SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Location Description”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

695 records · Page 39

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1962

NASA Scout ST-1 Flight-Test Results and Analyses, Launch Operations, and Test Vehicle Description

The first of a series of flight tests for the development of the four-stage, solid-propellant Scout vehicle was conducted at the NASA Wallops Station under the direction of the Langley Research Center. Vehicle designation for the test was NASA Scout ST-1. Performance characteristics of the vehicle and components were recorded during a high-altitude probe mission. Flight-simulation studies are presented and show that the accuracy of the guidance system during the flight was within control-system design specifications. The control system functioned normally during the flight with the exception of an overpowering of the reaction-control roll jets near burnout of the third-stage rocket motor. The resulting roll displacement of the vehicle is shown to have caused the monitor tracking radar which had been erroneously tracking a radar beacon in the vehicle on a side lobe to reorient to the major lobe of the receiving antenna. This tracking switch falsely indicated a violent turning maneuver on the monitor plot board and resulted in a hold-fire decision for the fourth-stage rocket motor. Although data for the final thrusting and coast phase of the flight were not obtained, the majority of the test objectives were achieved. In-flight thrust misalignment angles for the second- and third-stage rocket motors derived from control-system error data and for the first-stage motor determined from flight-simulation studies are presented. All rocket-motor thrust misalignment angles were well within the tolerances used for control-system design. Rocket-motor flight performance is presented, and velocity increments attained from the first three stages substantiated the predicted nominal performance. Operation of the rocket motors was satisfactory with the exception of high-level vibrations which were encountered during third-stage motor burning. Rolling moments which overpowered the reaction-control jets are also attributed to the burning characteristics of the third-stage motor. A discussion of the premature loss of the third-stage heat shield is given and shows that the heat-shield latching mechanism failed from pressure loads as the vehicle entered the transonic speed range. Although venting was provided to relieve the high negative pressures known to exist on the heat shield at these speeds, a field modification of the wiring tunnel had the same effect as opening the inside of the heat shield to ambient pressures. Consequently, the latching mechanism failed from pressure loads which were of about the same magnitude as the latching-mechanism yield loads. Skin temperatures were recorded at several locations on the vehicle and were generally in good agreement with theoretical values. Aerodynamic heating presented no problem during the flight since the maximum temperatures recorded during the flight were only about half the design values because of the high-launch-angle trajectory. Environmental vibrations recorded in the vicinity of the guidance package showed that no significant continuous amplitude levels above the general instrumentation noise level were present during first- and second-stage burning. Large vibration amplitudes were recorded during third-stage burning which coincided with the large roll disturbance experienced by the vehicle near burnout of the third-stage motor.

Scout Launch Vehicle↗

NASA NTRS1992

Developing a control system for ARES 2

A great deal of analysis and testing is conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center to support the development of safe and reliable helicopter rotor systems. This work is performed by the Rotorcraft Aeroelasticity Group located in the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) facility. Over the past two decades a wide variety of tests have been successfully conducted in the TDT and their results have contributed significantly to the understanding of aeromechanical phenomena in rotor systems. This has led to improved tools for analysis and design, and ultimately to the development, of improved rotor systems. The TDT facility is ideally suited for these tests due to its unique ability to use a heavy gas as a working medium. This allows the model to be scaled such that the results obtained may be readily extrapolated to full scale. Until recently, the rotor system to be tested has been mounted on a fixed balance which is attached to the longeron which is attached to the stand through a single pitching degree of freedom. The testbed used is known as the Aeroelastic Rotor Experimental System (ARES 1). In order to extend the experimental capabilities to investigate the full rotor/body dynamic coupling present in a rotorcraft, a very ambitious project has been undertaken to design and construct a six degree of freedom system that can be controlled so as to emulate the inertial characteristics of a prescribed model fuselage. The electronic and mechanical hardware for this system has already been designed and constructed. This system is known ar ARES II. The rotor and its drive system are mounted on the balance which is attached to the longeron via six hydraulic actuators. This six degree of freedom parallel linkage is referred to in the literature as a Stuart Platform. By properly adjusting the length of the hydraulic actuators it is possible to position and orient the balance relative to the longeron. The longeron is attached to the stand via a pitch degree of freedom to allow testing over various forward flight regimes. One major task remaining to complete this testbed is the design and synthesis of a control system. To do this properly requires an understanding of the kinematics and dynamics of the system and robust control design. A brief description of the development of a control design is given.

Fitzsimons, Philip M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Transmission Electron Microscopy Study of a Refractory Metal Grain from a Calcium-Aluminum-Rich Inclusion in the Leoville CV3 Chondrite

Introduction: Calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) are an important component of chondritic meteorites. They can contain materials that are thermodynamically predicted and isotopically age dated to be among the first-formed solids in our solar system [1-5]. Observed in some CAIs are micron to sub-micron sized inclusions rich in Fe, Ni, and high-Z elements such as Pt, Os, Ir and W, in the form of refractory metal nuggets (RMNs), fremdlinges, and ‘nugget like objects’ (NLOs) [1,6]. Refractory siderophile elements such as Os, Ir and Ru are thermodynamically predicted to condense at temperatures well in excess of the major CAI phases such as melilite, perovskite, spinel and hibonite [2,7-9]. These refractory metal inclusions in CAIs can therefore serve as probes into the thermodynamic landscape of the early solar protoplanetary disk. Here we report on a refractory grain identified in a CAI of the Leoville CV3 chondrite. This work is part of an ongoing effort to gain insight into the thermochemistry of the early solar system through systematic analyses of the structure and chemistry of various components in CAIs [10-13]. Sample and Analytical Techniques: A fluffy type A CAI (Fig. 1A) was identified in a section of the Leoville, CV3 chondrite (Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona State University collection, #821_C_3) using a JOEL-JXA 8530F electron microprobe at Arizona State University. Backscattered electron (BSE) imaging and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) were used to identify refractory metal grains in the CAI using a Thermo Fisher (formerly FEI) Helios NanoLab 660 G3 focused-ion-beam scanning-electron microscope (FIBSEM) located at the Kuiper Materials Imaging and Characterization Facility (KMICF) at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona. The FIB is equipped with an EDAX EDS system. We selected one of the larger (micron-sized) refractory metal grains, designated as ‘Spud’ (Fig. 1B) for further analysis. ‘Spud’ was extracted and thinned to electron transparency (<100 nm) using the FIB-SEM located in KMICF, following methods described by [14- 15]. The FIB section was analyzed using a 200 keV Hitachi HF5000 scanning transmission electron microscope (S/TEM) located at KMICF. The HF5000 is equipped with cold-field emission gun, 3rd-order spherical aberration corrector for STEM imaging, and an Oxford Instruments X-Max N 100 TLE energydispersive spectroscopy (EDS) system with dual 100 mm2 windowless silicon-drift detectors (Ω = 2.0 sr). Selected-area electron-diffraction (SAED) patterns were acquired to aid in determination of crystallinity and phase. Results: The mineralogy, texture, and morphology of the CAI are consistent with that of a fluffy type A (FTA) CAI [16]. BSE imaging at high magnifications revealed grains with high contrast, indicative of compositions rich in elements of higher atomic number relative to surrounding material. These high-Z grains have sizes that range from ∼250 nm to 4 µm. EDS analyses confirm that the bright grains are metal-rich inclusions. A minor fraction of the grains are composed of only Fe and Ni, but the majority (∼60%) of the identified inclusions also contained various refractory siderophiles including Os, Ru, Zr, Ir and Mo. EDS analysis on the FIB-SEM of Spud shows that it contains Fe, Ni, Mo and Ru. High-angle annular dark-field (HAAFD) imaging and EDS mapping in the TEM (Fig. 2) show that Spud occurs in melilite (Ca1.9Al1.99Si1.06O7). Spud contains a subhedral to anhedral morphology and is compositionally heterogenous (polyphasic, Fig. 2). Local spatial correlation occurs among Fe, Ni, and Pt, and also among Os, Ru, and Mo. SAED patterns show that the Fe-Ni-Pt, Fe-Os-Mo-Ru and Fe-Pt regions are crystalline. Discussion: CAIs can contain various types of inclusions rich in Fe, Ni and refractory siderophiles such as Os, Ru, W and Pt [1]. RMNs are micron-sized, single phase alloy grains and can contain Os, Ir, Ru and Rh [1,7,17]. NLOs are also micron-sized inclusions, but contain two phases, a refractory metal, and an oxide [6]. Fremdlinge are the largest of such inclusions (tens of microns in size) and are complex aggregates of Fe-Ni alloy, silicates, oxides, and sulfides [1,17]. While the size of Spud matches previous descriptions of RMNs and NLOs, Spud is neither a single-phase alloy like RMNs, nor does it contain one metal phase and one oxide like NLOs. Spud does not match the above described categories of refractory metal inclusions. The presence of refractory siderophiles such as Mo, Os, Ru, and Pt suggests a high-temperature origin. Thermodynamic modelling by [7] indicates condensation temperatures of 1917 K, 1693 K, 1613 K and 1415 K for Os, Mo, Ru and Pt respectively. These models also show that following the initial condensation of a refractory metal, alloying of solutes such as Fe, Ni and W, occurs in levels proportional to their partial pressures in the surrounding gas. Such alloying occurs at temperatures above the condensation temperatures of common CAI phases such as melilite (1529 K), perovskite (1441 K), spinel (197 K) and forsterite (1354 K) [2]. The polyphasic nature of Spud could be the result of such high-temperature alloying, possibly shortly after the condensation of Mo and Ru at 1693 K and 1613 K respectively. That Spud occurs as an inclusion is consistent with it having formed prior to and at temperature above that of its host melilite in this FTA CAI, which is qualitatively consistent with such prior thermodynamic modeling. Further, the polyphasic nature of Spud is similar to refractory grains from a FTA CAI in the Northwest Africa (NWA) 8323, CV3 chondrite [11-13]. These data suggest that such refractory metal grains could have been widespread in the inner and early solar protoplanetary disk and represent some of the earliest formed solids to have condensed. Acknowledgments: Research and instrumentation supported by NASA grants #NNX12AL47G, #NNX15AJ22G and #80NSSC19K0509, and NSF grants #1531243 and #0619599. Fig 2. STEM data on ‘Spud’. HAADF Image (Top) False-color EDS Maps (Bottom) References: [1] MacPherson G. J. (2014) T. of Geochem. Vol I: Met. And Cosmochem. Processes, 139-179. [2] Lodders K. (2003) ApJ, 591, 1220-1247. [3] Ebel D. S. (2006) Met. & the Early S. Sys. II., 253- 277. [4] Amelin Y. (2002) Science, 297, 1678-1683. [5] Connelly J.N. et.al. (2012) Science, 338, 651-655. [6] Schwander D. et al. (2015) GCA, 18, 70-87. [7] Palme H. and Wlotzka F. (1976) EPSL, 33, 45-60. [8] Berg T. et al. (2009) ApJ, 702, 172-176. [9] Liffman K. et al. (2021) Icarus, 221, 89-105. [10] Zega T.J. et al. (2021) PSJ, 2, 115. [11] Ramprasad T. et al. (2020) LPSC LI, Abstract #2472. [12] Ramprasad T. et al. (2021) Microscopy & Microanalysis, S1, 2792-2794. [13] Ramprasad T. et al. (2021) 84th MetSoc, Abstract #6123. [14] Zega T.J. et al. (2007) MAPS, 42, 1373-1386. [15] Ramprasad T. et al. (2022) MAPS, in revision. [16] Grossman L. (1975), GCA, 39, 433-454. [17] El Goresy A. et al. (1978) LPSC IX, Abstract#1100

T. Ramprasad↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Genesis Non-flight Implant Sample Archive

Introduction: For the past 20 years the Genesis science community has been analyzing solar wind captured in sample collectors now curated at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Non-flown flight like collector materials (non-flight) considered reference material was always allocated by the JSC Genesis team for testing experimental procedures. However, to expedite Genesis science, distribution of non-flown reference materials were also provided by, D. S. Burnett (Genesis PI, Caltech) and A. J. G. Jurewicz (ASU) who were funded to aid all Genesis PIs by providing engineering test materials archived at Caltech pre-flight as well as ion implants into these materials [1]. Implanted materials (non-flight reference, flight-like semiconductor materials, and NIST SRM glass) received from the Caltech collection during a pilot project are being used to develop an accession procedure for the purpose of making these materials available to researchers in the future. These implant samples are important because they can be utilized as measurement standards [2]. This is a work in progress and this work reports progress in documentation and imaging. The pilot program received 63 implanted reference materials with known implanted ions. Genesis Non-Flight Database: The existing non-flight material database was modified to allow for the description of implant sessions and to allow correlation of the implant information to individual specimens. An implant session has three main components: a known ion, a known dose (ion/cm2), and a known energy (keV). Procedure: Laboratory Procedure. Upon receiving non-flight analytical standards (independently calibrated implants), or implant samples (nominally calibrated implants), they will be imaged in their current containers to capture any information written before being brought into the Genesis Sample Laboratory. Documentation is provided by the donor and used for correlating the data between the implant sessions and implant samples. This information is not verified by Genesis Curation. The microscope used to image samples in the laboratory has an automated stage with a stainless-steel plate to hold samples and a camera that utilizes the software Surveyor to take photomosaic images of the implant samples. The camera attached to the microscope is a QICAM High Performance IEEE 1394 FireWire Digital CCD Camera. This setup, shown in Fig. 1, allows for photomosaics of small-scale samples with a 10x objective or 25x objective. Examples of images taken with this microscope setup are shown in Fig.2 and Fig. 3. After imaging, samples get stored in a clean fluoroware container or polypropylene vial depending on sample size for long term storage. Database Procedure. The Genesis Non-Flight Database currently allows for the addition of implant sessions. The required fields for adding an implant session are the implant session ion, the implant session dose, and the implant session energy. There are also fields for the date and vendor of the sessions as well as a field for if the session was calibrated or not. Once an implant session has been inserted into the database, additional documentation from the session can be attached. The database will automatically assign an Implant Session Number. After inserting an implant session, the implanted samples can be inserted. The fields required for an implant sample are the material of the sample and the size of the sample. The Generic name for the implant sample with be automatically generated by the database once it has been inserted. Implant sample numbers begin with 3X to distinguish from flown Genesis sample numbers. There are also fields for processors to add the location (room, cabinet, tray) and container type (fluoroware, polypropylene vial). Once an implant session and an associated sample(s) have been inserted into the database the sample can be then tied to all associated implant sessions. An implant sample can be tied to multiple implant sessions. Future work: For curation, future work consists of creating an online catalogue for implant samples as well as updating the database with more samples as we receive them. For the scientific community these implant samples have many potential uses. For Genesis research, they are directly applicable for testing and, in some cases, as analytical standards. For non-Genesis research, implants (especially calibrated implants) could be used for calibrating other, unique planetary materials [1].

C D Calva↗

NASA NTRS2006

JSC Orbital Debris Website Description

Purpose: The website provides information about the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office at JSC, which is the lead NASA center for orbital debris research. It is recognized world-wide for its leadership in addressing orbital debris issues. The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office has taken the international lead in conducting measurements of the environment and in developing the technical consensus for adopting mitigation measures to protect users of the orbital environment. Work at the center continues with developing an improved understanding of the orbital debris environment and measures that can be taken to control its growth. Major Contents: Orbital Debris research is divided into the following five broad efforts. Each area of research contains specific information as follows: 1) Modeling - NASA scientists continue to develop and upgrade orbital debris models to describe and characterize the current and future debris environment. Evolutionary and engineering models are described in detail. Downloadable items include a document in PDF format and executable software. 2) Measurements - Measurements of near-Earth orbital debris are accomplished by conducting ground-based and space-based observations of the orbital debris environment. The data from these sources provide validation of the environment models and identify the presence of new sources. Radar, optical and surface examinations are described. External links to related topics are provided. 3) Protection - Orbital debris protection involves conducting hypervelocity impact measurements to assess the risk presented by orbital debris to operating spacecraft and developing new materials and new designs to provide better protection from the environment with less weight penalty. The data from this work provides the link between the environment defined by the models and the risk presented by that environment to operating spacecraft and provides recommendations on design and operations procedures to reduce the risk as required. These data also help in the analysis and interpretation of impact features on returned spacecraft surfaces. 4) Mitigation - Controlling the growth of the orbital debris population is a high priority for NASA, the United States, and the major space-faring nations of the world to preserve near-Earth space for future generations. Mitigation measures can take the form of curtailing or preventing the creation of new debris, designing satellites to withstand impacts by small debris, and implementing operational procedures ranging from utilizing orbital regimes with less debris, adopting specific spacecraft attitudes, and even maneuvering to avoid collisions with debris. Downloadable items include several documents in PDF format and executable software.and 5) Reentry - Because of the increasing number of objects in space, NASA has adopted guidelines and assessment procedures to reduce the number of non-operational spacecraft and spent rocket upper stages orbiting the Earth. One method of postmission disposal is to allow reentry of these spacecraft, either from orbital decay (uncontrolled entry) or with a controlled entry. Orbital decay may be achieved by firing engines to lower the perigee altitude so that atmospheric drag will eventually cause the spacecraft to enter. However, the surviving debris impact footprint cannot be guaranteed to avoid inhabited landmasses. Controlled entry normally occurs by using a larger amount of propellant with a larger propulsion system to drive the spacecraft to enter the atmosphere at a steeper flight path angle. It will then enter at a more precise latitude, longitude, and footprint in a nearly uninhabited impact region, generally located in the ocean.

Johnson, Nicholas L.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Fluid Physics in a Fluctuating Acceleration Environment

Our program of research aims at developing a stochastic description of the residual acceleration field onboard spacecraft (g-jitter) to describe in quantitative detail its effect on fluid motion. Our main premise is that such a statistical description is necessary in those cases in which the characteristic time scales of the process under investigation are long compared with the correlation time of g-jitter. Although a clear separation between time scales makes this approach feasible, there remain several difficulties of practical nature: (i), g-jitter time series are not statistically stationary but rather show definite dependences on factors such as active or rest crew periods; (ii), it is very difficult to extract reliably the low frequency range of the power spectrum of the acceleration field. This range controls the magnitude of diffusive processes; and (iii), models used to date are Gaussian, but there is evidence that large amplitude disturbances occur much more frequently than a Gaussian distribution would predict. The lack of stationarity does not constitute a severe limitation in practice, since the intensity of the stochastic components changes very slowly during space missions (perhaps over times of the order of hours). A separate analysis of large amplitude disturbances has not been undertaken yet, but it does not seem difficult a priori to devise models that may describe this range better than a Gaussian distribution. The effect of low frequency components, on the other hand, is more difficult to ascertain, partly due to the difficulty associated with measuring them, and partly because they may be indistinguishable from slowly changing averages. This latter effect is further complicated by the lack of statistical stationarity of the time series. Recent work has focused on the effect of stochastic modulation on the onset of oscillatory instabilities as an example of resonant interaction between the driving acceleration and normal modes of the system, and on cavity flow as an example of how an oscillatory response under periodic driving becomes diffusive if the forcing is random instead. This paper describes three different topics that illustrate behavior that is peculiar to a stochastic acceleration field. In the first case, we show that g-jitter can induce effective attractive or repulsive forces between a pair of spherical particles that are suspended in an incompressible fluid of different density provided that the momentum diffusion length is larger than the interparticle separation (as in the case in most colloidal suspensions). Second, a stochastic modulation of the control parameter in the vicinity of a pitchfork or supercritical bifurcation is known not to affect the location of the threshold. We show, however, that resonance between the modulation and linearly stable modes close to onset can lead to a shift in threshold. Finally, we discuss the classical problem of vorticity diffusion away from a plane boundary that is being vibrated along its own plane. Periodic motion with zero average vorticity production results in an exponential decay of the vorticity away from the boundary. Random vibration, on the other hand, results in power law decay away from the boundary even if vorticity production averages to zero.

Drolet, Francois↗

NASA NTRS2016

Simulation Development and Analysis of Crew Vehicle Ascent Abort

NASA's Commercial Crew Program is an integral step in its journey to Mars as it would expedite development of space technologies and open up partnership with U.S. commercial companies. NASA reviews and independent assessment of Commercial Crew Program is fundamental to its success, and being able to model a commercial crew vehicle in a simulation rather than conduct a live test would be a safer, faster, and less expensive way to assess and certify the capabilities of the vehicle. To this end, my project was to determine the feasibility of using a simulation tool named SOMBAT version 2.0 to model a multiple parachute system for Commercial Crew Program simulation. The main tasks assigned to me were to debug and test the main parachute system model, (capable of simulating one to four main parachute bodies), and to utilize a graphical program to animate the simulation results. To begin tackling the first task, I learned how to use SOMBAT by familiarizing myself with its mechanics and by understanding the methods used to tweak its various parameters and outputs. I then used this new knowledge to set up, run, and analyze many different situations within SOMBAT in order to explore the limitations of the parachute model. Some examples of parameters that I varied include the initial velocity and orientation of the falling capsule, the number of main parachutes, and the location where the parachutes were attached to the capsule. Each parameter changed would give a different output, and in some cases, would expose a bug or limitation in the model. A major bug that I discovered was the inability of the model to handle any number of parachutes other than three. I spent quite some time trying to debug the code logically, but was unable to figure it out until my mentor taught me that digital simulation limitations can occur when some approximations are mistakenly assumed for certain in a physical system. This led me to the realization that unlike in all of the programming classes I have taken thus far that focus on pure logic, simulation code focuses on mimicking the physical world with some approximation and can have inaccuracies or numerical instabilities. Learning from my mistake, I adopted new methods to analyze these different simulations. One method the student used was to numerically plot various physical parameters using MATLAB to confirm the mechanical behavior of the system in addition to comparing the data to the output from a separate simulation tool called FAST. By having full control over what was being outputted from the simulation, I could choose which parameters to change and to plot as well as how to plot them, allowing for an in depth analysis of the data. Another method of analysis was to convert the output data into a graphical animation. Unlike the numerical plots, where all of the physical components were displayed separately, this graphical display allows for a combined look at the simulation output that makes it much easier for one to see the physical behavior of the model. The process for converting SOMBAT output for EDGE graphical display had to be developed. With some guidance from other EDGE users, I developed a process and created a script that would easily allow one to display simulations graphically. Another limitation with the SOMBAT model was the inability for the capsule to have the main parachutes instantly deployed with a large angle between the air speed vector and the chutes drag vector. To explore this problem, I had to learn about different coordinate frames used in Guidance, Navigation & Control (J2000, ECEF, ENU, etc.) to describe the motion of a vehicle and about Euler angles (e.g. Roll, Pitch, Yaw) to describe the orientation of the vehicle. With a thorough explanation from my mentor about the description of each coordinate frame, as well as how to use a directional cosine matrix to transform one frame to another, I investigated the problem by simulating different capsule orientations. In the end, I was able to show that this limitation could be avoided if the capsule is initially oriented antiparallel to its velocity vector.

Wong, Chi S.↗

NASA NTRS2004

The Development of Large Inflatable Antenna for Deep-Space Communications

NASA/JPL's deep-space exploration program has been placing emphasis on reducing the mass and stowage volume of its spacecraft's high-gain and large-aperture antennas. To achieve these goals, the concept of deployable flat reflectarray antenna using an inflatable/thin-membrane structure was introduced at JPL several years ago. A reflectarray is a flat array antenna space-fed by a low-gain feed located at its focal point in a fashion similar to that of a parabolic reflector. The ref1ectarray's elements, using microstrip technology, can be printed onto a flat thin-membrane surface and are each uniquely designed to compensate for the different phase delays due to different path lengths from the feed. Although the reflectarray suffers from limited bandwidth (typically < 10%), it offers a more reliably deployed and maintained flat "natural" surface. A recent hardware development at JPL has demonstrated that a 0.2mm rms surface tolerance (l/50th of a wavelength) was achieved on a 3-meter Ka-band inflatable reflectarray. Another recent development, to combat the reflectarray's narrow band characteristic, demonstrated that dual-band performance, such as X- and Ka-bands, with an aperture efficiency of above 50 percent is achievable by the reflectarray antenna. To mechanically deploy the antenna, the reflectarray's thin membrane aperture surface is supported, tensioned and deployed by an inflatable tubular structure. There are several critical elements and challenging issues associated with the inflatable tube structure. First, the inflatable tube must be made rigidizable so that, once the tube is fully deployed in space, it rigidizes itself and the inflation system is no longer needed. In addition, if the tube is penetrated by small space debris, the tube will maintain its rigidity and not cause deformation to the antenna structure. To support large apertures (e.g. 10m or beyond) without causing any buckling to the small-diameter inflatable tube during vibration, the tube, in addition to rigidization, is also reinforced by circumferential thin blades, as well as axial blades. Second, a controlled deployment mechanism, such as by using Velcro strips, must also be implemented into the system so that, for very large structures, the long inflatable tubes can be deployed in a time-controlled fashion and not get tangled with each other. Third, the thermal analysis is another critical element and must be performed for the tube design in order to assure that the inflated tube, under extreme space thermal conditions, will not deform significantly. Finally, the dynamic vibration analysis must also be performed on the inflatable structure. This will investigate the response of the structure due to excitation introduced by the spacecraft maneuvering and thus determine any necessary damping. Several reflectarray antennas have been developed at JPL to demonstrate the technology. These include an earlier 1-meter X-band inflatable reflectarray, a 3-meter Ka-band inflatable reflectarray, a half-meter dual-band (X and Ka) reflectarray, and the current on-going 10-meter inflatable structure development. The detailed RF and mechanical descriptions of these antennas, as well as their performances, will be presented during the conference.

inflatable antenna↗

NASA NTRS2019

Acoustic Phased Array Quantification of Quiet Technology Demonstrator 3 Advanced Inlet Liner Noise Component

Acoustic phased array flyover noise measurements were acquired as part of the Boeing 737 MAX-7 NASA Advanced Inlet Liner segment of the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 3 (QTD3) flight test program. This paper reports on the processes used for separating and quantifying the engine inlet, exhaust and airframe noise source components and provides sample phased array-based comparisons of the component noise source levels associated with the inlet liner treatment configurations. Full scale flyover noise testing of NASA advanced inlet liners was conducted as part of the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 3 flight test program in July and August of 2018. Details on the inlet designs and testing are provided in the companion paper of Reference 1. The present paper provides supplemental details relating to the acoustic phased array portion of the analyses provided in Ref. 1. In brief, the test article was a Boeing 737MAX-7 aircraft with a modified right hand (starboard side) engine inlet, which consisted of either a production inlet liner, a NASA designed inlet liner or a simulated hard wall configuration (accomplished by applying speed tape over the inlet acoustic treatment areas). In all three configurations, the engine forward fan case acoustic panel was replaced with a unperforated (hardwall) panel. No other modifications to any other acoustic treatment areas were made. The left hand (port side) engine was a production engine and was flown at idle thrust for all measurements in order to isolate the effects of the inlet liners to the right hand engine. As described in Ref. 1, the NASA inlet treatment consists of laterally cut slots (cut perpendicular to the flow direction) which are designed to reduce excrescence drag while maintaining or exceeding the liner acoustic noise reduction capabilities. The NASA inlet liner consists of a Multi-Degree of Freedom (MDOF) design with two breathable septum layers inserted into each honeycomb cell [1]. The aircraft noise measurements were acquired for both takeoff (flaps 1 setting, gear up) and approach (flaps 30 gear up and gear down) configurations. The inlet and flight test configurations are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Inlet Treatment and Flight Configurations Inlet Forward Fan Case Aircraft Production Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down NASA Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down Hardwall Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down III.Test Description and Hardware The flight testing was conducted at the Grant County airport in Moses Lake, WA, between 27 July and 6 August 2018. The noise measurement instrumentation included 8 flush dish microphones arranged in a noise certification configuration as well as an 840 microphone phased array. The flush dish microphones were used to quantify the levels and differences in levels between the various inlet treatments. The phased array was used to separate and quantify the narrowband (tonal) and broadband noise component levels from the engine inlet/exhaust and from the airframe. Phased array extraction of the broadband component was critical to this study because it allowed for the separation of the inlet component from the total airplane level noise even when it was significantly below the total level. Figure 1 provides an overview of the phased array microphone layout as well as a detailed image of an individual phased array microphone mounted in a plate holder (the microphone sensor is the dot in the center of the plate). The ground plane ensemble array microphones (referred to as “ensemble array” in this paper) were mounted in plates with “flower petal” edges designed to minimize edge scattering effects. Fig. 1 Flyover test microphone layout. The phased array configuration was the result of a progressive development of concepts originally implemented in Ref. 2 and refined over the following years, consisting namely of multiple multi-arm logarithmic spiral subarrays designed to cover overlapping frequency ranges and optimized for various aircraft emission angles. For the present case, the signals from all 840 microphones were acquired on a single system. The 840 microphones were parsed into 11 primary subarray sets spanning from smallest to largest aperture size and labeled accordingly as “a, b, …, k”, where “a” corresponds to the smallest fielded subarray and “k” corresponds to the largest aperture subarray. The apertures ranged from approximately 10 ft to 427 ft in size (in the flight direction) with the subarrays consisting of between 215 and 312 microphones. Figure 2 shows three such subarrays, k, h and a. As done in Ref. 2, microphones were shared between subarrays in order to reduce total channel count. Fig. 2 Sample subarray sizes (20° from overhead – refer to Figure 3a discussion). In addition to the above, each of the 11 primary subarray sets consisted of four subarrays optimized to provide near equivalent array spatial resolution in both the flight and lateral directions within 30 degrees of overhead (i.e., airplane directly above the center of the array), namely, at angles  of 0, ±10, ±20 and ±30 degrees relative to overhead where angle  is defined as shown in Figure 3a. This allowed for optimized aircraft noise measurements from 60 to 120 degree emission angle.6 An example of this pletharray design is shown in Figure 3b for the k subarray. When the aircraft is at overhead, the microphones indicated by the blue markers are used for beamforming. When the aircraft is at angles ±10 degrees from overhead, both the blue and red colored microphones are used, and so on for the ±20 and ±30 degree aircraft locations. See Ref. 3 for extensive details on pletharray design for aeroacoustic phased array testing. 6 In the discussions that follow, emission angle values are used. These are the angles at the time sound is emitted relative to the engine axis and are calculated based on flight path angle, body aircraft body angle with respect to the relative wind direction, and engine axis angle relative to aircraft body angle.

Brusniak, Leon↗

NASA NTRS2012

The Pursuit of K: Reflections on the Current State-of-the-Art in Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Practical Aerospace Applications

The elastic stress intensity factor (SIF, commonly denoted as K) is the foundation of practical fracture mechanics (FM) analysis for aircraft structures. This single parameter describes the first-order effects of stress magnitude and distribution as well as the geometry of both structure/component and crack. Hence, the calculation of K is often the most significant step in fatigue analysis based on FM. This presentation will provide several reflections on the current state-of-the-art in SIF solution methods used for practical aerospace applications, including a brief historical perspective, descriptions of some recent and ongoing advances, and comments on some remaining challenges. Newman and Raju made significant early contributions to practical structural analysis by developing closed-form SIF equations for surface and corner cracks in simplified geometries, often based on empirical fits of finite element (FE) solutions. Those solutions (and others like them) were sometimes revised as new analyses were conducted or limitations discovered. The foundational solutions have exhibited striking longevity, despite the relatively "coarse" FE models employed many decades ago. However, in recent years, the accumulation of different generations of solutions for the same nominal geometry has led to some confusion (which solution is correct?), and steady increases in computational capabilities have facilitated the discovery of inaccuracies in some (not all!) of the legacy solutions. Some examples of problems and solutions are presented and discussed, including the challenge of maintaining consistency with legacy design applications. As computational power has increased, the prospect of calculating large numbers of SIF solutions for specific complex geometries with advanced numerical methods has grown more attractive. Fawaz and Andersson, for example, have been generating literally millions of new SIF solutions for different combinations of multiple cracks under simplified loading schemes using p-version FE methods. These data are invaluable, but questions remain about their practical use, because the tabular databases of key results needed to support practical life analysis can occupy gigabytes of storage for only a few classes of geometries. The prospect of using such advanced numerical methods to calculate in real time only those K solutions actually needed to support a specific crack growth analysis is also tempting, but the stark reality is that the computational cost is still so high that the approach is not practical except for specific, critical application problems. Some thoughts are offered about alternative paradigms. Compounding approaches are some of the earliest building blocks of SIF development for more complex geometries. These approaches are especially attractive because of their very low computational cost and their conceptual robustness; they are, in some ways, an intriguing contrast and complement to the brute-force numerical methods. In recent years, researchers at NRC-Canada have published remarkable results showing how compounding approaches can be used to generate accurate solutions for very difficult problems. Examples are provided of some successes--and some limitations--using this approach. These closed-form, tabulated numerical, and compounding approaches have typically been used for simple remote loading with simple load paths to the crack. However, many significant cracks occur in complex stress gradient fields. This is a job for weight function (WF) methods, where the arbitrary stress distribution on the crack plane in the corresponding uncracked body (typically determined using FE methods) is used to determine K. Several significant recent advances in WF methods and solutions are highlighted here. Fueled by advanced 3D numerical methods, many new solutions have been generated for classic geometries such as surface and corner cracks with wide ranges of geometrical validity. A new WF formulation has also be developed for part-through cracks considering the arbitrary stress gradients in all directions in the crack plane (so-called bivariant solutions). Basic WF methods have recently been combined with analytical expressions for crack plane stresses to develop a large family of accurate SIF solutions for corner, surface, and through cracks at internal or external notches with very wide ranges of shapes, sizes, acuities, and offsets. Finally, WF solutions are much faster than FE or boundary element solutions, but can still be much slower than simple closed-form solutions, especially for bivariant solutions that can require 2D numerical integration. Novel pre-integration and dynamic tabular methods have been developed that substantially increase the speed of these advanced WF solutions. The practical utility of advanced SIF methods, including both WF and direct numerical methods, is greatly enhanced if the FM life analysis can be directly and efficiently linked with digital models of the actual structure or component (e.g., FE models for stress analysis). Two recent advances of this type will be described. One approach directly interfaces the FM life analysis with the FE model of the uncracked component (including stress results). Through a powerful graphical user interface, simplified FM life models can be constructed (and visualized) directly on the component model, with the computer collecting the geometry and stress gradient information needed for the life calculation. An even more powerful paradigm uses expert logic to automatically build an optimum simple fracture model at any and every desired location in the component model, perform the life calculation, and even generate fatigue crack growth life contour maps, all with minimal user intervention. This paradigm has also been extended to the automatic calculation of fracture risk, considering uncertainty or variability in key input parameters such as initial crack size or location. Another new integrated approach links the engineering life analysis, the component model, and a 3D numerical fracture analysis built with the same component model to generate a table of SIF values at a specific location that can then be employed efficiently to perform the life calculation. Some attention must be given to verification and validation (V&V) issues and challenges: how good are these SIF solutions, how good is good enough, and does anyone believe the life answer? It is important to think critically about the different sources of error or uncertainty and to perform V&V in a hierarchal, building-block manner. Some accuracy issues for SIF solutions, for example, may actually involve independent material behavior issues, such as constraint loss effects for crack fronts near component surfaces, and can be a source of confusion. Recommendations are proposed for improved V&V approaches. This presentation will briefly but critically survey the range of issues and advances mentioned above, with a particular view towards assembling an integrated approach that combines different methods to create practical tools for real-world design and analysis problems. Examples will be selectively drawn from the recent literature, from recent enhancements in the NASGRO and DARWIN computer codes, and from previously unpublished research

CraigMcClung, R.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Autonomous Ocean World Exploration: Advancement of a Virtual Testbed

The search for life (extinct or extant) and potentially habitable bodies in our solar system and beyond is one of the 12 priority science questions outlined in the National Acadamies’ 2022 decadal survey [5]. Extraterrestrial destinations containing liquid water present an opportunity to search for life as we know it, and in recent years an increasing number of such locations have been discovered within our solar system. Several Jovian moons—Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto [10]—and the Saturnian moons Enceladus [8] and Titan [9] are known or suspected to harbor massive subsurface oceans. Of these "ocean worlds", Europa is the focus of at least one planned NASA orbiter mission, Europa Clipper [4], and an early lander mission concept, the Europa Lander [2, 3]. Whereas most robotic missions to the Moon and Mars (e.g. orbiters, rovers, landers) to date have had ground controllers on Earth tightly involved in mission operations, missions to more distant worlds will require a high degree of onboard autonomy due to long communication lags and blackouts, harsh environments (radiation, cold), and more limited battery and hardware life. The past decade has seen great advances in both AI technologies and computing scalability and performance that offer promising solutions for spacecraft autonomy and motivate the software system and research programs described in this paper. The Ocean Worlds Autonomy Testbed for Exploration, Research, and Simulation (OceanWATERS) [1], which has been in development at the NASA Ames Research Center since 2018, is a virtual environment for testing lander autonomy solutions. It is built on the Robot Operating System (ROS), runs on consumer-grade Linux workstations, and was released as open source in 2020. OceanWATERS provides a physical and visual simulation of a prototypical lander in a Europa-like environment (Figure 1). The lander was modeled after requirements and specifications made in JPL’s Europa Lander Study of 2016 [3]. Simulated lander systems include stereo cameras and spotlights mounted on an antenna mast that pans and tilts, a 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) robotic arm with a force-torque sensor and two interchangeable end effectors, and a battery pack power system. The environment consists of multiple terrain models including a highly detailed model sourced from the FROST dataset [11], simulation of surrounding planetary bodies based on an ephemeris model, and lighting from the sun with associated surface illumination, reflectance, and shadows. Operations supported by OceanWATERS include panoramic and directed imaging of the environment and lander workspace, Cartesian and joint-level arm commanding, grinding of the terrain surface (e.g. digging a trench), and scooping of ground material (Figure 2) which can be discarded or collected as science samples in a receptacle that can be emptied (science operations themselves are not simulated). These operations are realized as ROS Actions and are complimented by a wide selection of telemetry that is continually produced by each lander subsystem. The power system model is driven by the open-source Generic Software Architecture for Prognostics (GSAP) [11] that predicts the battery’s remaining useful life and other characteristics. As a testbed for high-level autonomy, OceanWATERS provides an execution framework based on PLEXIL [12], an open-source plan specification language and execution engine developed largely at Ames. NASA's initial development of OceanWATERS, as well the Ocean Worlds Lander Autonomy Testbed (OWLAT) [6], a complimentary physical testbed developed at JPL, was the first step in a plan for realizing candidate onboard autonomy solutions for such planetary landers. In 2020 NASA solicited applications for its Autonomous Robotics Research for Ocean Worlds (ARROW) program, and in 2021 the similar Concepts for Ocean worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech) program. Collectively six research teams, based in universities and companies across the United States, were awarded grants to develop and demonstrate autonomy solutions on OceanWATERS and OWLAT. These 1–2-year projects have now finished or are nearing completion, and a wide variety of autonomy challenges in ocean world surface missions were addressed. Prototyped and demonstrated solutions have included autonomous discovery, response and adaptation to system faults and unexpected environmental events, world model synthesis through perception, plan synthesis using learned models, methods to optimize sample target selection and prioritize science data transmission, extension of PLEXIL for stochastic decision-making, and an integration of a model of JPL’s mission-ready COLDArm [7]. Technologies used in these projects include many forms of machine learning, causal reasoning, automated planning, Markov decision processes, formal methods, and other advanced techniques. A more detailed summary of the ARROW and COLDTech projects is given herein. OceanWATERS has had significant enhancements since its open-source release in 2020. Many of its new features were driven or shaped by feedback from the ARROW and COLDTech teams and requirements of their projects. In support of enabling autonomous adaptation to spacecraft faults (a specific capability solicited by both programs), a fault injection and detection framework was developed that supports a wide and growing range of fault types such as locked joints, image loss, and battery failures. The power system model was completed and integrated into the simulator, starting as a single-cell battery model and later upgraded to a multi-cell model with associated faults such as cell disconnection. Arm/terrain interaction was improved by adding a force-torque sensor and associated faults, and an analytic dig force model based on the Balovnev bucket force equations. Environment fidelity was increased by modeling terrain deformation resulting from digging and scooping; visual improvements were made in textures, lighting, and shadows. To facilitate interoperation with OWLAT, a unified command and telemetry interface between the testbeds was developed at the ROS level, along with a PLEXIL interface. The number of lander operations was greatly expanded (e.g. with Cartesian-based arm and antenna movement), and a framework was designed for users to build their own lander actions. A GUI for PLEXIL plan selection was created (Figure 3), and an expansive set of plans were added, such as those that illustrate patterns for fault handling. This paper provides a self-contained high-level description of OceanWATERS, focusing on more detailed coverage of the aforementioned enhancements. It provides a high-level summary of the projects undertaken by participants in the ARROW and COLDTech programs and how these efforts have helped shape OceanWATERS. Finally, potential future work and directions for the testbed are listed, as likely informed by the recent planetary science decadal survey [5].

K Michael Dalal↗