Engineering topics

Peabody, Hume L.

Publications and source records attributed to Peabody, Hume L..

9 records

NASA NTRS2019

Overview of Thermal Design and Challenges for the Comet Astrobiology Exploration SAmple Return (CAESAR) Mission

The Comet Astrobiology Exploration SAmple Return (CAESAR) mission is one of two candidates selected by NASA in response to the New Frontiers 4 Announcement of Opportunity. If selected, CAESAR will fly to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (the same comet studied by ESA’s Rosetta mission) using solar electric propulsion. After some time in orbit around 67P collecting and analyzing images of 67P, a location for collecting a sample will be determined. Up to three “touch-and-go” maneuvers, similar to NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission, can be attempted with the requirement of collecting at least 80 g of comet sample. Once the sample has been collected, it will be stored in the Sample Containment Subsystem (SCS) and the comet volatiles will be transferred into the Gas Containment System (GCS) for the return cruise back to Earth. As CAESAR approaches Earth, the Sample Return Capsule (SRC), containing the GCS and SCS will separate from the spacecraft and return back to Earth. The sample will be recovered and placed into cold storage for future studies and investigations. CAESAR presents a number of thermal challenges including significantly different power configurations and orientation constraints throughout the mission as well as a large number of mechanisms and configurations that must function at very cold temperatures. The temperature requirements for preserving the sample also present a challenge. This paper presents some of the high level thermal requirements and describes how the CAESAR thermal design was driven by these requirements.

Peabody, Hume L.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Considerations When Building Thermal Models that Require Conversion Between Formats

At times, it is inevitable to require conversion of thermal models from one software format to another. This most often occurs for missions with international partners where not all parties utilize the same software packages for thermal analysis. Mandating a single tool for all parties is one possible solution, but this approach can introduce problems if significant effort is required to overcome inexperience with the designated tool and may result in difficulty meeting analysis schedule requirements. Alternatively, allowing all parties to use their own familiar tools minimizes the impact to analysis schedules but does introduce the need to convert the models later to a common format for analysis at a higher level of assembly. External conversion tools and formats have been developed through the years to aid in this process, but have had limited success in fully converting models seamlessly. Having a basic familiarity with tool capabilities on both sides of the conversion process allows for models to be built in a manner to better facilitate conversion by avoiding features and capabilities which are unsupported by the destination tool or for which no workarounds exist. Also, the effort to convert a model is often neglected when developing the schedules for analysis at the higher assembly levels; delivery of models preconditioned for convertibility minimizes the schedule risk. This paper seeks to provide some guidance on modeling techniques to avoid when developing Geometrical Math Models (GMM) and Thermal Math Models (TMM) when conversion is required. The recommendations are based on GMM conversion experiences between TSS/ThermalDesktop/ESARAD and TMM conversions between SINDA-FLUINT/ESATAN.

Modeling↗

NASA NTRS2018

Gaps in Thermal Design Guidelines in the Goddard Space Flight Center GOLD Rules

The GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) GOLD Rules (Goddard Open Learning Design; GSFC-STD-1000) provide a reasonably comprehensive list of guidelines for the design and testing of spacecraft and instruments based on the long heritage of successful GSFC missions. In general, all GSFC missions are required to comply with the GOLD Rules across a number of subsystems or to seek waivers to particular GOLD rules where compliance is not practical, either due to the risk posture of a mission or the cost and/or schedule associated with compliance. In thermal subsystems, GOLD Rules are applied to design margins throughout the project life cycle and include temperature margins, heater power margins, and two-phase transport margins. However, no explicit guidance is provided for two thermal design aspects: heater control authority (for stability requirements) and cryogenic design margins (which are often not reasonable to express in terms of temperatures). This can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency among projects when demonstrating GOLD Rules compliance. Two current GSFC projects, TIRS-2 (Thermal InfraRed Sensor 2) and WFIRST (Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope), are both missions with cryogenic aspects and active thermal control for stability. This paper seeks to outline the characterization of cryogenic margins during the design process for TIRS-2 and WFIRST as well as the project derived guidelines for heater control authority margin. This effort serves as potential first steps for updating the GOLD Rules to address these two areas in guiding thermal designs at GSFC.

Modeling↗

NASA NTRS2017

Building Thermal Models

This presentation is meant to be an overview of the model building process It is based on typical techniques (Monte Carlo Ray Tracing for radiation exchange, Lumped Parameter, Finite Difference for thermal solution) used by the aerospace industry This is not intended to be a "How to Use ThermalDesktop" course. It is intended to be a "How to Build Thermal Models" course and the techniques will be demonstrated using the capabilities of ThermalDesktop (TD). Other codes may or may not have similar capabilities. The General Model Building Process can be broken into four top level steps: 1. Build Model; 2. Check Model; 3. Execute Model; 4. Verify Results.

Modeling↗

NASA NTRS2015

Design Evolution of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope Using Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets (WFIRST-AFTA) and Lessons Learned

The design of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope using Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets (WFIRST-AFTA) continues to evolve as each design cycle is analyzed. In 2012, two Hubble sized (2.4 m diameter) telescopes were donated to NASA from elsewhere in the Federal Government. NASA began investigating potential uses for these telescopes and identified WFIRST as a mission to benefit from these assets. With an updated, deeper, and sharper field of view than previous design iterations with a smaller telescope, the optical designs of the WFIRST instruments were updated and the mechanical and thermal designs evolved around the new optical layout. Beginning with Design Cycle 3, significant analysis efforts yielded a design and model that could be evaluated for Structural-Thermal-Optical-Performance (STOP) purposes for the Wide Field Imager (WFI) and provided the basis for evaluating the high level observatory requirements. Development of the Cycle 3 thermal model provided some valuable analysis lessons learned and established best practices for future design cycles. However, the Cycle 3 design did include some major liens and evolving requirements which were addressed in the Cycle 4 Design. Some of the design changes are driven by requirements changes, while others are optimizations or solutions to liens from previous cycles. Again in Cycle 4, STOP analysis was performed and further insights into the overall design were gained leading to the Cycle 5 design effort currently underway. This paper seeks to capture the thermal design evolution, with focus on major design drivers, key decisions and their rationale, and lessons learned as the design evolved.

WFIRST↗

NASA NTRS2013

Lessons Learned During Instrument Testing for the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS)

The Themal InfraRed Sensor (TIRS) instrument, set to launch on the Landsat Data Continuity Mission in 2013, features a passively cooled telescope and IR detectors which are actively cooled by a two stage cryocooler. In order to proceed to the instrument level test campaign, at least one full functional test was required, necessitating a thermal vacuum test to sufficiently cool the detectors and demonstrate performance. This was fairly unique in that this test occurred before the Pre Environmental Review, but yielded significant knowledge gains before the planned instrument level test. During the pre-PER test, numerous discrepancies were found between the model and the actual hardware, which were revealed by poor correlation between model predictions and test data. With the inclusion of pseudo-balance points, the test also provided an opportunity to perform a pre-correlation to test data prior to the instrument level test campaign. Various lessons were learned during this test related to modeling and design of both the flight hardware and the Ground Support Equipment and test setup. The lessons learned in the pre-PER test resulted in a better test setup for the nstrument level test and the completion of the final instrument model correlation in a shorter period of time. Upon completion of the correlation, the flight predictions were generated including the full suite of off-nominal cases, including some new cases defined by the spacecraft. For some of these ·new cases, some components now revealed limit exceedances, in particular for a portion of the hardware that could not be tested due to its size and chamber limitations.. Further lessons were learned during the completion of flight predictions. With a correlated detalled instrument model, significant efforts were made to generate a reduced model suitable for observatory level analyses. This proved a major effort both to generate an appropriate network as well as to convert to the final model to the required format and yielded additional lessons learned. In spite of all the challenges encountered by TIRS, the instrument was successfully delivered to the spacecraft and will soon be tested at observatory level in preparation for a successful mission launch.

Peabody, Hume L.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Use of a Hybrid Edge Node-Centroid Node Approach to Thermal Modeling

A recent proposal submitted for an ESA mission required that models be delivered in ESARAD/ESATAN formats. ThermalDesktop was the preferable analysis code to be used for model development with a conversion done as the final step before delivery. However, due to some differences between the capabilities of the two codes, a unique approach was developed to take advantage of the edge node capability of ThermalDesktop while maintaining the centroid node approach used by ESARAD. In essence, two separate meshes were used: one for conduction and one for radiation. The conduction calculations were eliminated from the radiation surfaces and the capacitance and radiative calculations were eliminated from the conduction surfaces. The resulting conduction surface nodes were coincident with all nodes of the radiation surface and were subsequently merged, while the nodes along the edges remained free. Merging of nodes on the edges of adjacent surfaces provided the conductive links between surfaces. Lastly, all nodes along edges were placed into the subnetwork and the resulting supernetwork included only the nodes associated with radiation surfaces. This approach had both benefits and disadvantages. The use of centroid, surface based radiation reduces the overall size of the radiation network, which is often the most computationally intensive part of the modeling process. Furthermore, using the conduction surfaces and allowing ThermalDesktop to calculate the conduction network can save significant time by not having to manually generate the couplings. Lastly, the resulting GMM/TMM models can be exported to formats which do not support edge nodes. One drawback, however, is the necessity to maintain two sets of surfaces. This requires additional care on the part of the analyst to ensure communication between the conductive and radiative surfaces in the resulting overall network. However, with more frequent use of this technique, the benefits of this approach can far outweigh the additional effort.

Peabody, Hume L.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Use of a Hybrid Edge Node-Centroid Node Approach to Thermal Modeling

A recent proposal submitted for an ESA mission required that models be delivered in ESARAD/ESAT AN formats. ThermalDesktop was the preferable analysis code to be used for model development with a conversion done as the final step before delivery. However, due to some differences between the capabilities of the two codes, a unique approach was developed to take advantage of the edge node capability of ThermalDesktop while maintaining the centroid node approach used by ESARAD. In essence, two separate meshes were used: one for conduction and one for radiation. The conduction calculations were eliminated from the radiation surfaces and the capacitance and radiative calculations were eliminated from the conduction surfaces. The resulting conduction surface nodes were coincident with all nodes of the radiation surface and were subsequently merged, while the nodes along the edges remained free. Merging of nodes on the edges of adjacent surfaces provided the conductive links between surfaces. Lastly, all nodes along edges were placed into the subnetwork and the resulting supernetwork included only the nodes associated with radiation surfaces. This approach had both benefits and disadvantages. The use of centroid, surface based radiation reduces the overall size of the radiation network, which is often the most computationally intensive part of the modeling process. Furthermore, using the conduction surfaces and allowing ThermalDesktop to calculate the conduction network can save significant time by not having to manually generate the couplings. Lastly, the resulting GMM/TMM models can be exported to formats which do not support edge nodes. One drawback, however, is the necessity to maintain two sets of surfaces. This requires additional care on the part of the analyst to ensure communication between the conductive and radiative surfaces in the resulting overall network. However, with more frequent use of this technique, the benefits of this approach can far outweigh the additional effort.

Peabody, Hume L.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Lessons Learned from the Wide Field Camera 3 Flight Correlation

The Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) instrument was installed into the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) as part of the activities for STS (Space Transportation System)-125 (HST Servicing Mission 4). Initial model predictions for power and radiator temperature were not in good agreement with flight data during a relatively hot, stable period, with the flight power and temperatures being significantly higher than predictions. Significant efforts were undertaken to identify the causes of the discrepancies and to resolve the flight model correlation problems as the thermal vacuum test correlation indicated good agreement. The WFC3 thermal design performance has proven difficult to accurately predict, since the power dissipation on the radiator typically increases as the radiator temperature increases, due to a Thermo Electric Cooler (TEC) attached to the this radiator. This self beating continues until the radiative emissive capability is met for a given temperature, and only then does the system find a quasi-steady regime. Various other factors may also contribute to the radiator temperature, such as backloadlng from the observatory itself and the planet, local high-absorptivity regions near fasteners/holes, and temperature varying parasitic heat leaks from the instrument itself to the radiator. Each of these effects in turn may increase the radiator temperature, and furthermore the demand on the TEC.

Peabody, Hume L.↗