SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “TPS”

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.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2012

Woven TPS - A New Approach to TPS Design and Manufacturing

NASA's Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) Game Changing Division recently funded an effort to advance a Woven TPS (WTPS) concept. WTPS is a new approach to producing TPS materials that uses precisely engineered 3D weaving techniques to customize material characteristics needed to meet specific missions requirements for protecting space vehicles from the intense heating generated during atmospheric entry. Using WTPS, sustainable, scalable, mission-optimized TPS solutions can be achieved with relatively low life cycle costs compared with the high costs and long development schedules currently associated with material development and certification. WTPS leverages the mature state-of-the-art weaving technology that has evolved from the textile industry to design TPS materials with tailorable performance by varying material composition and properties via the controlled placement of fibers within a woven structure. The resulting material can be designed to perform optimally for a wide range of entry conditions encompassing NASAs current and future mission needs. WTPS enables these optimized TPS designs to be translated precisely into mission-specific, manufactured materials that can substantially increase the efficiency, utility, and robustness of heat shield materials compared to the current state-of-the-art material options. By delivering improved heat shield performance and affordability, this technology will impact all future exploration missions, from the robotic in-situ science missions to Mars, Venus and Saturn to the next generation of human missions. WTPS can change the way NASA develops, certifies, and integrates TPS into mission life cycles - instead of being a mission constraint, TPS will become a mission enabler. It is anticipated that WTPS will have direct impact on SMD, HEOMD and OCT and will be of interest for DoD and COTS applications. This presentation will overview the WTPS concept and present some results from initial testing completed.

Feldman, Jay↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recent Advances in the U.S. in Ablative TPS for In-situ Exploration of Giant Planets

The Decadal Survey report released [1] prioritizes Uranus as the highest priority Flagship class mission to be explored with an orbiter and a probe and it also recommended Saturn Probe under New Frontiers mission class. Thermal protection system (TPS) is essential for Uranus and Saturn probe missions. The two cardinal requirements are that it must be fail-safe and yet be mass efficient. The Decadal Survey report also pointed out the readiness of heatshield for extreme entry environment technology (HEEET) at TRL 6 for probe missions at Gas Giants. HEEET relies on 3-D weaving and is shown to be a robust and mass efficient TPS through ground testing and analysis. HEEET was matured to TRL 6 in 2019. HEEET was reported at the Ice Giant Workshop in 2019 at Marseille. Since 2019, significant advances have been made primarily because of Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission. MSR baselined 3-D Woven TPS as its heatshield for the earth entry system. MSR earth entry system (EES) requirements and the resulting heatshield/TPS requirements are most stringent of all entry missions. This is a result of backward contamination protection which classifies MSR as a “restricted class 5” mission to safeguard the accidental release of potentially hazardous Mars Sample into Earth’s atmosphere. Complex requirements for the heatshield start with micro-meteor impact tolerance followed by the requirement for steep entry to minimize the size of the impact footprint which results in extreme heating. The heatshield is part of the impact attenuation system. The EES architecture does not use a parachute and is designed to tolerate impact loads. Hence heatshield TPS selection and design becomes one of the key challenges. After completion of the HEEET technology maturation in 2019, IRAD efforts focused on assessing the 3-D Woven family of TPS to MSR EES. After nearly two years of evaluation of alternate TPS such as carbon phenolic, C-C hot structure, PICA, and 3-D woven family of TPS, a single layer 3-D woven TPS derived from the dual-layer HEEET was down selected and is currently the baseline. A new loom capable of weaving the single-layer 3-D woven preform at 80” wide has been designed, assembled and is currently on the verge of weaving the MSR EES TPS. During the HEEET maturation and the follow-on development, the single-layer TPS has been tested at extreme heating conditions. As a result, single layer TPS was recommended and evaluated during the Planetary Mission Concept Studies funded by NASA in preparation for the Decadal committee. In addition, in anticipation of Saturn mission proposals, single layer was evaluated as well. Aerocapture can reduce the trip time, also allow bigger payload fraction and in addition, it allows for the possibility of probe delivery once the spacecraft is in orbit. This can lead to obtaining both in-situ data as well as data from orbit simultaneously. Since Aerocapture depletes energy/velocity, probe delivery from orbit reduces the demand on TPS. Aerocapture was mentioned in the Decadal Study report as ready for implementation, but due to perceived risk it is not adopted by the mission designers. Establishing TPS readiness for aerocapture missions will be addressed. Going one step beyond aerocapture is aerogravity assist if fast return is the goal. Recent studies [4] looked at aerogravity assist and the TPS readiness. This talk will highlight both aerocapture and aerogravity assist from a TPS perspective. The main objective of this proposed talk is to present a comprehensive picture of the SOA TPS technology including recent developments. The talk will highlight advances in manufacturing, results from the Decadal White Papers, PMCS and other studies, and aerocapture and aerogravity assist that could play a role in the near or far term in-situ exploration.

E. Venkatapathy↗

NASA NTRS2000

TPS Materials and Costs for Future Reusable Launch Vehicles

There is considerable interest in developing new reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) for reducing the cost of transporting payload to and from orbit. This work reviews thirteen candidate thermal protection system (TPS) options currently available for RLVs. It is useful to begin with the current Shuttle TPS layout as a reference. The nose cap and wing leading edge , which reach the highest temperatures, are made of reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) that is protected from oxidation by an external coating (about 0.020" thick) of silicon-carbide. Most of the windward surface is 9 lb/cubic ft ceramic tiles (LI-900) with a thin (about 0.012") coating of Reaction Cured Glass (RCG). The leeward side of the vehicle is covered largely by AFRSI, a quilted ceramic blanket, and FRSI, a polyamide felt. These four materials can be considered first generation reusable TPS. Since the time of the Shuttle design, considerable progress has been made advancing TPS technologies in terms of thermal performance, robustness, and cost. For each of the major systems, a second generation ceramic TPS has been developed, tested, and characterized. Metallic-based systems have also been developed. For applications requiring RCC in the past, advanced carbon-carbon (ACC) is now available. This material has better mechanical properties, somewhat higher temperature capability to 2900F and greatly increased oxidation resistance. New carbon fiber reinforced silicon-carbide matrix composites (C/SiCs) have shown additional improvement in properties over ACC with use temperatures to 3000F and above. For rigid tiles, NASA Ames has made two significant advancements. The first is a tile substrate called Alumina Enhanced Thermal Barrier, or AETB, that incorporates alumina fibers for improved dimensional stability at high temperatures, to 2600F and above. This material can be made to densities as low as 8 lb/cubic ft. The second is a coating preparation called Toughened Uni-piece Fibrous Insulation, or TUFT, that penetrates about 0.1 in. into the tile substrate. The resulting composite, with a functionally gradient density near the surface, provides orders of magnitude increased damage resistance compared with RCG coated LI-900, with only a small weight increase. The TPS that combines these two developments is called AETB-8/TUFI and has been adopted for high damage areas on the Shuttles. Two notable developments have occur-red in flexible ceramic blanket technology. The first is aluminoborosilicate-based fibers with use temperatures of 2200F and above," in comparison to quartz and silica fiber used in AFRSI which have multi-use temperature limits of 1200 to 1400F. Blankets incorporating these new high temperature fibers are referred to as AFRSI-HT. The second is an integral weaving techniques that produces a fluted core blanket with a smoother surface and greater resistance to aero-acoustic noise, to levels as high as 170 dB. This Ames innovation is called Tailorable Advanced Blanket Insulation, or TABI. Finally, for felt-based TPS, Boeing is developing Polybenzimidazole Blanket Insulation, or PBI, with a multi-use temperature limit of 1000F and above, in contrast to Shuttle FRSI which has a multi-use temperature limit of about 700F. 1.6 NASA Langley and BF Goodrich (formerly Rohr Corp.) have led the development of metallic-based TPS. This activity uses essentially three approaches: metallic tiles which encase a fibrous ceramic batting in a box fabricated largely from metallic honeycombs, typically Nickel based alloys; metallic honeycomb sheets, made of Nickel-based alloys, incorporating a fibrous back-side insulation encapsulated in a metallic foil bag, providing reduced weight; and metallic multi-wall, which is comprised of dimpled Titanium metal sheets, which are stacked and then diffusion bonded at contact points to form the TPS. The Nickel-based systems can be used up to temperatures of about 1800F, and the Titanium system to about 100F. These thirteen TPS materials have pros and cons to their usage in terms of temperature capability, weight, initial cost, and maintenance. Carbon-carbon and C/SiC systems have the highest temperature capability but are relatively expensive and heavy, requiring significant time, expertise, and costly facilities and tools for design and fabrication. Second generation ceramic tiles are relatively light, durable, simple to fabricate and easy to install; however, waterproofing is a concern. Blankets and felts are light, simple, inexpensive, and easy to install over curved vehicle surfaces, but durability and waterproofing are concerns. Metallics are robust and appear to have eliminated waterproofing, but they tend to be heavy and relatively expensive, requiring costly facilities and tools. If thin metal sheets are used to reduce weights, then issues arise from possible metal fatigue and corrosion caused by thermal cycling, pressure oscillations, and environmental exposure. For application to future RLVs, system analyses show that a significant component of the vehicle life cycle cost is from the TPS; however, it is difficult to quantify and to compare the potential savings of advanced systems without performing full vehicle designs using each of the different options. Because this entails a considerable effort and also tends to submerge TPS cost impacts under unrelated vehicle design assumptions, there is a clear need for a simpler quantitative method to evaluate the cost impact of different TPS options. To this end, this work introduces a TPS life-cycle cost parameter which is easily computed and applicable to generic RLVs.

Rasky, Dan J.↗

NASA NTRS2006

The TPS Advanced Development Project for CEV

The CEV TPS Advanced Development Project (ADP) is a NASA in-house activity for providing two heatshield preliminary designs (a Lunar direct return as well as a LEO only return) for the CEV, including the TPS, the carrier structure, the interfaces and the attachments. The project s primary objective is the development of a single heatshield preliminary design that meets both Lunar direct return and LEO return requirements. The effort to develop the Lunar direct return capable heatshield is considered a high risk item for the NASA CEV development effort due to the low TRL (approx. 4) of the candidate TPS materials. By initiating the TPS ADP early in the development cycle, the intent is to use materials analysis and testing in combination with manufacturing demonstrations to reduce the programmatic risk of using advanced TPS technologies in the critical path for CEV. Due to the technical and schedule risks associated a Lunar return heatshield, the ADP will pursue a parallel path design approach, whereby a back-up TPS/heatshield design that only meets LEO return requirements is also developed. The TPS materials and carrier structure design concept selections will be based on testing, analysis, design and evaluation of scalability and manufacturing performed under the ADP. At the TPS PDR, the preferred programmatic strategy is to transfer the continued (detailed) design, development, testing and evaluation (DDT&E) of both the Lunar direct and LEO return designs to a government/prime contractor coordinated sub-system design team. The CEV prime contractor would have responsibility for the continued heatshield sub-system development. Continued government participation would include analysis, testing and evaluation as well as decision authority at TPS Final System Decision (FSD) (choosing between the primary and back-up heatshields) occurring between TPS PDR and TPS Critical Design Review (CDR). After TPS FSD the prime CEV contractor will complete the detailed design, certification testing, procurement, and integration of the CEV TPS.

Reuther, James↗

NASA NTRS2022

Predicting the Penetration of a Shielded TPS Tile

All spacecraft are subject to the possibility of high-speed particle impacts during their mission life. In low earth orbit, those impacts could be the result of collisions with pieces of orbital debris or with meteorites. Beyond LEO, and especially beyond GEO, those impacts will likely be caused by meteorites. Such high-speed impacts on spacecraft surfaces create debris clouds that travel towards and eventually impact other downstream spacecraft components. In addition to the impulsive load that such debris clouds would impart to the spacecraft elements with which they subsequently collide, the largest fragment in these debris clouds poses a significant threat on its own to those spacecraft elements. In order to be able to assess the severity of the threat posed by such a fragment, it is important to be able to predict the extent of damage sustained by the impacted spacecraft element. In this paper, we present a new process for determining the penetration depth in a shielded TPS tile system. The requirements for the process were that it be applicable across a full spectrum of impact low velocities (i.e. from ~ 7 km/s to above 50 km/s), that it be applicable over a wide range of projectile materials densities (i.e. ranging from water to steel, for example), and that it be applicable over a wide range of trajectory obliquities (i.e. not just normal impacts). Furthermore, the process developed should be sufficiently flexible so that it can be used for shield design parameter and / or system configuration trade studies (i.e. be written in terms of as many shield and TPS tile system parameters as possible). Following the initial impact of the projectile on the outer wall of the dual-wall shield, a debris cloud (i.e. the primary debris cloud) is created that travels towards and impacts the inner wall of the shield. Within this debris cloud is a combination of solid, liquid, and vaporized material, depending on the impact velocity and the impedance mismatch of the projectile and outer wall materials. The impact of this debris cloud on the inner wall creates another debris cloud (i.e. the secondary debris cloud) that then travels towards and impacts the TPS tile. Within the particulate distribution of the material in each of these debris clouds is a so-called largest fragment. The process used to calculate the penetration depth in a shielded TPS tile system developed herein consists of the following three steps: 1. Does the initial projectile perforate the outer wall of the shield? If NO, the TPS tile remains undamaged. If YES, calculate the size and speed of the largest fragment exiting the outer wall of the shield and traveling towards the shield’s inner wall. 2. Does the largest fragment in the debris cloud exiting the outer wall of the shield perforate the inner wall of the shield? If NO, the TPS tile again remains undamaged. If YES, calculate the size and speed of the largest fragment exiting the rear of the shield inner wall. 3. Calculate the penetration depth of the largest fragment in the debris cloud exiting the inner wall into the TPS. Perforation of the inner and outer shield walls is predicted using the Cour-Palais penetration depth equation and an associated failure criterion [1]. The largest debris cloud fragment diameters and associated velocities are calculated using regression equations developed from a mix of hydrocode and experimental diameter and velocity information [2]. Finally, TPS penetration depths are calculated using an empirical penetration depth predictor equation based on high-speed impact test data and are calibrated using a limited number of hydrocode penetration depth predictions for water, nylon, aluminum, Dunite, and steel projectiles The predictions of the penetration depth calculation process are compared against the predictions of more than 60 SPHC hydrocode runs. These comparisons show that the process used to calculate TPS tile penetration depths usually yields values that are within 1 mm of the predictions of hydrocode simulations. If a maximum allowable TPS penetration depth is known, the process developed herein can now be used to develop a failure limit equation that would predict whether or not an impacting particle would penetrate deeply enough into the TPS to result in a “failed” or “not failed” end state. References [1] E.L. Christiansen, “Design and performance equations for advanced meteoroid and debris shields”, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 145-156. [2] W.P. Schonberg, “Predicting the size of the largest particle fragment in a debris cloud created by an orbital debris impact and its associated velocity”, 2021 Applied Space Environments Conference, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, November, 2021.

Meteroid↗

NASA NTRS2002

Preliminary Thermal-Mechanical Sizing of Metallic TPS: Process Development and Sensitivity Studies

The purpose of this research was to perform sensitivity studies and develop a process to perform thermal and structural analysis and sizing of the latest Metallic Thermal Protection System (TPS) developed at NASA LaRC (Langley Research Center). Metallic TPS is a key technology for reducing the cost of reusable launch vehicles (RLV), offering the combination of increased durability and competitive weights when compared to other systems. Accurate sizing of metallic TPS requires combined thermal and structural analysis. Initial sensitivity studies were conducted using transient one-dimensional finite element thermal analysis to determine the influence of various TPS and analysis parameters on TPS weight. The thermal analysis model was then used in combination with static deflection and failure mode analysis of the sandwich panel outer surface of the TPS to obtain minimum weight TPS configurations at three vehicle stations on the windward centerline of a representative RLV. The coupled nature of the analysis requires an iterative analysis process, which will be described herein. Findings from the sensitivity analysis are reported, along with TPS designs at the three RLV vehicle stations considered.

Poteet, Carl C.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Advanced High-Temperature Flexible TPS for Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators

Typical entry vehicle aeroshells are limited in size by the launch vehicle shroud. Inflatable aerodynamic decelerators allow larger aeroshell diameters for entry vehicles because they are not constrained to the launch vehicle shroud diameter. During launch, the hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerator (HIAD) is packed in a stowed configuration. Prior to atmospheric entry, the HIAD is deployed to produce a drag device many times larger than the launch shroud diameter. The large surface area of the inflatable aeroshell provides deceleration of high-mass entry vehicles at relatively low ballistic coefficients. Even for these low ballistic coefficients there is still appreciable heating, requiring the HIAD to employ a thermal protection system (TPS). This TPS must be capable of surviving the heat pulse, and the rigors of fabrication handling, high density packing, deployment, and aerodynamic loading. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of flexible TPS tests and results, conducted over the last three years. This paper also includes an overview of each test facility, the general approach for testing flexible TPS, the thermal analysis methodology and results, and a comparison with 8-foot High Temperature Tunnel, Laser-Hardened Materials Evaluation Laboratory, and Panel Test Facility test data. Results are presented for a baseline TPS layup that can withstand a 20 W/cm2 heat flux, silicon carbide (SiC) based TPS layup, and polyimide insulator TPS layup. Recent work has focused on developing material layups expected to survive heat flux loads up to 50 W/cm2 (which is adequate for many potential applications), future work will consider concepts capable of withstanding more than 100 W/cm2 incident radiant heat flux. This paper provides an overview of the experimental setup, material layup configurations, facility conditions, and planned future flexible TPS activities.

DelCorso, Joseph A.↗

NASA NTRS2019

A Discussion of the Need to Sustain Mission Ready TPS and for Continued Development of Innovative Entry System Technologies

Flight proven entry system and TPS technologies are critical for the successful execution of in-situ science missions at Venus. Emerging new technologies point to new possibilities and offer innovative approaches to delivering small satellites for orbital science. Venus entry can be very demanding and there are only a few flight proven TPS, some developed by Industry and others by NASA, capable of meeting the mission needs. NASA developed TPS has predominately been transferred to Industry and it is assumed industry will maintain the fabrication capability. However, lack of mission needs may result in obsolence of TSP fabrication capability if there is no money and no motivation. Even within NASA, its' expertise could be diverted to higher priority objectives and thereby the readiness for particular material systems can be impacted or lost. Atrophy of capabilities can come about in other ways as well such as changes to raw materials. Even small manufacturing process changes can demand requalification and TRL may be degraded. Carbon-Phenolic is a text book example. After a long period of absence of US Venus missions, VEXG and the Science community is making the case for future missions. It is insufficient to assume the TSP technologies will be there in 5 or 10 years without active and continual planning and assessment. After Galileo, Carbon-Phenolic materials and fabrication skills were allowed to atrophy. Then when missions needed it, in early 2000, it was no longer possible to make the heritage Carbon-Phenolic. What do we need to do? The first step is to advocate for the establishment of TPS readiness assess-ment. The assessment will involve understanding threats and opportunities, and the development of risk mitigation strategies. VEXAG needs to advocate for such an active monitoring of the needed capabilities, assessment of emerging risks and development of risk mitigation strategies with implementation plans. Such an approach reduces the threat of material obsolence and helps maintain the availability of entry system and TPS technology capabilities, both old and new. Venus probes, landers, balloons and other variable altitude missions, and skimmer missions such as "Cu-pid's Arrow" as well as aerocapture missions to deliver small spacecraft require qualified entry systems and ablative TPS. VEXAG advocated for HEEET in 2013/2014 and the community is well versed with the need to sustain it. But, other TPS that need to be sustained may not be apparent to VEXAG community. The following figure summarizes the ablative TPS capabilities vs Venus mission needs for both primary heatshield and backshell.

Venkatapathy, Ethiraj↗

NASA NTRS1983

Orbiter TPS development and certification testing at the NASA/JSC 10 MW Atmospheric Reentry Materials and Structures Evaluation Facility

Thermal performance of the Space Shuttle Orbiter Thermal Protection System (TPS) has been verified by extensive ground testing at the NASA/JSC 10 MW Atmospheric Reentry Materials and Structures Evaluation Facility (ARMSEF). Major test programs have included current TPS materials (RSI, RCC and ablators) and advanced TPS materials (AFRSI and FRCI-12). Testing by electrically heating a gas mixture simulating air and expanding it (supersonically or hypersonically) through channel or conical nozzles has produced simulated thermal and pressure environments on models representative of the Orbiter TPS acreage and penetration regions. Tests have established Orbiter TPS thermal design requirements, verified Orbiter TPS thermal performance, and supported Orbiter TPS flight anomaly investigations and resolutions.

Rochelle, W. C.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Strategies and Approaches to TPS Design

Thermal protection systems (TPS) insulate planetary probes and Earth re-entry vehicles from the aerothermal heating experienced during hypersonic deceleration to the planet s surface. The systems are typically designed with some additional capability to compensate for both variations in the TPS material and for uncertainties in the heating environment. This additional capability, or robustness, also provides a surge capability for operating under abnormal severe conditions for a short period of time, and for unexpected events, such as meteoroid impact damage, that would detract from the nominal performance. Strategies and approaches to developing robust designs must also minimize mass because an extra kilogram of TPS displaces one kilogram of payload. Because aircraft structures must be optimized for minimum mass, reliability-based design approaches for mechanical components exist that minimize mass. Adapting these existing approaches to TPS component design takes advantage of the extensive work, knowledge, and experience from nearly fifty years of reliability-based design of mechanical components. A Non-Dimensional Load Interference (NDLI) method for calculating the thermal reliability of TPS components is presented in this lecture and applied to several examples. A sensitivity analysis from an existing numerical simulation of a carbon phenolic TPS provides insight into the effects of the various design parameters, and is used to demonstrate how sensitivity analysis may be used with NDLI to develop reliability-based designs of TPS components.

Paul Kolodziej↗

NASA NTRS2018

TPS Architectures and the Influence of Material and Architecture on Failure Mode Evolution

A primary focus of the Entry Systems and Technology Division at NASA Ames is design, development, qualification and certification of Thermal Protection Systems for current NASA missions. Another primary focus is the development of new thermal protection systems for upcoming missions that address shortfalls in the existing suite of TPS. Examples of such shortfalls include performance at higher capability and reduction in mass. NASA is also investing in TPS sustainability ensuring the long term availability of TPS solutions for future missions. The specific TPS selection, for a given mission , depends on a number of parameters including the missions risk posture. For all missions the goal for TPS is efficient and reliable performance and to achieve these goals an understanding of the materials (composition and architecture) is required for proper design and use of the chosen TPS. Analytic tools are used to inform on a material (systems) response to a given environment and the response itself depends on the materials properties which are driven by its composition and architecture. This presentation will review the different generic ablative TPS architectures and anticipated corresponding failure modes.

ablator↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Critical Ablative TPS Capabilities Sustainment for Future NASA Missions

We plan to present an approach for NASA to maintain critical ablative TPS capabilities through small, sus-tained, smart and targeted investment. Historically, we have been pound foolish and penny wise for decades and paid very little attention to sustainability of abla-tive TPS and as a result, spent couple of decades in learning what we lost and inventing newer technology solutions. NASA’s ablative TPS history has been one of in-vesting in new and unique capabilities in anticipation of needs, and once flight proven, letting the capability atrophy due to lack of subsequent near-term mission needs [1]. When the need arises, NASA has resorted to two options: (1) revive the capability at considerable cost impact, or (2) develop an alternate capability with considerable schedule impact. Both these options have had considerable mission impact. The third alternate is to maintain proven capabilities in a cost effective manner. A risk informed decision process in terms of maintaining ablative TPS capabilities is feasible with planning and sustained support. Assured TPS availa-bility will allow the science community to propose competed missions with confidence and at a lower risk for selection. We submitted a white paper to the cur-rent Decadal Survey [2] on the need for and im-portance of sustainability. Since then, we have been formulating an executable cost effective strategy. The intent of this presentation is to outline the develop-ments since the submission of the white paper. NASA and DoD have had a working group related to critical technologies to periodically assess and make recommendations on at-risk items from a national need perspective. This inter-agency working group typically focuses on raw materials availability. While we agree that at-risk raw materials are important, fo-cus solely on them is not sufficient. Instead, we advo-cate for a broader focus that includes not only raw material but also industrial manufacturing and processing, and NASA expertise in design, testing and flight hardware certification. In this proposed presentation, we will give a brief overview of NASA’s ablative TPS history along with recent examples of atrophy to highlight case studies related to the PICA and Carbon-Phenolic TPS. We will present the rationale for sustaining PICA, HEEET and 3MDCP for future NASA missions. We will present an approach for how targeted small investments could lead to maintaining mission critical capabilities over long periods.

E Venkatapathy↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Engineering with Modular Patched Conics for Entry Systems and TPS (TEMPEST)

Brief Presenter Biography (35 word limit): Bohdan Wesely is an Aerospace Engineer in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at Ames. He has worked on a variety of projects for NASA including integrated TPS (thermal protection system) flight hardware deliveries and testing services for commercial partners. Introduction: TEMPEST is a new trajectory analysis framework that is designed to fill the gap between dedicated flight mechanics tools and aerothermal and TPS sizing tools. The project started as an SJSU master’s thesis and has since evolved into a general conceptual design tool capable of studying a wide variety of entry problems. Development is ongoing in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at NASA ARC. Why TEMPEST: Space missions involving entry into a planetary atmosphere involve a series of unique requirements across multiple disciplines. Whether it is traditional entry descent and landing (EDL), or aerocapture, the vehicle must navigate to its target landing location or orbit state, and the TPS must protect the payload during entry. The design process typically involves iterative handoffs between various flight mechanics, flow solver, and material response level tools. During the early conceptual phase, a wide variety of feasible trajectories are simulated in a Monte Carlo scenario which broadly satisfy the mission or landing requirements. Next, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC), and other flow solver analyses are performed at various key trajectory points to generate an aero-database, heating and TPS design requirements also emerge at this stage. At this point, with updated aerodynamics from the various flow solvers, trajectories can be re-run, this in turn can change the required freestream conditions for the CFD tools, and as a project progresses, these analyses converge, and uncertainty is reduced. However, there is always a “hand-off” occurring between two inherently coupled phenomena. Analysis Description: One of the goals with TEMPEST is to use a variety of first principles estimation methods coupled with an atmosphere model to predict vehicle aerothermodynamics across the entire flight regime while propagating a 3 or 6 degree of freedom (DoF) trajectory. Aerodynamics methods include modified Newtonian, Maxwell and Cercignani- Lampis-Lord (CLL) for continuum, transitional, and free molecular flow regimes. Aerothermodynamics include boundary layer and reference enthalpy methods, and Mutation++ for non-equilibrium chemistry modeling. TEMPEST is also capable of stitching multiple trajectory segments together to study mission scenarios like multi-pass aerocapture and aero-gravity assists. Most of the program is implemented in MATLAB using modern system objects, it relies on several C++ shared libraries for supporting tools like Gmsh, the Global Reference Atmospheric Model (GRAM), and Mutation++. The various first principles aerothermal estimation methods are discretized across either a structured axisymmetric panel mesh or an unstructured tri-mesh generated from an open-source tool such as Gmsh, this allows solutions on the same mesh to be compared across tools such as CB-Aero. CFD Coupling. A physics-aware, gaussian process CFD anchoring scheme is proposed to adjust the various first principles methods as a CFD database is populated. One goal for this anchoring module is to inform the project where CFD should be run. Full knowledge of the entire trajectory, atmosphere, and aerothermodynamics allows for easier identification of high sensitivity areas and uncertainty quantification. While the first principles effects are well known and proven accurate in existing tools such as CB- Aero and Cart3D, a physics aware CFD anchoring scheme increases tool credibility across a project lifecycle. Material Response Modeling. Correct TPS sizing is critical for optimizing mass for science payloads and ensuring mission success. The process typically involves a thermal analysis along the trajectory with surface heating environments as a boundary condition. Several design constraints are maximum bondline temperature and maximum recession with various margining techniques. The material response tool FIAT, developed out of NASA Ames, is currently being integrated into the TEMPEST environment. TPS recession, shape change, mass loss, and mass property alteration are all factors that can perturb an entry trajectory. For missions like Mars 2020, recession was minimal and was safely handled separately as a post process. For missions such as Jupiter Galileo with a high TPS mass fraction or asteroid entries, recession plays a major role. The proposed fully coupled scheme is to use an epoch-based approach where the trajectory integration is halted after a recession threshold, the energy balance and FIAT are solved at each panel, the mesh, aerodynamics, and mass properties are updated, and the trajectory continues. Several computational tradeoffs have been made during the development of TEMPEST to limit the cost of a single trajectory and preserve its utility as a conceptual, rapid iteration tool. Conclusion: Development of TEMPEST is ongoing and the project is still in its infancy. This talk aims to showcase its unique capabilities to support future NASA entry systems missions.

Bohdan O Wesely↗

NASA NTRS1980

Effects of aerodynamic heating and TPS thermal performance uncertainties on the Shuttle Orbiter

A procedure for estimating uncertainties in the aerodynamic-heating and thermal protection system (TPS) thermal-performance methodologies developed for the Shuttle Orbiter is presented. This procedure is used in predicting uncertainty bands around expected or nominal TPS thermal responses for the Orbiter during entry. Individual flowfield and TPS parameters that make major contributions to these uncertainty bands are identified and, by statistical considerations, combined in a manner suitable for making engineering estimates of the TPS thermal confidence intervals and temperature margins relative to design limits. Thus, for a fixed TPS design, entry trajectories for future Orbiter missions can be shaped subject to both the thermal-margin and confidence-interval requirements. This procedure is illustrated by assessing the thermal margins offered by selected areas of the existing Orbiter TPS design for an entry trajectory typifying early flight test missions.

Goodrich, W. D.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Evaluation of SRB phenolic TPS material made by an alternate vendor

Tests conducted to evaluate the adequacy of solid rocket booster (SRB) phenolic thermal protection system (TPS) material supplied by an alternate vendor chosen by United Space Boosters, Inc. (USBI), to replace the current phenolic TPS sections used thus far on the first four Shuttle flights. The phenolic TPS is applied mainly to the attach and kick rings of the solid rocket booster (SRB). Full-scale sectional models of both the attach and kick ring structure were made up with 0.0265 in. thick stainless steel thin skin covers with thermocouples on them to determine the heating rates. Such models were made up for both the forward and rear faces of the kick ring which has a different configuration on each side. The thin skins were replaced with the alternate phenolic TPS sections cut from flight hardware configuration phenolic parts as supplied by the new vendor. Two tests were performed for each configuration of the attach and kick rings and the samples were exposed to the flow for a duration that gave a heat load equivalent to that obtained in the series of runs made for the current line of phenolic TPS. The samples performed very well with no loss of any phenolic layers. The post-test samples looked better than those used to verify the current phenolic TPS.

Karu, Z. S.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Current Developments in Future Planetary Probe Sensors for TPS

In-situ Thermal Protection System (TPS) sensors are required to provide traceability of TPS performance and sizing tools. Traceability will lead to higher fidelity design tools, which in turn will lead to lower design safety margins, and decreased heatshield mass. Decreasing TPS mass will enable certain missions that are not otherwise feasible, and directly increase science payload. NASA Ames is currently developing two flight measurements as essential to advancing the state of TPS traceability for material modeling and aerothermal simulation: heat flux and surface recession (for ablators). The heat flux gage is applicable to both ablators and non-ablators and is therefore the more generalized sensor concept of the two with wider applicability to mission scenarios. This paper describes the development of a microsensor capable of surface and in-depth temperature and heat flux measurements for TPS materials appropriate to Titan, Neptune, and Mars aerocapture, and direct entry. The thermal sensor will be monolithic solid state devices composed of thick film platinum RTD on an alumina substrate. Choice of materials and critical dimensions are used to tailor gage response, determined during calibration activities, to specific (forebody vs. aftbody) heating environments. Current design has maximum operating temperature of 1500 K, and allowable constant heat flux of q=28.7 watts per square centimeter, and time constants between 0.05 and 0.2 seconds. The catalytic and radiative response of these heat flux gages can also be changed through the use of appropriate coatings. By using several co-located gages with various surface coatings, data can be obtained to isolate surface heat flux components due to radiation, catalycity and convection. Selectivity to radiative heat flux is a useful feature even for an in-depth gage, as radiative transport may be a significant heat transport mechanism for porous TPS materials in Titan aerocapture. This paper also reports on progress to adapt a previously flown surface recession sensor, based on the Jupiter probe Galileo Analog Resistance Ablation Detector (ARAD), to appropriate aerocapture conditions.

Martinez, Ed↗

NASA NTRS1998

Aerothermal Test of Metallic TPS for X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle

An array of metallic Thermal Protection System (TPS) panels including the seals developed for the windward surface of the X-33 vehicle is being tested in the Eight Foot High Temperature Tunnel at the NASA Langley Research Center. These tests are the first aerothermal tests of an X-33 TPS array and will be used to validate the TPS for the X-33 flight program. Specifically, the tests will be used to evaluate the structural and thermal performance of the TPS, the effectiveness of the high temperature seals between adjacent tiles and the durability of the TPS under realistic aerothermal flight conditions. The effect of varying step heights, damage to the seals between adjacent panels, and the use of secondary seals will also be investigated during the test program. The metallic TPS developed for the windward surface of the X-33 and the test program in the Eight Foot High Temperature Tunnel is presented and discussed.

Sawyer, James Wayne↗

NASA NTRS2005

Development of Solid State Thermal Sensors for Aeroshell TPS Flight Applications

In-situ Thermal Protection System (TPS) sensors are required to provide verification by traceability of TPS performance and sizing tools. Traceability will lead to higher fidelity design tools, which in turn will lead to lower design safety margins, and decreased heatshield mass. Decreasing TPS mass will enable certain missions that are not otherwise feasible, and directly increase science payload. NASA Ames is currently developing two flight measurements as essential to advancing the state of TPS traceability for material modeling and aerothermal simulation: heat flux and surface recession (for ablators). The heat flux gage is applicable to both ablators and non-ablators and is therefore the more generalized sensor concept of the two with wider applicability to mission scenarios. This paper describes the continuing development of a thermal microsensor capable of surface and in-depth temperature and heat flux measurements for TPS materials appropriate to Titan, Neptune, and Mars aerocapture, and direct entry. The thermal sensor is a monolithic solid state device composed of thick film platinum RTD on an alumina substrate. Choice of materials and critical dimensions are used to tailor gage response, determined during calibration activities, to specific (forebody vs. aftbody) heating environments. Current design has maximum operating temperature of 1500K, and allowable constant heat flux of q=28.7 W/cm(sup 2), and time constants between 0.05 and 0.2 seconds. The catalytic and radiative response of these heat flux gages can also be changed through the use of appropriate coatings. By using several co-located gages with various surface coatings, data can be obtained to isolate surface heat flux components due to radiation, catalycity and convection. Selectivity to radiative heat flux is a useful feature even for an in-depth gage, as radiative transport may be a significant heat transport mechanism for porous TPS materials in Titan aerocapture.

Martinez, Ed↗