Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Design for Manufacture and Assembly”

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.

852 records · Page 48

On The Development of Additive Construction Technologies for Application to Development of Lunar/Martian Surface Structures Using In-Situ Materials

For long-duration missions on other planetary bodies, the use of in-situ materials will become increasingly critical. As man's presence on these bodies expands, so must the breadth of the structures required to accommodate them including habitats, laboratories, berms, radiation shielding for natural radiation and surface reactors, garages, solar storm shelters, greenhouses, etc. Planetary surface structure manufacturing and assembly technologies that incorporate in-situ resources provide options for autonomous, affordable, pre-positioned environments with radiation shielding features and protection from micrometeorites, exhaust plume debris, and other hazards. This is important because gamma and particle radiation constitute a serious but reducible threat to long-term survival of human beings, electronics, and other materials in space environments. Also, it is anticipated that surface structures will constitute the primary mass element of lunar or Martian launch requirements. The ability to use in-situ materials to construct these structures will provide a benefit in the reduction of up-mass that would otherwise make long-term Moon or Mars structures cost prohibitive. The ability to fabricate structures in situ brings with it the ability to repair these structures, which allows for self-sufficiency necessary for long-duration habitation. Previously, under the auspices of the MSFC In Situ Fabrication and Repair (ISFR) project and more recently, under the joint MSFC/KSC Additive Construction with Mobile Emplacement (ACME) project, the MSFC Surface Structures Group has been developing materials and construction technologies to support future planetary habitats with in situ resources. One such technology, known as Contour Crafting (additive construction), is shown in Figure 1, along with a typical structure fabricated using this technology. This paper will present the results to date of these efforts, including development of novel nozzle concepts for advanced layer deposition using the Contour Crafting process. This process, conceived initially for rapid development of cementitious structures on Earth, also lends itself exceptionally well to the automated fabrication of planetary surface structures using minimally processed regolith as aggregate, and imported binder material or binders developed from in situ materials. This process has been used successfully in the fabrication of construction elements using lunar regolith simulant and Mars regolith simulant, both with various binder materials. These binder materials have resulted from extensive evaluation and include both "imported" binder materials that might be launched from Earth as well as some binder materials that can theoretically also be derived from existing regolith materials. They were chosen to 1) reduce penetrating radiation as much as possible, primarily with hydrogen-bearing polymers, 2) attempt to provide an air-tight structure, 3) sufficiently mix and adsorb to regolith grains for strength, 4) maximize tolerance to day-night thermal cycling, 5) possibly increase electrical conductivity to dissipate any accumulated static charge, and 6) ease their application on planetary surfaces (specifically, the accommodation of reduced atmosphere and lack of heat sinks). Some of these materials have been tested with respect to radiation mitigation, micrometeorite resistance, and resistance to larger, slower-traveling pieces of regolith impinging on the surface, simulating nearby launch and landing activities. Conceptual designs for a Continuous Feedstock Delivery/Mixing System (CFDMS) will also be presented and future planned activities will be discussed as well.

Werkheiser, Niki↗

Development of Self-Assembly Supports Enabling Transformational Membrane Performance for Cost-Effective Carbon Capture

This final technical report describes work conducted by Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. (MTR) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) on the development of membranes with transformational performance for carbon capture under award number DE-FE0031596. The work was performed from June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2024. For more than a decade, MTR has worked in partnership with DOE to develop an innovative membrane-based CO 2 capture process. This effort has included the first test of membrane modules with coal-fired flue gas at the Arizona Public Services (APS) Cholla plant in 2010; the accumulation of >11,000 hours of flue gas operation for Polaris modules on a bench-scale 1 tonne/day (TPD) system at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC); scale-up of first-generation (Gen-1) Polaris to a 20 TPD small pilot system, and successful operation of this system on a flue gas slipstream at NCCC and in integrated boiler testing at Babcock & Wilcox (B&W). Through continued development efforts, a second-generation (Gen-2) version of the Polaris membrane has been scaled-up to pilot production. This membrane offers 70% higher CO 2 permeance with similar selectivity to the base case Polaris. MTR also developed planar modules designed specifically for the low-pressure, high-volumetric flow rate process conditions of flue gas operation. These new modules have significantly lower pressure-drop values compared to the type originally used (spiral-wound modules), which results in significant energy savings. The goal of the work described in this report was to improve on the Polaris Gen-2 membrane with the ultimate aim to reduce the cost of carbon capture. The majority of the effort was to develop improved support membranes for the multi-layer composite structure of MTR’s Polaris membrane. Earlier work at MTR had identified the support structure as limiting membrane permeances, not because the support itself represents a permeation resistance, but because the distribution of pores at the surface of the support imposes a geometric restriction to diffusion in the layers above it. Support membranes were prepared from a range of polymers, including commercially available block copolymers and a custom synthesized block copolymer alternative. The best support membranes developed in this project reduced the geometric restriction by a factor of two to three. These supports then were used to produce Polaris composite membranes with improved permeances. The second topic was to create a high-selectivity version of the Polaris membrane. The high-selectivity version uses a novel selective polymeric material and high selectivities were confirmed in experiments at MTR. The material is not easily made into very thin films. Consequently, the permeances are significantly lower than the Polaris Gen-2 membrane. The utility of this membrane is therefore limited to the carbon dioxide purification step that produces liquid CO 2 . A Technical and Economic Analysis (TEA) was performed for a carbon capture system that uses both advanced membrane types. The TEA shows the novel advanced membranes reduce the cost of capture by 10%, from $63.32/tonne CO 2 to $56.90/tonne CO 2 (2022 USD). Most of the development work was carried out with laboratory-scale casting and coating equipment. A number, but not all, of the improvements identified have been implemented on commercial-scale manufacturing equipment. The focus of future work at MTR is to incorporate the advancements made into the Polaris membrane manufacturing process.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Service Life Extension of the Propulsion System of Long-Term Manned Orbital Stations

One of the critical non-replaceable systems of a long-term manned orbital station is the propulsion system. Since the propulsion system operates beginning with the launch of station elements into orbit, its service life determines the service life of the station overall. Weighing almost a million pounds, the International Space Station (ISS) is about four times as large as the Russian space station Mir and about five times as large as the U.S. Skylab. Constructed over a span of more than a decade with the help of over 100 space flights, elements and modules of the ISS provide more research space than any spacecraft ever built. Originally envisaged for a service life of fifteen years, this Earth orbiting laboratory has been in orbit since 1998. Some elements that have been launched later in the assembly sequence were not yet built when the first elements were placed in orbit. Hence, some of the early modules that were launched at the inception of the program were already nearing the end of their design life when the ISS was finally ready and operational. To maximize the return on global investments on ISS, it is essential for the valuable research on ISS to continue as long as the station can be sustained safely in orbit. This paper describes the work performed to extend the service life of the ISS propulsion system. A system comprises of many components with varying failure rates. Reliability of a system is the probability that it will perform its intended function under encountered operating conditions, for a specified period of time. As we are interested in finding out how reliable a system would be in the future, reliability expressed as a function of time provides valuable insight. In a hypothetical bathtub shaped failure rate curve, the failure rate, defined as the number of failures per unit time that a currently healthy component will suffer in a given future time interval, decreases during infant-mortality period, stays nearly constant during the service life and increases at the end when the design service life ends and wear-out phase begins. However, the component failure rates do not remain constant over the entire cycle life. The failure rate depends on various factors such as design complexity, current age of the component, operating conditions, severity of environmental stress factors, etc. Development, qualification and acceptance test processes provide rigorous screening of components to weed out imperfections that might otherwise cause infant mortality failures. If sufficient samples are tested to failure, the failure time versus failure quantity can be analyzed statistically to develop a failure probability distribution function (PDF), a statistical model of the probability of failure versus time. Driven by cost and schedule constraints however, spacecraft components are generally not tested in large numbers. Uncertainties in failure rate and remaining life estimates increase when fewer units are tested. To account for this, spacecraft operators prefer to limit useful operations to a period shorter than the maximum demonstrated service life of the weakest component. Running each component to its failure to determine the maximum possible service life of a system can become overly expensive and impractical. Spacecraft operators therefore, specify the required service life and an acceptable factor of safety (FOS). The designers use these requirements to limit the life test duration. Midway through the design life, when benefits justify additional investments, supplementary life test may be performed to demonstrate the capability to safely extend the service life of the system. An innovative approach is required to evaluate the entire system, without having to go through an elaborate test program of propulsion system elements. Evaluating every component through a brute force test program would be a cost prohibitive and time consuming endeavor. ISS propulsion system components were designed and built decades ago. There are no representative ground test articles for some of the components. A 'test everything' approach would require manufacturing new test articles. The paper outlines some of the techniques used for selective testing, by way of cherry picking candidate components based on failure mode effects analysis, system level impacts, hazard analysis, etc. The type of testing required for extending the service life depends on the design and criticality of the component, failure modes and failure mechanisms, life cycle margin provided by the original certification, operational and environmental stresses encountered, etc. When specific failure mechanism being considered and the underlying relationship of that mode to the stresses provided in the test can be correlated by supporting analysis, time and effort required for conducting life extension testing can be significantly reduced. Exposure to corrosive propellants over long periods of time, for instance, lead to specific failure mechanisms in several components used in the propulsion system. Using Arrhenius model, which is tied to chemically dependent failure mechanisms such as corrosion or chemical reactions, it is possible to subject carefully selected test articles to accelerated life test. Arrhenius model reflects the proportional relationship between time to failure of a component and the exponential of the inverse of absolute temperature acting on the component. The acceleration factor is used to perform tests at higher stresses that allow direct correlation between the times to failure at a high test temperature to the temperatures to be expected in actual use. As long as the temperatures are such that new failure mechanisms are not introduced, this becomes a very useful method for testing to failure a relatively small sample of items for a much shorter amount of time. In this article, based on the example of the propulsion system of the first ISS module Zarya, theoretical approaches and practical activities of extending the service life of the propulsion system are reviewed with the goal of determining the maximum duration of its safe operation.

Kamath, Ulhas↗

Development of Additively Manufactured Complex Tools for Autoclave Cure Composites

IACMI Project 4.9, Tooling for Composites with Washout Features Produced by Additive Manufacturing, assembled a team including the industry lead, Ability Composites, NREL and Colorado State University (CSU). Ability Composites had originally expressed interest in alternate methods of producing tooling for composite parts. In follow-up discussions, it became clear that one of the bigger tooling challenges revolved around small production volume composite parts that were tooled on washout material due to the complex geometry. To build an understanding of the potential, both from a technology and a cost perspective, for replacing conventional washout tooling with 3D printed thermoplastic tooling, a number of commercially available dissolvable FDM printing materials were evaluated, leading to tooling representative of commercial articles of interest to Ability Composites. Ultimately, Ability Composites was able to directly compare autoclave processed prepreg composite parts produced on conventional washout tooling to composite parts molded on 3D printed dissolvable tooling produced at CSU. Small, laboratory test specimens were developed to investigate the structural performance of the candidate materials under autoclave processing conditions, which were nominally 121 °C (250 °F) and 345 kPa (50 psi). In addition, several internal structural configurations (infills) were evaluated under autoclave conditions using model materials. The results of these tests indicated that two materials, Stratasys ST 130 and Infinite Materials Solutions Aquasys 180 (AQ 180), were the best candidates, given the specified autoclave processing conditions. ST-130 was slightly more robust than AQ-180; however, the AQ-180 was carried forward as it was dissolvable in water, not requiring the basic solution needed to dissolve ST-130. Based on the preliminary material and 3D printed structures evaluations, larger tools with a truncated square pyramid geometry were created to produce prepreg composite test articles for 3D printed dissolvable tool evaluation under standard autoclave fabrication conditions. Two tools were manufactured using ST-130 and one tool using traditional ceramic washout tooling media. The tools were evaluated for geometric fidelity and surface roughness changes before and after carbon fiber/epoxy prepreg composites were manufactured on the tooling. The autoclave processing did not impact the geometry significantly and was completed at 121 °C and 345 kPa, indicating satisfactory tool performance. The results from surface roughness testing of both the resulting composite and the associated tooling indicated that an adequate surface resulted without the need for a surface sealing step, as was required for the conventional washout tooling. Based on results of the truncated pyramid tests as a basis, ST-130, AQ-120 and AQ-180 materials were carried forward to the tool geometry of interest to Ability Composites. These hollow rectangular bent ducts, which were complex in nature and not extractable after cure, were used to understand the impacts of tool material and thickness. One ST-130 tool was produced as a partially solid part, with an enclosed 40% dense infill region to reduce weight and material use. This was the same approach evaluated in the truncated pyramid portion of the study. This tool was to be envelope vacuum bagged and directly compared to a monolithic tool of conventional washout material. The traditional monolithic ceramic tool was manufactured by Ability composites using CNC-based subtractive methods. An additional five dissolvable polymer tools, manufactured from ST-130, AQ-120, and AQ-180, using a hollow design were 3D printed and used to produce carbon fiber/epoxy composite evaluation articles. These hollow dissolvable tools were expected to be less influenced by the autoclave conditions as the wall was solid and vacuum bagging was inside and outside the tool. This alternative geometry was also evaluated as an option in techno-economic modeling. Print times were reduced from in excess of 3 days to under 30 hours, while surface quality and and tool integrity were substantially improved in the transition from the partially solid tool to the hollow tooling concept. Ability Composites produced autoclave-cured prepreg ducts on each of these tools. The autoclave conditions utilized were more severe than those of the initial trials, reaching temperatures of 160 °C and a pressure of 414 kPa. Under these conditions, the partially solid 3D printed tool with skin and 40% dense infill crushed significantly; however, the thicker ST-130 hollow tool showed good promise, deforming only slightly. The thinner hollow tool walls were unsuccessful as were the other materials. Overall, the hollow tool manufacturing process saved significant amounts of time and material in manufacturing as compared to the solid ducts and produced composite surface quality improvements compared to the traditional washout tooling. The TEM was developed to allow direct comparisons between conventional washout tool manufacturing processes and those developed at CSU. It also allowed for two separate 3D printed tool geometries to be analyzed and compared. In this case, the square bent duct tool geometry was determined to be representative of common washout tools. This geometry was compared with a scaled-up version of it to assess differences in the two manufacturing processes based on tool size. The model was developed to make use of user input in the form of geometry details, process steps, manufacturing parameters, bulk material costs, capital equipment costs, and general costs to calculate overall labor, material, capital equipment, and energy costs per manufactured tool for the conventional and additive manufacturing processes for the two representative geometries. It was also able to estimate step-by-step process times for the manufacturing process and geometries. Based on significant input from Ability Composites and CSU from their knowledge gained from hands-on manufacturing of the 3D printed bent duct tool geometry, costs and process times were calculated for the two manufacturing processes. Results showed that the additive manufacturing techniques developed at CSU can substantially reduce the costs of tool manufacturing by reducing labor times and material usage. This is because additive manufacturing is a relatively hands-off process and allows for the tool design to be optimized to reduce material usage. The disadvantage, however, is that process times for additive manufacturing are significantly longer. The three-dimensional (3D) printing process is slow if tight tolerances are required, but the analysis did show that print times could be reduced with the hollow tool geometry. Also, further advances in additive manufacturing could expedite the process. Costs and process times for the tool washout process were calculated separately. They showed that costs are relatively insignificant when compared to the overall tool manufacturing processes, but with increases in tool size, costs for the conventional manufacturing approach are larger than for additive manufacturing. Again, the washout process for conventional tools is very hands-on, whereas for additively manufactured tools the print medium is dissolved in an automated detergent bath at the sacrifice of process time. The analysis showed that optimizing the additively manufactured tools may also reduce washout times. Overall, Project 4.9 demonstrated that commercially available dissolvable 3D printing materials exist that can be used to produce dissolvable tooling capable of surviving prepreg composites fabrication under autoclave conditions of 121 °C (250 °F) and 345 kPa (50 psi). An alternative hollow dissolvable tool design was developed which was structurally superior to the initial concept and was cost and time effective versus conventional washout tooling. The 3D printed sacrificial tool required no added surface sealing steps prior to composite part layup and cure, offering a significant advantage over the porous conventional washout tooling.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

Options for Offloading a 90-Ton Common Habitat from its Lander on the Surface of Mars

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15.6 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. There are obvious challenges associated with the delivery of such a large habitat, which may mass as much as 90-tons when initially deployed. The Mars destination in particular imposes extreme challenges due to Martian gravity. This paper identifies initial options for the offloading of a 90-ton Common Habitat from a lander spacecraft on the surface of Mars. On Mars, the Common Habitat is part of a surface outpost where a Habitation Zone includes the Common Habitat docked to a two-chamber airlock node, up to two logistics modules, and up to two pressurized rovers. It is connected by underground conduit to a radiator farm and communications tower assembly. These elements and other surface infrastructure, including robotic systems for surface preparation, are landed prior to the Common Habitat. In the baseline Common Habitat Architecture, the Common Habitat is delivered on the third heavy cargo flight. The Habitation Zone configuration dictates that the Common Habitat needs to be offloaded from the lander. All of the docked elements require direct access to the surface and the Common Habitat must actually be placed in a trench to lower its docking ports to be level with those of the mated elements. Additionally, the habitat must be emplaced in a horizontal configuration, while for any conceivable Earth launch system it must be launched in a vertical configuration. It is true that the Common Habitat must be offloaded from its lander on both the Moon and Mars and a common offloading system must therefore work in both destinations. Mars, however, is considered the driving case for offloading in most, but not all, aspects. A four-day internal study in 2021 recommended that a modified Starship be used to land the Common Habitat on Mars and considered multiple approaches to offload the Common Habitat from the payload section and lower it to the surface. The topic was presented at a public hackathon organized by the Johnson Space Center’s Emerge Employee Resource Group. One team took on the challenge and proposed a concept in some ways similar to the previously considered jib crane. Despite the excellent innovation in the team’s work, a number of study refinements are necessary to truly establish feasibility. These and other future work needed to mature the concept are discussed in this work.

Lander Offloading↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗