Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “large scale power system”

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.

637 records · Page 36
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Large Interferometer for Exoplanets (Life) I. Improved Exoplanet Detection Yield Estimates for A Large Mid-Infrared Space-Interferometer Mission

Context. One of the long-term goals of exoplanet science is the atmospheric characterization of dozens of small exoplanets in order to understand their diversity and search for habitable worlds and potential biosignatures. Achieving this goal requires a space mission of sufficient scale that can spatially separate the signals from exoplanets and their host stars and thus directly scrutinize the exoplanets and their atmospheres. Aims. We seek to quantify the exoplanet detection performance of a space-based mid-infrared (MIR) nulling interferometer that measures the thermal emission of exoplanets. We study the impact of various parameters and compare the performance with that of large single-aperture mission concepts detecting exoplanets in reflected light. Methods. We have developed an instrument simulator that considers all major astrophysical noise sources and coupled it with Monte Carlo of a synthetic exoplanet population around main-sequence stars within 20 pc. This allows us to quantify the number (and types) of exoplanets that our mission concept could detect over a certain time period. Two different scenarios to distribute the observing time among the stellar targets are discussed and different apertures sizes and wavelength ranges are considered. Results. An interferometer consisting of four 2 m apertures working in the 4–18.5 μ.m wavelength range with a total instrument throughput of 5% could detect up to ≈550 exoplanets with radii between 0.5 and 6 R ⊕ with an integrated S/N ≥ 7. At least ≈160 of the detected exoplanets have radii ≤1.5 R ⊕ . Depending on the observing scenario, ≈25–45 rocky exoplanets (objects with radii between 0.5 and 1.5 R ⊕ ) orbiting within the empirical habitable zone (eHZ) of their host stars are among the detections. With four 3.5 m apertures, the total number of detections can increase to up to ≈770, including ≈60–80 rocky eHZ planets. With four times 1 m apertures, the maximum detection yield is ≈315 exoplanets, including ≤20 rocky eHZ planets. The vast majority of small, temperate exoplanets are detected around M dwarfs. The impact of changing the wavelength range to 3–20 μm or 6–17 μm on the detection yield is negligible. Conclusions. A large space-based MIR nulling interferometer will be able to directly detect hundreds of small, nearby exoplanets, tens of which would be habitable world candidates. In terms of predicted detection yield, such a mission can compete with large single-aperture reflected light missions. Given that we assumed only 2.5 years for the search phase, a significant sub-set of the detected exoplanets can be followed-up in a second mission phase to obtain high SNR thermal emission spectra, leveraging the superior diagnostic power of the MIR wavelength regime compared to shorter wavelengths.

planets and satellites: terrestrial planets↗
NASA NTRS2004

Starting Vortex Identified as Key to Unsteady Ejector Performance

Unsteady ejectors are currently under investigation for use in some pulse-detonation-engine-based propulsion systems. Experimental measurements made in the past, and recently at the NASA Glenn Research Center, have demonstrated that thrust augmentation can be enhanced considerably when the driver is unsteady. In ejector systems, thrust augmentation is defined as = T(sup Total)/T(sup j), where T(sup Total) is the total thrust of the combined ejector and driving jet and T(sup j) is the thrust due to the driving jet alone. There are three images in this figure, one for each of the named thrust sources. The images are color contours of measured instantaneous vorticity. Each image is an ensemble average of at least 150 phase-locked measurements. The flow is from right to left, and the shape and location of each driver is shown on the far right of each image. The emitted vortex is a clearly defined "doughnut" of highly vortical (spinning) flow. In these planar images, the vortex appears as two distorted circles, one above, and one below the axis of symmetry. Because they are spinning in the opposite direction, the two circles have vorticity of opposite sign and thus are different colors. There is also a rectangle shown in each image. Its width represents the ejector diameter that was found experimentally to yield the highest thrust augmentation. It is apparent that the optimal ejector diameter is that which just "captures" the vortex: that is, the diameter bounding the outermost edge of the vortex structure. The exact mechanism behind the enhanced performance is unclear; however, it is believed to be related to the powerful vortex emitted with each pulse of the unsteady driver. As such, particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) measurements were obtained for three unsteady drivers: a pulsejet, a resonance tube, and a speaker-driven jet. All the drivers were tested with ejectors, and all exhibited performance enhancement over similarly sized steady drivers. The characteristic starting vortices of each driver are shown in these images. The images are color contours of measured instantaneous vorticity. Each image is an ensemble average of at least 150 phase-locked measurements. The flow is from right to left. The shape and location of each driver is shown on the far right of each image. The rectangle shown in each image represents the ejector diameter that was found experimentally to yield the highest thrust augmentation. It is apparent that the optimal ejector diameter is that which just "captures" the vortex: that is, the diameter bounding the outermost edge of the vortex structure. Although not shown, it was observed that the emitted vortex spread as it traveled downstream. The spreading rate for the pulsejet is shown as the dashed lines in the top image. A tapered ejector was fabricated that matched this shape. When tested, the ejector demonstrated superior performance to all those previously tested at Glenn (which were essentially of straight, cylindrical form), achieving a remarkable thrust augmentation of 2. The measured thrust augmentation is shown as a function of ejector length. Also shown are the thrust augmentation values achieved with the straight, cylindrical ejectors of varying diameters. Here, thrust augmentation is plotted as a function of ejector length for several families of ejector diameters. It can be seen that large thrust augmentation values are indeed obtained and that they are sensitive to both ejector length and diameter, particularly the latter. Five curves are shown. Four correspond to straight ejector diameters of 2.2, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0 in. The fifth curve corresponds to the tapered ejector contoured to bound the emitted vortex. For each curve, there are several data points corresponding to different lengths. The largest value of thrust augmentation is 2.0 for the tapered ejector and 1.81 for the straight ejectors. Regardless of their diameters, all the ejectors trend toward peak performance at a particular leng. That the cross-sectional dimensions of optimal ejectors scaled precisely with the vortex dimensions on three separate pulsed thrust sources demonstrates that the action of the vortex is responsible for the enhanced ejector performance. The result also suggests that, in the absence of a complete understanding of the entrainment and augmentation mechanisms, methods of characterizing starting vortices may be useful for correlating and predicting unsteady ejector performance.

Paxson, Daniel E.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Proposed Mars Surveyor Landing Sites in Northern Meridiani Sinus, Southern Elysium Planitia, and Argyre Planitia

Our objective is to propose two landing sites that the Mars Surveyor 2001 Lander and Athena Rover could go to on Mars that should meet the safety requirements of the spacecraft landing system and optimize surface operations (chiefly driven by power and communications requirements). An additional site within Argyre Planitia, initially proposed by Parker to the Mars Surveyor Landing Site program, is also proposed for potential consideration for post-2001 missions to Mars, as it is well outside the current latitude limits for the Athena Rover. All three sites are designed to be situated as close to a diversity of geologic units within a few kilometers of the landing site so that diversity can be placed in a geologic context. This objective is very different from the Mars Pathfinder requirement to land at a site with a maximum chance for containing a diversity of rocks within a few tens of meters of the lander. That requirement was driven by the Sojourner mobility limit of a few tens of meters. It can be argued that the Athena project, with its much larger mobility capability, might actually want to avoid such a site, because placing collected samples in geologic context would be difficult. While it has been argued, both before and after the Mars Pathfinder landing, that the provenance for local blocks may be determined by orbiter spectra, primarily from the MGS TES instrument, our ability to do so has yet to be demonstrated. Indeed, several months after conclusion of the Pathfinder mission, we have yet to reach a consensus on the composition of local materials. Our primary data set for selecting a landing site within the latitude and elevation constraints of the 2001 mission is the Viking Orbiter image archive. The site must be selected to place the landing ellipse so as to avoid obvious hazards, such as steep slopes, large or numerous craters, or abundant large knobs. For this purpose, we chose a resolution limit of better than 50 m/pixel. This necessarily excludes from the present study images from current and future orbiter spacecraft, until such data does become readily available. Within each proposed region, it may be possible to identify additional sites once these data become available. Second, the fine-component thermal inertia data, should be greater than about 5 or 6 cgs Units (10(exp -3) cal/sq cm s(exp -0.5)/K). Low thermal inertias imply dusty environments, which could pose a mobility hazard. Similarly, the albedo of the site should not be particularly high, which would also suggest dusty surfaces. Low albedos are preferred, as they often coincide with low Viking red:violet ratios and indicate less dusty surfaces. Next, the Modeled Block Abundance should also not be too high or too low. Based on the Viking Lander and Mars Pathfinder experiences, percentages of blocks should be on the order of 5-25%. Too many blocks could pose a hazard to the landing and mobility. Too few blocks could also indicate a dusty surface. Primary Landing Site: Northern Meridiani Sinus (Proposed by T. J. Parker and K., S. Edgett) Vital Statistics: (1) Latitude, Longitude: 0-3 N, 350-2 W. *Elevation (Viking): about0.5-1.5 Ian. (2) Viking Orbiter Image coverage: Excellent coverage by 15 - 25 m/pixel images (orbits 709A and 410B). Possible stereo coverage in region where two orbits overlap (probably small parallax angle, as these orbits are not listed in NASA Contractor Report 3501) (3) Albedo: about .18 -.26 (4) Block Abundance: 5-26% (5)Fine-Component Thermal Inertia: 5-9 cgs units This region consists of bright deposits similar to those described by Edgett et al, that also lie within a prominent dark albedo region. These deposits are flat-lying, to such a degree that they ramp against topography rather than draping over it. This led Edgett and Parker to suggest that they may be subaqueous sediments, possibly lacustrine or marine evaporites, laid down sometime from the late Noachian to middle Hesperian (age determination pending crater counts). A contact between this material and elevated, dissected highlands to the south was identified , and is described by Edgett et al. Our desire in proposing this landing site is to sample the edge of this deposit where it has been exposed through etching, presumably eolian deflation (the deposit, though in the highlands, is itself only lightly to moderately cratered). This should enable access to in situ stratigraphy. The actual landing site will be selected where slopes are not expected to be steep, such that the rover itself should be able to traverse them and sample layered materials on the way, either up or down the slope. Perhaps due to uncertainties at this time as to the friability or meter-scale roughness of the deposit, it might make sense to place the landing ellipse on the exhumed highland surface adjacent to the deflated margin of the deposit and plan on driving to the deposit rather than landing on it and driving downslope. This should also enable imaging the margin for evidence of layering should it prove too difficult to climb. A target ellipse on the highland surface should also allow Athena access to ancient Noachian highland materials, particularly if placed near crater ejecta or an inlier of knobby material. Secondary Landing Site: Southern Elysium Planitia (Proposed by T. J. Parker) Vital Statistics: (1) Latitude, Longitude: 1.5-3.5 S, 195-198 W. (2) Elevation (Viking): -1.0 km. (3) Viking Orbiter Image coverage: Excellent coverage by 15 - 25 m/pixel images (orbit 725). Possible stereo coverage between images from beginning and end of orbit that overlap (probably small parallax angle) (4) Albedo: about .27-.28 (5) Block Abundance: 4-7% (6) Fine-Component Thermal Inertia: about 3 cgs units This region consists of eroded knobby material, probably of Noachian age, though much of the crater population has been destroyed, that is onlapped at a sharp contact by an extensive plains unit in southern Elysium Planitia that is Amazonian in age. The plains materials have been attributed to unusually low-viscosity flood lavas from fissures south of the Elysium volcanic rise, or to lacustrine materials associated with a large, Amazonian lake at the source of Marte Vallis. Parker and Schenk presented evidence in support of the latter interpretation, though they attributed the putative shore morphology to an embayment of a northern plains ocean into the southern Elysium region. Detailed examination of the margin of the deposit, showing erosion, not simply burial, of small crater rims and fluidized ejecta blankets, also points to lacustrine or marine sedimentation rather than volcanic plains burial. The plains surface exhibits a "crusty" appearance that many researchers have attributed to pressure ridges in lava flows. In a lacustrine context, they also resemble pressure ridges in desiccated evaporite deposits and salt-rimmed pools (now dry) similar in scale and morphology to spectacular, hundred meter-scale pool rims in alkaline Lake Natron, East African Rift. The eroded highland margin surface adjacent to these plains appears to be fairly smooth, even at 15 m/pixel. Isolated knob inliers are scattered from a few kilometers to several tens of "kilometers apart. Heights of the knobs have not been measured yet but, based on experience with similar features in the Pathfinder landing ellipse, are probably typically on the order of several tens of meters high and smaller, though some of the largest knobs in the region are probably up to a few hundred meters high. Two craters larger than a kilometer in diameter, with fluidized deposits, lie nearby the proposed landing site. Very high-resolution images from MOC should help to determine whether a landing site navigable by the Athena rover could be placed in this region. The space between knobs and craters is large enough to enable placement of a target landing ellipse between them but still provide access to one or more of them and to the margin of the Elysium plains material. Post-2001 Mars Surveyor Landing Site: Argyre Planitia (Proposed by T. J. Parker) Vital Statistics: (1) Latitude, Longitude: 55-56 S, 41-43 W. (2) Elevation (Viking): 1.0 km. (3) Viking Orbiter Image coverage: Excellent coverage by 40 m/pixel images (orbits 567B, 568B, and 569B). Excellent stereo coverage with large parallax angles over the entire landing site region, and much of central and southern Argyre. (4) Albedo: about .23-.24 (5) Block Abundance: No data (6) Fine-Component Thermal Inertia: No data The floors of both the Argyre and Hellas basins contain etched layered materials that are probably thick accumulations of channel or lacustrine sediments. The deposits in Hellas are much more eroded than those in Argyre, and Hellas lacks a channel outlet. Argyre is unique in that Uzboi Vallis flowed out of the basin, requiring overflow of a standing body of water within Argyre. This makes it the largest impact basin on Mars with channels both draining into it and flowing out from it. Hellas' channels may be catastrophic flood channels, whereas Argyre was fed by modest-scale valley networks, though the outlet at Uzboi Vallis was a catastrophic flood Highland craters and basins of this kind should be high-priority landing targets for missions intended to focus on the search for either prebiotic organic materials or even simple fossil microorganisms. Basins with internally-draining valley networks should be preferred over flood channels, as they could have provided the long-term influx of water favorable to the origin of life. (Catastrophic floods are not conducive to fossil preservation, due to their very short durations and high transportation energies). They also afford an opportunity to study the evolution of the planet's climate and volatiles during the period of time between the late Noachian and early Hesperian, when a drastic change from a proposed early warm, wet climate to one more closely resembling the modern environment is thought to have occurred. Large basin

Parker, T. J.↗
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.

Cameron J. Hines↗
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↗