Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Booster Separation”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1982

Description of a mathematical model and computer simulation of separation of the nose cap from the solid rocket booster

A system of equations which models the motion of the Solid Rocket Booster Nose Cap upon separation is described. The computer program which utilizes these equations to generate nose cap trajectories is described in detail. Application of the program to simulate a rocket sled test of the nose cap separation is discussed and the results of the applications are presented. With the information given a user should be able to exercise the computer program with a minimum of effort.

Schwaniger, A. J., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Lunar campsite concept: Space transfer concepts and analysis for exploration missions

The lunar Campsite concept responds to a perceived need to identify early manned science and exploration missions that require minimal initial funding. The Campsite concept defers the build-up of many infrastructure components without escalating total program costs. The lunar Campsite has been sized nominally for four crew for 42 days (1 lunar night and 2 lunar days), but can be modified to span two lunar nights up to 60 days. Total mission fulfillment requires five Earth-to-LEO launches, four (100 mt class launch vehicle) for the two vehicle assemblies and one (PLS or NSTS) for the crew. The lunar Campsite mission mode is tandem direct using a booster stage and a lander stage. The booster is separated from the lander after the TLI burn and is expended into the Earth's atmosphere. In the Campsite mode, the lander lands on the surface not to be returned. In the crew delivery mode, the lander is guided to a precision landing about 500 m from the Campsite, and with enough propellant to return the crew to Earth. The Campsite consists of a habitat and airlock, body mounted radiators with a surface shield, sun tracking solar arrays, and an Earth-tracking high-gain antenna. The CV is very similar to the campsite delivery vehicle. The CV does not, however, have radiators or solar arrays. The vehicle stacks are essentially common in that they utilize the same structure system and engines, the same propellant tanks, the same 'cut-out' in which the CRV and payloads are incorporated, and the same RCS locations. The booster and lander stage propellant tank propellant capacities are identical and have margins which would allow additional fueling for propulsive capture of the boost stage into Earth orbit. This contractual study was performed to identify Campsite and vehicle interfaces and vehicle requirements, and to surface issues related to the integration of the Campsite and LTV's.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Investigation of failure to separate an Inconel 718 frangible nut

The 2.5-inch frangible nut is used in two places to attach the Space Shuttle Orbiter to the External Tank. It must be capable of sustaining structural loads and must also separate into two pieces upon command. Structural load capability is verified by proof loading each flight nut, while ability to separate is verified on a sample of a production lot. Production lots of frangible nuts beginning in 1987 experienced an inability to reliably separate using one of two redundant explosive boosters. The problems were identified in lot acceptance tests, and the cause of failure has been attributed to differences in the response of the Inconel 718. Subsequent tests performed on the frangible nuts resulted in design modifications to the nuts along with redesign of the explosive booster to reliably separate the frangible nut. The problem history along with the design modifications to both the explosive booster and frangible nut are discussed in this paper. Implications of this failure experience impact any pyrotechnic separation system involving fracture of materials with respect to design margin control and lot acceptance testing.

Hoffman, William C., III↗
NASA NTRS1971

Shuttle- Technology for aerothermodynamics

Space shuttle technology, discussing wind tunnel studies, aerothermal and operational flight mechanics, model characteristics, orbiter configurations and booster-orbiter separation

Henderson, A., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Effects of 1980 technology on weight of a recovery system for a one million pound booster

The effects were evaluated of 1980 technology on the weight of recovery systems capable of decelerating a one-million-pound booster to vertical velocities of 60 or 30 ft/sec at sea level impact. A nominal set of booster staging conditions were assumed and there were no constraints on parachute size, number or type. The effects of new materials that would be available by 1980, the effects of booster attitude during entry, various parachute staging methods, parachute reefing schemes, parachute-retro rocket hybrid systems, and the effects of dividing the booster into separate pieces for recovery were evaluated. It was determined that for the systems considered, a hybrid parachute-retro-rocket recovery system would have the minimum weight. New materials now becoming available for parachute fabrication should result in a 37-percent reduction in hybrid recovery system weight for an impact velocity of 30 fps.

Eckstrom, C. V.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Space Shuttle cargo processing.

The spacecraft processing techniques to be used at the Kennedy Space Center for the assembly and check-out of Space Shuttle cargoes are discussed. The processing flow for vertically handled spacecraft, which are inserted into the Shuttle orbiter cargo bay while the orbiter is in the vertical position and often are attached to a separate solid booster stage, includes assembly into unified payloads in the Vertical Processing Facility, followed by Cargo Integration Test Equipment tests to ensure cargo bay compatibility, and transportation to the launch pad. Horizontally handled spacecraft such as Spacelab, which are inserted into the Orbiter cargo bay while it is in the Orbiter Processing Facility in the horizontal position, are assembled and checked out within the Operations and Checkout Building, where the CITE tests are performed and the Spacelab will be disassembled, and then transported to the Orbiter Processing Facility. It is pointed out that during the Space Shuttle era, when the number of spacecraft to be processed simultaneously at Kennedy will double or triple, all spacecraft processing facilities will be required to handle the workload.

Neilon, J. J.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Space shuttle propulsion systems

This is a presentation of view graphs. The design parameters are given for the redesigned solid rocket motor (RSRM), the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM), Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) separation motor, Orbit Maneuvering System (OMS), and the Reaction Control System (RCS) primary and Vernier thrusters. Space shuttle propulsion issues are outlined along with ASA program definition, ASA program selection methodology, its priorities, candidates, and categories.

Bardos, Russell↗
NASA NTRS2000

STS-101: Flight Day Highlights / CAR

The primary mission objective for STS-101 was to deliver supplies to the International Space Station, perform a space walk, and reboost the station from 230 statute miles to 250 statute miles. The commander of this mission was, James D. Halsell. The crew was Scott J. Horowitz, the pilot, and mission specialists Mary Ellen Weber, Jeffrey N. Williams, James S. Voss, Susan J. Helms, and Yuri Vladimirovich Usachev. This videotape shows the launch of STS-101, beginning with the pre-flight breakfast and the crew's introduction. The videotape next shows a pre-dawn view of the orbiter waiting the crew's arrival. The crew is shown getting into their space suits and then climbing onboard the shuttle. In this videotape we are shown a few of the crew getting into their places onboard the shuttle. We are also shown the newly designed "glass cockpit", which gives the pilot and the commander better views and are told that this is the first flight of the shuttle with the new design. After the hatch is closed, we see the shuttle launch into the night, followed by the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) separation.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Effect of Clouds on Shuttle Imaging

This report describes the results of the AMU's task for determining the effect of clouds on optical imaging of the Space Shuttle launch vehicle during its ascent phase from lift-off to Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Separation. This effort was motivated by Recommendation R3.4-1 from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. The AMU developed a 3-dimensional (3D) model to forecast the probability that at any time from lift-off to SRB separation, at least three of the ascent imaging cameras would have a view of the Shuttle unobstructed by cloud. Because current observational and modeling capabilities do not permit accurate forecasts of cloud morphology and location, the AMU simulated obscuration of the lines-of-sight (LOS) from a network of cameras to the Shuttle by idealized cloud-fields placed randomly within the 3D domain. For each random realization of numerous cloud-field scenarios the number of simultaneous views of the Shuttle was computed from the LOS data between lift-off and SRB separation. The percent of time with 3 simultaneous views was averaged from 100 random realizations of each scenario. Analyses of the percent of time viewable were made to determine its sensitivity to cloud amount, cloud base height, cloud thickness, cloud horizontal dimensions, and an upgrade of the camera network.

Short, David A.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Preliminary Report on Mission Design and Operations for Critical Events

Mission-critical events are defined in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory s Flight Project Practices as those sequences of events which must succeed in order to attain mission goals. These are dependent on the particular operational concept and design reference mission, and are especially important when committing to irreversible events. Critical events include main engine cutoff (MECO) after launch; engine cutoff or parachute deployment on entry, descent, and landing (EDL); orbital insertion; separation of payload from vehicle or separation of booster segments; maintenance of pointing accuracy for power and communication; and deployment of solar arrays and communication antennas. The purpose of this paper is to report on the current practices in handling mission-critical events in design and operations at major NASA spaceflight centers. The scope of this report includes NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), with staff at each center consulted on their current practices, processes, and procedures.

Hayden, Sandra C.↗
NASA NTRS1981

STS-1: Columbia Complete Mission

A video presentation of the STS-1 Columbia Mission is shown. The video begins with footage of the STS-1 Columbia arriving at Kennedy Space Center on March 24, 1979. The various milestones that were shown include: 1) STS-1 Columbia Shuttle Rocket Booster (SRB) stacking; 2) External Tank (ET) lift and mating; 3) Move to VAB and Mating; 4) Rollout to pad 39A; 5) Flight Readiness Firing (FRF) on February 19, 1981; 6) Launch day; and 7) Return to Kennedy Space Center. John W. Young, Commander and Robert L. Crippen, Pilot are shown having a traditional breakfast before the suit up and drive out to the launch pad. Footage of the lift-off along with Shuttle Rocket Booster (SRB) separation is shown. After lift-off, there is a shot of the crew in the mid-deck and also a view of thunderstorms over the Amazon Basin. The video ends with a view of Columbia returning to Kennedy Space Center on April 25, 1981.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

Effect of Clouds on Optical Imaging of the Space Shuttle During the Ascent Phase: A Statistical Analysis Based on a 3D Model

Clouds are highly effective in obscuring optical images of the Space Shuttle taken during its ascent by ground-based and airborne tracking cameras. Because the imagery is used for quick-look and post-flight engineering analysis, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommended the return-to-flight effort include an upgrade of the imaging system to enable it to obtain at least three useful views of the Shuttle from lift-off to at least solid rocket booster (SRB) separation (NASA 2003). The lifetimes of individual cloud elements capable of obscuring optical views of the Shuttle are typically 20 minutes or less. Therefore, accurately observing and forecasting cloud obscuration over an extended network of cameras poses an unprecedented challenge for the current state of observational and modeling techniques. In addition, even the best numerical simulations based on real observations will never reach "truth." In order to quantify the risk that clouds would obscure optical imagery of the Shuttle, a 3D model to calculate probabilistic risk was developed. The model was used to estimate the ability of a network of optical imaging cameras to obtain at least N simultaneous views of the Shuttle from lift-off to SRB separation in the presence of an idealized, randomized cloud field.

FROM↗
NASA NTRS2019

CHANGO: A Software Tool for Boost Stage Guidance of the Space Launch System Exploration Mission 1

The Day of Launch Initiation Load Update (DOLILU) System is the means by which the Space Launch System (SLS) Vehicle trajectory is designed, verified, and uploaded on the Day of Launch (DOL) in order to ensure a safe flight. Launch vehicles are designed to fly down a narrow angle of attack and sideslip angle corridor in order to keep them within structural load limits. The angle of attack and sideslip angle response to the launch vehicle experiences can vary significantly based upon the winds experienced on the DOL. SLS Boost Stage flight employs an open-loop guidance scheme through Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) separation. In the SLS open-loop scheme, the vehicle will fly a prescribed set of attitudes as a function of the change in altitude since launch. This set of reference attitude values and corresponding altitude reference independent values are designed with ground software using winds measured on the DOL with the goal of minimizing angle of attack and sideslip angle, thereby minimizing related ascent integrated vehicle structural loads. The table of Boost Stage attitude commands as a function of altitude gained since launch is called the chi table. A software tool called CHANGO (Chi Angle Optimizer) designs the Boost Stage chi table which is uploaded to the vehicle’s flight computer and used during ascent by the flight software (FSW). The wind and atmospheric conditions are measured prior to launch and pre-processed to become input to the CHANGO software along with a set of parameters developed in advance of the DOL. CHANGO’s target set consists of the heading and altitude rate at SRB separation determined well before launch by the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST). CHANGO consists of a simplified three degree-of-freedom (3-DOF) simulation representing the SLS launch configuration. In general, the launch azimuth is strongly correlated with the heading at SRB separation, and the initial pitchover rate is strongly correlated with the altitude rate at SRB separation. CHANGO uses an adaptation of Powell’s method to vary the initial pitchover rate and launch azimuth to solve a 2-dimentional minimization problem. CHANGO’s trajectory simulation is phase-based, with flight events separating the phases. Each flight phase has different attitude alignment logic. CHANGO’s 3-DOF simulation starts when the vehicle’s thrust-to-weight ratio equals one, and ends at a pre-calculated SRB separation time.

Ahmad, Naeem↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing of ACC-6 Carbon-Carbon at High Strain Rates and High Temperatures

Some materials, such as steel, titanium, and tungsten, have a yield stress that depends on the strain rate, and actually are stronger at high rates of load or deformation. The increase in strength is relevant; and if not taken into account, the computer models will not match the experimental behavior observed in typical shock loading, ordnance, or ballistic tests. For higher velocity (hypervelocity impacts), an equation of state that accounts for non-linearities and temperature in the pressure-volume relation, may also be needed. This rate-dependent behavior of the strength has also been observed in some composite materials. Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®) has started an internal research effort to measure and better model the behavior of materials, in particular carbon/carbon composites like ACC-6, at ultra-high temperatures for both static and high rates of deformation. The ultimate objective is to obtain reliable computer models of carbon/carbon material under hypersonic flight conditions, hypervelocity impacts, shock-loading situations such as booster-vehicle separation, and munition operation events. SwRI® has successfully modeled in the past ballistic impact on other composites, namely S-2 glass/epoxy, Kevlar/resin, polyethylene fibers/resin, and carbon fiber composites. This presentation will show test results relevant to the strength properties of the ACC-6 C/C material which were measured at quasistatic, medium, and the moderately high strain rates (~103 s—1) achievable in a conventional Split Hopkinson bar apparatus. Some of the tests were performed at both high-rates and high temperatures typical of hypersonic flight, something that, to the authors’ knowledge, has never been published in the past for this particular material. The test method will be presented, as well as the comparison of the stress-strain curves for the different temperatures and strain-rates of interest. A discussion of how the results can be used in the typical hydrocodes of interest will be included.

carbon/carbon↗
NASA NTRS2000

STS-99 Crew Activities Report/Flight Day 1 Highlights

Live footage shows the crew, Commander Kevin R. Kregel, Pilot Dominic L. Pudwill Gorie, and Mission Specialists Janet L. Kavandi, Janice E. Voss, Mamoru Mohri and Gerhard P.J. Thiele, seated in the dining room with the traditional cake. The crew is seen performing various pre-launch activities including suit-up, walk out to the Astro-van, and strap-in into the vehicle. Also seen are the retractions of the orbiter access arm and the gaseous oxygen mint hood, main engine start, booster ignition, liftoff, and separation of the solid rocket boosters. The Red Team (first of the dual shift crew) includes Kregel, Kavandi, and Thiele, who are shown conducting jet thruster firings, activating radar instruments, and deploying the boom (mass).

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1972

Space shuttle abort separation pressure investigation. Volume 1, Part A: Booster data at Mach 5

Pressure data obtained from a joint Langley Research Center (LaRC)/Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Space Shuttle about stage separation wind tunnel test are presented. The .00556 scale models of the McDonnell-Douglas orbiter and booster configurations were tested in proximity in Tunnel A of the Von Karman Facility (VKF), Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC). Mach numbers were 5.0, 3.0, and 2.0 and nominal Reynolds numbers were 1.09, 1.60, and 1.74 million per foot, respectively. Pressure data were obtained for the booster upper surface and orbiter lower surface at angles of attack of -10 deg, -5, 0, 5, and 10 deg for zero degrees sideslip. The models were tested at incidence angles of 0 and 5 deg for several separation distances and power conditions. Plug nozzles utilizing air were used to simulate booster and orbiter plumes at various altitudes along a nominal ascent trajectory. Powered conditions were 100, 50, and 0 percent of full power for the orbiter and 100, 50 and 0 percent of full power for the booster. Data were also obtained with the booster canard off in close proximity.

Trimmer, L. L.↗