Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “hardware testing”

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 1,171 records · Page 65
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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, when the Class I Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) chlorofluorocarbon-113 (CFC-113) was banned, NASA's rocket propulsion test facilities at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Stennis Space Center (SSC) have relied upon hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225 (HCFC-225) to safely clean and verify the cleanliness of large scale propulsion oxygen systems. Effective January 1, 2015, the production, import, export, and new use of HCFC-225, a Class II ODS, was prohibited by the Clean Air Act. In 2012 through 2014, leveraging resources from both the NASA Rocket Propulsion Test Program and the Defense Logistics Agency - Aviation Hazardous Minimization and Green Products Branch, test labs at MSFC, SSC, and Johnson Space Center's White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) collaborated to seek out, test, and qualify a replacement for HCFC-225 that is both an effective cleaner and safe for use with oxygen systems. Candidate solvents were selected and a test plan was developed following the guidelines of ASTM G127, Standard Guide for the Selection of Cleaning Agents for Oxygen Systems. Solvents were evaluated for materials compatibility, oxygen compatibility, cleaning effectiveness, and suitability for use in cleanliness verification and field cleaning operations. Two solvents were determined to be acceptable for cleaning oxygen systems and one was chosen for implementation at NASA's rocket propulsion test facilities. The test program and results are summarized. This project also demonstrated the benefits of cross-agency collaboration in a time of limited resources.

Mitchell, Mark A.↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA's Space Launch System: Progress Report

After more than four decades exploring the space environment from low Earth orbit and developing long-duration spaceflight operational experience with the International Space Station (ISS), NASA is once again preparing to send explorers into deep space. Development, test and manufacturing is now underway on the launch vehicle, the crew spacecraft and the ground processing and launch facilities to support human and robotic missions to the moon, Mars and the outer solar system. The enabling launch vehicle for these ambitious new missions is the Space Launch System (SLS), managed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Since the program began in 2011, the design has passed Critical Design Review, and extensive development, test and flight hardware has been produced by every major element of the SLS vehicle. Testing continues on engines, boosters, tanks and avionics. While the program has experienced engineering challenges typical of a new development, it continues to make steady progress toward the first SLS mission in roughly two years and a sustained cadence of missions thereafter. This paper will discuss these and other technical and SLS programmatic successes and challenges over the past year and provide a preview of work ahead before first flight.

Cook, Jerry↗
NASA NTRS2019

ATLAS Flight Science Receiver Algorithms

This is the basis document for the ATLAS Receiver Algorithms. ATLAS is the single instrument on the ICESat-2 mission. The Receiver (Rx) Algorithms select the signal location in real-time and instruct the hardware to telemeter a vertical band of received time-tags about this signal location. The algorithms are implemented in the Flight Software (FSW) and in the hardware of the Photon Counting Electronics (PCE) cards. The sole purpose of the algorithms is to reduce the telemetry data volume to fit within the downlink constraint while maximizing the probability of downlinking surface signal. All versions of the Receiver Algorithms from version 2.8 onward incorporate our best knowledge of the ATLAS hardware at this time. It presents algorithms that, based on current Simulator testing, satisfy all of the requirements for the Rx Algorithms. Testing during ATLAS Instrument Integration and Testing with the hardware and software implementation of the Rx Algorithms revealed characteristics and responses that required changes to the Rx Algorithms and this document, which are captured in the change record below.All relevant documentation for the Receiver Algorithms can be found on the ICESat-2 Technical Data Management System (TDMS) under the ATLAS Algorithms subsystem.The launch version of the FSW (version 3.1.0) is based upon version 3.7c of this document.

Mcgarry, Jan L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hydrogen Peroxide-Water-Ethanol-Monopropellant Blend for CubeSat Propulsion

Monopropellant propulsion that provides high performance and low hazards compared to state-of-art hydrazine are being investigated under NASA, DOD and commercially sponsored green propellant research and development programs. This NASAeffort looks at phosphate stabilized 50% hydrogen peroxide/water –ethanol blends to evaluate their stability and combustion behavior in submillimeter diameter microtube combustion apparatus for cubesat propulsion applications. Exploratory 7-day stabilitytests find no pressure rise in a sealed test tube environment at room temperature indicating at least short term stability of the mixture. Temperature rise during combustion testing in resistively heated nickel microtube apparatus shows that micro-combustion is achieved in the tube. Propellant density is approximately 1.2 g/cm3compared to 1.0 g/cm3for hydrazine. Theoretical specific impulse of the stoichiometric blend is 219 s at a chamber pressure of 20 psia and an area ratio of 30:1. Density-specific impulseof this blendis263 swhile hydrazine is only about 215-220 sin small reaction control system thrusters. This provides about 20-22% more density-specific impulse for the cubesat compared to hydrazine. The theoreticalcombustion temperature is2168°F, whichis thermally compatible with stainless steel materials of constructionand the nickel catalystused in the tests. Combustion test results are given for stoichiometric, as well as fuel-leanand fuel-richpropellant formulations. Thesetests focus on thermally and catalytically supported combustionin the microtube, whichrequires a microtube preheat temperature of about 900°F and sufficient residence time to achieve combustion that is stable and anchored in the tubewithout blowing through the tube unreacted. Thrust class is expected to be in the 10 mN range based on flow rate and estimated specific impulse.Power requirements are generally below 25 Wto heat the tube. Steady state combustion testing is typically conducted for 3 minutes and shows littledegradation of the hardware over multiple test cyclesindicating thatthere is little catalyst degradation over time and littlecatalyst deactivation due tothe phosphate stabilizer inthe hydrogen peroxide.

Monopropellant↗
NASA NTRS2021

Computing Risk of Pyrotechnic Devices Using Lot Acceptance Testing

This paper presents an application of statistical engineering to solve the problem of determining the effects of reducing test sample sizes and environment levels in lot acceptance testing (LAT) of ordnance devices used by NASA and DoD space systems. Unlike environmental testing of dedicated qualification hardware, ordnance devices have a test-like-you-fly exception and use lot acceptance sampling or LAT. LAT is performed by randomly selecting a predefined number of devices from an individual lot and exposing them to a more severe dynamic shock and vibration testing environments than flight (sometimes as high as 6 decibels over flight environments) and then performing a destructive test on the device. Recent trends have been suggested to reduce LAT costs by reducing environment test levels or the number of devices per LAT, or both. A method is given here to compute flight risk, so the proposed methods can be compared by subject matter experts to the baseline LAT methods. In addition, this method can be used to determine the best methods to include in future LAT standards for pyrotechnic devices.

Computing Risk↗
NASA NTRS2011

Design, Development and Test Challenges: Separation Mechanisms for the Orion Pad Abort-1 Flight Test

On May 6, 2010, NASA launched the first successful integrated flight test, Pad Abort-1, of the Orion Project from the White Sands Missile Range in Las Cruces, New Mexico. This test demonstrated the ability to perform an emergency pad abort of a full-scale 4.8 m diameter, 8200 kg crew capsule. During development of the critical separation mechanisms for this flight test, various challenges were overcome related to environments definition, installation complications, separation joint retraction speed, thruster ordnance development issues, load path validation and significant design loads increases. The Launch Abort System retention and release (LAS R&R) mechanism consisted of 6 discrete structural connections between the LAS and the crew module (CM) simulator, each of which had a preloaded tension tie, Superbolt torque-nut and frangible nut. During the flight test, the frangible nuts were pyrotechnically split, permitting the CM to separate from the LAS. The LAS separation event was the driving case in the shock environment for many co-located hardware items. During development testing, it was necessary to measure the source shock during the separation event so the predicted shock environment could be validated and used for certification testing of multiple hardware items. The Lockheed Martin test team measured the source separation shock due to the LAS R&R function, which dramatically decreased the predicted environment by 90% at 100 Hz. During development testing a hydraulic tensioner was used to preload the joint; however, the joint relaxation with the tensioner proved unsatisfactory so the design was modified to include a Superbolt torque-nut. The observed preload creep during lab testing was 4% after 30 days, with 2.5% occurring in the first 24 hours. The conversion of strain energy (preload) to kinetic energy (retraction) was measured to be 50-75%. Design features and careful monitoring of multiple strain gauges on each tension tie allowed a pure tensile load to be applied after stacking at the launch pad. Following installation, preload in each joint was monitored for 24 hours. Due to unforeseen complications and the influence of temperature on the portable data acquisition system, the team encountered difficulty in tracking the joint relaxation. In some cases, bond-line failure of the strain gauges occurred.

Dinsel, Alison↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Flight Systems Integration Path

The foundation for a safe and successful flight test of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) X-57 Maxwell all-electric experimental airplane, or any X-Plane, is comprehensive system testing on the ground. This test campaign includes verification and validation (V&V) that the integrated system operates as designed and expected, as well as understanding how the system reacts and responds to failures that can occur during flight by performing failure modes and effects testing (FMET). The aircraft should be in the final flight configuration for these test activities because any modifications, even those that appear insignificant, could affect test outcomes. Although the plan was to perform V&V and FMET testing once the airplane was in the flight configuration, due to multiple component redesigns, concurrent software development, and other problems with on-aircraft testing, the X-57 Maxwell never made it into a full-flight configuration. As a result, a build-up approach was followed to test software and hardware as they became ready in order to continue making progress wherever possible. Using this approach revealed problems with the hardware and software faster than waiting for a full-flight configuration, allowing solutions to be found more quickly and in parallel with other project tasks. Other than unloaded motor testing in a lab setting, the only other test setup was on the airplane itself. On-aircraft testing was preferrable in order to test things as close to a flight configuration as possible but was time consuming due to the requirements for testing on the airplane. To overcome some of the on-aircraft barriers, off-aircraft test configurations, such as the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) setups, were used, but each of these setups had limitations to be considered. As a result, solutions found in the SIL or HIL configurations did not always work as expected on the airplane, resulting in an iterative process between on- and off-aircraft testing to find the final solution. Having a dedicated test platform such as an iron bird that closely represents the aircraft - without flight hardware - would have been the most effective off-aircraft test setup, which could have allowed the project to save time and money and potentially reach flight. This paper will highlight the V&V and FMET considerations and testing prerequisites, the build-up approaches to both software and system testing, the benefits and drawbacks to different test configurations, as well as battery testing and operations.

Kassidy M. Mclaughlin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Flight Systems Integration Path

The foundation for a safe and successful flight test of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) X-57 Maxwell all-electric experimental airplane, or any X-Plane, is comprehensive system testing on the ground. This test campaign includes verification and validation (V&V) that the integrated system operates as designed and expected, as well as understanding how the system reacts and responds to failures that can occur during flight by performing failure modes and effects testing (FMET). The aircraft should be in the final flight configuration for these test activities because any modifications, even those that appear insignificant, could affect test outcomes. Although the plan was to perform V&V and FMET testing once the airplane was in the flight configuration, due to multiple component redesigns, concurrent software development, and other problems with on-aircraft testing, the X-57 Maxwell never made it into a full-flight configuration. As a result, a build-up approach was followed to test software and hardware as they became ready in order to continue making progress wherever possible. Using this approach revealed problems with the hardware and software faster than waiting for a full-flight configuration, allowing solutions to be found more quickly and in parallel with other project tasks. Other than unloaded motor testing in a lab setting, the only other test setup was on the airplane itself. On-aircraft testing was preferrable in order to test things as close to a flight configuration as possible but was time consuming due to the requirements for testing on the airplane. To overcome some of the on-aircraft barriers, off-aircraft test configurations, such as the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) setups, were used, but each of these setups had limitations to be considered. As a result, solutions found in the SIL or HIL configurations did not always work as expected on the airplane, resulting in an iterative process between on- and off-aircraft testing to find the final solution. Having a dedicated test platform such as an iron bird that closely represents the aircraft - without flight hardware - would have been the most effective off-aircraft test setup, which could have allowed the project to save time and money and potentially reach flight. This paper will highlight the V&V and FMET considerations and testing prerequisites, the build-up approaches to both software and system testing, the benefits and drawbacks to different test configurations, as well as battery testing and operations.

Kassidy McLaughlin↗
DOE OSTI2025

An Open-Source Framework for Rapid Validation of Scientific ASICs

Spacely is an open-source framework for the post-silicon validation of analog, digital, and mixed-signal ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) which maximizes the reuse of hardware and software, reducing the time taken to achieve meaningful test results. Spacely specifically addresses the needs of small, flexible ASIC design teams commonly found in academia or research institutions which benefit most from sharing the overhead of test stand creation between many unique ASIC designs. Spacely is a set of software, firmware, and design practices. It targets two primary hardware platforms (NI-PXI and Caribou) as well as offering extensible support for bench instruments. Spacely provides a high-level Python interface to all test hardware for accessibility, while also giving more sophisticated teams the opportunity to integrate custom test firmware. The design principles of Spacely are presented in brief. Current documentation is available at https://github.com/SpacelyProject/spacely-docs.

Quinn, Adam [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Open-Source Framework for Rapid Validation of Scientific ASICs

Spacely is an open-source framework for the post-silicon validation of analog, digital, and mixed-signal ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) which maximizes the reuse of hardware and software, reducing the time taken to achieve meaningful test results. Spacely specifically addresses the needs of small, flexible ASIC design teams commonly found in academia or research institutions which benefit most from sharing the overhead of test stand creation between many unique ASIC designs. Spacely is a set of software, firmware, and design practices. It targets two primary hardware platforms (NI-PXI and Caribou) as well as offering extensible support for bench instruments. Spacely provides a high-level Python interface to all test hardware for accessibility, while also giving more sophisticated teams the opportunity to integrate custom test firmware. The design principles of Spacely are presented, along with a demonstrative example of using Spacely to test a pixel detector readout ASIC.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
NASA NTRS2004

Polymorphic Electronic Circuits

Polymorphic electronics is a nascent technological discipline that involves, among other things, designing the same circuit to perform different analog and/or digital functions under different conditions. For example, a circuit can be designed to function as an OR gate or an AND gate, depending on the temperature (see figure). Polymorphic electronics can also be considered a subset of polytronics, which is a broader technological discipline in which optical and possibly other information- processing systems could also be designed to perform multiple functions. Polytronics is an outgrowth of evolvable hardware (EHW). The basic concepts and some specific implementations of EHW were described in a number of previous NASA Tech Briefs articles. To recapitulate: The essence of EHW is to design, construct, and test a sequence of populations of circuits that function as incrementally better solutions of a given design problem through the selective, repetitive connection and/or disconnection of capacitors, transistors, amplifiers, inverters, and/or other circuit building blocks. The evolution is guided by a search-and-optimization algorithm (in particular, a genetic algorithm) that operates in the space of possible circuits to find a circuit that exhibits an acceptably close approximation of the desired functionality. The evolved circuits can be tested by computational simulation (in which case the evolution is said to be extrinsic), tested in real hardware (in which case the evolution is said to be intrinsic), or tested in random sequences of computational simulation and real hardware (in which case the evolution is said to be mixtrinsic).

Stoica, Adrian↗
NASA NTRS2011

Student Drop Tower Competitions: Dropping In a Microgravity Environment (DIME) and What If No Gravity? (WING)

This paper describes two student competition programs that allow student teams to conceive a science or engineering experiment for a microgravity environment. Selected teams design and build their experimental hardware, conduct baseline tests, and ship their experiment to NASA where it is operated in the 2.2 Second Drop Tower. The hardware and acquired data is provided to the teams after the tests are conducted so that the teams can prepare their final reports about their findings.

Hall, Nancy R.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Orbiter wheel and tire certification

The orbiter wheel and tire development has required a unique series of certification tests to demonstrate the ability of the hardware to meet severe performance requirements. Early tests of the main landing gear wheel using conventional slow roll testing resulted in hardware failures. This resulted in a need to conduct high velocity tests with crosswind effects for assurance that the hardware was safe for a limited number of flights. Currently, this approach and the conventional slow roll and static tests are used to certify the wheel/tire assembly for operational use.

Campbell, C. C., Jr.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Trash Compaction Processing System (TCPS) Technology Demonstrations and Risk Reduction Activities 2023-2024

The Trash Compactor Processing System (TCPS) employs heat and pressure to safely compress spacecraft trash. The Next STEP Phase B Appendix 2 contract was awarded to Sierra Space for the development of ground and flight demonstration hardware, slated for testing on the International Space Station in 2026. Meanwhile, Ames Research Center is actively engaged in risk reduction activities related to in-house hardware, fine-tuning science objectives and test procedures.This paper will discuss the updated TCPS requirements and present the results of the risk reduction activities, which include moisture analysis, component offgas, and aerosol analysis.

Justine Tra-my Richardson↗
NASA NTRS1980

A precision pointing system for Shuttle experiment payloads

This paper describes the Annular Suspension and Pointing System (ASPS) being developed to support NASA Shuttle payloads in the 1980s. The ASPS employs a unique magnetic suspension system to isolate Shuttle payloads from Orbiter disturbances and provide vernier control of the payload's attitude, thereby allowing extremely accurate and stable pointing. A description of the system design, configurations, and performance goals is given. Component and system development testing of the full-size ASPS Engineering Development Model is described, and hardware photographs and test configurations are presented.

Van Riper, R.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Hardware and operating features of the adaptive wall test section for the 0.3-meter transonic cryogenic tunnel

A 13- by 13-inch adaptive wall test section was installed in the Langley 0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel circuit. This test section has four solid walls and is configured for two-dimensional airfoil testing. The top and bottom walls are flexible and movable, whereas the sidwalls are rigid and fixed. The test section has a turntable to support airfoil models, a survey mechanism to probe the model wake, and provisions for a sidewall boundary-layer-control system. Details of the adaptive wall test section, the tunnel circuit modifications, the supporting instrumentation, the monitoring and control hardware, and the wall adaptation strategy are discussed. Sample results of shakedown tests with the test section empty and with an airfoil installed are also included.

Mineck, Raymond E.↗