Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Early flight risk”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

Space Shuttle Propulsion Finishing Strong

Numerous lessons have been documented from the Space Shuttle Propulsion elements. Major events include loss of the SRB's on STS-4 and shutdown of an SSME during ascent on STS- 51F. On STS-112 only half the pyrotechnics fired to release the vehicle from the launch pad, a testament for redundancy. STS-91 exhibited freezing of a main combustion chamber pressure measurement and on STS-93 nozzle tube ruptures necessitated a low liquid level oxygen cut off of the main engines. A number of on pad aborts were experienced during the early program resulting in delays. And the two accidents, STS-51L and STS-107, had unique heritage in history from early Program decisions and vehicle configuration. Following STS-51L significant resources were invested in developing fundamental physical understanding of solid rocket motor environments and material system behavior. Human rating of solid rocket motors was truly achieved. And following STS-107, the risk of ascent debris was better characterized and controlled. Situational awareness during all mission phases improved, and the management team instituted effective risk assessment practices. These major events and lessons for the future are discussed. The last 22 flights of the Space Shuttle, following the Columbia accident, were characterized by remarkable improvement in safety and reliability. Numerous problems were solved in addition to reduction of the ascent debris hazard. The propulsion system elements evolved to high reliability and heavy lift capability. The Shuttle system, though not a operable as envisioned in the 1970's, successfully assembled the International Space Station (ISS) and provided significant logistics and down mass for ISS operations. By the end of the Program, the remarkable Space Shuttle Propulsion system achieved very high performance, was largely reusable, exhibited high reliability, and is a heavy lift earth to orbit propulsion system. The story of this amazing system is discussed in detail in the paper.

Owen, James W.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Fabrication and Testing of CERMET Fuel Materials for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

A first generation Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (NCPS) based on Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) is currently being developed for Advanced Space Exploration Systems. The overall goal of the project is to address critical NTP technology challenges and programmatic issues to establish confidence in the affordability and viability of NTP systems. The current technology roadmap for NTP identifies the development of a robust fuel form as a critical near term need. The lack of a qualified nuclear fuel is a significant technical risk that will require a considerable fraction of program resources to mitigate. Due to these risks and the cost for qualification, the development and selection of a primary fuel must begin prior to Authority to Proceed (ATP) for a specific mission. The fuel development is a progressive approach to incrementally reduce risk, converge the fuel materials, and mature the design and fabrication process of the fuel element. A key objective of the current project is to advance the maturity of CERMET fuels. The work includes fuel processing development and characterization, fuel specimen hot hydrogen screening, and prototypic fuel element testing. Early fuel materials development is critical to help validate requirements and fuel performance. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and status of the work at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).

Hickman, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2013

Robonaut 2 - Preparing for Intra-Vehicular Mobility on the International Space Station

Robonaut 2 (R2) has been undergoing experimental trials on board the International Space Station (ISS) for more than a year. This upper-body anthropomorphic robotic system shown in Figure 1 has been making steady progress after completing its initial checkout. R2 demonstrated free space motion, physically interacted with its human crew mates, manipulated interfaces on its task board and has even used its first tool. This steady growth in capability will lead R2 to its next watershed milestone. Developers are currently testing prototype robotic climbing appendages and a battery backpack in preparation of sending flight versions of both subsystems to the ISS in late 2013. Upon integration of its new components, R2 will be able to go mobile inside the space station with a twofold agenda. First, R2 will learn to maneuver in microgravity in the best possible laboratory for such a task. Second, it will start providing early payback to the ISS program by helping with intra-vehicular (IVA) maintenance tasks. The experience gained inside the ISS will be invaluable in reducing risk when R2 moves to its next stage and is deployed as an extra-vehicular (EVA) tool. Even on its current fixed base stanchion, R2 has already shown its capability of performing several maintenance tasks on the ISS. It has measured the air flow through one of the stations vents and provided previously unavailable real time flow data to ground operators. R2 has cleaned its first handrail, exciting some crew members that perhaps Saturday morning housekeeping on the station may someday become a task they can hand off to their robotic colleague. Other tasks, including using radio frequency identification (RFID) tools for inventory tasks or vacuuming air filters, have also been suggested and will be explored. Once mobile, R2 will take on these tasks and more to free up crew time for more important science and exploration pursuits. In addition to task exploration, research and testing is happening on orbit to prepare for R2 mobility operations. The current vision system in R2 s head is being used to identify and localize IVA handrails throughout the US Lab and ground control software is being updated and integrated in advance of supporting mobility operations.

Badger, Julia↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division’s Systems Test Branch at NASA JSC was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glove Box (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 10^-5 Torr with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of shroud temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), and Infrared (IR) lamps. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through the development of 2 temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

Kaixin Cui↗
NASA NTRS2005

Analysis of In-Space Assembly of Modular Systems

Early system-level life cycle assessments facilitate cost effective optimization of system architectures to enable implementation of both modularity and in-space assembly, two key Exploration Systems Research & Technology (ESR&T) Strategic Challenges. Experiences with the International Space Station (ISS) demonstrate that the absence of this rigorous analysis can result in increased cost and operational risk. An effort is underway, called Analysis of In-Space Assembly of Modular Systems, to produce an innovative analytical methodology, including an evolved analysis toolset and proven processes in a collaborative engineering environment, to support the design and evaluation of proposed concepts. The unique aspect of this work is that it will produce the toolset, techniques and initial products to analyze and compare the detailed, life cycle costs and performance of different implementations of modularity for in-space assembly. A multi-Center team consisting of experienced personnel from the Langley Research Center, Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, and the Goddard Space Flight Center has been formed to bring their resources and experience to this development. At the end of this 30-month effort, the toolset will be ready to support the Exploration Program with an integrated assessment strategy that embodies all life-cycle aspects of the mission from design and manufacturing through operations to enable early and timely selection of an optimum solution among many competing alternatives. Already there are many different designs for crewed missions to the Moon that present competing views of modularity requiring some in-space assembly. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the approach for scoring competing designs.

Moses, Robert W.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Developing Sensorimotor Countermeasures to Mitigate Post-Flight Locomotor Dysfunction

Following spaceflight, crewmembers experience postural and locomotor instability. The magnitude and duration of post-flight sensorimotor disturbances increase with longer duration exposure to microgravity. These post-flight postural and locomotor alterations can pose a risk to crew safety and to mission objectives if nominal or emergency vehicle egress is required immediately following long-duration spaceflight. Gait instabilities could prevent or extend the time required to make an emergency egress from the Orbiter, Crew Return Vehicle or a future Martian lander leading to compromised mission objectives. We propose a countermeasure that aids in maintaining functional locomotor performance. This includes retaining the ability to perform vehicular egress and meet early mission objectives soon after landing on a planetary surface.

Bloomberg, J. J.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station (ISS), the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms and gloves in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glovebox (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 5x10-4 Torr (0.066 Pa) with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), Infrared (IR) lamps, and heater cables. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through two temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

Extravehicular Activity (EVA)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station (ISS), the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms and gloves in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glovebox (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 5x10-4 Torr (0.066 Pa) with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), Infrared (IR) lamps, and heater cables. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through two temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

Extravehicular Activity (EVA)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station (ISS), the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms and gloves in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glovebox (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 5x10-4 Torr (0.066 Pa) with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), Infrared (IR) lamps, and heater cables. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through two temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

spacesuit arms↗
NASA NTRS1999

Reuse fo a Cold War Surveillance Drone to Flight Test a NASA Rocket Based Combined Cycle Engine

Plans for and early feasibility investigations into the modification of a Lockheed D21B drone to flight test the DRACO Rocket Based Combined Cycle (RBCC) engine are discussed. Modifications include the addition of oxidizer tanks, modern avionics systems, actuators, and a vehicle recovery system. Current study results indicate that the D21B is a suitable candidate for this application and will allow demonstrations of all DRACO engine operating modes at Mach numbers between 0.8 and 4.0. Higher Mach numbers may be achieved with more extensive modification. Possible project risks include low speed stability and control, and recovery techniques.

Brown, T. M.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Natural Atmospheric Environment Model Development for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently began development of a new reusable launch vehicle. The program office is located at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and is called the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (2GRLV). The purpose of the program is to improve upon the safety and reliability of the first generation reusable launch vehicle, the Space Shuttle. Specifically, the goals are to reduce the risk of crew loss to less than 1-in-10,000 missions and decreased costs by a factor of 10 to approximately $1,000 per pound of payload launched to low Earth orbit. The program is currently in the very early stages of development and many two-stage vehicle concepts will be evaluated. Risk reduction activities are also taking place. These activities include developing new technologies and advancing current technologies to be used by the vehicle. The Environments Group at MSFC is tasked by the 2GRLV Program to develop and maintain an extensive series of analytical tools and environmental databases which enable it to provide detailed atmospheric studies in support of structural, guidance, navigation and control, and operation of the 2GRLV.

Roberts, Barry C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

The J-2X Fuel Turbopump - Design, Development, and Test

Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), a NASA subcontractor, is executing the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) of a liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen two hundred ninety four thousand pound thrust rocket engine initially intended for the Upper Stage (US) and Earth Departure Stage (EDS) of the Constellation Program Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV). A key element of the design approach was to base the new J-2X engine on the heritage J-2S engine with the intent of uprating the engine and incorporating SSME and RS-68 lessons learned. The J-2S engine was a design upgrade of the flight proven J-2 configuration used to put American astronauts on the moon. The J-2S Fuel Turbopump (FTP) was the first Rocketdyne-designed liquid hydrogen centrifugal pump and provided many of the early lessons learned for the Space Shuttle Main Engine High Pressure Fuel Turbopumps. This paper will discuss the design trades and analyses performed for the current J-2X FTP to increase turbine life; increase structural margins, facilitate component fabrication; expedite turbopump assembly; and increase rotordynamic stability margins. Risk mitigation tests including inducer water tests, whirligig turbine blade tests, turbine air rig tests, and workhorse gas generator tests characterized operating environments, drove design modifications, or identified performance impact. Engineering design, fabrication, analysis, and assembly activities support FTP readiness for the first J-2X engine test scheduled for July 2011.

Tellier, James G.↗
NASA NTRS2002

NASA 2nd Generation RLV Program Introduction, Status and Future Plans

The Space Launch Initiative (SLI), managed by the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (2ndGen RLV) Program, was established to examine the possibility of revolutionizing space launch capabilities, define conceptual architectures, and concurrently identify the advanced technologies required to support a next-generation system. Initial Program funds have been allocated to design, evaluate, and formulate realistic plans leading to a 2nd Gen RLV full-scale development (FSD) decision by 2006. Program goals are to reduce both risk and cost for accessing the limitless opportunities afforded outside Earth's atmosphere fo civil, defense, and commercial enterprises. A 2nd Gen RLV architecture includes a reusable Earth-to-orbit launch vehicle, an on-orbit transport and return vehicle, ground and flight operations, mission planning, and both on-orbit and on-the-ground support infrastructures All segments of the architecture must advance in step with development of the RLV if a next-generation system is to be fully operational early next decade. However, experience shows that propulsion is the single largest contributor to unreliability during ascent, requires the largest expenditure of time for maintenance, and takes a long time to develop; therefore, propulsion is the key to meeting safety, reliability, and cost goals. For these reasons, propulsion is SLI's top technology investment area.

Dumbacher, Dan L.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Preliminary Evaluation of Convective Heat Transfer in a Water Shield for a Surface Power Reactor

As part of the Vision for Space Exploration, the end of the next decade will bring man back to the surface of the moon. A crucial issue for the establishment of human presence on the moon will be the availability of compact power sources. This presence could require greater than 10's of kWt's in follow on years. Nuclear reactors are well suited to meet the needs for power generation on the lunar or Martian surface. Radiation shielding is a key component of any surface power reactor system. Several competing concepts exist for lightweight, safe, robust shielding systems such as a water shield, lithium hydride (LiH), and boron carbide. Water offers several potential advantages, including reduced cost, reduced technical risk, and reduced mass. Water has not typically been considered for space reactor applications because of the need for gravity to fix the location of any vapor that could form radiation streaming paths. The water shield concept relies on the predictions of passive circulation of the shield water by natural convection to adequately cool the shield. This prediction needs to be experimentally evaluated, especially for shields with complex geometries. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center has developed the experience and facilities necessary to do this evaluation in its Early Flight Fission - Test Facility (EFF-TF).

Pearson J. Boise↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Faster, Better, Cheaper Approach to Space Missions: An Engineering Management Assessment

NASA was chartered as an independent civilian space agency in 1958 following the Soviet Union's dramatic launch of the Sputnik 1 (1957). In his state of the union address in May of 1961, President Kennedy issued to the fledging organization his famous challenge for a manned lunar mission by the end of the decade. The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs that followed put the utmost value on high quality, low risk (as low as possible within the context of space flight), quick results, all with little regard for cost. These circumstances essentially melded NASAs culture as an organization capable of great technological achievement but at extremely high cost. The Space Shuttle project, the next major agency endeavor, was put under severe annual budget constraints in the 1970's. NASAs response was to hold to the high quality standards, low risk and annual cost and let schedule suffer. The result was a significant delay in the introduction of the Shuttle as well as overall total cost growth. By the early 1990's, because NASA's budget was declining, the number of projects was also declining. Holding the same cost and schedule productivity levels as before was essentially causing NASA to price itself out of business. In 1992, the helm of NASA was turned over to a new Administrator. Dan Goldin's mantra was "faster, better, cheaper" and his enthusiasm and determination to change the NASA culture was not to be ignored. This research paper documents the various implementations of "faster, better, cheaper" that have been attempted, analyzes their impact and compares the cost performance of these new projects to previous NASA benchmarks. Fundamentally, many elements of "faster, better, cheaper" are found to be working well, especially on smaller projects. Some of the initiatives are found to apply only to smaller or experimental projects however, so that extrapolation to "flagship" projects may be problematic.

Hamaker, Joseph W.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Environmental Program

NASA's White Sands Test Facility has six core environmental compliance capabilities: remote hazardous testing of reactive, explosive and toxic materials and fluids; hypergolic fluids materials and systems testing; oxygen materials and system testing; hypervelocity impact testing; flight hardware processing; and, propulsion testing. The facility's permit status and challenges are reviewed. Historic operations and practices dating from the 1960s through the early 1980s resulted in contamination of the facility's groundwater. An environmental restoration effort has been employed to protect public health and the health of the workforce. The restoration seeks to properly handle hazardous materials and waste processes; determine the nature and extent of the contamination; stop the migration of contaminated groundwater; stabilize the plume front which has been assessed as the greatest risk to public health; and, clean-up the environment to restore it to preexisting conditions. The Plume Front Treatment System is operational and seeks to stop the westward movement of the plume to protect drinking water and irrigation well. Specifically, the treatment system will extract contaminated water from the aquifer, remove chemical using the best available technology, and return (inject) the treated water back to the aquifer. The Mid-Plume Interception Treatment System also seeks to stop the migration of containment, as well as to evaluate new technologies to accelerate cleanup, such as bioremediation.

Fischer, Holger↗
NASA NTRS2010

Rationales for the Lightning Flight-Commit Criteria

Since natural and artificially-initiated (or "triggered") lightning are demonstrated hazards to the launch of space vehicles, the American space program has responded by establishing a set of Lightning Flight Commit Criteria (LFCC), also known as Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC), and associated Definitions to mitigate the risk. The LLCC apply to all Federal Government ranges and similar LFCC have been adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration for application at state-operated and private spaceports. The LLCC and Definitions have been developed, reviewed, and approved over the years of the American space program, progressing from relatively simple rules in the mid-twentieth century (that were inadequate) to a complex suite for launch operations in the early 21st century. During this evolutionary process, a "Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP)" of top American scientists in the field of atmospheric electricity was established to guide it. Details of this process are provided in a companion document entitled "A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America s Space program" which is available as NASA Special Publication 2010-216283. As new knowledge and additional operational experience have been gained, the LFCC/LLCC have been updated to preserve or increase their safety and to increase launch availability. All launches of both manned and unmanned vehicles at all Federal Government ranges now use the same rules. This simplifies their application and minimizes the cost of the weather infrastructure to support them. Vehicle operators and Range safety personnel have requested that the LAP provide a detailed written rationale for each of the LFCC so that they may better understand and appreciate the scientific and operational justifications for them. This document provides the requested rationales

Willett, John C.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Alternative Perspectives on Risk: Individual Differences in Problem Structuring

Team decision making involves contributions of multiple players toward a common goal. While much has been written about the importance of developing shared mental models in order for teams to work together effectively, little has been done to determine the value of alternative perspectives on problem solving and decision making. Early studies of expertise contrasted experts with novices and noted that the two groups differ in the way they structure problems and in their selection of information as salient. Little attention has been given to differences among experts who differ in their specializations. A series of experiments was conducted to determine: (1) what dimensions of flight-related problem situations pilots judge to be most important when making flight-relevant decisions; and (2) whether pilots in different crew positions differ in the way they interpret problems relating to flight decisions. A sorting task was used to identify underlying dimensions judged as salient to individual pilots. Captains, first officers, and flight engineers from two major carriers participated in the study. Twenty-two flight scenarios were developed based on ASRS reports. Pilots were required to make judgments about how they would respond in each case and to sort the scenarios on the basis of similarity of decision factors. They were also asked to provide a verbal label that described each of their sorted categories. A second study required a different group of pilots (also captains, first officers and flight engineers) to sort on predetermined bases.

Orasanu, Judith↗