Results for “hardware testing” — Page 64

NASA NTRS2014

A Modular Framework for Modeling Hardware Elements in Distributed Engine Control Systems

Progress toward the implementation of distributed engine control in an aerospace application may be accelerated through the development of a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) system for testing new control architectures and hardware outside of a physical test cell environment. One component required in an HIL simulation system is a high-fidelity model of the control platform: sensors, actuators, and the control law. The control system developed for the Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation 40k (40,000 pound force thrust) (C-MAPSS40k) provides a verifiable baseline for development of a model for simulating a distributed control architecture. This distributed controller model will contain enhanced hardware models, capturing the dynamics of the transducer and the effects of data processing, and a model of the controller network. A multilevel framework is presented that establishes three sets of interfaces in the control platform: communication with the engine (through sensors and actuators), communication between hardware and controller (over a network), and the physical connections within individual pieces of hardware. This introduces modularity at each level of the model, encouraging collaboration in the development and testing of various control schemes or hardware designs. At the hardware level, this modularity is leveraged through the creation of a Simulink (R) library containing blocks for constructing smart transducer models complying with the IEEE 1451 specification. These hardware models were incorporated in a distributed version of the baseline C-MAPSS40k controller and simulations were run to compare the performance of the two models. The overall tracking ability differed only due to quantization effects in the feedback measurements in the distributed controller. Additionally, it was also found that the added complexity of the smart transducer models did not prevent real-time operation of the distributed controller model, a requirement of an HIL system.

numerical simulation↗

NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗

NASA NTRS1973

Design and fabrication of an augmentor wing model for acoustic tests

The design and fabrication of a full-scale section of an augmentor wing to be used for acoustic testing at the Lewis Research Center are discussed. This hardware will be used primarily to investigate scaling effects of acoustic data obtained during the Boeing-run model tests. Typical model test data is shown in the report, together with predictions on both performance and acoustics that can be expected from the full-scale section to be built. Areas covered include: the aerodynamic and acoustic criteria of the flap system and nozzles, detailed discussion of the hardware, test system operation procedure, and stress analysis of the entire test system.

Jackson, J.↗

NASA NTRS2015

NASA's Space Launch System Program Update

Hardware and software for the world's most powerful launch vehicle for exploration is being welded, assembled, and tested today in high bays, clean rooms and test stands across the United States. NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) continued to make significant progress in the past year, including firing tests of both main propulsion elements, manufacturing of flight hardware, and the program Critical Design Review (CDR). Developed with the goals of safety, affordability, and sustainability, SLS will deliver unmatched capability for human and robotic exploration. The initial Block 1 configuration will deliver more than 70 metric tons (t) (154,000 pounds) of payload to low Earth orbit (LEO). The evolved Block 2 design will deliver some 130 t (286,000 pounds) to LEO. Both designs offer enormous opportunity and flexibility for larger payloads, simplifying payload design as well as ground and on-orbit operations, shortening interplanetary transit times, and decreasing overall mission risk. Over the past year, every vehicle element has manufactured or tested hardware, including flight hardware for Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1). This paper will provide an overview of the progress made over the past year and provide a glimpse of upcoming milestones on the way to a 2018 launch readiness date.

May, Todd↗

NASA NTRS2006

Desert Research and Technology Studies 2005 Report

During the first two weeks of September 2005, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Advanced Extravehicular Activity (AEVA) team led the field test portion of the 2005 Research and Technology Studies (RATS). The Desert RATS field test activity is the culmination of the various individual science and advanced engineering discipline areas year-long technology and operations development efforts into a coordinated field test demonstration under representative (analog) planetary surface terrain conditions. The purpose of the RATS is to drive out preliminary exploration concept of operations EVA system requirements by providing hands-on experience with simulated planetary surface exploration extravehicular activity (EVA) hardware and procedures. The RATS activities also are of significant importance in helping to develop the necessary levels of technical skills and experience for the next generation of engineers, scientists, technicians, and astronauts who will be responsible for realizing the goals of the Constellation Program. The 2005 Desert RATS was the eighth RATS field test and was the most systems-oriented, integrated field test to date with participants from NASA field centers, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), industry partners, and research institutes. Each week of the test, the 2005 RATS addressed specific sets of objectives. The first week focused on the performance of surface science astro-biological sampling operations, including planetary protection considerations and procedures. The second week supported evaluation of the Science, Crew, Operations, and Utility Testbed (SCOUT) proto-type rover and its sub-systems. Throughout the duration of the field test, the Communications, Avionics, and Infomatics pack (CAI-pack) was tested. This year the CAI-pack served to provide information on surface navigation, science sample collection procedures, and EVA timeline awareness. Additionally, 2005 was the first year since the Apollo program that two pressurized suited test subjects have worked together simultaneously. Another first was the demonstration of recharge of cryogenic life support systems while in-use by the suited test subjects. The recharge capability allowed the simulated EVA test duration to be doubled, facilitating SCOUT proto-type rover testing. This paper summarizes Desert RATS 2005 test hardware, detailed test objectives, test operations and test results.

Ross, Amy J.↗

DOE OSTI2024

Accelerating Deployment of Grid-Connected Energy Storage through Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulation and Testing

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Bhujel, Niranjan↗

DOE OSTI2020

Dyno-in-the-Loop: An Innovative Hardware-in-the-Loop Development and Testing Platform for Emerging Mobility Technologies

Today’s transportation is quickly transforming with the nascent advent of connectivity, automation, shared-mobility, and electrification. These technologies will not only affect our safety and mobility, but also our energy consumption, and environment. As a result, it is of unprecedented importance to understand the overall system impacts due to the introduction of these emerging technologies and concepts. Existing modeling tools are not able to effectively capture the implications of these technologies, not to mention accurately and reliably evaluating their effectiveness with a reasonable scope. To address these gaps, a dynamometer-in-the-loop (DiL) development and testing approach is proposed which integrates test vehicle(s), chassis dynamometer, and high fidelity traffic simulation tools, in order to achieve a balance between the model accuracy and scalability of environmental analysis for the next generation of transportation systems. With this DiL platform, a connected eco-operation system for the plug-in hybrid electric bus (PHEB) has been developed and tested, which can optimize the vehicle dynamics (and potentially powertrain control via smart energy management) to reduce the operational energy consumption as well as tailpipe emissions of the target PHEB. The system performance has been evaluated on the DiL platform with respect to a variety of traffic congestion levels. The results have shown that the developed system can save fuel by more than 13% while reducing the electricity consumption by 2% in the test scenarios.

Wu, Guoyuan↗

NASA NTRS1971

Evaluation of methods for determining hardware projected life

An investigation of existing methods of predicting hardware life is summarized by reviewing programs having long life requirements, current research efforts on long life problems, and technical papers reporting work on life predicting techniques. The results indicate that there are no accurate quantitative means to predict hardware life for system level hardware. The effectiveness of test programs and the cause of hardware failures is considered.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1972

Long life assurance study for manned spacecraft long life hardware. Volume 5: Long life assurance test and study recommendations

A study was conducted to establish the guidelines to be applied to the selection of equipment for manned spacecraft systems. Recommendations for expansion of the original study are submitted. The subjects considered are: (1) designing to severe dynamic requirements; (2) analysis of in-space failures due to life limitations; (3) accelerated testing of semiconductors; (4) fan life verification; (5) testing of solid tantalum capacitors; (6) testing of teflon valve seats; and (7) electromigration model verification.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1991

Strategy in space flight experiments

The main topics of the workshop were the evaluation of both the need for flight testing of solar array hardware and the opportunities for such testing. Spacecraft charging effects, array dynamics, cost-effectiveness, and methods of flight planning were also discussed.

Marvin, Dean↗

NASA NTRS1997

Development of an Ion Thruster and Power Processor for New Millennium's Deep Space 1 Mission

The NASA Solar Electric Propulsion Technology Applications Readiness Program (NSTAR) will provide a single-string primary propulsion system to NASA's New Millennium Deep Space 1 Mission which will perform comet and asteroid flybys in the years 1999 and 2000. The propulsion system includes a 30-cm diameter ion thruster, a xenon feed system, a power processing unit, and a digital control and interface unit. A total of four engineering model ion thrusters, three breadboard power processors, and a controller have been built, integrated, and tested. An extensive set of development tests has been completed along with thruster design verification tests of 2000 h and 1000 h. An 8000 h Life Demonstration Test is ongoing and has successfully demonstrated more than 6000 h of operation. In situ measurements of accelerator grid wear are consistent with grid lifetimes well in excess of the 12,000 h qualification test requirement. Flight hardware is now being assembled in preparation for integration, functional, and acceptance tests.

Sovey, James S.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Zero Gravity Research Facility User's Guide

The Zero Gravity Research Facility (ZGF) is operated by the Space Experiments Division of the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center (GRC) for investigators sponsored by the Microgravity Science and Applications Division of NASA Headquarters. This unique facility has been utilized by scientists and engineers for reduced gravity experimentation since 1966. The ZGF has provided fundamental scientific information, has been used as an important test facility in the space flight hardware design, development, and test process, and has also been a valuable source of data in the flight experiment definition process. The purpose of this document is to provide information and guidance to prospective researchers regarding the design, buildup, and testing of microgravity experiments.

Thompson, Dennis M.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Extravehicular mobility unit training and astronaut injuries

BACKGROUND: Astronaut spacewalk training can result in a variety of symptom complaints and possible injuries. This study quantified and characterized signs, symptoms, and injuries resulting from extravehicular activity spacesuit training at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, immersion facility. METHODS: We identified the frequency and incidence of symptoms by location, mechanisms of injury, and effective countermeasures. Recommendations were made to improve injury prevention, astronaut training, test preparation, and training hardware. At the end of each test, a questionnaire was completed documenting signs and symptoms, mechanisms of injury, and countermeasures. RESULTS: Of the 770 tests, there were 190 in which suit symptoms were reported (24.6%). There were a total of 352 reported suit symptom comments. Of those symptoms, 166 were in the hands (47.16%), 73 were in the shoulders (20.7%), and 40 were in the feet (11.4%). Others ranged from 6.0% to 0.28%, respectively, from the legs, arms, neck, trunk, groin, and head. Causal mechanisms for the hands included moisture and hard glove contacts resulting in fingernail injuries; in the shoulders, hard contact with suit components and strain mechanisms; and in the feet, hard boot contact. The severity of symptoms was highest in the shoulders, hands, and feet. CONCLUSIONS: Most signs and symptoms were mild, self-limited, of brief duration, and were well controlled by available countermeasures. Some represented the potential for significant injury with consequences affecting astronaut health and performance. Correction of extravehicular activity training-related injuries requires a multidisciplinary approach to improve prevention, medical intervention, astronaut training, test planning, and suit engineering.

Non-programmatic↗

NASA NTRS2008

Testing Microshutter Arrays Using Commercial FPGA Hardware

NASA is developing micro-shutter arrays for the Near Infrared Spectrometer (NIRSpec) instrument on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). These micro-shutter arrays allow NIRspec to do Multi Object Spectroscopy, a key part of the mission. Each array consists of 62414 individual 100 x 200 micron shutters. These shutters are magnetically opened and held electrostatically. Individual shutters are then programmatically closed using a simple row/column addressing technique. A common approach to provide these data/clock patterns is to use a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). Such devices require complex VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL) programming and custom electronic hardware. Due to JWST's rapid schedule on the development of the micro-shutters, rapid changes were required to the FPGA code to facilitate new approaches being discovered to optimize the array performance. Such rapid changes simply could not be made using conventional VHDL programming. Subsequently, National Instruments introduced an FPGA product that could be programmed through a Labview interface. Because Labview programming is considerably easier than VHDL programming, this method was adopted and brought success. The software/hardware allowed the rapid change the FPGA code and timely results of new micro-shutter array performance data. As a result, numerous labor hours and money to the project were conserved.

Rapchun, David↗

NASA NTRS2014

System Testing of Ground Cooling System Components

This internship focused primarily upon software unit testing of Ground Cooling System (GCS) components, one of the three types of tests (unit, integrated, and COTS/regression) utilized in software verification. Unit tests are used to test the software of necessary components before it is implemented into the hardware. A unit test determines that the control data, usage procedures, and operating procedures of a particular component are tested to determine if the program is fit for use. Three different files are used to make and complete an efficient unit test. These files include the following: Model Test file (.mdl), Simulink SystemTest (.test), and autotest (.m). The Model Test file includes the component that is being tested with the appropriate Discrete Physical Interface (DPI) for testing. The Simulink SystemTest is a program used to test all of the requirements of the component. The autotest tests that the component passes Model Advisor and System Testing, and puts the results into proper files. Once unit testing is completed on the GCS components they can then be implemented into the GCS Schematic and the software of the GCS model as a whole can be tested using integrated testing. Unit testing is a critical part of software verification; it allows for the testing of more basic components before a model of higher fidelity is tested, making the process of testing flow in an orderly manner.

Unit Test↗

NASA NTRS2014

Developing Avionics Hardware and Software for Rocket Engine Testing

My summer was spent working as an intern at Kennedy Space Center in the Propulsion Avionics Branch of the NASA Engineering Directorate Avionics Division. The work that I was involved with was part of Rocket University's Project Neo, a small scale liquid rocket engine test bed. I began by learning about the layout of Neo in order to more fully understand what was required of me. I then developed software in LabView to gather and scale data from two flowmeters and integrated that code into the main control software. Next, I developed more LabView code to control an igniter circuit and integrated that into the main software, as well. Throughout the internship, I performed work that mechanics and technicians would do in order to maintain and assemble the engine.

liquid rocket↗

NASA NTRS2015

Replacement of Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) -225 Solvent for Cleaning and Verification Sampling of NASA Propulsion Oxygen Systems Hardware, Ground Support Equipment, and Associated Test Systems

Since the 1990's, NASA's rocket propulsion test facilities at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Stennis Space Center (SSC) have used hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225 (HCFC-225), a Class II ozone-depleting substance, to safety clean and verify the cleanliness of large scale propulsion oxygen systems and associated test facilities. In 2012 through 2014, test laboratories at MSFC, SSC, and Johnson Space Center-White Sands Test Facility collaborated to seek out, test, and qualify an environmentally preferred replacement for HCFC-225. Candidate solvents were selected, a test plan was developed, and the products were tested for materials compatibility, oxygen compatibility, cleaning effectiveness, and suitability for use in cleanliness verification and field cleaning operations. Honewell Soltice (TradeMark) Performance Fluid (trans-1-chloro-3,3, 3-trifluoropropene) was selected to replace HCFC-225 at NASA's MSFC and SSC rocket propulsion test facilities.

Burns, H. D.↗