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.
In this paper, the sounder instrument and its design constraints and parameters are described.
No abstract available
No abstract available
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Overall sound-pressure levels and frequency spectra have been obtained under static conditions on a transonic propeller with an advance ratio of 4.0. This advance ratio represents a practical minimum tip speed for transonic flight speeds. The three-blade, 6.85-foot-diameter, 1,710-rpm propeller is powered by a turbine engine and is designed to operate at a forward Mach number of 0.82 at an altitude of 35,000 feet. The results consist of overall sound-pressure levels and frequency spectra obtained from analyses made of recordings taken during ground runups of the propeller with an advance ratio of 4.0. These results are compared with similar results obtained from a supersonic propeller having an advance ratio of 2.2 reported in NACA Technical Note 4059 and from a modified supersonic propeller having an advance ratio of 3.2 reported in NACA Technical Note 4172. The advance-ratio-4.0 propeller of the present investigation produced a maximum sound-pressure level of 117.5 decibels when corrected to 1,400 horsepower. This overall noise output represents a lowering of the maximum overall sound-pressure level by approximately 5 decibels from that of the advance-ratio-3.2 propeller and by 14 decibels from that of the advance-ratio-2.2 propeller at comparable engine horsepowers. The frequency spectrum for the present propeller was the same as that for the advance-ratio-3.2 propeller, that is, high sound-pressure levels for the low-blade-passage harmonics with a rapid decrease in level with increasing order of harmonic. The 5-decibels reduction, under static conditions, is not considered sufficient to warrant the increased weight and operational penalties that would accompany this selection over the more efficient advance-ratio-3.2 propeller. At high forward speeds, however, the noise level of the present advance-ratio-4.0 propeller, especially in the fre- quency range where passenger comfort is important, should probably be substantially lower than that of the advance-ratio-3.2 propeller.
The topics covered include the following: (1) an overview of the Advanced Solar Observatory program and instrumentation; (2) the scientific motivation for the Advanced Solar Observatory; (3) a brief review of recent advances in solar physics; (4) a scientific strategy for solar physics; (5) the scientific objectives of the Advanced Solar Observatory; (6) the configuration of the Advanced Solar Observatory; (7) the development of the Advanced Solar Observatory; (8) the performance of the Advanced Solar Observatory; (9) scientific operation of the Advanced Solar Observatory; and (10) present status of the Advanced Solar Observatory. A compilation of major scientific problems in solar physics is presented in the appendix.
This presentation describes a number of advanced space propulsion technologies with the potential for meeting the need for dramatic reductions in the cost of access to space, and the need for new propulsion capabilities to enable bold new space exploration (and, ultimately, space exploitation) missions of the 21st century. For example, current Earth-to-orbit (e.g., low Earth orbit, LEO) launch costs are extremely high (ca. $10,000/kg); a factor 25 reduction (to ca. $400/kg) will be needed to produce the dramatic increases in space activities in both the civilian and government sectors identified in the Commercial Space Transportation Study (CSTS). Similarly, in the area of space exploration, all of the relatively 'easy' missions (e.g., robotic flybys, inner solar system orbiters and landers; and piloted short-duration Lunar missions) have been done. Ambitious missions of the next century (e.g., robotic outer-planet orbiters/probes, landers, rovers, sample returns; and piloted long-duration Lunar and Mars missions) will require major improvements in propulsion capability. In some cases, advanced propulsion can enable a mission by making it faster or more affordable, and in some cases, by directly enabling the mission (e.g., interstellar missions). As a general rule, advanced propulsion systems are attractive because of their low operating costs (e.g., higher specific impulse, ISD) and typically show the most benefit for relatively 'big' missions (i.e., missions with large payloads or AV, or a large overall mission model). In part, this is due to the intrinsic size of the advanced systems as compared to state-of-the-art (SOTA) chemical propulsion systems. Also, advanced systems often have a large 'infrastructure' cost, either in the form of initial R&D costs or in facilities hardware costs (e.g., laser or microwave transmission ground stations for beamed energy propulsion). These costs must then be amortized over a large mission to be cost-competitive with a SOTA system with a low initial development and infrastructure cost and a high operating cost. Note however that this has resulted in a 'Catch 22' standoff between the need for large initial investment that is amortized over many launches to reduce costs, and the limited number of launches possible at today's launch costs. Some examples of missions enabled (either in cost or capability) by advanced propulsion include long-life station-keeping or micro-spacecraft applications using electric propulsion or BMDO-derived micro-thrusters, low-cost orbit raising (LEO to GEO or Lunar orbit) using electric propulsion, robotic planetary missions using aerobraking or electric propulsion, piloted Mars missions using aerobraking and/or propellant production from Martian resources, very fast (100-day round-trip) piloted Mars missions using fission or fusion propulsion, and, finally, interstellar missions using fusion, antimatter, or beamed energy. The NASA Advanced Propulsion Technology program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is aimed at assessing the feasibility of a range of near-term to far term advanced propulsion technologies that have the potential to reduce costs and/or enable future space activities. The program includes cooperative modeling and research activities between JPL and various universities and industry; and directly supported independent research at universities and industry. The cooperative program consists of mission studies, research and development of ion engine technology using C60 (Buckminsterfullerene) propellant, and research and development of lithium-propellant Lorentz-force accelerator (LFA) engine technology. The university/industry-supported research includes modeling and proof-of-concept experiments in advanced, high-lsp, long-life electric propulsion, and in fusion propulsion.
The development of next generation systems often carries with it the promise of improved performance, greater reliability, and reduced operational costs. These expectations arise from the use of novel designs, new materials, advanced integration and production technologies intended for functionality replacing the previous generation. However, the novelty of these nascent technologies is accompanied by lack of operational experience and, in many cases, no actual testing as well. Therefore some of the enthusiasm surrounding most new technologies may be due to inflated aspirations from lack of knowledge rather than actual future expectations. This paper proposes a design heritage approach for improved reliability forecasting of advanced system components. The basis of the design heritage approach is to relate advanced system components to similar designs currently in operation. The demonstrated performance of these components could then be used to forecast the expected performance and reliability of comparable advanced technology components. In this approach the greater the divergence of the advanced component designs from the current systems the higher the uncertainty that accompanies the associated failure estimates. Designers of advanced systems are faced with many difficult decisions. One of the most common and more difficult types of these decisions are those related to the choice between design alternatives. In the past decision-makers have found these decisions to be extremely difficult to make because they often involve the trade-off between a known performing fielded design and a promising paper design. When it comes to expected reliability performance the paper design always looks better because it is on paper and it addresses all the know failure modes of the fielded design. On the other hand there is a long, and sometimes very difficult road, between the promise of a paper design and its fulfillment; with the possibility that sometimes the reliability promise is not fulfilled at all. Decision makers in advanced technology areas have always known to discount the performance claims of a design to a degree in proportion to its stage of development, and at times have preferred the more mature design over the one of lesser maturity even with the latter promising substantially better performance once fielded. As with the broader measures of performance this has also been true for projected reliability performance. Paper estimates of potential advances in design reliability are to a degree uncertain in proportion to the maturity of the features being proposed to secure those advances. This is especially true when performance-enhancing features in other areas are also planned to be part of the development program.
This report contains the individual presentations delivered at the Space Station Evolution Symposium in League City, Texas on February 6, 7, 8, 1990. Personnel responsible for Advanced Systems Studies and Advanced Development within the Space Station Freedom program reported on the results of their work to date. Systems Studies presentations focused on identifying the baseline design provisions (hooks and scars) necessary to enable evolution of the facility to support changing space policy and anticipated user needs. Also emphasized were evolution configuration and operations concepts including on-orbit processing of space transfer vehicles. Advanced Development task managers discussed transitioning advanced technologies to the baseline program, including those near-term technologies which will enhance the safety and productivity of the crew and the reliability of station systems. Special emphasis was placed on applying advanced automation technology to ground and flight systems. This publication consists of two volumes. Volume 1 contains the results of the advanced system studies with the emphasis on reference evolution configurations, system design requirements and accommodations, and long-range technology projections. Volume 2 reports on advanced development tasks within the Transition Definition Program. Products of these tasks include: engineering fidelity demonstrations and evaluations on Station development testbeds and Shuttle-based flight experiments; detailed requirements and performance specifications which address advanced technology implementation issues; and mature applications and the tools required for the development, implementation, and support of advanced technology within the Space Station Freedom Program.
Recently, nuclear power plant build projects in the West have run over budget due to high capital costs and schedule overruns. Compared to other sources of energy, nuclear power plants have higher capital costs. Reactors are often different at every site, resulting in a lack of standardization. Nuclear is expected to compete with other low carbon sources of energy which have lower capital costs making it essential for nuclear to develop ways of reducing costs. Strategies such as standardization, learning rates, modularization, and schedule reduction in advanced reactors can reduce nuclear costs by about 40%. Standardization as a way of cutting capital costs has been explored even in large nuclear power plants. Standardization of certain plant components can result in lower component and installation costs and higher learning from experience. Standardization can be achieved by adopting a criterion of key performance indicators and general design principles for a specific system or component such as the balance of plant. Modularization allows the construction of certain components of SMRs in a factory, which saves time, increases productivity, and encourages higher learning rates. Production learning decreases the time and the cost related to an activity. The potential for modularized components of advanced reactors to be manufactured in factories makes it conducive to achieving higher learning rates. Developing large-capacity nuclear programs through sequential builds cultivates a higher learning rate, which in effect may reduce schedule overruns. Open architecture has been identified as a way to drive standardization among advanced reactor designs and result in cost savings. Open architecture (OA) is defined as a design enabling a diverse supply chain by defining and publishing requirements of systems or equipment in functional and/or interface terms, utilizing technical standards in widespread use. Currently, the nuclear industry’s approach is to use closed architecture, making most designs proprietary. However, collaboration between various advanced reactor vendors and suppliers utilizing the concept of open architecture can result in modular and standardized architecture of subsystems or subcomponents of a nuclear power plant. Completely standardizing nuclear power plants may be impossible, however, certain common subsystems amongst the various reactor designs could be standardized and/or access a wider supply chain and leverage existing learning from other sectors. Open architecture will save time and allocate resources to the parts of the plants that have the most unique features. A key advantage of open architecture is its ability to improve production learning across advanced reactors (AR) types in the industry, by providing and utilizing the same kind of component. Sodium fast reactor (SFR), High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) and Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) are the advanced reactors considered for this project. This paper aims to determine the cost savings in advanced reactor programs due to open architecture learning rate. This work is an extension of work done on light water reactor small modular reactors; the cost methodology was utilized to investigate the impact of open architecture on advanced reactors with a particular focus on sodium fast reactors. The cost data on sodium fast reactors used in the model presented the most adequate information required for the analysis.
The Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC) Execution Plan details the strategy, mission, scope, and goals—both near-term and long-term—along with the structure and organization of nuclear fuels and materials research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities within the Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) program. The FCT program, tasked by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), employs a science-based approach to advance fuel technologies. This approach integrates theory, experiments, and multi-scale modeling and simulation (M&S) to develop a predictive understanding of fuel fabrication processes and fuel/cladding performance under irradiation, moving beyond traditional empirical methods. The long-term goals of the AFC are guided by the AFC Strategic Plan and align with the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) Roadmap [1], which outlines a multi-decade vision for demonstrating and qualifying advanced fuel forms to support diverse fuel cycle options. Near-term goals focus on enhancing accident tolerant fuels (ATF) for Light Water Reactors (LWR), a significant challenge that demands balancing immediate objectives with ongoing progress toward advanced reactor missions. Accelerating the traditional fuel qualification process to meet ATF objectives is another critical challenge. A detailed set of 5-year goals, summarized below, has been developed in line with the overarching science-based fuel development approach: • Advanced LWR Fuel Technologies: By 2027, support the development of advanced LWR fuel technologies with improved performance and enhanced accident tolerance. This includes high burnup (HBu), low enriched uranium (LEU)+, coated cladding, and doped fuel, aimed at complementing industry-led significant LWR uprates and plant refurbishments. • Tristructural Isotropic (TRISO) Fuel: Achieve qualification by 2028 and develop improved designs for emerging markets. • Metal Fuel: Achieve qualification by 2028 and develop improved designs for emerging markets. • Molten Salt Fuel: By 2027, deploy a robust program that enables fuel salt qualification technologies needed to support fuel salt research and development (R&D), focusing on emergent needs to derisk fuel salt production and utilization in advanced reactors. • Long-Term ATF: Develop fuel technologies that enable significant power uprates (~50%) in refurbished or new LWRs while optimizing fissile material utilization and waste disposal. The 5-year milestones in the AFC Execution Plan are contingent on an assumed budget. This Execution Plan will be updated annually to reflect actual funding profiles as budget guidance becomes available, ensuring milestones are adjusted accordingly. In summary, the AFC Execution Plan presents a comprehensive strategy to advance nuclear fuel technologies through a science-based approach, addressing both near-term and long-term goals while adapting to funding realities.
As Space Station Freedom (SSF) evolves, increased automation and autonomy will be required to meet Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP) objectives. As a precursor to the use of advanced automation within the SSFP, especially if it is to be used on SSF (e.g., to automate the operation of the flight systems), the underlying technologies will need to be elevated to a high level of readiness to ensure safe and effective operations. Ground facilities supporting the development of these flight systems -- from research and development laboratories through formal hardware and software development environments -- will be responsible for achieving these levels of technology readiness. These facilities will need to evolve support the general evolution of the SSFP. This evolution will include support for increasing the use of advanced automation. The SSF Advanced Development Program has funded a study to define evolution paths for advanced automaton within the SSFP's ground-based facilities which will enable, promote, and accelerate the appropriate use of advanced automation on-board SSF. The current capability of the test beds and facilities, such as the Software Support Environment, with regard to advanced automation, has been assessed and their desired evolutionary capabilities have been defined. Plans and guidelines for achieving this necessary capability have been constructed. The approach taken has combined indepth interviews of test beds personnel at all SSF Work Package centers with awareness of relevant state-of-the-art technology and technology insertion methodologies. Key recommendations from the study include advocating a NASA-wide task force for advanced automation, and the creation of software prototype transition environments to facilitate the incorporation of advanced automation in the SSFP.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formally initiated the Space Launch System (SLS) development in September 2011, with the approval of the program s acquisition plan, which engages the current workforce and infrastructure to deliver an initial 70 metric ton (t) SLS capability in 2017, while using planned block upgrades to evolve to a full 130 t capability after 2021. A key component of the acquisition plan is a three-phased approach for the first stage boosters. The first phase is to complete the development of the Ares and Space Shuttle heritage 5-segment solid rocket boosters (SRBs) for initial exploration missions in 2017 and 2021. The second phase in the booster acquisition plan is the Advanced Booster Risk Reduction and/or Engineering Demonstration NASA Research Announcement (NRA), which was recently awarded after a full and open competition. The NRA was released to industry on February 9, 2012, with a stated intent to reduce risks leading to an affordable advanced booster and to enable competition. The third and final phase will be a full and open competition for Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) of the advanced boosters. There are no existing boosters that can meet the performance requirements for the 130 t class SLS. The expected thrust class of the advanced boosters is potentially double the current 5-segment solid rocket booster capability. These new boosters will enable the flexible path approach to space exploration beyond Earth orbit (BEO), opening up vast opportunities including near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange Points, and Mars. This evolved capability offers large volume for science missions and payloads, will be modular and flexible, and will be right-sized for mission requirements. NASA developed the Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction NRA to seek industry participation in reducing risks leading to an affordable advanced booster that meets the SLS performance requirements. Demonstrations and/or risk reduction efforts were required to be related to a proposed booster concept directly applicable to fielding an advanced booster. This paper will discuss, for the first time publicly, the contract awards and how NASA intends to use the data from these efforts to prepare for the planned advanced booster DDT&E acquisition as the SLS Program moves forward with competitively procured affordable performance enhancements.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formally initiated the Space Launch System (SLS) development in September 2011, with the approval of the program s acquisition plan, which engages the current workforce and infrastructure to deliver an initial 70 metric ton (t) SLS capability in 2017, while using planned block upgrades to evolve to a full 130 t capability after 2021. A key component of the acquisition plan is a three-phased approach for the first stage boosters. The first phase is to complete the development of the Ares and Space Shuttle heritage 5-segment solid rocket boosters for initial exploration missions in 2017 and 2021. The second phase in the booster acquisition plan is the Advanced Booster Risk Reduction and/or Engineering Demonstration NASA Research Announcement (NRA), which was recently awarded after a full and open competition. The NRA was released to industry on February 9, 2012, and its stated intent was to reduce risks leading to an affordable Advanced Booster and to enable competition. The third and final phase will be a full and open competition for Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) of the Advanced Boosters. There are no existing boosters that can meet the performance requirements for the 130 t class SLS. The expected thrust class of the Advanced Boosters is potentially double the current 5-segment solid rocket booster capability. These new boosters will enable the flexible path approach to space exploration beyond Earth orbit, opening up vast opportunities including near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange Points, and Mars. This evolved capability offers large volume for science missions and payloads, will be modular and flexible, and will be right-sized for mission requirements. NASA developed the Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction NRA to seek industry participation in reducing risks leading to an affordable Advanced Booster that meets the SLS performance requirements. Demonstrations and/or risk reduction efforts were required to be related to a proposed booster concept directly applicable to fielding an Advanced Booster. This paper will discuss, for the first time publicly, the contract awards and how NASA intends to use the data from these efforts to prepare for the planned Advanced Booster DDT&E acquisition as the SLS Program moves forward with competitively procured affordable performance enhancements.
A flight test was performed to compare the use of three advanced primary flight and navigation display concepts to a baseline, round-dial concept to assess the potential for advanced operations. The displays were evaluated during visual and instrument approach procedures including an advanced instrument approach resembling a visual airport traffic pattern. Nineteen pilots from three pilot groups, reflecting the diverse piloting skills of the General Aviation pilot population, served as evaluation subjects. The experiment had two thrusts: 1) an examination of the capabilities of low-time (i.e., <400 hours), non-instrument-rated pilots to perform nominal instrument approaches, and 2) an exploration of potential advanced Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC)-like approaches in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). Within this context, advanced display concepts are considered to include integrated navigation and primary flight displays with either aircraft attitude flight directors or Highway In The Sky (HITS) guidance with and without a synthetic depiction of the external visuals (i.e., synthetic vision). Relative to the first thrust, the results indicate that using an advanced display concept, as tested herein, low-time, non-instrument-rated pilots can exhibit flight-technical performance, subjective workload and situation awareness ratings as good as or better than high-time Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)-rated pilots using Baseline Round Dials for a nominal IMC approach. For the second thrust, the results indicate advanced VMC-like approaches are feasible in IMC, for all pilot groups tested for only the Synthetic Vision System (SVS) advanced display concept.
We have completed the proof of concept described in our Phase I proposal, a two-material array of nonstructural proteins. We created an implementation of each step in our technology concept and demonstrated its critical functionality. The biological chassis and printing hardware we created as part of this work can be re-used for future work by inserting a material coding region upstream of the fluorescent tag. Overall, we showed that our technology concept is sound. The mission benefit analyses, as described in our Phase I proposal, are complete and contained in this report. These calculations show that our technology can save hundreds of kilograms of upmass for a potential planetary human habit construction mission: the mass per habitat module can be reduced by approximately one third if the biomaterials are manufactured on Earth and included in the mission upmass, and the full 240 kg per module can be saved if the materials are derived entirely from in situ resources. Mass savings between these two extremes is expected for an actual mission, depending on the level of in situ resource extraction technology. We have shown that continued advancement of this technology concept for use in a space mission environment is justified. Our survey of future development pathways proved extremely informative in light of the lessons learned from our proof of concept work and mission scenario analyses. For example, we were able for the first time to distinguish between the levels of functionality provided by production of structural proteins, other polymers such as polysaccharides, and true organic-inorganic composites such as bone and mineralized shell. This new information represents a significant advance in formulating specific applications, and key enabling technologies, for our proposed concept. We surveyed potential collaborations with other projects and synergies with enabling technologies that are developing. We have received requests for collaboration from other institutions, including labs at Stanford University and Drexel University. We have also received visits from industry, including Organovo, a tissue engineering company, and Autodesk, a major 3D and materials design software company. Finally, we have been in touch with the team behind the 2013 NIAC Phase ll 'Super Ball Bot-Structures for Planetary Landing and Exploration' and are planning to develop our biomaterial printing technology with the goal of enabling tensegrity-based rovers such as theirs to use lighter, more robust materials. A smooth transition from TRL 2 to TRL 3 assumes that the implementations of the technology concept which demonstrate critical functionality are also pathways for future development; while this is the case for most hardware or software projects, the multidisciplinary nature of our project, particularly the biological aspect of it, means that this is not always true. For example, as part of this work we showed that although there are large number of known genetic parts that correspond to non-structural materials, this is not true for sequences for structural organic proteins, let alone biominerals. These realizations allowed us to further subdivide our concept into more detailed development areas, some of which are clearly established at TRL 3, others of which were newly identified sub-technologies moved from TRL 1 to TRL 2. Similarly, although a single feasibility /benefit analysis is sufficient for advancement from TRL 2 to TRL 3, not all potential benefits to a technology concept as broad in scope as ours are apparent at TRL 2. Both our future pathways survey and our proof of concept work highlighted that the true mass savings potential of our technology concept cannot be quantified without modification of existing materials modelling tools to take into account the possibility of positional materials properties customization. Therefore, we have simultaneously both advanced one potential set of applications of our technology concept from TRL 2 to TRL 3 and also identified a previously unknown set of applications and advanced it from TRL 1 to TRL 2. Overall, we have moved the original formulation of our concept forward from TRL 2 to TRL 3, and the expanded formulation of it presented in this document has been advanced from a combination of TRL 1 and early 1RL 2 to an overall late TRL 2. We have also identified the key areas necessary for both short-term and long-term advancement, and made recommendations for specific future work in the most promising directions. With future work on a 1-2 year timeframe to continue advancement to overall TRL 3, we will be well positioned to begin work on a specific space mission technology insertion path.