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.
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.
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Multi-element unstructured CFD has been utilized at NASA SSC to carry out analyses of propellant tank systems in different modes of operation. The three regimes of interest at SSC include (a) tank chill down (b) tank pressurization and (c) runtime propellant draw-down and purge. While tank chill down is an important event that is best addressed with long time-scale heat transfer calculations, CFD can play a critical role in the tank pressurization and runtime modes of operation. In these situations, problems with contamination of the propellant by inclusion of the pressurant gas from the ullage causes a deterioration of the quality of the propellant delivered to the test article. CFD can be used to help quantify the mixing and propellant degradation. During tank pressurization under some circumstances, rapid mixing of relatively warm pressurant gas with cryogenic propellant can lead to rapid densification of the gas and loss of pressure in the tank. This phenomenon can cause serious problems during testing because of the resulting decrease in propellant flow rate. With proper physical models implemented, CFD can model the coupling between the propellant and pressurant including heat transfer and phase change effects and accurately capture the complex physics in the evolving flowfields. This holds the promise of allowing the specification of operational conditions and procedures that could minimize the undesirable mixing and heat transfer inherent in propellant tank operation. It should be noted that traditional CFD modeling is inadequate for such simulations because the fluids in the tank are in a range of different sub-critical and supercritical states and elaborate phase change and mixing rules have to be developed to accurately model the interaction between the ullage gas and the propellant. We show a typical run-time simulation of a spherical propellant tank, containing RP-1 in this case, being pressurized with room-temperature nitrogen at 540 R. Nitrogen, shown in blue on the right-hand side of the figures, enters the tank from the diffuser at the top of the figures and impinges on the RP-1, shown in red, while the propellant is being continuously drained at the rate of 1050 lbs/sec through a pipe at the bottom of the tank. The sequence of frames in Figure 1 shows the resultant velocity fields and mixing between nitrogen and RP-1 in a cross-section of the tank at different times. A vortex is seen to form in the incoming nitrogen stream that tends to entrain propellant, mixing it with the pressurant gas. The RP-1 mass fraction contours in Figure 1 are also indicative of the level of mixing and contamination of the propellant. The simulation is used to track the propagation of the pure propellant front as it is drawn toward the exit with the evolution of the mixing processes in the tank. The CFD simulation modeled a total of 10 seconds of run time. As is seen from Figure 1d, after 5.65 seconds the propellant front is nearing the drain pipe, especially near the center of the tank. Behind this pure propellant front is a mixed fluid of compromised quality that would require the test to end when it reaches the exit pipe. Such unsteady simulations provide an estimate of the time that a high-quality propellant supply to the test article can be guaranteed at the modeled mass flow rate. In the final paper, we will discuss simulations of the LOX and propellant tanks at NASA SSC being pressurized by an inert ullage. Detailed comparisons will be made between the CFD simulations and lower order models as well as with test data. Conditions leading to cryo collapse in the tank will also be identified.
The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.
The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.
A castable inhibitor is applied to the aft face of the Space Shuttle Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) forward segment propellant grain to control propellant surface burn area. During fabrication, the propellant surface is trimmed prior to the inhibitor application. This produces a potential for small propellant chips to remain undetected on the propellant surface and contaminate the inhibitor during application. The concern was that undetected propellant chips in the inhibitor might provide a fuse path for premature propellant ignition underneath the inhibitor. To evaluate the fuse path potential, testing was performed on inhibitor samples with embedded propellant. The internal motor environment was simulated with a calibrated CO2 laser beam directed onto a sample which was placed in a 4100 kPa (600 psi) nitrogen pressurized bomb (laser bomb). The testing showed definitive results pertaining to fuse path formation. Embedded propellant chips did not autoignite until the receding heat affected inhibitor surface reached, or passed, the propellant chip. Samples with embedded propellant chips in alignment did not propagate ignition from one chip to another with separation distances as small as 0.010 cm(0.004 inc) and some as little as 0.0051 cm (0.002 in). Propellant chips with volumes approximately less than 0.025 cu cm (0.0015 cu in) (which did not propagate ignition) did not increase the inhibitor material decomposition depth more than the resulting void cavity of the burned out propellant chip. In addition, the depth of this void cavity did not increase until it was overtaken by the surrounding material decomposition depth. This was due, in part, to the retention of the protective inhibitor char layer. Samples with embedded propellant strings, whose thicknesses were below 0.023 cm (0.009 in), did not propagate ignition. Propellant string thicknesses above 0.038 cm (0.015 in) did propagate ignition. Test sample char and heat affected layer measurements and observations compared well with those from the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) Technical Evaluation Motor no. 9(TEM-9).
For over thirty years the T-Burner has been the de facto standard for determining the unstable response of solid propellants. This paper reviews some of the different approaches that have been used, and briefly summarizes advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques. Data from a variety of sources have been reviewed and summarized showing the effect of various test conditions and propellant formulation variations. Much of the data taken in the 60's and early 70's were with so-called research propellants, with relatively low solids loading and usually monomodal AP as the oxidizer. Later data were obtained with propellants containing solids loading more typical and practical propellants. Several distinct differences were observed in the data for the different types of propellants. Data varying AP particle size distributions indicate that either additional fine AP or finer AP usually increases the propellant response. A significant reduction in the response can be achieved by reducing the amount of fine AP, while holding burning rate constant either by adding a catalyst or by varying the overall AP size distribution. A significant amount of data has been obtained for reduced smoke propellants containing stability additives. The data indicate that the additives provide significant particle damping, and most often, also reduce the propellant response. Data from double base propellants indicate a much broader response over a wide frequency range. This implies that double base propellants should be more unstable in tangential modes than composite propellants. This trend seems to be consistent with observed motor data. Measuring the response of metallized propellants has been a challenge due to the large damping due to metal oxide particles in the gas. Data from metallized propellants are not presented here, but will be summarized in a future paper.
Chemical propulsion remains the only viable solution as technically matured technology for the near term human space transportation to Lunar and Mars. Current mode of space travel requires us to "take everything we will need", including propellant for the return trip. Forcing the mission designers to carry propellant for the return trip limits payload mass available for mission operations and results in a large and costly (and often unaffordable) design. Producing propellant via In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) will enable missions with chemical propulsion by the "refueling" of return-trip propellant. It will reduce vehicle propellant mass carrying requirement by over 50%. This mass reduction can translates into increased payload to enhance greater mission capability, reduces vehicle size, weight and cost. It will also reduce size of launch vehicle fairing size as well as number of launches for a given space mission and enables exploration missions with existing chemical propulsion. Mars remains the ultimate destination for Human Space Exploration within the Solar System. The Mars atmospheric consist of 95% carbon dioxide (CO2) and the presence of Ice (water) was detected on Mars surfaces. This presents a basic chemical building block for the ISRU propellant manufacturing. However, the rationale for the right propellant to produce via ISRU appears to be limited to the perception of "what we can produce" as oppose to "what is the right propellant". Methane (CH4) is often quoted as a logical choice for Mars ISRU propellant, however; it is believed that there are better alternatives available that can result in a better space transportation architecture. A system analysis is needed to determine on what is the right propellant choice for the exploration vehicle. This paper examines the propellant selection for production via ISRU method on Mars surfaces. It will examine propellant trades for the exploration vehicle with resulting impact on vehicle performance, size, and on launch vehicles. It will investigate propellant manufacturing techniques that will be applicable on Mars surfaces and address related issues on storage, transfer, and safety. Finally, it will also address the operability issues associated with the impact of propellant selection on ground processing and launch vehicle integration.
Tests were conducted in the Langley full-scale tunnel to determine the aerodynamic performance and acoustic characteristics of four different pusher-propeller configurations on a twin boom, general aviation airplane. The propellers included a 2-blade free propeller, two 3-blade shrouded propellers, and a 5-blade shrouded propeller. The tests were conducted for a range of airplane angles of attack from about 0 deg to 16 deg for test speeds from 0 to about 36 m/sec and for a range of propeller blade angles and rotation speeds. The free propeller provided the best aerodynamic propulsive performance. For forward flight conditions, the free propeller noise levels were lower than those of the shrouded propellers. In the static conditions the free propeller noise levels were as low as those for the shrouded propellers, except for the propeller in-plane noise where the shrouded propeller noise levels were lower.
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.
This volume contains 37 unclassified/unlimited-distribution technical papers that were presented at the JANNAF 28th Propellant Development & Characterization Subcommittee (PDCS) and 17th Safety & Environmental Protection Subcommittee (S&EPS) Joint Meeting, held 26-30 April 1999 at the Town & Country Hotel and the Naval Submarine Base, San Diego, California. Volume II contains 29 unclassified/limited-distribution papers that were presented at the 28th PDCS and 17th S&EPS Joint Meeting. Volume III contains a classified paper that was presented at the 28th PDCS Meeting on 27 April 1999. Topics covered in PDCS sessions include: solid propellant rheology; solid propellant surveillance and aging; propellant process engineering; new solid propellant ingredients and formulation development; reduced toxicity liquid propellants; characterization of hypergolic propellants; and solid propellant chemical analysis methods. Topics covered in S&EPS sessions include: space launch range safety; liquid propellant hazards; vapor detection methods for toxic propellant vapors and other hazardous gases; toxicity of propellants, ingredients, and propellant combustion products; personal protective equipment for toxic liquid propellants; and demilitarization/treatment of energetic material wastes.
Storable propellants (for example water, ammonia, and hydrazine) are attractive for deep space propulsion due to their naturally high density at ambient interplanetary conditions, which obviates the need for a cryogenic/venting system. Water in particular is attractive due to its ease of handling and availability both terrestrially and extra-terrestrially. While many storable propellants are reactive and corrosive, a propulsion scheme where the propellant is insulated from vulnerable (e.g. metallic) sections of the assembly would be well-suited to process these otherwise incompatible propellants. Pulsed inductive plasma thrusters meet this criterion because they can be operated without direct propellant-electrode interaction. During operation of these devices, electrical energy is capacitively stored and then discharged through an inductive coil creating a time-varying current in the coil that interacts with a plasma covering the face of the coil to induce a plasma current. Propellant is accelerated and expelled at a high exhaust velocity (O(10-100 km/s)) by the Lorentz body force arising from the interaction of the magnetic field and the induced plasma current. While this class of thruster mitigates the life-limiting issues associated with electrode erosion, many pulsed inductive plasma thrusters require high pulse energies to inductively ionize propellant. The Microwave Assisted Discharge Inductive Plasma Accelerator (MAD-IPA) is a pulsed inductive plasma thruster that addressees this issue by partially ionizing propellant inside a conical inductive coil before the main current pulse via an electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) discharge. The ECR plasma is produced using microwaves and a static magnetic field from a set of permanent magnets arranged to create a thin resonance region along the inner surface of the coil, restricting plasma formation, and in turn current sheet formation, to a region where the magnetic coupling between the plasma and the theta-pinch coil is high. The use of a conical theta-pinch coil also serves to provide neutral propellant containment and plasma plume focusing that is improved relative to the more common planar geometry of the Pulsed Inductive Thruster (PIT). In this paper, we describe thrust stand measurements performed to evaluate the specific impulse and thrust efficiency of the MAD-IPA for a variety of propellants. Propellants tested include both widely-used, non-reactive noble gases like argon, and rarely-used propellants such as water, hydrazine and ammonia. Dependencies of impulse data on propellant species are discussed in the context of the current sheet formation and electromagnetic plasma acceleration processes.
This project is to develop and test a new propellant formulation specifically for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) for the robotic Mars Sample Return mission. The project was initiated under the Planetary Sciences Division In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program and is continuing under the Mars Exploration Program. The two-stage, solid motor-based MAV has been the leading MAV solution for more than a decade. Additional studies show promise for alternative technologies including hybrid and bipropellant options, but the solid motor design has significant propellant density advantages well suited for physical constraints imposed while using the SkyCrane descent stage. The solid motor concept has lower specific impulse (Isp) than alternatives, but if the first stage and payload remain sufficiently small, the two-stage solid MAV represents a potential low risk approach to meet the mission needs. As the need date for the MAV slips, opportunities exist to advance technology with high on-ramp potential. The baseline propellant for the MAV is currently the carboxyl terminated polybutadiene (CTPB) based formulation TP-H-3062 due to its advantageous low temperature mechanical properties and flight heritage. However, the flight heritage is limited and outside the environments, the MAV must endure. The ISPT program competed a propellant formulation project with industry and selected ATK to develop a new propellant formulation specifically for the MAV application. Working with ATK, a large number of propellant formulations were assessed to either increase performance of a CTPB propellant or improve the low temperature mechanical properties of a hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) propellant. Both propellants demonstrated potential to increase performance over heritage options, but an HTPB propellant formulation, TP-H-3544, was selected for production and testing. The test plan includes propellant aging first at high vacuum conditions, representative of the Mars transit, followed by an additional year at simulated Mars surface conditions. The actual Mars surface environment is based on the igloo design, actively maintains the propellant at or above -40 degC, 95% carbon dioxide at Mars surface pressure. The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Mars environment test facility is shown in figure 1 and located in the East Test area of Redstone Arsenal due to storage of live propellants. The facility consists of a vacuum chamber placed inside a large freezer unit. The facility includes pressure and temperature monitoring equipment in addition to a vacuum quality monitoring system spectrometer to record any outgassing products.