Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Rigidity function”

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.

924 records · Page 52
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Innovating Distributed Embedded Energy Prize (InDEEP): A Lessons Learned Report

The U.S. Department of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) launched the Innovating Distributed Embedded Energy Prize (InDEEP) in March 2023 to accelerate innovation in Distributed Embedded Energy Conversion Technologies (DEEC-Tec) for ocean wave energy. Administered by the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) with technical support from Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), InDEEP focused on the development of small, distributed, and embeddable energy converters (DEECs) and their integration into scalable DEEC-Tec metamaterials for marine renewable energy applications. Spanning three phases over two years, InDEEP awarded approximately $2.3 million to teams from academia, industry, and startups. Phase I emphasized conceptual design. Phase II moved into the prototyping of individual DEECs. Phase III required integration into functional DEEC-Tec metamaterial prototypes. Across 60 submissions, teams explored a wide range of energy conversion mechanisms - including piezoelectric, variable-capacitance, ionic, and inductive methods. Note, the prize did not include the design nor demonstration of ocean wave energy conversion systems. Rather, the prize only required participants to design and demonstrate individual DEECs and corresponding DEEC-Tec metamaterials. This prize utilized a mix of novel and proven techniques to attract participants from outside marine energy, including an engagement leaderboard, robust recruitment, technical expert mentorship, and a suite of technical trainings. Key insights from the competition emphasized that DEEC-Tec metamaterials must be intentionally designed to produce beneficial emergent behaviors - advantages that go beyond simply combining multiple DEEC units. Top-performing teams showed that thoughtful design of system architecture, coordinated deformation, and systems adaptabilities could unlock meaningful performance gains both at the DEEC system level and DEEC-Tec metamaterial system level. A critical realization was that many DEEC-Tec metamaterials could benefit from being designed to accept lower-frequency energy inputs and shift those into higher-frequencies per each DEEC making up the respective DEEC-Tec metamaterial. Other important takeaways included the need for rigorous and quantitative performance testing, effective integration of power conditioning electronics, and the pivotal role of material science in enabling innovative, adaptive DEEC-Tec-based energy conversion designs. InDEEP also helped establish a growing DEEC-Tec community of practitioners, attracting participants from beyond traditional marine energy sectors. Through a strong support infrastructure, InDEEP fostered early-stage innovation and laid a foundation for future DEEC-Tec-based ocean wave energy conversion solutions - positioning DEEC-Tec as a promising pathway toward scalable, resilient ocean wave energy conversion. Through focused R&D of individual DEECs and their integration into DEEC-Tec metamaterials, alongside a growing, multidisciplinary community catalyzed by InDEEP, there is a strong opportunity to drive a disruptive shift in ocean wave energy conversion design and development. This convergence of novel architectures, emergent behaviors, and collaborative innovation positions DEEC-Tec as a transformative approach, moving the field from rigid, centralized energy conversion-based designs to resilient, modular systems highly adaptable for real-world ocean wave energy conversion applications.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
NASA NTRS2009

Automation of a Versatile Crane (the LSMS) for Lunar Outpost Construction, Maintenance and Inspection

Devices for lifting, translating and precisely placing payloads are critical for efficient Earth-based construction operations. Both recent and past studies have demonstrated that devices with similar functionality will be needed to support lunar outpost operations. Although several designs have been developed for Earth based applications, these devices lack unique design characteristics necessary for transport to and use on the harsh lunar surface. These design characteristics include: a) lightweight components, b) compact packaging for launch, c) automated deployment, d) simple in-field reconfiguration and repair, and e) support for tele-operated or automated operations. Also, because the cost to transport mass to the lunar surface is very high, the number of devices that can be dedicated to surface operations will be limited. Thus, in contrast to Earth-based construction, where many single-purpose devices dominate a construction site, a lunar outpost will require a limited number of versatile devices that provide operational benefit from initial construction through sustained operations. The first generation test-bed of a new high performance device, the Lunar Surface Manipulation System (LSMS) has been designed, built and field tested. The LSMS has many unique features resulting in a mass efficient solution to payload handling on the lunar surface. Typically, the LSMS device mass is estimated at approximately 3% of the mass of the heaviest payload lifted at the tip, or 1.8 % of the mass of the heaviest mass lifted at the elbow or mid-span of the boom for a high performance variant incorporating advanced structural components. Initial operational capabilities of the LSMS were successfully demonstrated during field tests at Moses Lake, Washington using a tele-operated approach. Joint angle sensors have been developed for the LSMS to improve operator situational awareness. These same sensors provide the necessary information to support fully automated operations, greatly expanding the operational versatility of the LSMS. This paper develops the equations describing the forward and inverse relation between LSMS joint angles and Cartesian coordinates of the LSMS tip. These equations allow a variety of schemes to be used to maneuver the LSMS to optimize the maneuver. One such scheme will be described in detail that eliminates undesirable swinging of the payload at the conclusion of a maneuver, even when the payload is suspended from a passive rigid link. The swinging is undesirable when performing precision maneuvers, such as aligning an object for mating or positioning a camera. Use of the equations described here enables automated control of the LSMS greatly improving its operational versatility.

Doggett, William R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

ADEPT for Secondary Payloads

Deployable entry vehicles provide an enabling capability for large payloads at destinations across the solar system. The primary advantage of such systems derives from the fundamental limitation of available launch vehicle shroads preventing tried-and-true rigid aeroshell technology from being applied. However, little mission-pull exists for deployable entry vehicle technology for missions where the entry vehicle is the primary payload and can fit within available shrouds. The propensity toward applying rigid aeroshell technology is logical given that deployable concepts are higher risk and provide no marginal scientific benefit for missions where a rigid aeroshell is an option. A movement toward flying smaller spacecraft has emerged in recent years and is revealing novel applications for deployable entry vehicles as secondary payloads. Secondary payloads must minimize interference with the primary payload in order to ease accomodation. Advancements in small spacecraft technology have caught the attention of government entities who are now recognizing the high value proposition of small spacecraft for frequent, incremental technology development and science return rather than the traditional high cost and infrequent big-bang approaches. Worldwide, well over 200 small satellites (mass < 180 kg) have launched in recent years for such purposes as eduation, technology development, science, commerce, and defense. The Adaptable Deployable Entry and Placement Technology (ADEPT), a mechanically-deployable entry vehicle technology, has been under development at NASA since 2011. An Ames Center Innovation Fund (CIF) proposal was recently awarded to study ADEPT for EDL of small payloads. The unique capability of ADEPT for small science payloads comes from its ability to stow within a slender volume and deploy passively to achieve a mass-efficient drag surface with a high heat rate capability. The low ballistic coefficient results in entry heating and mechanical loads that can be met by a revolutionary three-dimensionally woven carbon fabric supported with rib structures. This carbon fabric has test-proven capability as both primary structure and payload thermal protection. This presentation will inform the EDL community of the capability of ADEPT for delivery of small secondary payloads as well as provide status of on-going technology development activities. Results of a mission applications study for secondary payloads to Mars and Venus will be presented. A primary goal of these mission design activities is to integrate high-value verification approaches wherever possible. For example, for some mission applications it is possible to test in NASA arc jet facilities at full-scale. This enables endto- end thermostructural requirement verification with a single test. Another important challenge that needs to be solved is the reliability of the decelerator to achieve the desired shape using simple passive mechanical actuators (such as springs) that do not require power from the primary payload for deployment. A configuration of ADEPT is being prototyped and used to evaluate the functionality and reliability of the deployment mechanism through bench-top testing. The prototype will then be tested in a low speed wind tunnel in late 2014 to evaluate aerodynamic load-carrying capability and deflected shape. Results of the deployment testing and status of wind tunnel test plans will be discussed.

Smith, B.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Reducing Departure Delays for Adjacent Center Airports using Time-Based Flow Management Scheduler: Checkbox On or Off?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has enhanced the Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) scheduling tool with a "Checkbox ON" vs. "OFF" function which allows Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) to make room in a crowded arrival stream for a departure. When scheduling a departure, having the checkbox ON can delay the Scheduled Times of Arrivals (STAs) of the airborne flights upstream of the TBFM freeze horizons and can compress these flights to their minimum required spacing, thereby creating a slot for a departure. Hence, having the checkbox ON can reduce the frequent ground delays of aircraft departing near high volume airports but can increase delays for airborne arrivals. A Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation compared arrival and departure delays to Newark Airport (EWR) with the checkbox ON vs. OFF as the default position. Three other conditions in this HITL involved various National Airspace System (NAS)-wide approaches for timely delivery of aircraft to the TBFM region. These conditions were: Baseline, using current Mile-in-Trail (MIT) spacing restrictions; Integrated Demand Management (IDM), where all aircraft were given departure times (Expect Departure Clearance Times, or EDCTs), ultimately based on the EWR Airport Arrival Rate; and IDM plus Required Time of Arrival (RTA), a flight deck tool which allowed some aircraft to meet a controlled time of arrival to the TBFM area more precisely. Results showed that the checkbox tool was powerful: with the checkbox ON, departure delays decreased and airborne delays increased, as predicted. However, assuming that the cost ratio of a minute of airborne delay to a minute of departure delay is in the range of 1.2 to 3, as commonly indicated by the literature, checkbox ON and checkbox OFF conditions showed approximately equal total delay costs, i.e., the cost of delays in the air balanced the cost of the delay on the ground. The three scheduling conditions also had approximately equal total delay costs, although a simulation artifact may have reduced the delays in the Baseline condition. In the debrief following the simulation, the TMCs concluded that the checkbox should be used flexibly depending on the current delay situation, and suggested modifications to the checkbox tool which would help them use it in this way, along with enhanced training. The relatively similar total cost of both checkbox default options in this simulation indicates that this might be a fruitful approach, and replace the necessity to have the checkbox rigidly set to either ON or OFF.

departure delay↗
NASA NTRS2021

LOFTID Heat Flux Gauge Calibration: What is Truth?

The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) is a demonstration of Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology, which may enable the delivery of heavy payloads to Mars, Venus, and Titan, as well as return to Earth. Unlike rigid aeroshells that are constrained by the size of the rocket’s shroud, inflatable aeroshells can be deployed to a much larger scale, thus allowing a spacecraft to begin its deceleration earlier and experience less heating. On LOFTID, there will be 4 total heat flux gauges (HFG) with a range of 70 W/cm2 and 1 radiometer with a range of 3 W/cm2, arranged as shown in Fig. 1. Both the radiometer and total HFGs are Schmidt-Boelter gauges purchased from an external vendor. Radiative calibrations were performed in-house at NASA Ames’ Sensors and TPS Advanced Research Laboratories (STAR Labs) before and after environmental testing to investigate how the testing affected the sensors' response. Additional rounds of radiative calibration at STAR Labs were also performed in order to investigate the large uncertainties associated with these tests. For example, a survey of multiple calibration facilities concluded that the uncertainty within a given facility was +/-3% [1]. An additional NIST study that calibrated heat flux gauges at 7 different facilities also found the variation in calibration coefficients to be up to ~3% within a given facility, but up to 15% between facilities, suggesting systematic differences between test setups [2]. Finally, the response of heat flux gauges to radiative versus convective heat flux has shown to differ by up to 20% [3],[4]. Because the heat flux gauges on LOFTID will predominantly experience convective heat flux during flight, a convective calibration study was performed at Boeing's Large-Core Arc Tunnel (LCAT) facility. Radiative Calibration Procedure The calibrations performed at STAR Labs utilize a quartz lamp bank (QLB) that provides a maximum heat flux of 50 W/cm2, which bounds the expected LOFTID flight environment. The calibration involves exposing a water-cooled Gardon gauge (reference) and then the unit-under-test (UUT) to 5 different heat fluxes multiple times for 10 seconds each, and then calculating a linear fit. The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The total HFGs were calibrated at STAR Labs 3 times, denoted as STAR 1 (before environmental testing), STAR 2 (after protoflight vibration and thermal-vacuum testing), and STAR 3 (no change from previous test). All 8 flight-lot total HFGs showed a decrease in full-scale output from STAR 1 to STAR 2 by between 0.5% and 10. The first portion of this investigation was to determine whether the change could be due to differences in temperature between the two calibration runs. A typical linear fit to the calibration data was performed using Eq. 1 where q’ is the heat flux in W/cm2, c is the calibration coefficient, and mV is the sensor output. To account for temperature, the data were fit to a nonlinear function that included both the sensor output (mV) and the temperature from the thermocouple embedded inside the HFG near the surface (T): q'=mV/(c1* T + c0}. The residuals between the fits and the actual data points were calculated for every point, and proven to be much smaller for the temperature-compensated fits than for the linear fits for all sensors. An example is shown in Fig. 3. When the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 1 were applied to the STAR 2 data, the residuals did not improve, suggesting that the change in sensitivity between these two calibration runs was not due to temperature. A third round of calibration (STAR 3) was conducted to further address the temperature dependence of the total HFGs, and the resulting sensitivities matched closely to STAR 2 (within 2%). Temperature-compensated calibration curves were once again fit to the data. In this case, when the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 3 were applied to STAR 2 data, the residuals between the fits and STAR 2 data were much lower than the residuals due to the linear fits. This suggests that the changes seen between STAR 1 and STAR 2 were likely due to actual changes in the sensors caused by the environmental testing between the two calibrations. A modification of the original calibration process, in which the UUT was exposed to each heat flux for just 3 seconds (instead of 10) to reduce the temperature increase during the test, was additionally performed on several of the HFGs. In general, the sensitivities were 1-1.5% lower than from the 10-second tests, but the temperatures were also significantly lower. When the temperature-compensated fits from the 10-second tests were applied to the 3-second test data, the residuals were greatly improved than when just using the linear fits, further suggesting that the temperature-compensated fits may lead to better accuracy than the linear fits in flight. Convective Calibration The second portion of this study was to create a mapping between the radiative and convective calibration coefficients. The majority of the heating during flight will be convective, so it is important to understand how the HFG response differs under these conditions. However, there are no standardized methods for convective calibration [5]. Because the TPS aerothermal response models were validated at LCAT, the same facility was chosen for convective calibration of two of the total HFGs (Fig. 4). Preliminary results showed that the full-scale output was 3% and 8% higher in convective heat flux as compared to radiative heat flux. However, tunnel variation may have contributed to noise and uncertainty in the measurements, and more testing and analysis remains to be done. Scope of Presentation The presentation will include an overview of the changes seen in HFG calibration before and after environmental testing, differences between radiative and convective calibrations, the modeling work done to aid in understanding the sensor response to varying environments, and recommended future work.

H S Alpert↗