Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “TPS”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Reusable TPS Materials Development Activities at NASA Ames

Recent developments in low-cost access to low-earth orbit (LEO) and hypersonic flight are driving renewed demand in reusable thermal protection systems (RTPS) that have not had broad application since the Space Shuttle era. Modern systems will need to consider full cycle cost (lower cost raw materials, manufacturing, integration, and refurbishment) in addition to improved performance to enable this new generation of space flight. NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) has a long history of RTPS development including modern state-of-the-art materials like Alumina Enhanced Thermal Barrier (AETB), and multi-component systems like Toughened Uni-piece Fibrous Reinforced Oxidation-resistant Composite (TUFROC). Now, ARC is supporting the growing commercial space field through internal research and development efforts for high-risk low TRL materials and collaboration with commercial partners including technology transfer. This talk will discuss the current development efforts at ARC that span updating legacy insulating systems with modern raw materials and processes to totally novel designs for heat pipes with various low-TRL activities in between. It will also discuss Ames’ recent re-investment in experimental capabilities to enable characterization and material testing.

Adam Caldwell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Robust and Mass Efficient Thermal Protection Systems for Future Venus Missions

Several international Venus missions, both orbiter, and in-situ probe are in the works after a prolonged absence. Future missions are expected to be long-duration lander missions and balloon missions to investigate the cloud layer. The entry mass for these in-situ missions will be significantly higher, and the aeroshell will be larger, than previous missions. Two cardinal requirements govern the selection and use of thermal protection systems (TPS), namely, robustness to assure mission safety during entry and mass efficiency so that the useful mass for science is maximized. One cannot trade mission safety for mass when it comes to TPS. The robustness of the TPS is a paramount requirement as it is a single point of system failure. At the same time, TPS mass is carried for the entire mission duration prior to entry, and any excess TPS mass is at the cost of science payload. Future missions will benefit enormously from TPS options with mass and performance benefits far beyond advanced carbon-carbon (ACC) that is currently proposed for the DAVINCI mission. NASA STMD, and SMD jointly invested in the development of 3-D woven thermal protection systems in the last decade, and as a result, the Heat-shield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology (HEEET) TPS has been matured to TRL 6. It is ready for future mission use including Venus. The HEEET project focused on developing a broad technology base, applicable for missions not only to Venus, but also to Saturn, the Ice Giants, and higher speed sample return missions such as Mars Sample Return requiring extreme robustness due to bio-hazards. The dual-layer HEEET (DL-HEEET) is proven to be extremely robust. DL-HEEET performed well in arc jet and laser testing conditions where heritage carbon-phenolic failed. HEEET also proved to be more mass efficient compared to Carbon-Phenolic. Recently, the principal author was invited to present his perspectives to the 2023-2032 Planetary Sciences Decadal Venus subcommittee on the current state of TPS for future Venus missions [1]. In addition to pointing out successful TPS and other developments in the last decade in support of entry systems, the principal author made two findings: 1) importance of and need to sustain TPS capabilities that took nearly a decade to develop and 2) the opportunity to further optimize TPS mass without sacrificing robustness to further enable future in-situ missions. This talk will focus on the above two recommendations and provide the rationale for them. The intent of the talk is to seek advocacy from the VEXAG community for the criticality of TPS sustainment and the benefits of 3D woven TPS optimization. TPS Capability Sustainment: HEEET development was necessitated by the atrophy of heritage carbon-phenolic. Atrophy has impacted other TPS materials as well. Avcoat, the TPS that successfully allowed astronauts to explore the Moon in the 1960s and 70s, took nearly a decade and $10’sM to recover in support of Orion/Artemis. One of the most used TPS materials, SLA 561V, had to be recovered prior to its use on Mars Pathfinder. Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA), the TPS that replaced SLA 561V on MSL, has undergone multiple replacements and recovery due to constituent rayon changes. Recently, NASA invested in a domestic rayon replacement program and also invested in FMI to consolidate PICA capability for NASA missions, as a result of FMI’s decision to discontinue commercial FiberForm, which is needed for PICA. TPS used for planetary missions are unique and have no other commercial or defense use. In addition, low mission cadence is also a driver for TPS atrophy. Hence, NASA, as the steward, must take steps to ensure and sustain TPS capabilities. In this talk, we outline steps NASA can take to keep abreast of emerging risks and target risk mitigation steps to ensure TPS capability sustainment for Venus and other extreme environment missions. Next Generation of Mass efficient and Robust TPS: NASA invested in an alternate TPS to PICA based on felt-technology called Conformal-PICA which has the potential to save 30% - 50% mass over PICA. The development was discontinued at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of ~ 5. 3D Mid-Density Carbon Phenolic (3MDCP) is a single layer variant of HEEET, based on the insulating layer only (SL-HEEET) and currently baselined for the Mars Sample Return Mission Earth Entry System due to its mass efficiency (30% more mass efficient than DL- HEEET). Currently, SL-HEEET is limited to aeroshell diameters of < 1.3m. The SL-HEEET was compared to DL-HEEET in the recent ADVENT flag-ship class mission study in support of the Planetary Science Decadal. SL HEEET was the recommended TPS based on 30% mass savings for both the balloon and lander missions. Given C-PICA and SL-HEEET have superior reliability and mass efficiency, advocacy from VEXAG is sought for completing their further development to TRL 5/6 in this decade so as to enable TPS readiness for future missions.

Thermal Protection Systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Thermal Protection System to Enable Ice Giant Aerocapture Mission for Delivering Both an Orbiter and an In Situ Probe

The Ice Giants have been identified as high priority science destinations in the last Decadal Survey [1] and could benefit from aerocapture as the primary method for orbit insertion [2]. A mass-efficient aerocapture system will enable the delivery of an orbiter along with an atmospheric probe (for in situ measurements to anchor global data collected by the orbiter) and possibly a lander at Triton [3]. Aerocapture could be executed either using low L/D rigid aeroshell with lift modulation (LMA) [4] or using deployable aeroshell using drag modulation (DMA) [3]. Nearly two decades ago, a NASA-funded team performed Neptune-Triton aerocapture studies with a mid-L/D lifting configuration [5] for achieving orbit using LMA. This study showed aerocapture challenges. Due to very high peak entry conditions combined with very high heat-load, a suite of TPS materials was required and this suite was deemed problematic from a qualification perspective, due test facility limitations. In the past 20 years, progress made in GN&C for lift-guided entry missions such as MSL, Orion EFT1, Mars 2020 and the upcoming Artemis missions, and the expertise in blunt body aerodynamics at large scale (~ 5m) has led the EDL community to conclude that aerocapture is a “go do” engineering activity and most technologies are in hand to propose missions with aerocapture [6] [7]. Aerocapture using DMA, currently in development, is an option for Ice Giant Missions. While DMA is simpler in some sense, due to ballistic entry and no need for lift-guided maneuvering, it has challenges and it’s maturity is lower. LMA and DMA both require one or more ablative Thermal Protection System (TPS) materials for the rigid aeroshell element. The ablative TPS needs to be robust and mass efficient due to the high heat loads and size of the rigid aeroshell. Currently, there are capable ablative thermal protection materials, e.g., Heatshield for Extreme Entry Environments Technology (HEEET), 3-D woven Mid-Density Carbon- Phenolic (3MDCP), and PICA (Phenolic-Impregnated Carbon Ablator) that are mature, i.e., at TRL 6 or higher. NASA also invested in Conformal PICA that was matured to TRL 5. Our goal is to evaluate the applicability of high TRL TPS and consider other design options. We first establish bounding aerocapture trajectories for a wide range of arrival conditions and the associated aerothermal environment. Based on the environments, we then determine the predicted TPS mass for the aeroshell [4]. In this presentation, we will outline the process by which we establish bounding aerocapture trajectories for hyperbolic excess velocities ranging from 27 km/s to 35 km/s, which are shown to be a range of velocities that can reduce the trip time from ~14 years to 8 years. The above velocity range translates to ~12 km/s to ~24 km/s arrival velocities at the planetary entry interface [2]. The velocity reduction required to achieve orbit ranges between ~2.5 km/s to 9.5 km/s for both Neptune and Triton. Propulsive insertion alone, due to the amount of fuel required to achieve the required velocity reduction, limits the science returned [2]. We establish the bounding aerocapture trajectories for a low L/D (~ 0.4) configuration for three different ballistic coefficients. The ballistic coefficient range is determined from three different aeroshell diameters of 3m, 4m and 5m and with an entry system mass of 2200 kg. With the above range of design parameters, we then determine conservative/bounding estimates of aerothermal environments by using a combination of CFD simulations and stagnation point heating estimates [7]. This engineering approach allows us to first assess the TPS need vs. TPS capability and determine the applicability of existing TPS. Once an applicable suite of TPS is determined, the TPS thickness and mass are computed. We show that the TPS mass fraction can be as low as 5% to as high as 20%, depending on total trip time reduction and other design parameters for a range of TPS. This is a large range for TPS mass fraction. We show PICA and HEEET can indeed enable aerocapture missions, but the missions incur a mass penalty. TPS mass savings, can be further reduced with the use of conformal PICA. Advancing the development of Conformal PICA to make it robust across the entire aerothermal environment (peak heat-flux, pressure and shear) range will result in TPS mass fractions of < 10% for Ice Giant aerocapture missions such as the Neptune-Triton mission. Aerocapture allows for not only shortening the trip time but enables larger mass to be placed in orbit. Furthermore, probes deployed from orbit will benefit in reduced entry environments allowing for a lower risk TPS implementation as compared to mission designs where the probe is released prior to orbit insertion. One of the challenges for the Ice Giant community is to ensure mission designs that maximize science and allow flexibility in the placement of the entry probe. The traditional approach to release the probe ahead of the orbiter may not optimize returned science. In this presentation, we will make the case for mature TPS such as HEEET and PICA. While these materials can enable aerocapture missions, completing the development of conformal PICA and extending Conformal PICA to be more robust, will have significant impact to TPS mass efficiency and significantly enhance science return for future Gas- and Ice-Giant missions.

E Venkatapathy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Next Generation Thermal Protection System for Outer Planet Probes and Orbiter

Saturn Probe and Ice Giant Orbiter along with in-situ Probe Missions continue to be very high priority mis-sions. A result of the advocacy by OPAG and other Analysis Groups, the 3D Woven, Dual-Layer HEEET thermal protection system, mature at TRL 6, has closed the TPS gap for extreme environment missions. A mid density follow on to DL HEEET, developed to meet earth entry requirements, is a Single Layer vari-ant of the 3D woven TPS, which provides a mass effi-cient single layer 3D Mid-Density TPS (3MDCP) that has been baselined as the heatshield for MSR EEV. Continued development of 3MDCP will elevate it to TRL 6 by 2025. Conformal-PICA (C-PICA) devel-opment was pursued to establish a more efficient and robust alternate to PICA, and it is at TRL 4+. Our rationale for the next generation of TPS de-velopment is based on the on the missions needs of the next decade Outer Planet missions that are unique and more demanding than any other destinations. Taking advantage of the recent planned development of sev-eral materials, the next generation of TPS offers a much more mass efficient option for small, medium, and large class Outer Planet missions. Saturn Probes: While mission designers are gen-erally interested in shallow entry to maintain the g-load during entry around 50g, the heat-load for shallow entry can range between (100 kJ/cm2 – 300 kJ/cm2), two orders of magnitude higher than Venus or Sample Return missions. TPS must not only offer protection but must be mass efficient to perform reasonable sci-ence. TPS mass can quickly become 50% or more of the mass of the entire entry system. Recent analysis performed shows Saturn Probe missions could signifi-cantly benefit from the single layer HEEET (SL-HEEET/3MDCP). A DL-HEEET based heatshield mass could be ~ (40% -50%), SL-HEEET can provide additional (30% - 50%) mass savings. At the same time, C-PICA can provide (30% - 50%) mass savings on the backshell. The combined mass savings can be significant enough to carry an additional probe, if de-sired. Ice Giant Aerocapture Missions: Aerocapture mission architectures can provide significant ad-vantage over traditional propulsive insertion missions in multiple ways. 1) Reduced trip time ~ (4- 6) years (30% -40%), 2) Enables placing the orbiter, probe, and lander, all together and 3) Allows for greater science mass (probes and landers) due to mass efficiency. The delivery of a probe from orbit makes it easier and eliminates mission design constraints by HEEET for direct entry [4] of probes and allows for more targeted in-situ science once the Orbiter is able to collect data. In the past 20 years, progress made in GN&C for lift-guided entry missions (MSL, Orion EFT1, Mars 2020) and the expertise in blunt body aerodynamics at large scale (~ 5m) has led the EDL community to conclude that aerocapture is a “go do” engineering activity. An aerocapture mission that will deplete the excess energy of a fast arrival mission will require a mass efficient TPS that can handle extreme heat-load, ~ (100 kJ/cm2 – 500 kJ/cm2). Hence TPS, feasibility as well as mass efficiency requires assessment. Utilizing the recent developments, a comprehensive, bounding analysis was done to establish the potential for SOA (HEEET) system as well as emerging new TPS such as SL-HEEET and C-PICA. In this proposed poster, we will outline the process by which we establish bounding aerocapture trajecto-ries for hyperbolic excess velocities ranging from 27 km/s to 35 km/s, for low L/D (~ 0.4) configurations and determine conservative/bounding estimate of aer-othermal environment by using a combination of CFD simulations and stagnation point heating estimates [7]. This engineering approach allows us to assess the TPS need vs. TPS capability and determine the applicability of existing TPS. Once an applicable suite of TPS is determined, the TPS thickness and mass are comput-ed. We show that the TPS mass fraction can be as low as 5% to as high as 20%, depending on the use of ad-vanced TPS, while HEEET is sufficient but will require 50% of the entry mass.

E Venkatapathy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Efforts to Explore Additively Manufactured Thermal Protection Systems

Development of the thermal protection system (TPS) needed to protect external and internal surfaces during launch, ascent, cruise, and reentry, is a very specialized field with expertise developed over seven decades and has enabled successful robotic as well as human exploration. Well known examples are: 1) the ablative heatshield that protected Apollo Astronauts during reentry in 1960’s, 2) reusable TPS used on the Space Shuttle Orbiter, which is now sought after by commercial space industry, and 3) hot structures, such as Carbon-Carbon and other high temperature materials needed to operate control surfaces and sharp leading edges during hypervelocity flight. TPS function demands fail-safe design to ensure mission success. One TPS does not fit all, and each application requires a unique material along with manufacturing and integration approach. TPS mass is a key metric. A robust but inefficient TPS reduces payload mass. Mission- and domain-unique TPS development and flight certification efforts have been expensive with long lead times. As a result, there are limited TPS choices with high cost. For future commercial efforts to be successful, the ability to rapidly develop TPS, based on specific needs and at a lower cost, without compromising either mass efficiency or functionality is necessary. NASA is looking into this. Additive manufacturing (AM) techniques have shown their utility in making complex parts and, through automation, the potential to reduce cost and schedule in some applications. The promise of additive manufacturing to TPS, while exciting, is unexplored. In the past several years, NASA has made exploratory investments in internal development as well as in small business and universities through SBIR and STTR programs. In addition, NASA is bringing together the TPS as well as Additive Manufacturing communities to explore approaches to prioritize focus areas for broad benefits. The very first “Additively Manufactured Thermal Protection System Workshop,” to be held at NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston at the end of March of this year, is the culmination of a year-long effort to engage the research, development, and user communities involved in both TPS as well as additive manufacturing. The workshop participants include representatives from large and small commercial space industry, DoD, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, University Researchers and NASA personnel. The proposed talk will highlight future TPS needs of both emerging commercial and Government interests, NASA’s development efforts in additively manufactured TPS, and the findings and recommendations from the first AM TPS Workshop.

Ethiraj Venkatapathy↗
NASA NTRS2018

Thermal Protection Systems Technology Transfer from Apollo and Space Shuttle to the Orion Program

This paper describes how the Orion program is utilizing the Thermal Protection System (TPS) experience from the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs to reduce program risk and improve affordability to meet NASA's future manned exploration missions. The Orion program successfully completed the Exploration Flight Test (EFT-1) mission in 2014 and is currently assembling, integrating, and testing the next spacecraft for the Exploration Mission (EM-1) to meet the flight test objectives of an unmanned orbital mission to the moon and return to earth in 2019. The Orion spacecraft production operations are located in the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout (O&C) facility at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) providing an affordable and seamless delivery approach of vehicles directly to the launch site eliminating spacecraft transportation and additional checkout testing. Innovative vehicle design, manufacturing and test operations approaches are maturing and evolving with each Orion vehicle build to support the challenging NASA exploration mission requirements beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) while reducing program cost and schedule impacts. An example of Orion's evolution is the incorporation of an improved heat shield design, assembly and testing approach to meet the higher re-entry velocities for a lunar return for the EM-1 mission. The EFT- 1 heat shield was based on the Apollo heat shield manufacturing processes and was assembled at a supplier location and then transported to KSC for final integration. The EM-1 heat shield is now manufactured, assembled, tested, and installed into the spacecraft at the O&C facility reducing program cost and production schedules. The transition of the Space Shuttle TPS capabilities has enabled Orion to provide a human rated capsule design using proven materials and processes established over years of orbiter re-entry missions. The Orion Crew Module (CM) TPS configuration is derived from the Apollo CM approach utilizing improved materials and processes developed from the Space Shuttle program. The Orion EFT-1 heat shield utilized the Avcoat ablative material from Apollo which was injected into a honeycomb substrate and has been updated for EM-1 incorporating a block configuration bonded to a composite shell structure. This approach utilizes the proven Avcoat material for the heat shield ablator and is utilizing derived bonding and inspection methods and techniques from the Space Shuttle tile experience. The Orion back shell TPS configuration is based on Space Shuttle tile designs using proven tile materials and coatings. The Orion forward bay cover utilizes the high temperature tiles similar to the back shell tiles and low temperature blankets derived from the Space Shuttle program reducing weight impacts. Space Shuttle Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) is installed in the Orion capsule to control the interior temperature environment providing a light weight design. These TPS design approaches have performed successfully on the Orion first flight test on EFT-1 and are incorporated in the configuration for the next flight test for EM-1. Completion of these two flight tests will certify the TPS for the Orion program for human rated exploration missions and has reduced the development cost to the Orion program. In addition to transitioning the Space Shuttle TPS design configurations to Orion, the supporting manufacturing infrastructure, manufacturing processes, and inspection methods are also incorporated into the Orion assembly operations at KSC. This has avoided significant startup schedule and costs impacts of new capabilities and development of support operations necessary to fabricate, install, inspect, and validate the TPS installations for the Orion spacecraft. The Thermal Protection System Facility (TPSF) which supported the Space Shuttle program provides the heat shield Avcoat blocks and the back shell AETB-8 tiles for Orion program. Extending the existing Space Shuttle TPS operations at KSC provides onsite support to the Orion spacecraft assembly operations. A significant benefit to the Orion program is the transition of the Space Shuttle technician work force at KSC. This highly skilled workforce was able to transition to the Orion program and immediately support the TPS installation operations. They brought with them the human rated manufacturing and assembly operations culture that was critical to the Space Shuttle success avoiding the retraining cost and schedule impacts of a new workforce to Orion. The technician skills certification program from the Space Shuttle was found to be compatible with the Lockheed Martin technician certification programs enabling a seamless training process utilizing process similarity avoiding the cost of retraining the work force to Orion standards. The existing workforce is certificated for multiple processes enabling reassignment of technicians to other tasks in the Orion AI&P operations reducing the overall touch labor manpower requirements. Additional benefits of using the Space Shuttle workforce is the incorporation of the lessons learned from Space Shuttle processes to improve the Orion TPS processes. This has resulted in a continuous evolution of TPS processes to improve the producibility and reduce the program cost for the TPS for the Orion program. Transitioning the Apollo and Space Shuttle TPS designs, processes, and technician workforce has been instrumental in enabling Orion to successfully meet the program challenges for NASA's exploration missions of the future.

Stewart, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2002

Advanced Metallic Thermal Protection System Development

A new Adaptable, Robust, Metallic, Operable, Reusable (ARMOR) thermal protection system (TPS) concept has been designed, analyzed, and fabricated. In addition to the inherent tailorable robustness of metallic TPS, ARMOR TPS offers improved features based on lessons learned from previous metallic TPS development efforts. A specific location on a single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle was selected to develop loads and requirements needed to design prototype ARMOR TPS panels. The design loads include ascent and entry heating rate histories, pressures, acoustics, and accelerations. Additional TPS design issues were identified and discussed. An iterative sizing procedure was used to size the ARMOR TPS panels for thermal and structural loads as part of an integrated TPS/cryogenic tank structural wall. The TPS panels were sized to maintain acceptable temperatures on the underlying structure and to operate under the design structural loading. Detailed creep analyses were also performed on critical components of the ARMOR TPS panels. A lightweight, thermally compliant TPS support system (TPSS) was designed to connect the TPS to the cryogenic tank structure. Four 18-inch-square ARMOR TPS panels were fabricated. Details of the fabrication process are presented. Details of the TPSS for connecting the ARMOR TPS panels to the externally stiffened cryogenic tank structure are also described. Test plans for the fabricated hardware are presented.

Blosser, M. L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probabalistic Risk Analysis and Thermal Margin Process for an Inflatable Aeroshell

Uncertainties always exist in atmospheric entry aeroheating environments and the thermal response of thermal protection system (TPS) material. These uncertainties are mitigated in the design by ap-plying margin and factors of safety to the TPS. Entry vehicle TPS is often conservatively over-sized for the heat loads that are experienced along the entry trajectory by stacking worst-case scenarios together. Additionally, the current TPS design and margin process used by NASA offers very little insight into the risk of over-temperature during flight and the reliability of the heat shield performance [1,3]. A probabilistic margin process can be used to calculate the amount of TPS margin necessary to survive a given entry heat load at a specified level of risk [2,3,4]. The vehicle’s initial entry state (entry velocity, flight path angle, and entry mass) determines the expected atmospheric entry environmental conditions and resulting heat load that the entry vehicle will experience. If there is flexibility in the entry state, then this process can be used to select an appropriate combination of entry state parameters and TPS size to target a desired reentry reliability. This probabilistic margin process allows engineers to make informed aeroshell design, entry-trajectory design, and TPS performance risk trades while preventing excessive TPS margin from being applied. The probabilistic TPS margin process has been performed to determine TPS thickness and entry heating constraints given an acceptable risk level for the Low Earth Orbit Flight Experiment of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) flight project. The process is used in a manner to size the entry heat load for a given flexible TPS (FTPS) thickness so that it meets project reliability standards while allowing the FTPS and the underlying inflatable structure (IS) to be pushed to adequately high temperatures. Since the LOFTID project is an experimental flight demonstration, it is de-sired to drive the FTPS and IS to temperatures that cover a large range of their thermal response models’ applicability. This will allow the thermal response models to be better improved and validated post-flight using LOFTID’s extensive instrumentation embedded within the aeroshell. The presentation demonstrates how uncertainty analysis is carried out using an end-to-end Monte Carlo process where three separate Monte Carlo simulations are run in sequence. The first Monte Carlo simulation operates on the entry trajectory model to generate trajectory parameter dispersions that are fed into the second Monte Carlo simulation. The second Monte Carlo simulation operates on the aerothermodynamics model to generate aeroheating parameter dispersions that are fed into the third Monte Carlo simulation. The third Monte Carlo simulation operates on the FTPS material thermal response model to generate the final FTPS/IS thermal response dispersions. The end-to-end Monte Carlo simulation propagates the uncertainties of each model into the next to quantify the resulting uncertainty of the FTPS/IS thermal response. The fractional contributions of the uncertain parameters in the trajectory, aerothermal, and thermal response models to the variance in the FTPS/IS thermal response is determined as a byproduct of the Monte Carlo analysis. The structural uncertainty of the FTPS thermal response model is evaluated by flight relevant ground testing and model error analysis using test measurements. This probabilistic TPS margin process had never been applied to an entry vehicle and it is one of the LOFTID project’s goals to demonstrate its merits.

Steven A. Tobin↗