Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “time scale separation”

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.

728 records · Page 41
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Development of an Inflatable Airlock for a Deep Space Gateway

Inflatable structures technology utilizes high-strength fabric materials and internal pressure to create a stiffened pressure vessel that can replace traditional metallic primary structure in a habitable spacecraft. The flexibility of fabric structures allows them to be compactly stowed for launch and expanded in space, providing significant launch volume savings. The unique construction and design flexibility of these structures can be customized for a variety of uses in space including landing bags, decelerators, long duration in-space and planetary surface habitats, and even airlocks. An airlock is often a required component of a crewed spacecraft to allow for maintenance and human exploration outside of the vehicle. Airlock designs in use today rely on complex hatches and seals connected by metallic walls. Recent developments towards the design of an inflatable airlock structure show feasibility and a significant launch volume savings over a traditional metallic design. This paper will provide a high-level summary of these projects and the current state-of-the-art in inflatable airlock development with additional references and detail about previous and on-going research, providing guidance for the design of a softgoods airlock system. The use of inflatables in space has been in development since the 1960’s for both habitats and airlocks. The first ever EVA was conducted by the USSR in 1965 using an inflatable airlock known as the Volga. This airlock was attached to the Voskhod 2 spacecraft and turned the vehicle into a dual chamber airlock. The airlock was successfully deployed, used and jettisoned after Alexey Leonov’s historic spacewalk. Additional work on human-rated inflatable structures was not continued until the late 1990’s when NASA-JSC led an effort to demonstrate these structures as feasible long-term pressurized elements with the TransHab project. The technology developed and pioneered during this project led to multiple patents and proven feasibility that inflatables could be used for large habitable structures. Following TransHab, Bigelow Aerospace continued the development of inflatable structures with technical support from NASA. This partnership eventually led to the successful flight certification, launch, attachment and deployment of the Bigelow Expandable Activities Module (BEAM) on the ISS in 2016. Inflatable and expandable airlock structures have undergone various detailed feasibility studies and testing for over 15 years, most notably with the Advanced Inflatable Airlock (AIA), Dual-Chamber Hybrid Inflatable Suitlock (DCIS), Minimalistic Advanced Soft Hatch (MASH), and Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA). During this time, full-scale articles have been built and pressure-tested, and mock-ups and demonstrators have been constructed and evaluated. During the 2001-2003 timeframe, the AIA concept was matured through requirements development, conceptual design, subscale and full-scale engineering breadboards subjecting various test articles to deployment and pressure testing up to four times operating pressure. These tests proved the feasibility of successful deployment and structural integrity of an inflatable crewlock. Additional testing was performed in the ensuing years, as funding permitted, to further refine additional structural and deployment concepts and to understand the EVA crewmember interfaces, hatches and EVA support equipment interfaces that would be required for a fully functioning airlock. This work resulted in a refinement of the structural requirements and an accounting of the systems needed in an inflatable airlock. In 2014, the MASH project developed an ultra-lightweight airlock concept with a fabric hatch that utilized a unique pressure vessel shape to minimize structural loads around a linear seal. The concept uses an automated zipper-like seal that allows for crew egress/ingress. Most of the development work on the project thus far has focused on the design, analysis and testing of the primary structure and the zipper-like seal system is in the preliminary stages of development with a successful proof-of-concept test. As part of the 2017 LEIA effort, studies were conducted on EVA crewmember interfaces on the inside of an inflatable airlock. These efforts included the design of an internal secondary structure and placement of handholds and foot restraints to enable hatch opening, closing and translation through the airlock. Structural design, analysis and testing was completed on several secondary structure candidates. Crew interface testing was also completed using an inflatable crewlock mockup and the JSC Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the movement of an EVA crewmember through an inflatable crewlock in microgravity. The results of these tests helped demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing an inflatable structure as an airlock and informed the required volume, hatch size, and configuration and location of translation aids for crewmembers in a microgravity crewlock. The ISS Quest airlock uses a dual-chamber design with isolated compartments known as the equipment-lock and the crewlock. The equipment-lock houses the Servicing, Performance and Checkout Equipment (SPCE) items (suit batteries, consumables, etc.) while the crewlock has limited internal hardware and is the nominally depressurized compartment during US EVAs. While inflatable dual chamber airlocks have been studied, the current state of the art emphasizes an inflatable crewlock-type structure attached to a rigid equipment-lock type or habitat structure. Since a large portion of the hardware in the equipment-lock are rigid components and connectors that are installed on the ground - and an inflatable structure does not achieve full structural capabilities until pressurized in space - a depressurized fabric structure cannot provide the capabilities of a full equipment-lock. The use of an inflatable as a crewlock, however, provides all the required capabilities for EVA operations in a small launch package that offers significant volume savings over a metallic crewlock. The functions of a traditional equipment lock, including the SPCE, could be provided by a spacecraft’s habitat module or node and not necessarily in a separate equipment lock. An inflatable crewlock would be attached to the vehicle and launched in a packed and compressed state, saving volume under the launch shroud and mass for the overall airlock element compared to a rigid crewlock. Work is currently underway to continue development of an inflatable airlock with a variety of focus areas including the consideration of crew-induced loads and interfaces, the design and development of an internal sub-structure to provide translation aids and restraints, the thermal considerations of a fabric shell depressurized during an EVA, the micrometeorite environment in deep space, and the packaging and deployment of an inflatable airlock.

Deep Space Exploration↗
NASA NTRS2000

What we Hope to Learn about Global Mineral Dust Aerosols from EOS Multi-Angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR)

On global scales, just a few broad atmospheric aerosol compositional groups are commonly observed. Of these, "mineral dust" is the only group which both contains non-spherical particles, and typically has size distributions with enough large particles for particle shape to affect its visible-light-scattering properties. The MISR instrument is scheduled for launch into a 10:30 AM sun-synchronous, polar orbit aboard the EOS Terra satellite in 1999. MISR will measure the upwelling visible radiance from Earth in 4 spectral bands centered at 446, 558, 672, and 866 nm, at each of 9 emission angles spread out in the forward and aft directions along the flight path at +/-70.5 deg, +/-60.0 deg, +/-45.6 deg, +/-26.1deg, and nadir. Over a period of 7 minutes, as the spacecraft flies along, a 360 km wide swath of Earth will successively be viewed by each of the cameras, allowing MISR to sample a very large range of scattering angles; in mid latitudes, the instrument will observe scattering angles between about 60 deg and 160 deg. Global coverage will be acquired about once in 9 days at the equator; the nominal mission lifetime is 6 years. The distinction in single scattering phase function between natural distributions of spherical and randomly oriented, non-spherical particles, with a broad range of aspect ratios, shows up strongly for scattering angles ranging from about 90 deg to near 180 deg. For non-spherical particle distributions, single scattering phase functions tend to be much flatter in this region than for spherical particles. Since MISR samples the relevant range of scattering angles very well, we expect to be able to make critical distinctions between natural distributions of spherical and randomly oriented, non-spherical particles with MISR data. We anticipate that the new multiangle, multispectral data from MISR will also contain other information about particle properties, a major step beyond current spacecraft remote sensing retrievals, which obtain aerosol optical depth based on entirely assumed particle microphysical properties. According to simulations over cloud-free, calm ocean, for pure particles with natural ranges of optical depth, particle size, and indices of refraction, MISR should retrieve column optical depth for all but the darkest particles, to an uncertainty of at most 0.05 or 20%, whichever is larger, even if the particle properties are poorly known. For one common particle type, soot, constraints on the optical depth over dark ocean are very poor. The simulated measurements also should allow us to separate two to four compositional groups based on indices of refraction, and to identify three to four distinct size groups between 0.1 and 2.0 microns characteristic radius at most latitudes. The technique is most sensitive to particle microphysical properties in the "accumulation mode" sizes. where particle scattering undergoes the transition from Rayleigh to large-particle regimes for the MISR wavelengths. Based on these results, we expect to distinguish air masses containing different aerosol types, routinely and globally, with multiangle remote sensing data. Such data complements in situ and field data, which can provide details about aerosol size and composition locally that are needed to assess the radiative effects of aerosols quantitatively. Both field data and correlations in space and time with likely source and sink regions will also be helpful in developing a global picture of mineral dust aerosol budgets. Further work on the expected sensitivity of MISR to natural mixtures of pure particles, including climatologically likely mineral dust components, is currently underway.

Kahn, Ralph↗
NASA NTRS2004

Chemical Reaction and Flow Modeling in Fullerene and Nanotube Production

The development of processes to produce fullerenes and carbon nanotubes has largely been empirical. Fullerenes were first discovered in the soot produced by laser ablation of graphite [1]and then in the soot of electric arc evaporated carbon. Techniques and conditions for producing larger and larger quantities of fullerenes depended mainly on trial and error empirical variations of these processes, with attempts to scale them up by using larger electrodes and targets and higher power. Various concepts of how fullerenes and carbon nanotubes were formed were put forth, but very little was done based on chemical kinetics of the reactions. This was mainly due to the complex mixture of species and complex nature of conditions in the reactors. Temperatures in the reactors varied from several thousand degrees Kelvin down to near room temperature. There are hundreds of species possible, ranging from atomic carbon to large clusters of carbonaceous soot, and metallic catalyst atoms to metal clusters, to complexes of metals and carbon. Most of the chemical kinetics of the reactions and the thermodynamic properties of clusters and complexes have only been approximated. In addition, flow conditions in the reactors are transient or unsteady, and three dimensional, with steep spatial gradients of temperature and species concentrations. All these factors make computational simulations of reactors very complex and challenging. This article addresses the development of the chemical reaction involved in fullerene production and extends this to production of carbon nanotubes by the laser ablation/oven process and by the electric arc evaporation process. In addition, the high-pressure carbon monoxide (HiPco) process is discussed. The article is in several parts. The first one addresses the thermochemical aspects of modeling; and considers the development of chemical rate equations, estimates of reaction rates, and thermodynamic properties where they are available. The second part addresses modeling of the arc process for fullerene and carbon nanotube production using O-D, 1-D and 2-D fluid flow models. The third part addresses simulations of the pulsed laser ablation process using time-dependent techniques in 2-D, and a steady state 2-D simulation of a continuous laser ablation process. The fourth part addresses steady state modeling in O-D and 2-D of the HiPco process. In each of the simulations, there is a variety of simplifications that are made that enable one to concentrate on one aspect or another of the process. There are simplifications that can be made to the chemical reaction models , e.g. reduction in number of species by lumping some of them together in a representative species. Other simulations are carried out by eliminating the chemistry altogether in order to concentrate on the fluid dynamics. When solving problems with a large number of species in more than one spatial dimension, it is almost imperative that the problem be decoupled by solving for the fluid dynamics to find the fluid motion and temperature history of "particles" of fluid moving through a reactor. Then one can solve the chemical rate equations with complex chemistry following the temperature and pressure history. One difficulty is that often mixing with an ambient gas is involved. Therefore, one needs to take dilution and mixing into account. This changes the ratio of carbon species to background gas. Commercially available codes may have no provision for including dilution as part of the input. One must the write special solvers for including dilution in decoupled problems. The article addresses both ful1erene production and single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) production. There are at least two schemes or concepts of SWNT growth. This article will only address growth in the gas phase by carbon and catalyst cluster growth and SW T formation by the addition of carbon. There are other models that conceive of SWNT growth as a phase separation process from clusters me up carbon and metal catalyst, with the carbon precipitating from the cluster as it cools. We will not deal with that concept in this article. Further research is needed to determine the rates at which these composite clusters form, evaporate, and segregate.

Scott, Carl D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Bosch Process System Models for In-Situ Oxygen and Carbon Production

In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) technology is a vital component to NASA’s mission of a sustainable presence on the Moon and Mars. Local resources can be leveraged to reduce resupply frequency and mass. Elements of the Bosch process, combined with the carbothermal reduction process, can produce oxygen on the lunar surface with minimal consumables. The Bosch process can also produce oxygen on the Martian surface by using the CO 2 -rich environment. Between both systems, adsorption pump, solar thermal energy, carbon formation reactor, and water recovery subsystems are modeled and integrated to create a functional model in MATLAB software. The model is used to simulate performance of the system and reduce mass, power, and volume requirements. This integrated system model provides a tool to scale ISRU technologies for oxygen and carbon production. The MATLAB model is created by developing a system of independent subsystem models that are solved for their quasi-steady state values which can be integrated with respect to time to determine the change in current states. A flexible time stepping method is used to ensure a high level of accuracy during periods of rapid change while still making use of a simple explicit integration method. The flexible time step is calculated for each independent subsystem and the minimum value from those is used as the overall time step. A flexible time step is calculated by dividing a resolution value, or the maximum change per time step, by the variables current rate of change. The maximum value from all points in space is used for subsystem models that contain multiple values. The process is done for every variable that is being monitored in each subsystem and the global minimum is used as that iteration’s timestep. Several assumptions used in the MATLAB model for fluid flow dynamics, such as 1-D gas flow through the sorption pump, are supported by modeling in Ansys Fluent software. The Lunar oxygen production system is outlined in Fig. 1. The carbothermal reduction subsystem uses solar energy to heat a mixture of lunar regolith and carbon powder to produce carbon monoxide. To begin, the carbon monoxide feeds to the modified Bosch subsystem along with hydrogen gas. The reactants then enter the carbon formation reactor where water and carbon powder are produced. Solar thermal energy is used to add energy to the reactor, but waste heat from the carbothermal process is another potential heat source. The water is collected and electrolyzed to produce hydrogen which reenters the Bosch subsystem, and the oxygen is stored for downstream use. The carbon powder is collected and feeds back into the carbothermal subsystem. The Martian oxygen production system uses the full Bosch process and is outlined in Fig 2. A CO 2 adsorption pump thermally cycles to scrub and pressurize CO 2 from the environment. Along with an initial supply of hydrogen, the reactants enter the Reverse Water Gas Shift Reactor (RWGSR) which produces carbon monoxide and water. Carbon monoxide and unreacted hydrogen enter the carbon formation reactor to produce water and carbon powder. The water is collected from both reactors and electrolyzed to reintroduce hydrogen and store oxygen for propellant production or life support. Carbon is removed from the carbon formation reactor and stored. The adsorption pump utilizes rapid cycle temperature swings within a stack of zeolite coated surfaces. The subsystem model solves 1-D quasi-steady conservation laws of the quasi-steady form, shown in Eq. 1, for the gas stream and heat exchange liquid to predict performance parameters such as breakthrough capacity and optimum cycle time. The source term S is used to capture interactions between the fluid flows and the sorbent. A quasi-steady-state scheme is used where no time derivatives appear in the governing equations, except for those in the source terms. This results in an autonomous system, where ∂F/∂x = ƒ(F). The fluxes F are provided at the inlet, and an explicit method is used to solve for the spatial distribution of F. The heat and mass flows to the sorbent are then extracted from the source terms. These flows are numerically integrated to produce a 1-D solution for the system’s state as a function of both time and space. The body of the adsorption pump is separated into two semi-independent models: the heat exchanger fluid flow and gas flow through the zeolite coated surfaces. Both models are solved using the above-described method to find a 1-D solution as a function of space and interact only once a timestep is taken. The interaction point is the sorbent through which all heat transfer between the two models must occur. Sorbent mass adsorption is calculated using the Lagergren model, shown in Eq. 2, where the transfer coefficient, λ D , is found by solving a system of nondimensionalized equations derived by using the heat and mass transfer analogy for transport phenomena. Using Grade 544 Type 13X zeolite as the sorbent material, the equilibrium concentration, θ eq , is calculated using the k-site Langmuir isotherm and fit parameters. Additionally, the enthalpy of adsorption used in the model is computed by interpolation of available data [1]. The subsystem model was validated using the Rapid Cycle Temperature Swing Adsorption (RC-TSA) pump. The solar thermal energy subsystem focuses on a solar concentrator concept with a heat exchanger to heat the reactants before entering the carbon formation reactor. The subsystem model assumes a fixed solar flux and reflector efficiency to calculate the reactant temperature given the incoming temperature, pressure, and exchanger geometry. The receiver is a custom manufactured series of copper blocks with serpentine channels to increase its surface area and the residence time of the reactants to heat up to 550 °C. The subsystem model was validated using a heat exchanger developed at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC). The solar thermal energy subsystem focuses on a solar concentrator concept with a heat exchanger to heat the reactants before entering the carbon formation reactor. The subsystem model assumes a fixed solar flux and reflector efficiency to calculate the reactant temperature given the incoming temperature, pressure, and exchanger geometry. The receiver is a custom manufactured series of copper blocks with serpentine channels to increase its surface area and the residence time of the reactants to heat up to 550 °C. The subsystem model was validated using a heat exchanger developed at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC).

In situ Resource Utilization↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep-Space Delivery for Smallsats

Designed for human exploration missions into deep space, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) represents a new spaceflight infrastructure asset, enabling a wide variety of unique utilization opportunities. While primarily focused on launching the large systems needed for crewed spaceflight beyond Earth orbit, SLS also offers a game-changing capability for the deployment of small satellites to deep-space destinations, beginning with its first flight. Currently, SLS is making rapid progress toward readiness for its first launch in two years, using the initial configuration of the vehicle, which is capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). On its first flight test of the Orion spacecraft around the moon, accompanying Orion on SLS will be small-satellite secondary payloads, which will deploy in cislunar space. The deployment berths are sized for "6U" CubeSats, and on EM-1 the spacecraft will be deployed into cislunar space following Orion separate from the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Payloads in 6U class will be limited to 14 kg maximum mass. Secondary payloads on EM-1 will be launched in the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA). Payload dispensers will be mounted on specially designed brackets, each attached to the interior wall of the OSA. For the EM-1 mission, a total of fourteen brackets will be installed, allowing for thirteen payload locations. The final location will be used for mounting an avionics unit, which will include a battery and sequencer for executing the mission deployment sequence. Following the launch of EM-1, deployments of the secondary payloads will commence after sufficient separation of the Orion spacecraft to the upper stage vehicle to minimize any possible contact of the deployed CubeSats to Orion. Currently this is estimated to require approximately 4 hours. The allowed deployment window for the CubeSats will be from the time the upper stage disposal maneuvers are complete to up to 10 days after launch. The upper stage will fly past the moon at a perigee of approximately 100km, and this closest approach will occur about 5 days after launch. The limiting factor for the latest deployment time is the available power in the sequencer system. Several NASA Mission Directorates were involved in the development of programs for the competition, selection, and development of EM-1 payloads that support directorate priorities. CubeSat payloads on EM-1 will include both NASA research experiments and spacecraft developed by industry, international and potentially academia partners. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division was allocated five payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout is designed to rendezvous with and characterize a candidate NEA. A solar sail, an innovation the spacecraft will demonstrated for the CubeSat class, will provide propulsion. Lunar Flashlight will use a green propellant system and will search for potential ice deposits in the moon's permanently shadowed craters. BioSentinel is a yeast radiation biosensor, planned to measure the effects of space radiation on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Lunar Icecube, a collaboration with Morehead State University, will prospect for water in ice, liquid, and vapor forms as well as other lunar volatiles from a low-perigee, highly inclined lunar orbit using a compact Infrared spectrometer. Skyfire, a partnership with Lockheed Martin, is a technology demonstration mission that will perform a lunar flyby, collecting spectroscopy, and thermography data to address questions related to surface characterization, remote sensing, and site selection. NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) was allocated three payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. These slots will be filled via the Centennial Challenges Program, NASA's flagship program for technology prize competitions, which directly engages the public, academia, and industry in open prize competitions to stimulate innovation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) was allocated two payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. The CubeSat Mission to Study Solar Particles (CuSP) payload will study the sources and acceleration mechanisms of solar and interplanetary particles in near-Earth orbit, support space weather research by determining proton radiation levels during Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events and identifying suprathermal properties that could help predict geomagnetic storms. The LunaH-Map payload will help scientists understand the quantity of H-bearing materials in lunar cold traps (~10 km), determine the concentration of H-bearing materials with 1m depth, and constrain the vertical distribution of H-bearing materials. The final three payload opportunities for the EM-1 mission were allocated for NASA's international space agency counterparts. The flight opportunities are intended to benefit the international space agency and NASA as well as further the collective space exploration goals. ArgoMoon is sponsored by ESA/ASI and will fly along with the ICPS on its disposal trajectory to perform proximity operations with the ICPS post-disposal, take external imagery of engineering and historical significance, and perform an optical communications demonstration. EQUULEUS, sponsored by JAXA, will fly to a libration orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point and demonstrate trajectory control techniques within the Sun-Earth- Moon region for the first time by a nano spacecraft. The mission will also contribute to the future human exploration scenario by understanding the radiation environment in geospace and deep space, characterizing the flux of impacting meteors on the far side of the moon, and demonstrating the future deep space exploration scenario using the "deep space port" at Lagrange points. OMOTENASHI, also sponsored by JAXA, will land the smallest lunar lander to date on the lunar surface to demonstrate the feasibility of the hardware for distributed cooperative exploration system. Small landers will enable multi-point exploration, which is complimentary with large-scale human exploration. Once on the lunar surface, the OMOTENASHI spacecraft will observe the radiation and soil environments of the lunar surface by active radiation measurements and soil shear measurements. Following EM-1, Space Launch System will evolve to the more-powerful Block 1B configuration, which uses a new Exploration Upper Stage to increase the vehicle's LEO payload capability from 70 t to 105 t. With that transition, the Orion Stage Adapter, which will carry the secondary payloads on EM-1, will be phased out, and a new Universal Stage Adapter will be introduced, creating opportunities for flying larger secondary payloads. This paper will provide a brief status of SLS progress toward first launch; an overview of smallsat accommodations, integration, and operations on EM-1; information about the specific payloads flying on that launch; and a discussion of future accommodations and opportunities for secondary payloads on SLS for Exploration Mission-2 and beyond.

Robinson, Kimberly F.↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep-Space Opportunities for SmallSats

Designed for human exploration missions into deep space, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) represents a new spaceflight infrastructure asset, enabling a wide variety of unique utilization opportunities. While primarily focused on launching the large systems needed for crewed spaceflight beyond Earth orbit, SLS also offers a game-changing capability for the deployment of small satellites to deep-space destinations, beginning with its first flight. Currently, SLS is making rapid progress toward readiness for its first launch in two years, using the initial configuration of the vehicle, which is capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). On its first flight test of the Orion spacecraft around the moon, accompanying Orion on SLS will be small-satellite secondary payloads, which will deploy in cislunar space. The deployment berths are sized for "6U" CubeSats, and on EM-1 the spacecraft will be deployed into cislunar space following Orion separate from the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Payloads in 6U class will be limited to 14 kg maximum mass. Secondary payloads on EM-1 will be launched in the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA). Payload dispensers will be mounted on specially designed brackets, each attached to the interior wall of the OSA. For the EM-1 mission, a total of fourteen brackets will be installed, allowing for thirteen payload locations. The final location will be used for mounting an avionics unit, which will include a battery and sequencer for executing the mission deployment sequence. Following the launch of EM-1, deployments of the secondary payloads will commence after sufficient separation of the Orion spacecraft to the upper stage vehicle to minimize any possible contact of the deployed cubesats to Orion. Currently this is estimated to require approximately 4 hours. The allowed deployment window for the cubesats will be from the time the upper stage disposal maneuvers are complete to up to 10 days after launch. The upper stage will fly past the moon at a perigee of approximately 100km, and this closest approach will occur about 5 days after launch. The limiting factor for the latest deployment time is the available power in the sequencer system. Several NASA Mission Directorates were involved in the development of programs for the competition, selection, and development of EM-1 payloads that support directorate priorities. CubeSat payloads on EM-1 will include both NASA research experiments and spacecraft developed by industry, international and potentially academia partners. The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division was allocated five payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout is designed to rendezvous with and characterize a candidate NEA. A solar sail, an innovation the spacecraft will demonstrated for the CubeSat class, will provide propulsion. Lunar Flashlight will use a green propellant system and will search for potential ice deposits in the moon's permanently shadowed craters. BioSentinel is a yeast radiation biosensor, planned to measure the effects of space radiation on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Lunar Icecube, a collaboration with Morehead State University, will prospect for water in ice, liquid, and vapor forms as well as other lunar volatiles from a low-perigee, highly inclined lunar orbit using a compact Infrared spectrometer. Skyfire, a partnership with Lockheed Martin, is a technology demonstration mission that will perform a lunar flyby, collecting spectroscopy, and thermography data to address questions related to surface characterization, remote sensing, and site selection. NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) was allocated three payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. These slots will be filled via the 2 Centennial Challenges Program, NASA's flagship program for technology prize competitions, which directly engages the public, academia, and industry in open prize competitions to stimulate innovation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) was allocated two payload opportunities on the EM-1 mission. The CubeSat Mission to Study Solar Particles (CuSP) payload will study the sources and acceleration mechanisms of solar and interplanetary particles in near-Earth orbit, support space weather research by determining proton radiation levels during Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events and identifying suprathermal properties that could help predict geomagnetic storms. The LunaH-Map payload will help scientists understand the quantity of H-bearing materials in lunar cold traps (~10 km), determine the concentration of H-bearing materials with 1m depth, and constrain the vertical distribution of H-bearing materials. The final three payload opportunities for the EM-1 mission were allocated for NASA's international space agency counterparts. The flight opportunities are intended to benefit the international space agency and NASA as well as further the collective space exploration goals. ArgoMoon is sponsored by ESA/ASI and will fly along with the ICPS on its disposal trajectory to perform proximity operations with the ICPS post-disposal, take external imagery of engineering and historical significance, and perform an optical communications demonstration. EQUULEUS, sponsored by JAXA, will fly to a libration orbit around the Earth-Moon L2 point and demonstrate trajectory control techniques within the Sun-Earth-Moon region for the first time by a nano spacecraft. The mission will also contribute to the future human exploration scenario by understanding the radiation environment in geospace and deep space, characterizing the flux of impacting meteors on the far side of the moon, and demonstrating the future deep space exploration scenario using the "deep space port" at Lagrange points. OMOTENASHI, also sponsored by JAXA, will land the smallest lunar lander to date on the lunar surface to demonstrate the feasibility of the hardware for distributed cooperative exploration system. Small landers will enable multi-point exploration, which is complimentary with large-scale human exploration. Once on the lunar surface, the OMOTENASHI spacecraft will observe the radiation and soil environments of the lunar surface by active radiation measurements and soil shear measurements. Following EM-1, Space Launch System will evolve to the more-powerful Block 1B configuration, which uses a new Exploration Upper Stage to increase the vehicle's LEO payload capability from 70 t to 105 t. With that transition, the Orion Stage Adapter, which will carry the secondary payloads on EM-1, will be phased out, and a new Universal Stage Adapter will be introduced, creating opportunities for flying larger secondary payloads. This paper will provide a brief status of SLS progress toward first launch; an overview of smallsat accommodations, integration, and operations on EM-1; information about the specific payloads flying on that launch; and a discussion of future accommodations and opportunities for secondary payloads on SLS for Exploration Mission-2 and beyond.

Robinson, Kimberly F.↗
NASA NTRS2022

22” ADP Fan Rig Liners Design Report

A liner design study was conducted as part of a cooperative effort between five (5) government/industry teams that together seek to demonstrate the technology for designing and manufacturing acoustic liners that are twenty five percent (25%) more efficient than 1992 technology liners. The study emphasized teaming collaboration. The improved liners were designed by Pratt & Whitney and Boeing Airplane Company and built by Rohr Inc, and will be tested in the NASA/P& W 22-inch ADP fan rig at NASA Lewis Research Center's 9' x 15' wind tunnel. Design guidelines and decisions were made collectively during monthly design review telecons and at the formal final design review. The tools that were used to design the new improved liners were not new, but the process that was developed as part of this study that led into the evaluation and selection of the final and best liner designs is new. Until now, the liner design process as practiced by different industry teams varied greatly. Some procedures were based on empirical liner attenuation databases which could not adequately account for engine-to-engine hardwall fan noise spectral differences, while others were entirely theoretical. And regardless of which method one chose, the major difficulty was still the lack of understanding and knowledge of the actual hardwall fan source noise modal structure and farfield SPL spectra. The NASA-led effort to attempt actual measurements of the fan source noise modal structure by means of the rotating microphone array is expected to contribute significantly to the understanding of the nature of the fan tone noise modes, but the application to broadband noise is still a long way off. The new design process included consideration of the measured fan tone modes, but for the majority of the spectra a separate, systematic process was used. It is a common practice in the engine/nacelle industry that acoustic liners for new products are designed before actual measured hardwall engine far-field noise spectra are available. Target noise spectra are normally derived from existing engine noise databases with some adjustments to absolute SPLs and frequencies. This practice has been acceptable as long as the new engine was a derivative of the base engine. However, in the case of the ADP, the transition from a current engine base is too - great, and the adjustments could not adequately account for the quantum changes in SPL spectral differences. Examples were the 1992 single degree of freedom (SDOF) inlet and aft liners (designed by P&W) that would be used as the baseline liners against which the new improved liners' efficien¬cies would -be measured. As will be shown, these baseline liners have been found to be deeper than the desire optimum depths. The new liner design process begins with the selection of the target hard wall fan noise spectra. These spectra were obtained by scaling up (5.91 scale factor) the measured hardwall fan spectral data from the 22” ADP fan rig. Next, the modal energy contents for each 1/3-octave band center frequency of these hardwall fan noise spectra are estimated. (Within each 1/3-octave band center frequency, the model energy distribution approximation is for both tone and broadband noise). For the inlet noise, P&W uses a derivative of the NASA Lewis (Ed Rice's) method of classifying; and grouping propagating modes by their cutoff ratios. The next step is to assign energy level to each group of modes having the same cutoff ratio. In Ed Rice's model, the modes were grouped according to ten (10) cutoff ratio intervals with center values located at 1.026, 1.085, 1.155, 1.24, 1.35, 1.49, 1.69, 2.0, and 4.47 (with equal number of modes in each interval). The modes were assumed to have equal energy. P&W’s model expands the cutoff ratio-mode grouping into two hundred (200) smaller cutoff ratio intervals with center values located f1".'m 1.003 to 11.5 in 199 increasing incremental intervals. Next, P&W's model uses a "2-parameter" normal distribution as a template to assign energy levels to these 200 pre-determined cutoff ratio values (for each 1/3-octave band center frequency). In the past, P&W had conducted an extensive study to determine what "2-parameter" values are appropriate for fullscale inlet liners, and had developed a set of twenty-four (24) "2-pararneter" values (i.e. one for each 1/3-octave frequency band) that when used in Ed Rice's Inlet Attenuation Prediction Method produced predicted liner attenuations that closely matched measured liner attenuations from several P&W's engines. In the absence of actual measured tone and broadband modal data from the 22" ADP rig, the process will use P&W's proprietary set of "2-parameter" values for this liner design study. For the aft noise, Boeing uses a modal energy approximation that the "transport energy" of each propagating mode is equal. This approximation is almost the same as the equal energy per mode approximation, except for modes that are near cutoff. Boeing's model forces these modes to have lower energy levels. Both P&W and Boeing agreed that the "transport energy" approximation should work well for the ADP aft fan noise which appears to be dominated by broadband noise. The design process then proceeds to calculate the optimum liner impedances for each frequency in both the inlet and the aft. These optimum impedances represent the target impedances that the designed liners should have. Liners with impedances matching the optimum impedances at all frequencies are "ideal" liners. These ideal liners are theoretically the best liners. Unfortunately, it has been showed that it is impossible to design and build such ideal liners. The next best liners are ones that have impedances matching the optimum impedances over some frequency range (not all frequencies as for the ideal). This is accomplished by the use of "frequency weightings". Several of P&W's and Boeing's existing computer decks were used for optimizing and matching the designed liner impedances to the target optimum values (with the various frequency weightings specified). The optimization produces liner candidates with predicted liner impedances and descriptions of their physical liner characteristics. These candidate liner impedances are then used to predict their spectral attenuation characteristics which are then used together with the target hardwall fan noise spectra to determine the resulting treated noise spectra and PNLT values. Further optimization around the selected candidate designs yield final designs that are best in PNLT attenuations. Use of the optimization decks allowed a large number of liner candidates to be screened in a relatively short period of time. This design process is systematic and is efficient. The new inlet SDOF liner design obtained from the improved process was predicted to be 34% more effective (per unit area) than the 1992 baseline inlet liner. This inlet liner design is a 112 rayl wovenwiremesh facesheet over a 0.312-inch deep honeycomb core. The new aft SDOF liner design was predicted to be 52% more efficient than the aft baseline liner. The new aft SDOF liner is "segmented" with a shallower liner on the core cowl (inner duct wall) and a deeper liner on the fan cowl (outer duct wall). The shallower liner is a 70.6 rayl woven-wiremesh facesheet over a 0.141-inch deep honeycomb core. The deeper liner is a 68 rayl woven-wiremesh facesheet over a 0.309-inch deep honeycomb core. All liner dimensions are for the 22-inch model-scale ADP fan rig liners. The selected advanced liners are "segmented" double-layer (DDOF) liners for the inlet and aft locations. Also, for the inlet, a bulk liner with ceramic foam for wider broadband noise absorption was also selected. Triple-layer liner designs were not considered since the model scaled liners ( 1/5. 91) were dimensionally too small to be built correctly, and irrin earlier concept study, Boeing found a triple-layer to have only very small benefits over a double-layer. The inlet DDOF liner was predicted to be 83% more effective than the baseline. The inlet DDOF design is a 78 rayl facesheet over a 0.080 top cavity depth, a 68 rayl septum and a 0.227-inch bottom cavity depth. The inlet bulk liner is a 60 rayl facesheet over a 0.33-inch deep honeycomb filled with high temperature (HTP) ceramic foam with a density of 4.8 lb/cu.ft and a flow resistivity of 167 rayl/cm. The inlet bulk liner was predicted to be 83% more effective than the baseline liner. The aft DDOF liners are segmented with a shallower liner on the core cowl and a deeper liner on the fan cowl. The shallow DDOF liner is a 49.8 rayl facesheet over a 0.093-inch top cavity depth, a septum of 88.2 rayls over a 0.181-inch bottom cavity depth. The deep DDOF liner is a 12.9 rayl facesheet over a 0.140-inch top cavity depth, a septum of 53.1 ray ls over a 0.258-inch botom cavity depth. The segmented aft DDOF liners were predicted to be 86% more efficient than the baseline liner.

turbofan acoustic treatment↗
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↗