Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Mesh Adaptation”

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.

614 records · Page 35
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Transformation -- Localizing the Remote and Connecting the Isolated

In motivating the Space Transformation theme for this year’s 4S symposium, the organizers provided the following context, “Transformation of economies are driven by a change in values and accelerated by new technologies.” These words rang particularly true when I read them at the beginning of the holiday season. Like so many others, I was in the early phases of my Christmas shopping procrastination campaign, and I’d just been reflecting on how Amazon Prime was the transformational tool I’d been waiting for. Basic limiting principles of time and space, supply and demand, were all but erased by the Amazon Prime phenomenon. Coupled with emerging 3D printing and other adaptive manufacturing technologies, a transformation from deliberate planning to “think it … have it” had occurred, empowering me to procrastinate longer than I’d ever dreamed possible. The organizers went on to ponder, “Will space transformation also affect society?”, just as our team at the Air Force Research Lab’s (AFRL) Center for Rapid Innovation (CRI) were working alongside partners within our larger Integrated Capabilities Directorate, NASA’s Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology programs, and DARPA’s Luna-10 program to develop technologies and execute demonstration missions that leverage the space domain to genuinely connect even the most remote and austere domains on the timeline of need. Picking apart the miracle that is Amazon prime, where does the model fail, and why? More relevantly to the theme of this year’s symposium, how can the space domain be used to overcome its limitations and minimize its weaknesses? Perhaps it is best assessed in the context of Use Cases. What are the Amazon delivery cost, schedule, and cargo limiters to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Research Station, or the Lunar South Pole Research Station? This paper will explore enabling infrastructure that allows Amazon prime to thrive and assess the transformational enabling technologies that would be necessary to extend that miracle to the truly remote or the truly austere. Localizing the Remote • First, it will evaluate the ability of the on-going AFRL Rocket Cargo and Space Initiatives Ringside Seats systems, coupled with Astrobotic’s Xodiak and Xogdor capabilities, developed to support the NASA Flight Opportunities Program (FOP), to supply orbital/suborbital delivery to both improved and austere sites on the Earth and Moon. • Then, it will add the surface terminal distribution leg, with an examination of Lunar Outpost’s Mobile Autonomous Prospecting Platform (MAPP), equipped with Mobile Autonomous Robotic Swarm (MARS) software, and Intuitive Machine’s Hopper, developed with support of AFRL and NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. Connecting the Isolated From there, it will focus on the destination, asking what implied destination services are required to support highly assured autonomous delivery. • Specifically, it will highlight Astrobotic’s Skymage mesh-networked publish and subscribe communication and navigation service, as well as AFRL’s on-going developments of radioisotope and reactor nuclear-sourced thermoelectric power generation and distribution systems under development under the Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-orbit Nuclear Power (JETSON) program by Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, Intuitive Machines, and Zeno Power, to provide the power service to locations well off the grid. • Finally, the paper will connect to the “human machine”. What connects the remote or in-situ human consumer to the remote domain? What connects the diverse international government and commercial services to each other? The former will focus on AFRL’s OraCloud feeding their Space Defense Control and Characterization System (SDCCS) and Lunar Station’s MoonHacker systems, while the latter will focus on the BlueHalo/Tensor LunX Technology Platform for the Cislunar Commodity Marketplace. In 1984, Krafft Ehricke famously remarked that, “If God wanted man to become a spacefaring species, He would have given man a Moon.” This paper is not about the Moon, but is about humans as a spacefaring species, shedding the pesky land/air limitations of the Amazon Prime model … so that we can all live a procrastinator’s “think it … have it” existence.

Charles Finley↗
NASA NTRS1998

A Geometry Based Infra-Structure for Computational Analysis and Design

The computational steps traditionally taken for most engineering analysis suites (computational fluid dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, heat transfer and etc.) are: (1) Surface Generation -- usually by employing a Computer Assisted Design (CAD) system; (2) Grid Generation -- preparing the volume for the simulation; (3) Flow Solver -- producing the results at the specified operational point; (4) Post-processing Visualization -- interactively attempting to understand the results. For structural analysis, integrated systems can be obtained from a number of commercial vendors. These vendors couple directly to a number of CAD systems and are executed from within the CAD Graphical User Interface (GUI). It should be noted that the structural analysis problem is more tractable than CFD; there are fewer mesh topologies used and the grids are not as fine (this problem space does not have the length scaling issues of fluids). For CFD, these steps have worked well in the past for simple steady-state simulations at the expense of much user interaction. The data was transmitted between phases via files. In most cases, the output from a CAD system could go to Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) or Standard Exchange Program (STEP) files. The output from Grid Generators and Solvers do not really have standards though there are a couple of file formats that can be used for a subset of the gridding (i.e. PLOT3D data formats). The user would have to patch up the data or translate from one format to another to move to the next step. Sometimes this could take days. Specifically the problems with this procedure are:(1) File based -- Information flows from one step to the next via data files with formats specified for that procedure. File standards, when they exist, are wholly inadequate. For example, geometry from CAD systems (transmitted via IGES files) is defined as disjoint surfaces and curves (as well as masses of other information of no interest for the Grid Generator). This is particularly onerous for modern CAD systems based on solid modeling. The part was a proper solid and in the translation to IGES has lost this important characteristic. STEP is another standard for CAD data that exists and supports the concept of a solid. The problem with STEP is that a solid modeling geometry kernel is required to query and manipulate the data within this type of file. (2) 'Good' Geometry. A bottleneck in getting results from a solver is the construction of proper geometry to be fed to the grid generator. With 'good' geometry a grid can be constructed in tens of minutes (even with a complex configuration) using unstructured techniques. Adroit multi-block methods are not far behind. This means that a million node steady-state solution can be computed on the order of hours (using current high performance computers) starting from this 'good' geometry. Unfortunately, the geometry usually transmitted from the CAD system is not 'good' in the grid generator sense. The grid generator needs smooth closed solid geometry. It can take a week (or more) of interaction with the CAD output (sometimes by hand) before the process can begin. One way Communication. (3) One-way Communication -- All information travels on from one phase to the next. This makes procedures like node adaptation difficult when attempting to add or move nodes that sit on bounding surfaces (when the actual surface data has been lost after the grid generation phase). Until this process can be automated, more complex problems such as multi-disciplinary analysis or using the above procedure for design becomes prohibitive. There is also no way to easily deal with this system in a modular manner. One can only replace the grid generator, for example, if the software reads and writes the same files. Instead of the serial approach to analysis as described above, CAPRI takes a geometry centric approach. This makes the actual geometry (not a discretized version) accessible to all phases of the analysis. The connection to the geometry is made through an Application Programming Interface (API) and NOT a file system. This API isolates the top-level applications (grid generators, solvers and visualization components) from the geometry engine. Also this allows the replacement of one geometry kernel with another, without effecting these top-level applications. For example, if UniGraphics is used as the CAD package then Parasolid (UG's own geometry engine) can be used for all geometric queries so that no solid geometry information is lost in a translation. This is much better than STEP because when the data is queried, the same software is executed as used in the CAD system. Therefore, one analyzes the exact part that is in the CAD system. CAPRI uses the same idea as the commercial structural analysis codes but does not specify control. Software components of the CAD system are used, but the analysis suite, not the CAD operator, specifies the control of the software session. This also means that the license issues (may be) minimized and individuals need not have to know how to operate a CAD system in order to run the suite.

Haimes, Robert↗