Results for “technology modeling” — Page 21

NASA NTRS2000

Analysis of Post-Support and Wind-Tunnel Wall Interference on Flow Field About Subsonic High-Lift High-Speed Research Configuration

The present study was performed to determine how significant the interference effects of the wind-tunnel model support system and tunnel walls can be for a high-speed configuration during takeoff and landing conditions. A 5-percent scale model of the Technology Concept Airplane was recently tested in the Langley 14- by 22-Foot Sub-sonic Tunnel. The model was numerically modeled with and without the support and tunnel walls and compared with experimental data. Detailed analysis of the flow provided additional insight concerning what effects the post support and tunnel walls had on the flow field. This study revealed that although the overall forces and moments could be experimentally accounted for, the detailed flow features, such as the surface pressure distributions, could not be accurately simulated without including the post support in the computations.

Lessard, Wendy B.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Predicting Tropical Cyclogenesis with a Global Mesoscale Model: Hierarchical Multiscale Interactions During the Formation of Tropical Cyclone Nargis(2008)

Very severe cyclonic storm Nargis devastated Burma (Myanmar) in May 2008, caused tremendous damage and numerous fatalities, and became one of the 10 deadliest tropical cyclones (TCs) of all time. To increase the warning time in order to save lives and reduce economic damage, it is important to extend the lead time in the prediction of TCs like Nargis. As recent advances in high-resolution global models and supercomputing technology have shown the potential for improving TC track and intensity forecasts, the ability of a global mesoscale model to predict TC genesis in the Indian Ocean is examined in this study with the aim of improving simulations of TC climate. High-resolution global simulations with real data show that the initial formation and intensity variations of TC Nargis can be realistically predicted up to 5 days in advance. Preliminary analysis suggests that improved representations of the following environmental conditions and their hierarchical multiscale interactions were the key to achieving this lead time: (1) a westerly wind burst and equatorial trough, (2) an enhanced monsoon circulation with a zero wind shear line, (3) good upper-level outflow with anti-cyclonic wind shear between 200 and 850 hPa, and (4) low-level moisture convergence.

Shen, B.-W.↗

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

System Identification of Flexible Aircraft: Lessons Learned from the X-56A Phase 1 Flight Tests

The X-56A Multi-Utility Technology Testbed (MUTT) is a subscale airplane that was de-signed as an experimental flight research platform for improving aeroelastic modeling and control technologies. The Phase 1 flight tests, conducted from 2017 to 2019 at the NASA Arm-strong Flight Research Center (AFRC), included 39 flights and approximately 1000 research maneuvers, some of which demonstrated stable closed-loop flight beyond the open-loop flutter speed. This paper summarizes the system identification effort to extract nondimensional stability and control derivatives from the flight test data for constructing aeroelastic models of the flight dynamics. Topics discussed include instrumentation, experiment design, model postulation and reduction, parameter estimation, and others. Throughout the paper, unique challenges for the identification of flexible aircraft, practical aspects of the analysis, and lessons learned are presented.

Jared A Grauer↗

NASA NTRS2013

Analysis Methods for Progressive Damage of Composite Structures

This document provides an overview of recent accomplishments and lessons learned in the development of general progressive damage analysis methods for predicting the residual strength and life of composite structures. These developments are described within their State-of-the-Art (SoA) context and the associated technology barriers. The emphasis of the authors is on developing these analysis tools for application at the structural level. Hence, modeling of damage progression is undertaken at the mesoscale, where the plies of a laminate are represented as a homogenous orthotropic continuum. The aim of the present effort is establish the ranges of validity of available models, to identify technology barriers, and to establish the foundations of the future investigation efforts. Such are the necessary steps towards accurate and robust simulations that can replace some of the expensive and time-consuming "building block" tests that are currently required for the design and certification of aerospace structures.

Rose, Cheryl A.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Cryogenic Fuel Tank Draining Analysis Model

One of the technological challenges in designing advanced hypersonic aircraft and the next generation of spacecraft is developing reusable flight-weight cryogenic fuel tanks. As an aid in the design and analysis of these cryogenic tanks, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model has been developed specifically for the analysis of flow in a cryogenic fuel tank. This model employs the full set of Navier-Stokes equations, except that viscous dissipation is neglected in the energy equation. An explicit finite difference technique in two-dimensional generalized coordinates, approximated to second-order accuracy in both space and time is used. The stiffness resulting from the low Mach number is resolved by using artificial compressibility. The model simulates the transient, two-dimensional draining of a fuel tank cross section. To calculate the slosh wave dynamics the interface between the ullage gas and liquid fuel is modeled as a free surface. Then, experimental data for free convection inside a horizontal cylinder are compared with model results. Finally, cryogenic tank draining calculations are performed with three different wall heat fluxes to demonstrate the effect of wall heat flux on the internal tank flow field.

Greer, Donald↗

NASA NTRS2011

Status of NASA In-Space Propulsion Technologies and Their Infusion Potential

Since 2001, the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program has been developing in-space propulsion technologies that will enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. These in-space propulsion technologies have broad applicability to future competed Discovery and New Frontiers mission solicitations, and are potentially enabling for future NASA flagship and sample return missions currently being considered. This paper provides status of the technology development of several in-space propulsion technologies that are ready for infusion into future missions. The technologies that are ready for flight infusion are: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance; 2) NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system; and 3) Aerocapture technology development with investments in a family of thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and aerothermal effect models. Two component technologies that will be ready for flight infusion in FY12/13 are 1) Advanced Xenon Flow Control System, and 2) ultra-lightweight propellant tank technology advancements and their infusion potential will be also discussed. The paper will also describe the ISPT project s future focus on propulsion for sample return missions: 1) Mars Ascent Vehicles (MAV); 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV) needed for sample return missions from many different destinations; and 3) electric propulsion for sample return and low cost missions. These technologies are more vehicle-focused, and present a different set of technology infusion challenges. Systems/Mission Analysis focused on developing tools and assessing the application of propulsion technologies to a wide variety of mission concepts.

Anderson, David↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA In-Space Propulsion Technologies and Their Infusion Potential

The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program has been developing in-space propulsion technologies that will enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. The ISPT program is currently developing technology in four areas that include Propulsion System Technologies (Electric and Chemical), Entry Vehicle Technologies (Aerocapture and Earth entry vehicles), Spacecraft Bus and Sample Return Propulsion Technologies (components and ascent vehicles), and Systems/Mission Analysis. Three technologies are ready for flight infusion: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance; 2) NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system; and 3) Aerocapture technology development with investments in a family of thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and aerothermal effect models. Two component technologies that will be ready for flight infusion in the near future will be Advanced Xenon Flow Control System, and ultra-lightweight propellant tank technologies. Future focuses for ISPT are sample return missions and other spacecraft bus technologies like: 1) Mars Ascent Vehicles (MAV); 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV) for sample return missions; and 3) electric propulsion for sample return and low cost missions. These technologies are more vehicle-focused, and present a different set of technology infusion challenges. While the Systems/Mission Analysis area is focused on developing tools and assessing the application of propulsion technologies to a wide variety of mission concepts. These in-space propulsion technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling for future NASA Discovery, New Frontiers, and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having broad applicability to potential Flagship missions. This paper provides a brief overview of the ISPT program, describing the development status and technology infusion readiness of in-space propulsion technologies in the areas of electric propulsion, aerocapture, Earth entry vehicles, propulsion components, Mars ascent vehicle, and mission/systems analysis.

Anderson, David↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA In-Space Propulsion Technologies and Their Infusion Potential

The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program has been developing in-space propulsion technologies that will enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. The ISPT program is currently developing technology in four areas that include Propulsion System Technologies (Electric and Chemical), Entry Vehicle Technologies (Aerocapture and Earth entry vehicles), Spacecraft Bus and Sample Return Propulsion Technologies (components and ascent vehicles), and Systems/Mission Analysis. Three technologies are ready for flight infusion: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance; 2) NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system; and 3) Aerocapture technology development with investments in a family of thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and aerothermal effect models. Two component technologies that will be ready for flight infusion in the near future will be Advanced Xenon Flow Control System, and ultra-lightweight propellant tank technologies. Future focuses for ISPT are sample return missions and other spacecraft bus technologies like: 1) Mars Ascent Vehicles (MAV); 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV) for sample return missions; and 3) electric propulsion for sample return and low cost missions. These technologies are more vehicle-focused, and present a different set of technology infusion challenges. While the Systems/Mission Analysis area is focused on developing tools and assessing the application of propulsion technologies to a wide variety of mission concepts. These in-space propulsion technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling for future NASA Discovery, New Frontiers, and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having broad applicability to potential Flagship missions. This paper provides a brief overview of the ISPT program, describing the development status and technology infusion readiness of in-space propulsion technologies in the areas of electric propulsion, aerocapture, Earth entry vehicles, propulsion components, Mars ascent vehicle, and mission/systems analysis.

Anderson, David J.↗

NASA NTRS2013

The Status of Spacecraft Bus and Platform Technology Development under the NASA ISPT Program

The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program is developing spacecraft bus and platform technologies that will enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. The ISPT program is currently developing technology in four areas that include Propulsion System Technologies (electric and chemical), Entry Vehicle Technologies (aerocapture and Earth entry vehicles), Spacecraft Bus and Sample Return Propulsion Technologies (components and ascent vehicles), and Systems/Mission Analysis. Three technologies are ready for near-term flight infusion: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance; 2) NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system; and 3) Aerocapture technology development with investments in a family of thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and aerothermal effect models. Two component technologies being developed with flight infusion in mind are the Advanced Xenon Flow Control System and ultralightweight propellant tank technologies. Future directions for ISPT are technologies that relate to sample return missions and other spacecraft bus technology needs like: 1) Mars Ascent Vehicles (MAV); 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV); and 3) electric propulsion. These technologies are more vehicles and mission-focused, and present a different set of technology development and infusion steps beyond those previously implemented. The Systems/Mission Analysis area is focused on developing tools and assessing the application of propulsion and spacecraft bus technologies to a wide variety of mission concepts. These inspace propulsion technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling for future NASA Discovery, New Frontiers, and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having broad applicability to potential Flagship missions. This paper provides a brief overview of the ISPT program, describing the development status and technology infusion readiness of in-space propulsion technologies in the areas of electric propulsion, Aerocapture, Earth entry vehicles, propulsion components, Mars ascent vehicle, and mission/systems analysis.

Anderson, David J.↗

NASA NTRS2013

The Status of Spacecraft Bus and Platform Technology Development Under the NASA ISPT Program

The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program is developing spacecraft bus and platform technologies that will enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. The ISPT program is currently developing technology in four areas that include Propulsion System Technologies (electric and chemical), Entry Vehicle Technologies (aerocapture and Earth entry vehicles), Spacecraft Bus and Sample Return Propulsion Technologies (components and ascent vehicles), and Systems/Mission Analysis. Three technologies are ready for near-term flight infusion: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance 2) NASAs Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system and 3) Aerocapture technology development with investments in a family of thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells and aerothermal effect models. Two component technologies being developed with flight infusion in mind are the Advanced Xenon Flow Control System, and ultra-lightweight propellant tank technologies. Future direction for ISPT are technologies that relate to sample return missions and other spacecraft bus technology needs like: 1) Mars Ascent Vehicles (MAV) 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV) and 3) electric propulsion. These technologies are more vehicle and mission-focused, and present a different set of technology development and infusion steps beyond those previously implemented. The Systems/Mission Analysis area is focused on developing tools and assessing the application of propulsion and spacecraft bus technologies to a wide variety of mission concepts. These in-space propulsion technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling for future NASA Discovery, New Frontiers, and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having broad applicability to potential Flagship missions. This paper provides a brief overview of the ISPT program, describing the development status and technology infusion readiness of in-space propulsion technologies in the areas of electric propulsion, Aerocapture, Earth entry vehicles, propulsion components, Mars ascent vehicle, and mission/systems analysis.

Anderson, David J.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Spacecraft Bus and Platform Technology Development under the NASA ISPT Program

The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program is developing spacecraft bus and platform technologies that will enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. The ISPT program is currently developing technology in four areas that include Propulsion System Technologies (electric and chemical), Entry Vehicle Technologies (aerocapture and Earth entry vehicles), Spacecraft Bus and Sample Return Propulsion Technologies (components and ascent vehicles), and Systems/Mission Analysis. Three technologies are ready for near-term flight infusion: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance; 2) NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system; and 3) Aerocapture technology development with investments in a family of thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and aerothermal effect models. Two component technologies being developed with flight infusion in mind are the Advanced Xenon Flow Control System, and ultra-lightweight propellant tank technologies. Future direction for ISPT are technologies that relate to sample return missions and other spacecraft bus technology needs like: 1) Mars Ascent Vehicles (MAV); 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV) for sample return missions; and 3) electric propulsion for sample return and low cost missions. These technologies are more vehicle and mission-focused, and present a different set of technology development and infusion steps beyond those previously implemented. The Systems/Mission Analysis area is focused on developing tools and assessing the application of propulsion and spacecraft bus technologies to a wide variety of mission concepts. These in-space propulsion technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling for future NASA Discovery, New Frontiers, and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having broad applicability to potential Flagship missions. This paper provides a brief overview of the ISPT program, describing the development status and technology infusion readiness of in-space propulsion technologies in the areas of electric propulsion, Aerocapture, Earth entry vehicles, propulsion components, Mars ascent vehicle, and mission/systems analysis.

Anderson, David J.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Spacecraft Bus and Platform Technology Development under the NASA ISPT Program

The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program is developing spacecraft bus and platform technologies that will enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. The ISPT program is currently developing technology in four areas that include Propulsion System Technologies (electric and chemical), Entry Vehicle Technologies (aerocapture and Earth entry vehicles), Spacecraft Bus and Sample Return Propulsion Technologies (components and ascent vehicles), and Systems/Mission Analysis. Three technologies are ready for near-term flight infusion: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance 2) NASAs Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system and 3) Aerocapture technology development with investments in a family of thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells and aerothermal effect models. Two component technologies being developed with flight infusion in mind are the Advanced Xenon Flow Control System, and ultra-lightweight propellant tank technologies. Future direction for ISPT are technologies that relate to sample return missions and other spacecraft bus technology needs like: 1) Mars Ascent Vehicles (MAV) 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV) for sample return missions and 3) electric propulsion for sample return and low cost missions. These technologies are more vehicle and mission-focused, and present a different set of technology development and infusion steps beyond those previously implemented. The Systems/Mission Analysis area is focused on developing tools and assessing the application of propulsion and spacecraft bus technologies to a wide variety of mission concepts. These in-space propulsion technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling for future NASA Discovery, New Frontiers, and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having broad applicability to potential Flagship missions. This paper provides a brief overview of the ISPT program, describing the development status and technology infusion readiness of in-space propulsion technologies in the areas of electric propulsion, Aerocapture, Earth entry vehicles, propulsion components, Mars ascent vehicle, and mission/systems analysis.

Anderson, David J.↗

NASA NTRS1997

Algorithms for Performance, Dependability, and Performability Evaluation using Stochastic Activity Networks

Modeling tools and technologies are important for aerospace development. At the University of Illinois, we have worked on advancing the state of the art in modeling by Markov reward models in two important areas: reducing the memory necessary to numerically solve systems represented as stochastic activity networks and other stochastic Petri net extensions while still obtaining solutions in a reasonable amount of time, and finding numerically stable and memory-efficient methods to solve for the reward accumulated during a finite mission time. A long standing problem when modeling with high level formalisms such as stochastic activity networks is the so-called state space explosion, where the number of states increases exponentially with size of the high level model. Thus, the corresponding Markov model becomes prohibitively large and solution is constrained by the the size of primary memory. To reduce the memory necessary to numerically solve complex systems, we propose new methods that can tolerate such large state spaces that do not require any special structure in the model (as many other techniques do). First, we develop methods that generate row and columns of the state transition-rate-matrix on-the-fly, eliminating the need to explicitly store the matrix at all. Next, we introduce a new iterative solution method, called modified adaptive Gauss-Seidel, that exhibits locality in its use of data from the state transition-rate-matrix, permitting us to cache portions of the matrix and hence reduce the solution time. Finally, we develop a new memory and computationally efficient technique for Gauss-Seidel based solvers that avoids the need for generating rows of A in order to solve Ax = b. This is a significant performance improvement for on-the-fly methods as well as other recent solution techniques based on Kronecker operators. Taken together, these new results show that one can solve very large models without any special structure.

Deavours, Daniel D.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Entity-Centric Abstraction and Modeling Framework for Transportation Architectures

A comprehensive framework for representing transpportation architectures is presented. After discussing a series of preceding perspectives and formulations, the intellectual underpinning of the novel framework using an entity-centric abstraction of transportation is described. The entities include endogenous and exogenous factors and functional expressions are offered that relate these and their evolution. The end result is a Transportation Architecture Field which permits analysis of future concepts under the holistic perspective. A simulation model which stems from the framework is presented and exercised producing results which quantify improvements in air transportation due to advanced aircraft technologies. Finally, a modeling hypothesis and its accompanying criteria are proposed to test further use of the framework for evaluating new transportation solutions.

Lewe, Jung-Ho↗

NASA NTRS1994

Operating characteristics of the Russian D-55 thruster with anode layer

Performance measurements of a Russian engineering-model Thruster with Anode Layer (TAL) were obtained as part of a program to evaluate the operating characteristics of Russian Hall-thruster technology. The TAL model D-55 was designed to operate in the 1-2 kW power range on xenon. When received, the thruster had undergone only a few hours of acceptance testing by the manufacturer. Direct thrust measurements were obtained at a background pressure of 0.0003 Pa (2 x 10(exp -6) torr) at power levels ranging from 0.3 kW to 2.1 kW. At the nominal power level of 1.3 kW, a specific impulse level of 1600 s with a corresponding efficiency of 0.48 was attained. At all flow rates tested, the efficiency increased linearly with specific impulse until a maximum was reached, and then the efficiency leveled off. Increasing the anode flow rate shifted the efficiency upward, reaching 0.50 at 1850 s specific impulse. The thruster was equipped with inner and outer electromagnets which were isolated from the discharge and from each other. Variation of the magnetic field, obtained by changing the currents through the magnets, had little effect on performance, except at current levels below 70 percent of nominal. For a given operating condition, the performance was slightly affected by facility pressure. As the pressure was increased by a factor of thirty to 0.008 Pa (6 x 10(exp -5) torr), the current steadily increased by 4 percent, and the thrust increased by 2 percent. Performance comparisons were made with the Stationary Plasma Thruster, and the efficiency and specific impulse values were similar at power levels ranging from 0.9 kW to 1.5 kW. Endurance testing was not performed, and comparisons of lifetime were not made.

Sankovic, John M.↗