Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “moving shock”

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.

561 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Silica and Pyroxene in IVA Irons; Possible Formation of the IVA Magma by Impact Melting and Reduction of L-LL-Chondrite Materials Followed by Crystallization and Cooling

Group IVA is a large magmatic group of iron meteorites. The mean DELTA O-17 (= delta O-17 - 0.52(raised dot) delta O-18) of the silicates is approx. plus or minus 1.2%o, similar to the highest values in L chondrites and the lowest values in LL chondrites; delta O-18 values are also in the L/LL range. This strongly suggests that IVA irons formed by melting L-LL parental material, but the mean Ni content of IVA irons (83 mg/g) is much lower than that of a presumed L-LL parent (approx. 170 mg/g) and the low-Ca pyroxene present in two IVA meteorites is Fs13, much lower than the Fs20-29 values in L and LL chondrites. Thus, formation from L-LL precursors requires extensive addition of metallic Fe, probably produced by reduction of FeS and FeO. Group IVA also has S/Ni, Ga/Ni, and Ge/Ni ratios that are much lower than those in L-LL chondrites or any chondrite group that preserves nebular compositions, implying loss of these volatile elements during asteroidal processing. We suggest that these reduction and loss processes occurred near the surface of the asteroid during impact heating, and resulted partly from reduction by C, and partly from the thermal dissociation of FeS and FeO with loss of O and S. The hot (approx. 1770 K) low-viscosity melt quickly moved through channels in the porous asteroid to form a core. Two members of the IVA group, Sao Joao Nepomuceno (hereafter, SJN) and Steinbach, contain moderate amounts of orthopyroxene and silica, and minor amounts of low-Ca clinopyroxene. Even though SJN formed after approx. 26% crystallization and Steinbach formed after approx. 77% Crystallization of the IVA core, both could have originated within several tens of meters of the core-mantle interface if 99% of the crystallization occurred from the center outwards. Two other members of the group (Gibeon and Bishop Canyon) contain tabular tridymite, which we infer to have initially formed as veins deposited from a cooling SiO-rich vapor. The silicates were clearly introduced into IVA irons after the initial magma crystallized. Because the y-iron crystals in SJN are typically about 5 cm across, an order of magnitude smaller than in IVA irons that do not contain massive silicates, we infer that the metal was in the gamma-iron field when the silicates were injected. The SJN and Steinbach silicate compositions are near the low-Ca-pyroxene/silica eutectic compositions. We suggest that a tectonic event produced a eutectic-like liquid and injected it together with unmelted pyroxene grains into fissures in the solid metal core. Published estimates of IVA metallographic cooling rates range from 20 to 3000 K/Ma, leading to a hypothesized breakup of the core during a major impact followed by scrambling of the core and mantle debris [Haack, H., Scott, E.R.D., Love, S.G., Brearley, A. 1996. Thermal histories of IVA stony-iron and iron meteorites: evidence for asteroid fragmentation and reaccretion. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 60, 3103-3113]. This scrambling model is physically implausible and cannot explain the strong correlation of estimated cooling rates with metal composition. Previous workers concluded that the low-Ca clinopyroxene in SJN and Steinbach formed from protopyroxene by quenching at a cooling rate of 10(sup 12) K/Ma, and suggested that this also supported an impact-scrambling model. This implausible spike in cooling rate by a factor of 10(sup 10) can be avoided if the low-Ca clinopyroxene were formed by a late shock event that converted orthopyroxene to clinopyroxene followed by minimal growth in the clinopyroxene field, probably because melt was also produced. We suggest that metallographic cooling-rate estimates (e.g., based on island taenite) giving similar values throughout the metal compositional range are more plausible, and that the IVA parent asteroid can be modeled by monotonic cooling followed by a high-temperature impact event that introduced silicates into the metal and a low-temperature impact event that partially converted thopyroxene into low-Ca clinopyroxene.

Wasson, John T.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Shockwave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Studies Performed in the NASA Langley 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel

This paper highlights results from a collaborative study performed by The University of Tennessee Space Institute (UTSI) and NASA Langley Research Center on the Shockwave/Boundary-Layer Interaction (SWBLI) generated by a cylindrical protuberance on a flat plate in a Mach 6 flow. The study was performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center and consisted of two separate entries. In the first entry, simultaneous high-speed schlieren and high-speed pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) imaging – which was performed for the first time in the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility at NASA Langley – were performed as well as simultaneous high-speed schlieren and oil-flow imaging. In the second entry, the model configuration was modified to increase the size of the interaction region. High-speed schlieren and infrared thermography (IR) surface imaging were performed in this second entry. The goal of these tests was to characterize the SBLI in the presence of a laminar, transitional, and turbulent boundary layer using high-speed optical imaging techniques. AoA = sting angle-of-attack (°) dcylinder = cylinder diameter (mm) dtrip = cylindrical tripping element diameter (mm) Δshock = shock stand-off distance (mm) hcylinder = cylinder height (mm) htrip = cylindrical tripping element height (mm) HSS = high-speed schlieren M∞ = freestream Mach number PSP = pressure-sensitive paint Re∞ = freestream unit Reynolds number (m-1) SWBLI = shockwave/boundary-layer interaction θplate = model plate angle (°) Introduction his paper highlights two experimental entries performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Blowdown Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center in collaboration with The University of Tennessee Space Institute (UTSI). The purpose of these entries was to characterize the dynamic shockwave/boundary-layer interaction (SWBLI) between a vertical cylinder on a flat plate and laminar, transitional (XSWBLI), and turbulent (SWTBLI) boundary layers with a freestream Mach number of 6 using non-intrusive optical diagnostics. Experiments performed by Murphree et al.1,2 were among the first to specifically characterize XSWBLI induced by a vertical cylinder on a flat plate geometry using several optical measurement techniques. Recent optical studies of XSWBLI phenomenon have been performed by UTSI at Mach 2 in their low-enthalpy blow wind tunnel3-8 and by Texas A&M University and UTSI at Mach numbers of 6 and 7 in their Adjustable Contour Expansion wind tunnel.9 The experiments described in this paper were intended to complement previous studies by expanding the freestream unit Reynolds number range, Re∞, over which the XSWBLI phenomena has been observed. Additionally these experiments, made possible under NASA’s new facility funding model under the Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) project, promoted collaboration between university and NASA researchers. The initial entry in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley occurred in December of 2016. Originally, testing was to occur in November of 2016 in the 31-Inch Mach 10 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley. This facility was chosen so that the XSWBLI phenomenon could be observed at much higher Mach numbers than had previously been attempted in ground test experiments. The model selected for this experiment, a 10° half-angle wedge with a sharp leading edge (described in detail in section II.B), had previously been used by Danehy et al. [10] for boundary layer transition studies using the nitric oxide planar laser-induced fluorescence (NO PLIF) flow visualization technique. In that work, it was determined that transition could be induced downstream of a single htrip = 1-mm tall, dtrip = 4-mm diameter cylindrical tripping element and that the streamwise location of the transition could be changed for a single Re∞ by changing the model angle-of-attack (AoA) (see Fig. A3 in Ref. [10] for more details). Based on the findings of that work, a decision was made to use the wedge model with the cylindrical tripping element to trip the boundary layer flow ahead of a cylindrical protuberance in order to achieve a XSWBLI. Unfortunately, the 31-Inch Mach 10 facility had been taken offline for repairs in October of 2016 and a decision was made to move the test to the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility. Since the behavior of the boundary layer with the chosen model configuration had not been studied before in that facility and the available test time was limited, the entry was considered to be exploratory and was used to collect spatially-resolved and time-resolved flow and surface visualization data that would be used to inform a second entry. Test techniques included simultaneous high-speed schlieren (HSS) captured at 160 kHz and high-speed pressure sensitive paint captured at 10 kHz as well as oil flow visualization, captured at 750 Hz. The second entry in the 20-Inch Mach 6 facility occurred in June and July of 2017. In this follow-on test, modifications to the wind tunnel model were made based on observations made during the first entry and included removing the cylindrical tripping element, increasing the size of the cylinder used to induce the SWBLI to increase the size of the interaction while simultaneously improving spatial resolution, and using a swept ramp array, similar to that described in Ref. [11], to trip the flow to turbulence. Simultaneous HSS (captured at 140 kHz, 100 kHz, and 40 kHz) and conventional IR thermography (captured at 30 Hz) imaging were performed simultaneously in this follow-on entry. This paper is intended to serve as a summary of the work performed during these two entries, to detail lessons learned from each entry, and to highlight some of the datasets acquired. Details on the experimental setup, model configuration, and techniques used are provided. Papers providing a more rigorous analysis of data acquired during the second entry, including statistical, spectral, and modal decomposition methods, can be found in Refs. [12,13]. An entry examining XSWBLI in the 31-Inch Mach 10 Blowdown Wind Tunnel facility is currently planned for mid-to-late calendar year 2019, pending the success of facility repairs. The work performed and described in this paper and the upcoming entry in the 31-Inch Mach 10 facility at NASA Langley have been made possible by NASA’s new facility funding model under the Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) project. Wind Tunnel Facility All experiments discussed in this paper were performed in the 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center. Specific details pertaining to this facility can be found in Refs. [14,15], with only a brief description of the facility provided here. For both entries, the nominal freestream unit Reynolds number was varied between 1.8×106 m-1 (0.5×106 ft-1) and 26.3×106 m-1 (8×106 ft-1). The nominal stagnation pressure was varied between 0.21 MPa and 3.33 MPa and the nominal stagnation temperature was varied between 480 K and 520 K to achieve the desired Re∞ condition. For all runs, the nominal freestream Mach number was 6. The nearly square test section is 520.7-mm (20.5-inches) wide by 508-mm (20-inches) high. Two 431.8-mm (17-inch) diameter windows made of Corning 7940, Grade 5F schlieren-quality glass serve as the side walls of the tunnel and provide optical access for the high-speed schlieren measurements. A rectangular window made of the same material as the side windows served as the top wall of the test section and provided optical access for the high-speed PSP and oil flow measurements. For the second entry, this top window was replaced with a Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) window with an anti-reflection coating capable of passing IR wavelengths between 8μm and 12μm with greater than 98% transmittance. The model was sting supported by a strut attached to a hydraulic system that allows for the model pitch angle to be adjusted between -5° to +55°. For the first entry, an initial pitch/pause sweep of the model AoA was performed to observe the resulting SWBLI. Ultimately, however, the sting pitch angle for this entry was fixed at +10.0° so that the angle of the top surface of the wedge relative to the streamwise axis of the tunnel (referred to herein as the plate angle, θplate), was θplate = 0°. For the second entry, θplate = 0° and θplate = -13.25° were initially tested with the swept ramp array (discussed in the following section) to determine which orientation produced conditions most favorable for XSWBLI to occur based on the heating signatures observed over the top surface of the model in the IR thermography images. Based on these initial tests, θplate = -13.25° was set for the remainder of the runs in the second entry. For both entries, any model changes were performed in a housing located beneath the closed test section. Prior to performing a run of the tunnel, the housing was sealed and the tunnel started. Once the appropriate freestream conditions were achieved, the model was injected into the test section using a hydraulic injection system. B. Model Geometry For all runs, a 10° half-angle (20° full-angle) wedge model with a sharp leading edge was used. The model is described in detail in Refs. [10,16]. The top surface of the sharp leading edge of the model extended 47.8 mm from its upstream-most edge to a junction with the upstream edge of a stainless steel top plate that then extended an (a) (c) (b) Fig. 1 (a) Schematic of top surface of wedge model with gas seeding insert, (b) perspective view of the model in the 20-Inch Mach 6 tunnel with centerline pressure orifices on sharp leading edge, and (c) a perspective view of the model with stainless steel (top) and SLA middle insert (bottom) during the first entry. Flow occurs from left to right.

Bathel, Brett F.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗