Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “flight hardware”

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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Software for Managing Inventory of Flight Hardware

The Flight Hardware Support Request System (FHSRS) is a computer program that relieves engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) of most of the non-engineering administrative burden of managing an inventory of flight hardware. The FHSRS can also be adapted to perform similar functions for other organizations. The FHSRS affords a combination of capabilities, including those formerly provided by three separate programs in purchasing, inventorying, and inspecting hardware. The FHSRS provides a Web-based interface with a server computer that supports a relational database of inventory; electronic routing of requests and approvals; and electronic documentation from initial request through implementation of quality criteria, acquisition, receipt, inspection, storage, and final issue of flight materials and components. The database lists both hardware acquired for current projects and residual hardware from previous projects. The increased visibility of residual flight components provided by the FHSRS has dramatically improved the re-utilization of materials in lieu of new procurements, resulting in a cost savings of over $1.7 million. The FHSRS includes subprograms for manipulating the data in the database, informing of the status of a request or an item of hardware, and searching the database on any physical or other technical characteristic of a component or material. The software structure forces normalization of the data to facilitate inquiries and searches for which users have entered mixed or inconsistent values.

Salisbury, John↗
NASA NTRS2013

Movable Ground Based Recovery System for Reuseable Space Flight Hardware

A reusable space flight launch system is configured to eliminate complex descent and landing systems from the space flight hardware and move them to maneuverable ground based systems. Precision landing of the reusable space flight hardware is enabled using a simple, light weight aerodynamic device on board the flight hardware such as a parachute, and one or more translating ground based vehicles such as a hovercraft that include active speed, orientation and directional control. The ground based vehicle maneuvers itself into position beneath the descending flight hardware, matching its speed and direction and captures the flight hardware. The ground based vehicle will contain propulsion, command and GN&C functionality as well as space flight hardware landing cushioning and retaining hardware. The ground based vehicle propulsion system enables longitudinal and transverse maneuverability independent of its physical heading.

Sarver, George L.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Development of Enhanced Avionics Flight Hardware Selection Process

The primary objective of this research was to determine the processes and feasibility of using commercial off-the-shelf PC104 hardware for flight applications. This would lead to a faster, better, and cheaper approach to low-budget programs as opposed to the design, procurement. and fabrication of space flight hardware. This effort will provide experimental evaluation with results of flight environmental testing. Also, a method and/or suggestion used to bring test hardware up to flight standards will be given. Several microgravity programs, such as the Equiaxed Dendritic Solidification Experiment, Self-Diffusion in Liquid Elements, and various other programs, are interested in PC104 environmental testing to establish the limits of this technology.

Smith, K.↗
NASA NTRS2012

New Approaches in Force-Limited Vibration Testing of Flight Hardware

To qualify flight hardware for random vibration environments the following methods are used to limit the loads in the aerospace industry: (1) Response limiting and notching (2) Simple TDOF model (3) Semi-empirical force limits (4) Apparent mass, etc. and (5) Impedance method. In all these methods attempts are made to remove conservatism due to the mismatch in impedances between the test and the flight configurations of the hardware that are being qualified. Assumption is the hardware interfaces have correlated responses. A new method that takes into account the un-correlated hardware interface responses are described in this presentation.

Random Vibration↗
NASA NTRS2000

Development of a Methodology to Conduct Usability Evaluation for Hand Tools that May Reduce the Amount of Small Parts that are Dropped During Installation while Processing Space Flight Hardware

Foreign object debris (FOD) is an important concern while processing space flight hardware. FOD can be defined as "The debris that is left in or around flight hardware, where it could cause damage to that flight hardware," (United Space Alliance, 2000). Just one small screw left unintentionally in the wrong place could delay a launch schedule while it is retrieved, increase the cost of processing, or cause a potentially fatal accident. At this time, there is not a single solution to help reduce the number of dropped parts such as screws, bolts, nuts, and washers during installation. Most of the effort is currently focused on training employees and on capturing the parts once they are dropped. Advances in ergonomics and hand tool design suggest that a solution may be possible, in the form of specialty hand tools, which secure the small parts while they are being handled. To assist in the development of these new advances, a test methodology was developed to conduct a usability evaluation of hand tools, while performing tasks with risk of creating FOD. The methodology also includes hardware in the form of a testing board and the small parts that can be installed onto the board during a test. The usability of new hand tools was determined based on efficiency and the number of dropped parts. To validate the methodology, participants were tested while performing a task that is representative of the type of work that may be done when processing space flight hardware. Test participants installed small parts using their hands and two commercially available tools. The participants were from three groups: (1) students, (2) engineers / managers and (3) technicians. The test was conducted to evaluate the differences in performance when using the three installation methods, as well as the difference in performance of the three participant groups.

Miller, Darcy↗
NASA NTRS2016

Terrestrial Sources of X-Ray Radiation and Their Effects on NASA Flight Hardware

X-rays are an energetic and penetrating form of ionizing electromagnetic radiation, which can degrade NASA flight hardware. The main concern posed by such radiation is degradation of active electronic devices and, in some cases, diodes. Non-electronic components are only damaged at doses that far exceed the point where any electronic device would be destroyed. For the purposes of this document, flight hardware can be taken to mean an entire instrument, the flight electronics within the instrument or the individual microelectronic devices in the flight electronics. This document will discuss and describe the ways in which NASA flight hardware might be exposed to x-rays, what is and isn't a concern, and how to tell the difference. First, we must understand what components in flight hardware may be vulnerable to degradation or failure as a result of being exposed to ionizing radiation, such as x-rays. As stated above, bulk materials (structural metals, plastics, etc.) are generally only affected by ionizing radiation at very high dose levels. Likewise, passive electronic components (e.g. resistors, capacitors, most diodes) are strongly resistant to exposure to x-rays, except at very high doses. The main concerns arise when active components, that is, components like discrete transistors and microelectronic devices, are exposed to ionizing radiation. Active components are designed to respond to minute changes in currents and voltages in the circuit. As such, it is not surprising that exposure to ionizing radiation, which creates ionized and therefore electrically active particles, may degrade the way the hardware performs. For the most part, the mechanism for this degradation is trapping of the charges generated by ionizing radiation by defects in dielectric materials in the hardware. As such, the degree of damage is a function of both the quantity of ionizing radiation exposure and the physical characteristics of the hardware itself. The metric that describes the level of exposure to ionizing radiation is total ionizing dose (TID). The unit of TID is the rad, which is defined as 100 ergs absorbed per gram of material. Dose can be expressed in other units, for example grays (gy), where 1 gy = 100 rads. The actual fluence of radiation needed to deliver a rad depends on the absorbing material, so units of dose are usually stated in reference to the material of interest. That is, for microelectronic devices, the unit of dose is generally rad (Si) or rad (SiO2). However, the definition of absorbed dose in this fashion has the advantage that the type of radiation causing the ionization can be normalized so that a realistic and adequate comparison can be made. The sensitivity of microelectronic parts to TID varies over many orders of magnitude. (Note: Doses to humans are typically expressed in rems-or roentgen-equivalent-man-which measures tissue damage, and depends on the type of radiation, as well as the dose in rads.) Thus far, the "softest" parts tested at NASA showed damage at 500 rads (Si), while parts that are radiation-hardened by design can remain functional to doses on the order of 107 rads (Si). This broad range of sensitivity highlights one of the most important considerations when considering the effects of radiation on electronic parts: In order to determine whether a radiation exposure is a concern for a particular part, one must understand the technologies used in the part and their vulnerabilities to TID damage. A NASA radiation expert should be consulted to obtain such information.

X-ray↗
NASA NTRS2011

High-Speed Isolation Board for Flight Hardware Testing

There is a need to provide a portable and cost-effective galvanic isolation between ground support equipment and flight hardware such that any unforeseen voltage differential between ground and power supplies is eliminated. An interface board was designed for use between the ground support equipment and the flight hardware that electrically isolates all input and output signals and faithfully reproduces them on each side of the interface. It utilizes highly integrated multi-channel isolating devices to minimize size and reduce assembly time. This single-board solution provides appropriate connector hardware and breakout of required flight signals to individual connectors as needed for various ground support equipment. The board utilizes multi-channel integrated circuits that contain transformer coupling, thereby allowing input and output signals to be isolated from one another while still providing high-fidelity reproduction of the signal up to 90 MHz. The board also takes in a single-voltage power supply input from the ground support equipment and in turn provides a transformer-derived isolated voltage supply to power the portion of the circuitry that is electrically connected to the flight hardware. Prior designs used expensive opto-isolated couplers that were required for each signal to isolate and were time-consuming to assemble. In addition, these earlier designs were bulky and required a 2U rack-mount enclosure. The new design is smaller than a piece of 8.5 ~11-in. (.22 ~28-mm) paper and can be easily hand-carried where needed. The flight hardware in question is based on a lineage of existing software-defined radios (SDRs) that utilize a common interface connector with many similar input-output signals present. There are currently four to five variations of this SDR, and more upcoming versions are planned based on the more recent design.

Yamamoto, Clifford K.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Organic Biomarker-Based Assays to Evaluate Total Bioburden and Organic Compounds on Space Flight Hardware

Meeting planetary protection (PP) requirements for space flight hardware may involve bioburden reduction by dry heat microbial reduction (DHMR). The NASA standard assay to demonstrate the reduction of organisms involves the swabbing of surfaces, heat shock of the extracted samples, plating of the samples on Trypticase Soy Agar (TSA), and counting colony forming units after an incubation period. The standard assay uses enumeration of heat tolerant spore-formers as a proxy for total bioburden and is generally expected to provide a lower limit. We suggest that a better estimate of the total bioburden could be obtained through sampling and analysis of organic biomarkers. As biological organisms are fundamentally organic in chemistry (i.e. carbon containing materials) it is important to characterize the biomarker compounds that are released from organisms that 1) exist on flight hardware before microbial reduction and 2) left behind from the killed organisms following microbial reduction.

Locke, Darren R.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Pyroshock Simulation Systems: Are We Correctly Qualifying Flight Hardware for Pyroshock Environments?

There are several methods of shock testing that are commonly used by the aerospace industry to qualify flight hardware to pyroshock environments. In some cases the shock results and in particular the shock response spectra computed from these tests were interpreted in such a way as to satisfy the testing requirements and were often considered successful for flight hardware qualification. However, close scrutiny of these acquired shock data suggest gross violation of the pyroshock qualification requirements. There are several issues, both in terms of the shock generation mechanisms and the shock signature acquisition and analysis that have led to improper qualification of flight hardware. In this paper some factors contributing to the misinterpretation of the shock data are reviewed. First, issues with the hardware fixturing and instrumentation that may lead to incorrect shock testing are discussed. Second, issues facing the shock simulation systems and pyrotechnic testing are reviewed. Finally, issues pertaining to the data acquisition and analysis are briefly discussed.

instrumentation↗
NASA NTRS2020

Micro Raman Spectroscopy for Characterizing Molecular Contamination on Space Flight Hardware

In the field of contamination control,many unknowns exist. Often, contamination control engineers have to utilize multiple spectroscopic, macroscopic, and microscopic tools to identify contamination sources when there is a potential contamination exposure to space flight hardware. Understanding the chemical composition of the molecular contamination provides an opportunity for contamination control engineers to determine if this contamination is problematic or benign. In this study, an existing witness plate program for monitoring space flight hardware during the assembly, integration, and testing phases is coupled with micro Raman spectroscopy analysis. The main goal of this study is to determine the limitations, reproducibility, and throughput of micro Raman spectroscopy for characterizing molecular contamination. Micro Raman Spectroscopy will be an additional tool used by contamination control engineers to monitor the cleanliness of space flight hardware.

Microscope↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Next Generation Durability and Damage Tolerance to Support Certification of Flight Hardware

Durability and Damage Tolerance (D&DT), as currently applied to flight hardware throughout the Agency, is based on continuum and similitude assumptions and does not consider local material properties, environments and responses. These limitations impact our ability to support certification of new component designs, material systems and manufacturing approaches. The primary concern in this Engineering R&A plan is related to the imminent proliferation of parts produced by additive manufacturing (AM). These parts are being advocated by NASA’s suppliers for use on a myriad of flight hardware because of their design flexibility and cost advantages. AM provides opportunities to reduce part counts through complex geometry and reduce manufacturing costs of low volume parts. However, AM materials have some notable metallurgical and microstructural differences compared to traditionally fabricated materials. One of the challenges for the acceptance of AM is the greater tendency for a deleterious defect state, most commonly in the form of porosity, to exist in AM parts. Though this defect state is typically reduced through a hot isostatic pressing (HIP) processing step, the structural performance risks associated with the remaining defects and HIP-healed features is not known. Potential fracture control issues that must be resolved stem from the real possibility that an unhealed defect or a closed defect with less than pristine strength remains at a fracture critical location after HIP. As a result, NASA and the entire aerospace community have been confronted with the need to develop a robust and relevant certification methodology to enable safe implementation of these components. The present work is an important step toward positioning NASA to credibly respond to vendors’ push to implement this new AM materials technology by improving our understanding of AM processing and performance and transitioning that research-based understanding to next-generation engineering capabilities.

Edward H Glaessgen↗
NASA NTRS2010

The Certification of Environmental Chambers for Testing Flight Hardware

The JPL chamber certification process for ensuring that test chambers used to test flight hardware meet a minimum standard is critical to the safety of the hardware and personnel. Past history has demonstrated that this process is important due to the catastrophic incidents that could occur if the chamber is not set up correctly. Environmental testing is one of the last phases in the development of a subsystem, and it typically occurs just before integration of flight hardware into the fully assembled flight system. A seemingly insignificant -miscalculation or missed step can necessitate rebuilding or replacing a subsystem due to over-testing or damage from the test chamber. Conversely, under-testing might fail to detect weaknesses that might cause failure when the hardware is in service. This paper describes the process that identifies the many variables that comprise the testing scenario and screening of as built chambers, the training of qualified operators, and a general "what-to-look-for" in minimum standards.

Vacuum Chamber↗
NASA NTRS2009

The Certification of Environmental Chambers for Testing Flight Hardware

The JPL chamber certification process for ensuring that test chambers used to test flight hardware meet a minimum standard is critical to the safety of the hardware and personnel. Past history as demonstrated that this process is important due to the catastrophic incidents that could occur if the chamber is not set up correctly. Environmental testing is one of the last phases in the development of a subsystem, and it typically occurs just before integration of flight hardware into the fully assembled flight system. A seemingly insignificant -miscalculation or missed step can necessitate rebuilding or replacing a subsystem due to over-testing or damage from the test chamber. Conversely, under-testing might fail to detect weaknesses that might cause failure when the hardware is in service. This paper describes the process that identifies the many variables that comprise the testing scenario and screening of as built chambers, the training of qualified operators, and a general "what-to-look-for" in minimum standards.

Thermal↗
NASA NTRS1991

Dual control vibration tests of flight hardware

A vibration retest of a spacecraft flight instrument, the Mars Observer Camera (MOC), was conducted using extremal dual control to automatically limit the shaker force and notch the shaker acceleration at resonances. This was the first application of extremal dual control with flight hardware at JPL. The retest was successful in that the environment was representative of flight plus some margin, the instrument survived without any structural or performance degradation, and the force limiting worked very well. The test set-up, force limiting procedure, and test results are described herein. It is concluded that dual control should be utilized when there is a concern about overtesting in hard-base-drive tests and the instrumentation for force measurement and control is available. Recommendations for improving the implementation of dual control are provided as a result of this first experience.

Scharton, Terry D.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Weight and the Future of Space Flight Hardware Cost Modeling

Weight has been used as the primary input variable for cost estimating almost as long as there have been parametric cost models. While there are good reasons for using weight, serious limitations exist. These limitations have been addressed by multi-variable equations and trend analysis in models such as NAFCOM, PRICE, and SEER; however, these models have not be able to address the significant time lags that can occur between the development of similar space flight hardware systems. These time lags make the cost analyst's job difficult because insufficient data exists to perform trend analysis, and the current set of parametric models are not well suited to accommodating process improvements in space flight hardware design, development, build and test. As a result, people of good faith can have serious disagreement over the cost for new systems. To address these shortcomings, new cost modeling approaches are needed. The most promising approach is process based (sometimes called activity) costing. Developing process based models will require a detailed understanding of the functions required to produce space flight hardware combined with innovative approaches to estimating the necessary resources. Particularly challenging will be the lack of data at the process level. One method for developing a model is to combine notional algorithms with a discrete event simulation and model changes to the total cost as perturbations to the program are introduced. Despite these challenges, the potential benefits are such that efforts should be focused on developing process based cost models.

Prince, Frank A.↗
NASA NTRS2008

On-Orbit Constraints Test - Performing Pre-Flight Tests with Flight Hardware, Astronauts and Ground Support Equipment to Assure On-Orbit Success

On-Orbit Constraints Test (OOCT's) refers to mating flight hardware together on the ground before they will be mated on-orbit. The concept seems simple but it can be difficult to perform operations like this on the ground when the flight hardware is being designed to be mated on-orbit in a zero-g and/or vacuum environment of space. Also some of the items are manufactured years apart so how are mating tasks performed on these components if one piece is on-orbit before its mating piece is planned to be built. Both the Internal Vehicular Activity (IVA) and Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) OOCT's performed at Kennedy Space Center will be presented in this paper. Details include how OOCT's should mimic on-orbit operational scenarios, a series of photographs will be shown that were taken during OOCT's performed on International Space Station (ISS) flight elements, lessons learned as a result of the OOCT's will be presented and the paper will conclude with possible applications to Moon and Mars Surface operations planned for the Constellation Program.

Haddad, Michael E.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Issues Related to Large Flight Hardware Acoustic Qualification Testing

The characteristics of acoustical testing volumes generated by reverberant chambers or a circle of loudspeakers with and without large flight hardware within the testing volume are significantly different. The parameters attributing to these differences are normally not accounted for through analysis or acoustic tests prior to the qualification testing without the test hardware present. In most cases the control microphones are kept at least 2-ft away from hardware surfaces, chamber walls, and speaker surfaces to minimize the impact of the hardware in controlling the sound field. However, the acoustic absorption and radiation of sound by hardware surfaces may significantly alter the sound pressure field controlled within the chamber/speaker volume to a given specification. These parameters often result in an acoustic field that may provide under/over testing scenarios for flight hardware. In this paper the acoustic absorption by hardware surfaces will be discussed in some detail. A simple model is provided to account for some of the observations made from Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft that recently underwent acoustic qualification tests in a reverberant chamber.

direct acoustics↗