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.
Hub-tip radius ratio transonic turbine for secondary flow - stator configurations designed to eliminate blade wakes and secondary-flow effects
Acceptance testing of four ampere hour flooded sealed nickel-cadmium secondary spacecraft cells
Acceptance tests of nickel cadmium secondary cells for spacecraft power supply
Environmental and performance tests of 6.0 ampere- hour sealed nickel cadmium secondary spacecraft batteries
Storage methods for secondary nickel cadmium spacecraft batteries
Young lunar impact structures were investigated by using lunar orbiter, Apollo Metric and panorama photographs. Measurements on particularly homogeneous areas low in secondary craters made possible an expansion of primary crater distribution to small diameters. This is now sure for a range between 20m or = D or = 20km and this indicates that the size and velocity distribution of the impacting bodies in the last 3 billion years has been constant. A numerical approximation in the form of a 7th degree polynomial was obtained for the distribution.
Evaluation of nickel cadmium cells for spacecraft power use
Discharge and charge of charged cells on open versus trickle charge circuits
Performance tests of nickel cadmium batteries for evaluation of storage methods
Twenty-five cells were used in a five-year test to compare, after each successive one-year storage period, the discharge and charge characteristics of charged cells on open circuit versus that of cells on continuous trickle charge. The test procedure, instrumentation, and results are described. Based on the test results, the following recommendations were made: (1) If the user's purpose will allow a rejuvenation cycle or two after a long storage period, the open circuit regime will likely give slightly greater capacity. (2) If the user's purpose demands immediately available power following a long storage period, the trickle charge method of storage is definitely the regime to use.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Introduction: The surface of the Moon is constantly being bombarded by a flux of meteoroids of various sizes. Impacts due to these meteoroids produce secondary ejecta material at much lower speeds but with a total mass larger than the original impactor. Details about the secondary ejecta are important for planning missions on the lunar surface. In this work, an updated ejecta model is presented called the Meteoroid Model of Secondary Ejecta (MeMoSeE), to re-place the Apollo-era ejecta model, NASA SP-8013 [1], in the SLS-SPEC 159 Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) [2]. The model pro-duces secondary ejecta flux environments for a user-specified location on the lunar surface, and sorts the incoming secondary flux by angular direction and speed. Methods: MeMoSeE is separated into three parts: the inputs, the conversion step, and the integration of fluxes. Inputs to the model include the primary meteoroid fluxes and the primary near-Earth object (NEO) fluxes. Meteoroid fluxes, both asteroidal and cometary, are calculated using the Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM3) [3] for different locations on the Moon. For each surface location, an ephemeris is generated using the JPL HORIZONS System [4] that feeds into MEM3. The NEO fluxes are approximated by the high-density population of MEM3 (i.e., only the directionality), where the speed distribution of the NEO fluxes is renormalized to match observations [5]. The regolith properties are used as defined in the DSNE [2]. The conversion step utilizes scaling laws given by Housen & Holsapple 2011 [6] to convert the primary impactor flux to the total mass of secondary ejecta. The ejecta distribution, at the point-of-impact (POI), is separated into a zenith angle and azimuthal angle distribution. The zenith angle distribution follows a beta distribution where the peak depends on the impact altitude angle and the impact azimuth [7]. We employ an ejecta azimuth distribution that is based on Rival & Mandeville 1999 [8] which focuses ejecta in the downstream direction for more oblique impacts. Finally, during the integration step, we sum secondary ejecta number fluxes at a particular region-of-interest (ROI) that originated from many POI locations over the entire surface of the Moon. We keep track of both altitude and azimuth angle bins as well as a range of speed bins, following the igloo gridding as done in MEM3 [9]. The ejecta particle size distribution and density is assumed to be the same as the lunar regolith [10, 2]. Results: The primary fluxes are computed for one Metonic cycle (19 years) for various locations over the lunar surface with a fixed orientation. Both the angular and speed distributions of the primary fluxes are dependent on the latitude and longitude. The over-all primary fluxes show a roughly 13% increase from the eastern limb to the western limb. In general, the speed distribution of the secondary fluxes span from a user-defined minimum speed to the escape speed of the Moon (2.38 km/s), roughly following a power-law relation [6]. Different parts of the speed distribution come from different primary impact locations on the Moon. The secondary ejecta is dominated by the slowest speeds, where these particles originate nearby the ROI. For speeds around 71% of the escape speed, the secondary ejecta originates from locations near the antipodal point. On the other hand, for secondary ejecta speeds that exceed roughly 90% the escape speed, the ejecta particles come from all over the lunar surface to the ROI. Comparing the secondary ejecta fluxes from MeMoSeE with NASA SP-8013 [1], there is a reduction by about 2-3 orders of magnitude for secondary ejecta particles greater than 1 µg. These estimates agree with recent findings from Bjorkman & Christiansen 2019 [11]. The secondary ejecta fluxes are also compared with the primary fluxes, where the ejecta fluxes are roughly an order of magnitude greater than the primary fluxes. References: [1] Cour-Palais, B. G., (1969) NASA SP-8013. [2] NASA SLS-SPEC-159 Rev. H (2020). [3] Moorhead, A. V., et al. (2019) JS&R, 1-17. [4] Giorgini, J. D., (2015) IAUGA, 29, 2256293. [5] Moorhead, A. V., (2020) Memo OSMA/MEO/Lunar-001. [6] Housen, K. R., and Holsapple, K. A., (2011) Icarus, 211(1), 856-875. [7] Gault, D. E., and Wedekind, J. A., (1978) L&PSCP, 9, 3843-3875. [8] Rival, M., and Mandeville, J., (1999) Space Debris, 1(1), 45-57. [9] Moorhead, A. V., (2019) MEM3 User Guide. [10] Carrier, W. D., (1973) The Moon, 6(3-4), 250-263. [11] Bjorkman, M. D. & Christiansen, E. L., (2019) ODC
Secondary craters are common features around fresh planetary-scale primary impact craters throughout most of the Solar System. They derive from the ejection phase of crater formation, thus secondary scaling relations provide constraints on parameters affecting ejection processes. Secondary crater fields typically begin at the edge of the continuous ejecta blankets (CEB) and extend out several crater radii. Secondaries tend to have rounded rims and bilateral symmetry about an axis through the primary crater's center. Prominent secondary chains can extend inward across the CEB close to the rim. A simple method for comparing secondary crater fields was employed: averaging the diameters and ranges from the center of the primary crater of the five largest craters in a secondary crater field. While not as much information is obtained about individual crater fields by this method as in more complete secondary field mapping, it facilitates rapid comparison of many secondary fields. Also, by quantifying a few specific aspects of the secondary crater field, this method can be used to construct scaling relations for secondary craters.
In recent work, radar circular polarization echo properties have been used to identify "secondary" craters without distinctive secondary morphologies. Because of the potential for this method to improve our knowledge of secondary crater population-in particular the effect of secondary populations on crater- derived ages based on small craters-it is important to understand the origin of radar polarization signatures associated with secondary impacts. In this paper, we utilize Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera photographs to examine the geomorphology of secondary craters with radar circular polarization ratio enhancements. Our investigation reveals evidence of dry debris flow with an impact melt component at such secondary craters. We hypothesize that these debris flows were initiated by the secondary impacts themselves, and that they have entrained blocky material ejected from the secondaries. By transporting this blocky material downrange, we propose that these debris flows (rather than solely ballistic emplacement) are responsible for the tail-like geometries of enhanced radar circular polarization ratio associated with the secondary craters investigated in this work. Evidence of debris flow was observed at both clustered and isolated secondary craters, suggesting that such flow may be a widespread occurrence, with important implications for the mixing of primary and local material in crater rays.
Introduction: An issue with Martian remote sensing studies is the difficulty directly inferring surface and crustal material properties. For direct measurements we currently rely on the instruments of landed missions, like InSight. However, these are limited to specific locations (i.e., Elysium Planitia for InSight). To understand how results from in situ missions apply to other parts of Mars’ crust, we would like to apply a methodology that uses remote sensing. We are exploring using secondary craters, which are often thought of as nuisances when finding accurate relative ages, to get at these properties. An upside of secondary craters is that they form by ejecta blocks moving at relatively slow speeds (compared to primary impacts), which lets them reside in a different crater scaling regime [1], one that is more sensitive to the crust’s effective strength (Yeff) and its porosity. Secondary Crater Scaling: There are multiple parameters that influence the size of secondary craters, but we can measure craters in ways that isolate the dependence of crater size to just Yeff. We focus on secondary clusters that have impacted into distinct but bordering geological units. These secondaries can be used to determine Yeff thanks to one important fact: all the secondaries in this cluster are from the same distant primary, and as a result, the ejecta velocity, median block sizes, and densities are expected to be the same (at least to first order). Thus, variations between crater size on the two units are due to material property differences (i.e. Yeff). Thanks to the steep size frequency distributions (SFD) of secondaries [2], observable secondary crater sizes are tightly clustered, and we can simply use differences in median secondary sizes between two geologic units to constrain the ratio of Yeff. We are also able to use the SFD of our counting areas to check if our counted craters are secondaries (i.e. have a steep distribution), and if the two crater counting areas are from the same source (and thus have the same power law slope), but are offset from each other at around the same factor as the median difference.
A series of light gas gun shots (4 to 7 km/sec) were performed with 5 mg nylon and aluminum projectiles to determine the size, mass, velocity, and spatial distribution of spall and ejecta from a number of graphite/epoxy targets. Similar determinations were also performed on a few aluminum targets. Target thickness and material were chosen to be representative of proposed Space Station structure. The data from these shots and other information were used to predict the hazard to Space Station elements from secondary particles resulting from impacts of micrometeoroids and orbital debris on the Space Station. This hazard was quantified as an additional flux over and above the primary micrometeoroid and orbital debris flux that must be considered in the design process. In order to simplify the calculations, eject and spall mass were assumed to scale directly with the energy of the projectile. Other scaling systems may be closer to reality. The secondary particles considered are only those particles that may impact other structure immediately after the primary impact. The addition to the orbital debris problem from these primary impacts was not addressed. Data from this study should be fed into the orbital debris model to see if Space Station secondaries make a significant contribution to orbital debris. The hazard to a Space Station element from secondary particles above and beyond the micrometeoroid and orbital debris hazard is categorized in terms of two factors: (1) the 'view factor' of the element to other Space Station structure or the geometry of placement of the element, and (2) the sensitivity to damage, stated in terms of energy. Several example cases were chosen, the Space Station module windows, windows of a Shuttle docked to the Space Station, the habitat module walls, and the photovoltaic solar cell arrays. For the examples chosen the secondary flux contributed no more than 10 percent to the total flux (primary and secondary) above a given calculated critical energy. A key assumption in these calculations is that above a certain critical energy, significant damage will be done. This is not true for all structures. Double-walled, bumpered structures are an example for which damage may be reduced as energy goes up. The critical energy assumption is probably conservative, however, in terms of secondary damage. To understand why the secondary impacts seem to, in general, contribute less than 10 percent of the flux above a given critical energy, consider the case of a meteoroid impact of a given energy on a fixed, large surface. This impact results in a variety of secondary particles, all of which have much less energy than the original impact. Conservation of energy prohibits any other situation. Thus if damage is linked to a critical energy of a particle, the primary flux will always deliver particles of much greater energy. Even if all the secondary particles impacted other Space Station structures, none would have a kinetic energy more than a fraction of the primary impact energy.
For aerodynamic and hydrodynamic vehicles, it is highly desirable to reduce drag and noise levels. A reduction in drag leads to fuel savings. In particular for submersible vehicles, a decrease in noise levels inhibits detection. A suggested means to obtain these reduction goals is by delaying the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in external boundary layers. For hydrodynamic applications, a passive device which shows promise for transition delays is the compliant coating. In previous studies with a simple mechanical model representing the compliant wall, coatings were found that provided transition delays as predicted from the semi-empirical e(sup n) method. Those studies were concerned with the linear stage of transition where the instability of concern is referred to as the primary instability. For the flat-plate boundary layer, the Tollmien-Schlichting (TS) wave is the primary instability. In one of those studies, it was shown that three-dimensional (3-D) primary instabilities, or oblique waves, could dominate transition over the coatings considered. From the primary instability, the stretching and tilting of vorticity in the shear flow leads to a secondary instability mechanism. This has been theoretical described by Herbert based on Floquet theory. In the present study, Herbert's theory is used to predict the development of secondary instabilities over isotropic and non-isotropic compliant walls. Since oblique waves may be dominant over compliant walls, a secondary theory extention is made to allow for these 3-D primary instabilities. The effect of variations in primary amplitude, spanwise wavenumber, and Reynolds number on the secondary instabilities are examined. As in the rigid wall case, over compliant walls the subharmonic mode of secondary instability dominates for low-amplitude primary disturbances. Both isotropic and non-isotropic compliant walls lead to reduced secondary growth rates compared to the rigid wall results. For high frequencies, the non-isotropic wall suppresses the amplification of the secondary instabilities, while instabilities over the isotropic wall may grow with an explosive rate similar to the rigid wall results. For the more important lower frequencies, both isotropic and non-isotropic compliant walls suppress the amplification of secondary instabilities compared to the rigid wall results. The twofold major discovery and demonstration of the present investigation are: (1) the use of passive devices, such as compliant walls, can lead to significant reductions in the secondary instability growth rates and amplification; (2) suppressing the primary growth rates and subsequent amplification enable delays in the growth of the explosive secondary instability mechanism.