Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Control Rocket”

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 847 records · Page 47

CU in space: The University of Colorado get away special payload G-285

The University of Colorado's first Get Away Special was conceived by a dozen science and engineering students in the spring of 1984. Since that time, the project has grown to include over 100 undergraduate and graduate students who have 'provided the experimental objectives, design, construction, integration, testing and management of the payload. Faculty and staff of the university and its affiliated laboratories as well as engineers from local industries have provided many useful suggestions at all stages of development. The principal motivation for developing this payload is to provide university students with the opportunity to participate in space science and engineering beginning at the ground level. At the same time, they are contributing their results from new science and technological discoveries to several disciplines. There are four separate experiments integrated into the /'single payload of G-285 which are supported by internal payload !power, thermal environment control, command land data handling [ facilities and structural subsystems. The four experiments contained in this payload are: a single spectrometer performing i two experiments- one to study night time shuttle glow phenomena in the ultraviolet and the other to observe NO2 concentrations over / equatorial latitudes in the day; a fluids management experiment ' using centrifugation for particle/liquid/vapor separation; and an experiment using Phycomyces fungi to study the gravireceptor mechanism theory. The experiments are supported by a microprocessor, data storage devices, power and thermal control subsystems. All these are located within a sealed aluminum container. The container, a refitted sounding rocket casing, has a top and bottom which bolt to the main body of the rocket section. The top section holds a five inch diameter quartz window through which light enters the spectrometer. A rotating mirror assembly and one of two battery boxes are mounted on the outside of the top section below the interface plane of the MDA. A second battery box is attached to the bottom section of the sealed container. All payload items except the battery boxes and mirror assembly are located inside the sealed rocket section to insure containment and to prevent outgassing of materials. The container will be sealed prior to launch and purged with one atmosphere of argon.

Kent Tobiska↗

Launch vehicle performance using metallized propellants

Metallized propellant propulsion systems are considered as replacements for the solid rocket boosters and liquid sustainer stages on the current launch vehicles: both the Space Transportation System (STS) and the Titan 4. Liquid rocket boosters for the STS were analyzed as replacements for current solid rocket boosters. These boosters can provide a liquid propulsion system within the volume constraints of a solid rocket booster. A replacement for the Space Shuttle Main Engines using metallized O2/H2/Al was studied. The liquid stages of the Titan 4 were also investigated; the Aerozine-50 (A-50) fuel was replaced with metallized storable A-50/Al. A metallized propellant is similar to a traditional liquid propellant. However, it has metal particles, such as aluminum, that are suspended in a gelled fuel, such as hydrogen, RP-1, A-50 or monomethyl hydrazine (MMH). The fuels then undergo combustion with liquid oxygen or nitrogen tetroxide (NTO). These propellants provide options for increasing the performance of existing launch vehicle chemical propulsion systems by increasing fuel density or specific impulse or both. These increases in density and specific impulse can significantly reduce the propulsion system liftoff weight and allow a liquid rocket booster to fit into the same volume as an existing solid rocket booster. Also, because gelled fuels are akin to liquid propellants, metallized systems can provide enhanced controllability over solid propulsion systems. Gelling of the propellant also reduces the sensitivity to impacts and consequently reduces the propellant explosion hazard.

Palaszewski, Bryan A.↗

Launch vehicle performance using metallized propellants

Metallized propellant propulsion systems are considered as replacements for the solid rocket boosters and liquid sustainer stages on the current launch vehicles: both the Space Transportation System (STS) and the Titan 4. Liquid rocket boosters for the STS were analyzed as replacements for current solid rocket boosters. These boosters can provide a liquid propulsion system within the volume constraints of a solid rocket booster. A replacement for the Space Shuttle Main Engines using metallized 02/H2/A1 was studied. The liquid stages of the Titan 4 were also investigated; the Aerozine-50 (A-50) fuel was replaced with metallized storable A-50/A1. A metallized propellant is similar to a traditional liquid propellant. However, it has metal particles, such as aluminum, that are suspended in a gelled fuel, such as hydrogen, RP-1, A-50 or monomethyl hydrazine (MMH). The fuels then undergo combustion with liquid oxygen or nitrogen tetroxide (NTO). These propellants provide options for increasing the performance of existing launch vehicle chemical propulsion systems by increasing fuel density or specific impulse or both. These increases in density and specific impulse can significantly reduce the propulsion system liftoff weight and allow a liquid rocket booster to fit into the same volume as an existing solid rocket booster. Also, because gelled fuels are akin to liquid propellants, metallized systems can provide enhanced controllability over solid propulsion systems. Gelling of the propellant also reduces the sensitivity to impacts and consequently reduces the propellant explosion hazard.

Palaszewski, Bryan↗

KSC Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Issues

Discussion of key electrostatic issues that have arisen during the past few years at KSC that the Electrostatics Laboratory has studied. The lab has studied in depth the Space Shuttle's Thermal Control System Blankets, the International Space Station Thermal Blanket, the Pan/Tilt Camera Blankets, the Kapton Purge Barrier Curtain, the Aclar Purge Barrier Curtain, the Thrust Vector Controller Blankets, the Tyvek Reaction Control System covers, the AID-PAK and FLU-9 pyro inflatable devices, the Velostat Solid Rocket Booster mats, and the SCAPE suits. In many cases these materials are insulating meaning that they might be a source of unsafe levels of electrostatic discharge (ESD). For each, the lab provided in-depth testing of each material within its current configuration to ensure that it does not cause an ESD concern that may violate the safety of the astronauts, the workers and equipment for NASA. For example the lab provides unique solutions and testing such as Spark Incendivity Testing that checks whether a material is capable of generating a spark strong enough to ignite a flammable gas. The lab makes recommendations to changes in specifications, procedures, and material if necessary. The lab also consults with a variety of non-safety related ESD issues for the agency.

Buhler, Charles↗

NASA's Space Launch System Takes Shape

Significant hardware and software for NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) began rolling off assembly lines in 2016, setting the stage for critical testing in 2017 and the launch of new capability for deep-space human exploration. (Figure 1) At NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) near New Orleans, LA, full-scale test articles are being joined by flight hardware. Structural test stands are nearing completion at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, AL. An SLS booster solid rocket motor underwent test firing, while flight motor segments were cast. An RS-25 and Engine Control Unit (ECU) for early SLS flights were tested at NASA's Stennis Space Center (SSC). The upper stage for the first flight was completed, and NASA completed Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for a new, powerful upper stage. The pace of production and testing is expected to increase in 2017. This paper will discuss the technical and programmatic highlights and challenges of 2016 and look ahead to plans for 2017.

Askins, Bruce R.↗

The O/OREOS Mission - Astrobiology in Low Earth Orbit

The O/OREOS (Organism/Organic Exposure to Orbital Stresses) nanosatellite is the first science demonstration spacecraft and flight mission of the NASA Astrobiology Small- Payloads Program (ASP). O/OREOS was launched successfully on November 19, 2010, to a high-inclination (72°), 650-km Earth orbit aboard a US Air Force Minotaur IV rocket from Kodiak, Alaska. O/OREOS consists of 3 conjoined cubesat (each 1000 cu.cm) modules: (i) a control bus, (ii) the Space Environment Survivability of Living Organisms (SESLO) experiment, and (iii) the Space Environment Viability of Organics (SEVO) experiment. Among the innovative aspects of the O/OREOS mission are a real-time analysis of the photostability of organics and biomarkers and the collection of data on the survival and metabolic activity for micro-organisms at 3 times during the 6-month mission. We will report on the spacecraft characteristics, payload capabilities and first operational phase of the O/OREOS mission. The science and technology rationale of O/OREOS supports NASA’s scientific exploration program by investigating the local space environment as well as space biology relevant to Moon and Mars missions. It also serves as precursor for experiments on small satellites, the International Space Station (ISS), future free-flyers and lunar surface exposure facilities.

Ehrenfreund, P.↗

The O/OREOS Mission - Astrobiology in Low Earth Orbit

The O/OREOS (Organism/Organic Exposure to Orbital Stresses) nanosatellite is the first science demonstration spacecraft and flight mission of the NASA Astrobiology Small- Payloads Program (ASP). O/OREOS was launched successfully on November 19, 2010, to a high-inclination (72°), 650-km Earth orbit aboard a US Air Force Minotaur IV rocket from Kodiak, Alaska. O/OREOS consists of 3 conjoined cubesat (each 1000 cu.cm) modules: (i) a control bus, (ii) the Space Environment Survivability of Living Organisms (SESLO) experiment, and (iii) the Space Environment Viability of Organics (SEVO) experiment. Among the innovative aspects of the O/OREOS mission are a real-time analysis of the photostability of organics and biomarkers and the collection of data on the survival and metabolic activity for micro-organisms at 3 times during the 6-month mission. We will report on the spacecraft characteristics, payload capabilities and first operational phase of the O/OREOS mission. The science and technology rationale of O/OREOS supports NASA’s scientific exploration program by investigating the local space environment as well as space biology relevant to Moon and Mars missions. It also serves as precursor for experiments on small satellites, the International Space Station (ISS), future free-flyers and lunar surface exposure facilities.

Ehrenfreund, P.↗

Parachute suspended solar pointing control system

A high altitude parachute suspended solar pointing control system has been developed and flight tested for use in the altitude range of 30 to 70 kilometers. This development provides an opportunity for extended solar observations at altitudes higher than that attainable by helium balloons. The new system utilizes the NASA high altitude cross parachute to slow the descent of a rocket launched payload allowing observations in the region of interest. Solar pointing is established by using solar sensors in conjunction with a servo controlled platform and cold gas thrusters for payload roll control. The inherent spin of the cross parachute is decoupled by a swivel joint attached to the parachute suspension lines. This paper describes the design, test and flight performance of the new system.

Sakoda, G. T.↗

Liquid rocket actuators and operators

All the types of actuators and associated operators used in booster, upper stage, and spacecraft propulsion and reaction-control systems except for chemical-explosive actuators and turbine actuators are discussed. Discussion of static and dynamic seals, mechanical transmission of motion, and instrumentation is included to the extent that actuator or operator design is affected. Selection of the optimum actuator configuration is discussed for specific application which require a tradeoff study that considers all the relevant factors: available energy sources, load capacity, stroke, speed of response, leakage limitations, environmental conditions, chemical compatibility, storage life and conditions, size, weight, and cost. These factors are interrelated with overall control-system design evaluations that are beyond the scope of this monograph; however, literature references are cited for a detailed review of the general considerations. Perinent advanced-state-of-the-art design concepts are surveyed briefly.

Source record↗

Standardization of Rocket Engine Pulse Time Parameters

Plumes of bipropellant thrusters are a source of contamination. Small bipropellant thrusters are often used for spacecraft attitude control and orbit correction. Such thrusters typically operate in a pulse mode, at various pulse lengths. Quantifying their contamination effects onto spacecraft external surfaces is especially important for long-term complex-geometry vehicles, e.g. International Space Station. Plume contamination tests indicated the presence of liquid phase contaminant in the form of droplets. Their origin is attributed to incomplete combustion. Most of liquid-phase contaminant is generated during the startup and shutdown (unsteady) periods of thruster pulse. These periods are relatively short (typically 10-50 ms), and the amount of contaminant is determined by the thruster design (propellant valve response, combustion chamber size, thruster mass flow rate, film cooling percentage, dribble volume, etc.) and combustion process organization. Steady-state period of pulse is characterized by much lower contamination rates, but may be lengthy enough to significantly conh'ibute to the overall contamination effect. Because there was no standard methodology for thruster pulse time division, plume contamination tests were conducted at various pulse durations, and their results do not allow quantifying contaminant amounts from each portion of the pulse. At present, the ISS plume contamination model uses an assumption that all thrusters operate in a pulse mode with the pulse length being 100 ms. This assumption may lead to a large difference between the actual amounts of contaminant produced by the thruster and the model predictions. This paper suggests a way to standardize thruster startup and shutdown period definitions, and shows the usefulness of this approach to better quantify thruster plume contamination. Use of the suggested thruster pulse time-division technique will ensure methodological consistency of future thruster plume contamination test programs, and allow accounting for thruster pulse length when modeling plume contamination and erosion effects.

Larin, Max E.↗

Rocket Ejector Studies for Application to RBCC Engines: An Integrated Experimental/CFD Approach

Recent interest in low cost, reliable access to space has generated increased interest in advanced technology approaches to space transportation systems. A key to the success of such programs lies in the development of advanced propulsion systems capable of achieving the performance and operations goals required for the next generation of space vehicles. One extremely promising approach involves the combination of rocket and air- breathing engines into a rocket-based combined-cycle engine (RBCC). A key element of that engine is the rocket ejector which is utilized in the zero to Mach two operating regime. Studies of RBCC engine concepts are not new and studies dating back thirty years are well documented in the literature. However, studies focused on the rocket ejector mode of the RBCC cycle are lacking. The present investigation utilizes an integrated experimental and computation fluid dynamics (CFD) approach to examine critical rocket ejector performance issues. In particular, the development of a predictive methodology capable of performance prediction is a key objective in order to analyze thermal choking and its control, primary/secondary pressure matching considerations, and effects of nozzle expansion ratio. To achieve this objective, the present study emphasizes obtaining new data using advanced optical diagnostics such as Raman spectroscopy and CFD techniques to investigate mixing in the rocket ejector mode. A new research facility for the study of the rocket ejector mode is described along with the diagnostic approaches to be used. The CFD modeling approach is also described along with preliminary CFD predictions obtained to date.

Pal, S.↗

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

Guidance, Navigation, and Control for Laser-Based Non-Cooperative Target Detumbling

Orbital debris is a well known and growing problem presenting risks to the future of spaceflight. Many pieces of debris are defunct satellites or rocket upper stages. These large objects could generate an exponentially growing cloud of debris should they be involved in a collision, i.e., Kessler Syndrome. Future orbital debris remediation efforts often propose perturbing the orbit of these large targets to mitigate risk. These plans often involve non-cooperative rendezvous. In the absence of active control, the targets are expected to be tumbling which makes rendezvous a dangerous prospect. In this work we describe a guidance, navigation, and control system for a contactless non-cooperative target detumbling methodology which will significantly increase the safety of non-cooperative rendezvous. An onboard laser generates thrust on the target by ablating its surface material. This thrust is used to control target attitude. Our guidance, navigation, and control system is able to estimate relative pose, target the laser, and maintain formation flight during the detumbling process. The system is validated with Monte Carlo simulation in a variety of scenarios.

Guidance↗

Evolution of International Space Station GN&C System Across ISS Assembly Stages

The Guidance Navigation and Control (GN&C) system for the International Space Station is initially implemented by the Functional Cargo Block (FGB) which was built by the Khrunichev Space Center under direct contract to Boeing. This element (Stage 1A/R) was launched on 20 November 1998 and is currently operating on-orbit. The components and capabilities of the FGB Motion Control System (MCS) are described. The next ISS element, which has GN&C functionality will be the Service Module (SM) built by Rocket Space Corporation-Energia. This module is scheduled for launch (Stage 1R) in early 2000. Following activation of the SM GN&C system, the FGB MCS is deactivated and no longer used. The components and capabilities of the SM GN&C system are described. When a Progress vehicle is attached to the ISS it can be used for reboost operations, based on commands provided by the Mission Control Center-Moscow. When a data connection is implemented between the SM and the Progress, the SM can command the Progress thrusters for attitude control and reboosts. On Stage 5A, the U.S. GN&C system will become activated when the U.S. Laboratory is de loyed and installed (launch schedule is currently TBD). The U.S. GN&C system provides non-propulsive control capabilities to support micro-gravity operations and minimize the use of propellant for attitude control, and an independent capability for determining the ISS state vector, attitude, attitude rate. and time.. The components and capabilities of the U.S. GN&C system are described and the interactions between the U.S. and Russian Segment GN&C systems are also described.

Lee, Roscoe↗