Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “fitting”

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 631 records · Page 35
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2021

LOFTID Heat Flux Gauge Calibration: What is Truth?

The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) is a demonstration of Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology, which may enable the delivery of heavy payloads to Mars, Venus, and Titan, as well as return to Earth. Unlike rigid aeroshells that are constrained by the size of the rocket’s shroud, inflatable aeroshells can be deployed to a much larger scale, thus allowing a spacecraft to begin its deceleration earlier and experience less heating. On LOFTID, there will be 4 total heat flux gauges (HFG) with a range of 70 W/cm2 and 1 radiometer with a range of 3 W/cm2, arranged as shown in Fig. 1. Both the radiometer and total HFGs are Schmidt-Boelter gauges purchased from an external vendor. Radiative calibrations were performed in-house at NASA Ames’ Sensors and TPS Advanced Research Laboratories (STAR Labs) before and after environmental testing to investigate how the testing affected the sensors' response. Additional rounds of radiative calibration at STAR Labs were also performed in order to investigate the large uncertainties associated with these tests. For example, a survey of multiple calibration facilities concluded that the uncertainty within a given facility was +/-3% [1]. An additional NIST study that calibrated heat flux gauges at 7 different facilities also found the variation in calibration coefficients to be up to ~3% within a given facility, but up to 15% between facilities, suggesting systematic differences between test setups [2]. Finally, the response of heat flux gauges to radiative versus convective heat flux has shown to differ by up to 20% [3],[4]. Because the heat flux gauges on LOFTID will predominantly experience convective heat flux during flight, a convective calibration study was performed at Boeing's Large-Core Arc Tunnel (LCAT) facility. Radiative Calibration Procedure The calibrations performed at STAR Labs utilize a quartz lamp bank (QLB) that provides a maximum heat flux of 50 W/cm2, which bounds the expected LOFTID flight environment. The calibration involves exposing a water-cooled Gardon gauge (reference) and then the unit-under-test (UUT) to 5 different heat fluxes multiple times for 10 seconds each, and then calculating a linear fit. The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The total HFGs were calibrated at STAR Labs 3 times, denoted as STAR 1 (before environmental testing), STAR 2 (after protoflight vibration and thermal-vacuum testing), and STAR 3 (no change from previous test). All 8 flight-lot total HFGs showed a decrease in full-scale output from STAR 1 to STAR 2 by between 0.5% and 10. The first portion of this investigation was to determine whether the change could be due to differences in temperature between the two calibration runs. A typical linear fit to the calibration data was performed using Eq. 1 where q’ is the heat flux in W/cm2, c is the calibration coefficient, and mV is the sensor output. To account for temperature, the data were fit to a nonlinear function that included both the sensor output (mV) and the temperature from the thermocouple embedded inside the HFG near the surface (T): q'=mV/(c1* T + c0}. The residuals between the fits and the actual data points were calculated for every point, and proven to be much smaller for the temperature-compensated fits than for the linear fits for all sensors. An example is shown in Fig. 3. When the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 1 were applied to the STAR 2 data, the residuals did not improve, suggesting that the change in sensitivity between these two calibration runs was not due to temperature. A third round of calibration (STAR 3) was conducted to further address the temperature dependence of the total HFGs, and the resulting sensitivities matched closely to STAR 2 (within 2%). Temperature-compensated calibration curves were once again fit to the data. In this case, when the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 3 were applied to STAR 2 data, the residuals between the fits and STAR 2 data were much lower than the residuals due to the linear fits. This suggests that the changes seen between STAR 1 and STAR 2 were likely due to actual changes in the sensors caused by the environmental testing between the two calibrations. A modification of the original calibration process, in which the UUT was exposed to each heat flux for just 3 seconds (instead of 10) to reduce the temperature increase during the test, was additionally performed on several of the HFGs. In general, the sensitivities were 1-1.5% lower than from the 10-second tests, but the temperatures were also significantly lower. When the temperature-compensated fits from the 10-second tests were applied to the 3-second test data, the residuals were greatly improved than when just using the linear fits, further suggesting that the temperature-compensated fits may lead to better accuracy than the linear fits in flight. Convective Calibration The second portion of this study was to create a mapping between the radiative and convective calibration coefficients. The majority of the heating during flight will be convective, so it is important to understand how the HFG response differs under these conditions. However, there are no standardized methods for convective calibration [5]. Because the TPS aerothermal response models were validated at LCAT, the same facility was chosen for convective calibration of two of the total HFGs (Fig. 4). Preliminary results showed that the full-scale output was 3% and 8% higher in convective heat flux as compared to radiative heat flux. However, tunnel variation may have contributed to noise and uncertainty in the measurements, and more testing and analysis remains to be done. Scope of Presentation The presentation will include an overview of the changes seen in HFG calibration before and after environmental testing, differences between radiative and convective calibrations, the modeling work done to aid in understanding the sensor response to varying environments, and recommended future work.

H S Alpert↗
NASA NTRS2026

Performance Optimization for Lunar Extravehicular Activity Readiness (POLAR) Study: Methods Paper

To better understand which aspects of physical fitness may be most related to performance during Lunar surface operations and thereby help to inform the current NASA fitness standards, much can be learned from fields encompassing the “tactical athlete.” Other physically demanding professions such as law enforcement, military, or rescue professionals often require candidates to meet occupationally-relevant fitness standards. The determination of such standards is a multistep process, including both objective and subjective measures, to determine tasks essential to occupational performance and identify the minimal fitness profile needed to meet physical demands of the job. Notably, fitness is only one component which may contribute to the demands of astronaut selection, flight assignment, and occupational performance. Utilizing a framework to systematically determine which domains of fitness most contribute to relevant job tasks can aid in the refinement of current NASA-STD-3001 fitness standards. Therefore, NASA’s Exercise Physiology & Countermeasures Laboratory conducted the Performance Optimization for Lunar Extravehicular Activity Readiness (POLAR) study to identify and examine a comprehensive list of fitness tests (including NASA-STD-3001 assessments: 1-Repetition Maximum [1-RM] bench press and deadlift) and determine preliminary relationships between identified fitness parameters and novel Artemis-relevant tasks to help inform future investigations for the continued development of aerobic and muscular fitness standards for surface EVAs. This was accomplished through 1) a review of the literature relating fitness assessments to simulated or real EVA performance to identify fitness tests that are most correlated with simulated EVA task performance; 2) a task analysis following a modified framework for physical employment standards development to down select mission critical tasks; and 3) development and pilot testing of a novel, portable Artemis-relevant EVA task circuit to relate to a battery of fitness assessments. The current report describes the methodology used to complete the task analysis, EVA task circuit development, and the pilot study.

Nicole C Strock↗
NASA NTRS1992

Derivation of surface properties from Magellan altimetry data

The fit of the Hagfors model to the Magellan altimetry data provides a means to characterize the surface properties of Venus. However, the derived surface properties are only meaningful if the model provides a good representation of the data. The Hagfors model provides a good representation of the data. The Hagfors model is generally a realistic fit to surface scattering properties of a nadir-directed antenna such as the Magellan altimeter; however, some regions of the surface of Venus are poorly described by the existing model, according to the goodness of fit parameter provided on the ARCDR CD-ROMs. Poorly characterized regions need to be identified and fit to new models in order to derive more accurate surface properties for use in inferring the geological processes that affect the surface in those regions. We have compared the goodness of fit of the Hagfors model to the distribution of features across the planet, and preliminary results show a correlation between steep topographic slopes and poor fits to the standard model, as has been noticed by others. In this paper, we investigate possible relations between many classes of features and the ability of the Hagfors model to fit the observed echo profiles. In the regions that are not well characterized by existing models, we calculate new models that compensate for topographic relief in order to derive improved estimates of surface properties. Areas investigated to date span from longitude 315 through 45, at all latitudes covered by Magellan. A survey of those areas yields preliminary results that suggest that topographically high regions are well suited to the current implementation of the Hagfors model. Striking examples of such large-scale good fits are Alpha Regio, the northern edges of Lada Terra, and the southern edge of Ishtar Terra. Other features that are typically well fit are the rims of coronae such as Heng-O and the peaks of volcanos such as Gula Mons. Surprisingly, topographically low regions, such as the ubiquitous plains areas, are modeled poorly in comparison. However, this generalization has has exceptions: Lakshmi Planum is an elevated region that is not well fit compared to the rest of neighboring Ishtar, while the southern parts of topographically low Guinevere Planitia are characterized quite well by the Hagfors model. Features that are candidates for improved models are impact craters, coronae, ridges of significant scale, complex ridged terrains, moderate-sized mountains, and sharp terrain boundaries. These features are chosen because the goodness of fit is likely to be most affected either by departures from normal incidence angles or by sharp changes in terrain type within a single footprint. Most large features that are elevated with respect to their surroundings will suffer from steep slope effects, and smaller coronae and impact craters will probably suffer due to rapid changes in their appearance within a single footprint (10-20 km).

Lovell, Amy J.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Recommendations for Using Noise Monitors to Estimate Noise Exposure During X-59 Community Tests

A low fidelity simulation approach is used to explore how to place and use noise monitors during X-59 QueSST community tests, where people’s annoyance to the noise produced by the X-59 aircraft will be gathered. Several recommendations are provided including: 1) the desired number of sparsely spaced noise monitor sites within the survey area, 2) whether to group and average measurements across multiple noise monitors located at a site, 3) what spacing should be used if grouped noise monitors are used, 4) an approach to mitigate ambient noise contamination at the measurement sites, 5) a method to combine empirical and predicted dose estimates to provide a single dose estimate for respondents, and 6) assessing how changes in turbulence intensity and array configuration affect dose uncertainty. To make these recommendations, the error that is expected when fitting contrived, smoothly varying sonic boom “reference exposure surfaces” is studied when a spatially sparse and scattered set of samples is used as responses for the fit. The reference exposure surfaces mimic the sonic boom exposure at ground level that might be expected in the X-59 survey area in the absence of atmospheric turbulence, ambient noise, and other localized effects. The spatial extent of these surfaces varies and is representative of the different survey area sizes that might be expected during future X-59 community overflight tests. These contrived reference surfaces are sampled, and those reference samples are then perturbed to mimic atmospheric turbulence, ambient noise and other localized effects that might affect noise monitor measurements within overflown communities. Two different surface fitting methods are investigated when fitting these perturbed samples to approximate the reference surface. The first method uses interpolation between the perturbed data at the scattered sites to compute the fit. The second method fits a polynomial surface model to the perturbed data using ordinary least squares regression analysis. For both fitting methods, the root mean square fit error is computed from the pointwise difference between the fit surface and the reference surface as the count and configuration of the sites is varied while also averaging the error across many different realizations of both the smooth variation of the reference exposure surface and the random, localized perturbations at the sample sites. Different site configurations are compared using this error statistic to make the recommendations noted above. Additionally, the two fitting approaches (interpolation vs linear regression) are compared based on the fit error observed in these simulations. These analyses, comparisons, and recommendations should inform future decisions on the noise monitor placement and the methods used to analyze the noise monitor data that is collected during X-59 community overflights.

sonic boom↗