Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DECELERATION”

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 793 records · Page 44
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

The Assembly, Test, and Integration of LOFTID (Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelera-tor)

R.J. Bodkin Biography Mr. Bodkin worked in industry for a rapid prototype company focusing on UAVs and manned experimental aircraft. Later he served as the Inflation System Lead on IRVE-II and 3 and the Re-Entry Vehicle Lead for LOFTID at NASA Langley Research Center. Introduction: The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID), developed in partnership with United Launch Alliance (ULA) and flown in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Joint Polar Satellite System-2 (JPSS-2) satellite, demonstrated Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology has progressed and is ready for mission infusion. LOFTID’s success demonstrates that aeroshells are not limited to the internal diame-ter of the launch vehicle payload fairing, allowing larger payloads to be deployed to the surfaces of planetary bodies with atmospheres. The challenges of assembling, integrating, and testing this revolutionary spacecraft will be dis-cussed as well as issues associated with doing this with a fixed launch date the project did not control. Assembly: Because LOFTID flew as a rideshare partner with JPSS-2, it was constrained with addi-tional schedule, milestone, and technical require-ments that were beyond the project’s control. As-sembly of the LOFTID hardware was challenged with the normal mechanical fit issues while also having to navigate the SARS-COVID-II pandemic. Challenges ranged from availability of team per-sonnel required on-site for vehicle assembly to dif-ficulties associated with team collaboration while working remotely and increased costs and lead times of components due to supply chain con-straints. Numerous additional challenges cascaded from the additional time required. Integration: LOFTID flew as a secondary pay-load to JPSS-2 in a mission-unique configuration, directly under JPSS-2 primary payload, inside the Payload Adapter that integrated JPSS-2 to the Atlas V launch vehicle. A mission unique Payload Adapt-er Separation System (PASS) was required to sepa-rate the Payload Adapter from the Launch Vehicle prior to the start of the LOFTID flight demonstra-tion. Development of this system was challenging due to a shortened development schedule resulting from the iterative nature of Payload Adapter devel-opment with the partners at ULA. Preparations to integrate the main segments of the LOFTID vehicle posed unique challenges of having to accommodate issues with a fixed launch date that led to some cre-ative solutions to the integration. The partnership agreement with ULA and JPSS-2 resulted in a mass simulator designed to be installed late in the inte-gration in the event the LOFTID vehicle was not ready in time.. Test: LOFTID testing was carried out in several phases. Some components were tested at the com-ponent level, others at the sub-system levels and then finally the integrated vehicle level. This culmi-nated with the Complete Systems Test (CST) per-formed in a vacuum chamber as one of the final checkouts prior to disassembly for re-packing of the aeroshell. CST challenges will be discussed as well as obstacles encountered post-CST. After CST, the vehicle was disassembled so the HIAD could be repacked, and the vehicle was reassembled for ac-ceptance vibration testing. Testing concluded with the fully assembled vehicle being shipped to the launch site for final testing and integrations with the Payload Adapter to JPSS-2 for launch and opera-tions. Conclusion: The challenges posed by the AI&T for LOFTID could inform the planetary community of some of the opportunities and challenges of de-veloping technologies on a rideshare with a rela-tively small budget.

R.J. Bodkin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Simplified Vehicle Control Concept for a Lift Plus Cruise eVTOL Vehicle

Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) vehicles have the potential to enable cost effective Urban Air Mobility (UAM) applications. These concepts may also pose several challenging handling and control problems, which must be addressed prior to safe and reliable urban operations. This paper investigates a simplified vehicle control concept that is designed to address some of these challenges for a conceptual Lift Plus Cruise vehicle designed by NASA’s Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology (RVLT) project. The command and control architecture for this concept is presented along with preliminary findings. Initial results explore the vehicle performance in an approach to hover transition scenario, designed to explore the challenge of dissipating energy across all flight regimes. Operational concepts with varying aggressiveness are evaluated through changing glideslope and deceleration rates. Preliminary results show that the simplified control concept is effective over these operational conditions, with control strategies and envelope protection limits able to maintain control though aggressive operations despite saturation at steeper slopes with higher deceleration rates. Final results will show piloted simulation evaluations in the the Aerospace Cognitive Engineering Lab – Rapid Automation Test Environment (ACEL-RATE) laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center. The planned tests will build on these operations with additional test cases exploring variations in wind conditions as well as transition-to-hover automation strategies and display information.

simplified vehicle control↗
NASA NTRS2024

Direct Numerical Simulation of Smooth-Body Flow Separation Around a Ramp

Spanwise-periodic computation of a turbulent flow past a two-dimensional smooth ramp geometry is performed in the form of a direct numerical simulation. The Reynolds number based on the ramp height is about 147,000. A straight section that precedes the smooth ramp allows the incoming turbulent boundary layer to grow under a weak favorable pressure gradient. The boundary layer introduced at the domain inlet has a momentum-thickness based Reynolds number of 2000. The turbulent boundary layer nearing the ramp first interacts with a relatively stronger favorable pressure gradient, followed by a strong adverse pressure gradient. Consequently, the boundary layer experiences a modest acceleration before decelerating and separating. Analysis of the data over this region hints at the formation of an internal layer beneath the accelerated boundary layer. The analysis also reveals that this internal layer forms the origin of the free shear layer that emerges in the deceleration region and separates. The streamwise extent of the separated region is comparable to the ramp length, while the viscous layer thickness near reattachment is about the same as the ramp height; hence, the boundary layer undergoing separation and subsequent reattachment in the present configuration experiences its thickness being amplified by about tenfold. The reattached flow continues to develop further under a diminishing pressure gradient in the recovery region in a similar fashion to a zero pressure gradient turbulent boundary layer.

Turbulence↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Heritage to Flight: The Test Program that Brought an Inflation System Back to Life for LOFTID

Following the success of the Inflatable Reentry Vehicle Experiment-3 (IRVE-3) project, the Terrestrial Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) Orbital Reentry (THOR) project was stood up with a “built to print” Inflation System utilizing the IRVE-3 flight spares. When THOR was canceled, this Inflation System had already been tested and assembled, ready for use. Thus, when the Low Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) was spun up, the THOR system seemed like a good candidate to salvage flight ready hardware. There were, however, some key differences in the IRVE/THOR system and the LOFTID one. LOFTID’s HIAD was two times the size of IRVE for starters and would require much higher flows to accommodate inflating such an article within a specific timeframe. With new requirements and a tight schedule, the LOFTID Inflation team set to work to verify flight readiness under LOFTID conditions and eliminate the need to requalify new hardware. LOFTID, utilizing an Inflation System built primarily hardware from IRVE-3 spares, successfully flew in November of 2022. This paper will outline the mission differences, the test campaign used to prepare LOFTID’s Inflation System for flight, and some lessons learned in repurposing older hardware.

Inflation System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Heritage to Flight: The Test Program that Brought an Inflation System Back to Life for LOFTID

Following the success of the Inflatable Reentry Vehicle Experiment-3 (IRVE-3) project, the Terrestrial Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) Orbital Reentry (THOR) project was stood up with a “built to print” Inflation System utilizing the IRVE-3 flight spares. When THOR was canceled, this Inflation System had already been tested and assembled, ready for use. Thus, when the Low Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) was spun up, the THOR system seemed like a good candidate to salvage flight ready hardware. There were, however, some key differences in the IRVE/THOR system and the LOFTID one. LOFTID’s HIAD was two times the size of IRVE for starters and would require much higher flows to accommodate inflating such an article within a specific timeframe. With new requirements and a tight schedule, the LOFTID Inflation team set to work to verify flight readiness under LOFTID conditions and eliminate the need to requalify new hardware. LOFTID, utilizing an Inflation System built primarily hardware from IRVE-3 spares, successfully flew in November of 2022. This paper will outline the mission differences, the test campaign used to prepare LOFTID’s Inflation System for flight, and some lessons learned in repurposing older hardware.

Inflation System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

LOFTID Surface Heating Reconstruction

On November 10, 2022, the Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) reentry vehicle launched to low-Earth orbit aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket out of Vandenberg Air Force Base. The aeroshell, the largest Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) ever flown, was inflated to its full 6-meter diameter before successful re-entry into the atmosphere. The aeroshell was heavily instrumented in order to understand its behavior during entry. There were 82 thermocouples (TCs) distributed across the aeroshell, with 22 integrated into the flexible thermal protection system (FTPS) on the rigid nose, 36 in the FTPS on the deployable structure, and 24 on the inflatable structure. TCs were placed at different depths throughout the FTPS. Those nearest to the surface were located just beneath the two SiC outer fabric layers. The near-surface TCs on the rigid nose were Type R with flame spray alumina insulation, while those on the flank were Type N with mica/ceramic insulation. Additionally, a radiometer was placed at the center of the nose surrounded by four total heat flux gauges in a cruciform configuration at a radius of 0.41 m. The nose instrumentation is shown in Fig. 1 and a cross-section of the aeroshell with all TC locations is shown in Fig. 2. The objective of this work was to use the temperatures measured by the TCs during flight to estimate the surface heat rate across the aeroshell throughout the period of re-entry by inverse analysis methodology. The results were used to evaluate the fidelity of measurements from the total heat flux gauges on the nose, determine the surface heat flux at aeroshell locations where gauges were not present, and compare to pre-flight CFD-based heating predictions. Inversely estimated surface heat flux continues to be used to correlate FTPS thermal models to reconstruct in-flight thermal response.

H S Alpert↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

LOFTID Surface Heating Reconstruction

On November 10, 2022, the Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) reentry vehicle launched to low-Earth orbit aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket out of Vandenberg Air Force Base. The aeroshell, the largest Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) ever flown, was inflated to its full 6-meter diameter before successful re-entry into the atmosphere. The aeroshell was heavily instrumented in order to understand its behavior during entry. There were 82 thermocouples (TCs) distributed across the aeroshell, with 22 integrated into the flexible thermal protection system (FTPS) on the rigid nose, 36 in the FTPS on the deployable structure, and 24 on the inflatable structure. TCs were placed at different depths throughout the FTPS. Those nearest to the surface were located just beneath the two SiC outer fabric layers. The near-surface TCs on the rigid nose were Type R with flame spray alumina insulation, while those on the flank were Type N with mica/ceramic insulation. Additionally, a radiometer was placed at the center of the nose surrounded by four total heat flux gauges in a cruciform configuration at a radius of 0.41 m. The nose instrumentation is shown in Fig. 1 and a cross-section of the aeroshell with all TC locations is shown in Fig. 2. The objective of this work was to use the temperatures measured by the TCs during flight to estimate the surface heat rate across the aeroshell throughout the period of re-entry by inverse analysis methodology. The results were used to evaluate the fidelity of measurements from the total heat flux gauges on the nose, determine the surface heat flux at aeroshell locations where gauges were not present, and compare to pre-flight CFD-based heating predictions. Inversely estimated surface heat flux continues to be used to correlate FTPS thermal models to reconstruct in-flight thermal response.

LOFTID↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulation of Supersonic Parachute Inflation

Supersonic parachutes have been used in nearly every robotic mission to another planetary body with an atmosphere because they are one of the most mass-efficient ways to decelerate a payload to land on the surface. Short of performing flight tests in the upper Earth atmosphere, we currently cannot reliably predict a novel parachute system’s performance or potential failure modes, or even confidently explain it after the fact, as was the case with the Low Density Supersonic Decelerator flight tests and subsequent investigations. Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations have the potential to bridge this gap. To this end, we present several improvements to the state-of-the-art for simulating supersonic parachutes using FSI: a higher effective resolution convective flux, an immersed boundary turbulent wall layer modeling approach to capture viscous effects, and a novel method to obtain a more realistic initial parachute shape. A recent supersonic parachute flight test is simulated and compared to measurements for the purposes of model validation.

ESM↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerocapture Solutions for Uranus Flagship-class Orbiter and Probe

Recent planetary mission assessments, such as the 2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey released by the National Academies of Science, have focused on the need for a flagship-class mission to the Ice Giant planets, particularly Uranus. The Uranus Orbit and Probe mission proposal was used by the National Academies of Science as the baseline while making its recommendation as the top flagship-class mission for NASA in the 2020-2030\'s. This mission which was based on a launch date of 2031 or 2032, used a fully-propulsive orbit insertion maneuver at Uranus (requiring 60-70% of total mass for propellant), and reached the planet after 13 years of interplanetary cruise before the 2049 equinox, a goal of the science community. A pre-2033 launch date is required to conduct a necessary Jupiter fly-by as the giant planet will be not be in the proper alignment for a later launch date. However, as the budget constraints of the NASA budget have pushed back the start date of a Uranus mission, a launch date of a flagship mission before 2033 seems unreasonable. Aerocapture, an orbit insertion maneuver that uses the atmosphere to decelerate, can reduce the propellant load needed for a captured orbit. Additionally, the aerocapture maneuver can decelerate safely while approaching the planet at higher arrival velocities, thus allowing a mission to use a highly energetic trajectory and reduce the cruise time by several years. An aerocapture-enabled solution has launch opportunities in the mid 2030's, including as late as 2038 to reach Uranus by 2049. This paper will discuss the feasibility of an aerocapture option for a Flagship-class mission to Uranus.

Soumyo Dutta↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerocapture Solutions for Uranus Flagship-class Orbiter and Probe

Recent planetary mission assessments, such as the 2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey released by the National Academies of Science, have focused on the need for a flagship-class mission to the Ice Giant planets, particularly Uranus. The Uranus Orbit and Probe mission proposal was used by the National Academies of Science as the baseline while making its recommendation as the top flagship-class mission for NASA in the 2020-2030\'s. This mission which was based on a launch date of 2031 or 2032, used a fully-propulsive orbit insertion maneuver at Uranus (requiring 60-70% of total mass for propellant), and reached the planet after 13 years of interplanetary cruise before the 2049 equinox, a goal of the science community. A pre-2033 launch date is required to conduct a necessary Jupiter fly-by as the giant planet will be not be in the proper alignment for a later launch date. However, as the budget constraints of the NASA budget have pushed back the start date of a Uranus mission, a launch date of a flagship mission before 2033 seems unreasonable. Aerocapture, an orbit insertion maneuver that uses the atmosphere to decelerate, can reduce the propellant load needed for a captured orbit. Additionally, the aerocapture maneuver can decelerate safely while approaching the planet at higher arrival velocities, thus allowing a mission to use a highly energetic trajectory and reduce the cruise time by several years. An aerocapture-enabled solution has launch opportunities in the mid 2030's, including as late as 2038 to reach Uranus by 2049. This paper will discuss the feasibility of an aerocapture option for a Flagship-class mission to Uranus.

Soumyo Dutta↗
DOE OSTI2015

Accelerator Stewardship Test Facility Program - Elliptical Twin Cavity for Accelerator Applications

Funding is being requested pursuant to the proposals entitled Elliptical Twin Cavity for Accelerator Applications that was submitted and reviewed through the Portfolio Analysis and Management System (PAMS). The PAMS proposal identifier number is 0000219731. The proposed new type of superconducting cavity, the Elliptical Twin Cavity, is capable of accelerating or decelerating beams in two separate beam pipes. This configuration is particularly effective for high-current, low energy electron beams that will be used for bunched beam cooling of high-energy protons or ions. Having the accelerated beam physically separated from the decelerated beam, but interacting with the same RF mode, means that the low energy beam from the gun can be injected into to the superconducting cavity without bends enabling a small beam emittance to be maintained. A staff engineer who has been working with non-standard complicated cavity structures replaces the senior engineer (in the original budget) who is moving on to be a project leader. This is reflected in a slightly increased engineer time and in reduced costs. The Indirect costs for FY16 are lower than the previous projection. As a result, there is no scope reduction.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Method for energy recovery of spent ERL beams

A method for recovering energy from spent energy recovered linac (ERL) beams. The method includes adding a plurality of passive decelerating cavities at the beam dump of the ERL, adding one or more coupling waveguides between the passive decelerating cavities, setting an adequate external Q (Qext) to adjust to the beam loading situation, and extracting the RF energy through the coupling waveguides.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Control rod damping system

A damping area or “dash pot” on the upper ends of control rods absorb energy from dropped control rod assemblies without narrowing the diameter of guide tubes. As a result, coolant can freely flow through the guide tubes reducing boiling water issues. The dampening area reduces a separation distance between an outside surface of the control rod and an inside surface of the guide tubes decelerating the control rods when entering a top end of the guide tubes. In another example, the dampening area may be located on a drive shaft. The dampening area may have a larger diameter than an opening in a drive shaft support member that decelerates the drive shaft when dropped by a drive mechanism.

Snuggerud, Ross Douglas↗
DOE OSTI2023

Control rod damping system

A damping area or “dash pot” on the upper ends of control rods absorb energy from dropped control rod assemblies without narrowing the diameter of guide tubes. As a result, coolant can freely flow through the guide tubes reducing boiling water issues. The dampening area reduces a separation distance between an outside surface of the control rod and an inside surface of the guide tubes decelerating the control rods when entering a top end of the guide tubes. In another example, the dampening area may be located on a drive shaft. The dampening area may have a larger diameter than an opening in a drive shaft support member that decelerates the drive shaft when dropped by a drive mechanism.

Snuggerud, Ross Douglas↗
NASA NTRS1963

Reentry

Major problems in reentry deceleration loads, corridor width, range control, and heating loads

RANGE CONTROL↗