Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Investments”

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 NTRS2006

Emerging Propulsion Technologies

The Emerging Propulsion Technologies (EPT) investment area is the newest area within the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Project and strives to bridge technologies in the lower Technology Readiness Level (TRL) range (2 to 3) to the mid TRL range (4 to 6). A prioritization process, the Integrated In-Space Transportation Planning (IISTP), was developed and applied in FY01 to establish initial program priorities. The EPT investment area emerged for technologies that scored well in the IISTP but had a low technical maturity level. One particular technology, the Momentum-eXchange Electrodynamic-Reboost (MXER) tether, scored extraordinarily high and had broad applicability in the IISTP. However, its technical maturity was too low for ranking alongside technologies like the ion engine or aerocapture. Thus MXER tethers assumed top priority at EPT startup in FY03 with an aggressive schedule and adequate budget. It was originally envisioned that future technologies would enter the ISP portfolio through EPT, and EPT developed an EPT/ISP Entrance Process for future candidate ISP technologies. EPT has funded the following secondary, candidate ISP technologies at a low level: ultra-lightweight solar sails, general space/near-earth tether development, electrodynamic tether development, advanced electric propulsion, and in-space mechanism development. However, the scope of the ISPT program has focused over time to more closely match SMD needs and technology advancement successes. As a result, the funding for MXER and other EPT technologies is not currently available. Consequently, the MXER tether tasks and other EPT tasks were expected to phased out by November 2006. Presentation slides are presented which provide activity overviews for the aerocapture technology and emerging propulsion technology projects.

Keys, Andrew S.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Solar Electric Propulsion

The Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) technology area is tasked to develop near and mid-term SEP technology to improve or enable science mission capture while minimizing risk and cost to the end user. The solar electric propulsion investments are primarily driven by SMD cost-capped mission needs. The technology needs are determined partially through systems analysis tasks including the recent "Re-focus Studies" and "Standard Architecture Study." These systems analysis tasks transitioned the technology development to address the near term propulsion needs suitable for cost-capped open solicited missions such as Discovery and New Frontiers Class missions. Major SEP activities include NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT), implementing a Standard Architecture for NSTAR and NEXT EP systems, and developing a long life High Voltage Hall Accelerator (HiVHAC). Lower level investments include advanced feed system development and xenon recovery testing. Future plans include completion of ongoing ISP development activities and evaluating potential use of commercial electric propulsion systems for SMD applications. Examples of enhanced mission capability and technology readiness dates shall be discussed.

LaPointe, Michael↗
NASA NTRS1955

Spatial Burnout in Water Reactors with Nonuniform Startup Distributions of Uranium and Boron

Spatial burnout calculations have been made of two types of water moderated cylindrical reactor using boron as a burnable poison to increase reactor life. Specific reactors studied were a version of the Submarine Advanced Reactor (sAR) and a supercritical water reactor (SCW) . Burnout characteristics such as reactivity excursion, neutron-flux and heat-generation distributions, and uranium and boron distributions have been determined for core lives corresponding to a burnup of approximately 7 kilograms of fully enriched uranium. All reactivity calculations have been based on the actual nonuniform distribution of absorbers existing during intervals of core life. Spatial burnout of uranium and boron and spatial build-up of fission products and equilibrium xenon have been- considered. Calculations were performed on the NACA nuclear reactor simulator using two-group diff'usion theory. The following reactor burnout characteristics have been demonstrated: 1. A significantly lower excursion in reactivity during core life may be obtained by nonuniform rather than uniform startup distribution of uranium. Results for SCW with uranium distributed to provide constant radial heat generation and a core life corresponding to a uranium burnup of 7 kilograms indicated a maximum excursion in reactivity of 2.5 percent. This compared to a maximum excursion of 4.2 percent obtained for the same core life when w'anium was uniformly distributed at startup. Boron was incorporated uniformly in these cores at startup. 2. It is possible to approach constant radial heat generation during the life of a cylindrical core by means of startup nonuniform radial and axial distributions of uranium and boron. Results for SCW with nonuniform radial distribution of uranium to provide constant radial heat generation at startup and with boron for longevity indicate relatively small departures from the initially constant radial heat generation distribution during core life. Results for SAR with a sinusoidal distribution rather than uniform axial distributions of boron indicate significant improvements in axial heat generation distribution during the greater part of core life. 3. Uranium investments for cylindrical reactors with nonuniform radial uranium distributions which provide constant radial heat generation per unit core volume are somewhat higher than for reactors with uniform uranium concentration at startup. On the other hand, uranium investments for reactors with axial boron distributions which approach constant axial heat generation are somewhat smaller than for reactors with uniform boron distributions at startup.

Fox, Thomas A.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Advanced Capabilities for Wind Tunnel Testing in the 21st Century

Wind tunnel testing methods and test technologies for the 21st century using advanced capabilities are presented. These capabilities are necessary to capture more accurate and high quality test results by eliminating the uncertainties in testing and to facilitate verification of computational tools for design. This paper discusses near term developments underway in ground testing capabilities, which will enhance the quality of information of both the test article and airstream flow details. Also discussed is a selection of new capability investments that have been made to accommodate such developments. Examples include advanced experimental methods for measuring the test gas itself; using efficient experiment methodologies, including quality assurance strategies within the test; and increasing test result information density by using extensive optical visualization together with computed flow field results. These points could be made for both major investments in existing tunnel capabilities or for entirely new capabilities.

Kegelman, Jerome T.↗
NASA NTRS2010

An Overview of the NASA Aeronautics Test Program Strategic Plan

U.S. leadership in aeronautics depends on ready access to technologically advanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics test capabilities. These systems include major wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities and flight test capabilities. The federal government owns the majority of the major aeronautics test capabilities in the United States, primarily through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD), however an overarching strategy for management of these national assets was needed. Therefore, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 NASA established the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) as a two-pronged strategic initiative to: (1) retain and invest in NASA aeronautics test capabilities considered strategically important to the agency and the nation, and (2) establish a strong, high level partnership with the DoD Test Resources Management Center (TRMC), stewards of the DoD test and evaluation infrastructure. Since then, approximately seventy percent of the ATP budget has been directed to underpin fixed and variable costs of facility operations within its portfolio and the balance towards strategic investments in its test facilities, including maintenance and capability upgrades. Also, a strong guiding coalition was established through the National Partnership for Aeronautics Testing (NPAT), with governance by the senior leadership of NASA s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) and the DoD's TRMC. As part of its strategic planning, ATP has performed or participated in many studies and analyses, including assessments of major NASA and DoD aeronautics test capabilities, test facility condition evaluations and market research. The ATP strategy has also benefitted from unpublished RAND research and analysis by Ant n et al. (2009). Together, these various studies, reports and assessments serve as a foundation for a new, five year strategic plan that will guide ATP through FY 2014. Our vision for the future is a balanced portfolio of aeronautics ground and flight test capabilities that advance U.S. leadership in aeronautics in the short and long term. Key to the ATP vision is the concept of availability, not necessarily ownership; that is, NASA does not have to own and operate all facilities that are envisioned for future aeronautics testing. However, ATP will enable access to capabilities which are needed but not owned by NASA through strategic partnerships and reliance agreements. This paper will outline the major aspects of the ATP strategic plan for achieving its mission.

Marshall, Timothy J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Tight Fits for Americas Next Moon Rocket, Ares V

America has begun the development of a new heavy lift rocket which will enable humans to return to the moon and reach even farther destinations. Five decades ago, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration designed a system (called Saturn/Apollo) to carry men to the moon and back; the rocket which boosted them to the moon was the Saturn V. Saturn V was huge relative to contemporary rockets and is still the largest rocket ever launched. The new moon rocket is called Ares V. It will insert 40% more payload into low earth orbit than Saturn V; and after docking with the crew spacecraft, it will insert 50% more payload onto the translunar trajectory than Saturn V. The current design of Ares V calls for two liquid-fueled stages and 2 "strap-on" solid rockets. The solid rockets are extended-length versions of the solid rockets used on the Shuttle. The diameter of the liquid stages is at least as large as the first stage of the Saturn V; the height of the lower liquid stage (called the core stage) is longer than the external tank of the Shuttle. Huge rockets require huge infrastructure and, during the Saturn/Apollo era, America invested significantly in manufacturing, assembly and launch facilities which are still in use today. Since the Saturn/Apollo era, America has invested in additional infrastructure for the Shuttle program. Ares V must utilize this existing infrastructure, with reasonable modifications. Building a rocket with 50% more capability in the same buildings, testing it in the same test stands, shipping on the same canals under the same bridges, assembling it in the same building, rolling it to the pad on the same crawler, and launching it from the same launch pad is an engineering and logistics challenge which goes hand-in-hand with designing the structure, tanks, turbines, engines, software, etc. necessary to carry such a large payload to earth orbit and to the moon. This paper quantitatively discusses the significant "tight fits" that are constraining Ares V. The engineers designing and building the infrastructure for the Saturn/Apollo program usually added margins and growth capability; sometimes the size of existing facilities (such as the width of a draw bridge) was not a constraint. Ares V may utilize the "extra" space in the existing facilities and expand other tight fits. Some of the tight fits cannot be overcome without great expense; raising the roof on the Vertical Assembly Building for example. Other tight fits are easily overcome; the transporter at the manufacturing facility for the core stage can pass under low ceilings and later over a dike (without dragging the middle) by retracting or extending the struts which support the stage. Tight fits discussed in this paper include manufacturing (jigs, widths, heights, and local transportation), testing (test stand sizes and crane capability), transportation to the test stands and the launch site (barge, waterway, and rail), assembly (VAB internal dimensions and door size), roll-out limits, and launch pad size.

Jaap, John↗
NASA NTRS2010

Assessing Space Exploration Technology Requirements as a First Step Towards Ensuring Technology Readiness for International Cooperation in Space Exploration

Advancing critical and enhancing technologies is considered essential to enabling sustainable and affordable human space exploration. Critical technologies are those that enable a certain class of mission, such as technologies necessary for safe landing on the Martian surface, advanced propulsion, and closed loop life support. Others enhance the mission by leading to a greater satisfaction of mission objectives or increased probability of mission success. Advanced technologies are needed to reduce mass and cost. Many space agencies have studied exploration mission architectures and scenarios with the resulting lists of critical and enhancing technologies being very similar. With this in mind, and with the recognition that human space exploration will only be enabled by agencies working together to address these challenges, interested agencies participating in the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) have agreed to perform a technology assessment as an important step in exploring cooperation opportunities for future exploration mission scenarios. "The Global Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coordination" was developed by fourteen space agencies and released in May 2007. Since the fall of 2008, several International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) participating space agencies have been studying concepts for human exploration of the moon. They have identified technologies considered critical and enhancing of sustainable space exploration. Technologies such as in-situ resource utilization, advanced power generation/energy storage systems, reliable dust resistant mobility systems, and closed loop life support systems are important examples. Similarly, agencies such as NASA, ESA, and Russia have studied Mars exploration missions and identified critical technologies. They recognize that human and robotic precursor missions to destinations such as LEO, moon, and near earth objects provide opportunities to demonstrate the technologies needed for Mars mission. Agencies see the importance of assessing gaps and overlaps in their plans to advance technologies in order to leverage their investments and enable exciting missions as soon as practical. They see the importance of respecting the ability of any agency to invest in any technologies considered interesting or strategic. This paper will describe the importance of developing an appropriate international strategy for technology development and ideas for effective mechanisms for advancing an international strategy. This work will both inform and be informed by the development of an ISECG Global Exploration Roadmap and serve as a concrete step forward in advancing the Global Exploration Strategy.

Laurini, Kathleen C.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Utilizing Earth Observations for Societal Issues

Over the last four decades a tremendous progress has been made in the Earth science space-based remote sensing observations, technologies and algorithms. Such advancements have improved the predictability by providing lead-time and accuracy of forecast in weather, climate, natural hazards, and natural resources. It has further reduced or bounded the overall uncertainties by partially improving our understanding of planet Earth as an integrated system that is governed by non-linear and chaotic behavior. Many countries such as the US, European Community, Japan, China, Russia, India has and others have invested billions of dollars in developing and launching space-based assets in the low earth (LEO) and geostationary (GEO) orbits. However, the wealth of this scientific knowledge that has potential of extracting monumental socio-economic benefits from such large investments have been slow in reaching the public and decision makers. For instance, there are a number of areas such as water resources and availability, energy forecasting, aviation safety, agricultural competitiveness, disaster management, air quality and public health, which can directly take advantage. Nevertheless, we all live in a global economy that depends on access to the best available Earth Science information for all inhabitants of this planet. This presentation discusses a process to transition Earth science data and products for societal needs including NASA's experience in achieving such objectives. It is important to mention that there are many challenges and issues that pertain to a number of areas such as: (1) difficulties in making a speedy transition of data and information from observations and models to relevant Decision Support Systems (DSS) or tools, (2) data and models inter-operability issues, (3) limitations of spatial, spectral and temporal resolution, (4) communication limitations as dictated by the availability of image processing and data compression techniques. Additionally, the most critical element amongst all is the organizational and management boundaries that must be resolved at local, state, national and international levels to implement and realize free flow of such vital information.

Habib, Shahid↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA Education: Yesterday's Dream...Today's Vision...Tomorrow's Hope

For 50 years, NASA's journeys into air and space have developed humankind's understanding of the universe, advanced technology breakthroughs, enhanced air travel safety and security, and expanded the frontiers of scientific research. These accomplishments share a common genesis: education. Education is a fundamental element of NASA's activities, reflecting a balanced and diverse portfolio of: Elementary and Secondary Education, Higher Education, e-Education, Informal Education, and Minority University Research and Education Programs (MUREP). Previous experience has shown that implementing exciting and compelling NASA missions are critical to inspiring the next generation of explorers, innovators, and leaders. Through partnerships with the Agency's Mission Directorates, other federal agencies, private industries, scientific research, and education/academic organizations, NASA's unique mission and education initiatives (content, people, and facilities) are helping to spark student interest and to guide them toward careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). NASA continues to inspire the next generation of explorers, innovators, and future leaders through its educational investments, which are designed to: (1) Strengthen NASA and the Nation's future workforce -- NASA will identify and develop the critical skills and capabilities needed to ensure achievement of exploration, science, and aeronautics. (2) Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines through a progression of educational opportunities for students, teachers, and faculty -- To compete effectively for the minds, imaginations, and career ambitions of America's young people, NASA will focus on engaging and retaining students in STEM education programs to encourage their pursuit of educational disciplines critical to NASA's future engineering, scientific, and technical missions. 3. Engage Americans in NASA's mission -- NASA will build strategic partnerships and links between formal and informal STEM education providers. Through hands-on, interactive, educational activities, NASA will engage students, educators, families, the general public, and all agency stakeholders in increasing America's science and technology literacy. NASA Education uses multiple methods to assess and evaluate the success of its programs and projects. Methods include strategic planning, management and control, expert evaluations and assessments, competitive acquisition, and analysis of performance measurement data and metrics. Additional control measures are in development. These measures will further improve data collection, assist in assessing return on investments, and provide information for accountability in project and program management. In 2009, NASA directly reached over one million students and over 115,000 educators.

Winterton, Joyce L.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Present Challenges, Critical Needs, and Future Technological Directions for NASA's GN and C Engineering Discipline

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently undergoing a substantial redirection. Notable among the changes occurring within NASA is the stated emphasis on technology development, integration, and demonstration. These new changes within the Agency should have a positive impact on the GN&C discipline given the potential for sizeable investments for technology development and in-space demonstrations of both Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking (AR&D) systems and Autonomous Precision Landing (APL) systems. In this paper the NASA Technical Fellow for Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) provides a summary of the present technical challenges, critical needs, and future technological directions for NASA s GN&C engineering discipline. A brief overview of the changes occurring within NASA that are driving a renewed emphasis on technology development will be presented as background. The potential benefits of the planned GN&C technology developments will be highlighted. This paper will provide a GN&C State-of-the-Discipline assessment. The discipline s readiness to support the goals & objectives of each of the four NASA Mission Directorates is evaluated and the technical challenges and barriers currently faced by the discipline are summarized. This paper will also discuss the need for sustained investments to sufficiently mature the several classes of GN&C technologies required to implement NASA crewed exploration and robotic science missions.

Dennehy, Cornelius J.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Potential Future Shuttle Improvements

NASA has just recently completed the 104th flight of the Space Shuttle. Each of the four Orbiters in the Shuttle fleet have a design life of 100 flights each. Thus the fleet is capable of almost 300 more flights, and at current flight rates could potentially operate well past 2020 if necessary. This paper addresses some of the potential Shuttle system improvements that could be considered if the decision is made to continue operations of this vehicle for such an extended period. The national space transportation policy envisions a decision around 2005-2006 concerning readiness to start development of a Shuttle replacement system. Leading up to that decision point NASA is investing in the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) to reduce the development risks associated with key technologies needed for the next generation reusable launch vehicle (RLV). The Shuttle replacement could be a new design RLV or could be based on a Shuttle derived design: i.e., a vehicle based on the current Shuttle but with major design changes. The technology investment strategy of SLI is supportive of either approach. However, if NASA and industry are not ready to develop a replacement vehicle in the 2006-2012 timeframe, then another option would be to continue to make important, but evolutionary changes, to the existing Shuttle fleet. The overall strategy for next generation RLV planning, including possible Shuttle evolution, is captured in Figure 1.

Henderson, Edward↗
NASA NTRS2010

Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture

The Marshall Application Realignment System (MARS) Architecture project was established to meet the certification requirements of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) V2.0 Federal Enterprise Architecture Certification (FEAC) Institute program and to provide added value to the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Application Portfolio Management process. The MARS Architecture aims to: (1) address the NASA MSFC Chief Information Officer (CIO) strategic initiative to improve Application Portfolio Management (APM) by optimizing investments and improving portfolio performance, and (2) develop a decision-aiding capability by which applications registered within the MSFC application portfolio can be analyzed and considered for retirement or decommission. The MARS Architecture describes a to-be target capability that supports application portfolio analysis against scoring measures (based on value) and overall portfolio performance objectives (based on enterprise needs and policies). This scoring and decision-aiding capability supports the process by which MSFC application investments are realigned or retired from the application portfolio. The MARS Architecture is a multi-phase effort to: (1) conduct strategic architecture planning and knowledge development based on the DoDAF V2.0 six-step methodology, (2) describe one architecture through multiple viewpoints, (3) conduct portfolio analyses based on a defined operational concept, and (4) enable a new capability to support the MSFC enterprise IT management mission, vision, and goals. This report documents Phase 1 (Strategy and Design), which includes discovery, planning, and development of initial architecture viewpoints. Phase 2 will move forward the process of building the architecture, widening the scope to include application realignment (in addition to application retirement), and validating the underlying architecture logic before moving into Phase 3. The MARS Architecture key stakeholders are most interested in Phase 3 because this is where the data analysis, scoring, and recommendation capability is realized. Stakeholders want to see the benefits derived from reducing the steady-state application base and identify opportunities for portfolio performance improvement and application realignment.

Belshe, Andrea↗
NASA NTRS2010

Status of Solar Sail Technology Within NASA

In the early 2000s, NASA made substantial progress in the development of solar sail propulsion systems for use in robotic science and exploration of the solar system. Two different 20-m solar sail systems were produced and they successfully completed functional vacuum testing in NASA Glenn Research Center's (GRC's) Space Power Facility at Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The sails were designed and developed by ATK Space Systems and L Garde, respectively. The sail systems consist of a central structure with four deployable booms that support the sails. These sail designs are robust enough for deployment in a one-atmosphere, one-gravity environment and were scalable to much larger solar sails perhaps as large as 150 m on a side. Computation modeling and analytical simulations were also performed to assess the scalability of the technology to the large sizes required to implement the first generation of missions using solar sails. Life and space environmental effects testing of sail and component materials were also conducted. NASA terminated funding for solar sails and other advanced space propulsion technologies shortly after these ground demonstrations were completed. In order to capitalize on the $30M investment made in solar sail technology to that point, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) funded the NanoSail-D, a subscale solar sail system designed for possible small spacecraft applications. The NanoSail-D mission flew on board the ill-fated Falcon-1 Rocket launched August 2, 2008, and due to the failure of that rocket, never achieved orbit. The NanoSail-D flight spare will be flown in the Fall of 2010. This paper will summarize NASA's investment in solar sail technology to-date and discuss future opportunities

Johnson, Les↗
NASA NTRS2010

Launch Vehicle Propulsion Life Cycle Cost Lessons Learned

This paper will review lessons learned for space transportation systems from the viewpoint of the NASA, Industry and academia Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST). The paper provides the basic idea and history of "lessons learned". Recommendations that are extremely relevant to NASA's future investments in research, program development and operations are"'provided. Lastly, a novel and useful approach to documenting lessons learned is recommended, so as to most effectively guide future NASA investments. Applying lessons learned can significantly improve access to space for cargo or people by focusing limited funds on the right areas and needs for improvement. Many NASA human space flight initiatives have faltered, been re-directed or been outright canceled since the birth of the Space Shuttle program. The reasons given at the time have been seemingly unique. It will be shown that there are common threads as lessons learned in many a past initiative.

Zapata, Edgar↗
NASA NTRS2006

Jet Noise Diagnostics Supporting Statistical Noise Prediction Methods

The primary focus of my presentation is the development of the jet noise prediction code JeNo with most examples coming from the experimental work that drove the theoretical development and validation. JeNo is a statistical jet noise prediction code, based upon the Lilley acoustic analogy. Our approach uses time-average 2-D or 3-D mean and turbulent statistics of the flow as input. The output is source distributions and spectral directivity. NASA has been investing in development of statistical jet noise prediction tools because these seem to fit the middle ground that allows enough flexibility and fidelity for jet noise source diagnostics while having reasonable computational requirements. These tools rely on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solutions as input for computing far-field spectral directivity using an acoustic analogy. There are many ways acoustic analogies can be created, each with a series of assumptions and models, many often taken unknowingly. And the resulting prediction can be easily reverse-engineered by altering the models contained within. However, only an approach which is mathematically sound, with assumptions validated and modeled quantities checked against direct measurement will give consistently correct answers. Many quantities are modeled in acoustic analogies precisely because they have been impossible to measure or calculate, making this requirement a difficult task. The NASA team has spent considerable effort identifying all the assumptions and models used to take the Navier-Stokes equations to the point of a statistical calculation via an acoustic analogy very similar to that proposed by Lilley. Assumptions have been identified and experiments have been developed to test these assumptions. In some cases this has resulted in assumptions being changed. Beginning with the CFD used as input to the acoustic analogy, models for turbulence closure used in RANS CFD codes have been explored and compared against measurements of mean and rms velocity statistics over a range of jet speeds and temperatures. Models for flow parameters used in the acoustic analogy, most notably the space-time correlations of velocity, have been compared against direct measurements, and modified to better fit the observed data. These measurements have been extremely challenging for hot, high speed jets, and represent a sizeable investment in instrumentation development. As an intermediate check that the analysis is predicting the physics intended, phased arrays have been employed to measure source distributions for a wide range of jet cases. And finally, careful far-field spectral directivity measurements have been taken for final validation of the prediction code. Examples of each of these experimental efforts will be presented. The main result of these efforts is a noise prediction code, named JeNo, which is in middevelopment. JeNo is able to consistently predict spectral directivity, including aft angle directivity, for subsonic cold jets of most geometries. Current development on JeNo is focused on extending its capability to hot jets, requiring inclusion of a previously neglected second source associated with thermal fluctuations. A secondary result of the intensive experimentation is the archiving of various flow statistics applicable to other acoustic analogies and to development of time-resolved prediction methods. These will be of lasting value as we look ahead at future challenges to the aeroacoustic experimentalist.

Bridges, James E.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of the NASA Arc Jet Capabilities to Support Mission Requirements

NASA accomplishes its strategic goals through human and robotic exploration missions. Many of these missions require launching and landing or returning spacecraft with human or return samples through Earth's and other planetary atmospheres. Spacecraft entering an atmosphere are subjected to extreme aerothermal loads. Protecting against these extreme loads is a critical element of spacecraft design. The safety and success of the planned mission is a prime concern for the Agency, and risk mitigation requires the knowledgeable use of thermal protection systems to successfully withstand the high-energy states imposed on the vehicle. Arc jets provide ground-based testing for development and flight validation of re-entry vehicle thermal protection materials and are a critical capability and core competency of NASA. The Agency's primary hypersonic thermal testing capability resides at the Ames Research Center and the Johnson Space Center and was developed and built in the 1960s and 1970s. This capability was critical to the success of Apollo, Shuttle, Pioneer, Galileo, Mars Pathfinder, and Orion. But the capability and the infrastructure are beyond their design lives. The complexes urgently need strategic attention and investment to meet the future needs of the Agency. The Office of Chief Engineer (OCE) chartered the Arc Jet Evaluation Working Group (AJEWG), a team of experienced individuals from across the Nation, to capture perspectives and requirements from the arc jet user community and from the community that operates and maintains this capability and capacity. This report offers the AJEWG's findings and conclusions that are intended to inform the discussion surrounding potential strategic technical and investment strategies. The AJEWG was directed to employ a 30-year Agency-level view so that near-term issues did not cloud the findings and conclusions and did not dominate or limit any of the strategic options.

Calomino, Anthony↗
NASA NTRS2011

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) Integrated Roadmap Development

At present, NASA has considered a number of future human space exploration mission concepts . Yet, detailed mission requirements and vehicle architectures remain mostly undefined, making technology investment strategies difficult to develop and sustain without a top-level roadmap to serve as a guide. This paper documents a roadmap for development of Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) capabilities required to enhance the long-term operation of the International Space Station (ISS) as well as enable beyond-Low Earth Orbit (LEO) human exploration missions. Three generic mission types were defined to serve as a basis for developing a prioritized list of needed capabilities and technologies. Those are 1) a short duration micro gravity mission; 2) a long duration transit microgravity mission; and 3) a long duration surface exploration mission. To organize the effort, ECLSS was categorized into three major functional groups (atmosphere, water, and solid waste management) with each broken down into sub-functions. The ability of existing state-of-the-art (SOA) technologies to meet the functional needs of each of the three mission types was then assessed by NASA subject matter experts. When SOA capabilities were deemed to fall short of meeting the needs of one or more mission types, those gaps were prioritized in terms of whether or not the corresponding capabilities enable or enhance each of the mission types. The result was a list of enabling and enhancing capabilities needs that can be used to guide future ECLSS development, as well as a list of existing hardware that is ready to go for exploration-class missions. A strategy to fulfill those needs over time was then developed in the form of a roadmap. Through execution of this roadmap, the hardware and technologies intended to meet exploration needs will, in many cases, directly benefit the ISS operational capability, benefit the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), and guide long-term technology investments for longer duration missions The final product of this paper is an agreed-to ECLSS roadmap detailing ground and flight testing to support the three mission scenarios previously mentioned. This information will also be used to develop the integrated NASA budget submit in January 2012.

Metcalf, Jordan↗
NASA NTRS2012

Beamed-Energy Propulsion (BEP) Study

The scope of this study was to (1) review and analyze the state-of-art in beamed-energy propulsion (BEP) by identifying potential game-changing applications, (2) formulate a roadmap of technology development, and (3) identify key near-term technology demonstrations to rapidly advance elements of BEP technology to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6. The two major areas of interest were launching payloads and space propulsion. More generally, the study was requested and structured to address basic mission feasibility. The attraction of beamed-energy propulsion (BEP) is the potential for high specific impulse while removing the power-generation mass. The rapid advancements in high-energy beamed-power systems and optics over the past 20 years warranted a fresh look at the technology. For launching payloads, the study concluded that using BEP to propel vehicles into space is technically feasible if a commitment to develop new technologies and large investments can be made over long periods of time. From a commercial competitive standpoint, if an advantage of beamed energy for Earth-to-orbit (ETO) is to be found, it will rest with smaller, frequently launched payloads. For space propulsion, the study concluded that using beamed energy to propel vehicles from low Earth orbit to geosynchronous Earth orbit (LEO-GEO) and into deep space is definitely feasible and showed distinct advantages and greater potential over current propulsion technologies. However, this conclusion also assumes that upfront infrastructure investments and commitments to critical technologies will be made over long periods of time. The chief issue, similar to that for payloads, is high infrastructure costs.

Patrick George↗