Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mass equipment lists (MELs)”

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.

Model-Based Systems Engineering Approach to Managing Mass Margin

When designing a flight system from concept through implementation, one of the fundamental systems engineering tasks ismanaging the mass margin and a mass equipment list (MEL) of the flight system. While generating a MEL and computing a mass margin is conceptually a trivial task, maintaining consistent and correct MELs and mass margins can be challenging due to the current practices of maintaining duplicate information in various forms, such as diagrams and tables, and in various media, such as files and emails. We have overcome this challenge through a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach within which we allow only a single-source-of-truth. In this paper we describe the modeling patternsused to capture the single-source-of-truth and the views that have been developed for the Europa Habitability Mission (EHM) project, a mission concept study, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

cloud comu↗

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Space Policy Directive-1 has led to NASA partnerships with commercial entities on procurement which includes the development of the Human Landing System (HLS) [1]. With the goal of delivering human crew to the lunar surface by 2024, system uncertainties become an important obstacle to the maturation of multiple new, driving technologies and mission concepts of the HLS program. As unmitigated uncertainties have previously led to failed development programs, these risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success [2]. Sources of uncertainty include novel engine designs and configurations, increased reliance on cryogenic fluid management(CFM), and refueling technologies—which propagate as high-level performance metrics such as overall propellant mass and engine performance. Also, the occurrence of operational uncertainties—e.g. launch conditions or need to abort during the mission—can cause cascading effects on the rest of the mission that are difficult to definitively quantify, and are outside the scope of control. These concrete examples and other occurrences can be categorized as either epistemic or aleatory uncertainties.Epistemic uncertainty arises due to a lack of knowledge and can be alleviated with design and program maturation. Aleatory uncertainty is due to the inherent randomness of the system and cannot be directly reduced, unlike epistemic uncertainty. Robust design and probabilistic methods can compensate for aleatory effects. A taxonomy of uncertainty is referred to for this work [3]. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties has been demonstrated on a three-element HLS concept [1, 4], which allows tracking of current best estimates of the concept and assessment of concept design robustness against uncertainties. A sample case has been completed for this abstract, and an expansion on the methodology will be included in the final paper. This methodology has two key parts: first, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. This abstract will cover the basics of the approach used, and further details and justifications will be in the final paper.The mission profile associated with this three-element concept (Fig 1) was modeled as a set of mission events that facilitated mass changes, idles, or spacecraft maneuvers. The mission profile scope starts with each element’s NRHO orbit insertion and aggregation and ends at post-sortie rendezvous with Orion. More detail on the mission profile will be in the final paper. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as the physics framework to model the HLS architecture for applying the probabilistic methodology [5, 6]. Specifically, a parametric representation of the lander, ascent, and transfer elements and the mission profile of each element was established, with vehicle and mission parameters available as inputs to allow for a dynamic model. Each vehicle stage was modeled with high-level performance metrics, using Isp and propellant mass fraction (PMF) to remain parametric. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission profile events. These parameters were frozen at their nominal values for the purposes of baselining architecture performance and sizing the vehicle appropriately based on reference documentation [1]. Range estimating—a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities—is traditionally used with Mass Equipment Lists (MELs), but has been adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in theDYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty [7, 3]. This method was selected due to its application and insight on a system from a bottom-up perspective, independence from historical rules of thumb, and ability to generate sensitivities based on design decisions and uncertainties. As a sample case for the abstract, the boiloff rates of the vehicle elements and the loiter times during the mission (simulating launch time variations and changing window of opportunities) were used with range estimating to provide preliminary results. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology (depicted in Fig. 3, further details in final paper), the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to efficiently explore the architecture design space with respect to the sample set of uncertainty parameters; 5,000 cases via Latin Hypercube Sampling were computed on the DYREQT architecture model. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Range estimating was applied to the surrogates instead of the actual models, which saves computational expense due to the bulk of cases needed for the Monte Carlo simulation as part of range estimating. Uncertainty parameters were sampled independently from triangular distributions using the DoE ranges as ‘min’ and ‘max’, and the nominal value as ‘most likely’. Based engineering intuition, some uncertainty parameters are correlated—e.g. if the main propellant has a high boil-off rate, the oxidizer should follow suit as both are related to CFM technology.While a Monte Carlo simulation samples all inputs as independent, the results would show model correlations; thus, it is efficient to sample the inputs as correlated. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo. A table for the DoE ranges and probability distribution parameters is shown in Table 1, and more details on Correlated Monte Carlo Simulations will be discussed in the final paper. The model’s resulting DoE showed that multivariate polynomial equations fit via least squares method captured its behavior accurately for the sample case. For the Correlated Monte Carlo Simulation, a positive correlation between fuel and oxidizer boiloff rates was used as a demonstration. 10,000 cases were computed with the surrogates and the launched masses for each vehicle element was collated. The results can be displayed in a probability density function (PDF), showing the impact of the uncertainty parameters chosen. Integrating the PDFs will yield a cumulative distribution function (CDF) that shows the cumulative probability of a given value on the x-axis. For the sample case, the elements’ launch mass margin was calculated and represented in as CDFs, as a demonstrated representation of figures of merit for the HLS concept. For the lander and ascent elements, the NRHO mass insertion limit is 16t; the transfer element has a limit of 30t [1]. It can be seen with Figure 2 that this probabilistic methodology can provide insight into mass margin with respect to the uncertainties being modeled. Currently, the results show that the lander (descent) vehicle element has the most restrictive design space; it is the only element to show a 10% probability of negative margin. Further analysis on the Monte Carlo results will show sensitivities for driving constraints and parameters for architecture feasibility, which can lead to establishing potential mission rules.The combination of range estimating with a parametric architecture model for HLS demonstrated the capability of this probabilistic methodology in a sample case. As the HLS development progresses, this methodology has the potential for keeping current best estimates of architecture performance for awarded concepts due to the flexibility in DYREQT’s modeling framework and its parametric nature. Concept maturation and increased epistemic knowledge can be injected into the model probabilistic modeling, and thus continue to track probability of mission success.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗

A Comparison between One- and Two-Loop ATCS Architectures Proposed for CEV

In an effort to help future spacecraft thermal control analysts understand the characteristics of one- and two-loop Active Thermal Control Systems (ATCS), a comparison was made between the one- and two-loop ATCS architectures officially proposed for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in Design Analysis Cycle 1 (DAC1) and DAC2, respectively. This report provides a description of each design, along with mass and power estimates derived from their respective Master Equipment List (MEL) and Power Equipment List (PEL). Since some of the components were sized independent of loop architecture (ex. coldplates and heat exchangers), the mass and power for these components were based on the MEL and PEL of the most mature design (i.e. two-loop architecture). The mass and power of the two architectures are then compared and the ability of each design to meet CEV requirements is discussed.

Ochoa, Dustin A.↗

Effect of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Engine Thrust and Isp Tradeoffs and Alternate Propellants on ΔV Budget and Architecture Mass for Crewed Mars Vehicles

This paper will provide an overview of a spacecraft architecture model developed at AMA as well as an insight into some of the results provided. Currently, preliminary analysis has been completed with this model on evaluating different thrust to weight ratios of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion based vehicles using hydrogen as the propellant by altering the number of engines in the engine block. Gravity losses are incorporated into this analysis as different thrust to weight ratios will provide different burn times. So far, this analysis has shown that in terms of the vehicle mass, it is best to trade the gravity losses for lower vehicle mass as the engines considered add significant dry mass to the vehicle. The final version of this paper will compare gravity losses and vehicle masses for vehicles using different engine masses as well as the ammonia propellant.

Master equipment list↗

Effect of Engine Thrust and Isp Tradeoffs and Alternate Propellants on ΔV Budget and Architecture Mass for 1st Generation Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Flight Test Systems

Following the first Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) system test, also known as DRACO, the next NTP system to be developed would be the 1st Generation NTP system. An analysis was conducted to determine the performance of different vehicle configurations utilizing hydrogen (H-NTP), ammonia (A-NTP), and methane (M-NTP) as propellants launched onboard commercial launch vehicles. This was enabled by a quasi-steady-state power balance engine model and vehicle component physics that sized the vehicle system using Master Equipment List (MEL) parameters. The analysis considered configuration cases outlined by a matrix of different mission classes and vehicle configurations that covered the design space of the 1st Generation NTP system to explore various propellant options, engine architectures, and mission scopes. Four mission classes were evaluated which included single burn missions performing maneuvers having a ΔV of 1 km/s and 2.5 km/s followed by 2-burn and 4-burn missions that aimed to exhaust the launch vehicles volume or mass limitations. In all cases, the NTP systems with the lowest thrust class had the longest burn time of which A-NTP and M-NTP systems provided the longest and shortest burn times depending on the launch vehicle used while H-NTP systems tended to cluster together in the middle. Longer burn times could be useful as a testing platform to increase the time for data accumulation. Across the multi-burn cases, H-NTP systems were found to be volume limited while A-NTP and M-NTP systems were mass limited. Both single burn missions showed that A-NTP configurations provided the lowest dry mass given that ammonia had the highest density with comparable performance to M-NTP systems and no requirement for cryocoolers. The results showed that beyond the propellant selection type, the launch vehicle selection, which included Starship, New Glenn, Vulcan, Falcon 9 (recoverable), and Falcon Heavy (recoverable), was a primary driving factor in the test vehicle’s capabilities. Trends were determined based on a set of dimensionless parameters that included the mass ratio of inert mass to initial wetted mass, ratio of specific impulse to burn time, and a dimensionless engine parameter (ratio of impulse to engine momentum). These relationships found the “knees-in-the-curves” that could be a significant point of reference for the designer as they indicate a change in the trend which is located at a specific impulse to burn time ratio of 1, a mass ratio of 0.6, and an engine performance parameter of 4. This study did not attempt to make a recommendation rather provide the tools for the reader to select their own configuration based on their needs.

Propellant↗

Effect of Engine Thrust and Isp Tradeoffs and Alternate Propellants on ΔV Budget and Architecture Mass for 1st Generation Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Flight Test Systems

Following the first Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) system test, also known as DRACO, the next NTP system to be developed would be the 1st Generation NTP system. An analysis was conducted to determine the performance of different vehicle configurations utilizing hydrogen (H-NTP), ammonia (A-NTP), and methane (M-NTP) as propellants launched onboard commercial launch vehicles. This was enabled by a quasi-steady-state power balance engine model and vehicle component physics that sized the vehicle system using Master Equipment List (MEL) parameters. The analysis considered configuration cases outlined by a matrix of different mission classes and vehicle configurations that covered the design space of the 1st Generation NTP system to explore various propellant options, engine architectures, and mission scopes. Four mission classes were evaluated which included single burn missions performing maneuvers having a ΔV of 1 km/s and 2.5 km/s followed by 2-burn and 4-burn missions that aimed to exhaust the launch vehicles volume or mass limitations. In all cases, the NTP systems with the lowest thrust class had the longest burn time of which A-NTP and M-NTP systems provided the longest and shortest burn times depending on the launch vehicle used while H-NTP systems tended to cluster together in the middle. Longer burn times could be useful as a testing platform to increase the time for data accumulation. Across the multi-burn cases, H-NTP systems were found to be volume limited while A-NTP and M-NTP systems were mass limited. Both single burn missions showed that A-NTP configurations provided the lowest dry mass given that ammonia had the highest density with comparable performance to M-NTP systems and no requirement for cryocoolers. The results showed that beyond the propellant selection type, the launch vehicle selection, which included Starship, New Glenn, Vulcan, Falcon 9 (recoverable), and Falcon Heavy (recoverable), was a primary driving factor in the test vehicle’s capabilities. Trends were determined based on a set of dimensionless parameters that included the mass ratio of inert mass to initial wetted mass, ratio of specific impulse to burn time, and a dimensionless engine parameter (ratio of impulse to engine momentum). These relationships found the “knees-in-the-curves” that could be a significant point of reference for the designer as they indicate a change in the trend which is located at a specific impulse to burn time ratio of 1, a mass ratio of 0.6, and an engine performance parameter of 4. This study did not attempt to make a recommendation rather provide the tools for the reader to select their own configuration based on their needs.

Propellant↗

Effect of Engine Thrust and Isp Tradeoffs and Alternate Propellants on ΔV Budget and Architecture Mass for 1st Generation Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Flight Test Systems

Following the first Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) system test, also known as DRACO, the next NTP system to be developed would be the 1st Generation NTP system. An analysis was conducted to determine the performance of different vehicle configurations utilizing hydrogen (H-NTP), ammonia (A-NTP), and methane (M-NTP) as propellants launched onboard commercial launch vehicles. This was enabled by a quasi-steady-state power balance engine model and vehicle component physics that sized the vehicle system using Master Equipment List (MEL) parameters. The analysis considered configuration cases outlined by a matrix of different mission classes and vehicle configurations that covered the design space of the 1st Generation NTP system to explore various propellant options, engine architectures, and mission scopes. Four mission classes were evaluated which included single burn missions performing maneuvers having a ΔV of 1 km/s and 2.5 km/s followed by 2-burn and 4-burn missions that aimed to exhaust the launch vehicles volume or mass limitations. In all cases, the NTP systems with the lowest thrust class had the longest burn time of which A-NTP and M-NTP systems provided the longest and shortest burn times depending on the launch vehicle used while H-NTP systems tended to cluster together in the middle. Longer burn times could be useful as a testing platform to increase the time for data accumulation. Across the multi-burn cases, H-NTP systems were found to be volume limited while A-NTP and M-NTP systems were mass limited. Both single burn missions showed that A-NTP configurations provided the lowest dry mass given that ammonia had the highest density with comparable performance to M-NTP systems and no requirement for cryocoolers. The results showed that beyond the propellant selection type, the launch vehicle selection, which included Starship, New Glenn, Vulcan, Falcon 9 (recoverable), and Falcon Heavy (recoverable), was a primary driving factor in the test vehicle’s capabilities. Trends were determined based on a set of dimensionless parameters that included the mass ratio of inert mass to initial wetted mass, ratio of specific impulse to burn time, and a dimensionless engine parameter (ratio of impulse to engine momentum). These relationships found the “knees-in-the-curves” that could be a significant point of reference for the designer as they indicate a change in the trend which is located at a specific impulse to burn time ratio of 1, a mass ratio of 0.6, and an engine performance parameter of 4. This study did not attempt to make a recommendation rather provide the tools for the reader to select their own configuration based on their needs.

Propellant↗