to scale multiphase systems in low gravity, NASA generally opts to avoid using two-phase systems for spacecraft despite the significant performance increases and lower mass. The goal of this panel discussion will be to identify key technology gaps and challenges that thermal engineers face today when considering a two-phase thermal management system. The panel discussion will begin with a brief overview of recent and on-going NASA projects designed to elicit a fundamental understanding of gas-liquid two phase behavior as it applies to thermal control systems in the Space environment. The projects/experiments discussed will range from boiling/condensation fundamentals, heat pipes, and cryogenic storage systems. We will identify what fundamental question or questions are being addressed in each case. An overview will be also be presented to address future mission needs and the specific advantages multi-phase systems offer, in particular for low cost planetary science missions and enabling missions in extreme environments. The need for efficient heat transfer with concurrent spatial and temporal temperature stability to reduce thermally-induced noise drives a serious look at multi-phase systems as a solution. Furthermore, missions to environments such as the Venus surface or penetration of ice layers in ocean worlds will likely require them. Time will be allocated at the end of this session to allow comments and questions from attendees. The intent is to use this session as a starting point to advocate for a coordinated technology development effort in this area.

Thermal Control Systems↗

SMD Technology Highlights

Six technology highlights from the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Heliophysics, Astrophysics, Earth, and Biological and Physical Sciences divisions. Technologies featured include 1. the 1653 m2 Solar Cruiser Solar Sail Propulsion system to enable missions to reach novel and otherwise difficult or impossible destinations for observing the Sun. 2. Technology sponsored by NASA and developed by MIT Space Nanotechnology Lab is developing high-performance space instrumentation for more powerful future X-ray telescopes that will study the dynamics of the high-energy universe. 3. Active thermal control technology that will help enable large ultra-stable telescopes needed to detect and characterize Earth-like planets around other stars. 4. SMD sponsored high-performance infrared sensors with reduced requirements for cooling onboard satellites and these sensors could potentially be flown on small satellite platforms like CubeSats. 5. A new technology that will utilize electron beams/ultraviolet light to remove dust that could help protect future space assets and astronauts from dangerous effects that arise from Moon/Mars dust exposure. 6. Studies using model organisms on ISS to understand the impact of the spaceflight environment on organisms in preparation for long-duration missions.

solar sail↗

Exploration Life Support Overview and Benefits

NASA s Exploration Life Support (ELS) Project is providing technology development to address air, water and waste product handling for future exploration vehicles. Existing life support technology and processes need to improve to enable exploration vehicles to meet mission goals. The weight, volume, power and thermal control required, reliability, crew time and life cycle cost are the primary targets for ELS technology development improvements. An overview of the ELS technologies being developed leads into an evaluation of the benefits the ELS technology developments offer.

Chambliss, Joe P.↗

Space tug thermal control

The future development of full capability Space Tug will impose strict requirements upon the thermal design. While requiring a reliable and reusable design, Space Tug must be capable of steady-state and transient thermal operation during any given mission for mission durations of up to seven days and potentially longer periods of time. Maximum flexibility and adaptability of Space Tug to the mission model requires that the vehicle operate within attitude constraints throughout any specific mission. These requirements were translated into a preliminary design study for a geostationary deploy and retrieve mission definition for Space Tug to determine the thermal control design requirements. Results of the study are discussed with emphasis given to some of the unique avenues pursued during the study, as well as the recommended thermal design configuration.

Ward, T. L.↗

Thermal Protection Materials and Systems at NASA Ames Research Center

Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) are critical for enabling NASA missions involving high-speed atmospheric flight where the entries usually include descending into the atmosphere followed by a trajectory that aims to burn off energy and result in a controlled landing. NASA Ames focuses on qualifying and certifying TPS for current missions, sustaining TPS for future missions, and developing new TPS for upcoming missions where a heritage solution is not viable. More recently there is also a focus on advancing and transferring technologies that can benefit both commercial and government space needs.Developing mature thermal protection systems is a lengthy process involving advanced tools, extensive research, and testing. Design and analysis tools are used to predict aerothermal environments, aid the design of test and flight hardware, and support the testing for the thermal/mechanical response of thermal protection systems. More recently, advances in computational methods help reduce the time and cost of technological advances, aid in optimized material architecture design, and improve material properties and performance. While high-enthalpy testing that simulates the conditions of space flight remains essential for the evaluation and development of TPS materials, computational tools are already showing promise in reducing the need for widespread testing and can help fast-trackthe design cycle.With the exploration of new destinations EDL instrumentation remains an important element of the heatshield and NASA Ames and partners have developed and delivered instrumentation flight hardware in support of recent Mars missions,including Mars Science Lab (MSL) and Mars 2020 (M2020),as well as Artemis Orion. Sensors installed on the heatshield and backshell of spacecraft provide coveted information about the aerodynamic and aerothermal environment during entry.Overthe years NASA Ames has brought several reusable and ablative TPS materials to a level of readiness to hand off to missions and the Thermal Protection Materials branch continues to serve as a TPS steward for the agency.

Thermal protection materials↗

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↗

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↗

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↗