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.
Testing device, which determines ability of a technician to identify color-coded electric wires, is superior to standard color blindness tests. It tests speed of wire selection, detects partial color blindness, allows rapid testing, and may be administered by a color blind person.
In July of 1984, Hughes and JPL initiated a contract for Hughes to design, fabricate and test 10 thin film Amorphous Silicon (a-Si) photovoltaic power modules. These modules were to be 1 ft x 4 ft in size. They were to be preceded by the delivery of 10 a-Si 4 in. square test devices. This effort is very timely since thin film PV development has progressed to the point where intermediate load power applications are on the horizon. It is important to know if current a-Si submodule design and manufacturing processes yield a product that is compatible with the packaging needed to meet a 20 to 30 year life span expectancy. The term submodule is assigned to an interconnected assembly of 28 a-Si cells deposited on a 1 foot square glass superstrate. These assemblies are equipped with electrical terminations, i.e., copper tabs at the four corners of the inverted submodules. It is these submodules that are to be interconnected and packaged into power modules, as opposed to the interconnected individual crystalline cells packaged into todays PV modules. A discussion of the fabrication methods and results follows.
We present a framework for evaluating complex digital systems targeted for harsh radiation environments such as space. Focus is limited to analyzing the single event upset (SEU) susceptibility of designs implemented inside Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) devices. Tradeoffs are provided between application-specific versus test-specific test structures.
A battery testing device is described for testing the cells of a multiple-cell battery, the battery having a cover plate with access holes to provide access to the connecting straps between cells. A panel of probe assembly receiving holes is located to correspond to the location of the access holes when the panel is positioned on top of the battery. A probe assembly is positioned within each probe assembly receiving hole, with a spring biased electrically conductive plunger to make electrical contact with the connecting strap through the corresponding access hole when the panel is pushed towards the top of the battery.
Fatigue testing device applying random discrete load levels to test specimen and applicable to aircraft structures
The invention relates to a four-terminal electrical connector device for testing and measuring unknown resistances of initiators used for starting pyrotechnic events aboard the space shuttle. The testing device minimizes contact resistance degradation effects and so improves the reliability of resistance measurements taken with the device. Separate and independent voltage sensing and current supply circuits each include a pair of socket contacts for mating engagement with the pins of the initiator. The unknown resistance that is measured by the device is the resistance of the bridgewire of the initiator which is required to be between 0.95 and 1.15 ohms.
Tensile strength testing device having pulley guides for exerting multiple forces on test specimen
Hydraulic system components test device obtains a pulsating pressure from a hydraulic actuator that is being driven by a vibration exciter of sufficient force and displacement. Input to the exciter controls the frequency of pressure variation.
United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to validate the safety of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded in human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.
United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.
United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.
United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.
Test device using a mandrel with a collapsible linkage assembly enables a fluid flow sensor to be properly positioned in a restricted passage by external manipulation. This device is applicable to the combustion chamber of a rocket motor.
Testing device stretches elastic materials biaxially over large deformation ranges and varies strain ratios in two perpendicular directions. The device is used in conjunction with a tensile testing machine, which holds the specimen and permits control over the direction and magnitude of the stresses applied.
One of the goals of the NASA Occupant Protection Group is to understand the human tolerance to dynamic loading. This knowledge has to come through indirect approaches such as existing human response databases, anthropometric test devices (ATD), animal testing, post‐mortem human subjects, and models. This study investigated the biofidelity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ATD named the THOR (test device for human occupant restraint). If THOR responds comparably to humans, then it could potentially be used as a human surrogate to help validate space vehicle requirements for occupant protection. The THOR responses to frontal and spinal impacts (ranging from 8 to 12 G with rise times of 40, 70, and 100 ms) were measured and compared to human volunteer responses (95 trials in frontal and 58 in spinal) previously collected by the U. S. Air Force on the same horizontal impact accelerator. The impact acceleration profiles tested are within the expected range of multi‐purpose crew vehicle (MPCV) landing dynamics. A correlation score was calculated for each THOR to human comparison using CORA (CORrelation and Analysis) software. A two‐parameter beta distribution model fit was obtained for each dependent variable using maximum likelihood estimation. For frontal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration peak response correlated with the human response at 8 and 10‐G 100 ms but not 10‐G 70 ms. The phase lagged the human response. Head z‐acceleration was not correlated. Chest x‐acceleration was in phase, had a higher peak response, and was well correlated with lighter subjects (Cora = 0.8 for 46 kg vs. Cora = 0.4 for 126 kg). Head x‐displacement had a leading phase. Several subjects responded with the same peak displacement but the mean of the group was lower. The shoulder x‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks than the human response. For spinal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration was not well correlated. Head and chest z‐acceleration was in phase but had a higher peak response. Chest z‐acceleration was highly correlated with heavier subjects at lower G pulses (Cora = 0.86 for 125 kg at 8 G). The human response was variable in shoulder z‐displacement but the THOR was in phase and was comparable to the mean peak response. Head xand z‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks. Seat pan forces were well correlated, were in phase, but had a larger peak response than most subjects. The THOR does not respond to frontal and spinal impacts exactly the same way that a human does. Some responses are well matched and others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this ATD is an important first step in determining its usefulness in occupant protection at NASA
One of the goals of the NASA Occupant Protection Group is to understand the human tolerance to dynamic loading. This knowledge has to come through indirect approaches such as existing human response databases, anthropometric test devices (ATD), animal testing, post-‐mortem human subjects, and models. This study investigated the biofidelity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ATD named the THOR (test device for human occupant restraint). If THOR responds comparably to humans, then it could potentially be used as a human surrogate to help validate space vehicle requirements for occupant protection. The THOR responses to frontal and spinal impacts (ranging from 8 to 12 G with rise times of 40, 70, and 100 ms) were measured and compared to human volunteer responses (95 trials in frontal and 58 in spinal) previously collected by the U. S. Air Force on the same horizontal impact accelerator. The impact acceleration profiles tested are within the expected range of multi-‐purpose crew vehicle (MPCV) landing dynamics. A correlation score was calculated for each THOR to human comparison using CORA (CORrelation and Analysis) software. A two-‐parameter beta distribution model fit was obtained for each dependent variable using maximum likelihood estimation. For frontal impacts, the THOR head x-‐acceleration peak response correlated with the human response at 8 and 10-‐G 100 ms but not 10-‐G 70 ms. The phase lagged the human response. Head z-‐acceleration was not correlated. Chest x-‐acceleration was in phase, had a higher peak response, and was well correlated with lighter subjects (Cora = 0.8 for 46 kg vs. Cora = 0.4 for 126 kg). Head x-‐displacement had a leading phase. Several subjects responded with the same peak displacement but the mean of the group was lower. The shoulder x-‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks than the human response. For spinal impacts, the THOR head x-‐acceleration was not well correlated. Head and chest z-‐acceleration was in phase but had a higher peak response. Chest z-‐acceleration was highly correlated with heavier subjects at lower G pulses (Cora = 0.86 for 125 kg at 8 G). The human response was variable in shoulder z-‐displacement but the THOR was in phase and was comparable to the mean peak response. Head x-‐ and z-‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks. Seat pan forces were well correlated, were in phase, but had a larger peak response than most subjects. The THOR does not respond to frontal and spinal impacts exactly the same way that a human does. Some responses are well matched and others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this ATD is an important first step in determining its usefulness in occupant protection at NASA
Ultrasonic-testing apparatus measures transmission through component under inspection. Includes hand-held ultrasonic transmitter placed on one side of component and ultrasonic receiver placed on other side. However, no need to hold or manually align receiving transducer after initial setup. Transmitter loosely inserted in magnetic assembly on one side, while receiver placed in another magnetic assembly on other side. Magnetic coupling keeps transmitter and receiver assemblies pressed against component and keeps receiver alligned with transmitter as transmitter scans across surface of component. Receiver moved to locations otherwise inaccessible.
A series of 14 vertical impact tests were conducted using Hybrid III 50th Percentile and Hybrid II 50th Percentile Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) at NASA Langley Research Center. The purpose of conducting these tests was threefold: to compare and contrast the impact responses of Hybrid II and Hybrid III ATDs under two different loading conditions, to compare the impact responses of the Hybrid III configured with a nominal curved lumbar spine to that of a Hybrid III configured with a straight lumbar spine, and to generate data for comparison with predicted responses from two commercially available ATD finite element models. The two loading conditions examined were a high magnitude, short duration acceleration pulse, and a low magnitude, long duration acceleration pulse, each created by using different paper honeycomb blocks as pulse shape generators in the drop tower. The test results show that the Hybrid III results differ from the Hybrid II results more for the high magnitude, short duration pulse case. The comparison of the lumbar loads for each ATD configuration show drastic differences in the loads seen in the spine. The analytical results show major differences between the responses of the two finite element models. A detailed discussion of possible sources of the discrepancies between the two analytical models is also provided.