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.
The Galileo arrival date selection process has culminated in the selection of December 7,1995. This arrival date will provide excellent science opportunities at Jupiter as well as the first spacecraft reconnaissance ever of not one, but two asteroids during the cruise to Jupiter.
NASA's Advanced Composites Technologies (ACT) project evaluated several composite construction options for the Ares V Interstage to support the Constellation Program's goal of reducing the mass of vehicle dry structures. In Phase 1 of the project, eight candidate construction concepts were evaluated for the Ares V Interstage design. Trade studies were performed using finite element analyses to determine weight estimates for the construction concepts. An evaluation process was then used to down select the construction concepts down to two concepts for further consideration in Phase 2 of the project. In Phase 2 of the project, additional trade studies were performed using detailed finite element analyses of the Interstage and a final down select process was used to choose the recommended Interstage construction concept. The results of the study showed that a honeycomb sandwich design was the most favorable Interstage construction concept based on advantages in manufacturing cost. Details of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 trade studies and down select process with final results are presented in the paper.
Key elements of a traditional regression model term selection process for the analysis of wind tunnel strain-gage balance calibration data are discussed. The traditional process is sometimes applied when regression models of the gage outputs are needed and an analyst does not have access to a term selection algorithm. In principle, the traditional process identifies supported regression model terms of a gage output by combining an analyst's subject- matter knowledge with a visual examination of selected plots of the calibration loads. Twelve empirical rules are listed that may be used to select regression model terms. Data from the manual calibration of a force balance is used to illustrate the application of the traditional term selection process. The data example shows that the traditional process can become very complex. Its successful application highly depends on an analyst's experience and skills. Therefore, it is suggested to replace the traditional term selection process with an automated term selection algorithm. Then, objective metrics are systematically applied during the term selection that make the identification of the regression model more repeatable and less dependent on an analyst's personal skills.
This document describes the selection process that will be used to identify the most suitable structural configuration option for an SSTO winged vehicle capable of delivering 25,000 lbs to a 220 nm circular orbit at 51.6 degree inclination. The most suitable RHCTS is within this configuration and will be the prototype design for subsequent design and analysis and the basis for the design and fabrication of a scale test article to be subjected to life cycle testing. The selection process for this TA 1 trade study is the same as that for the TA 2 trade study. As the trade study progresses additional insight may result in modifications to the selection criteria within in this process. Such modifications will result in an update of this document as appropriate.
This TA 2 document describes the selection process that will be used to identify the most suitable structural configuration for an SSTO winged vehicle capable of delivering 25,000 lbs to a 220 nm circular orbit at 51.6 degree inclination. The most suitable unpressurized graphite composite structures and material selections is within this configuration and will be the prototype design for subsequent design and analysis and the basis for the design and fabrication of payload bay, wing, and thrust structure full scale test articles representing segments of the prototype structures. The selection process for this TA 2 trade study is the same as that for the TA 1 trade study. As the trade study progresses additional insight may result in modifications to the selection criteria within this process. Such modifications will result in an update of this document as appropriate.
Slides are for a presentation at the AIAA AFM conference invited session titled, 'AFM Most Influential Papers of the 1970's'. The slides describe the selection process used by the members of the technical committee to select the finalists and winning paper. The slides refer to technical papers published in the past, but have no technical data contained within them.
Metal additive manufacturing (AM) is a generic term that captures a variety of fabrication processes. Each of these manufacturing process has unique advantages and challenges for use in aerospace propulsion applications. The most commonly used AM processes include Powder Bed Fusion (PBF), Directed Energy Deposition (DED), and solid-state processes as in Cold Spray, Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing, and Additive Friction Stir Deposition. While detailed research has been conducted among many of the AM processes to mature processing parameters and material properties, navigating which processes are best to select is difficult as it is based on specific component requirements. The focus of this presentation is to provide an overview of considerations for each of metal AM process selection for aerospace components based on various key attributes. These key attributes include geometric considerations, metallurgical characteristics, cost basis, post-processing and maturity of the processes. The data for these trade selections are based on studies that NASA as performed internally and with academic and industry partners. These studies include multiple AM build experiments to evaluate (1) geometric variations and constraints within the processes, (2) alloy characterization and mechanical testing, (3) pathfinder component development and hot-fire evaluations, and (4) certification approaches. This presentation summarizes these results and is meant to introduce specific examples which show what to consider when designing a metal AM component for aerospace propulsion applications.
The present study used the flanker task [Percept. Psychophys. 16 (1974) 143] to identify neural structures that support response selection processes, and to determine which of these structures respond differently depending on the type of stimulus material associated with the response. Participants performed two versions of the flanker task while undergoing event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Both versions of the task required participants to respond to a central stimulus regardless of the responses associated with simultaneously presented flanking stimuli, but one used colored circle stimuli and the other used letter stimuli. Competition-related activation was identified by comparing Incongruent trials, in which the flanker stimuli indicated a different response than the central stimulus, to Neutral stimuli, in which the flanker stimuli indicated no response. A region within the right inferior frontal gyrus exhibited significantly more competition-related activation for the color stimuli, whereas regions within the middle frontal gyri of both hemispheres exhibited more competition-related activation for the letter stimuli. The border of the right middle frontal and inferior frontal gyri and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) were significantly activated by competition for both types of stimulus materials. Posterior foci demonstrated a similar pattern: left inferior parietal cortex showed greater competition-related activation for the letters, whereas right parietal cortex was significantly activated by competition for both materials. These findings indicate that the resolution of response competition invokes both material-dependent and material-independent processes.
The Earth's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, slowly tumbled in orbit. The first U.S. satellite, Explorer 1, also tumbled out of control. Now, as we launch the Mars observer and the Cassini spacecraft, stability and control have become higher priorities. The flight control system design selection process is reviewed using as an example a geostationary communication satellite which is to have a life expectancy of 10 to 14 years. Disturbance torques including aerodynamic, magnetic, gravity gradient, solar, micrometeorite, debris, collision, and internal torques are assessed to quantify the disturbance environment so that the required compensating torque can be determined. Then control torque options, including passive versus active, momentum control, bias momentum, spin stabilization, dual spin, gravity gradient, magnetic, reaction wheels, control moment gyros, nutation dampers, inertia augmentation techniques, three-axis control, reactions control system (RCS), and RCS sizing, are considered. A flight control system design is then selected and preliminary stability criteria are met by the control gains selection.
Metal additive manufacturing (AM) is a generic term that captures a variety of fabrication techniques. Each of these manufacturing process has unique advantages, applications for use, and challenges. The most common AM processes in use include Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) and Directed Energy Deposition (DED) as well as many solid state processes. While detailed research has been conducted among many of the processes including parameters and material properties, navigating which processes are best to select is difficult as it is based on component requirements. The focus of this presentation is to provide an overview of considerations for each of metal AM process selection for aerospace components based on various attributes. These attributes include geometric considerations, metallurgical characteristics, cost basis, post-processing and maturity of the processes. The data for these trade selections are based on studies that NASA as performed internally and with academic and industry partners. These studies include multiple AM build experiments to evaluate (1) geometric variations and constraints within the processes, (2) alloy characterization and mechanical testing, (3) pathfinder component development and hotfire evaluations, and (4) certification approaches. This presentation summarizes these results and meant to introduce various considerations when designing a metal AM component.
Metal additive manufacturing (AM) is a generic term that captures a variety of fabrication processes. Each of these manufacturing process has unique advantages and challenges for use in aerospace propulsion applications. The most commonly used AM processes include Powder Bed Fusion (PBF), Directed Energy Deposition (DED), and solid-state processes as in Cold Spray, Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing, and Additive Friction Stir Deposition. While detailed research has been conducted among many of the AM processes to mature processing parameters and material properties, navigating which processes are best to select is difficult as it is based on specific component requirements. The focus of this presentation is to provide an overview of considerations for each of metal AM process selection for aerospace components based on various key attributes. These key attributes include geometric considerations, metallurgical characteristics, cost basis, post-processing and maturity of the processes. The data for these trade selections are based on studies that NASA as performed internally and with academic and industry partners. These studies include multiple AM build experiments to evaluate (1) geometric variations and constraints within the processes, (2) alloy characterization and mechanical testing, (3) pathfinder component development and hot-fire evaluations, and (4) certification approaches. This presentation summarizes these results and is meant to introduce specific examples which show what to consider when designing a metal AM component for aerospace propulsion applications.
This document is a series of flowcharts that reviews the process for solicitation and selection of candidates for human systems tests.
The disparate design problems of selecting an electric propulsion system, launch vehicle, and flight time all have a significant impact on the cost and robustness of a mission. The effects of these system choices combine into a single optimization of the total mission cost, where the design constraint is a required spacecraft neutral (non-electric propulsion) mass. Cost-optimal systems are designed for a range of mass margins to examine how the optimal design varies with mass growth. The resulting cost-optimal designs are compared with results generated via mass optimization methods. Additional optimizations with continuous system parameters address the impact on mission cost due to discrete sets of launch vehicle, power, and specific impulse. The examined mission set comprises a near-Earth asteroid sample return, multiple main belt asteroid rendezvous, comet rendezvous, comet sample return, and a mission to Saturn.
One method of selecting potential reviewers for papers submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics is to filter the user database within the Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS) by areas of expertise. The list of these areas in GEMS can be self selected by users in their profile settings. The Editors have added 18 new entries to this list, an increase of 33 more than the previous 55 entries. All space physicists are strongly encouraged to update their profile settings in GEMS, especially their areas of expertise selections, and details of how to do this are provided.
The paper describes the use of a rapid estimation scheme for path selection by a roving vehicle. Essentially, the evaluation procedure simulates movement of the rover over each of several corridors lying radially outward from the scanning position. Two levels of corridors are used, and the path selection scheme selects the optimal primary corridor according to a dynamic programming algorithm. In the present version, the length of the corridors is variable. The rapid estimation scheme provides information to define corridor dimensions. This corridor structure, which varies as a function of the terrain, eliminates the need for backtracking, except in certain extreme cases. Computer results are promising in that obstacles were avoided while corridor lengths were kept to a maximum where safety permitted.
The X-33 program requires the use of multiple telemetry ground stations to cover the launch, ascent, transition, descent, and approach phases for the flights from Edwards AFB to landings at Dugway Proving Grounds, UT and Malmstrom AFB, MT. This paper will discuss the X-33 telemetry requirements and design, including information on fixed and mobile telemetry systems, best source selection, and support for Range Safety Officers. A best source selection system will be utilized to automatically determine the best source based on the frame synchronization status of the incoming telemetry streams. These systems will be used to select the best source at the landing sites and at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center to determine the overall best source between the launch site, intermediate sites, and landing site sources. The best source at the landing sites will be decommutated to display critical flight safety parameters for the Range Safety Officers. The overall best source will be sent to the Lockheed Martin's Operational Control Center at Edwards AFB for performance monitoring by X-33 program personnel and for monitoring of critical flight safety parameters by the primary Range Safety Officer. The real-time telemetry data (received signal strength, etc.) from each of the primary ground stations will also be compared during each nu'ssion with simulation data generated using the Dynamic Ground Station Analysis software program. An overall assessment of the accuracy of the model will occur after each mission. Acknowledgment: The work described in this paper was NASA supported through cooperative agreement NCC8-115 with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works.
The Orbital Refueling System (ORS); force torque sensor; Plasma Motor/Generator (PMG) proof of function; voice controlled system; infrared intercommunications; superfluid helium on orbit transfer; laser docking sensor; and the Small Expendable Deployment System (SEDS) are summarized.
When the HSR program began there was widespread belief that a simple and familiar turbojet-like engine coupled to an advanced technology mixer-ejector nozzle was the propulsion system of choice for achieving FAR 36-Stage 3 noise requirements. Our ability to quickly demonstrate a practical 20(+) dB suppression nozzle was confidently presumed by many. Our rate of progress towards that objective, however, has been somewhat humbling. At the moment we are reasonably confident of achieving about 15 dB suppression with a mixer-ejector nozzle designed for a high specific thrust turbojet-like cycle. Therefore, if we make no further suppression progress and conservatively assume no new operational procedures such as programmed lapse rate (PLR), then meeting the Stage 3 goal requires a large amount of engine and/or wing oversizing which is economically prohibitive. The scenario is further aggravated by the possibility of eventually needing to comply with even more stringent regulations (Stage 4). While this status may be somewhat disappointing to some, it must be remembered that the HSR program plan involves two generations of mixer-ejector nozzles beyond the current generation I nozzle designs. It is premature to conclude that we cannot design a practical 20(+) dB mixer-ejector nozzle. On the other hand, it is prudent to consider alternative solutions to the noise problem. Thus, we are investigating four other propulsion system concepts.