NASA Hypersonic Ground Test Facilities and Laboratories
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Presented by LRST at the ASME Turbo Expo, Virtual Conference, 9/21
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
46th International Technical Conference on Clean Energy, Clearwater, FL, August 1-4, 2022
Abstract not provided.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Presentation
Work conducted in FY23 identified that RELAP5-3D was capable of reproducing trends in HTTF data during experiment PG-27 but was incapable of reproducing measured values. The primary cause of this discrepancy between RELAP5-3D results and experimental data was hypothesized to be a distortion in power density that was introduced by the radial nodalization of the model. We further hypothesized that a new model would provide better results when compared to the experiments PG-27 and PG-29. Work this FY developed a new model that is better capable of capturing local heat generation rates and contains a representation of each 1/6 azimuthal sector of the core. We used this model to develop a new set of solutions to Exercises 1 and 2 of Problems 2 and 3 in the benchmark. In this report, we present the first comprehensive comparison of the results between the two models. We see that in Exercise 1A, which is common between problems 2 and 3, the results are similar, though the results from the new model show greater detail than those from the legacy model. In Problem 2 Exercise 1B and Problem 3 Exercise 1B, we see that heat removal is slower in the new model than the legacy model. Problem 3 Exercise 1C shows temperatures that are lower in most places in the new model than the legacy model, but the area with active heat generation has higher block temperatures in the new model than the legacy model. Problem 3 Exercise 1D further shows that long-term heat removal is lower in the new model. Problem 2 Exercise 1C demonstrated that the new model observes higher temperatures in the core regions than the legacy model, justifying the need to preserve the power density in HTTF. The validation of PG-27 and PG-29 also demonstrated the improved temperature agreement in the core regions, particularly with a calibrated model that implements an effective thermal conductivity for the core material. Overall, PG-27 models show reasonable to excellent agreement for steady-state temperatures and minimal to reasonable agreement for transients. PG-29 models showed minimal to insufficient agreement with the data.
Test process, milestones and inputs are unknowns to first-time users of the EMI/EMC Test Facility. The User Test Planning Guide aids in establishing expectations for both NASA and non-NASA facility customers. The potential audience for this guide includes both internal and commercial spaceflight hardware/software developers. It is intended to assist their test engineering personnel in test planning and execution. Material covered includes a roadmap of the test process, roles and responsibilities of facility and user, major milestones, facility capabilities, and inputs required by the facility. Samples of deliverables, test article interfaces, and inputs necessary to define test scope, cost, and schedule are included as an appendix to the guide.
A strategic approach for retaining and more efficiently operating the essential Langley Ground Testing Facilities in the 21st Century is presented. This effort takes advantage of the previously completed and ongoing studies at the Agency and National levels. This integrated approach takes into consideration the overall decline in test business base within the nation and reduced utilization in each of the Langley facilities with capabilities to test in the subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic speed regimes. The strategy accounts for capability needs to meet the Agency programmatic requirements and strategic goals and to execute test activities in the most efficient and flexible facility operating structure. The structure currently being implemented at Langley offers agility to right-size our capability and capacity from a national perspective, to accommodate the dynamic nature of the testing needs, and will address the influence of existing and emerging analytical tools for design. The paradigm for testing in the retained facilities is to efficiently and reliably provide more accurate and high-quality test results at an affordable cost to support design information needs for flight regimes where the computational capability is not adequate and to verify and validate the existing and emerging computational tools. Each of the above goals are planned to be achieved, keeping in mind the increasing small industry customer base engaged in developing unpiloted aerial vehicles and commercial space transportation systems.
The test facility presented herein uses a groundbased rocket combustor to test the durability of new ceramic composite and metallic materials in a rocket engine thermal environment. A gaseous H2/02 rocket combustor (essentially a ground-based rocket engine) is used to generate a high temperature/high heat flux environment to which advanced ceramic and/or metallic materials are exposed. These materials can either be an integral part of the combustor (nozzle, thrust chamber etc) or can be mounted downstream of the combustor in the combustor exhaust plume. The test materials can be uncooled, water cooled or cooled with gaseous hydrogen.
Flight test facilities and techniques for low speed flight
Test facilities and techniques for low speed flight problems of aircraft handling qualities, stability, control and performance
Tests were carried out on 20 inch x 20 inch panels at different test conditions using free-free panels, clamped panels, and panels as installed in the KU-FRL acoustic test facility. Tests with free-free panels verified the basic equipment set-up and test procedure. They also provided a basis for comparison. The results indicate that the effect of installed panels is to increase the damping ratio at the same frequency. However, a direct comparison is not possible, as the fundamental frequency of a free-free panel differs from the resonance frequency of the panel when installed. The damping values of panels installed in the test facility are closer to the damping values obtained with fixed-fixed panels. Effects of damping tape, stiffeners, and bonded and riveted edged conditions were also investigated. Progress in the development of a simple interior noise level control program is reported.
NASA's Stennis Space Center (SSC) and Glenn Research Center (GRC) participate in the development of technologies for propulsion testing and propulsion applications in air and space transportation. Future transportation systems and the test facilities needed to develop and sustain them are becoming increasingly complex. Sensor technology is a fundamental pillar that makes possible development of complex systems that must operate in automatic mode (closed loop systems), or even in assisted-autonomous mode (highly self-sufficient systems such as planetary exploration spacecraft). Hence, a great deal of effort is dedicated to develop new sensors and related technologies to be used in research facilities, test facilities, and in vehicles and equipment. This paper describes sensor technologies being developed and in use at SSC and GRC, including new technologies in integrated health management involving sensors, components, processes, and vehicles.
The topics are presented in viewgraph form and include the following: Nevada test site geographic location; location of NRDA facilities, area 25; assessment program plan; program goal, scope, and process -- the New Nuclear Rocket Program; nuclear rocket engine test facilities; EMAD Facility; summary of final assessment results; ETS-1 Facility; and facilities cost summary.