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.
Statistical techniques for selecting optimal test levels for vibration tests of spacecraft hardware
JPL has traditionally performed system level vibration testing of flight spacecraft. The benefits and potential issues of fully assembled flight spacecraft vibration testing are discussed herein. The following specific topics, which may be complementary to the special session on “Virtual Vibration Testing,” are discussed: spacecraft workmanship, functional and structural integrity testing to uncover workmanship problems, force- and moment-limited vibration testing, potential issues with structural frequency identification using base shake test data, and several failures related to vibration shaker testing. The information provided in this paper is complementary to the special session on “Virtual Shaker Testing,’ and attention is given to issues that virtual shaker testing may face.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Vibration test fixture design for mount impedance simulation of aerospace structures
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
NASA-HDBK-7008 Spacecraft Level Dynamic Environments Testing discusses the approaches, benefits, dangers, and recommended practices for spacecraft level dynamic environments testing, including vibration testing. This paper discusses in additional detail the benefits and actual experiences of vibration testing spacecraft for NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) flight projects. JPL and GSFC have both similarities and differences in their spacecraft level vibration test approach: JPL uses a random vibration input and a frequency range usually starting at 5 Hz and extending to as high as 250 Hz. GSFC uses a sine sweep vibration input and a frequency range usually starting at 5 Hz and extending only to the limits of the coupled loads analysis (typically 50 to 60 Hz). However, both JPL and GSFC use force limiting to realistically notch spacecraft resonances and response (acceleration) limiting as necessary to protect spacecraft structure and hardware from exceeding design strength capabilities. Despite GSFC and JPL differences in spacecraft level vibration test approaches, both have uncovered a significant number of spacecraft design and workmanship anomalies in vibration tests. This paper will give an overview of JPL and GSFC spacecraft vibration testing approaches and provide a detailed description of spacecraft anomalies revealed.
Vibration tests on Ranger spacecraft with single point control of input vibratory accelerations
Development of improved vibration tests for spacecraft assemblies
Design of improved vibration test facility for spacecraft
Transient vibration test criteria, developed for spacecraft hardware, provide a test rationale to verify the capability of the hardware to withstand the low and mid frequency transient vibration environments induced by launch vehicle events. A test method, consisting of a series of discrete frequency, limited cycle, modulated sine wave pulses, was developed to avoid the slow swept sine drawbacks, yet provide a repeatable test that would excite all frequencies. The shape of the waveform is that of the classic response of the mass of a one degree of freedom system when it is base-excited by an exponentially decayed sine wave transient. Criteria were developed to define pulse amplitudes, shapes, and center frequencies from spacecraft loads analyses. Test tolerance criteria were also developed and specified. The transient vibration test criteria were implemented on spacecraft flight hardware and provided a more realistic test simulation (i.e., less conservative) for qualification of spacecraft hardware without risk of undertest.
Sinusoidal vibration testing of nonlinear spacecraft structures
Before selecting the most suitable testing technique in a particular case, it has to be considered which of the two methods duplicates better the distribution of vibration responses to be expected during the actual launch phase. An investigation is conducted of the case of a large, low density spacecraft launched by a vehicle which produces significant acoustic noise and transmits relatively little vibration through the mechanical path provided by the vehicle structure in the area of the spacecraft interface. Criteria for vibration-acoustic equivalence are discussed along with tests conducted with the Synchronous Meteorological Satellite, the Radio Astronomy Explorer, and the Orbiting Geophysical Spacecraft. The investigation indicates that the vibration test is generally a poor substitute for an acoustic study.-
The environmental qualification program for the Deep Space 1 spacecraft included a force-limited random vibration test in two axes.
In preparation for the Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Dream Chaser spacecraft vibration test campaign at the Mechanical Vibration Facility (MVF) at NASA Plum Brook Station (PBS) in Sandusky, Ohio, a test-verified model of MVF is needed in order to be able to perform accurate pretest analysis used for determining response limits and abort levels. MVF was designed to vibration test MPCV Orion and was used to perform the system level vibration test of the European Service Module Structural Test Article (E-STA) in 2016. MVF is comprised of an 18 ft diameter annulus table that is driven with sixteen hydraulic vertical actuator assemblies and four hydraulic horizontal actuator assemblies, which allow it to perform single axis vibration testing in the vertical axis and in each of the two orthogonal horizontal axes without the need for reconfiguring the test article. A head expander for the MVF Table has been designed and built that fills in the center opening providing a continuous flat mounting surface with a maximum diameter of 16.25feet that expands the vibration testing capabilities of MVF. The MVF Table with this head expander will be used during the SNC Dream Chaser spacecraft vibration test campaign. Therefore, a critical element in a test-verified model of the MVF will be a test correlated finite element model (FEM) of the head expander. To obtain this, engineers from the Structural Dynamics Lab (SDL) at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio performed a modal pretest analysis, conducted a modal test in July 2019, and most recently correlated the head expander finite element model to the modal test data up to 300 Hz. From the initial test preparations to the final delivery of a correlated finite element model, all efforts mentioned were led by the same early-career engineers at NASA GRC. From the viewpoint of an early-career engineer, lessons learned about modal pretest analysis, modal testing, and finite element model correlation of the MVF Table expander head will be presented and discussed. This will include the importance of understanding the limitations of using uncorrelated finite element models in the modal pretest analysis and planning, the importance of orthogonality metrics in judging adequacy and accuracy of test mode shapes, and the importance of having the FEM match the as built hardware in the model correlation effort.
The use of force limiting in the random vibration testing of the Cassini spacecraft's subsystems is reported on. A verification of the Cassini equipment random vibration test acceleration and force specifications is provided by interface acceleration and force data measured in acoustic tests of the Cassini spacecraft development test model (DTM). Acoustic tests were performed on the DTM structure with different structural and equipment configurations. The acceleration and force spectra at the interface between the equipment items and the spacecraft DTM structure were measured in the acoustic tests and compared with the equipment random vibration test specifications. The spacecraft's apparent masses were measured at the equipment mounting points and used in force limit predictions.