Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Lewis, Pattie.
Articles in this issue inlude: (1) Foundation of Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation Principal Center (TEERM) Technology Evaluation is Testing and Qualification, (2) Materials Management and Substitution Efforts, (3 Recycling and Pollution Control Efforts, and (4) Remediation Efforts
Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is responsible for a number of facilities/structures with metallic structural and non-structural components in a highly corrosive environment. Metals require periodic maintenance activity to guard against the insidious effects of corrosion and thus ensure that structures meet or exceed design or performance life. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. Applied coating systems work via a variety of methods (barrier, galvanic and/or inhibitor) and adhere to the substrate through a combination of chemical and physical bonds. Maintenance at KSC and other NASA Centers is governed by NASA-STD-50088 (Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment) which establishes practices for the protective coating of ground support equipment and related facilities used by or for NASA programs and projects. The Standard is for the design of non-flight hardware used to support the operations of receiving, transportation, handling, assembly, inspection, test, checkout, service, and launch of space vehicles and payloads at NASA launch, landing, or retrieval sites. These criteria and practices contained within the Standard may be used for items used at the manufacturing, development, and test sites upstream of the launch, landing, or retrieval sites. The objective of this effort is to demonstrate and validate environmentally-preferable alternatives in accordance with NASA-STD-50088 and KSC requirements which can then be added to the Approved Products List. This Test Protocol contains the critical requirements and tests necessary to qualify alternatives for structural steel applications. These tests were derived from engineering, performance, and operational impact (supportability) requirements defined by a consensus of KSC participants. A Test Report will document the results of the testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. Users of this Test Protocol should check the project's Test Report for additional test details or minor modifications that may have been necessary in the execution of the testing. The technical stakeholders will have agreed upon test procedures modifications documented in the Test Report.
The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the use of an applied coating system. Current coating systems used across AFSPC and NASA contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These coatings are sUbject to environmental regulations at the Federal and State levels that limit their usage. In addition, these coatings often cannot withstand the high temperatures and exhaust that may be experienced by Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and NASA structures. In response to these concerns, AFSPC and NASA have approved the use of thermal spray coatings (TSCs). Thermal spray coatings are extremely durable and environmentally friendly coating alternatives, but utilize large cumbersome equipment for application that make the coatings difficult and time consuming to repair. Other concerns include difficulties coating complex geometries and the cost of equipment, training, and materials. Gas Dynamic Spray (GOS) technology (also known as Cold Spray) was evaluated as a smaller, more maneuverable repair method as well as for areas where thermal spray techniques are not as effective. The technology can result in reduced maintenance and thus reduced hazardous materials/wastes associated with current processes. Thermal spray and GOS coatings also have no VOCs and are environmentally preferable coatings. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate GDS technology as a repair method for TSCs. The aim was that successful completion of this project would result in approval of GDS technology as a repair method for TSCs at AFSPC and NASA installations to improve corrosion protection at critical systems, facilitate easier maintenance activity, extend maintenance cycles, eliminate flight hardware contamination, and reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated.
QuEST is a publication of the NASA Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation Principal Center (TEERM). This issue contains brief articles on: Risk Identification and Mitigation, Material Management and Substitution Efforts--Hexavalent Chrome-free Coatings and Low volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Coatings, Lead-Free Electronics, Corn-Based Depainting Media; Alternative Energy Efforts Hydrogen Sensors and Solar Air Conditioning. Other TEERM Efforts include: Energy and Water Management and Remediation Technology Collaboration.
For nearly five decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been preeminent in space exploration. NASA has landed Americans on the moon, robotic rovers on Mars, and led cooperative scientific endeavors among nations aboard the International Space Station. But as Earth's population increases, the environment is subject to increasing challenges and requires more efficient use of resources. International partnerships give NASA the opportunity to share its scientific and engineering expertise. They also enable NASA to stay aware of continually changing international environmental regulations and global markets for materials that NASA uses to accomplish its mission. Through international partnerships, NASA and this nation have taken the opportunity to look globally for solutions to challenges we face here on Earth. Working with other nations provides NASA with collaborative opportunities with the global science/engineering community to explore ways in which to protect our natural resources, conserve energy, reduce the use of hazardous materials in space and earthly applications, and reduce greenhouse gases that potentially affect all of Earth's inhabitants. NASA is working with an ever-expanding list of international partners including the European Union, the European Space Agency and, especially, the nation of Portugal. Our common goal is to foster a sustainable future in which partners continue to explore the universe while protecting our home planet's resources for future generations. This brochure highlights past, current, and future initiatives in several important areas of international collaboration that can bring environmental, economic, and other benefits to NASA and the wider international space community.
This edition of the QuEST newsletter contains brief articles that discuss the NASA Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation (TEERM) program, and the importance of collaboration, efforts in materials management and substitution for coatings for launch structures, Low volatile organic compound (VOC) Coatings Field Testing, Non-Chrome Coating Systems, Life Cycle Corrosion Testing, Lead-Free Electronics Testing and Corn Based Depainting and efforts in Pollution Control in the area of Hypergolic Propellant Destruction Evaluation, efforts in development of alternative energy in particular Hydrogen Sensors, Energy and Water Management, and efforts in remediation in the removal of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) contamination
Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and NASA have similar missions, facilities, and structures located in similar harsh environments. Both are responsible for a number of facilities/structures with metallic structural and non-structural components in highly and moderately corrosive environments. Regardless of the corrosivity of the environment, all metals require periodic maintenance activity to guard against the insidious effects of corrosion and thus ensure that structures meet or exceed design or performance life. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the use of an applied coating system. Current coating systems used across AFSPC and NASA contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These coatings are subject to environmental regulations at the Federal and State levels that limit their usage. In addition, these coatings often cannot withstand the high temperatures and exhaust that may be experienced by AFSPC and NASA structures. In response to these concerns, AFSPC and NASA have approved the use of thermal spray coatings (TSCs). Thermal spray coatings are extremely durable and environmentally friendly coating alternatives, but utilize large cumbersome equipment for application that make the coatings difficult and time consuming to repair. Other concerns include difficulties coating complex geometries and the cost of equipment, training, and materials. Gas Dynamic Spray (GDS) technology (also known as Cold Spray) will be evaluated as a smaller, more maneuverable repair method as well as for areas where thermal spray techniques are not as effective. The technology can result in reduced maintenance and thus reduced hazardous materials/wastes associated with current processes. Thermal spray and GDS coatings also have no VOCs and are environmentally preferable coatings. To achieve a condition suitable for the application of a coating system, including GDS coatings, the substrate must undergo some type of surface preparation and/or depainting operation to ensure adhesion of the new coating system. The GDS unit selected for demonstration has a powder feeding system that can be used for surface preparation or coating application. The surface preparation feature will also be examined. The primary objective of this effort is to demonstrate GDS technology as a repair method for TSCs. The project will also determine the optimal GDS coating thickness for acceptable performance. Successful completion of this project will result in approval of GDS technology as a repair method for TSCs at AFSPC and NASA installations and will improve corrosion protection at critical systems, facilitate easier maintenance activity, extend maintenance cycles, eliminate flight hardware contamination, and reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated.
This is an exciting new chapter for the NASA Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation Principal Center (TEERM). The Principal Center's past successes have created new opportunities for partnership and technology implementation. TEERM is continuing to support the current NASA Programs while reaching out and offering our assistance and experience to Constellation. NASA has also assumed Chairmanship responsibility of the Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JG-PP) and Chairmanship of the JG-PP Working Group (WG). Both JG-PP and TEERM strive to improve mission readiness and reduce risk to personnel and assets by solving joint problems through cooperation. JG-PP and TEERM not only show our commitment to environmental stewardship, but also our commitment to fiscal responsibility.
NASA and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) quantifies the estimated capital and process costs of coating alternatives and cost savings relative to the current coatings. The estimates in this CBA are to be used for assessing the relative merits of the selected alternatives. The actual economic effects at any specific facility will depend on the alternative material or technology implemented, the number of actual applications converted, future workloads, and other factors . The participants initially considered eighteen (18) alternative coatings as described in the Potential Alternatives Report entitled Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, prepared by ITB. Of those, 8 alternatives were selected for testing in accordance with the Joint Test Protocol entitled Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, and the Field Test Plan entitled Field Evaluations Test Plan for Validation of Alternatives 10 Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, both of which were prepared by ITB. A joint Test Report entitled Joint Test Report for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, prepared by ITB, documents the results of the laboratory and field testing, as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The coatings selected for evaluation in this CBA are shown in the table below. Only one control coating system is considered in this analysis. These coatings were either downselected for Phase II or performed well enough to be included in the Qualified Products List in the NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This joint Test Report (JTR) documents the results of the laboratory and field testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The technical stakeholders agreed upon test procedure modifications documented in this document. This JTR is made available as a reference for future pollution prevention endeavors by other NASA centers, the Department of Defense and commercial users to minimize duplication of effort. All coating system candidates were tested using approved NASA and AFSPC standard coating systems as experimental controls. This study looked at eight alternative coating systems and two control coating systems and was divided into Phase I Screening Tests, Phase II Tests, and Field Testing. The Phase I Screening Tests were preliminary tests performed on all the selected candidate coating systems. Candidate coating systems that did not meet the acceptance criteria of the screening tests were eliminated from further testing. Phase I Screening Tests included: Ease of Application, Surface Appearance, Dry-To-Touch (Sanding), Accelerated Storage Stability, Pot Life (Viscosity), Cure Time (Solvent Rubs), Cleanability, Knife Test, Tensile (pull-off) Adhesion, and X-Cut Adhesion by Wet Tape After a review of the Phase I test results, four of the alternative coating systems showed substandard performance in relation to the Control Systems and were eliminated from the Phase II testing. Due to the interest of stakeholders and time constraints, however, all eight alternatives were subjected to the following Phase II tests, along with field testing at Stennis Space Center (SSC), Mississippi: Hypergol Compatibility, Liquid Oxygen Compatibility, 18-Month Marine Exposure (Gloss Retention, Color Retention, Blistering, Visual Corrosion, Creepage from Scribe, Heat Adhesion), and Field Exposure (6- and 12-month Evaluation for Coating Condition, Color Retention, Gloss Retention). The remaining four alternative coating systems determined to be the best viable alternatives were carried on to Phase II testing that included: Removability, Repairability, Abrasion Resistance, Gravelometer, Fungus Resistance, Accelerated Weathering, Mandrel Bend Flexibility, and Cyclic Corrosion Resistance. Of the systems that continued to Phase II, three (3) alternative coating systems meet the performance requirements as identified by stakeholders. Two (2) other systems, that were not included in Phase II testing, performed well enough on the 18-Month Marine Exposure, the primary requirement for NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment, that they were also considered to be successful candidates. In total, five (5) alternative coating systems were approved for inclusion in the NASA-STD- 5008 Qualified Products List (QPL). The standard is intended to provide a common framework for consistent practices across NASA and is often used by other entities. The standard's QPL does not connote endorsement of the products by NASA, but lists those products that have been tested and meet the requirements as specified.
Stennis Space Center (SSC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) identified particulate emissions and waste generated from the depainting process of steel structures as hazardous materials to be eliminated or reduced. A Potential Alternatives Report, Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternative Low Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, provided a technical analyses of identified alternatives to the current coating removal processes, criteria used to select alternatives for further analysis, and a list of those alternatives recommended for testing. The initial coating removal alternatives list was compiled using literature searches and stakeholder recommendations. The involved project participants initially considered approximately 13 alternatives. In late 2003, core project members selected the following depainting processes to be further evaluated: (1) Plastic Blast Media-Quickstrip(R)-A. (2) Hard Abrasive-Steel-Magic(R). (3) Sponge Blasting-Sponge-Jet(R). (4) Liquid Nitrogen-NItroJet(R). (5) Mechanical Removal with Vacuum Attachment-DESCO and OCM Clean-Air (6) Laser Coating Removal Alternatives were tested in accordance with the Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, and the Field Evaluation Test Plan for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel. Results of the testing are documented in the Joint Test Report. This Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) focuses on the three alternatives (Quickstrip(R)-A, SteelMagic (R), and Sponge-Jet(R)) that were considered viable alternatives for large area operations based on the results of the field demonstration and lab testing. This CBA was created to help participants determine if implementation of the candidate alternatives is economically justified. Each of the alternatives examined reduced Environmental Activity (EA) Costs-those costs associated with complying with environmental regulations. One alternative, Steel-Magic(R), also showed reduced Direct Costs and reduced total costs.
Headquarters National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) chartered the NASA Acquisition Pollution Prevention (AP2) Office to coordinate agency activities affecting pollution prevention issues identified during system and component acquisition and sustainment processes. The primary objectives of the AP2 Office are to: (1) Reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials or hazardous processes at manufacturing, remanufacturing, and sustainment locations. (2) Avoid duplication of effort in actions required to reduce or eliminate hazardous materials through joint center cooperation and technology sharing. The objective of this project was to qualify candidate alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel applications at NASA facilities. This project compares the surface preparation/depainting performance of the proposed alternatives to existing surface preparation/depainting systems or standards. This Joint Test Report (JTR) contains the results of testing as per the outlines of the Joint Test Protocol (JTP), Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, and the Field Test Plan (FTP), Field Evaluations Test Plan for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, for critical requirements and tests necessary to qualify alternatives for coating removal systems. These tests were derived from engineering, performance, and operational impact (supportability) requirements defined by a consensus of government and industry participants. This JTR documents the results of the testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the project. This JTR is made available as a reference for future pollution prevention endeavors by other NASA Centers, the Department of Defense and commercial users to minimize duplication of effort. The current coating removal processes identified herein are for polyurethane, epoxy and other paint systems applied by conventional wet-spray processes. A table summarizes the target hazardous materials, processes and materials, applications, affected programs, and candidate substrates.
For this project, particulates and solvents used during the depainting process of steel structures were the identified hazardous material (HazMat) targeted for elimination or reduction. This Potential Alternatives Report (PAR) provides technical analyses of identified alternatives to the current coating removal processes, criteria used to select alternatives for further analysis, and a list of those alternatives recommended for testing. The initial coating removal alternatives list was compiled using literature searches and center participant recommendations. The involved project participants initially considered fifteen (15) alternatives. In late 2004, stakeholders down-selected the list and identified specific processes as potential alternatives to the current depainting methods. The selected alternatives were: 1. Plastic Blast Media 2. Hard Abrasive Media 3. Sponge Blast Media 4. Mechanical Removal with Vacuum Attachment 5. Liquid Nitrogen 6. Laser Coating Removal Available information about these processes was used to analyze the technical merits and the potential environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) impacts of these methods. A preliminary cost benefit analysis will be performed to determine if implementation of alternative technologies is economically justified. NASA AP2
Headquarters National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) chartered the Acquisition Pollution Prevention (AP2) Office to coordinate agency activities affecting pollution prevention issues identified during system and component acquisition and sustainment processes. The primary objectives of the AP2 Office are to: (1) Reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials (HazMats) or hazardous processes at manufacturing, remanufacturing, and sustainment locations. (2) A void duplication of effort in actions required to reduce or eliminate HazMats through joint center cooperation and technology sharing. This project will identify, evaluate and approve alternative surface preparation technologies for use at NASA and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) installations. Materials and processes will be evaluated with the goal of selecting those processes that will improve corrosion protection at critical systems, facilitate easier maintenance activity, extend maintenance cycles, eliminate flight hardware contamination and reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated. This Joint Test Protocol (JTP) contains the critical requirements and tests necessary to qualify alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel Applications. These tests were derived from engineering, performance, and operational impact (supportability) requirements defined by a consensus of NASA and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) participants. The Field Test Plan (FTP), entitled Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternative Low Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, prepared by ITB, defines the field evaluation and testing requirements for validating alternative surface preparation/depainting technologies and supplements the JTP.
Headquarters National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) chartered the Acquisition Pollution Prevention (AP2) Office to coordinate agency activities affecting pollution prevention issues identified during system and component acquisition and sustainment processes. The primary objectives of the AP2 Office are to: (1) Reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials (HazMats) or hazardous processes at manufacturing, remanufacturing, and sustainment locations. (2) Avoid duplication of effort in actions required to reduce or eliminate HazMats through joint center cooperation and technology sharing. To achieve a substrate condition suitable for the application of a coating system, both new and old (in-situ) substrates must undergo some type of surface preparation and/or depainting operation to ensure adhesion of the new coating system. The level of cleanliness or anchor profile desired is typically a function of the type of coating to be applied and the specification being adhered to. In high performance environments, cleanliness and surface profile requirements for carbon steel (the dominant substrate for facilities, structures and equipment) dictates the use of abrasive media. Many of the abrasive media currently used across NASA and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) installations generate large quantities of fugitive particulate emissions and waste. The high quantities of airborne dust and waste generated from these operations pose significant environmental concern. Efforts to contain emissions and the reduce quantity of waste generated have significant implications on project cost; this is often a deterrent to engaging in maintenance activities. In response to recent technological developments and NASA's and AFSPC's need to undertake environmentally conscious corrosion prevention projects, a review of the industry needs to be undertaken to evaluate surface preparation technologies (materials and processes) for embrace. This project will identify, evaluate and approve alternative surface preparation technologies for use at NASA and AFSPC installations. Materials and processes will be evaluated with the goal of selecting those processes that will improve corrosion protection at critical systems, facilitate easier maintenance activity, extend maintenance cycles, eliminate flight hardware contamination and reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated. This Field Evaluations Test Plan defines the field evaluation and testing requirements for validating alternative surface preparation/depainting technologies and supplements the JTP. The field evaluations will be performed at Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, under the oversight of the Project Engineer. Additional field evaluations may be performed at other NASA centers or AFSPC facilities.
The objective of this project is to qualify candidate alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethane coatings under the specifications for the standard system. This project will compare coating performance of the proposed alternatives to existing coating systems or standards.
The primary objective of this effort is to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes. Successful completion of this project will result in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project.