Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ROCKET PROPELLANT TANK”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Space Launch System Begins Integration, Stacking in Preparation for Artemis I Launch

The Artemis era of human lunar exploration is nearing take-off as NASA’s new super heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Space Launch System (SLS), begins stack-ing and integration operations in mid-2020 at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. With a planned upgrade path to progressively more powerful vehicles and availability in crew and cargo configurations, SLS provides a unique and flexible launch solution to send crew, large-scale infrastructure and robotic probes to deep space. The SLS Block 1 vehicle, the initial variant to fly, is optimized for lunar missions with a proven propulsion system consisting of four liquid hydrogen (LH2)/liquid oxygen (LOX)-fed RS-25 engines and twin five-segment solid rocket boosters (SRBs). The Block 1 vehicle can also be outfitted with an industry-standard 5 m-class payload fairing (the “cargo” configuration) and will launch at least 27 metric tons (t) of mass to trans-lunar injection (TLI). SLS is the backbone of NASA’s Artemis program, which will return the agency’s human spaceflight program to the Moon for the first time since 1972. For the Artemis I mission, SLS will send an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to TLI, where it will enter a distant retrograde lunar orbit and fly 38,000 nmi past the Moon – farther than any spacecraft built for humans has ever traveled. The SLS Block 1 vehicle for Artemis I completed manufacturing in 2019. Several elements, including the upper stage, have been delivered to the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) program at KSC and are being prepped for integration and stack-ing. The five-segment solid rocket boosters – the largest and most powerful ever built for flight – are also complete. The booster motor segments for the Artemis I flight are scheduled to ship from prime contractor Northrop Grumman’s Utah facilities and begin stacking and integration at KSC in June 2020. The SLS core stage is the largest rocket stage NASA has ever built in terms of volume and height, and includes the avionics and the tanks that feed cryogenic propellant to the four RS-25s (formerly Space Shuttle Main Engines [SSMEs]). They have been modified with an updated controller and nozzle insulation to protect them from the hotter launch environment. The SLS core stage is currently being test-ed at NASA’s Stennis Space Center (SSC) in a series of “green run” tests to verify it meets design and performance requirements. Following the green run test series, which is scheduled to culminate with a full-duration hot-fire of the four RS-25 engines, the core stage will ship to KSC and be stacked between the sol-id rocket boosters in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). Integration of the vehicle will continue with the upper stage, known as the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) and the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) on the core stage. Another adapter, the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA), connects SLS to Orion and provides housing for 13 6U CubeSat payloads manifested on Artemis I. The CubeSats will be released in deep space after Orion separates from the vehicle, and the flight marks the first ride share opportunity for independent small-sats to deep space. The second major SLS variant to come online, Block 1B, replaces the single-engine ICPS with a four-engine LH2/LOX Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). This more powerful upper stage, along with other vehicle up-grades, will enable the Block 1B vehicle to launch 38-42 t to TLI, depending on crew or cargo configuration. The final evolution of the vehicle, Block 2, will onramp evolved solid rocket boosters to increase mass to TLI to 43-46 t, de-pending on crew or cargo configuration. The Block 1B/Block 2 vehicles can be outfitted with an 8.4 m-diameter payload fairing in 19.1 m or 27.4 m lengths, to provide unprecedented volume for payloads. With the initial Block 1 vehicle completely manufactured and the core stage in final testing before shipping to KSC, the SLS Program and its industry partners have made significant progress manufacturing subsequent vehicles. For the second Block 1 vehicle, the solid rocket motor segments are complete, as are the RS-25 engines with controllers. All five major components of the Artemis II core stage – the forward skirt, LOX and LH2 tanks, intertank and engine section – are manufactured and technicians are installing subsystems at NASA’s rocket factory, Michoud Assembly Facility. The RL-10 engine for the Artemis II ICPS is complete and panels have been machined for its LH2 tank. In addition, panels are machined for the vehicle’s two adapters, with welding scheduled to begin in summer 2020. Flight hard-ware is also in production for the third SLS vehicle, with several booster motor segments cast. The pace of development on the EUS has increased, with the goal to complete Critical Design Review (CDR) in December 2020. Several EUS test rings have been machined at Michoud. The EUS is designed to exe-cute a variety of missions – human spaceflight, deployment of deep-space infra-structure, or high-C3 missions to the outer solar system – with crew and cargo configurations available beginning in the mid-2020s. The near-term goal for the nation’s powerful new space exploration asset, however, is to launch the Arte-mis program, and send the first woman and the next man to the lunar surface. At the Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, the SLS program will update the community on the progress of the initial Block 1 vehicle in final green run test-ing, integration and stacking. In addition, this paper will provide an update to the community on the manufacturing status of subsequent Block 1 and Block 1B vehicles.

Steve Creech↗
NASA NTRS1971

CSM programs SM RCS propellant quantity gaging systems program

Computer program calculates actual and useable remaining propellant quantities as required in positive expulsion rocket engine propellant feed system. Program establishes relationship between helium system pressures and temperatures and propellant weight remaining in tanks. Program is written in FORTRAN 4 for IBM-360 computer.

Cox, G. R.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Operationally Efficient Propulsion System Study (OEPSS) data book. Volume 4: OEPSS design concepts

This study was initiated to identify operations problems and cost drivers for current propulsion systems and to identify technology and design approaches to increase the operational efficiency and reduce operations costs for future propulsion systems. To provide readily usable data for the Advanced Launch System (ALS) program, the results of the OEPSS study have been organized into a series of OEPSS Data Books. This volume describes three propulsion concepts that will simplify the propulsion system design and significantly reduce operational requirements. The concepts include: (1) a fully integrated, booster propulsion module concept for the ALS that avoids the complex system created by using autonomous engines with numerous artificial interfaces; (2) an LOX tank aft concept which avoids potentially dangerous geysering in long LOX propellant lines; and (3) an air augmented, rocket engine nozzle afterburning propulsion concept that will significantly reduce LOX propellant requirements, reduce vehicle size and simplify ground operations and ground support equipment and facilities.

Wong, George S.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Simulating Flights of Future Launch Vehicles and Spacecraft

Marshall Aerospace Vehicle Representation in C (MAVERIC) is a computer program for generic, low-to-high-fidelity simulation of the flight(s) of one or more launch vehicle(s) or spacecraft. MAVERIC is designed to accommodate multi-staged vehicles, powered serially or in parallel, with multiple engines, tanks, and cargo elements. Engines can be of jet or conventional rocket types, using either liquid or solid propellants. MAVERIC includes generic subsystem software models for propulsion systems, mass properties, reaction control systems, aerodynamic properties, guidance systems, and navigation systems. Simulations can be started at points other than liftoff. Also included are guidance-system software models that accommodate the ascent, orbit, coasting, deorbiting, entry, terminal-area-energy-management, approach, and landing phases of flight. Options to use different wind profiles and atmospheres are included. A Monte Carlo capability is provided for modeling dispersions associated with atmospheric effects (including winds), propulsion, navigation, aerodynamics, and mass properties. Failures of engines and other subsystems can be modeled. The program is written in the C programming language, which makes it possible for the program to have high degrees of modularity, reusability, and maintainability, thereby also facilitating modification for modeling new vehicles.

McCarter, James W.↗
NASA NTRS2009

CATIA V5 Virtual Environment Support for Constellation Ground Operations

This summer internship primarily involved using CATIA V5 modeling software to design and model parts to support ground operations for the Constellation program. I learned several new CATIA features, including the Imagine and Shape workbench and the Tubing Design workbench, and presented brief workbench lessons to my co-workers. Most modeling tasks involved visualizing design options for Launch Pad 39B operations, including Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) access and internal access to the Ares I rocket. Other ground support equipment, including a hydrazine servicing cart, a mobile fuel vapor scrubber, a hypergolic propellant tank cart, and a SCAPE (Self Contained Atmospheric Protective Ensemble) suit, was created to aid in the visualization of pad operations.

Kelley, Andrew↗
NASA NTRS2015

Simulation of Liquid Rocket Engine Failure Propagation Using Self-Evolving Scenarios

Traditional probabilistic risk assessment approaches often require failure scenarios to be explicitly defined through event sequences that are then quantified as part of the integrated analysis. This approach becomes difficult when failure propagation paths change as a function of the system operation. Additionally, if the propagation paths represent interactions among even a modest number of components, the scenario count becomes combinatorially intractable. This paper presents an alternate approach for quantifying the probability of failure propagation in such a case. Rather than explicitly defining scenario sequences, simple physical models are created for each of the components. In this way, only the physical states and rules of component interactions must be defined, rather than event sequences for each individual scenario. Initiating failures are introduced into the system, either randomly or as defined by relative likelihood, and the failures cascade through the system via the interaction rules. This process is repeated using Monte Carlo methods and, as a result, the most probable scenarios “self-evolve” in terms of both sequence path and frequency. This approach was applied to failures occurring in the engine compartment of a space launch vehicle with four liquid rocket engines and four high-pressure helium tanks. Each engine was modeled with key components, such as turbomachinery, combustion chamber, propellant lines, and additional support systems. Three test cases were conducted with different high-energy engine failures. End results of interest included an additional engine-out failure and tank burst, which represent the loss-of-mission (LOM) and loss-of-crew (LOC) failure environments, respectively. Observations show that almost every scenario outcome is unique and that many scenarios involve complex chain reactions that are difficult to predict. This validates the usefulness of the modeling approach in assessing the overall risks to the crew during a launch vehicle abort.

Rocket Engine↗
NASA NTRS2011

External Tank Program - Legacy of Success

The largest single element of Space Shuttle is the External Tank (ET), which serves as the structural backbone of the vehicle during ascent and provides liquid propellants to the Orbiter s three Main Engines. The ET absorbs most of the seven million pounds of thrust exerted by the Solid Rocket Boosters and Main Engines. The design evolved through several block changes, reducing weight each time. Because the tank flies to orbital velocity with the Space Shuttle Orbiter, minimization of weight is mandatory, to maximize payload performance. The initial configuration, the standard weight tank, weighed 76,000 pounds and was an aluminum 2219 structure. The light weight tank weighed 66,000 pounds and flew 86 missions. The super light weight tank weighed 58,500 pounds and was primarily an aluminum-lithium structure. The final configuration and low weight enabled system level performance sufficient for assembly of the International Space Station in a high inclination orbit, vital for international cooperation. Another significant challenge was the minimization of ice formation on the cryogenic tanks. This was essential due to the system configuration and the choice of ceramic thermal protection system materials on the Orbiter. Ice would have been a major debris hazard. Spray on foam insulation materials served multiple functions including thermal insulation, conditioning of cryogenic propellants, and thermal protection for the tank structure during ascent and entry. The tank is large, and unique manufacturing facilities, tooling, and handling, and transportation operations were developed. Weld processes and tooling evolved with the design as it matured through several block changes. Non Destructive Evaluation methods were used to assure integrity of welds and thermal protection system materials. The aluminum-lithium alloy was used near the end of the program and weld processes and weld repair techniques had to be refined. Development and implementation of friction stir welding was a substantial technology development incorporated during the Program. Automated thermal protection system application processes were developed for the majority of the tank surface. Material obsolescence was an issue throughout the multi-decade program. Process controls were implemented to assure cleanliness in the production environment, to control contaminants, and to preclude corrosion. Each tank was accepted via rigorous inspections, including non-destructive evaluation techniques, proof testing, and all systems testing. In the post STS-107 era, the project focused on ascent debris risk reduction. This was accomplished via stringent process controls, post flight assessment using substantially improved imagery, and selective redesigns. These efforts were supported with a number of test programs to simulate combined environments. The debris risk was reduced by two orders of magnitude. During this time a major natural disaster was overcome when hurricane Katrina damaged the manufacturing facility. Numerous lessons from these efforts, the manufacturing and material processing issues, the key design features, and evolution of the design will be discussed.

Pilet, Jeffery C.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Liquid Rocket Booster (LRB) for the Space Transportation System (STS) systems study. Appendix A: Stress analysis report for the pump-fed and pressure-fed liquid rocket booster

Pressure effects on the pump-fed Liquid Rocket Booster (LRB) of the Space Transportation System are examined. Results from the buckling tests; bending moments tests; barrel, propellant tanks, frame XB1513, nose cone, and intertank tests; and finite element examination of forward and aft skirts are presented.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2017

Analysis of a Radioisotope Thermal Rocket Engine

The Triton Hopper is a concept for a vehicle to explore the surface of Neptunes moon Triton, which uses a radioisotope heated rocket engine and in-situ propellant acquisition. The initial Triton Hopper conceptual design stores pressurized Nitrogen in a spherical tank to be used as the propellant. The aim of the research was to investigate the benefits of storing propellant at ambient temperature and heating it through a thermal block during engine operation, as opposed to storing gas at a high temperature.

Triton Hopper↗
NASA NTRS2007

Fluid Sloshing Characteristics in Spacecraft Propellant Tanks with Diaphragms

All spacecraft are launched from the Earth as payloads on a launch vehicle. During portions of the launch profile, the spacecraft could be subjected to nearly purely translational oscillatory lateral motions as the launch vehicle control system guides the rocket along its flight path. All partially-filled liquids tanks, even those with diaphragms, exhibit sloshing behavior under these conditions and some tanks can place large loads on their support structures if the sloshing is in resonance with the control system oscillation frequency. The objectives of this project were to conduct experiments using a full-scale model of a flight tank to 1) determine whether launch vehicle vibrations can cause the diaphragm to achieve a repeatable configuration, regardless of initial condition, and 2) identify the slosh characteristics of the propellant tank under flight-like lateral motions for different diaphragm shapes and vibration levels. The test results show that 1) the diaphragm shape is not affected by launch vibrations, and 2) the resonance-like behavior of the fluid and diaphragm is strongly affected by the nonlinear stiffness and damping provided by the diaphragm.

Green, Steve↗
NASA NTRS2022

Passive Cooling in Aerogel-Based Insulation Systems for Liquid Hydrogen Upper Stage Launch Vehicle Tanks

Spray-On Foam Insulation (SOFI) is typically used to protect the windward-facing side of flight tanks for space launch vehicle liquid hydrogen (LH2) stages. SOFI is an excellent insulator in ambient pressure environments, however, its performance pales in comparison to reflective-type systems such as Multi-Layer Insulation in the thermal radiation dominated vacuum environment of space. If a windward insulation system employing radiation shields could be devised to replace or supplement SOFI, the on-orbit heat load could be drastically reduced, and the residual propellants could then be used to facilitate secondary missions. Such insulation systems, utilizing aerogel blanket insulation, have been explored by the Cryogenics Test Laboratory at NASA Kennedy Space Center. Owing to its nano-porous structure, aerogel is an excellent adsorbent as well as an insulator at cryogenic temperatures and will readily uptake condensable background gasses such as air when protecting a surface near LH2 temperatures. When an adsorbed blanket is rapidly exposed to a vacuum, such as during the ascent of a rocket, it will release the background gas, producing a passive cooling effect that could potentially reduce or eliminate the heat load on the propellant tank for a time. This work discusses the setup and results of a test program carried out to determine the effectiveness and impact of this cooling effect as it pertains to LH2 upper stage tanks. A vertical-cylindrical liquid nitrogen (LN2) calorimeter test instrument acted as the upper stage analog. The cold-mass was wrapped with two layers of 10 mm thick aerogel blanket material, with and without aluminum heat shields depending on the test, and interspersed with numerous thermocouple temperature sensors. Gaseous argon was used as a stand-in for air as the condensable background gas. The test procedure mimicked vehicle cryo-loading/stabilization, and ascent phases, with the ascent phase accomplished using parallel vacuum pumps. Results show that the desorption cooling effect was enough to not only eliminate the heat load on the LN2 cold-mass entirely, but further refrigerated the liquid below its boiling point.

A.M. Swanger↗
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 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 NTRS2000

Transient Analysis of Pressurization and Pneumatic Subsystems of the X-34 Main Propulsion System

Transient models for the pressurization, vent/relief, and pneumatic subsystems of the X-34 Main Propulsion System are presented and simulation of their operation within prescribed requirements are provided. First, using ROCket Engine Transient Simulation (ROCETS) program, pressurization subsystem operation was simulated and helium requirements and the ullage thermodynamic condition within each propellant tank were calculated. Then, Overpressurization scenarios of propellant tanks and the response of vent/relief valves were evaluated using ROCETS simulation of simultaneous operation of the pressurization and vent/relief subsystems by incorporating the valves data into the model. Finally, the ROCETS simulation of in-flight operation of pneumatic subsystem predicted the overall helium consumption, Inter-Propellant Seal (IPS) purge flowrate and thermodynamic conditions, and Spin Start power.

Hedayat, A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Methane Integrated Power and Propulsion

The proposed paper will cover ongoing work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) on integrated power and propulsion for advanced human exploration. Specifically, it will present findings of the integrated design, testing, and operational challenges of a liquid oxygen / liquid methane (LOx/LCH4) propulsion brassboard and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) system. Human-Mars architectures point to an oxygen-methane economy utilizing common commodities, scavenged from the planetary atmosphere and soil via In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), and common commodities across sub-systems. Due to the enormous mass gear-ratio required for human exploration beyond low-earth orbit, (for every 1 kg of payload landed on Mars, 226 kg will be required on Earth) increasing commonality between spacecraft subsystems such as power and propulsion can result in tremendous launch mass and volume savings. Historically, propulsion and fuel cell power subsystems have had little interaction outside of the generation (fuel cell) and consumption (propulsion) of electrical power. This was largely due to a mismatch in preferred commodities (hypergolics for propulsion; oxygen & hydrogen for fuel cells). Although this stove-piped approach benefits from simplicity in the design process, it means each subsystem has its own tanks, pressurization system, fluid feed system, etc. increasing overall spacecraft mass and volume. A liquid oxygen / liquid methane commodities architecture across propulsion and power subsystems would enable the use of common tankage and associated pressurization and commodity delivery hardware for both. Furthermore, a spacecraft utilizing integrated power and propulsion could use propellant residuals - propellant which could not be expelled from the tank near depletion due to hydrodynamic considerations caused by large flow demands of a rocket engine - to generate power after all propulsive maneuvers are complete thus utilizing previously wasted mass. Such is the case for human and robotic planetary landers. Although many potential benefits through integrated power & propulsion exist, integrated operations have yet to be successfully demonstrated and many challenges have already been identified the most obvious of which is the large temperature gradient. SOFC chemistry is exothermic with operating temperatures in excess of 1,000 K; however, any shared commodities will be undoubtedly stored at cryogenic temperatures (90-112 K) for mass efficiency reasons. Spacecraft packaging will drive these two subsystems in close proximity thus heat leak into the commodity tankage must be minimized and/or mitigated. Furthermore, commodities must be gasified prior to consumption by the SOFC. Excess heat generated by the SOFC could be used to perform this phase change; however, this has yet to be demonstrated. A further identified challenge is the ability of the SOFC to handle the sudden power spikes created by the propulsion system. A power accumulator (battery) will likely be necessary to handle these sudden demands while the SOFC thermally adjusts. JSC's current SOFC test system consists of a 1 kW fuel cell designed by Delphi. The fuel cell is currently undergoing characterization testing at the NASA JSC Energy Systems Test Area (ESTA) after which a Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) will be integrated and the combined system tested in closed-loop. The propulsion brassboard is approximately the size of what could be flown on a sounding rocket. It consists of one 100 lbf thrust "main" engine developed for NASA by Aerojet and two 10 lbf thrusters to simulate a reaction control system developed at NASA JSC. This system is also under development and initial testing at ESTA. After initial testing, combined testing will occur which will provide data on the fuel cell's ability to sufficiently handle the power spikes created by the propulsion system. These two systems will also be modeled using General-Use Nodal Network Solver (GUNNS) software. Once anchored with test data, this model will be used to extrapolate onto other firing profiles and used to size the power accumulator.

Banker, Brian↗