Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “bulk power system”

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.

205 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Oxygen Isotopic Composition of Refractory Inclusions from the Miller Range (MIL) 090019 Carbonaceous Chondrite

Introduction: Primitive meteorites contain Calcium-Aluminum-rich Inclusions (CAIs)that preserve the records of the earliest times in the Solar System. CAIs record O isotopic variations with time and/or location from solar (16O-rich) to planetary (16O-poor) compositions [e.g., 1, 2].However, CAIs were also affected by parent body processing to varying degrees. The goal of this work was to identify the processes that resulted in the fine-scale spatial variations in oxygen isotopic compositions within the most ancient Solar System solids. We report oxygen isotopic composition of CAIs from MIL 090019 CO3.1 carbonaceous chondrite. MIL 090019 contains a high abundance of CAIs showing mineralogical as well as textural variations [3]. Methods: We analyzed 10 CAIs with different mineralogical assemblages, classified as corundum-bearing, grossite-bearing, hibonite-bearing, melilite-bearing, anorthite-bearing inclusions and amoeboid olivine aggregates(AOA’s). The mineralogical and petrological characterization of CAIs was performed using the JOEL Hyperprobe 8530 electron microprobe at NASA JSC. Oxygen isotopic imaging of the CAIs was done using the Cameca NanoSIMS 50L ion microprobe at NASA JSC. We followed the analytical protocol described in [4]. O-isotopic maps of the CAI were acquired by rastering a ~3 pA primary Cs+beam at 16 keVover an area of 20 ×20μm2over a period of ~7 hours. Negative secondary ions of 16O−, 17O−, 18O−, 28Si−, 24Mg16O−, 27Al16O−, and 40Ca16O−were simultaneously acquired using electron multiplier detectors at a mass resolving power sufficient to resolve the 16OH−interference from the 17O−peak, where the contribution of 16OH−was <0.1%.An electron flood gun was used to mitigate sample charging during the analyses. We used San Carlos olivine and Madagascar hibonite as isotopic standards to correct for the instrumental mass fractionation. The O-isotopic ratios were corrected for the quasi simultaneous arrival (QSA) effect and the detector dead time. All reported errors are 1 sigma. Results: The MIL 090019 carbonaceous chondrite hosts refractory inclusions varying in their mineralogies and textures[2, 3]. We found the oxygen isotopic compositions of mineral phases in MIL 090019 CAIs show large variations with Δ17O values varying from -27 to 0‰. A corundum-bearing inclusion records isotopic variations with corundum, melilite, perovskite, and anorthite showing Δ17Ovalues of -20 ±2.5, -10.2 ± 6.5, -10.7 ± 1.3,and -1.2 ± 3.2‰ respectively. A grossite-hibonite-bearing inclusion also records O-isotopic heterogeneity, where grossite, hibonite, Mg-rich spinel, and melilite show -3.7 ± 2.7, -22.9 ± 2.5, -21.4 ± 2.6, and -17.3 ± 2.8‰ respectively, whereas perovskite grains record a heterogenous isotopic composition ranging from -22.6 to -13.9‰. A hibonite-bearing inclusion shows average Δ17Ο values of -17.6 ± 5.3 ‰ and -15.1 ± 4.8 ‰ for hibonite and spinel respectively. The two perovskite grains also show relatively 16O-poor composition (Δ17Ο = -11.8 ± 6.4 ‰ and -8.6 ± 5.2 ‰). Anorthite has ~0.1 wt% Na2O and ~0.52 wt% FeO and a Δ17Ο value of -7.2 ± 5.0 ‰, whereas diopside records a Δ17Ο value of -3.5 ± 5.0 ‰. A hibonite-spinel-rich inclusion contains spinel and hibonite that are16O-rich (Δ17Οvalues -21.3 ± 2.8‰ and -19.4 ± 3.0‰, respectively). Melilite shows heterogenous oxygen isotopic composition, with an inner 16O-rich region and an outer 16O-poor region separated by a sharp boundary, with a bulk Δ17Ο= -16.2 ± 2.1‰, whereas two perovskite grains are relatively 16O-poor (Δ17Ο= -13.2 ± 3.7‰ and -7.1 ± 3.4‰).A spinel-rich inclusion contains perovskite grains with Δ17Οranging from -27.0 to -22.8 ‰and spinel with average Δ17Οvalue of -21.4 ± 2.8 ‰. In a melilite and spinel-rich CAI, perovskite, spinel, diopside, melilite, and Al-Ti-rich pyroxene record Δ17Ο values of-26.9 ± 4.6‰, -22.4 ± 4.3‰,-23.4 ± 4.9, -19.3 ± 3.4, and -19.0 ± 4.3 ‰ respectively. Olivine and spinel components of 2 AOA’s record a 16O-rich composition with Δ17O~-23‰. Discussion: The coexistence of 16O-rich and 16O-poor minerals within CAIs has been attributed to differing degrees of O isotopic exchange, reflecting a wide range of O diffusion rates[5]. However, the O isotopic heterogeneity observed in these CAIs cannot be explained by oxygen diffusion in nebular or parent body settings alone. The isotopic imaging of CAIs from the MIL 090019 meteorite shows variations in the O isotopic composition recorded in their mineral components, suggesting that these CAIs record the oxygen isotopic heterogeneity in the nebular gas from which they condensed. The coexistence of 16O-rich and 16O-poor mineral components in the CAI-forming region suggests that the gas in this region was not well-mixed and consisted of distinct 16O-rich and 16O-poor gaseous reservoirs.

P Mane↗
NASA NTRS2016

Photospheric Current Spikes and Their Possible Association with Flares - Results from an HMI Data Driven Model

A data driven, near photospheric magnetohydrodynamic model predicts spikes in the horizontal current density, and associated resistive heating rate per unit volume Q. The spikes appear as increases by orders of magnitude above background values in neutral line regions (NLRs) of active regions (ARs). The largest spikes typically occur a few hours to a few days prior to M or X flares. The spikes correspond to large vertical derivatives of the horizontal magnetic field. The model takes as input the photospheric magnetic field observed by the Helioseismic & Magnetic Imager (HMI) on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) satellite. This 2.5 D field is used to determine an analytic expression for a 3 D magnetic field, from which the current density, vector potential, and electric field are computed in every AR pixel for 14 ARs. The field is not assumed to be force-free. The spurious 6, 12, and 24 hour Doppler periods due to SDO orbital motion are filtered out of the time series of the HMI magnetic field for each pixel using a band pass filter. The subset of spikes analyzed at the pixel level are found to occur on HMI and granulation scales of 1 arcsec and 12 minutes. Spikes are found in ARs with and without M or X flares, and outside as well as inside NLRs, but the largest spikes are localized in the NLRs of ARs with M or X flares. The energy to drive the heating associated with the largest current spikes comes from bulk flow kinetic energy, not the electromagnetic field, and the current density is highly non-force free. The results suggest that, in combination with the model, HMI is revealing strong, convection driven, non-force free heating events on granulation scales, and that it is plausible these events are correlated with subsequent M or X flares. More and longer time series need to be analyzed to determine if such a correlation exists. Above an AR dependent threshold value of Q, the number of events N(Q) with heating rates greater than or equal to Q obeys a scale invariant power law distribution for each AR given by N(Q) varies Q(sup -s), where 0.40 less than or equal to S less than or equal to 0.53, with a mean and standard deviation across the 14 ARs of 0.47 and 0.045, showing there is little variation of S from one AR to another. These properties of N(Q) are in close agreement with those of the distribution N(E) for the total energy E of solar flares, determined from observations to be N(E) = constant x E(sup -alpha). From observations of nanoflares in the 0.7 to 4 MK range, and from observations of flares in hard X-rays, it is found that 0.51 less than or equal to alpha less than or equal to 0.57, and 0.4 less than or equal to alpha less than or equal to 0.6, respectively (Crosby et al. 1993, Sol. Phys., 143, 275; Aschwanden & Parnell 2002, ApJ, 572, 1048). Observations also show that, as is found here for the exponent S, there is little variation of alpha with AR (Wheatland 2000, ApJ, 532, 1209), indicating N(E) and N(Q) are largely independent of individual properties of ARs such as area, total magnetic flux, and distribution of current density (i.e. non-potentiality). Therefore the power law scaling of the photospheric heating rate Q computed here on granulation scales is essentially identical to that found for coronal observations of flare energies on scales 1-2 orders of magnitude larger. This suggests the physical mechanisms that cause Q and coronal flares are closely related. It seems likely that Q is the signature of a magnetic reconnection process in an energy range and volume orders of magnitude smaller than those of flares. In this context, at least the larger spikes in Q might be signatures of UV photospheric or lower chromospheric bombs in which plasma is heated to temperatures approximately 10(exp -5) K (Peter et al. 2014, Science 346, 1255726; Judge 2015, ApJ, 808, 116). In addition, lattice based avalanche simulations of flare energy release predict 0.4 less than or equal to alpha less than or equal to 0.5, while analytic, fractal-diffusive self-organized criticality models predict 0.4 less than or equal to alpha less than or equal to 0.67, in excellent agreement with observations, and the results presented here (Aschwanden & Parnell 2002, ApJ, 572, 1048; Aschwanden 2012, A&A, 539, A2; Aschwanden 2013, in "Self Organized Criticality Systems"; Aschwanden et al. 2016, SSR, 198, 47).

Goodman, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2000

Atomistic Method Applied to Computational Modeling of Surface Alloys

The formation of surface alloys is a growing research field that, in terms of the surface structure of multicomponent systems, defines the frontier both for experimental and theoretical techniques. Because of the impact that the formation of surface alloys has on surface properties, researchers need reliable methods to predict new surface alloys and to help interpret unknown structures. The structure of surface alloys and when, and even if, they form are largely unpredictable from the known properties of the participating elements. No unified theory or model to date can infer surface alloy structures from the constituents properties or their bulk alloy characteristics. In spite of these severe limitations, a growing catalogue of such systems has been developed during the last decade, and only recently are global theories being advanced to fully understand the phenomenon. None of the methods used in other areas of surface science can properly model even the already known cases. Aware of these limitations, the Computational Materials Group at the NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field has developed a useful, computationally economical, and physically sound methodology to enable the systematic study of surface alloy formation in metals. This tool has been tested successfully on several known systems for which hard experimental evidence exists and has been used to predict ternary surface alloy formation (results to be published: Garces, J.E.; Bozzolo, G.; and Mosca, H.: Atomistic Modeling of Pd/Cu(100) Surface Alloy Formation. Surf. Sci., 2000 (in press); Mosca, H.; Garces J.E.; and Bozzolo, G.: Surface Ternary Alloys of (Cu,Au)/Ni(110). (Accepted for publication in Surf. Sci., 2000.); and Garces, J.E.; Bozzolo, G.; Mosca, H.; and Abel, P.: A New Approach for Atomistic Modeling of Pd/Cu(110) Surface Alloy Formation. (Submitted to Appl. Surf. Sci.)). Ternary alloy formation is a field yet to be fully explored experimentally. The computational tool, which is based on the BFS (Bozzolo, Ferrante, and Smith) method for the calculation of the energetics, consists of a small number of simple PCbased computer codes that deal with the different aspects of surface alloy formation. Two analysis modes are available within this package. The first mode provides an atom-by-atom description of real and virtual stages 1. during the process of surface alloying, based on the construction of catalogues of configurations where each configuration describes one possible atomic distribution. BFS analysis of this catalogue provides information on accessible states, possible ordering patterns, and details of island formation or film growth. More importantly, it provides insight into the evolution of the system. Software developed by the Computational Materials Group allows for the study of an arbitrary number of elements forming surface alloys, including an arbitrary number of surface atomic layers. The second mode involves large-scale temperature-dependent computer 2. simulations that use the BFS method for the energetics and provide information on the dynamic processes during surface alloying. These simulations require the implementation of Monte-Carlo-based codes with high efficiency within current workstation environments. This methodology capitalizes on the advantages of the BFS method: there are no restrictions on the number or type of elements or on the type of crystallographic structure considered. This removes any restrictions in the definition of the configuration catalogues used in the analytical calculations, thus allowing for the study of arbitrary ordering patterns, ultimately leading to the actual surface alloy structure. Moreover, the Monte Carlo numerical technique used for the large-scale simulations allows for a detailed visualization of the simulated process, the main advantage of this type of analysis being the ability to understand the underlying features that drive these processes. Because of the simplicity of the BFS method for e energetics used in these calculations, a detailed atom-by-atom analysis can be performed at any point in the simulation, providing necessary insight on the details of the process. The main objective of this research program is to develop a tool to guide experimenters in understanding and interpreting often unexpected results in alloy formation experiments. By reducing the computational effort without losing physical accuracy, we expect that powerful simulation tools will be developed in the immediate future, which will allow material scientists to easily visualize and analyze processes at a level not achievable experimentally.

Bozzolo, Guillermo H.↗
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↗