Results for “PIRT”

NASA NTRS1999

Thermographic Testing Using on the X-33 Space Launch Vehicle Program by BFGoodrich Aerospace

The X-33 program is a team effort sponsored by NASA, under Cooperative Agreement NCC8-115, and led by the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Team member BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group (formerly Rohr) is responsible for design, manufacture, and integration of the Thermal Protection System (TPS) of the X-33 launch vehicle. The X-33 is a half-scale, experimental prototype of a vehicle called RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) or VentureStar(Trademark), an SSTO (single stage to orbit) vehicle, which is a proposed successor to the aging Space Shuttle. Thermographic testing has been employed by BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group for a wide variety of uses in the testing of components of the X-33. Thermographic NDT (TNDT) has been used for inspecting large graphite-epoxy/aluminum honeycomb sandwich panels used on the Leeward Aeroshell structure of the X-33. And TNDT is being evaluated for use in inspecting carbon-carbon composite parts such as the nosecap and wing leading edge components. Pulsed Infrared Testing (PIRT), a special form of TNDT, is used for the routine inspection of sandwich panels made of brazed inconel honeycomb and facesheets. In the developmental and qualification testing of sub-elements of the X-33, thermography has been used to monitor 1) Arc Jet tests at NASA Ames Research Center in Mountainview, CA and NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX, 2) High Temperature (wind) Tunnel Tests (HTT) at NASA Langley Research Center in Langley, VA, and 3) Hot Gas Tests at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL.

Burleigh, Douglas↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Affordable Development Strategy for NEP Nuclear Systems

One nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) reactor systems under consideration is a hydride moderated thermal spectrum reactor fueled by high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU). While such a reactor is expected to yield the lightest HALEU reactor design, its development challenges grow exponentially with increasing mission demands, most notably power output, specific weight of the overall system (which may require operation at temperatures exceeding 1200 K), service lifetime, and human-rated reliability. Two of the greatest cost drivers are full-powered nuclear demonstrations and extensive material development campaigns, so it is important to consider options that can minimize the need for or complexity of such tasks. This paper discusses a structured framework being developed for assessing how NEP design choices, such as materials selection, neutronic features, and heat-removal technologies, can translate into project risk and how project performance goals can be traded with development cost.Reactors operating at high temperatures often require cutting-edge heat transfer technologies and creep-resistant materials. Use of new materials in high temperature reactors brings additional complication beyond those common to any new space materials development campaign. For example, such materials may not possess necessary neutronic cross-sectional or neutronic irradiation data. Similarly, use of new materials may significantly influence core neutronics; in some extreme cases, neutronic reactivity feed-back of certain new materials can vary during their service life as radiation damage impacts the scattering cross-section. In an affordable development approach, high fidelity modeling and simulation tools are used to identify and characterize potential ‘knees-in-the-curves’ in the relationship that exists between the mission characteristics and the project risk. Of particular significance is use of modern uncertainty management and variance reduction methods to perform gap analyses that feed into phenomena identification and ranking tables (PIRT) commonly used to communicate nuclear readiness levels. Model-based measurements techniques are used to design sub-scale experiments as a substitute to minimize orcompletely eliminate the need for nuclear demonstrations.This paper will describe the approach and present preliminary results. It will lay the groundwork for developing a set of metrics that can be broadly characterized as system nuclear readiness levels and advancement degree of difficulty for nuclear systems. Equally importantly, a goal of this paper is to initiate a dialogue among stakeholders on what is the sufficient level of maturity that is required for launching a demonstration unit.

Dasari V Rao↗