Facilities, Individuals, and Individuals in Facilites: What's in a Name? that which We Call a Facility May Not Always Smell as Sweet
No abstract available
Papanastassiou, D.A.↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “FACILITY”
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.
Monitoring Well Installation Completion Report for Ransom Road Landfill, Vertical Processing Facility, and Environmental Health Facility, Solid Waste Management Units: 003, 077, and 079
The intended purpose of the Monitoring Well Installation project is to support the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Environmental Remediation Department’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Program by installing new monitoring wells. The wells are installed in accordance with the Brevard County Health Department and St. Johns River Water Management Districts rules and guidelines.
Well Installation↗
Research and test facilities for development of technologies and experiments with commercial applications
One of NASA'S agency-wide goals is the commercial development of space. To further this goal NASA is implementing a policy whereby U.S. firms are encouraged to utilize NASA facilities to develop and test concepts having commercial potential. Goddard, in keeping with this policy, will make the facilities and capabilities described in this document available to private entities at a reduced cost and on a noninterference basis with internal NASA programs. Some of these facilities include: (1) the Vibration Test Facility; (2) the Battery Test Facility; (3) the Large Area Pulsed Solar Simulator Facility; (4) the High Voltage Testing Facility; (5) the Magnetic Field Component Test Facility; (6) the Spacecraft Magnetic Test Facility; (7) the High Capacity Centrifuge Facility; (8) the Acoustic Test Facility; (9) the Electromagnetic Interference Test Facility; (10) the Space Simulation Test Facility; (11) the Static/Dynamic Balance Facility; (12) the High Speed Centrifuge Facility; (13) the Optical Thin Film Deposition Facility; (14) the Gold Plating Facility; (15) the Paint Formulation and Application Laboratory; (16) the Propulsion Research Laboratory; (17) the Wallops Range Facility; (18) the Optical Instrument Assembly and Test Facility; (19) the Massively Parallel Processor Facility; (20) the X-Ray Diffraction and Scanning Auger Microscopy/Spectroscopy Laboratory; (21) the Parts Analysis Laboratory; (22) the Radiation Test Facility; (23) the Ainsworth Vacuum Balance Facility; (24) the Metallography Laboratory; (25) the Scanning Electron Microscope Laboratory; (26) the Organic Analysis Laboratory; (27) the Outgassing Test Facility; and (28) the Fatigue, Fracture Mechanics and Mechanical Testing Laboratory.
Source record↗
Configuration and Projected Capabilities of the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility
The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. Additional work outside the scope of this paper is developing a vertical translation system, a crew mobility aids system based on wearable gecko-derived grippers, and a crew seating/restraint system. These systems are all assumed for use in conjunction with the Medical Care Facility, which is needed to maintain crew well-being during these missions, where distance from Earth precludes the possibility of evacuation to Earth. This paper describes recent improvements in the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility and associated benefits for crew survivability in long duration missions beyond Earth orbit. These improvements were made with the assistance of a NASA Pathways intern whose experience includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Army combat medic with the 691st GHOST-T, attached to the 1st and 7th US Special Forces Groups as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, where he helped provide far-forward surgical capabilities in austere combat environments. The initial baseline Medical Care Facility was developed working in conjunction with University of Houston Space Architecture graduate students. The facility was placed on the upper deck of the Common Habitat in a location that provided privacy, operational volume, and was close to the vertical translation pathway. The notional outfitting repurposed component CAD models from unrelated studies and notionally indicated a level of care roughly equivalent to that aboard the International Space Station. The CAD modeling provided notional stowage volumes, a deployable surface, some fixed equipment, an ultrasound, and a potentially reconfigurable treatment table. While this facility is clearly a competent arrangement, it was desired to leverage available expertise and upgrade the station given the vast distances from Earth to be experienced by the Common Habitat. Key driving requirements applied to the upgrade included to provide Medical Level of Care V, offer enhanced telemedicine capabilities, provide patient physical accommodation, provide caregiver access to the patient from all sides, include sliding pocket doors for access to hygiene and to the Vertical Translation System, and to add any additional capability possible for the best achievable medical care. The first step in the facility upgrade was to quantify the current medical inventory on the International Space Station and ensure that sufficient stowage volume was present for this purpose. To that end, the ISS medical kits were reviewed, and eight full size mid deck lockers were placed in the facility. A number of additional devices were also added, based on the intern’s combat medic experience. Also, two fixed shelves and one horizontal work surface were added to the Medical Care Facility, with the shelves providing storage space for the additional devices and the work surface providing a location for the caregiver to work or stage equipment. Four display monitors were added to the wall above the horizontal work surface, supporting data display, telemedicine, conferencing, or other needs. The existing treatment table was replaced with a mobile surgical stretcher-chair. Two additional doors were added to the Medical Care Facility. One leads directly to the hygiene compartment, allowing it to support medical operations in addition to providing galley/wardroom support. The other door leads directly into the Vertical Translation System. The wall adjacent to the subsystems bay was moved, adding additional volume to the Medical Care Facility. This improved caregiver access to the patient and allowed for a larger number of caregivers to be present. It also provided options for relocation of support equipment relative to the patient as needed. In the upgraded Medical Care Facility, the Surgical Stretcher-Chair and the Vertical Translation System can work together to provide incapacitated crew member transport from a site of injury on any deck of the Common Habitat to the Medical Care Facility. It can also support patient treatment in a variety of positions including a variety of sitting postures and a supine posture at a variety of pitch angles. The facility can also support caregiver office work for review of examination results, private consultation, inventory and maintenance, and a variety of other purposes. A forward activity will be to conduct evaluations of the Medical Care Facility with different medical scenarios. Additionally, ambient and task lighting selections remain as forward work. The eight mid deck lockers can be augmented to use as portable equipment carts, similar to a manner in which maintenance facility stowage was used as portable carts during the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies in the Constellation Program. Trash accommodation will also need forward work to assess, including provision for wet trash, dry trash, and biological waste. It will be important to assess a redesign of the surgical stretcher-chair. The commercial version used in the upgrade can only enable vertical translation in the seated configuration, requiring the patient to bend both hips and knees. A possible redesign of the chair will allow for vertical translation without requiring any bending at the hip or knees. Also, the commercial version is wheeled, making it mobile in gravity but unanchored in microgravity. Work will be needed to adapt the chair for gravity-independent performance. The hygiene compartment can be redesigned for dual-use medical scrub and galley handwash facility. Pending sufficient volume, it may also be possible to place sanitation equipment in this location to clean medical tools. Finally, most space architectures have never allowed for more than one incapacitated crew member, but several scenarios could potentially injure two or more crew in the same incident. This facility could be assessed to determine its present ability to address two or more injured crew in parallel and determine the potential upper limit for number of treatable crew in a multi-crew injury scenario, or to treat polytrauma of a single patient.
Habitat↗
Configuration and Projected Capabilities of the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility
The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. Additional work outside the scope of this paper is developing a vertical translation system, a crew mobility aids system based on wearable gecko-derived grippers, and a crew seating/restraint system. These systems are all assumed for use in conjunction with the Medical Care Facility, which is needed to maintain crew well-being during these missions, where distance from Earth precludes the possibility of evacuation to Earth. This paper describes recent improvements in the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility and associated benefits for crew survivability in long duration missions beyond Earth orbit. These improvements were made with the assistance of a NASA Pathways intern whose experience includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Army combat medic with the 691st GHOST-T, attached to the 1st and 7th US Special Forces Groups as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, where he helped provide far-forward surgical capabilities in austere combat environments. The initial baseline Medical Care Facility was developed working in conjunction with University of Houston Space Architecture graduate students. The facility was placed on the upper deck of the Common Habitat in a location that provided privacy, operational volume, and was close to the vertical translation pathway. The notional outfitting repurposed component CAD models from unrelated studies and notionally indicated a level of care roughly equivalent to that aboard the International Space Station. The CAD modeling provided notional stowage volumes, a deployable surface, some fixed equipment, an ultrasound, and a potentially reconfigurable treatment table. While this facility is clearly a competent arrangement, it was desired to leverage available expertise and upgrade the station given the vast distances from Earth to be experienced by the Common Habitat. Key driving requirements applied to the upgrade included to provide NASA’s Medical Level of Care V, offer enhanced telemedicine capabilities, provide patient physical accommodation, provide caregiver access to the patient from all sides, include sliding pocket doors for access to hygiene and to the Vertical Translation System, and to add any additional capability possible for the best achievable medical care. The first step in the facility upgrade was to quantify the current medical inventory on the International Space Station and ensure that sufficient stowage volume was present for this purpose. To that end, the ISS medical kits were reviewed, and eight full size mid deck lockers were placed in the facility. A number of additional devices were also added, based on the co-author’s combat medic experience. Also, two fixed shelves and one horizontal work surface were added to the Medical Care Facility, with the shelves providing storage space for the additional devices and the work surface providing a location for the caregiver to work or stage equipment. Four display monitors were added to the wall above the horizontal work surface, supporting data display, telemedicine, conferencing, or other needs. The existing treatment table was replaced with a mobile surgical stretcher-chair. Two additional doors were added to the Medical Care Facility. One leads directly to the hygiene compartment, allowing it to support medical operations in addition to providing galley/wardroom support. The other door leads directly into the Vertical Translation System. The wall adjacent to the subsystems bay was moved, adding additional volume to the Medical Care Facility. This improved caregiver access to the patient and allowed for a larger number of caregivers to be present. It also provided options for relocation of support equipment relative to the patient as needed. In the upgraded Medical Care Facility, the Surgical Stretcher-Chair and the Vertical Translation System can work together to provide incapacitated crew member transport from a site of injury on any deck of the Common Habitat to the Medical Care Facility. It can also support patient treatment in a variety of positions including a variety of sitting postures and a supine posture at a variety of pitch angles. The facility can also support caregiver office work for review of examination results, private consultation, inventory and maintenance, and a variety of other purposes. A forward activity will be to conduct evaluations of the Medical Care Facility with different medical scenarios. Additionally, ambient and task lighting selections remain as forward work. The eight middeck lockers can be augmented to use as portable equipment carts, similar to a manner in which maintenance facility stowage was used as portable carts during the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies in the Constellation Program. Trash accommodation will also need forward work to assess, including provision for wet trash, dry trash, and biological waste. It will be important to assess a redesign of the surgical stretcher-chair. The commercial version used in the upgrade can only enable vertical translation in the seated configuration, requiring the patient to bend both hips and knees. A possible redesign of the chair will allow for vertical translation without requiring any bending at the hip or knees. Also, the commercial version is wheeled, making it mobile in gravity but unanchored in microgravity. Work will be needed to adapt the chair for gravity-independent performance. The hygiene compartment can be redesigned to serve both as a medical scrub facility and for galley hand washing. Pending sufficient volume, it may also be possible to place sanitation equipment in this location to clean medical tools. Finally, most space architectures have never allowed for more than one incapacitated crew member, but several scenarios could potentially injure two or more crew in the same incident. This facility could be assessed to determine its present ability to address two or more injured crew in parallel and determine the potential upper limit for number of treatable crew in a multi-crew injury scenario, or to treat polytrauma of a single patient.
Common Habitat↗
Facilities maintenance handbook
This handbook is a guide for facilities maintenance managers. Its objective is to set minimum facilities maintenance standards. It also provides recommendations on how to meet the standards to ensure that NASA maintains its facilities in a manner that protects and preserves its investment in the facilities in a cost-effective manner while safely and efficiently performing its mission. This handbook implements NMI 8831.1, which states NASA facilities maintenance policy and assigns organizational responsibilities for the management of facilities maintenance activities on all properties under NASA jurisdiction. It is a reference for facilities maintenance managers, not a step-by-step procedural manual. Because of the differences in NASA Field Installation organizations, this handbook does not assume or recommend a typical facilities maintenance organization. Instead, it uses a systems approach to describe the functions that should be included in any facilities maintenance management system, regardless of its organizational structure. For documents referenced in the handbook, the most recent version of the documents is applicable. This handbook is divided into three parts: Part 1 specifies common definitions and facilities maintenance requirements and amplifies the policy requirements contained in NMI 8831. 1; Part 2 provides guidance on how to meet the requirements of Part 1, containing recommendations only; Part 3 contains general facilities maintenance information. One objective of this handbook is to fix commonality of facilities maintenance definitions among the Centers. This will permit the application of uniform measures of facilities conditions, of the relationship between current replacement value and maintenance resources required, and of the backlog of deferred facilities maintenance. The utilization of facilities maintenance system functions will allow the Centers to quantitatively define maintenance objectives in common terms, prepare work plans, and develop management information in order to statistically identify and analyze variances from those plans. It will also add credibility to the NASA facilities maintenance budgeting process. The key to a successful maintenance program is the understanding and support of the senior Center managers.
Source record↗
Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1
Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The Mach Number distribution shows small yet distinct differences between the two cases such as locations of shocks/shock reflections and a slightly different impingement point on the wall of the diffuser from the expansion at the exit of the nozzle. Similarly the temperature distribution indicates different flow recirculation patterns in the test cell. Both cases capture all the essential flow phenomena such as the shock-boundary layer interaction, plume expansion, expansion of the first stage ejectors, mixing between the engine plume and the first stage ejector flow and pressurization due to the first stage ejectors. The final paper will discuss thermal loads on the walls of the diffuser and cooling mechanisms investigated.
Allgood, Daniel C.↗
Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1
Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
Allgood, Daniel C.↗
Designing Facilities for Collaborative Operations
A methodology for designing operational facilities for collaboration by multiple experts has begun to take shape as an outgrowth of a project to design such facilities for scientific operations of the planned 2003 Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission. The methodology could also be applicable to the design of military "situation rooms" and other facilities for terrestrial missions. It was recognized in this project that modern mission operations depend heavily upon the collaborative use of computers. It was further recognized that tests have shown that layout of a facility exerts a dramatic effect on the efficiency and endurance of the operations staff. The facility designs (for example, see figure) and the methodology developed during the project reflect this recognition. One element of the methodology is a metric, called effective capacity, that was created for use in evaluating proposed MER operational facilities and may also be useful for evaluating other collaboration spaces, including meeting rooms and military situation rooms. The effective capacity of a facility is defined as the number of people in the facility who can be meaningfully engaged in its operations. A person is considered to be meaningfully engaged if the person can (1) see, hear, and communicate with everyone else present; (2) see the material under discussion (typically data on a piece of paper, computer monitor, or projection screen); and (3) provide input to the product under development by the group. The effective capacity of a facility is less than the number of people that can physically fit in the facility. For example, a typical office that contains a desktop computer has an effective capacity of .4, while a small conference room that contains a projection screen has an effective capacity of around 10. Little or no benefit would be derived from allowing the number of persons in an operational facility to exceed its effective capacity: At best, the operations staff would be underutilized; at worst, operational performance would deteriorate. Elements of this methodology were applied to the design of three operations facilities for a series of rover field tests. These tests were observed by human-factors researchers and their conclusions are being used to refine and extend the methodology to be used in the final design of the MER operations facility. Further work is underway to evaluate the use of personal digital assistant (PDA) units as portable input interfaces and communication devices in future mission operations facilities. A PDA equipped for wireless communication and Ethernet, Bluetooth, or another networking technology would cost less than a complete computer system, and would enable a collaborator to communicate electronically with computers and with other collaborators while moving freely within the virtual environment created by a shared immersive graphical display.
Norris, Jeffrey↗
Research and test facilities
A description is given of each of the following Langley research and test facilities: 0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel, 7-by 10-Foot High Speed Tunnel, 8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel, 13-Inch Magnetic Suspension & Balance System, 14-by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel, 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel, 16-by 24-Inch Water Tunnel, 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel, 30-by 60-Foot Wind Tunnel, Advanced Civil Transport Simulator (ACTS), Advanced Technology Research Laboratory, Aerospace Controls Research Laboratory (ACRL), Aerothermal Loads Complex, Aircraft Landing Dynamics Facility (ALDF), Avionics Integration Research Laboratory, Basic Aerodynamics Research Tunnel (BART), Compact Range Test Facility, Differential Maneuvering Simulator (DMS), Enhanced/Synthetic Vision & Spatial Displays Laboratory, Experimental Test Range (ETR) Flight Research Facility, General Aviation Simulator (GAS), High Intensity Radiated Fields Facility, Human Engineering Methods Laboratory, Hypersonic Facilities Complex, Impact Dynamics Research Facility, Jet Noise Laboratory & Anechoic Jet Facility, Light Alloy Laboratory, Low Frequency Antenna Test Facility, Low Turbulence Pressure Tunnel, Mechanics of Metals Laboratory, National Transonic Facility (NTF), NDE Research Laboratory, Polymers & Composites Laboratory, Pyrotechnic Test Facility, Quiet Flow Facility, Robotics Facilities, Scientific Visualization System, Scramjet Test Complex, Space Materials Research Laboratory, Space Simulation & Environmental Test Complex, Structural Dynamics Research Laboratory, Structural Dynamics Test Beds, Structures & Materials Research Laboratory, Supersonic Low Disturbance Pilot Tunnel, Thermal Acoustic Fatigue Apparatus (TAFA), Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT), Transport Systems Research Vehicle, Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, and the Visual Motion Simulator (VMS).
Source record↗
Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Assessment Study (MSAS)
NASA, in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA), is seeking to return Martian geological and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study in the early 2030s. Due to the possibility that the samples could contain extraterrestrial life, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is classified as a Category V: Restricted Earth Return mission by the NASA Planetary Protection Office. As a result of this classification, a MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) must not only provide a pristine environment to ensure samples are protected from terrestrial contamination for scientific investigations, it must also provide high-containment (biosafety level 4 [BSL-4]-equivalence) to isolate the samples from Earth’s biosphere until the samples are deemed safe for release and/or sterilized. The nominal utilization period for a SRF is anticipated to be 2-5 years and is intended to enable curation activities, biohazard assessment, select early science activities, and the rapid release of samples to the scientific community. However, to account for possible delays in schedule or the identification of extant life, this anticipated period of time must be flexible to accommodate schedule extensions and contingency plans. Due to requirements for high-level biological containment and cleanliness, a traditional receiving/curation facility cannot be utilized for MSR. Therefore, beginning in 2022, NASA Johnson Space Center is performing a MSR SRF Assessment Study (MSAS) to investigate the most optimal facility modality for a MSR SRF, as well as start to define programmatic early estimate of costs and schedules before the initial design phase begins. NASA is partnering with industry contractors (architectural and engineering firms with BSL-4 and cleanroom technology experience, as well as other contracted infrastructure and construction specialists) along with selected experts from NASA, ESA, existing U.S. BSL-4 facilities, and other U.S. government agencies, to carry out the assessment study. The MSAS should also aid in the future refinement of the science requirements (e.g., contamination control, equipment accommodations) before site-specific design would commence. As part of the MSAS, NASA is planning to assess an array of possibilities for a MSR SRF. One of the main considerations is the facility modality and whether an existing BSL-4 facility can be utilized (for some or all functions); or, if new constructure would be required, would a traditional fixed facility or a modular facility the best choice. MSAS will also investigate the ability of the modalities to accommodate two different facility capability endmembers: 1) a minimal facility focusing on biohazard assessment and curation tasks with a small footprint, and 2) an enhanced facility with additional capabilities to enable expedited processing and the completion of time-sensitive and (some) sterilization-sensitive science. The assessment is intended to generate information that will inform the selection of facility modalities for high-level conceptual design development. While the assessment study will focus on SRF requirements for accommodating curation, science, and sample safety assessment infrastructure, it will also consider an array of other factors, such as ease of access for international users, decommissioning, repurposing, future sale or lease following MSR’s use of the facility, and uncontained preparatory laboratory spaces. Upon completion of the study, the preferred modality and refined requirements would be utilized for site-specific design but will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
A.D. Harrington↗
Refurbishment and Automation of the Thermal/Vacuum Facilities at the Goddard Space Flight Center
The thermal/vacuum facilities located at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) have supported both manned and unmanned space flight since the 1960s. Of the 11 facilities, currently 10 of the systems are scheduled for refurbishment and/or replacement as part of a 5-year implementation. Expected return on investment includes the reduction in test schedules, improvements in the safety of facility operations, reduction in the complexity of a test and the reduction in personnel support required for a test. Additionally, GSFC will become a global resource renowned for expertise in thermal engineering, mechanical engineering and for the automation of thermal/vacuum facilities and thermal/vacuum tests. Automation of the thermal/vacuum facilities includes the utilization of Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and the use of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. These components allow the computer control and automation of mechanical components such as valves and pumps. In some cases, the chamber and chamber shroud require complete replacement while others require only mechanical component retrofit or replacement. The project of refurbishment and automation began in 1996 and has resulted in the computer control of one Facility (Facility #225) and the integration of electronically controlled devices and PLCs within several other facilities. Facility 225 has been successfully controlled by PLC and SCADA for over one year. Insignificant anomalies have occurred and were resolved with minimal impact to testing and operations. The amount of work remaining to be performed will occur over the next four to five years. Fiscal year 1998 includes the complete refurbishment of one facility, computer control of the thermal systems in two facilities, implementation of SCADA and PLC systems to support multiple facilities and the implementation of a Database server to allow efficient test management and data analysis.
Donohue, John T.↗
D-Side: A Facility and Workforce Planning Group Multi-criteria Decision Support System for Johnson Space Center
"To understand and protect our home planet, to explore the universe and search for life, and to inspire the next generation of explorers" is NASA's mission. The Systems Management Office at Johnson Space Center (JSC) is searching for methods to effectively manage the Center's resources to meet NASA's mission. D-Side is a group multi-criteria decision support system (GMDSS) developed to support facility decisions at JSC. D-Side uses a series of sequential and structured processes to plot facilities in a three-dimensional (3-D) graph on the basis of each facility alignment with NASA's mission and goals, the extent to which other facilities are dependent on the facility, and the dollar value of capital investments that have been postponed at the facility relative to the facility replacement value. A similarity factor rank orders facilities based on their Euclidean distance from Ideal and Nadir points. These similarity factors are then used to allocate capital improvement resources across facilities. We also present a parallel model that can be used to support decisions concerning allocation of human resources investments across workforce units. Finally, we present results from a pilot study where 12 experienced facility managers from NASA used D-Side and the organization's current approach to rank order and allocate funds for capital improvement across 20 facilities. Users evaluated D-Side favorably in terms of ease of use, the quality of the decision-making process, decision quality, and overall value-added. Their evaluations of D-Side were significantly more favorable than their evaluations of the current approach. Keywords: NASA, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Decision Support System, AHP, Euclidean Distance, 3-D Modeling, Facility Planning, Workforce Planning.
Tavana, Madjid↗
Nuclear electric propulsion development and qualification facilities
This paper summarizes the findings of a Tri-Agency panel consisting of members from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that were charged with reviewing the status and availability of facilities to test components and subsystems for megawatt-class nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) systems. The facilities required to support development of NEP are available in NASA centers, DOE laboratories, and industry. However, several key facilities require significant and near-term modification in order to perform the testing required to meet a 2014 launch date. For the higher powered Mars cargo and piloted missions, the priority established for facility preparation is: (1) a thruster developmental testing facility, (2) a thruster lifetime testing facility, (3) a dynamic energy conversion development and demonstration facility, and (4) an advanced reactor testing facility (if required to demonstrate an advanced multiwatt power system). Facilities to support development of the power conditioning and heat rejection subsystems are available in industry, federal laboratories, and universities. In addition to the development facilities, a new preflight qualifications and acceptance testing facility will be required to support the deployment of NEP systems for precursor, cargo, or piloted Mars missions. Because the deployment strategy for NEP involves early demonstration missions, the demonstration of the SP-100 power system is needed by the early 2000's.
Dutt, D. S.↗
Construction bidding cost of KSC's space shuttle facilities
The bidding cost of the major Space Transportation System facilities constructed under the responsibility of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is described and listed. These facilities and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) are necessary for the receiving, assembly, testing, and checkout of the Space Shuttle for launch and landing missions at KSC. The Shuttle launch configuration consists of the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). The reusable Orbiter and SRB's is the major factor in the program that will result in lowering space travel costs. The new facilities are the Landing Facility; Orbiter Processing Facility; Orbiter Approach and Landing Test Facility (Dryden Test Center, California); Orbiter Mating Devices; Sound Suppression Water System; and Emergency Power System for LC-39. Also, a major factor was to use as much Apollo facilities and hardware as possible to reduce the facilities cost. The alterations to existing Apollo facilities are the VAB modifications; Mobile Launcher Platforms; Launch Complex 39 Pads A and B (which includes a new concept - the Rotary Service Structure), which was featured in ENR, 3 Feb. 1977, 'Hinged Space Truss will Support Shuttle Cargo Room'; Launch Control Center mods; External Tank and SRB Processing and Storage; Fluid Test Complex mods; O&C Spacelab mods; Shuttle mods for Parachute Facility; SRB Recovery and Disassembly Facility at Hangar 'AF'; and an interesting GSE item - the SRB Dewatering Nozzle Plug Sets (Remote Controlled Submarine System) used to inspect and acquire for reuse of SRB's.
Brown, Joseph Andrew↗
Refining the W1 and SE1 Facilities
The Engine Research Building (ERB) houses more than 60 test rigs that study all aspects of engine development. By working with Mary Gibson in the SE1 and W1A Turbine Facilities, I became aware of her responsibilities and better acquainted with the inner workings of the ERB. The SE1 Supersonic/Subsonic Wind Tunnel Facility contains 2 small wind tunnels. The first tunnel uses an atmospheric inlet, while the second uses treated 40-psig air. Both of the tunnels are capable of subsonic and supersonic operation. An auxiliary air supply and exhaust piping providing both test sections with suction, blowing, and crossfire capabilities. The current configuration of SE1 consists of a curved diffuser that studies the blockage along the endwalls. The W1A Low Speed Compressor Facility provides insight for the complex flow phenomena within its 4-stage axial compressor, sand the data obtained from W 1A is used to develop advanced models for fluid dynamic assessment. W1A is based off of a low speed research compressor developed by GE in the 1950's. This compressor has a removable casing treatment under rotor 1, which allows for various tip treatment studies. The increased size and low speed allows instrumentation to be located in the compressor s complex flow paths. Air enters the facility through a filtered roof vent, conditioned for temperature and turbulence, and then passed through the compressor W1A is described as a dynamic facility with many projects taking place simultaneously. This current environment makes it challenging to follow the various affairs that are taking place within the area. During my first 4 weeks at the NASA Glenn Research Center, I have assisted Mary Gibson in multiple tasks such as facility documents, record keeping, maintenance and upgrades. The facility has lube systems for its gearbox and compressor. These systems are critical in the successful operation of the facility. I was assigned the task of creating a facility estimate list, which included the filters and strainers required for the compressor. For my remaining time spent here, we expect to complete a facility parts listing and a virtual project summary so that W1A and SE1 will become ergonomic facilities that will make it easier for people to observe the capabilities and history of the area and the employees that operate. Bolstering our efforts in achieving these goal are the online technical tutorials, software such as Microsoft Excel. Macromedia Flash MX Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, Photoshop 6.0 and the assistance of several NASA employees.
Chambers, Rodney D.↗
Orbital transfer vehicle launch operations study: Manpower summary and facility requirements, volume 5
All manpower numbers, number of heads (by skill), serial time and manhours have been accumulated and compiled on a per subtask basis in spreadsheet format for both the ground based and the space based data flows. To aid in identifying the facility resources required to process the Ground Based Orbital Transfer Vehicle (GBOTV) and/or the space based orbital transfer vehicle (SBOTV) through the ground facilities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), a software application package was developed using a general purpose data base management system known as Data Flex. The facility requirements are used as the basic input to this software application. The resources of the KSC facility that could be used by orbital transfer vehicle program were digitized in the same format used to identify facility requirements. The facility capabilities were digitized in this format for subsequent, automated comparative analyses. Composite facility requirements are compared to each of the baseline facility capabilities and the system generates a relative score that indicates how each facility weighs against the composite requirements in relation to the other facilities in the set.
Source record↗