SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “vibration mitigation”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

150 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1996

Astrophysical Adaptation of Points, the Precision Optical Interferometer in Space

POINTS (Precision Optical INTerferometer in Space) would perform microarcsecond optical astrometric measurements from space, yielding submicroarcsecond astrometric results from the mission. It comprises a pair of independent Michelson stellar interferometers and a laser metrology system that measures both the critical starlight paths and the angle between the baselines. The instrument has two baselines of 2 m, each with two subapertures of 35 cm; by articulating the angle between the baselines, it observes targets separated by 87 to 93 deg. POINTS does global astrometry, i.e., it measures widely separated targets, which yields closure calibration, numerous bright reference stars, and absolute parallax. Simplicity, stability, and the mitigation of systematic error are the central design themes. The instrument has only three moving-part mechanisms, and only one of these must move with sub-milliradian precision; the other two can tolerate a precision of several tenths of a degree. Optical surfaces preceding the beamsplitter or its fold flat are interferometrically critical; on each side of the interferometer, there are only three such. Thus, light loss and wavefront distortion are minimized. POINTS represents a minimalistic design developed ab initio for space. Since it is intended for astrometry, and therefore does not require the u-v-plane coverage of an imaging, instrument, each interferometer need have only two subapertures. The design relies on articulation of the angle between the interferometers and body pointing to select targets; the observations are restricted to the 'instrument plane.' That plane, which is fixed in the pointed instrument, is defined by the sensitive direction for the two interferometers. Thus, there is no need for siderostats and moving delay lines, which would have added many precision mechanisms with rolling and sliding parts that would be required to function throughout the mission. Further, there is no need for a third interferometer, as is required when out-of-plane observations are made. An instrument for astrometry, unlike those for imaging, can be compact and yet scientifically productive. The POINTS instrument is compact and therefore requires no deployment of precision structures, has no low-frequency (i.e., under 100 Hz) vibration modes, and is relatively easy to control thermally. Because of its small size and mass, it is easily and quickly repointed between observations. Further, because of the low mass, it can be economically launched into high Earth orbit which, in conjunction with a solar shield, yields nearly unrestricted sky coverage and a stable thermal environment.

Reasenberg, Robert D.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗

DOE OSTI2025

2025 ASMS Investigation of the Collision-Induced Dissociation Mechanism of Protonated TODGA with IRIS

Title (20 words): Investigation of the Collision-Induced Dissociation Mechanism of Protonated TODGA with IRIS Introduction (120 words): One of the challenges facing wide-spread adoption of nuclear power is the development of efficient separation processes for used nuclear fuel. The molecules in separation processes are subjected to an extreme environment due to the high radiation fields from the used fuel and highly acidic media used for fuel dissolution, which results in significant molecular degradation, leading to reduced process efficiency. These degradation products must be identified and studied so mitigation strategies can be developed to maintain process efficiency. However, complex systems can have many degradation products, complicating identification. Untargeted analysis tools could be used to understand radiation chemistry in complex systems. However, this would necessitate improved understanding of the gas-phase fragmentation mechanisms of fuel cycle molecules like tetraoctyldiglycolamide (TODGA). Methods (120 words): The gas-phase fragmentation of protonated TODGA was investigated using collision-induced dissociation (CID), resonance ejection, and infrared ion spectroscopy (IRIS). CID and resonance ejection experiments were conducted using a Bruker Daltonics (Bremen, Gemany) SolariX XR fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometer. IRIS spectra of protonated TODGA and its two CID fragmentation products were measured using a modified Bruker amaZon Speed ETD 3D quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer coupled to the Free Electron Lasers for Infrared eXperiments (FELIX) free electron laser. Measured spectra were compared with density functional theory (DFT) calculations using the Gaussian 16, Revision C.02 software package with the ?B97X-D functional and def2-TZVPP basis sets. Candidate structures were generated using the CREST 3.0 conformational sampling software tool. Preliminary Data (300 words): Collision-induced dissociation of protonated TODGA ([C36H73N2O3]+, m/z=581.562) results two fragment ions, one at m/z=340.285 assigned as [C20H38NO3]+ and the other at m/z=312.290, assigned as [C19H38NO2]+. Based on the assigned formula and the structure of protonated TODGA, the fragment at m/z=340.285 is likely formed from elimination of neutral dioctylamine. Comparison of the IRIS spectrum of m/z=340.285 with DFT predictions suggests it contains a ring structure, and is assigned as N-octyl-N-(6-oxo-1,4-dioxan-2-ylidene)octan-1-aminium. Based on this structure and the structure of protonated TODGA, we hypothesize this fragment formed from elimination of neutral dioctylamine followed by a ring closure mechanism. Comparison of the IRIS spectrum of the fragment at m/z=312.290 with DFT predictions also indicated the presence of a ring structure, assigned as N-(1,3-dioxolan-4-ylidene)-N-octyloctan-1-aminium. This product could be formed from elimination of carbon monoxide from the ring of m/z=340.285 as a sequential fragmentation or formed directly from protonated TODGA via elimination of neutral N,N-dioctylformamide followed by a ring closure. Resonance ejection experiments where m/z=340 was continuously ejected from the IRC cell showed no decrease in intensity of m/z=312.290 across several collision energies, suggesting that the later, direct formation mechanism, dominates. The location of the ionizing proton in protonated TODGA is important for modeling the fragmentation mechanisms. DFT calculations suggested that the position of bands involving the coupled vibrations of the amide C—N and C=O bonds in TODGA are the most sensitive to proton location. Evaluation of the IRIS spectrum of protonated TODGA suggests that the ionizing proton is located between the two amid oxygens. This protonation location was calculated to lie approximately 30 kJ/mol lower in energy than the next lowest energy location, with the proton located solely on one of the amide oxygens. Novel aspect (20 words): Infrared ion spectroscopy combined with resonance ejection experiments and density functional theory to probe the collision-induced dissociation mechanism of tetraoctyldiglycolamide.

37 - INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL AND ANALYTICAL C↗

NASA NTRS2006

The Use of Dynamic Visual Acuity as a Functional Test of Gaze Stabilization Following Space Flight

After prolonged exposure to a given gravitational environment the transition to another is accompanied by adaptations in the sensorimotor subsystems, including the vestibular system. Variation in the adaptation time course of these subsystems, and the functional redundancies that exist between them make it difficult to accurately assess the functional capacity and physical limitations of astro/cosmonauts using tests on individual subsystems. While isolated tests of subsystem performance may be the only means to address where interventions are required, direct measures of performance may be more suitable for assessing the operational consequences of incomplete adaptation to changes in the gravitational environment. A test of dynamic visual acuity (DVA) is currently being used in the JSC Neurosciences Laboratory as part of a series of measures to assess the efficacy of a countermeasure to mitigate postflight locomotor dysfunction. In the current protocol, subjects visual acuity is determined using Landolt ring optotypes presented sequentially on a computer display. Visual acuity assessments are made both while standing and while walking at 1.8 m/s on a motorized treadmill. The use of a psychophysical threshold detection algorithm reduces the required number of optotype presentations and the results can be presented immediately after the test. The difference between the walking and standing acuity measures provides a metric of the change in the subject s ability to maintain gaze fixation on the visual target while walking. This functional consequence is observable regardless of the underlying subsystem most responsible for the change. Data from 15 cosmo/astronauts have been collected following long-duration (approx. 6 months) stays in space using a visual target viewing distance of 4.0 meters. An investigation of the group mean shows a change in DVA soon after the flight that asymptotes back to baseline approximately one week following their return to earth. The performance of some subjects nicely parallels the stereotypical recovery curve observed in the group mean data. Others show dramatic changes in DVA from one test day to another. These changes may be indicative of a re-adaptation process that is not characterized by a steady improvement with the passage of time, but is instead a dynamic search for appropriate coordinative strategy to achieve the desired gaze stabilization goal. Ground-based data have been collected in our lab using DVA with one of the goals being to improve the DVA test itself. In one of these studies, the DVA test was repeated using a visual target viewing distance of 0.5 meters. While walking, the relative contributions of the otoliths and semi-circular canals that are required to stabilize gaze are affected by visual target viewing distance. It may be possible to exploit this using the current treadmill DVA test to differentially assess changes in these vestibular subsystems. The postflight DVA evaluations currently used have been augmented to include the near target version of the test. Preliminary results from these assessments, as well as the results from the ground-based tests will also be reported. DVA provides a direct measure of a subject's ability to see clearly in the presence of self-motion. The use of the current tests for providing a functionally relevant metric is evident. However, it is possible to expand the scope of DVA testing to include scenarios other than walking. A facility for measuring DVA in the presence of passive movements is being created. Using a mechanized platform to provide the perturbation, it should be possible to simulate aircraft and automobile vibration profiles. Used in conjunction with the far and near visual displays this facility should be able to assess a subject s ability to clearly see distant objects as well as those that appear on the dashboard or instrument control panel during functionally relevant situations.

Peters, B. T.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Accuracy of Center of Pressure Determination via Motion Capture

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to support the stability assessment for tasks in lunar gravity and exercises on a Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system in microgravity based on the dynamic feasibility criterion of whether the calculated position of the center of pressure (COP) falls within the base of support (BOS) which outlines the subject’s feet. Motion capture data combined with biomechanical modeling and simulation allows the forces and moments between the human and the VIS platform to be computed and the position of the COP as well as the location and shape of the BOS to be determined. The goal of this study was to assess the accuracy of the COP trajectory calculated using motion capture-based data. METHODS AND RESULTS: To obtain the dynamic quantities from which COP is calculated, motion capture data is first collected in the 1g lab environment by recording the trajectories of passive retroreflective markers placed on a subject during exercise or performance of a given task. The OpenSim [1] inverse kinematics (IK) tool is used to fit a scaled subject model to recorded marker trajectories while minimizing marker error to obtain joint angles. Then, a custom OpenSim plugin [2] is used to determine the subject’s time-varying moment of inertia and its time derivative, center of mass (CM) position, velocity, and acceleration, as well as the angular momentum and its time derivative relative to the subject’s CM. Some of these quantities are not needed for modeling tasks performed on a stationary lunar surface but, due to the moving exercise platform, are needed to model VIS response to the subject’s motion. Hand positions, used in calculating a cable force if present, are recorded as well. These quantities are used to calculate the total force (F ⃗^((plate) )) and moment (M ⃗^((plate) )) exerted by the lunar surface or the VIS plate on the subject’s shoe soles. COP is then calculated from the following equations: r_x^((cop) )= M_z^((plate) )/F_y^((plate) ) and r_z^((cop) )= 〖-M〗_x^((plate) )/F_y^((plate) ), where the y axis is normal to the surface. COP accuracy for feasibility assessments is then determined by whether it falls within the BOS, which is also computed by the plugin. To study the accuracy of COP calculated from motion capture, we first investigated whether COP remained within the BOS, as it must, for exercises performed in the 1g lab environment. Standard exercises such as back squat and deadlift were analyzed, as well as more explosive exercises including hang clean and press. Cases in which the COP exited the BOS indicated that COP accuracy required further investigation. In this study, an exercise device with cables was used, so cable force modeling accuracy should also be considered. In a separate study, we collected motion capture and force plate data for twenty-seven motions not involving an exercise device. About a third were genuine countermeasures exercises (e.g., hang clean and press), some were relevant for lunar tasks (e.g., object pick up), and the rest were of a “unit test” nature (e.g., swaying back and forth or side to side). Motion capture-based COP positions were compared with force plate measured COP. We found that while force plate measured COP remained within the BOS, motion capture-based COP was observed to briefly exit the BOS on occasion. Techniques to mitigate IK artifacts and filtering of calculated data could be used to improve the agreement of calculated and measured results, resolving excursions from the BOS within this dataset. The mean error between calculated and measured COP was found to be less than 6 mm. Additionally, we derived and investigated equations for the COP in terms of the cable force, cable location, as well as the human CM position, acceleration, and angular momentum with respect to the CM, and analyzed them for sensitivity to errors in individual quantities. Several were found, but the most significant one was that when the vertical force on the feet approaches zero, indicating a near-detachment or ‘jump off’ condition, errors are amplified. This is consistent with the observation that in the absence of pressure, the concept of the center of pressure would become meaningless.

C A Bell↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗