Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Simulators”

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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Simulation Technology at NASA

NASA Ames Research Center is home to several high-fidelity research flight and air-traffic control simulation facilities which, together with an experienced workforce, produce high-quality research data and findings that have proven to be applicable in the real world. These assets include the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), Crew Vehicle Systems Research Facility (CVSRF), Future Flight Central (FFC) air traffic control tower simulator, and several air-traffic control (ATC) simulators. The VMS combines a high-fidelity simulation capability with an adaptable simulation environment, enabling customization for numerous human-in-the-loop research applications. The distinctive feature of the VMS is its unparalleled large amplitude, high-fidelity motion capability. In over 30 years of continuous operation, the VMS has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge in a range of disciplines directly benefiting several aerospace programs and flight safety, including the design and development of flight control systems for the Joint Strike Fighter, Space Shuttle Orbiter, and rotorcraft. It continues to be used for researching new vehicle configurations, vehicle control and safety, transfer-of-training, etc., by NASA, other government agencies, and Industry.The CVSRF includes two motion-based flight simulators: a Boeing 747-400 full flight simulator and the reconfigurable Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS). These simulators are primarily used to research air-traffic management concepts and procedures, advanced navigation and avionics concepts, and cockpit human factors. FFC is a full-sized control tower simulator with a 360-degree external field-of-view display system and reconfigurable system architecture. FFC and the ATC simulators are used for testing air-traffic management automation and decision support tools and demonstrate their feasibility in a realistic environment prior to technology transfer for implementation in the National Airspace System (NAS).To support integrated simulations and flight-tests for NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project, NASA developed a distributed test environment incorporating Live, Virtual, Constructive, (LVC) concepts. Development of the software enabling the LVC is conducted primarily at the Distributed Simulation Research Lab (DSRL) at NASA Ames. The LVC components provide the core infrastructure supporting simulation of UAS operations by integrating live and virtual aircraft in a realistic air traffic environment. This provides the ability to conduct tests more efficiently by promoting the use of existing distributed assets. The LVC infrastructure was used in several human-in-the-loop simulations to evaluate acceptance of Detect and Avoid (DAA) advisories used by UAS pilots to maintain well clear of other virtual traffic and to negotiate maneuvers with air traffic control. It is currently being used to support testing of self-separation algorithms between unmanned and manned aircraft in live flight. Further simulations with more comprehensive air traffic scenarios mixing live and virtual aircraft is planned.In the current fiscal environment, maintaining and upgrading these high-fidelity simulation assets and retaining the skilled workforce necessary to meet future research needs is the primary non-technical challenge.

CVSRF↗
NASA NTRS1997

Aviation Simulators for the Desktop: Panel and Demonstrations

Panel Members are: Christine M. Mitchell (Georgia Tech), Michael T. Palmer (NASA Langley), Greg Pisani (NASA Ames), and Amy R. Pritchett (MIT). The Panel members are affiliated with aviation human factors groups from NASA Ames, NASA Langley, MITCHELL Department of Aerospace and Aeronautical Engineering, and Georgia Technics Center for Human-Machine Systems Research. Panelists will describe the simulator(s) used in their respective institutions including a description of the FMS aircraft models, software, hardware, and displays. Panelists will summarize previous, on-going, and planned empirical studies conducted with the simulators. Greg Pisanich will describe two NASA Ames simulation systems: the Stone Soup Simulator (SSS), and the Airspace Operations Human Factors Simulation Laboratory. The the Stone Soup Simulator is a desktop-based, research flight simulator that includes mode control, flight management, and datalink functionality. It has been developed as a non-proprietary simulator that can be easily distributed to academic and industry researchers who are collaborating on NASA research projects. It will be used and extended by research groups represented by at least two panelists (Mitchell and Palmer). The Airspace Operations Simulator supports the study of air traffic control in conjunction with the flight deck. This simulator will be used provide an environment in which many AATT and free flight concepts can be demonstrated and evaluated. Mike Palmer will describe two NASA Langley efforts: The Langley Simulator and MD-11 extensions to the NASA Amesbury simulator. The first simulator is publicly available and combines a B-737 model with a high fidelity flight management system. The second simulator enhances the S3 simulator with MD-11 electronic flight displays together with modifications to the flight and FMS models to emulate MD-11 dynamics and operations. Chris Mitchell will describe GT-EFIRT (Georgia Tech-Electronic Flight Instrument Research Tool) and B-757 enhancements to the NASA Ames S3. GT-EFIRT is a medium fidelity simulator used to conduct preliminary studies of the CATS (crew activity tracking system). Like the Langley efforts with S3, the Georgia Tech enhancements will allow it to emulate the dynamics and operations of a widely used glass cockpit. Amy Pritchett will describe the MIT simulator(s) that have been used in a range of research investigating cockpit displays, warning devices, and flight deck-ATC interaction.

Pisanich, Greg↗
NASA NTRS2024

Flight Mechanics Modeling and Simulation of the Earth Entry System

Introduction: The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign being planned by NASA and ESA has the ambitious goal to return Mars samples back to Earth. This international collaboration had developed a concept of operations that included a ESA-designed Earth Return Orbiter (ERO) and NASA-designed Capture, Containment, and Return System (CCRS). The Earth Entry System (EES), consisting of a protective aeroshell that houses the samples as well as sample containment vessels, would conduct entry, descent, and landing (EDL) on a direct Earth trajectory. The EES would enter on a spin-stabilized ballistic trajectory with the goal to passively achieve aerodynamic stability throughout all regions of flight. The EDL sequence would end with the EES impacting the soft playa soil of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). As of the submission of this abstract, the MSR campaign is undergoing a re-architecture leading to a pause in EES development. However, the novel approaches developed in flight mechanics modeling and simulation can significantly benefit the greater IPPW community in the development of Earth return vehicles. This paper will present the latest state of EES flight mechanics modeling and simulation. The paper will highlight the simulation architecture developed and key lessons learned from understanding of EDL trajectory sensitivities. Modeling and Simulation: Figure 1 provides a high-level concept of operations for the approach, entry, descent, and landing (AEDL) phase of the CCRS-portion of MSR. The objective of EES flight mechanics is to model and simulate the EES trajectory from ERO separation to ground impact at UTTR. A variety of flight mechanics simulation models were utilized to model both exo-atmopsheric and atmospheric portions of flight. 42, a 6-DOF simulation developed at Goddard Space Flight Center, is utilized for propagating the attitude of EES during exo-atmospheric flight. 42 allows for a variety of spin eject mechanism scenarios to be simulated for analysis. 10 minutes prior to entry, the 42 states are handed off to the EDL sims. The prime EDL sim utilized by EES is the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2), a 6-DOF sim developed at Langley Research Center, and the independent verification and validation EDL sim utilized is DSENDS, a 6-DOF sim developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Figure 2 provides a visualization of the flight mechanics simulation model flow through various points in the AEDL phase. Due to the existence of a variety of sim models, the EES flight mechanics team developed processes for data hand-off. These processes included the development of a centralized coordinate frame document, utilization of a single, centralized simulation input document for all sims to reference, and hand-off files containing both the technical data to be ingested by other flight mechanics sims as well as annotations of modeling assumptions utilized to generate the data. Figure~\ref{fig:post2simarchitecture} provides an overview of the POST2 sim architecture wherein POST2 ingests numerous subsystem models and input files. The dispersed state file generated by MONTE provides the position/velocity state of the trajectory while the 42 Handoff file provides the attitude. The aerodynamics database, delivered by the EES aeroscience team, is utilized to simulate the aerodynamic forces and moments experienced during EDL. A custom atmosphere model, developed by EES atmosphere team, is utilized to simulate the anticipated atmosphere environment around the region of Earth through which the EES trajectory flys. These inputs and subsystem models can be varied depending on the AEDL flight mechanics scenario being simulated. Monte Carlo simulations are utilized to generate statistical AEDL performance metrics in the form of scorecards and violin plots. Furthermore, outputs from the POST2 simulation are utilized for follow-on analyses including aerothermal and landing performance. \section{Flight Mechanics Lessons Learned} Though the EES flight mechanics team uncovered a variety of lessons learned through the analysis conducted to support CCRS through preliminary design review, this paper will highlight the most important lessons. A key AEDL performance goal is to ensure the landing footprint of EES remains on the UTTR south range. A common modeling strategy used in EDL analysis is One-Variable-At-a-Time (OVAT). OVAT analysis provides insight into the key drivers that affect AEDL performance metrics. Figure 3 shows the landing ellipses for single dispersion sources as compared to the baseline aggregate of all dispersions. The figure shows that atmosphere winds alone dominate the size of the footprint ellipse (note: EES does not use a parachute unlike previous Earth-return missions and is in wind-driven free fall for ~5min). The significance of the wind led the EES flight mechanics team to pursue the development of a Custom Atmosphere Model [4], in lieu of EarthGRAM [1], built on actual radiosonde wind measurements around the UTTR-region. This decision was driven by the realism in the generated footprint ellipses and lessons-learned from Stardust [5]. These findings will be invaluable for future Earth-return missions in providing an early understanding of the key drivers affecting footprint size and modeling considerations for which to account. Another lesson learned is tied to the AEDL performance goal of achieving passive stability throughout all regions of flight. It is well understood that blunt-body aeroshells are less stable as they transition from supersonic to subsonic. Eliminating a backshell does help improvestability; however, other phenomena such as roll-induced instability during terminal descent can still arise. The EES flight mechanics team developed stability metrics as tools to better understand the causes of and better predict the onset of dynamic instability. These tools were built upon analytical models developed by Jaffe [3] and Murphy [2]. The tools were shown to both be very accurate in correlation with actual unstable cases and useful in developing stability margin policies based on the vehicle design and simulation considerations (e.g. sphere-cone angle change, mass change, wind turbulence). These tools allowed for the current EES design to demonstrate the ability to achieve passive stability and can be an invaluable tool for consideration in the design of parachute-less Earth-return vehicles.

Rohan Deshmukh↗
NASA NTRS1984

The Shuttle Mission Simulator computer generated imagery

Equipment available in the primary training facility for the Space Transportation System (STS) flight crews includes the Fixed Base Simulator, the Motion Base Simulator, the Spacelab Simulator, and the Guidance and Navigation Simulator. The Shuttle Mission Simulator (SMS) consists of the Fixed Base Simulator and the Motion Base Simulator. The SMS utilizes four visual Computer Generated Image (CGI) systems. The Motion Base Simulator has a forward crew station with six-degrees of freedom motion simulation. Operation of the Spacelab Simulator is planned for the spring of 1983. The Guidance and Navigation Simulator went into operation in 1982. Aspects of orbital visual simulation are discussed, taking into account the earth scene, payload simulation, the generation and display of 1079 stars, the simulation of sun glare, and Reaction Control System jet firing plumes. Attention is also given to landing site visual simulation, and night launch and landing simulation.

Henderson, T. H.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Development of Monte Carlo Capability for Orion Parachute Simulations

Parachute test programs employ Monte Carlo simulation techniques to plan testing and make critical decisions related to parachute loads, rate-of-descent, or other parameters. This paper describes the development and use of a MATLAB-based Monte Carlo tool for three parachute drop test simulations currently used by NASA. The Decelerator System Simulation (DSS) is a legacy 6 Degree-of-Freedom (DOF) simulation used to predict parachute loads and descent trajectories. The Decelerator System Simulation Application (DSSA) is a 6-DOF simulation that is well suited for modeling aircraft extraction and descent of pallet-like test vehicles. The Drop Test Vehicle Simulation (DTVSim) is a 2-DOF trajectory simulation that is convenient for quick turn-around analysis tasks. These three tools have significantly different software architectures and do not share common input files or output data structures. Separate Monte Carlo tools were initially developed for each simulation. A recently-developed simulation output structure enables the use of the more sophisticated DSSA Monte Carlo tool with any of the core-simulations. The task of configuring the inputs for the nominal simulation is left to the existing tools. Once the nominal simulation is configured, the Monte Carlo tool perturbs the input set according to dispersion rules created by the analyst. These rules define the statistical distribution and parameters to be applied to each simulation input. Individual dispersed parameters are combined to create a dispersed set of simulation inputs. The Monte Carlo tool repeatedly executes the core-simulation with the dispersed inputs and stores the results for analysis. The analyst may define conditions on one or more output parameters at which to collect data slices. The tool provides a versatile interface for reviewing output of large Monte Carlo data sets while preserving the capability for detailed examination of individual dispersed trajectories. The Monte Carlo tool described in this paper has proven useful in planning several Crew Exploration Vehicle parachute tests.

Moore, James W.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Global Positioning System Simulator Field Operational Procedures

Global Positioning System (GPS) simulation is an important activity in the development or qualification of GPS signal receivers for space flight. Because a GPS simulator is a critical resource it is highly desirable to develop a set of field operational procedures to supplement the basic procedures provided by most simulator vendors. Validated field procedures allow better utilization of the GPS simulator in the development of new test scenarios and simulation operations. These procedures expedite simulation scenario development while resulting in scenarios that are more representative of the true design, as well as enabling construction of more complex simulations than previously possible, for example, spacecraft maneuvers. One difficulty in the development of a simulation scenario is specifying various modes of test vehicle motion and associated maneuvers requiring that a user specify some (but not all) of a few closely related simulation parameters. Currently this can only be done by trial and error. A stand-alone procedure that implements the simulator maneuver motion equations and solves for the motion profile transient times, jerk and acceleration would be of considerable value. Another procedure would permit the specification of some configuration parameters that would determine the simulated GPS signal composition. The resulting signal navigation message, for example, would force the receiver under test to use only the intended C-code component of the simulated GPS signal. A representative class of GPS simulation-related field operational procedures is described in this paper. These procedures were developed and used in support of GPS integration and testing for many successful spacecraft missions such as SAC-A, EO-1, AMSAT, VCL, SeaStar, sounding rockets, and by using the industry standard Spirent Global Simulation Systems Incorporated (GSSI) STR series simulators.

Kizhner, Semion↗
NASA NTRS2007

Automated Knowledge Discovery From Simulators

A computational method, SimLearn, has been devised to facilitate efficient knowledge discovery from simulators. Simulators are complex computer programs used in science and engineering to model diverse phenomena such as fluid flow, gravitational interactions, coupled mechanical systems, and nuclear, chemical, and biological processes. SimLearn uses active-learning techniques to efficiently address the "landscape characterization problem." In particular, SimLearn tries to determine which regions in "input space" lead to a given output from the simulator, where "input space" refers to an abstraction of all the variables going into the simulator, e.g., initial conditions, parameters, and interaction equations. Landscape characterization can be viewed as an attempt to invert the forward mapping of the simulator and recover the inputs that produce a particular output. Given that a single simulation run can take days or weeks to complete even on a large computing cluster, SimLearn attempts to reduce costs by reducing the number of simulations needed to effect discoveries. Unlike conventional data-mining methods that are applied to static predefined datasets, SimLearn involves an iterative process in which a most informative dataset is constructed dynamically by using the simulator as an oracle. On each iteration, the algorithm models the knowledge it has gained through previous simulation trials and then chooses which simulation trials to run next. Running these trials through the simulator produces new data in the form of input-output pairs. The overall process is embodied in an algorithm that combines support vector machines (SVMs) with active learning. SVMs use learning from examples (the examples are the input-output pairs generated by running the simulator) and a principle called maximum margin to derive predictors that generalize well to new inputs. In SimLearn, the SVM plays the role of modeling the knowledge that has been gained through previous simulation trials. Active learning is used to determine which new input points would be most informative if their output were known. The selected input points are run through the simulator to generate new information that can be used to refine the SVM. The process is then repeated. SimLearn carefully balances exploration (semi-randomly searching around the input space) versus exploitation (using the current state of knowledge to conduct a tightly focused search). During each iteration, SimLearn uses not one, but an ensemble of SVMs. Each SVM in the ensemble is characterized by different hyper-parameters that control various aspects of the learned predictor - for example, whether the predictor is constrained to be very smooth (nearby points in input space lead to similar output predictions) or whether the predictor is allowed to be "bumpy." The various SVMs will have different preferences about which input points they would like to run through the simulator next. SimLearn includes a formal mechanism for balancing the ensemble SVM preferences so that a single choice can be made for the next set of trials.

Burl, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Functional Comparison of Lunar Regoliths and Their Simulants

Lunar regolith simulants are essential to the development of technology for human exploration of the Moon. Any equipment that will interact with the surface environment must be tested with simulant to mitigate risk. To reduce the greatest amount of risk, the simulant must replicate the lunar surface as well as possible. To quantify the similarities and differences between simulants, the Figures of Merit were developed. The Figures of Merit software compares the simulants and regolith by particle size, particle shape, density, and bulk chemistry and mineralogy; these four properties dictate the majority of the remaining characteristics of a geologic material. There are limitations to both the current Figures of Merit approach and simulants in general. The effect of particle textures is lacking in the Figures of Merit software, and research into this topic has only recently begun with applications to simulants. In addition, not all of the properties for lunar regolith are defined sufficiently for simulant reproduction or comparison; for example, the size distribution of particles greater than 1 centimeter and the makeup of particles less than 10 micrometers is not well known. For simulants, contamination by terrestrial weathering products or undesired trace phases in feedstock material is a major issue. Vapor deposited rims have not yet been created for simulants. Fortunately, previous limitations such as the lack of agglutinates in simulants have been addressed and commercial companies are now making agglutinate material for simulants. Despite some limitations, the Figures of Merit sufficiently quantify the comparison between simulants and regolith for useful application in lunar surface technology. Over time, the compilation and analysis of simulant user data will add an advantageous predictive capability to the Figures of Merit, accurately relating Figures of Merit characteristics to simulant user parameters.

Rickman, D.↗
NASA NTRS2000

On Fast Post-Processing of Global Positioning System Simulator Truth Data and Receiver Measurements and Solutions Data

Post-processing of data, related to a GPS receiver test in a GPS simulator and test facility, is an important step towards qualifying a receiver for space flight. Although the GPS simulator provides all the parameters needed to analyze a simulation, as well as excellent analysis tools on the simulator workstation, post-processing is not a GPS simulator or receiver function alone, and it must be planned as a separate pre-flight test program requirement. A GPS simulator is a critical resource, and it is desirable to move off the pertinent test data from the simulator as soon as a test is completed. The receiver and simulator databases are used to extract the test data files for postprocessing. These files are then usually moved from the simulator and receiver systems to a personal computer (PC) platform, where post-processing is done typically using PC-based commercial software languages and tools. Because of commercial software systems generality their functions are notoriously slow and more than often are the bottleneck even for short duration simulator-based tests. There is a need to do post-processing faster and within an hour after test completion, including all required operations on the simulator and receiver to prepare and move off the post-processing files. This is especially significant in order to use the previous test feedback for the next simulation setup or to run near back-to-back simulation scenarios. Solving the post-processing timing problem is critical for a pre-flight test program success. Towards this goal an approach was developed that allows to speed-up post-processing by an order of a magnitude. It is based on improving the post-processing bottleneck function algorithm using a priory information that is specific to a GPS simulation application and using only the necessary volume of truth data. The presented postprocessing scheme was used in support of a few successful space flight missions carrying GPS receivers.

Kizhner, Semion↗
NASA NTRS2006

Requirements and Techniques for Developing and Measuring Simulant Materials

The 1989 workshop report entitled Workshop on Production and Uses of Simulated Lunar Materials and the Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage, NASA Technical Publication identify and reinforced a need for a set of standards and requirements for the production and usage of the lunar simulant materials. As NASA need prepares to return to the moon, a set of requirements have been developed for simulant materials and methods to produce and measure those simulants have been defined. Addressed in the requirements document are: 1) a method for evaluating the quality of any simulant of a regolith, 2) the minimum Characteristics for simulants of lunar regolith, and 3) a method to produce lunar regolith simulants needed for NASA's exploration mission. A method to evaluate new and current simulants has also been rigorously defined through the mathematics of Figures of Merit (FoM), a concept new to simulant development. A single FoM is conceptually an algorithm defining a single characteristic of a simulant and provides a clear comparison of that characteristic for both the simulant and a reference material. Included as an intrinsic part of the algorithm is a minimum acceptable performance for the characteristic of interest. The algorithms for the FoM for Standard Lunar Regolith Simulants are also explicitly keyed to a recommended method to make lunar simulants.

Rickman, Doug↗
NASA NTRS2010

Demonstration of an Aerocapture GN and C System Through Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulations

Aerocapture is an orbit insertion maneuver in which a spacecraft flies through a planetary atmosphere one time using drag force to decelerate and effect a hyperbolic to elliptical orbit change. Aerocapture employs a feedback Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) system to deliver the spacecraft into a precise postatmospheric orbit despite the uncertainties inherent in planetary atmosphere knowledge, entry targeting and aerodynamic predictions. Only small amounts of propellant are required for attitude control and orbit adjustments, thereby providing mass savings of hundreds to thousands of kilograms over conventional all-propulsive techniques. The Analytic Predictor Corrector (APC) guidance algorithm has been developed to steer the vehicle through the aerocapture maneuver using bank angle control. Through funding provided by NASA's In-Space Propulsion Technology Program, the operation of an aerocapture GN&C system has been demonstrated in high-fidelity simulations that include real-time hardware in the loop, thus increasing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of aerocapture GN&C. First, a non-real-time (NRT), 6-DOF trajectory simulation was developed for the aerocapture trajectory. The simulation included vehicle dynamics, gravity model, atmosphere model, aerodynamics model, inertial measurement unit (IMU) model, attitude control thruster torque models, and GN&C algorithms (including the APC aerocapture guidance). The simulation used the vehicle and mission parameters from the ST-9 mission. A 2000 case Monte Carlo simulation was performed and results show an aerocapture success rate of greater than 99.7%, greater than 95% of total delta-V required for orbit insertion is provided by aerodynamic drag, and post-aerocapture orbit plane wedge angle error is less than 0.5 deg (3-sigma). Then a real-time (RT), 6-DOF simulation for the aerocapture trajectory was developed which demonstrated the guidance software executing on a flight-like computer, interfacing with a simulated IMU and simulated thrusters, with vehicle dynamics provided by an external simulator. Five cases from the NRT simulations were run in the RT simulation environment. The results compare well to those of the NRT simulation thus verifying the RT simulation configuration. The results of the above described simulations show the aerocapture maneuver using the APC algorithm can be accomplished reliably and the algorithm is now at TRL-6. Flight validation is the next step for aerocapture technology development.

Masciarelli, James↗
NASA NTRS2012

Trick Simulation Environment 07

The Trick Simulation Environment is a generic simulation toolkit used for constructing and running simulations. This release includes a Monte Carlo analysis simulation framework and a data analysis package. It produces all auto documentation in XML. Also, the software is capable of inserting a malfunction at any point during the simulation. Trick 07 adds variable server output options and error messaging and is capable of using and manipulating wide characters for international support. Wide character strings are available as a fundamental type for variables processed by Trick. A Trick Monte Carlo simulation uses a statistically generated, or predetermined, set of inputs to iteratively drive the simulation. Also, there is a framework in place for optimization and solution finding where developers may iteratively modify the inputs per run based on some analysis of the outputs. The data analysis package is capable of reading data from external simulation packages such as MATLAB and Octave, as well as the common comma-separated values (CSV) format used by Excel, without the use of external converters. The file formats for MATLAB and Octave were obtained from their documentation sets, and Trick maintains generic file readers for each format. XML tags store the fields in the Trick header comments. For header files, XML tags for structures and enumerations, and the members within are stored in the auto documentation. For source code files, XML tags for each function and the calling arguments are stored in the auto documentation. When a simulation is built, a top level XML file, which includes all of the header and source code XML auto documentation files, is created in the simulation directory. Trick 07 provides an XML to TeX converter. The converter reads in header and source code XML documentation files and converts the data to TeX labels and tables suitable for inclusion in TeX documents. A malfunction insertion capability allows users to override the value of any simulation variable, or call a malfunction job, at any time during the simulation. Users may specify conditions, use the return value of a malfunction trigger job, or manually activate a malfunction. The malfunction action may consist of executing a block of input file statements in an action block, setting simulation variable values, call a malfunction job, or turn on/off simulation jobs.

Lin, Alexander S.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Hybrid Reynolds-Averaged/Large Eddy Simulation of a Cavity Flameholder; Assessment of Modeling Sensitivities

Steady-state and scale-resolving simulations have been performed for flow in and around a model scramjet combustor flameholder. The cases simulated corresponded to those used to examine this flowfield experimentally using particle image velocimetry. A variety of turbulence models were used for the steady-state Reynolds-averaged simulations which included both linear and non-linear eddy viscosity models. The scale-resolving simulations used a hybrid Reynolds-averaged / large eddy simulation strategy that is designed to be a large eddy simulation everywhere except in the inner portion (log layer and below) of the boundary layer. Hence, this formulation can be regarded as a wall-modeled large eddy simulation. This effort was undertaken to formally assess the performance of the hybrid Reynolds-averaged / large eddy simulation modeling approach in a flowfield of interest to the scramjet research community. The numerical errors were quantified for both the steady-state and scale-resolving simulations prior to making any claims of predictive accuracy relative to the measurements. The steady-state Reynolds-averaged results showed a high degree of variability when comparing the predictions obtained from each turbulence model, with the non-linear eddy viscosity model (an explicit algebraic stress model) providing the most accurate prediction of the measured values. The hybrid Reynolds-averaged/large eddy simulation results were carefully scrutinized to ensure that even the coarsest grid had an acceptable level of resolution for large eddy simulation, and that the time-averaged statistics were acceptably accurate. The autocorrelation and its Fourier transform were the primary tools used for this assessment. The statistics extracted from the hybrid simulation strategy proved to be more accurate than the Reynolds-averaged results obtained using the linear eddy viscosity models. However, there was no predictive improvement noted over the results obtained from the explicit Reynolds stress model. Fortunately, the numerical error assessment at most of the axial stations used to compare with measurements clearly indicated that the scale-resolving simulations were improving (i.e. approaching the measured values) as the grid was refined. Hence, unlike a Reynolds-averaged simulation, the hybrid approach provides a mechanism to the end-user for reducing model-form errors.

Baurle, R. A.↗
NASA NTRS2024

Qualitative Headspace GCMS Analysis of Lunar Regolith and Volatile Simulant Mixtures

Introduction: Future Artemis missions aim to return the volatile-bearing samples collected near lunar polar craters. We, as advanced curation scientists, are responsible for developing techniques and methodologies for preserving the integrity of returned samples and the science value those samples contain. The extent to which that preservation is possible, and the trade-offs preservation requires (e.g. monetary costs, sample volume limitations) all must be considered. Even less-than pristine volatile-bearing samples will be of tremendous value to the scientific community seeking to unravel the history of lunar surface volatiles and, more broadly, volatiles in the solar system. A sample collected on the lunar surface will experience at least five distinctive periods during which any changes here referred to as “alteration” will certainly occur at some scale: collection on the lunar surface; transportation back to Earth; long-term storage; curatorial processing; and allocation/distribution. The Planetary Exploration and Astromaterials Research Lab (PEARL) seeks to understand temperature and pressure effects on returned volatile samples by working with high-fidelity volatile-containing regolith simulants, setting the foundation for the future of cold curation. This abstract is focused on gas-surface interactions between LCROSS volatiles and readily available lunar regolith simulants. Experiments involved analyzing differences in headspace gas composition for various combinations of volatile and regolith simulants using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Experimental Procedure: The volatile simulants were chosen based on the molecules detected during the LCROSS mission.1 Stock solutions of condensed lunar volatile analytes were: methanol, 7 N ammonia in methanol, and 0.4% hydrogen sulfide in water. The regolith simulants used were primarily JSC-1A and NU-LHT-4M. Additional regolith simulant control studies were conducted with <150 μm sieved sand and KBr. A nested vial sample preparation approach separated the liquid stock solutions from the regolith, eliminating potential matrix effects between liquid and solid phases. Fifteen microliter aliquots of liquid volatile simulants were added to a 2 mL liquid GC vial and capped in atmosphere. An 18G needle punctured the 2 mL GC vial immediately before being transferred and sealed in a 20 mL GC vial containing 0-0.3 g of regolith simulant, see Figure 1. Separating the analytes ensures any changes observed in the total headspace gases is a result of gas-surface and/or gas-gas interactions. Equipment and Method: Initial GC/MS method development for the separation and identification of relevant headspace gases can be found in Amick, et al. 2023.2 The only hardware change is a different column: a TG-1701MS 30 m × 0.25 mm × 1.00 μm column. The vials were sampled at 10°C, room temperature (~25°C) and 50°C. Low temperature samples were kept in a chilled autosampler stage for at least 1 hour prior to sampling. High temperature samples were agitated at 50°C for 5 minutes immediately prior to injection onto the column. Headspace chromatograms were collected for each combination of temperature, regolith, and volatile simulant, including controls without one or both types of analytes, in triplicate. The chromatogram elution window for each analyte or significant atmospheric gas was identified using the peak mass spectrum cross-referenced with Figure 1.Picture of the nested vial set-up. a NIST MS library search. Each analyte peak was integrated after filtering the mass spectrum trace for the parent or most unique mass-to-charge ratio. For example, the mass-to-charge ratio used to identify, filter for, and integrate the carbon dioxide peak was centered around 44 m/z. Results: Figure 2 shows the integrated peak area for hydrogen sulfide in all combinations of regolith simulants, temperatures, and the addition of ammonia in methanol solution. Multiple repeat experiments with H2S and regolith simulants have confirmed hydrogen sulfide is removed from the headspace within 1 hour when exposed to JSC-1A, NU-LHT-4M and sand (not pictured). The consumption of H2S by lunar regolith simulants at different temperatures indicates surface chemistry will be an integral component in sample integrity and preservation. It is important to note that while the effect of surface chemistry on gaseous hydrogen sulfide is intriguing, further investigation into more chemically accurate regolith simulants is necessary and ongoing. The sulfur in hydrogen sulfide is in its most reduced state while off-the-shelf, terrestrially sourced JSC-1A and NU-LHT-4M are more oxidized than most lunar materials,3which likely leads to different oxidation-reduction reactions than would be expected in lunar regolith. Figure 3 shows the integrated peak area of carbon dioxide for each sample combination that contained ammonia in methanol solution. The addition of ammonia to the GC vials results in a consistent and reproducible decrease in carbon dioxide gas, even at 50°C. The effect became more pronounced when JSC-1A or NU-LHT-4M were present. This set of experiments demonstrated that the sample composition will affect the chemical and physical state of each component present. Future spectroscopic and microscopy experiments will be geared towards identifying the cause for the CO2(g) concentration decrease and the consumption of hydrogen sulfide. As cold and volatile curation scientists, this information provides necessary insight on how to appropriately handle and analyze volatile bearing returned samples, as well as predict the effect chemical composition has on the various sample phases we will analyze upon return to Earth. Unlike traditional curation of geologic materials, the molecules in a sample cannot be identified or processed using the naked eye or even an optical microscope. Volatile curation will require a combination of analytical techniques, including but not limited to highly sensitive gas and solid/condensed phase spectroscopy. This set of experiments has demonstrated the need for more detailed studies of volatile mixtures with mineralogically and geochemically analogous lunar regolith simulants to prepare for the curation of volatile-rich lunar samples from the south polar region of the Moon. References: [1] Colaprete, A., et al. (2010) Science, 330, (463-468). [2] Amick, C. L., et al.(2023) Houston, Texas, [3] Heiken, G. H., et al.(1991) (778-778)

Cecilia L Amick↗
NASA NTRS2021

The PMIP4 Last Glacial Maximum experiments: preliminary results and comparison with the PMIP3 simulations

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ∼ 21 000 years ago) has been a major focus for evaluating how well state-of-the-art climate models simulate climate changes as large as those expected in the future using paleoclimate reconstructions. A new generation of climate models has been used to generate LGM simulations as part of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we provide a preliminary analysis and evaluation of the results of these LGM experiments (PMIP4, most of which are PMIP4-CMIP6) and compare them with the previous generation of simulations (PMIP3, most of which are PMIP3-CMIP5). We show that the global averages of the PMIP4 simulations span a larger range in terms of mean annual surface air temperature and mean annual precipitation compared to the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations, with some PMIP4 simulations reaching a globally colder and drier state. However, the multi-model global cooling average is similar for the PMIP4 and PMIP3 ensembles, while the multi-model PMIP4 mean annual precipitation average is drier than the PMIP3 one. There are important differences in both atmospheric and oceanic circulations between the two sets of experiments, with the northern and southern jet streams being more poleward and the changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation being less pronounced in the PMIP4-CMIP6 simulations than in the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations. Changes in simulated precipitation patterns are influenced by both temperature and circulation changes. Differences in simulated climate between individual models remain large. Therefore, although there are differences in the average behaviour across the two ensembles, the new simulation results are not fundamentally different from the PMIP3-CMIP5 results. Evaluation of large-scale climate features, such as land–sea contrast and polar amplification, confirms that the models capture these well and within the uncertainty of the paleoclimate reconstructions. Nevertheless, regional climate changes are less well simulated: the models underestimate extratropical cooling, particularly in winter, and precipitation changes. These results point to the utility of using paleoclimate simulations to understand the mechanisms of climate change and evaluate model performance.

Last Glacial Maximum↗
NASA NTRS1978

Use of piloted simulation for studies of fighter departure/spin susceptibility

The NASA-Langley Research Center has incorporated into its stall/spin research program on military airplanes the use of piloted, fixed-base simulation to complement the existing matrix of unique research testing techniques. The piloted simulations of fighter stall/departure flight dynamics are conducted on the Langley Differential Maneuvering Simulator (DMS). The objectives of the simulation research are reviewed. The rationale underlying the simulation methods and procedures used in the evaluation of airplane characteristics is presented. The evaluation steps used to assess fighter stall/departure characteristics are discussed. Simulation results are presented to illustrate the flight dynamics phenomena dealt with. The considerable experience accumulated in the conduct of piloted stall/departure simulation indicates that simulation provides a realistic evaluation of an airplane's maneuverability at high angles of attack and an assessment of the departure and spin susceptibility of the airplane. This realism is obtained by providing the pilot a complete simulation of the airplane and control system which can be flown using a realistic cockpit and visual display in simulations of demanding air combat maneuvering tasks. The use of the piloted simulation methods and procedures described were found very effective in identifying stability and control problem areas and in developing automatic control concepts to alleviate many of these problems. A good level of correlation between simulated flight dynamics and flight test results were obtained over the many fighter configurations studied in the simulator.

Gilbert, W. P.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Quantitative Technique for Comparing Simulant Materials through Figures of Merit

The 1989 workshop report entitled Workshop on Production and Uses of Simulated Lunar Materials and the Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage, NASA Technical Publication both identified and reinforced a need for a set of standards and requirements for the production and usage of the Lunar simulant materials. As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, and set out to Mars, a set of early requirements have been developed for simulant materials and the initial methods to produce and measure those simulants have been defined. Addressed in the requirements document are: 1) a method for evaluating the quality of any simulant of a regolith, 2) the minimum characteristics for simulants of Lunar regolith, and 3) a method to produce simulants needed for NASA's Exploration mission. As an extension of the requirements document a method to evaluate new and current simulants has been rigorously defined through the mathematics of Figures of Merit (FoM). Requirements and techniques have been developed that allow the simulant provider to compare their product to a standard reference material through Figures of Merit. Standard reference material may be physical material such as the Apollo core samples or material properties predicted for any landing site. The simulant provider is not restricted to providing a single "high fidelity" simulant, which may be costly to produce. The provider can now develop "lower fidelity" simulants for engineering applications such as drilling and mobility applications.

Rickman, Doug↗
NASA NTRS2008

The LHT (Lunar Highlands Type) Regolith Simulant Series

Three NU-LHT (NASA/USGS-Lunar Highlands Type) regolith simulants have been produced to date: NU-LHT-1M, -ID, and -2M. A fourth simulant is currently in production: NU-LHT-3C. The "M" (medium) designation indicates a simulant with a grain size of <1 mm, "D" (dust) a simulant with a grain size of <36 microns, and "C" (coarse) a simulant with a 10 cm maximum particle size. The composition of these simulants is based on a NASA average Apollo 16 regolith chemical composition, However, the mixing model used to create our simulants is based on cationic nonnative mineral proportions derived from the target chemical composition to approximate lunar modal mineralogy rather than chemical composition per se. Accordingly, the amount of plagioclase, pyroxenes, olivine, and trace minerals in the simulant crystalline fraction approximates that of the lunar regolith. We also added synthetic agglutinate in amounts approximate for low-medium regolith maturity. A pure glass fraction was also added to simulate other types of lunar glasses present in the regolith. In addition, the 3C simulant will include synthetic impact melt breccia clasts for the >1 cm particles. The bulk raw materials used to create these simulants include clinopyroxene-norite, anorthosite, hartzburgite and noritic mill waste from the Stillwater Mine, Nye, MT, and olivine from the Twin Sisters dunite, WA. Added trace minerals include beach sand ilmenite, chromite, synthetic p-tricaicium phosphate (whitiockite), gem grade fluor-apatite, and pyrite. The agglutinate, glasses, and synthetic breccia were designed and prepared at an industrial plasma melting facility in Boulder, CO, using Stillwater mill waste feedstock for the melt. These simulants do not include nanophase-feO. The M and C simulant grain size distribution (down to 0.4 microns) approximates that of Apollo 16 regolith and the regolith in general.

Stoeser, Douglas↗