Results for “Start Date” — Page 29

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Autonomous Ocean World Exploration: Advancement of a Virtual Testbed

The search for life (extinct or extant) and potentially habitable bodies in our solar system and beyond is one of the 12 priority science questions outlined in the National Acadamies’ 2022 decadal survey [5]. Extraterrestrial destinations containing liquid water present an opportunity to search for life as we know it, and in recent years an increasing number of such locations have been discovered within our solar system. Several Jovian moons—Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto [10]—and the Saturnian moons Enceladus [8] and Titan [9] are known or suspected to harbor massive subsurface oceans. Of these "ocean worlds", Europa is the focus of at least one planned NASA orbiter mission, Europa Clipper [4], and an early lander mission concept, the Europa Lander [2, 3]. Whereas most robotic missions to the Moon and Mars (e.g. orbiters, rovers, landers) to date have had ground controllers on Earth tightly involved in mission operations, missions to more distant worlds will require a high degree of onboard autonomy due to long communication lags and blackouts, harsh environments (radiation, cold), and more limited battery and hardware life. The past decade has seen great advances in both AI technologies and computing scalability and performance that offer promising solutions for spacecraft autonomy and motivate the software system and research programs described in this paper. The Ocean Worlds Autonomy Testbed for Exploration, Research, and Simulation (OceanWATERS) [1], which has been in development at the NASA Ames Research Center since 2018, is a virtual environment for testing lander autonomy solutions. It is built on the Robot Operating System (ROS), runs on consumer-grade Linux workstations, and was released as open source in 2020. OceanWATERS provides a physical and visual simulation of a prototypical lander in a Europa-like environment (Figure 1). The lander was modeled after requirements and specifications made in JPL’s Europa Lander Study of 2016 [3]. Simulated lander systems include stereo cameras and spotlights mounted on an antenna mast that pans and tilts, a 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) robotic arm with a force-torque sensor and two interchangeable end effectors, and a battery pack power system. The environment consists of multiple terrain models including a highly detailed model sourced from the FROST dataset [11], simulation of surrounding planetary bodies based on an ephemeris model, and lighting from the sun with associated surface illumination, reflectance, and shadows. Operations supported by OceanWATERS include panoramic and directed imaging of the environment and lander workspace, Cartesian and joint-level arm commanding, grinding of the terrain surface (e.g. digging a trench), and scooping of ground material (Figure 2) which can be discarded or collected as science samples in a receptacle that can be emptied (science operations themselves are not simulated). These operations are realized as ROS Actions and are complimented by a wide selection of telemetry that is continually produced by each lander subsystem. The power system model is driven by the open-source Generic Software Architecture for Prognostics (GSAP) [11] that predicts the battery’s remaining useful life and other characteristics. As a testbed for high-level autonomy, OceanWATERS provides an execution framework based on PLEXIL [12], an open-source plan specification language and execution engine developed largely at Ames. NASA's initial development of OceanWATERS, as well the Ocean Worlds Lander Autonomy Testbed (OWLAT) [6], a complimentary physical testbed developed at JPL, was the first step in a plan for realizing candidate onboard autonomy solutions for such planetary landers. In 2020 NASA solicited applications for its Autonomous Robotics Research for Ocean Worlds (ARROW) program, and in 2021 the similar Concepts for Ocean worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech) program. Collectively six research teams, based in universities and companies across the United States, were awarded grants to develop and demonstrate autonomy solutions on OceanWATERS and OWLAT. These 1–2-year projects have now finished or are nearing completion, and a wide variety of autonomy challenges in ocean world surface missions were addressed. Prototyped and demonstrated solutions have included autonomous discovery, response and adaptation to system faults and unexpected environmental events, world model synthesis through perception, plan synthesis using learned models, methods to optimize sample target selection and prioritize science data transmission, extension of PLEXIL for stochastic decision-making, and an integration of a model of JPL’s mission-ready COLDArm [7]. Technologies used in these projects include many forms of machine learning, causal reasoning, automated planning, Markov decision processes, formal methods, and other advanced techniques. A more detailed summary of the ARROW and COLDTech projects is given herein. OceanWATERS has had significant enhancements since its open-source release in 2020. Many of its new features were driven or shaped by feedback from the ARROW and COLDTech teams and requirements of their projects. In support of enabling autonomous adaptation to spacecraft faults (a specific capability solicited by both programs), a fault injection and detection framework was developed that supports a wide and growing range of fault types such as locked joints, image loss, and battery failures. The power system model was completed and integrated into the simulator, starting as a single-cell battery model and later upgraded to a multi-cell model with associated faults such as cell disconnection. Arm/terrain interaction was improved by adding a force-torque sensor and associated faults, and an analytic dig force model based on the Balovnev bucket force equations. Environment fidelity was increased by modeling terrain deformation resulting from digging and scooping; visual improvements were made in textures, lighting, and shadows. To facilitate interoperation with OWLAT, a unified command and telemetry interface between the testbeds was developed at the ROS level, along with a PLEXIL interface. The number of lander operations was greatly expanded (e.g. with Cartesian-based arm and antenna movement), and a framework was designed for users to build their own lander actions. A GUI for PLEXIL plan selection was created (Figure 3), and an expansive set of plans were added, such as those that illustrate patterns for fault handling. This paper provides a self-contained high-level description of OceanWATERS, focusing on more detailed coverage of the aforementioned enhancements. It provides a high-level summary of the projects undertaken by participants in the ARROW and COLDTech programs and how these efforts have helped shape OceanWATERS. Finally, potential future work and directions for the testbed are listed, as likely informed by the recent planetary science decadal survey [5].

K Michael Dalal↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Pink Spinel in Apollo Impact Melt Rock 68815: Implications for Mg-Suite Magmatism

Introduction: Magnesian rocks from the lunar highlands are collectively termed the Mg-suite. Characterized by high (>60) Mg# (molar 100×Mg/[Mg+Fe]) in mafic phases and calcic plagioclase, these rocks are plutonic to hypabyssal in origin, and include a range of bulk mineralogies such as troctolites, dunites, norites, gabbronorites, and spinel troctolites [1]. These Mg-suite lithologies have distinct trace element concentrations and ratios that differentiate them from other lunar rock types. These rocks are ancient, generally dated to between 4.5 and 4.1 Ga, although it is unknown if this represents the full range of Mg-suite ages [1–2]. Among the Mg-suite lithologies, the spinel troctolites are relatively rare, to date only found in polymict breccias [3]. Spinel troctolites, as their name suggests, consist of calcic plagioclase and forsteritic olivine, with minor amounts of spinel (MgAl2O4), ± pyroxene and cordierite [1,4]. This form of spinel is often called ‘pink’ spinel because of its appearance in thin section under plane polarized light (PPL; Fig. 1), due to minor amounts of Cr. Spinel troctolites are generally plutonic or hypabyssal in origin (subsequently exhumed and incorporated into polymict breccias), or formed through impact processes (e.g., crystalline impact melt) [5]. A spinel-rich lithology has also been found in the Moscoviense region of the Moon via the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) and lacks other mafic phases [6]. Finally, while the Mg-suite sampled thus far consists of plutonic (or hypabyssal) rocks, the question remains if such magmas could have erupted on the surface of the Moon [7]. These magmas have much lower density than mare basalts, but little sample or remote sensing evidence has been found to support the idea that extrusive Mg-suite volcanism occurred [7]. Here, we present a coordinated microanalytical study of spinel-bearing lithic and mineral clasts found in Apollo sample 68815. These data will be used to understand their petrogenesis (magmatic or impact) and modification histories, and to shed light on the existence of volcanic Mg-suite rocks. Sample Description: Apollo sample 68815 is a polymict impact melt breccia containing a variety of lithic and mineral fragments embedded in devitrified impact melt. This sample was chipped off the top of a boulder at Station 8 during the Apollo 16 mission and had an original weight of nearly 1.8 kg. In this study, we investigated two polished thin sections of 68815: 68815,17 and 68815,148, both containing spinel. Methods: The thin sections of 68815 were studied using optical light microscopy (PPL, cross-polarized light, and reflected light) with a Keyence VHX-7100 Digital Microscope. Each section was then X-ray mapped for 13–14 elements using a Cameca SX100 electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA) located in the Kuiper Materials Imaging and Characterization Facility (KMICF) at the University of Arizona. We have obtained geochemical information about the phases (olivine, plagioclase, spinel, pyroxene) in the thin sections also using the EPMA. In addition, we have used ThermoScientific Helios NanoLab 660 Focused-Ion-Beam Scanning-Electron Microscope (FIB-SEM) and a Hitachi S-4800 SEM (both in KMICF) to obtain backscattered electron (BSE) images and energy dispersive Xray spectrometry (EDS) maps of areas of interest. Using a JEOL 7900F SEM at the Astromaterials Research & Exploration Science (ARES) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), we have obtained electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) maps of the spinel-bearing portions of the thin sections. The EBSD data were collected under beam conditions of 20 kV, and ~90 μA, with step sizes varying from 0.05 to 2 μm. Following EBSD data collection, we processed the data using AZtecCrystal and MTEX, a free MATLAB toolbox. Results: We have found clasts with subophitic textures, that consist of primarily olivine and plagioclase, with minor amounts of pink Mg-Al spinel and pyroxene (Fig. 1). These clasts are up to ~1 mm in length and contain spinels up to 50 μm across. We have additionally identified pink Mg-Al spinels within the impact melt (i.e., not contained in lithic clasts) in both thin sections. In one instance, a single spinel grain is approximately 300 μm across (Fig. 1b, 2). The spinel fragments embedded in impact melt have varying compositions, typically distinct from the compositions of spinels in the lithic clasts. Spinel-Bearing Clasts: Ten lithic clasts with similar textures and mineral compositions were identified between 68815,17 (two clasts) and ,148 (eight clasts). These clasts fall into two groups. The first has skeletal olivine with intergranular plagioclase, with minor amounts of pyroxene and spinel (Fig. 1a, 2c, 2d). The spinel in these clasts are found amid the plagioclase. The second group have an intergranular texture of olivine and plagioclase, again with minor spinel and pyroxene. The second group may contain spinels surrounded by plagioclase, and spinels enclosed in olivine. Spinels located within both clast types range from no apparent Cr zoning, to reverse zoning (Cr-enrichment inward; Fig. 2d), to normal zoning (Cr-enrichment outward). In the clasts thus far investigated with EPMA, plagioclase compositions range from An# (molar 100×Ca/[Ca+Na+K]) 92–96. Olivine Mg# ranged from 77 to 94, while pyroxene had Mg# from 54–84. Spinel in the clasts have Cr# (molar 100×Cr/[Cr+Al]) 2–4 and Mg# 88–91, which is within the range of pristine and plutonic spinel troctolites [8]. Isolated Spinels: These crystals are generally euhedral to subhedral, and can exhibit reverse Cr zoning (Cr enrichment inward) or no apparent Cr zoning. The spinels thus far investigated via EPMA have Cr# 9–14 and Mg# 65–82. The Cr# for these spinels is within the range reported by [8], but have lower Mg#. Future Work: We will continue to process the EBSD data for these lithic and mineral clasts. We will also continue to characterize these clasts using EPMA and SEM. By thoroughly characterizing the various spinels and spinel-bearing clasts, we aim to constrain the petrogenesis of these minerals and rock fragments. Acknowledgments: We thank NASA for the loan of these thin sections. We thank Ken Domanik and Jerry Chang for their support with data collection. Work was supported by a University of Arizona RII Core Facilities Pilot Program grant and start-up funds to JJB. We acknowledge support from NASA’s Planetary Science Research program for analysis performed at JSC. References: [1] Shearer C. K. et al. (2015) Am. Min. 100, 294–325. [2] Borg L. E. et al. (2020) GCA 290, 312–332. [3] Warren P. H. (1993) Am. Min. 78, 360–376. [4] Dymek R. F. et al. (1976) LPS VII, 2335–2378. [5] Treiman et al. (2019) Am. Min. 104, 370–384. [6] Pieters et al. (2011) JGR: Plan. 116:E00G08. [7] Prissel et al. (2016) Icarus 277, 319–329. [8] Prissel et al. (2016) Am. Min. 101, 1624–1635.

spinel↗