Results for “Propulsion Systems Lab” — Page 8

NASA NTRS2001

Simulation of MC-1 Engine on Real-Time Station

The MC-1 rocket engine is a new, 60,000-pound-thrust engine designed to boost small spacecraft carrying payloads weighing up to 500 pounds. The engine was designed in-house at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, and built by SUMMA Technology, Inc. A vital part of the success of the engine development was the verification of the Propulsion System Controller (PSC) used to control the MC-1 engine during development testing at test facilities in Mississippi and California. The MC-1 engine simulation software was developed on the Applied Dynamics, Inc.'s Real-Time Station (RTS) computer system (ESL) to verify the PSC's hardware and software performance in the Marshall Avionics System Testbed's (MAST) Engine Simulation Lab at the MSFC. The engine model includes the simulation of pressure transducers, thermocouple sensors and valve-positions.

Ly, William↗

DOE OSTI2025

Wind 2H2 Project (CRADA Final Report)

The Xcel-NREL Wind Electrolysis R&D Project is designed to gain knowledge and insight about producing hydrogen from electricity for use as a vehicle fuel and as a “stored wind”. The project will analyze producing hydrogen directly from wind as well as from the electric grid. In addition, it will look at storing hydrogen and then using it to put electricity back onto the grid. Modifications were made to the original scope to also include electric vehicles integration with the electric grid. This report addresses Task 8 portion of the CRADA, focused on testing and measuring the attributes of plug-in electric vehicles.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

NASA NTRS2015

SLS Test Stand Site Selection

Test site selection is a critical element of the design, development and production of a new system. With the advent of the new Space Launch System (SLS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had a number of test site selection decisions that needed to be made early enough in the Program to support the planned Launch Readiness Date (LRD). This case study focuses on decisions that needed to be made in 2011 and 2012 in preparation for the April 2013 DPMC decision about where to execute the Main Propulsion Test that is commonly referred to as "Green Run." Those decisions relied upon cooperative analysis between the Program, the Test Lab and Center Operations. The SLS is a human spaceflight vehicle designed to carry a crew farther into space than humans have previously flown. The vehicle consists of four parts: the crew capsule, the upper stage, the core stage, and the first stage solid rocket boosters. The crew capsule carries the astronauts, while the upper stage, the core stage, and solid rocket boosters provide thrust for the vehicle. In other words, the stages provide the "lift" part of the lift vehicle. In conjunction with the solid rocket boosters, the core stage provides the initial "get-off-the-ground" thrust to the vehicle. The ignition of the four core stage engines and two solid rocket boosters is the first step in the launch portion of the mission. The solid rocket boosters burn out after about 2 minutes of flight, and are then jettisoned. The core stage provides thrust until the vehicle reaches a specific altitude and speed, at which point the core stage is shut off and jettisoned, and the upper stage provides vehicle thrust for subsequent mission trajectories. The integrated core stage primarily consists of a liquid oxygen tank, a liquid hydrogen tank, and the four core stage engines. For the SLS program, four RS-25 engines were selected as the four core stage engines. The RS-25 engine is the same engine that was used for Space Shuttle. The test plan for the integrated core stage was broken down into several segments: Component testing, system level testing, and element level testing. In this context, components are items such as valves, controllers, sensors, etc. Systems are items such as an entire engine, a tank, or the outer stage body. The core stage itself is considered to be an element. The rocket engines are also considered an element. At the program level, it was decided to perform a single green run test on the integrated core stage prior to shipment of it to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) for use in the EM-1 test flight of the SLS vehicle. A green run test is the first live fire of the new integrated core stage and engine elements - without boosters of course. The SLS Program had to decide where to perform SLS green run testing.

Crowe, Kathryn↗

DOE OSTI2026

Development of Machine-Learned Interatomic Potentials to Predict Structure, Transport, and Reactivity in Platinum-Based Fuel Cells

Machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs) have rapidly progressed in accuracy, speed, and data efficiency in recent years. However, training robust MLIPs in multicomponent systems remains a challenge. In this work, we train an MLIP to describe hydrated Nafion ionomers and platinum catalysts, which are important components of fuel cells, by constructing a diverse training set to describe the bulk polymer and interfacial catalyst–polymer interactions well. We use our trained MLIP to study the properties of the platinum–Nafion system, including polymer structure, proton mobility in a bulk Nafion polymer and near a platinum-Nafion interface, and reactions near and far from the interface, finding excellent results for structure and reactions contained within our training set. Transport seems to be well described, with both vehicular transport and Grotthuss hopping captured, although converged calculations of diffusivities were not computed because they require calculations of tens of nanoseconds that are challenging with current state-of-the-art MLIPs. The combined insights that this model provides can be leveraged to optimize fuel cell performance, and the approach can be applied to other chemical processes and devices where structure, transport, and reactivity all contribute to the overall observed performance.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impedance Measurements of Motor Drives and Supply in SPEED Testbed

Many electrified aircraft configurations consist of a number of power components operating on the same shared electrical bus. Understanding the impedance performance of electrical loads and sources is key to understanding, and designing for, acceptable overall vehicle power quality and power system stability. To enable these measurements, personnel at NASA’s Glenn research Center have designed and built the Scaled Power ElEctrified Drivetrain (SPEED) Testbed. This paper will present data taken in the SPEED lab, including impedance measurements of a DC supply (source) and a motor drive and electric machine (load) under a number of conditions. Impacts of load power, drive controller tuning, and field weakening on load impedance are measured, presented, and discussed; as are source impedance data, and DC bus current spectra at different loading levels.

electrified aircraft propulsion↗

NASA NTRS2021

Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment (CAPSTONE)

NASA has partnered with Advanced Space to develop and build the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment (CAPSTONE) mission which will serve as a pathfinder for Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NHRO) operations around the Moon. The NHRO, (Perilune = 3,200 km; Apolune = 70,000 km) will be the intended orbit for the NASA’s Artemis Gateway lunar orbital platform. The CAPSTONE mission will validate simulations and confirm operational planning for Gateway while also validating performance of navigation and station-keeping requirements for the Power and Propulsion Element. Thus, this mission will provide operational experience to NASA, commercial, and international missions for operations in a demanding orbital regime. The baseline for CAPSTONE is to fly a 12U cubesat developed, integrated, and tested by Tyvak Nanosatellite Systems carrying a payload communications system capable of cross-link ranging with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), a dedicated payload flight computer for software demonstration, and a camera. The launch, coordinated by NASA Launch Services Program, will be provided by a Rocket Lab launch vehicle utilizing their new Proton upper stage to deploy the CAPSTONE spacecraft into the lunar orbit. The CAPSTONE mission is targeting a launch no earlier than September 23, 2021. Upon launch, the spacecraft will traverse a highly efficient transfer taking approximately three months to enter a primary demonstration phase in an NRHO for six months followed by a twelve month technology enhancement operations phase. The CAPSTONE Project is lead by Advanced Space, LLC of Boulder Colorado. Spacecraft development and mission operations will be conducted by Tyvak Nanosatellite Systems of Irvine, California. Noted objectives for the CAPSTONE mission will be to demonstrate the accessibility of NHROs, validate key operational concepts in the NHRO environment, lay a foundation for commercial support of future lunar operations and accelerate the availability of peer-to-peer navigation capabilities provided by the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System (CAPS). The CAPSTONE mission is funded through NASA's Small Spacecraft Technology Program (SSTP), which is one of several programs in NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. SSTP is chartered to develop and demonstrate technologies to enhance and expand the capabilities of small spacecraft with a particular focus on enabling new mission architectures through the use of small spacecraft, expanding the reach of small spacecraft to new destinations, and augmenting future missions with supporting small spacecraft. The launch for the CAPSTONE Mission is provided by Human Exploration & Operations Missions Directorate Advanced Exploration Systems Division. Coordination and Acquisition of the Launch is managed by NASA’s Launch Services Program. The CAPSTONE Mission and project status will be presented.

CAPSTONE↗

NASA NTRS2012

Multi-Mission Simulation and Visualization for Real-Time Telemetry Display, Playback and EDL Event Reconstruction

he Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) Reconstruction Task has developed a software system that provides mission operations personnel and analysts with a real time telemetry-based live display, playback and post-EDL reconstruction capability that leverages the existing high-fidelity, physics-based simulation framework and modern game engine-derived 3D visualization system developed in the JPL Dynamics and Real Time Simulation (DARTS) Lab. Developed as a multi-mission solution, the EDL Telemetry Visualization (ETV) system has been used for a variety of projects including NASA's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), NASA'S Low Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD) and JPL's MoonRise Lunar sample return proposal.

Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) Reconstruction↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impedance Measurements of Motor Drive and Supply in SPEED Testbed

Many electrified aircraft configurations consist of a number of power components operating on the same shared electrical bus. Understanding the impedance performance of electrical loads and sources is key to understanding, and designing for, acceptable overall vehicle power quality and power system stability. To enable these measurements, personnel at NASA’s Glenn Research Center have designed and built the Scaled Power ElEctrified Drivetrain (SPEED) Testbed. This paper will present data taken in the SPEED lab, including impedance measurements of a DC supply (source) and a motor drive and electric machine (load) under a number of conditions. Impacts of load power, drive controller tuning, and field-weakening on load impedance are measured, presented, and discussed; as are source impedance data, stability, and DC bus current spectra at different loading levels.

electrified aircraft propulsion↗

DOE OSTI2025

ELECTRIFICATION OF A HEAVY-DUTY OFF-ROAD MATERIAL HANDLER: ENERGY SAVINGS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Federal regulations are driving the adoption of electrification technologies to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, a metric that quantifies the global warming potential of various greenhouse gases in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2). Although no specific CO2 regulations exist for heavy-duty off-road machines, future reductions are likely, given stricter emissions standards for on-road vehicles. The heavy-duty off-road sector offers significant fuel-saving potential, as its focus has traditionally been on reliability and performance rather than fuel efficiency. This dissertation examines fuel and CO2e savings opportunities on a heavy-duty off-road material handler, the Pettibone Cary-Lift 204i, from stock configuration to simple modifications to a complete teardown and reconfiguration of the machine with a plug-in series hybrid architecture using electrified hydraulics. The study begins by modeling the baseline machine’s fuel and energy consumption, calibrating with experimental data from custom operating cycles. An energy analysis identifies key areas for fuel savings. Two simple powertrain modifications result in a combined 16.2% fuel savings. Next, a Pugh-style analysis narrows a list of electrified architectures, leading to high-fidelity models that evaluate total lifetime CO2e and costs. Higher electrification levels reduce CO2e emissions but increase costs, and electricity grid emissions significantly impact CO2e for plug-in architectures. A plug-in series hybrid is chosen for the project. In its base control form, 49% fuel and 29% CO2e savings are expected from the plug-in series hybrid compared to the baseline machine. Further savings are pursued through regenerative braking (6.3%) and load-following hydraulic control (17.8%), totaling 24.1% fuel savings, and leading to a total of 61% fuel and 41% CO2e savings compared to the baseline. Battery chemistries and charging strategies are also analyzed for cost and CO2e impacts, finding LFP batteries as superior due to longevity, and overnight level 2 charging usually at a lower cost but resulting in higher emissions than opportunity DC fast-charging (DCFC). DCFC emissions are highly dependent on grid emissions, and DCFC cost is highly dependent on grid demand charges. Finally, artificial intelligence is applied to operating cycle recognition. Neural network accuracy ranges from 81% to 99%, with applications to worksite efficiency and safety improvements.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway Program Development Progress

This paper provides an overview and status of Gateway, humanity’s first space station to orbit the Moon providing vital support for a sustained, long-term human return to the lunar surface and a steppingstone to Mars as part of the Artemis missions. As a lunar outpost, Gateway is a destination for deep space crew expeditions and science investigations, a port for deep space transportation, including landers transiting to the lunar surface or spacecraft embarking to deep space destinations beyond the Earth-Moon system. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) leads the Program and is the integrator of the spaceflight capabilities and contributions of U.S. commercial partners and international partners to develop Gateway. This paper will provide an overview of Gateway’s major components in various stages of development. The entire Gateway spacecraft is at preliminary design level of maturity, with some components at or near critical design review. Gateway’s major components are the Power and Propulsion Element; the Habitation and Logistics Outpost; Deep Space Logistics; the International Habitation module; Gateway External Robotics System; European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications; and an Airlock. This paper will also provide an update on the status of the integration activities necessary to fly and operate this complex, next-generation integrated spacecraft for a minimum 15 year design life, including systems engineering integrated analysis cycles, the autonomous Vehicle System Manager software, verification and validation labs, and common vehicle equipment. Expanding on the successful partnership that has provided over 20 years of continuous crew operations in low-Earth orbit on the International Space Station, Gateway is an evolution of this extraordinary partnership leveraging the capabilities of each contributor to expand humankind’s sustained exploration deeper into the cosmos. Highlighting the international program with participation from multiple space agencies, this paper will also provide a status of Gateway multilateral governance structure and international agreements.

Sean M Fuller↗

NASA NTRS2024

Gateway Program Development Progress

This paper provides an overview and status of Gateway, humanity’s first space station to orbit the Moon providing vital support for a sustained, long-term human return to the lunar surface and a steppingstone to Mars as part of the Artemis missions. As a lunar outpost, Gateway is a destination for deep space crew expeditions and science investigations, a port for deep space transportation, including landers transiting to the lunar surface or spacecraft embarking to deep space destinations beyond the Earth-Moon system. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) leads the Program and is the integrator of the spaceflight capabilities and contributions of U.S. commercial partners and international partners to develop Gateway. This paper will provide an overview of Gateway’s major components in various stages of development. The entire Gateway spacecraft is at preliminary design level of maturity, with some components at or near critical design review. Gateway’s major components are the Power and Propulsion Element; the Habitation and Logistics Outpost; Deep Space Logistics; the International Habitation module; Gateway External Robotics System; European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications; and an Airlock. This paper will also provide an update on the status of the integration activities necessary to fly and operate this complex, next-generation integrated spacecraft for a minimum 15-year design life, including systems engineering integrated analysis cycles, the autonomous Vehicle System Manager software, verification and validation labs, and common vehicle equipment. Expanding on the successful partnership that has provided over 20 years of continuous crew operations in low-Earth orbit on the International Space Station, Gateway is an evolution of this extraordinary partnership leveraging the capabilities of each contributor to expand humankind’s sustained exploration deeper into the cosmos. Highlighting the international program with participation from multiple space agencies, this paper will also provide a status of Gateway multilateral governance structure and international agreements.

Gateway↗

NASA NTRS2019

Supporting Crew Autonomy in Deep Space Exploration: Preliminary Onboard Capability Requirements and Proposed Research Questions. Technical Report of the Autonomous Crew Operations Technical Interchange Meeting

Communication delays are a critical challenge posed by long duration deep space exploration. Space missions historically have relied on an ever-present Mission Control Center (MCC) to direct operations in near real-time. As unanticipated anomalies that defeat fault detection and resolution systems do arise, the lack of real-time communication will significantly weaken what the MCC support represents: a reliable safety net for the flight crew through its deep and diverse areas of expertise and investigative resources. As a consequence, future space vehicles and habitats need to be equipped with capabilities to support the flight crew to operate with little or no ground support. Considerations must be given to vehicle and mission designs that will fortify the traditionally ground-centered safety net and forge new support systems, when communication delays exist. In August 2018, NASA’s Human Research Program, through its Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element, convened a Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) on Autonomous Crew Operations at NASA Ames Research Center. The goal of the meeting was to gather input from NASA centers, industry, academia, and branches of the Department of Defense (DoD) to address how intelligent technologies can be applied to augment onboard capabilities to support crew anomaly response. The TIM featured 24 presentations by 29 speakers and hosted a total of 59 attendees, including 43 from 5 NASA centers (Ames, Johnson, Langley, Marshall, and Jet Propulsion Lab) and 4 from the DoD (3 from Army Research Lab and 1 from Naval Postgraduate School), with remaining attendees from academia (e.g., UC Davis, CMU) and industry (e.g., IBM, Siemens). Discussions were centered around three themes: standards and guidelines, lessons learned in analog environments, and technologies. To help provide a framework for discussion, a concept matrix describing anomaly response processes was created prior to the TIM (Figure 1, page 6). The matrix captures the steps involved (monitoring and detection, diagnosis, solution development and evaluation, solution implementation and verification, resolution documentation) as well as the resources and capabilities required to support these steps (data, knowledge, analysis, synthesis, resource management). A wallpaper size printout of the matrix was utilized at the TIM to solicit attendee inputs along the three themes; the activity garnered 108 submissions of ideas. Overall, what emerged from TIM discussions was a picture of mismatch between crew anomaly response needs and support that can be provided by existing intelligent technologies. The needs are broad, spanning multiple steps and processes/resources, with many of which lacking support from existing technologies, such as knowledge management throughout the steps of problem solving (especially in resolution documentation) and manpower management. The solutions provided by existing intelligent technologies are specific to the steps/processes that they are designed to support and constrained to solving only problems similar to those that have occurred before. What is lacking from technologies is typically made up by humans, specifically their complex critical thinking, creative problem solving, and domain expertise. In the end, the TIM highlighted the pressing need to support responses to onboard anomalies during autonomous crew operations, particularly those that have eluded the system tests, inspection, and other assurance processes. Such anomalies can potentially threaten crew and vehicle safety, as well as significantly impact overall operations with additional workload. These fairly rare events are difficult to anticipate and prepare for, given the state-of-the-art in intelligent technologies. This is true even for anomalies that stem from “unknown knowns”—cases in which there is sufficient external information to characterize the problem but the overall pattern fails to be recognized by the problem solver, or in which the internal knowledge needed to solve a problem is held tacitly and potentially accessible by the problem solver but not articulated. It follows that the ability to tackle anomalies lies not only with the availability of relevant information and knowledge but also their accessibility in times of need. To that end, we propose research questions along the following three broad themes: • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information available? • How intelligent technologies can help make relevant knowledge and information accessible? • How intelligent technologies can help support the crew operating as a team in anomaly response processes?

autonomous crew operations↗

NASA NTRS2000

Web Time-Management Tool

Oak Grove Reactor, developed by Oak Grove Systems, is a new software program that allows users to integrate workflow processes. It can be used with portable communication devices. The software can join e-mail, calendar/scheduling and legacy applications into one interactive system via the web. Priority tasks and due dates are organized and highlighted to keep the user up to date with developments. Reactor works with existing software and few new skills are needed to use it. Using a web browser, a user can can work on something while other users can work on the same procedure or view its status while it is being worked on at another site. The software was developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab and originally put to use at Johnson Space Center.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRS2019

Program Management for Concurrent University Satellite Programs, Including Propellant Feed System Design Elements

Propulsion options for CubeSats are limited but are necessary for the CubeSat industry to continue future growth. Challenges to CubeSat propulsion include volume/mass constraints, availability of sufficiently small and certified hardware, secondary payload status, safe storage of high energy, and power requirements. A multi-mode (chemical and electric) thruster was developed by at the Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) to enable CubeSat propulsion missions. Two satellite buses, a 3U and 6U, are being developed by the M-SAT satellite research team at Missouri S&T to demonstrate the multi-mode thruster's capabilities. Two key challenges related to these missions are the development of the feed system to support the thruster and management of the two programs' personnel, resources, timelines, and budgets. The feed system was designed to support the unique needs of the thruster including material compatibility with the custom ionic liquid, variable flow rate, high pressurization, and high voltage within the constraints and budget of a student-designed propulsion system. The feed system was also designed to minimize risk as a secondary payload. This resulted in the development of a unique method to pressurize propellant stored in the feed system tubing. Within the expected operating pressure range, the method was experimentally shown to provide sufficient pressure and propellant volume to the thruster to meet mission success criteria. The 3U and 6U CubeSat buses were designed concurrently with complimentary payloads, hardware, objectives, and team structures. Resources such as personnel, lab space, and time had to be carefully balanced between the two teams. With proper management, the two programs have been able to support one another, providing valuable insight and collaboration between the two teams. Lessons learned include experience with design, testing, and assembly of hardware, team training/mentoring and motivation, improved documentation practices, and risk management.

Withrow, Shannah Nichole↗