SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This report describes test results from an assessment of the acoustically treated 9- by 15-Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio in June of 2019. The tests were conducted in accordance with the recently adopted international standard ISO 26101-2012 on Qualification of Free Field Test Environments. This method involves moving a microphone relative to a source and comparing the sound pressure level versus distance measurements with theoretical inverse square law spreading.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.
As discussed in the first chapter of this book, there are many different methods to measure a part using optical technology. Chapter 2 discussed the use of machine vision to measure macroscopic features such as length and position, which was extended to the use of interferometry as a linear measurement tool in chapter 3, and laser or other trackers to find the relation of key points on large parts in chapter 4. This chapter looks at measuring large parts to optical tolerances in the sub-micron range using interferometry, ranging, and optical tools discussed in the previous chapters. The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss specific metrology tools (such as interferometers or gauges), but to describe a systems engineering approach to testing large parts. Issues such as material warpage and temperature drifts that may be insignificant when measuring a part to micron levels under a microscope, as will be discussed in later chapters, can prove to be very important when making the same measurement over a larger part. In this chapter, we will define a set of guiding principles for successfully overcoming these challenges and illustrate the application of these principles with real world examples. While these examples are drawn from specific large optical testing applications, they inform the problems associated with testing any large part to optical tolerances. Manufacturing today relies on micrometer level part performance. Fields such as energy and transportation are demanding higher tolerances to provide increased efficiencies and fuel savings. By looking at how the optics industry approaches sub-micrometer metrology, one can gain a better understanding of the metrology challenges for any larger part specified to micrometer tolerances. Testing large parts, whether optical components or precision structures, to optical tolerances is just like testing small parts, only harder. Identical with what one does for small parts, a metrologist tests large parts and optics in particular to quantify their mechanical properties (such as dimensions, mass, etc); their optical prescription or design (i.e. radius of curvature, conic constant, vertex location, size); and their full part shape. And, just as with small parts, a metrologist accomplishes these tests using distance measuring instruments such as tape measures, inside micrometers, coordinate measuring machines, distance measuring interferometers; angle measuring instruments such as theodolites, autocollimators; and surface measuring instruments including interferometers, stylus profilers, interference microscopes, photogrammetric cameras, or other tools. However, while the methodology may be similar, it is more difficult to test a large object for the simple reason that most metrologists do not have the necessary intuition. The skills used to test small parts or optics in a laboratory do not extrapolate to testing large parts in an industrial setting any more than a backyard gardener might successfully operate a farm. But first, what is a large part? A simple definition might be the part's size or diameter. For optics and diffuse surface parts alike, the driving constraint is ability to illuminate the part's surface. For reflective convex mirrors, large is typically anything greater than 1 meter. But, for refractive optics, flats or convex mirrors, large is typically greater than 0.5 meter. While a size definition is simple, it may be less than universal. A more nuanced definition might be that a large part is any component which cannot be easily tested in a standard laboratory environment, on a standard vibration isolated table using standard laboratory infrastructure. A micro-switch or a precision lens might be easily measured to nanometer levels under a microscope in a lab, but a power turbine spline or a larger telescope mirror will not fit under that microscope and may not even fit on the table.
The Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts Information Management System (EPIMS) database was selected by the International Space Station Parts Control Board for providing parts information to NASA managers and contractors. Parts data is transferred to the EPIMS database by converting parts list data to the EP1MS Data Exchange File Format. In general, parts list information received from contractors and suppliers does not convert directly into the EPIMS Data Exchange File Format. Often parts lists use different variable and record field assignments. Many of the EPES variables are not defined in the parts lists received. The objective of this work was to develop an automated system for translating parts lists into the EPIMS Data Exchange File Format for upload into the EPIMS database. Once EEE parts information has been transferred to the EPIMS database it is necessary to screen parts data in accordance with the provisions of the SSQ 25002 Supplemental List of Qualified Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical Parts, Manufacturers, and Laboratories (QEPM&L). The SSQ 2S002 standards are used to identify parts which satisfy the requirements for spacecraft applications. An additional objective for this work was to develop an automated system which would screen EEE parts information against the SSQ 2S002 to inform managers of the qualification status of parts used in spacecraft applications. The EPIMS Database Conversion and SSQ 25002 User Interfaces are designed to interface through the World-Wide-Web(WWW)/Internet to provide accessibility by NASA managers and contractors.
Due to the various parts found in a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), analyzation of every part is not feasible or needed. Based on previous mathematical modeling experience of high velocity cryogenic equipment, the environmental traits of location of the part, temperature range, fluid velocity, pressure range, and elevation variation of fluid flow as being significant factors were determined. Six parts categories were developed. The part categories are: (1) fuel turbomachinery, (2) oxidizer, (3) combustion devices, (4) valves, (5) ducts, and (6) lines. Due to a suspicion that superficial failure modes exist, six status codes were developed. The codes are: (1) part is in service presently, (2) part is out-of-service due to its own failure, (3) part is out-of-service due to engine (or some other part failure), (4) part is out-of-service because it's retired/obsolete (time related), (5) never fired-scrapped due to own problem or part is store, and (6) part is out-of-service for repair. It was suggested that to properly model failure behavior of SSME parts that: (1) significant factors contributing to failure must be examined, (2) relatively precision based on real life data must be examined, and (3) alternative definitions of failure must be initialized by the engineers.
The foundation of NASA's Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) parts program is standardization. Standardization helps to reduce the number of unknown variables present as a project or program progresses; unknown variables equate to unknown risk. NASA spacecraft are usually 'one-offs' or at least part of a very short run, and every new part that is used represents a risk that has to be understood and mitigated as necessary. This equates directly to time and cost. Standardization of component parts is used to provide a foundation of known, dependable, qualified parts upon which a safe, reliable system can be built. In addition, the evaluation and selection of parts for the standard parts list unifies the activity under one group of experts rather than having engineers on each project overlapping and duplicating efforts. Thus, the project support engineers are able to concentrate on understanding and mitigating the risks for the non standard parts required to meet specific requirements of their project. Rapid technology change is producing conditions that make any form of parts-based standardization increasingly difficult, particularly the use of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) parts and assemblies. There are many complications to COTS-based standardization. COTS parts change rapidly and unpredictably, often have different characteristics fiom manufacturer to manufacturer, frequently are only available through distribution, have no universal specification and have variable and unpredictable radiation characteristics. This presentation will discuss some potential approaches to COTS parts standardization. Further into the future, in three to five years perhaps, the use of COTS boards and boxes will be extensive and standardization at these levels of assembly will be necessary. In five to ten years, most major spacecraft functions will probably be performed by COTS boards. How will this be achieved? What role will the parts engineer play, if any? This presentation will borrow from the lessons of the past to suggest some scenarios for the future.
The part versus whole training is discussed. Common sense dictates that a massive body of knowledge should not be taught as a whole. For the same reason, if a part of the task is very difficult, one should not go over the task in its entirety. Repetitive training on the difficult part should lead to better results. Several part training methods were developed, including: pure part, progressive part, repetitive part, retrogressive and isolated parts. The question was posited whether training on parts of a task is a beneficial enterprise. The way the task will be disassembled for the part training needs to be determined. It is argued that the effectiveness of part training depends on the degree to which a task is decomposable.
In the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) retrieval algorithm, smoothness constraints on the imaginary part of the refractive index provide control of retrieved spectral dependence of aerosol absorption by preventing the inversion code from fitting the noise in optical measurements and thus avoiding unrealistic oscillations of retrievals with wavelength. The history of implementation of the smoothness constraints in the AERONET retrieval algorithm is discussed. It is shown that the latest version of the smoothness constraints on the imaginary part of refractive index, termed standard and employed by Version 3 of the retrieval algorithm, should be modified to account for strong variability of light absorption by brown-carbon-containing aerosols in UV through mid-visible parts of the solar spectrum. In Version 3 strong spectral constraints were imposed at high values of the Ångström exponent (440–870 nm) since black carbon was assumed to be the primary absorber, while the constraints became increasingly relaxed as aerosol exponent deceased to allow for wavelength dependence of absorption for dust aerosols. The new version of the smoothness constraints on the imaginary part of the refractive index assigns different weights to different pairs of wavelengths, which are the same for all values of the Ångström exponent. For example, in the case of four-wavelength input, the weights assigned to short-wavelength pairs (440–675, 675–870 nm) are small so that smoothness constraints do not suppress natural spectral variability of the imaginary part of the refractive index. At longer wavelengths (870–1020 nm), however, the weight is 10 times higher to provide additional constraints on the imaginary part of refractive index retrievals of aerosols with a high Ångström exponent due to low sensitivity to aerosol absorption for longer channels at relatively low aerosol optical depths. The effect of applying the new version of smoothness constraints, termed relaxed, on retrievals of single-scattering albedo is analyzed for case studies of different aerosol types: black- and brown-carbon-containing fine mode aerosols, mineral dust coarse mode aerosols, and urban industrial fine mode aerosol. It is shown that for brown-carbon-containing aerosols employing the relaxed smoothness constraints resulted in significant reduction in retrieved single-scattering albedo and spectral residual errors (compared to standard) at the short wavelengths. For example, biomass burning smoke cases showed a reduction in single-scattering albedo and spectral residual error at 380 nm of ∼ 0.033 and ∼ 17 %, respectively, for the Rexburg site and ∼ 0.04 and ∼ 12.7 % for the Rimrock site, both AERONET sites in Idaho, USA. For a site with very high levels of black-carbon-containing aerosols (Mongu, Zambia), the effect of modification in the smoothness constraints was minor. For mineral dust aerosols at small Ångström exponent values (Mezaira site, UAE), the spectral constraint on the imaginary part of the refractive index was already relaxed in Version 3; therefore the new relaxed constraint results in minimal change. In the case of weakly absorbing urban industrial aerosols at the GSFC site, there are significant changes in retrieved single-scattering albedo using relaxed assumption, especially reductions at longer wavelengths: ∼ 0.016 and ∼ 0.02 at 875 and 1020 nm, respectively, for 440 nm aerosol optical depth (AOD) ∼ 0.3. The modification of smoothness constraints on the imaginary part of the refractive index has a minor effect on retrievals of other aerosol parameters such as the real part of the refractive index and parameters of the aerosol size distribution. The implementation of the relaxed smoothness constraints on the imaginary part of the refractive index in the next version of the AERONET inversion algorithm will produce significant impacts at some sites in short wavelength channels (380 and 440 nm) for some biomass burning smoke cases with significant brown carbon content and possibly in mid-visible channels (500 and 675 nm) to near-infrared channels (870 to 1020 nm) for some urban industrial aerosol types. However, most differences in single-scattering albedo retrievals between those applying the new relaxed constraint and the standard constraint will be within the uncertainty of the single-scattering albedo retrievals, depending on the level of aerosol optical depth, Ångström exponent, brown carbon content and wavelength.
Parts 2 and 3 present tabulations of trajectory data for scheduling flights to and from Venus and Mars during the period 1960-2000. Part 2 contains information for outbound flights to these planets; Part 3 contains information for trajectories returning from the planets to Earth. Each Part contains data for single-plane transfers, as well as for broken-plane transfers which employ a midcourse plane-change to eliminate the high speed "ridges." The mathematical analyses employed for all calculations are described in Part 1 of this handbook. To facilitate the construction of round-trip trajectories, the date at the target planet is held fixed while the trip duration is varied in 10-day increments from zero days to the length of that planet's synodic period with Earth. Dates of arrival at the target planet are presented in the extreme right-hand column of Part 2, and dates of departure from the target planet are presented in the extreme left-hand column of Part 3. Thus, by holding Part 2 directly to the left of Part 3, the analyst may easily and rapidly scan all trip possibilities which involve any desired stopover time at the target planet. Within approximately 200 days of each conjunction or opposition, data are presented in 10-day increments at the target planet. Only those trips are listed for which the hyperbolic excess speeds at either or both ends of the trajectory do not exceed 0.6 EMOS (Earth Mean Orbital Speed). For the remaining mission regions, the requirements are so smoothly varying that a 50-day interval in dates at the target planet may be employed; the 10-day interval in trip times is, however, preserved here. In these regions, only those trips are listed for which either or both speeds do not exceed 0.3 EMOS.
Parts 2 and 3 present tabulations of trajectory data for scheduling flights to and from Venus and Mars during the period 1960-2000. Part 2 contains information for outbound flights to these planets; Part 3 contains information for trajectories returning from the planets to Earth. Each Part contains data for single-plane transfers, as well as for broken-plane transfers which employ a midcourse plane-change to eliminate the high speed "ridges." The mathematical analyses employed for all calculations are described in Part 1 of this handbook. To facilitate the construction of round-trip trajectories, the date at the target planet is held fixed while the trip duration is varied in 10-day increments from zero days to the length of that planet's synodic period with Earth. Dates of arrival at the target planet are presented in the extreme right-hand column of Part 2, and dates of departure from the target planet are presented in the extreme left-hand column of Part 3. Thus, by holding Part 2 directly to the left of Part 3, the analyst may easily and rapidly scan all trip possibilities which involve any desired stopover time at the target planet. Within approximately 200 days of each conjunction or opposition, data are presented in 10-day increments at the target planet. Only those trips are listed for which the hyperbolic excess speeds at either or both ends of the trajectory do not exceed 0.6 EMOS (Earth Mean Orbital Speed). For the remaining mission regions, the requirements are so smoothly varying that a 50-day interval in dates at the target planet may be employed; the 10-day interval in trip times is, however, preserved here. In these regions, only those trips are listed for which either or both speeds do not exceed 0.3 EMOS.
Loosening of a rotating part from its fixed position on the shaft or a part of the stator which comes loose and begins to turn with the rotor very frequently represents machinery malfunction. The loose part becomes involved in rotative motion mostly due to dry or fluid friction, and thus its motion is very erratic. The loose part can also move axially along the shaft. Detachment of the rotating part causes changes in the rotor balance state. Most often this results in higher unbalance. During steady-state operation the effect of a loose rotating part can manifest itself through heat vibration. It can be diagnosed by observing periodic changes of amplitude and phase of the synchronous response. During start-up (or shutdown) a loose rotating part carrying some amount of unbalance may manifest its dynamic action in the form of subsynchronous vibrations, very similar to those of other instabilities. The objective of this demonstration is to observe the effect of a loose rotating part (fixed, however, in the axial direction) under both steady-state (rotor constant speed) and transient (rotor start-up or shutdown) operation. The dynamic response depends very much on the amount of damping in the system: lubrication of the loose part/shaft surfaces and addition/elimination of aerodynamic drag blades, mounted on the loose disk, significantly change the rotor response.
This document establishes electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts management and control requirements for contractors providing and maintaining space flight and mission-essential or critical ground support equipment for NASA space flight programs. Although the text is worded 'the contractor shall,' the requirements are also to be used by NASA Headquarters and field installations for developing program/project parts management and control requirements for in-house and contracted efforts. This document places increased emphasis on parts programs to ensure that reliability and quality are considered through adequate consideration of the selection, control, and application of parts. It is the intent of this document to identify disciplines that can be implemented to obtain reliable parts which meet mission needs. The parts management and control requirements described in this document are to be selectively applied, based on equipment class and mission needs. Individual equipment needs should be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement should be implemented on a procurement. Utilization of this document does not preclude the usage of other documents. The entire process of developing and implementing requirements is referred to as 'tailoring' the program for a specific project. Some factors that should be considered in this tailoring process include program phase, equipment category and criticality, equipment complexity, and mission requirements. Parts management and control requirements advocated by this document directly support the concept of 'reliability by design' and are an integral part of system reliability and maintainability. Achieving the required availability and mission success objectives during operation depends on the attention given reliability and maintainability in the design phase. Consequently, it is intended that the requirements described in this document are consistent with those of NASA publications, 'Reliability Program Requirements for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors,' NHB 5300.4(1A-l); 'Maintainability Program Requirements for Space Systems,' NHB 5300.4(1E); and 'Quality Program Provisions for Aeronautical and Space System Contractors,' NHB 5300.4(1B).
The NASA Parts Selection List (NPSL) is an on-line resource for electronic parts selection tailored for use by spaceflight projects. The NPSL provides a list of commonly used electronic parts that have a history of satisfactory use in spaceflight applications. The objective of this www site is to provide NASA projects, contractors, university experimenters, et al with an easy to use resource that provides a baseline of electronic parts from which designers are encouraged to select. The NPSL is an ongoing resource produced by Code 562 in support of the NASA HQ funded NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program. The NPSL is produced as an electronic format deliverable made available via the referenced www site administered by Code 562. The NPSL does not provide information pertaining to patented or proprietary information. All of the information contained in the NPSL is available through various other public domain resources such as US Military procurement specifications for electronic parts, NASA GSFC's Preferred Parts List (PPL-21), and NASA's Standard Parts List (MIL-STD975).
The objective of this paper is an assessment of high voltage electronic components required for high horsepower electric thrust vector control (TVC) systems for human spaceflight launch critical application. The scope consists of creating of a database of available Grade 1 electrical, electronic and electromechanical (EEE) parts suited to this application, a qualification path for potential non-Grade 1 EEE parts that could be used in these designs, and pathfinder testing to validate aspects of the proposed qualification plan. Advances in the state of the art in high power electric power systems enable high horsepower electric actuators, such as the electromechnical actuator (EMA) and the electro-hydrostatic actuator (EHA), to be used in launch vehicle TVC systems, dramaticly reducing weight, complexity and operating costs. Designs typically use high voltage insulated gate bipolar transistors (HV-IGBT). However, no Grade 1 HV-IGBT exists and it is unlikely that market factors alone will produce such high quality parts. Furthermore, the perception of risk, the lack of qualification methodoloy, the absence of manned space flight heritage and other barriers impede the adoption of commercial grade parts onto the critical path. The method of approach is to identify high voltage electronic component types and key parameters for parts currently used in high horsepower EMA/EHA applications, to search for higher quality substitutes and custom manufacturers, to create a database for these parts, and then to explore ways to qualify these parts for use in human spaceflight launch critical application, including grossly derating and possibly treating hybrid parts as modules. This effort is ongoing, but results thus far include identification of over 60 HV-IGBT from four manufacturers, including some with a high reliability process flow. Voltage ranges for HV-IGBT have been identified, as has screening tests used to characterize HV-IGBT. BSI BS ISO 21350 Space systems Off-the-shelf item utilization, developed from Marshall Work Instruction MWI8060.1 OFF-THE-SHELF HARDWARE UTILIZATION IN FLIGHT HARDWARE DEVELOPMENTwas found to provide guidance for including commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware for use in critical applications.