Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CFM Technologies”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Cameron J. Hines↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRS2018

Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation and Vibration Evaluation Rig (SHIIVER)

The Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation, and Vibration Evaluation Rig (SHIIVER) is a large scale cryogenic fluid management (CFM) test bed designed to scale CFM technologies for inclusion on large, in-space stages. A part of the evolvable Cryogenics (eCryo) project, SHIIVER is a technology development task that is supportive of future exploration propulsion needs. Technologies developed under the eCryo Project will play a critical role in enabling increasingly longer duration in-space missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

Vapor cooling↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Feasibility and Utility of a Cryogenic Integrated RCS

Traditional in-space propulsion systems use storable propellants, such as MMH/NTO, for applications beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Modern advancements in Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technologies opens the door for use of more efficient cryogenic propellants, such as LOX/LCH4 or LOX/LH2, in these long-duration missions beyond LEO. As these Main Propulsion Systems (MPS) transition to cryogenic propellants, a cryogenic solution for Reaction Control Systems (RCS) becomes attractive for several reasons. A mixed-fluid vehicle solution with cryogenic (cool) MPS and storable (warm) RCS complicates thermal management. Additionally, a vehicle with common cryogenic propellant across the MPS and RCS could take advantage of shared hardware such as tanks, thermal management equipment, and pressurization system, reducing mass and development time. The fluid system design proposed in this presentation features shared hardware, leading to the designation of Cryogenic Integrated Reaction Control System (iRCS). The iRCS design stores cryogenic propellant in the low-pressure (10’s psia) MPS tanks, creates steady high-pressure (100’s psia) flow through an electric pump (e-pump), feeds pulse-firing RCS thrusters, and returns any excess flow to the tank through a pressure control device on a recirculation line. This iRCS design is inspired by the automotive fuel-rail, where similar elevated-pressure and pulse-firing requirements are levied. This design has several inherent advantages. Because this design is pump-fed rather than pressure-fed, heavy, high-pressure propellant storage is not required. The RCS propellant can therefore be stored by increasing MPS tank volume. Furthermore, by increasing the pressure of the circulated fluid through an e-pump, the propellant quality moves further into the sub-cooled regime. Sub-cooled liquid is desirable for accurate pressure and flow control at the thruster inlet. Lastly, the iRCS allows the distribution system hardware to maintain cryogenic temperatures by slowly recirculating liquid in a low-energy “Idle Mode”. Altogether, the iRCS concept enables a more efficient cryogenic vehicle design.

Integrated Reaction Control System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Feasibility and Utility of a Cryogenic Integrated RCS

Traditional in-space propulsion systems use storable propellants, such as MMH/NTO, for applications beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Modern advancements in Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technologies opens the door for use of more efficient cryogenic propellants, such as LOX/LCH4 or LOX/LH2, in these long-duration missions beyond LEO. As these Main Propulsion Systems (MPS) transition to cryogenic propellants, a cryogenic solution for Reaction Control Systems (RCS) becomes attractive for several reasons. A mixed-fluid vehicle solution with cryogenic (cool) MPS and storable (warm) RCS complicates thermal management. Additionally, a vehicle with common cryogenic propellant across the MPS and RCS could take advantage of shared hardware such as tanks, thermal management equipment, and pressurization system, reducing mass and development time. The fluid system design proposed in this presentation features shared hardware, leading to the designation of Cryogenic Integrated Reaction Control System (iRCS). The iRCS design stores cryogenic propellant in the low-pressure (10’s psia) MPS tanks, creates steady high-pressure (100’s psia) flow through an electric pump (e-pump), feeds pulse-firing RCS thrusters, and returns any excess flow to the tank through a pressure control device on a recirculation line. This iRCS design is inspired by the automotive fuel-rail, where similar elevated-pressure and pulse-firing requirements are levied. This design has several inherent advantages. Because this design is pump-fed rather than pressure-fed, heavy, high-pressure propellant storage is not required. The RCS propellant can therefore be stored by increasing MPS tank volume. Furthermore, by increasing the pressure of the circulated fluid through an e-pump, the propellant quality moves further into the sub-cooled regime. Sub-cooled liquid is desirable for accurate pressure and flow control at the thruster inlet. Lastly, the iRCS allows the distribution system hardware to maintain cryogenic temperatures by slowly recirculating liquid in a low-energy “Idle Mode”. Altogether, the iRCS concept enables a more efficient cryogenic vehicle design.

Integrated↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Liquid Hydrogen Tank Chill and No-Vent Fill Prediction using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cryogenic tank chill and fill is an important cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technology that supports and enables many of NASA’s long-duration space missions. For no-vent fill, the receiver tank pressure remains below the supply tank pressure during the entire duration of the fill so that the tank does not require venting. This is especially advantageous for tank fill operations in low gravity where the position of the liquid is not always known and venting the tank may cause loss of propellant by venting liquid. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate computational models capable of predicting receiver tank pressure during cryogenic propellant tank fill may be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk. However, these numerical models must be validated or anchored to test data. This study presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model with conjugate heat transfer that is used to predict a liquid hydrogen tank chill and no-vent fill ground test conducted at Lewis Research Center (now Glenn Research Center) in 1991. The specific test case chosen for model validation implemented an upward-facing jet near the bottom of a cylindrical 34 liter tank. CFD predictions are compared to experimental measurements of tank pressure, fill level, fluid temperatures, and wall temperatures. The CFD results show reasonable agreement to the test data but overpredict the pressure collapse near the end of the fill despite the liquid jet penetrating the liquid-vapor interface. Several sensitivity studies are considered due to notable uncertainties in the experiment.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Liquid Hydrogen Tank Chill and No-Vent Fill Prediction Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cryogenic tank chill and fill is an important cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technology that supports and enables many of NASA’s long-duration space missions. For no-vent fill, the receiver tank pressure remains below the supply tank pressure during the entire duration of the fill so that the tank does not require venting. This is especially advantageous for tank fill operations in low gravity where the position of the liquid is not always known and venting the tank may cause loss of propellant by venting liquid. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate computational models capable of predicting receiver tank pressure during cryogenic propellant tank fill may be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk. However, these numerical models must be validated or anchored to test data. This study presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model with conjugate heat transfer that is used to predict a liquid hydrogen tank chill and no-vent fill ground test conducted at Lewis Research Center (now Glenn Research Center) in 1991. The specific test case chosen for model validation implemented an upward-facing jet near the bottom of a cylindrical 34 liter tank. CFD predictions are compared to experimental measurements of tank pressure, fill level, fluid temperatures, and wall temperatures. The CFD results show reasonable agreement to the test data but overpredict the pressure collapse near the end of the fill despite the liquid jet penetrating the liquid-vapor interface. Several sensitivity studies are considered due to notable uncertainties in the experiment.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRS2023

Solid-State Thermodynamic Vent System for Control of Cryogenic Propellants

A Solid-State Thermodynamic Vent System (STVS) is a novel Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technology for spacecraft cryogenic propellant tanks that may reduce boiloff while providing greater control over the propellent condition. By exploiting the vacuum-induced cryocooling potential of cryogen-saturated silica aerogel material, an internal STVS heat exchanger expels some sacrificial cryogenic propellant to the vacuum of space to produce cooling within the storage tank. This cooling is transferred directly to the stored fluid, thereby reducing boiloff and increasing hold times. The primary STVS project objective was to design and build a bespoke STVS heat exchanger that employed aerogel blanket material and perform a ground demonstration of the technology using liquid nitrogen (LN2) as the cryogenic propellant. This demonstration aimed to prove that an STVS can have a positive influence on the tank boiloff, shown through a reduction in mass flow rate out of the system during operation, and exercise control over the tank pressure. Testing proved the effectiveness of the concept by reducing the LN2 boiloff rate and tank pressure by roughly 70% and 77% respectively during a single pump-down cycle, which sacrificed around 1.8 kg of propellant.

Propellant Production↗
NASA NTRS2023

Experimental Investigation of Flow Orientation Effects on Cryogenic Flow Boiling

Cryogenic flow boiling physics is of paramount importance for future cryogenic space applications employing Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technologies. This experimental study investigates the two-phase flow and heat transfer performance of LN 2 flow boiling across five distinct flow orientations: vertical upflow, vertical downflow, horizontal flow, 45° inclined upflow, and 45° inclined downflow. The study employed the steady- state heating method within a circular heated tube featuring an 8.5-mm inner diameter and a 680-mm heated length. High-speed video recordings were utilized to capture two-phase flow patterns and interfacial behaviors across various flow orientations. The experiments covered a wide range of operating conditions, including mass velocities ranging from 351.80 to 1572.77 kg/m 2 s and inlet pressures from 297.14 to 1032.97 kPa, primarily with near-saturated inlet subcooling. Distinct two-phase flow patterns and regime transitions were identified for each flow orientation. Symmetrical flow patterns were evident in vertical orientations, whereas non-vertical orientations exhibited asymmetric flow stratifications, primarily influenced by the buoyancy force in a terrestrial gravity environment. Bubble dynamic parameters were quantified, and bubble collision and dispersion phenomena were visualized. Analyzing heat transfer performance based on local flow boiling curves and variations in heat transfer coefficients (HTCs), it was observed that vertical upflow demonstrated the most enhanced heat transfer performance, while vertical downflow exhibited the lowest. As mass velocity exceeded 830 kg/ m 2 s, the differences in heat transfer among orientations became less distinct, emphasizing the role of flow inertia in mitigating the influence of flow orientation. A direct comparison of microgravity HTC data from a recent study by the authors against the 1-𝘨 e HTC data indicated enhanced heat transfer performance in microgravity for flow orientation configurations in terrestrial gravity. However, this enhancement progressively diminished as the heat flux increased. Distinct HTC trends were observed as mass velocity increased for different flow orientations and gravity levels.

Cryogens↗
NASA NTRS2024

Solid-State Thermodynamic Vent System (STVS) for Control of Cryogenic Propellants

A Solid-State Thermodynamic Vent System (STVS) is a novel Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) technology for spacecraft cryogenic propellant tanks that may reduce boiloff while providing greater control over the propellant condition. By exploiting the vacuum-induced cryocooling (VIC) potential of cryogen-saturated silica aerogel material, an internal STVS heat exchanger (HX) can expel some sacrificial cryogenic propellant to the vacuum of space to produce cooling within the storage tank. This cooling is transferred directly to the stored fluid, thereby reducing boiloff and increasing hold times. Testing proved the effectiveness of the concept by reducing the liquid nitrogen (LN 2 ) boiloff rate and tank pressure by roughly 70% and 77%, respectively, during a single pump-down cycle, which sacrificed around 1.8 kg of propellant.

Cryogenic Fluid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Cryogenic Propellant Tank Self-Pressurization

NASA’s near-future long-term space missions necessitate advancements in cryogenic fluid management (CFM), which includes safe and reliable long-term propellant storage. Consequently, NASA STMD (Space Technology Mission Directorate) has established the CFM Portfolio Project to improve CFM technologies for upcoming missions. As a part of CFM Modeling Portfolio, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s (MSFC) Fluid Dynamics branch within the Propulsion Systems Department is tasked with assessing and improving computational tools used to support flight projects such as Human Lander System and Commercial Lunar Payload Services. One of the challenging modeling problems is that of self-pressurization of propellant tank due to heat leakage over long time periods. Reduced order and nodal tools find it extremely difficult to accurately predict self-pressurization under transient conditions or where complex flow patterns or thermal gradients exist, and application of 3-D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) simulations is necessary to characterize these problems. Until recently, CFD simulations for these long-term processes (order of hours or days) have been too impractical to conduct due to prohibitive wall time and computational resource requirements. The requisite CFD tool need to be efficient, computationally scalable, modular with ability to incorporate various physics models, and robust enough to not accumulate conservation errors over several hours of simulated time. NASA MSFC’s Loci-Stream CFD tool along with the VOF module is a great candidate to fit this mold. In this paper, we validate Loci-Stream for predicting self-pressurization of a flight scale propellant tank so it can serve as a reliable design and analysis tool for NASA’s CFM application needs. Liquid hydrogen tank pressurization tests carried out at the K-site testing facility provide a reliable data set for this purpose. These tests were simulated using Loci-Stream solver with VOF module as well as a hybrid approach which uses a lumped model for the ullage gas domain and CFD simulation of the liquid propellant. Both are shown to have very good predictive capabilities over multiple K-site experiments.

Hong Q. Yang↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Cryogenic Propellant Tank Self-Pressurization

NASA's near-future long-term space missions necessitate advancements in cryogenic fluid management (CFM), which includes safe and reliable long-term propellant storage. Consequently, NASA STMD (Space Technology Mission Directorate) has established the CFM Portfolio Project to improve CFM technologies for upcoming missions. As a part of CFM Modeling Portfolio, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC) Fluid Dynamics branch within the Propulsion Systems Department is tasked with assessing and improving computational tools used to support flight projects such as Human Lander System and Commercial Lunar Payload Services. One of the challenging modeling problems is that of self-pressurization of propellant tank due to heat leakage over long time periods. Reduced order and nodal tools find it extremely difficult to accurately predict self-pressurization under transient conditions or where complex flow patterns or thermal gradients exist, and application of 3-D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) simulations is necessary to characterize these problems. Until recently, CFD simulations for these long-term processes (order of hours or days) have been too impractical to conduct due to prohibitive wall time and computational resource requirements. The requisite CFD tool need to be efficient, computationally scalable, modular with ability to incorporate various physics models, and robust enough to not accumulate conservation errors over several hours of simulated time. NASA MSFC's Loci-Stream CFD tool along with the VOF module is a great candidate to fit this mold. In this paper, we validate Loci-Stream for predicting self-pressurization of a flight scale propellant tank so it can serve as a reliable design and analysis tool for NASA's CFM application needs. Liquid hydrogen tank pressurization tests carried out at the K-site testing facility provide a reliable data set for this purpose. These tests were simulated using Loci-Stream solver with VOF module as well as a hybrid approach which uses a lumped model for the ullage gas domain and CFD simulation of the liquid propellant. Both are shown to have very good predictive capabilities over multiple K-site experiments.

cryogenic fluid management↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cryogenic Fluid Management Technologies Enabling for the Artemis Program and Beyond

NASA is endeavoring on an ambitious return to the Moon and eventually on to Mars through the Artemis Program leveraging innovative technologies to establish sustainable exploration architectures collaborating with US commercial and international partners[1]. Future NASA architectures have baselined cryogenic propulsion systems to support lunar missions and ultimately future missions to Mars. NASA has been investing in maturing CFM active and passive storage, transfer, and gauging technologies over the last decade plus primarily focused on ground development with a few small-scale microgravity fluid experiments. Recently, NASA created a Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM)Technology Roadmap identifying the critical gaps requiring further development to reach a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 prior to infusion to flight applications. To address the technology gaps the Space Technology Mission Directorate(STMD)strategically plans to invest in a diversified CFM portfolio approach through ground and flight demonstrations ,collaborating with international partners, and leveraging Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) opportunities with US industry through the Tipping Point and Announcement of Collaborative Opportunities (ACO) solicitations. Once proven, these system capabilities will enable the high performing cryogenic propellant systems needed for the Artemis Program and beyond.

Cryogenic Fluid Management↗
NASA NTRS1991

Cryogenic Orbital Nitrogen Experiment (CONE): Phase A/B design study

Subcritical cryogenic fluid management (CFM) has long been recognized as an enabling technology for future space missions. Subcritical liquid storage and supply are two of the five CFM technology areas that need to be studied in the low gravity on-orbit environment. The Cryogenic Orbital Nitrogen Experiment (CONE) is a LN2 cryogenic storage and supply system demonstration placed in orbit by the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) Orbiter and operated as an in-bay payload. In-space demonstration of CFM using LN2 with a few well defined areas of focus would provide the confidence level required to implement subcritical cryogen use and is the first step towards the more far reaching issue of cryogen transfer and tankage resupply. A conceptual approach for CONE was developed and an overview of the program is described including the following: (1) a description of the background and scope of the technology objectives; (2) a description of the payload design and operation; and (3) the justification for CONE relating to potential near term benefits and risk mitigation for future systems. Data and criteria is provided to correlate in-space performance with analytical and numerical modeling of CFM systems.

Bailey, William J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cryogenic Fluid Management for the Artemis Program and Beyond

NASA is endeavoring on an ambitious return to the Moon and eventually on to Mars through the Artemis Program leveraging innovative technologies to establish sustainable exploration architectures collaborating with US commercial and international partners [1]. Future NASA architectures have baselined cryogenic propulsion systems to support lunar missions and ultimately future missions to Mars. NASA has been investing in maturing CFM active and passive storage, transfer, and gauging technologies over the last decade plus primarily focused on ground development with a few small-scale microgravity fluid experiments. Recently, NASA created a Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) Technology Roadmap identifying the critical gaps requiring further development to reach a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 prior to infusion to flight applications. To address the technology gaps the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) strategically plans to invest in a diversified CFM portfolio approach through ground and flight demonstrations, collaborating with international partners, and leveraging Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) opportunities with US industry through the Tipping Point and Announcement of Collaborative Opportunities (ACO) solicitations. Once proven, these system capabilities will enable the high performing cryogenic propellant systems needed for the Artemis Program and beyond.

Cryogenic Fluid Management↗