Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “engine qualification”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2026

Hydrofluoroether (HFE) Cleaning Fluid Replacement and Qualification

This NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) Technical Assessment Report addresses the urgent need to identify, test, and qualify replacement cleaning solvents and technologies following 3M’s decision to discontinue production of hydrofluoroether (HFE) products, including Novec HFE-7100, by the end of 2025. HFE-7100 is widely used across NASA for precision cleaning of ground and flight hardware, especially in oxygen system components, and as a heat transfer fluid in high-power-density thermal control systems. The assessment evaluates commercially available replacement solvents, alternative cleaning technologies, and their compatibility with NASA’s operational requirements. Key findings include the identification of viable solvent replacements, their performance in contaminant removal, materials compatibility, and oxygen system safety. The report also explores novel cleaning approaches, including aqueous, supercritical CO₂, cryogenic aerosol, plasma, UV-ozone, magnetically optimized fluids, and induced charge active filtration, highlighting their merits, limitations, and readiness for NASA adoption. The NESC provides recommendations for solvent selection, facility adaptation, and continued technology maturation to ensure mission continuity and regulatory compliance.

Alternative Cleaning Technologies↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis I Orion ESM Propulsion System Engine Performance

NASA's Orion spacecraft transports humans and cargo into cislunar space for the Artemis program. The European Service Module (ESM), supplied by ESA and its European industry partners, provides Orion with power and in-space propulsion. The Orion-ESM propulsion system is a bipropellant hypergolic propulsion system using monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (MON-3). Primary translational propulsion is provided by the Orbital Maneuvering System Engine(OMS-E), with backup translational propulsion provided by eight Auxiliary thrusters (AUX). Attitude control and small translational maneuvers are provided by twenty four Reaction Control System (RCS) engines. The 2022 Artemis I mission was the first integrated flight test of the Orion-ESM spacecraft and its propulsion system. The OMS-E used on Artemis I was a refurbished Space Shuttle OMS-E that previously flew on nineteen missions ranging f rom STS-41G in 1984 to STS-112 in 2002. The Auxiliary engines are modified Aerojet Rocketdyne R4D-11 engines produced specifically for the Orion program. The RCS engines are Ariane Group engines originally used for the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) program. This paper will discuss the unique operational requirements for each engine on Orion and the development and qualification effort sat both the engine and system-level that were completed to enable a successful Artemis I mission. Next the paper will evaluate the in-f light performance of the engines during the Artemis I mission showing nominal performance as expected. Additionally, comparisons to models will be presented showing very good correlation. Finally, the paper will address the plan for the engines on future Orion missions and the evolution of the system operation.

liquid propulsion systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Artemis I Orion ESM Propulsion System Engine Performance

NASA's Orion spacecraft transports humans and cargo into cislunar space for the Artemis program. The European Service Module (ESM), supplied by ESA and its European industry partners, provides Orion with power and in-space propulsion. The Orion-ESM propulsion system is a bipropellant hypergolic propulsion system using monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (MON-3). Primary translational propulsion is provided by the Orbital Maneuvering System Engine (OMS-E), with backup translational propulsion provided by eight Auxiliary thrusters (AUX). Attitude control and small translational maneuvers are provided by twenty-four Reaction Control System (RCS) engines. The 2022 Artemis I mission was the first integrated flight test of the Orion-ESM spacecraft and its propulsion system. The OMS-E used on Artemis I was a refurbished Space Shuttle OMS-E that previously flew on nineteen missions ranging from STS-41G in 1984 to STS-112 in 2002. The Auxiliary engines are modified Aerojet Rocketdyne R4D-11 engines produced specifically for the Orion program. The RCS engines are Ariane Group engines originally used for the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) program. This paper will discuss the unique operational requirements for each engine on Orion and the development and qualification effort sat both the engine and system-level that were completed to enable a successful Artemis I mission. Next the paper will evaluate the in-f light performance of the engines during the Artemis I mission showing nominal performance as expected. Additionally, comparisons to models will be presented showing very good correlation. Finally, the paper will address the plan for the engines on future Orion missions and the evolution of the system operation.

liquid propulsion systems↗
NASA NTRS1993

STS-51 pad abort. OV103-engine 2033 (ME-2) fuel flowmeter sensor open circuit

The STS-51 initial launch attempt of Discovery (OV-103) was terminated on KSC launch pad 39B on 12 Aug. 1993 at 9:12 AM E.S.T. due to a sensor redundancy failure in the liquid hydrogen system of ME-2 (Engine 2033). The event description and time line are summarized. Propellant loading was initiated on 12 Aug. 1993 at 12:00 AM EST. All space shuttle main engine (SSME) chill parameters and Launch Commit Criteria (LCC) were nominal. At engine start plus 1.34 seconds a Failure Identification (FID) was posted against Engine 2033 for exceeding the 1800 spin intra-channel (A1-A2) Fuel Flowrate sensor channel qualification limit. The engine was shut down at 1.50 seconds followed by Engines 2032 and 2030. All shut down sequences were nominal and the mission was safely aborted. SSME Avionics hardware and software performed nominally during the incident. A review of vehicle data table (VDT) data and controller software logic revealed no failure indications other than the single FID 111-101, Fuel Flowrate Intra-Channel Test Channel A disqualification. Software logic was executed according to requirements and there was no anomalous controller software operation. Immediately following the abort, a Rocketdyne/NASA failure investigation team was assembled. The team successfully isolated the failure cause to an open circuit in a Fuel Flowrate Sensor. This type of failure has occurred eight previous times in ground testing. The sensor had performed acceptably on three previous flights of the engine and SSME flight history shows 684 combined fuel flow rate sensor channel flights without failure. The disqualification of an Engine 2 (SSME No. 2033) Fuel Flowrate sensor channel was a result of an instrumentation failure and not engine performance. All other engine operations were nominal. This disqualification resulted in an engine shutdown and safe sequential shutdown of all three engines prior to ignition of the solid boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1975

Electronic delay ignition module for single bridgewire Apollo standard initiator

An engineering model and a qualification model of the EDIM were constructed and tested to Scout flight qualification criteria. The qualification model incorporated design improvements resulting from the engineering model tests. Compatibility with single bridgewire Apollo standard initiator (SBASI) was proven by test firing forty-five (45) SBASI's with worst case voltage and temperature conditions. The EDIM was successfully qualified for Scout flight application with no failures during testing of the qualification unit. Included is a method of implementing the EDIM into Scout vehicle hardware and the ground support equipment necessary to check out the system.

Ward, R. D.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Development Testing and Subsequent Failure Investigation of a Spring Strut Mechanism

Commodities are transferred between the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) crew module (CM) and service module (SM) via an external umbilical that is driven apart with spring-loaded struts after the structural connection is severed. The spring struts must operate correctly for the modules to separate safely. There was no vibration testing of strut development units scoped in the MPCV Program Plan; therefore, any design problems discovered as a result of vibration testing would not have been found until the component qualification. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) and Lockheed Martin (LM) performed random vibration testing on a single spring strut development unit to assess its ability to withstand qualification level random vibration environments. Failure of the strut while exposed to random vibration resulted in a follow-on failure investigation, design changes, and additional development tests. This paper focuses on the results of the failure investigations including identified lessons learned and best practices to aid in future design iterations of the spring strut and to help other mechanism developers avoid similar pitfalls.

Dervan, Jared↗
NASA NTRS2009

Aerojet - Attitude Control Engines

All the engines were both qualification and acceptance tested at Marquardt s facilities. After we won the Apollo Program contract, we went off and built two vacuum test facilities, which simulated altitude continuous firing for as long as we wanted to run an engine. They would run days and days with the same capability we had on steam ejection. We did all of the testing in both for the qualification and the acceptance test. One of them was a large ball, which was an eighteen-foot diameter sphere, evacuated again with a big steam ejector system that could be used for system testing; that s where we did the Lunar Excursion Module testing. We put the whole cluster in there and tested the entire cluster at the simulated altitude conditions. The lowest altitude we tested at - typically an acceptance test - was 105,000 feet simulated altitude. The big ball - because people were interested in what they called goop formation, which is an unburned hydrazine product migrating to cold surfaces on different parts of spacecraft - was built to address those kinds of issues. We ran long-life tests in a simulated space environment with the entire inside of the test cell around the test article, liquid nitrogen cooled, so it could act as getter for any of the exhaust products. That particular facility could pull down to about 350,000 feet (atmosphere) equivalent altitude, which was pushing pretty close to the thermodynamic triple point of the MMH. It was a good test facility. Those facilities are no longer there. When the guys at Marquardt sold the company to what eventually became part of Aerojet, all those test facilities were cut off at the roots. I think they have a movie studio there at this point. That part of it is truly not recoverable, but it did some excellent high-altitude, space-equivalent testing at the time. Surprisingly, we had very few problems while testing in the San Fernando Valley. In the early 1960s, nobody had ever seen dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), so that wasn't too big a deal. We really did only make small, red clouds. In all the hundreds of thousands of tests and probably well over one million firings that I was around that place for, in all that thirty-something years, we had a total of one serious injury associated with rocket engine testing and propellants. Because we were trying to figure out what propellants would really be good, we tried all of the fun stuff like the carbon tetrafluoride, chlorine pentafluoride, and pure fluorine. The materials knowledge wasn't all that great at the time. On one test, the fluorine we had didn't react well with the copper they were using for tubing, and it managed to cause another unscheduled disassembly of the facility. It was very serious. It's like one of those Korean War stories. The technician happened to be walking past the test facility when it decided to blow itself up. A piece of copper tubing pierced one cheek and came out the other. That was the only serious accident in all of the engines handled in all those years. Now, we did have a problem with the EPA later because they figured out what the brown clouds were about. We built a whole bunch of exhaust mitigation scrubbers to take care of engine testing in the daytime. In general, we operated the big shuttle (RCS) engine, the 870- pounder at nominal conditions; they scrubbed the effluents pretty well. If you operated that same 870-pound force engine at a level where you get a lot of excess oxidizer, yeah, there s a brown cloud. But, you know, it doesn't show up well in the dark. They did do some of that. But, that s gone; it was addressed one way or another. RELEASED -

Pfeifer, Gerald R.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Status and Remaining Challenges for Manned Space-Flight Applications

The Fuel Cell has been used for manned space flight since the Gemini program. Its power output and water production capability over long durations for the mass and volume are critical for manned space-flight requirements. The alkaline fuel cell used on the Shuttle, while very reliable and capable for it s application, has operational sensitivities, limited life, and an expensive recycle cost. The PEM fuel cell offers many potential improvements in those areas. NASA Glenn Research Center is currently leading a PEM fuel cell development and test program intended to move the technology closer to the point required for manned space-flight consideration. This paper will address the advantages of PEM fuel cell technology and its potential for future space flight as compared to existing alkaline fuel cells. It will also cover the technical hurdles that must be overcome. In addition, a description of the NASA PEM fuel cell development program will be presented, and the current status of this effort discussed. The effort is a combination of stack and ancillary component hardware development, culminating in breadboard and engineering model unit assembly and test. Finally, a detailed roadmap for proceeding fiom engineering model hardware to qualification and flight hardware will be proposed. Innovative test engineering and potential payload manifesting may be required to actually validate/certify a PEM fuel cell for manned space flight.

Reaves, Will F.↗
NASA NTRS2002

COBRA Main Engine Project

The COBRA (CO-Optimized Booster for Reusable Applications) project include the following: 1. COBRA main engine project team. 2. COBRA and RLX cycles selected. 3. COBRA proto-type engine approach enables mission success. 4. COBRA provides quick, low cost demo of cycle and technologies. 5. COBRA cycle I risk reduction supports. 6. Achieving engine safety. 6. RLX cycle I risk reduction supports. 7. Flight qualification. 9. Life extension engine testing.

Snoddy, Jim↗
NASA NTRS1971

A Saturn launched X-ray astronomy experiment. Volume 1: S-027

The S-027 X-Ray Astronomy Experiment originally proposed in early 1966, was developed to detect X-rays in the 2 keV to 10 keV range. Both a prototype unit and flight unit were constructed with the prototype unit also serving as the engineering model, the qualification test unit, and after refurbishment, as the back-up flight unit. Two Ground Support Equipment consoles were built to verify the experiment operation. A photograph of one experiment package with its Ground Support Equipment is shown. The S-027 experiment was scheduled for launch in 1968/69 and although both units were completed and tested to the extent that either would be ready for the scheduled launch, delays in the space program resulted in a launch date slip of several years. When the 1968/69 launch delay became official, provisions were made for storage of the two experiment packages at SCI Electronics in Huntsville, Alabama until a new launch date could be established.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

A manual for pyrotechnic design, development and qualification

Although pyrotechnic devices have been singularly responsible for the success of many of the critical mechanical functions in aerospace programs for over 30 years, ground and in-flight failures continue to occur. Subsequent investigations reveal that little or no quantitative information is available on measuring the effects on performance of system variables or on determining functional margins. Pyrotechnics are considered to be readily available and, therefore, can be managed by any subsystem in which they are applied, such as structure, propulsion, electric power, or life support. The primary purpose of this manual is to alter the concept that the use of pyrotechnics is an art and refute 'justifications' that applications do not need to be understood by providing information on pyrotechnic design, development, and qualification on an engineering basis. Included are approaches to demonstrate functional reliability with less than 10 units, how to manage pyrotechnic-unique requirements, and methods to assure that the system is properly assembled and will perform the required tasks.

Bement, Laurence J.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Cathodes Delivered for Space Station Plasma Contactor System

The International Space Station's (ISS) power system is designed with high-voltage solar arrays that typically operate at output voltages of 140 to 160 volts (V). The ISS grounding scheme electrically ties the habitat modules, structure, and radiators to the negative tap of the solar arrays. Without some active charge control method, this electrical configuration and the plasma current balance would cause the habitat modules, structure, and radiators to float to voltages as large as -120 V with respect to the ambient space plasma. With such large negative floating potentials, the ISS could have deleterious interactions with the space plasma. These interactions could include arcing through insulating surfaces and sputtering of conductive surfaces as ions are accelerated by the spacecraft plasma sheath. A plasma contactor system was baselined on the ISS to prevent arcing and sputtering. The sole requirement for the system is contained within a single directive (SSP 30000, paragraph 3.1.3.2.1.8): "The Space Station structure floating potential at all points on the Space Station shall be controlled to within 40 V of the ionospheric plasma potential using a plasma contactor." NASA is developing this plasma contactor as part of the ISS electrical power system. For ISS, efficient and rapid emission of high electron currents is required from the plasma contactor system under conditions of variable and uncertain current demand. A hollow cathode plasma source is well suited for this application and was, therefore, selected as the design approach for the station plasma contactor system. In addition to the plasma source, which is referred to as a hollow cathode assembly, or HCA, the plasma contactor system includes two other subsystems. These are the power electronics unit and the xenon gas feed system. The Rocketdyne Division of Boeing North American is responsible for the design, fabrication, assembly, test, and integration of the plasma contactor system. Because of technical and schedule considerations, the NASA Lewis Research Center was asked to manufacture and deliver the engineering model, the qualification model, and the flight HCA units for the plasma contactor system as government furnished equipment. To date, multiple units have been built. One cathode has demonstrated approximately 28 000-hr lifetime, two development HCA units have demonstrated over 15 000-hr lifetime, and one HCA unit has demonstrated more than 38 000 ignitions. All eight flight HCA's have been manufactured, acceptance tested, and are ready for delivery to the flight contractor.

Patterson, Michael J.↗
NASA NTRS2006

In-Flight Validation of a Pilot Rating Scale for Evaluating Failure Transients in Electronic Flight Control Systems

Engineering development and qualification of a Research Flight Control System (RFCS) for the Rotorcraft Aircrew Systems Concepts Airborne Laboratory (RASCAL) JUH-60A has motivated the development of a pilot rating scale for evaluating failure transients in fly-by-wire flight control systems. The RASCAL RFCS includes a highly-reliable, dual-channel Servo Control Unit (SCU) to command and monitor the performance of the fly-by-wire actuators and protect against the effects of erroneous commands from the flexible, but single-thread Flight Control Computer. During the design phase of the RFCS, two piloted simulations were conducted on the Ames Research Center Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) to help define the required performance characteristics of the safety monitoring algorithms in the SCU. Simulated failures, including hard-over and slow-over commands, were injected into the command path, and the aircraft response and safety monitor performance were evaluated. A subjective Failure/Recovery Rating (F/RR) scale was developed as a means of quantifying the effects of the injected failures on the aircraft state and the degree of pilot effort required to safely recover the aircraft. A brief evaluation of the rating scale was also conducted on the Army/NASA CH-47B variable stability helicopter to confirm that the rating scale was likely to be equally applicable to in-flight evaluations. Following the initial research flight qualification of the RFCS in 2002, a flight test effort was begun to validate the performance of the safety monitors and to validate their design for the safe conduct of research flight testing. Simulated failures were injected into the SCU, and the F/RR scale was applied to assess the results. The results validate the performance of the monitors, and indicate that the Failure/Recovery Rating scale is a very useful tool for evaluating failure transients in fly-by-wire flight control systems.

Kalinowski, Kevin F.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Space Technology: Game Changing Development Deep Space Engine (DSE) 100 lbf and 5 lbf Thruster Development and Qualification

Science mission studies require spacecraft propulsion systems that are high-performance, lightweight, and compact. Highly matured technology and low-cost, short development time of the propulsion system are also very desirable. The Deep Space Engine (DSE) 100-lbf thruster is being developed to meet these needs. The overall goal of this game changing technology project is to qualify the DSE thrusters along with 5-lbf attitude control thrusters for space flight and for inclusion in science and exploration missions. The aim is to perform qualification tests representative of mission duty cycles. Most exploration missions are constrained by mass, power and cost. As major propulsion components, thrusters are identified as high-risk, long-lead development items. NASA spacecraft primarily rely on 1960s' heritage in-space thruster designs and opportunities exist for reducing size, weight, power, and cost through the utilization of modern materials and advanced manufacturing techniques. Advancements in MON-25/MMH hypergolic bipropellant thrusters represent a promising avenue for addressing these deficiencies with tremendous mission enhancing benefits. DSE is much lighter and costs less than currently available thrusters in comparable thrust classes. Because MON-25 propellants operate at lower temperatures, less power is needed for propellant conditioning for in-space propulsion applications, especially long duration and/or deep-space missions. Reduced power results in reduced mass for batteries and solar panels. DSE is capable of operating at a wide propellant temperature range (between -22 F and 122 F) while a similar existing thruster operates between 45 F and 70 F. Such a capability offers robust propulsion operation as well as flexibility in design. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center evaluated available operational Missile Defense Agency heritage thrusters suitable for the science and lunar lander propulsion systems.

Barnett, Gregory↗