Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Exploration Technology”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Evaluating Handheld X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Technology in Planetary Exploration: Demonstrating Instrument Stability and Understanding Analytical Constraints and Limits for Basaltic Rocks

While large-footprint X-ray fluorescence (XRF) instruments are reliable providers of elemental information about geologic samples, handheld XRF instruments are currently being developed that enable the collection of geochemical data in the field in short time periods (approx.60 seconds) [1]. These detectors are lightweight (1.3kg) and can provide elemental abundances of major rock forming elements heavier than Na. While handheld XRF detectors were originally developed for use in mining, we are working with commercially available instruments as prototypes to explore how portable XRF technology may enable planetary field science [2,3,4]. If an astronaut or robotic explorer visited another planetary surface, the ability to obtain and evaluate geochemical data in real-time would be invaluable, especially in the high-grading of samples to determine which should be returned to Earth. We present our results on the evaluation of handheld XRF technology as a geochemical tool in the context of planetary exploration.

Young, K. E.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Mars Exploration Program and Mars Technology Program

The Mars Exploration Program and constituent Mars Technology Program are described. Current, ongoing and future NASA-led missions are presented, including discussions of scientific accomplishments and objectives as well as technology validations accomplished and technological enablers for future missions. The missions summarized include (in order of actual or planned launch): Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Pathfinder, 2001 Mars Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars 'Smart' Lander, Mars Scouts, Mars Sample Return. Key technology areas hdiscussed include: Navigation, Entry, Descent and Landing, Science and Surface Operations, Orbital Transport and Sample Return Technologies.

overview↗
NASA NTRS2009

Overview of Altair's Thermal Control System and the Associated Technology Development Efforts

Abstract In early 2004, President Bush announced a bold vision for space exploration. One of the goals included in this vision is a return to the moon by 2020. In response to this vision, NASA established the Constellation Program, which includes several project offices. One of the Constellation projects is Altair, which is the next generation Lunar Lander. The future Altair missions are very different than the Lunar missions accomplished during the Apollo era. As such, there are several project risks and design challenges that have never before been addressed. Due to the unique thermal environment associated with this mission, many of these risks and design challenges are associated with the vehicle's thermal control system. NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) includes the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP). ETDP consists of several technology development projects. The project chartered with mitigating the aforementioned risks and design challenges is the Thermal Control System Development for Exploration Project. The current paper will summarize the Altair mission profile, the operational phases, and the thermal design challenges unique to this particular vehicle. The paper will also describe the technology development efforts being performed to mitigate the risks and design challenges. The technology development project is performing a rigorous development effort that includes thermal control system fluids, evaporators, heat exchangers, and Lunar surface radiators. Constellation Program, there are several project offices. One of these projects includes the development of NASA's new lunar lander vehicle. The overall mission architecture for this vehicle, Altair, is very similar to Apollo's architecture. This paper will provide the reader with an overview of the Altair vehicle. In addition, Altair's thermal control system, including the functionality and the hardware, will be discussed. The paper will also describe the technology development process and the various technology developments currently underway.

Stephan, Ryan A.↗
NASA NTRS2010

A Comparison of Flow-Through Versus Non-Flow-Through Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Systems for NASA's Exploration Missions

As part of the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) under the auspices of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), NASA is developing both primary fuel cell power systems and regenerative fuel cell (RFC) energy storage systems within the fuel cell portion of the Energy Storage Project. This effort is being led by the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in partnership with the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and industrial partners. The development goals are to improve fuel cell and electrolysis stack electrical performance, reduce system mass, volume, and parasitic power requirements, and increase system life and reliability. A major focus of this effort has been the parallel development of both flow-through and non-flow-through proton exchange membrane (PEM) primary fuel cell power systems. The plan has been, at the appropriate time, to select a single primary fuel cell technology for eventual flight hardware development. Ideally, that appropriate time would occur after both technologies have achieved a technology readiness level (TRL) of six, which represents an engineering model fidelity PEM fuel cell system being successfully tested in a relevant environment. Budget constraints in fiscal year 2009 and beyond have prevented NASA from continuing to pursue the parallel development of both primary fuel cell options. Because very limited data exists for either system, a toplevel, qualitative assessment based on engineering judgement was performed expeditiously to provide guidance for a selection. At that time, the non-flow-through technology was selected for continued development because of potentially major advantages in terms of weight, volume, parasitic power, reliability, and life. This author believes that the advantages are significant enough, and the potential benefits great enough, to offset the higher state of technology readiness of flow-through technology. This paper summarizes the technical considerations which helped form the engineering judgement that led to the final decision.

Hoberecht, Mark A.↗
NASA NTRS1991

The NASA CSTI High Capacity Power Program

The SP-100 program was established in 1983 by DOD, DOE, and NASA as a joint program to develop the technology necessary for space nuclear power systems for military and civil applications. During 1986 and 1987, the NASA Advanced Technology Program was responsible for maintaining the momentum of promising technology advancement efforts started during Phase 1 of SP-100 and to strengthen, in key areas, the chances for successful development and growth capability of space nuclear reactor power systems for future space applications. In 1988, the NASA Advanced Technology Program was incorporated into NASA's new Civil Space Technology Initiative (CSTI). The CSTI program was established to provide the foundation for technology development in automation and robotics, information, propulsion, and power. The CSTI High Capacity Power Program builds on the technology efforts of the SP-100 program, incorporates the previous NASA advanced technology project, and provides a bridge to the NASA exploration technology programs. The elements of CSTI high capacity power development include conversion systems: Stirling and thermoelectric, thermal management, power management, system diagnostics, and environmental interactions. Technology advancement in all areas, including materials, is required to provide the growth capability, high reliability, and 7 to 10 year lifetime demanded for future space nuclear power systems. The overall program will develop and demonstrate the technology base required to provide a wide range of modular power systems while minimizing the impact of day/night operations as well as attitudes and distance from the Sun. Significant accomplishments in all of the program elements will be discussed, along with revised goals and project timelines recently developed.

Winter, Jerry M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2021 to 2022 Overview

Over the past year, significant progress has occurred in technology development, ground testing, and ISS technology demonstrations within the NASA Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) community. This paper provides a technology development update in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. Technologies for exploration missions must be reliable in their operation which support crewed mission phases. However, they also need to be put into a reduced use or dormant states to support uncrewed mission phases and then successfully and reliably returned to a nominal state to support crew. Multi-year demonstration of systems operation across this range of conditions are essential to mission success. Project overviews will include how the current activity supports the goal of multi-year demonstrations, planned follow-on activities, and what type of exploration mission elements are targeted for infusion. Technologies must be demonstrated and validated early enough to inform early exploration element milestone reviews (mission concept reviews, systems requirement reviews and no later than preliminary design reviews) so that supporting vehicle systems can also be matured. Consequently, for low technology readiness activities, it is important to also identify which mission elements they might infuse into and how they may offer potential operational, dormancy, or mass benefits. While low TRL technology timelines may not support initial mission needs, early infusion is still reasonable with sufficient testing to validate performance and reliability.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2011

An Overview of NASA's Current Materials Development Efforts for Mars EDL

Current roadmaps point to landing heavy masses (cargo, followed by manned vehicles) on Mars in the 2030's and the existing entry, descent and landing (EDL) technology will not be sufficient to facilitate such missions. In 2009 the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) established the Entry, Descent and Landing Technology Development Project (EDL TDP), to be managed programmatically at Langley Research Center (LaRC) and technically a Ames Research Center (ARC). The purpose of the project is to further the technologies required to land heavy (approximately 40 metric ton) masses on Mars to facilitate exploration. The EDL TDP contains three technical elements. They are: 1) Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) development 2) Modeling and Tools (MAT) development 3) Supersonic Retropropulsion (SRP) development The primary goals of the EDL TDP TPS element is to design and develop TPS materials capable of withstanding the severe aerothermal loads associated with aerocapture and entry into the Martian atmosphere while significantly decreasing the TPS mass fraction contribution to the entry system. Significant advancements in TPS materials technology are needed in order to enable heavy mass payloads to be successfully landed on the Martian surface for robotic precursors and subsequent human exploration missions. The EDL TDP TPS element is further divided into two different TPS concepts for Mars EDL those being: 1) Rigid TPS for a mid L/D aeroshell with the capability to withstand dual pulsed heating environments as high as 500 W/square cm for aerocapture and 130 W/square cm for entry 2) Flexible TPS for a deployable aerodynamic decelerator with the capability to withstand dual pulsed heating environments as high as 120 W/square cm for aerocapture and 30 W/square cm for entry NASA, along with its vendors, has begun developing and testing materials for each of the deceleration approaches. These include multi-layer rigid ablators and flexible ablative materials. In order to model the response of these types of materials, new and improved modeling techniques will be required. This presentation will outline the types of materials that are under development and illustrate the need for advancement in modeling of ablative materials.

Beck, Robin A.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Mars Exploration Program and Mars Technology Program

The Mars Exploration Program and constituent Mars Technology Program are described. Current ongoing and future NASA-led missions are presented, including discussions of scientific accomplishments and objectives as well as technology validations accomplished and technological enablers for future missions.

Mars Exploration Program overview Mars Exploration↗
NASA NTRS2008

Igniters for Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Methane Technology Development

As part of NASA's technology development of liquid methane / liquid oxygen engines for future exploration missions, two different igniters were recently studied at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The first igniter tested was an impinging injection, spark-initiated torch igniter, and the second was a microwave-generated plasma igniter. The purpose of the ignition tests was to define the ignition limits under vacuum conditions and characterize the transient start-up performance as a function of propellant mixture ratio (MR), mass flow rates, inlet temperatures, and pre-ignition chamber pressure. In addition, for the impinging igniter two different spark plugs were tested, and for the microwave igniter the magnetron filament warm-up time and the magnetron input power were both varied. The results gathered from these tests indicated that the impinging igniter is capable of operating over an MR range of 2 - 27, with methane and oxygen inlet temperatures as low as -161 F and -233 F, respectively. The microwave igniter was tested over an MR range of 2 - 9, with methane and oxygen inlet temperatures as low as -90 F and -200 F, respectively. The microwave igniter achieved ignition over this range, although an upper ignition limit was determined for the oxidizer mass flow rate. In general, the torch exhaust temperatures for the microwave igniter were not as high as those attained with the impinging igniter. The microwave igniter, however, was hot-fired 17 times and was still operational, whereas the impinging igniter spark plugs experienced thermal shock and erosion over nine hot-fire tests. It was concluded that for the microwave igniter better mixing of the propellants might be required in order to both raise the torch exhaust temperature and decrease the required magnetron input power, and for the impinging igniter the spark plug position within the igniter chamber should be varied in future tests to identify a more optimal location. All of the igniter tests were supported by the Propulsion & Cryogenics Advanced Development project, which is part of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program.

Osborne, Robin J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Engineering Model Powerplant. Test Report: Benchmark Tests in Three Spatial Orientations

Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology is the leading candidate to replace the aging alkaline fuel cell technology, currently used on the Shuttle, for future space missions. This test effort marks the final phase of a 5-yr development program that began under the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Program, transitioned into the Next Generation Launch Technologies (NGLT) Program, and continued under Constellation Systems in the Exploration Technology Development Program. Initially, the engineering model (EM) powerplant was evaluated with respect to its performance as compared to acceptance tests carried out at the manufacturer. This was to determine the sensitivity of the powerplant performance to changes in test environment. In addition, a series of tests were performed with the powerplant in the original standard orientation. This report details the continuing EM benchmark test results in three spatial orientations as well as extended duration testing in the mission profile test. The results from these tests verify the applicability of PEM fuel cells for future NASA missions. The specifics of these different tests are described in the following sections.

Loyselle, Patricia↗
NASA NTRS2012

Intelligent Systems Technologies for Ops

As NASA supports International Space Station assembly complete operations through 2020 (or later) and prepares for future human exploration programs, there is additional emphasis in the manned spaceflight program to find more efficient and effective ways of providing the ground-based mission support. Since 2006 this search for improvement has led to a significant cross-fertilization between the NASA advanced software development community and the manned spaceflight operations community. A variety of mission operations systems and tools have been developed over the past decades as NASA has operated the Mars robotic missions, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station. NASA Ames Research Center has been developing and applying its advanced intelligent systems research to mission operations tools for both unmanned Mars missions operations since 2001 and to manned operations with NASA Johnson Space Center since 2006. In particular, the fundamental advanced software development work under the Exploration Technology Program, and the experience and capabilities developed for mission operations systems for the Mars surface missions, (Spirit/Opportunity, Phoenix Lander, and MSL) have enhanced the development and application of advanced mission operation systems for the International Space Station and future spacecraft. This paper provides an update on the status of the development and deployment of a variety of intelligent systems technologies adopted for manned mission operations, and some discussion of the planned work for Autonomous Mission Operations in future human exploration. We discuss several specific projects between the Ames Research Center and the Johnson Space Centers Mission Operations Directorate, and how these technologies and projects are enhancing the mission operations support for the International Space Station, and supporting the current Autonomous Mission Operations Project for the mission operation support of the future human exploration programs.

Smith, Ernest E.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Propulsion and Cryogenics Advanced Development (PCAD) Project Propulsion Technologies for the Lunar Lander

The Propulsion and Cryogenics Advanced Development (PCAD) Project in the Exploration Technology Development Program is developing technologies as risk mitigation for Orion and the Lunar Lander. An integrated main and reaction control propulsion system has been identified as a candidate for the Lunar Lander Ascent Module. The propellants used in this integrated system are Liquid Oxygen (LOX)/Liquid Methane (LCH4) propellants. A deep throttle pump fed Liquid Oxygen (LOX)/Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) engine system has been identified for the Lunar Lander Descent Vehicle. The propellant combination and architecture of these propulsion systems are novel and would require risk reduction prior to detailed design and development. The PCAD Project addresses the technology requirements to obtain relevant and necessary test data to further the technology maturity of propulsion hardware utilizing these propellants. This plan and achievements to date will be presented.

Klem, Mark D.↗