Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Jettison”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Jettison and Disposal from Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits, Part 1: Theory

The proposed Gateway spacecraft in a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) will be a human outpost in cislunar space. The baseline mission may experience the deployment of visiting vehicles, cubesats, and on-orbit debris. Departure from the NRHO and cislunar space is nontrivial due to the complex gravitational environment that persists in and around Gateway. Long-term disposal orbits in heliocentric space offer safe destinations for deployed objects. To mitigate risks associated with conjunctions between Gateway and deployed objects, strategies to identify risk-avoidant paths to heliocentric space are necessary for Gateway mission operations.

Stephen T. Scheuerle↗
NASA NTRS2015

Forward Bay Cover Separation Modeling and Testing for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

Spacecraft multi-body separation events during atmospheric descent require complex testing and analysis to validate the flight separation dynamics models used to verify no re-contact. The NASA Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) architecture includes a highly-integrated Forward Bay Cover (FBC) jettison assembly design that combines parachutes and piston thrusters to separate the FBC from the Crew Module (CM) and avoid re-contact. A multi-disciplinary team across numerous organizations examined key model parameters and risk areas to develop a robust but affordable test campaign in order to validate and verify the FBC separation event for Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1). The FBC jettison simulation model is highly complex, consisting of dozens of parameters varied simultaneously, with numerous multi-parameter interactions (coupling and feedback) among the various model elements, and encompassing distinct near-field, mid-field, and far-field regimes. The test campaign was composed of component-level testing (for example gas-piston thrusters and parachute mortars), ground FBC jettison tests, and FBC jettison air-drop tests that were accomplished by a highly multi-disciplinary team. Three ground jettison tests isolated the testing of mechanisms and structures to anchor the simulation models excluding aerodynamic effects. Subsequently, two air-drop tests added aerodynamic and parachute elements, and served as integrated system demonstrations, which had been preliminarily explored during the Orion Pad Abort-1 (PA-1) flight test in May 2010. Both ground and drop tests provided extensive data to validate analytical models and to verify the FBC jettison event for EFT-1. Additional testing will be required to support human certification of this separation event, for which NASA and Lockheed Martin are applying knowledge from Apollo and EFT-1 testing and modeling to develop a robust human-rated FBC separation event.

Ali, Yasmin↗
NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Modeling and Simulation Techniques for the NASA SLS Service Module Panel Separation Event; from Loosely-Coupled Euler to Fully-Coupled 6-DOF, Time-Accurate, Navier-Stokes Methodologies

An aerodynamic database has been generated for use by the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program to analyze Service Module (SM) panel jettison from the NASA SLS vehicle. The database is a combination of CFD data for the panel aerodynamic coefficients, and MATLAB code written to query the CFD data. The Cart3D inviscid CFD flow solver was used to generate the panel aerodynamic coefficients for static panel orientations and free stream conditions that can occur during the jettison event. The MATLAB code performs the multivariate interpolation to obtain aerodynamic coefficients. The MATLAB code uses input for SM panel parameters and returns the SM panel aerodynamic force and moment coefficients for use with a Six-Degree-of-Freedom (6-DOF) motion solver to model the jettison event. This paper examines the accuracy of the sequential-static database approach by modeling the panel jettison event with a fully-coupled, time-dependent, viscous, moving-body CFD simulation. The fully-coupled simulation is obtained using the Loci/Chem unstructured Navier-Stokes CFD solver. The results show that the fully-coupled approach agrees well with the loosely-coupled database/6-DOF approach, indicating that unsteady effects are minimal for the panel jettison event. These results suggest that the database/6-DOF approach is sufficient. In addition, this paper presents the development of an uncertainty model for use in Monte Carlo analysis of the panel jettison event. Here viscous CFD simulations are obtained with Loci/Chem and compared to the inviscid CFD forces and moments. An uncertainty model based on model-form error and numerical error is presented.

Hall, Leslie H.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Forward Bay Cover Separation Modeling and Testing for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

Spacecraft multi‐body separation events during atmospheric descent require complex testing and analysis to validate the flight separation dynamics model and to verify no recontact. NASA Orion Multi‐Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) teams examined key model parameters and risk areas to develop a robust but affordable test campaign in order to validate and verify the Forward Bay Cover (FBC) separation event for Exploration Flight Test‐1 (EFT‐1). The FBC jettison simulation model is highly complex, consisting of dozens of parameters varied simultaneously, with numerous multi‐parameter interactions (coupling and feedback) among the various model elements, and encompassing distinct near‐field, mid‐field, and far‐field regimes. The test campaign was composed of component‐level testing (for example gas‐piston thrusters and parachute mortars), ground FBC jettison tests, and FBC jettison air‐drop tests that were accomplished by a highly multi‐disciplinary team. Three ground jettison tests isolated the testing of mechanisms and structures to anchor the simulation models excluding aerodynamic effects. Subsequently, two air‐drop tests added aerodynamic and parachute parameters, and served as integrated system demonstrations, which had been preliminarily explored during the Orion Pad Abort‐1 (PA‐1) flight test in May 2010. Both ground and drop tests provided extensive data to validate analytical models and to verify the FBC jettison event for EFT‐1, but more testing is required to support human certification, for which NASA and Lockheed Martin are applying knowledge from Apollo and EFT‐1 testing and modeling to develop a robust but affordable human spacecraft capability.

Ali, Yasmin↗
NASA NTRS1973

Centaur Standard Shroud (CSS) cryogenic unlatch tests

Cryogenic tanking and partial jettison (unlatch) tests were performed on a full scale Centaur vehicle and Centaur Standard Shroud (CSS) to develop and qualify the CSS insulation system, the CSS and Centaur ground-hold purge systems, and the Centaur hydrogen tank flight vent system. Operation of the shroud/Centaur pyrotechnic systems, seals, and the shroud jettison springs, hinges, and other separation systems was demonstrated by a partial jettison of the shroud into catch nets. The Centaur tanks were filled with liquid hydrogen and liquid nitrogen. Prelaunch operations were performed, and data taken to establish system performances. Results from the initial tests showed a higher than expected heat transfer rate to the Centaur hydrogen tank. In addition, the release mechanism for the forward seal between the Centaur and the CSS did not function properly, and the seal was torn during jettison of the shroud.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2000

Explosive Fracturing of an F-16 Canopy for Through-Canopy Crew Egress

Through-canopy crew egress, such as in the Harrier (AV-8B) aircraft, expands escape envelopes by reducing seat ejection delays in waiting for canopy jettison. Adverse aircraft attitude and reduced forward flight speed can further increase the times for canopy jettison. However, the advent of heavy, high-strength polycarbonate canopies for bird-strike resistance has not only increased jettison times, but has made seat penetration impossible. The goal of the effort described in this paper was to demonstrate a method of explosively fracturing the F-16 polycarbonate canopy to allow through-canopy crew ejection. The objectives of this effort were to: 1. Mount the explosive materials on the exterior of the canopy within the mold line, 2. Minimize visual obstructions, 3. Minimize internal debris on explosive activation, 4. Operate within less than 10 ms, 5. Maintain the shape of the canopy after functioning to prevent major pieces from entering the cockpit, and 6. Minimize the resistance of the canopy to seat penetration. All goals and objectives were met in a full-scale test demonstration. In addition to expanding crew escape envelopes, this canopy fracture approach offers the potential for reducing system complexity, weight and cost, while increasing overall reliability, compared to current canopy jettison approaches. To comply with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and permit public disclosure, this document addresses only the principles of explosive fracturing of the F-16 canopy materials and the end result. ITAR regulations restrict information on improving the performance of weapon systems. Therefore, details on the explosive loads and final assembly of this canopy fracture approach, necessary to assure functional performance, are not included.

Bement, Laurence J.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the electrical power distribution and control/remote manipulator system subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C)/Remote Manipulator System (RMS) hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained in the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the results of the independent analysis of the EPD and C/RMS (both port and starboard) hardware. The EPD and C/RMS subsystem hardware provides the electrical power and power control circuitry required to safely deploy, operate, control, and stow or guillotine and jettison two (one port and one starboard) RMSs. The EPD and C/RMS subsystem is subdivided into the four following functional divisions: Remote Manipulator Arm; Manipulator Deploy Control; Manipulator Latch Control; Manipulator Arm Shoulder Jettison; and Retention Arm Jettison. The IOA analysis process utilized available EPD and C/RMS hardware drawings and schematics for defining hardware assemblies, components, and hardware items. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based on the severity of the effect for each failure mode.

Robinson, W. W.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Integrated Flight Performance Analysis of a Launch Abort System Concept

This paper describes initial flight performance analyses conducted early in the Orion Project to support concept feasibility studies for the Crew Exploration Vehicle s Launch Abort System (LAS). Key performance requirements that significantly affect abort capability are presented. These requirements have implications on sizing the Abort Motor, tailoring its thrust profile to meet escape requirements for both launch pad and high drag/high dynamic pressure ascent aborts. Additional performance considerations are provided for the Attitude Control Motor, a key element of the Orion LAS design that eliminates the need for ballast and provides performance robustness over a passive control approach. Finally, performance of the LAS jettison function is discussed, along with implications on Jettison Motor sizing and the timing of the jettison event during a nominal mission. These studies provide an initial understanding of LAS performance that will continue to evolve as the Orion design is matured.

Tartabini, Paul V.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance During Exploration Flight Test 1

The Orion Launch Abort System Office is taking part in flight testing to enable certification that the system is capable of delivering the astronauts aboard the Orion Crew Module to a safe environment during both nominal and abort conditions. Orion is a NASA program, Exploration Flight Test 1 is managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched on a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. Although the Launch Abort System Office has tested the critical systems to the Launch Abort System jettison event on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. During Exploration Flight Test 1, the Launch Abort System was to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. Exploration Flight Test 1 was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. This was the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. Exploration Flight Test 1 provides critical data that enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The Exploration Flight Test 1 separation event occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff. The separation of the Launch Abort System jettison occurs once Orion is safely through the most dynamic portion of the launch. This paper will present a brief overview of the objectives of the Launch Abort System during a nominal Orion flight. Secondly, the paper will present the performance of the Launch Abort System at it fulfilled those objectives. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, Rachel↗
NASA NTRS2020

An Initial Concept for a JUMP Mating Mechanism

Lunar landers currently under development for crew and cargo missions to the Moon are limited by the available boosters to launch them from Earth. Most landers are being developed for commercial launch vehicles (CLVs) in the Falcon Heavy / Vulcan / New Glenn / Atlas V class, limiting their performance with many lunar surface studies consequently restricted to 5-10 metric ton payloads. The JUMP Lander (Joinable Undercarriage to Maximize Payload) attempts to overcome this limitation by performing an in-space mating, linking multiple landers together. This research provides an initial proof of concept demonstration that two or more CLV-launched lunar landers can be mated in-space to produce a larger lander with greater payload capacity. Multiple rockets have been connected hundreds if not thousands of times in spaceflight history. An example is the space shuttle. The External Tank-Orbiter interface is an example where the 100-ton Orbiter is bolted to the side of the External Tank. This example serves as a concept metaphor for JUMP where a system of bolts is used as the mating system. This paper performs a high-level sizing analysis of the bolt, including the structural connection to each lander and the physical dimensions of the bolt, given the projected lander and payload masses. It sizes the necessary motors to perform the in-space mating and describes the motor to bolt integration. It describes the mounting and translation for the bolt-motor assembly, including structural supports, physical stops, and range of travel. It discusses active-active and active-passive implementations for the mating system and post-mating options to jettison no-longer-needed components of the assembly, including a discussion of benefits of jettisoning or not jettisoning. Finally, forward work for the mating mechanism and overall JUMP Lander concept is described.

Lunar Lander↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Should Astronauts throw out their Trash? And if so, How?

We don’t think much about taking out the trash on Earth, but in space, it requires some thought. Should it even be thrown overboard? Besides the implications of littering in space, there are also practical considerations of whether waste materials can be reused for other purposes onboard or do they reduce mission efficiency. In a previous study, gasifying and venting trash along the way to Mars was found to noticeably reduce propellant needs and launch mass of the spacecraft, whereas keeping processed trash on board in the form of radiation shielding tiles would significantly lower the crew’s radiation dose during a solar particle event. The latest human exploration mission proposals will be considered with an eye toward answering the questions, “Should Astronauts throw out their Trash?” and “If so, what is the best way?” Besides reviewing the propulsion and radiation shielding aspects of the question, equivalent system mass factors of mass, power, volume, and crew time, as well as human factors, like smell, will be studied. Disposal options include jettison of an entire module containing waste, regular disposal of trash via an airlock, or gasifying waste products for easier disposal or reuse. Jettison via an airlock could take many forms, from “taking out the trash” on a spacewalk to launching trash tiles or pods with different mechanisms. Likewise, the “trash-to-gas” concept, which would allow for overboard venting via a pipe, has many thermochemical processes to choose from, each with their own pros and cons. Unraveling these various tradeoff studies is the goal of this paper.

trash↗