Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Testing”

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 955 records · Page 53
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Creep Testing of Vectran Yarn

NASA and industry are developing inflatable space structures to provide deployable habitable volumes for future exploration missions in space and on the surface of the Moon and Mars. These structures must withstand the constant pressure loading of multi-year missions. These missions therefore require excellent creep resistance in the constituent cordage and webbings that provide the primary structure of the vessel, which is typically constructed using high-strength synthetic materials such as Vectran. Real-time and accelerated creep testing of Vectran webbings has been performed at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), however, acceptable correlation between the results of the two approaches has not yet been achieved. Given the additional complexity of the webbing architecture, creep testing at the yarn level is being studied to reduce the number of interacting properties and focus on the core creep behavior to see if better correlation can be achieved between real-time and accelerated tests. To achieve this objective a creep test stand that is able to support simultaneous testing of five Vectran yarns had been previously designed and built. The test stand utilizes two clamp-wrap grips to mount the yarn and has a 10:1 load ratio, via a lever-arm, henceforth, known as the lever-arm test stand. Real-time creep testing (without measuring the strain of the yarn) in this fixture produces yarn ruptures in the gauge section. However, a large scatter in the times to failure was seen in the results across multiple loading conditions. For example, a test at 70% of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was found to have specimens that failed within a matter of hours and others that took over 6 weeks to fail. Prior test data on Vectran webbings had indicated high variability in the material strength, leading to higher than average scatter in the creep testing of webbings, which could translate to the scatter in creep behavior at the yarn level as well. However, there was still the possibility that the lever-arm test stand was causing the high scatter in data; specifically, due to potential variability in the loading of each specimen. Therefore, an additional creep test setup was designed and built to attempt to determine if the large scatter in the results was due to inherent material properties, the lever-arm test stand, or both. The newly designed creep test stand, henceforth known as the conventional test stand, utilized the more typical method for creep testing which involved hanging a weight from the yarn with no additional load amplification. The conventional test stand was designed and fabricated in-house at LaRC. High speed cameras were used to validate that the specimens in the conventional test stand failed in the gauge section. Once it was determined that the conventional test stand would provide valid failures in the gauge section, creep tests on the Vectran yarns were run to compare to the lever-arm test stand results. Preliminary results for a 70% UTS creep test have some specimens failing within a number of hours and some failing in excess of 6 weeks. These results are similar to those seen on the lever-arm test stand, pointing towards a large variability inherent in the material. The poster/presentation will focus on the design, fabrication, and validation of the conventional test stand as well as present preliminary results comparing the creep data from the conventional and lever-arm test stands

creep testing↗
NASA NTRS2005

Introduction to Flight Test Engineering [Introduction Aux Techniques Des Essais En Vol]

Flight test is at the core of what organizations must do in order to validate the operation and systems on an aircraft. While the AGARDograph series 300 and 160 series deal with aspects of this testing, this volume pulls it all together as an introduction to the process required to do effective flight test engineering. This volume was originally published in 1995. Its utility has been proven in that many flight test organizations and universities have requested copies for their engineers and students. It was felt that re-issuing it in a new format designed for electronic publication would be valuable to the community. This second printing changes none of the text, but rather reformats it. All the original references to AGARD (instead of RTO) are left in place so that none of the flavor of the original publication is lost. This is the Introductory Volume to the Flight Test Techniques Series. It is a general introduction to the various activities and aspects of Flight Test Engineering that must be considered when planning, conducting, and reporting a flight test program. Its main intent is to provide a broad overview to the novice engineer or to other people who have a need to interface with specialists within the flight test community. The first two Sections provide some insight into the question of why flight test and give a short history of flight test engineering. Sections 3 through 10 deal with the preparation for flight testing. They provide guidance on the preliminary factors that must be considered; the composition of the test team; the logistic support requirements; the instrumentation and data processing requirements; the flight test plan; the associated preliminary ground tests; and last, but by no means least, discuss safety aspects. Sections 11 through 27 describe the various types of flight tests that are usually conducted during the development and certification of a new or modified aircraft type. Each Section offers a brief introduction to the topic under consideration, and the nature and the objectives of the tests to be conducted. It lists the test instrumentation (and, where appropriate, other test equipment and facilities) required, describes the test maneuvers to be executed, and indicates the way in which the test data is selected, analyzed, and presented. The various activities that should take place between test flights are presented next. Items that are covered are: who to debrief; what type of reports to send where: types of data analysis required for next flight; review of test data to make a comparison to predicted data and some courses of action if there is not good agreement; and comments on selecting the next test flight. The activities that must take place upon completion of the test program are presented. The types of reports and briefings that should take place and a discussion of some of the uses of the flight test data are covered. A brief forecast is presented of where present trends may be leading.

Test facilities↗
NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗
NASA NTRS2004

A Method for Calculating the Probability of Successfully Completing a Rocket Propulsion Ground Test

Propulsion ground test facilities face the daily challenges of scheduling multiple customers into limited facility space and successfully completing their propulsion test projects. Due to budgetary and schedule constraints, NASA and industry customers are pushing to test more components, for less money, in a shorter period of time. As these new rocket engine component test programs are undertaken, the lack of technology maturity in the test articles, combined with pushing the test facilities capabilities to their limits, tends to lead to an increase in facility breakdowns and unsuccessful tests. Over the last five years Stennis Space Center's propulsion test facilities have performed hundreds of tests, collected thousands of seconds of test data, and broken numerous test facility and test article parts. While various initiatives have been implemented to provide better propulsion test techniques and improve the quality, reliability, and maintainability of goods and parts used in the propulsion test facilities, unexpected failures during testing still occur quite regularly due to the harsh environment in which the propulsion test facilities operate. Previous attempts at modeling the lifecycle of a propulsion component test project have met with little success. Each of the attempts suffered form incomplete or inconsistent data on which to base the models. By focusing on the actual test phase of the tests project rather than the formulation, design or construction phases of the test project, the quality and quantity of available data increases dramatically. A logistic regression model has been developed form the data collected over the last five years, allowing the probability of successfully completing a rocket propulsion component test to be calculated. A logistic regression model is a mathematical modeling approach that can be used to describe the relationship of several independent predictor variables X(sub 1), X(sub 2),..,X(sub k) to a binary or dichotomous dependent variable Y, where Y can only be one of two possible outcomes, in this case Success or Failure. Logistic regression has primarily been used in the fields of epidemiology and biomedical research, but lends itself to many other applications. As indicated the use of logistic regression is not new, however, modeling propulsion ground test facilities using logistic regression is both a new and unique application of the statistical technique. Results from the models provide project managers with insight and confidence into the affectivity of rocket engine component ground test projects. The initial success in modeling rocket propulsion ground test projects clears the way for more complex models to be developed in this area.

Messer, Bradley P.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 9 - Pre-Flight Tests

Pre-flight testing is critical to the success of any flight test program. Pre-flight tests are performed to measure and evaluate the characteristics of an aircraft in a non-flying environment and to verify that these characteristics are as desired. Since aircraft systems are becoming more and more complex, conducting proper pre-flight testing to help identify system characteristics and deficiencies prior to flight is more important now than ever before. Much flight test time has been lost fixing problems that should have been found and corrected prior to flight. Accidents have occurred because pre-flight tests and verification procedures were not conducted thoroughly enough to identify the aircraft's characteristics properly or to find system discrepancies. Proper pre-flight testing helps ensure that the aircraft is ready to fly and contributes toward an efficient, productive, and safe flight test program. The reader should be aware that this Section is dedicated to the testing that should take place prior to the first flight. There are other "pre-flight" tests that take place prior to each individual flight. These latter tests are not discussed in this Section. The following paragraphs of this Section describe significant tests that are usually accomplished prior to flying a new or highly modified aircraft. Test objectives, descriptions, products, and requirements are provided in the following subsections: 9.1 Wind tunnel tests 9.2 Simulation tests 9.3 Propulsion tests 9.4 Weight and balance tests 9.5 Ground vibration tests 9.6 Structural loads tests 9.7 Gain margin tests 9.8 Verification and calibration tests 9.9 Taxi tests The specific examples given and the test facilities mentioned in this Section will illustrate the approach taken and the techniques used by the US Air Force; however, they are typical of those used by other test organizations.

Paul W Kirsten↗
NASA NTRS2007

Test Analysis Guidelines

Development of analysis guidelines for Exploration Life Support (ELS) technology tests was completed. The guidelines were developed based on analysis experiences gained from supporting Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) technology development in air revitalization systems and water recovery systems. Analyses are vital during all three phases of the ELS technology test: pre-test, during test and post test. Pre-test analyses of a test system help define hardware components, predict system and component performances, required test duration, sampling frequencies of operation parameters, etc. Analyses conducted during tests could verify the consistency of all the measurements and the performance of the test system. Post test analyses are an essential part of the test task. Results of post test analyses are an important factor in judging whether the technology development is a successful one. In addition, development of a rigorous model for a test system is an important objective of any new technology development. Test data analyses, especially post test data analyses, serve to verify the model. Test analyses have supported development of many ECLSS technologies. Some test analysis tasks in ECLSS technology development are listed in the Appendix. To have effective analysis support for ECLSS technology tests, analysis guidelines would be a useful tool. These test guidelines were developed based on experiences gained through previous analysis support of various ECLSS technology tests. A comment on analysis from an experienced NASA ECLSS manager (1) follows: "Bad analysis was one that bent the test to prove that the analysis was right to begin with. Good analysis was one that directed where the testing should go and also bridged the gap between the reality of the test facility and what was expected on orbit."

Jeng, Frank F.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Pressure-Fed LOX/LCH4 Reaction Control System for Spacecraft: Transient Modeling and Thermal Vacuum Hotfire Test Results

An integrated cryogenic liquid oxygen, liquid methane (LOX/LCH4) reaction control system (RCS) was tested at NASA Glenn Research Center's Plum Brook Station in the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) under vacuum and thermal vacuum conditions. The RCS is a subsystem of the Integrated Cryogenic Propulsion Test Article (ICPTA), a pressure-fed LOX/LCH4 propulsion system composed of a single 2,800 lbf main engine, two 28 lbf RCS engines, and two 7 lbf RCS engines. Propellants are stored in four 48 inch diameter 5083 aluminum tanks that feed both the main engine and RCS engines in parallel. Helium stored cryogenically in a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) flows through a heat exchanger on the main engine before being used to pressurize the propellant tanks to a design operating pressure of 325 psi. The ICPTA is capable of simultaneous main engine and RCS operation. The RCS engines utilize a coil-on-plug (COP) ignition system designed for operation in a vacuum environment, eliminating corona discharge issues associated with a high voltage lead. There are two RCS pods on the ICPTA, with two engines on each pod. One of these two engines is a heritage flight engine from Project Morpheus. Its sea level nozzle was removed and replaced by an 85:1 nozzle machined using Inconel 718, resulting in a maximum thrust of 28 lbf under altitude conditions. The other engine is a scaled down version of the 28 lbf engine, designed to match the core and overall mixture ratios as well as other injector characteristics. This engine can produce a maximum thrust of 7 lbf with an 85:1 nozzle that was additively manufactured using Inconel 718. Both engines are film-cooled and capable of limited duration gas-gas and gas-liquid operation, as well as steady-state liquid-liquid operation. Each pod contains one of each version, such that two engines of the same thrust level can be fired as a couple on opposite pods. The RCS feed system is composed of symmetrical 3/8 inch lines that tap off of the main propellant manifold to send LOX and LCH4 outboard to the RCS pods. A Thermodynamic Vent System (TVS) is used to condition propellants at each pod by venting through an orifice and then routing the cold expansion products back through tubing that is welded along a large portion of the main RCS feed lines. Prior to final installation on the ICPTA, the RCS engines were tested in a small vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Energy Systems Test Area (ESTA) to verify functionality of the new COP ignition system and check out operation of the vacuum nozzles. After engine-level testing, the RCS engines were installed on the vehicle and a series of integrated hot-fire tests were performed at JSC consisting of various pulsing and steady-state firings as well as integrated main engine/RCS operation. The ICPTA was then integrated into the Plum Brook B-2 facility for vacuum and thermal/vacuum testing. Testing in the B-2 facility was composed of multiple thermal and pressure environments. The first set of tests were performed under ambient temperature and altitude pressure conditions. These tests consisted of a range of minimum impulse bit (MIB) pulsing sequences with low duty cycle, analogous to a coast phase in which the RCS is primarily used for station keeping. The primary goal of this sequence is to understand how propellant conditions were effected without an active TVS. In this scenario, consistent gas-gas operation is desirable since it results in a smaller MIB and more efficient propellant consumption. Multiple skin thermocouples are mounted on the feedlines, in addition to a submerged thermocouple on each commodity, in order to gather thermal data on the system. Higher duty cycle pulsing tests were then performed, analogous to an ascent or landing mission phase. The primary goal of this sequence was to examine how well the engines self-conditioned without active TVS when starting from a quiescent state. The TVS was then activated during some tests to demonstrate the capability to quickly condition the engines for higher pulsing demand scenarios. A thermocouple at the TVS outlet allows for the calculation of energy absorbed by the vented propellant. Lastly, tests with longer pulses and multiple engines firing either in sequence or simultaneously were run in order to gather transient system response data on waterhammer. Six total high-speed pressure transducers are installed on the RCS system, one sensor at the end of each propellant manifold line on the pods, and one at the tap-off location for each commodity. This will allow for the accurate characterization of waterhammer in the system under various propellant conditions and firing sequences. Other instrumentation for this test series includes nozzle throat thermocouples, chamber pressure measurement, heat soakback measurement, and tank wall plume impingement temperature measurement. The next set of tests were performed to demonstrate simultaneous main engine and RCS operation. Data from this test will be used to examine if there is any change to nominal operation of the RCS as a result of feed system interaction or other phenomenon. Some of these tests began under high vacuum conditions (target ambient pressure less than 1x10(exp -3) torr) and others began at altitude conditions. The last set of tests were performed with the B-2 cold wall active. Under these tests, many of the same low duty cycle MIB tests were repeated in order to characterize how propellant conditions changed with the lower heat leak. In this scenario the RCS manifold experiences much less heat leak, resulting in a change to how well the engines self-condition. As a result, an increase in maximum waterhammer pressures and a change in natural frequency of the system was expected due to higher density propellants. The lower heat leak should also result in a change to the MIB pulse profile, and data will be examined to understand how MIB repeatability is affected in the different operating environments. Parallel to the test efforts, a set of transient model development efforts were made to predict RCS performance. The primary effort was aimed at producing a SINDA/FLUINT model to predict propellant conditioning up to the engine inlet as a function of different environmental and operating parameters, with the goal of predicting chamber pressure, TVS performance, and propellant consumption over time. Preliminary results for this effort will be presented in comparison with test data. Additional modeling efforts were made using SINDA/FLUINT to predict waterhammer in the system since the software is capable of handling multiphase transient fluid dynamics. These results will be compared with the high-speed pressure transducer test data for validation purposes.

Atwell, Matthew J.↗
NASA NTRS2014

System Testing of Ground Cooling System Components

This internship focused primarily upon software unit testing of Ground Cooling System (GCS) components, one of the three types of tests (unit, integrated, and COTS/regression) utilized in software verification. Unit tests are used to test the software of necessary components before it is implemented into the hardware. A unit test determines that the control data, usage procedures, and operating procedures of a particular component are tested to determine if the program is fit for use. Three different files are used to make and complete an efficient unit test. These files include the following: Model Test file (.mdl), Simulink SystemTest (.test), and autotest (.m). The Model Test file includes the component that is being tested with the appropriate Discrete Physical Interface (DPI) for testing. The Simulink SystemTest is a program used to test all of the requirements of the component. The autotest tests that the component passes Model Advisor and System Testing, and puts the results into proper files. Once unit testing is completed on the GCS components they can then be implemented into the GCS Schematic and the software of the GCS model as a whole can be tested using integrated testing. Unit testing is a critical part of software verification; it allows for the testing of more basic components before a model of higher fidelity is tested, making the process of testing flow in an orderly manner.

Unit Test↗
NASA NTRS2010

Planning for Plume Diagnostics for Ground Testing of J-2X Engines at the SSC

John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) is the premier test facility for liquid rocket engine development and certification for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Therefore, it is no surprise that the SSC will play the most prominent role in the engine development testing and certification for the J-2X engine. The Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne J-2X engine has been selected by the Constellation Program to power the Ares I Upper Stage Element and the Ares V Earth Departure Stage in NASA s strategy of risk mitigation for hardware development by building on the Apollo program and other lessons learned to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with first demonstration flight in 2010 and human test flights in 2012. Accordingly, J-2X engine design, development, test, and evaluation is to build upon heritage hardware and apply valuable experience gained from past development and testing efforts. In order to leverage SSC s successful and innovative expertise in the plume diagnostics for the space shuttle main engine (SSME) health monitoring,1-10 this paper will present a blueprint for plume diagnostics for various proposed ground testing activities for J-2X at SSC. Complete description of the SSC s test facilities, supporting infrastructure, and test facilities is available in Ref. 11. The A-1 Test Stand is currently being prepared for testing the J-2X engine at sea level conditions. The A-2 Test Stand is currently being used for testing the SSME and may also be used for testing the J-2X engine at sea level conditions in the future. Very recently, ground-breaking ceremony for the new A-3 rocket engine test stand took place at SSC on August 23, 2007. A-3 is the first large - scale test stand to be built at the SSC since the A and B stands were constructed in the 1960s. The A-3 Test Stand will be used for testing J-2X engines under vacuum conditions simulating high altitude operation at approximately 30,480 m (100,000 ft). To achieve the simulated altitude environment, chemical steam generators using isopropyl alcohol, LOX, and RELEASED - Printed documents may be obsolete; validate prior to use. water would run for the duration of the test and would generate approximately 2096 Kg/s of steam to reduce pressure in the test cell and downstream of the engine. The testing at the A-3 Test Stand is projected to begin in late 2010, meanwhile the J-2X component testing on A-1 is scheduled to begin later this year.

SaintCyr, William W.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Joint Test Report For Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This joint Test Report (JTR) documents the results of the laboratory and field testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The technical stakeholders agreed upon test procedure modifications documented in this document. This JTR is made available as a reference for future pollution prevention endeavors by other NASA centers, the Department of Defense and commercial users to minimize duplication of effort. All coating system candidates were tested using approved NASA and AFSPC standard coating systems as experimental controls. This study looked at eight alternative coating systems and two control coating systems and was divided into Phase I Screening Tests, Phase II Tests, and Field Testing. The Phase I Screening Tests were preliminary tests performed on all the selected candidate coating systems. Candidate coating systems that did not meet the acceptance criteria of the screening tests were eliminated from further testing. Phase I Screening Tests included: Ease of Application, Surface Appearance, Dry-To-Touch (Sanding), Accelerated Storage Stability, Pot Life (Viscosity), Cure Time (Solvent Rubs), Cleanability, Knife Test, Tensile (pull-off) Adhesion, and X-Cut Adhesion by Wet Tape After a review of the Phase I test results, four of the alternative coating systems showed substandard performance in relation to the Control Systems and were eliminated from the Phase II testing. Due to the interest of stakeholders and time constraints, however, all eight alternatives were subjected to the following Phase II tests, along with field testing at Stennis Space Center (SSC), Mississippi: Hypergol Compatibility, Liquid Oxygen Compatibility, 18-Month Marine Exposure (Gloss Retention, Color Retention, Blistering, Visual Corrosion, Creepage from Scribe, Heat Adhesion), and Field Exposure (6- and 12-month Evaluation for Coating Condition, Color Retention, Gloss Retention). The remaining four alternative coating systems determined to be the best viable alternatives were carried on to Phase II testing that included: Removability, Repairability, Abrasion Resistance, Gravelometer, Fungus Resistance, Accelerated Weathering, Mandrel Bend Flexibility, and Cyclic Corrosion Resistance. Of the systems that continued to Phase II, three (3) alternative coating systems meet the performance requirements as identified by stakeholders. Two (2) other systems, that were not included in Phase II testing, performed well enough on the 18-Month Marine Exposure, the primary requirement for NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment, that they were also considered to be successful candidates. In total, five (5) alternative coating systems were approved for inclusion in the NASA-STD- 5008 Qualified Products List (QPL). The standard is intended to provide a common framework for consistent practices across NASA and is often used by other entities. The standard's QPL does not connote endorsement of the products by NASA, but lists those products that have been tested and meet the requirements as specified.

Lewis, Pattie↗
NASA NTRS2016

Forward Skirt Structural Testing on the Space Launch System (SLS) Program

Structural testing was performed to evaluate heritage forward skirts from the Space Shuttle program for use on the Space Launch System (SLS) program. One forward skirt is located in each solid rocket booster. Heritage forward skirts are aluminum 2219 welded structures. Loads are applied at the forward skirt thrust post and ball assembly. Testing was needed because SLS ascent loads are roughly 40% higher than Space Shuttle loads. Testing objectives were to determine margins of safety, demonstrate reliability, and validate analytical models. Two forward skirts were structurally tested using the test configuration. The test stand applied loads to the thrust post. Four hydraulic actuators were used to apply axial load and two hydraulic actuators were used to apply radial and tangential loads. The first test was referred to as FSTA-1 (Forward Skirt Structural Test Article) and was performed in April/May 2014. The purpose of FSTA-1 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to ascent ultimate loads. Testing consisted of two liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by an ascent load case taken to 110% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The second test was referred to as FSTA-2 and performed in July/August of 2014. The purpose of FSTA-2 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to liftoff ultimate loads. Testing consisted of six liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by the six liftoff cases taken to 140% limit load. Two ascent load cases were then tested to 100% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 successfully carried all applied liftoff and ascent load cases. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were tested to failure by increasing the ascent loads. Failure occurred in the forward skirt thrust post radius. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had nearly identical failure modes. FSTA-1 failed at 1.72 times limit load and FSTA-2 failed at 1.62 times limit load. This difference is primarily attributed to variation in material properties in the thrust post region. Test data were obtained from strain gages, deflection gages, ARAMIS digital strain measurement, acoustic emissions, and high-speed video. Strain gage data and ARAMIS strain were compared to finite element (FE) analysis predictions. Both the forward skirt and tooling were modeled. This allows the analysis to simulate the loading as close as possible to actual test configuration. FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were instrumented with over 200 strain gages to ensure all possible failure modes could be captured. However, it turned out that three gages provided critical strain data. One was located in the post bore and two on the post radius. More gages were not specified due to space limitations and the desire to not interfere with the use of the ARAMIS system on the post radius. Measured strains were compared to analysis results for the load cycle to failure. Note that FSTA-1 gages were lost before failure was reached. FSTA-2 gages made it to the failure load but one of the radius gages was lost before testing began. This gage was not replaced because of the time and cost associated with disassembly of the test structure. Correlation to analysis was excellent for FSTA-1. FSTA-2 was not quite as good because there was more residual strain from previous load cycles. FSTA-2 was loaded and unloaded with 12 liftoff cases and two ascent cases before taking the skirt to failure. FSTA-1 only had two liftoff cases and one ascent case before taking the skirt to failure. The ARAMIS system was used to determine strain at the post radius by processing digital images of a speckled paint pattern. Digital cameras recorded images of the speckled paint pattern. ARAMIS strain results for FSTA-2 just prior to failure. Note a high strain location develops near the left side. This high strain compares well to analysis prediction for both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2. The strain at this location was also plotted versus limit load. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had excellent correlation between ARAMIS and analysis strains. Acoustic emission (AE) sensors were used to monitor for damage formation that may occur during testing (e.g., crack formation and growth or propagation). AE was very important because after disassembly of FSTA-1, a crack was observed in the ball fitting radius. The ball fitting did not crack on FSTA-2. AE data was used to reconstruct when the crack occurred. The AE energy versus time plot for FSTA. The energy increased considerably at 850 seconds (152% limit load), indicating a crack could have formed at this point. The only visual evidence found that could have corresponded to this was the crack that initiated in the ball fitting. The cracks in the forward skirt aluminum structures would likely have been lower energy due to a lower modulus and all that were found after failure correlated to occurring after the initial crack in the post radius. This was verified by high-speed cameras used to record the failure.

Lohrer, J. D.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Lightning testing at the subsystem level

Testing at the subsystem or black box level for lightning hardness is required if system hardness is to be assured at the system level. The often applied philosophy of lighting testing only at the system level leads to extensive end of the line design changes which result in excessive costs and time delays. In order to perform testing at the subsystem level two important factors must be defined to make the testing simulation meaningful. The first factor is the definition of the test stimulus appropriate to the subsystem level. Application of system level stimulations to the subsystem level usually leads to significant overdesign of the subsystem which is not necessary and may impair normal subsystem performance. The second factor is the availability of test equipment needed to provide the subsystem level lightning stimulation. Equipment for testing at this level should be portable or at least movable to enable efficient testing in a design laboratory environment. Large fixed test installations for system level tests are not readily available for use by the design engineers at the subsystem level and usually require special operating skills. The two factors, stimulation level and test equipment availability, must be evaluated together in order to produce a practical, workable test standard. The neglect or subordination of either factor will guarantee failure in generating the standard. It is not unusual to hear that test standards or specifications are waived because a specified stimulation level cannot be accomplished by in-house or independent test facilities. Determination of subsystem lightning simulation level requires a knowledge and evaluation of field coupling modes, peak and median levels of voltages and currents, bandwidths, and repetition rates. Practical limitations on test systems may require tradeoffs in lightning stimulation parameters in order to build practical test equipment. Peak power levels that can be generated at specified bandwidths with standard electrical components must be considered in the design and costing of the test system. Stimulation tests equipment and test methods are closely related and must be considered a test system for lightning simulation. A non-perfect specification that can be reliably and repeatedly applied at the subsystem test level is more desirable than a perfect specification that cannot be applied at all.

Luteran, Frank↗
NASA NTRS1999

Vibration and Acoustic Testing for Mars Micromission Spacecraft

The objective of the Mars Micromission program being managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for NASA is to develop a common spacecraft that can carry telecommunications equipment and a variety of science payloads for exploration of Mars. The spacecraft will be capable of carrying robot landers and rovers, cameras, probes, balloons, gliders or aircraft, and telecommunications equipment to Mars at much lower cost than recent NASA Mars missions. The lightweight spacecraft (about 220 Kg mass) will be launched in a cooperative venture with CNES as a TWIN auxiliary payload on the Ariane 5 launch vehicle. Two or more Mars Micromission launches are planned for each Mars launch opportunity, which occur every 26 months. The Mars launch window for the first mission is November 1, 2002 through April 2003, which is planned to be a Mars airplane technology demonstration mission to coincide with the 100 year anniversary of the Kittyhawk flight. Several subsequent launches will create a telecommunications network orbiting Mars, which will provide for continuous communication with lenders and rovers on the Martian surface. Dedicated science payload flights to Mars are slated to start in 2005. This new cheaper and faster approach to Mars exploration calls for innovative approaches to the qualification of the Mars Micromission spacecraft for the Ariane 5 launch vibration and acoustic environments. JPL has in recent years implemented new approaches to spacecraft testing that may be effectively applied to the Mars Micromission. These include 1) force limited vibration testing, 2) combined loads, vibration and modal testing, and 3) direct acoustic testing. JPL has performed nearly 200 force limited vibration tests in the past 9 years; several of the tests were on spacecraft and large instruments, including the Cassini and Deep Space One spacecraft. Force limiting, which measures and limits the spacecraft base reaction force using triaxial force gages sandwiched between the spacecraft and the test fixture, alleviates the severe overtest at spacecraft resonances inherent in rigid fixture vibration tests. It has the distinct advantage over response limiting that the method is not dependent on the accuracy of a detailed dynamic model of the spacecraft. Combined loads, vibration, and modal testing were recently performed on the QuikSCAT spacecraft. The combined tests were performed in a single test setup per axis on a vibration shaker, reducing test time by a factor of two or three. Force gages were employed to measure the true c.g. acceleration of the spacecraft for structural loads verification using a sine burst test, to automatically notch random vibration test input accelerations at spacecraft resonances based on predetermined force limits, and to directly measure modal masses in a base drive modal test. In addition to these combined tests on the shaker, the QuikSCAT spacecraft was subjected to a direct field acoustic test by surrounding the spacecraft, still on the vibration shaker, with rock concert type acoustic speakers. Since the spacecraft contractor does not have a reverberant field acoustic test facility, performing a direct field acoustic test -saved the program nearly two weeks schedule time that would have been required for packing / unpacking and shipping of the spacecraft. This paper discusses the rationale behind and advantages of the above test approaches and provides examples of their actual implementation and comparisons to flight data. The applicability of the test approaches to Mars Micromission spacecraft qualification is discussed.

Kern, Dennis L.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Spread Spectrum Receiver Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Test Guide

The objective of this test guide is to document appropriate unit level test methods and techniques for the performance of EMI testing of Direct Sequence (DS) spread spectrum receivers. Consideration of EMI test methods tailored for spread spectrum receivers utilizing frequency spreading, techniques other than direct sequence (such as frequency hopping, frequency chirping, and various hybrid methods) is beyond the scope of this test guide development program and is not addressed as part of this document EMI test requirements for NASA programs are primarily developed based on the requirements contained in MIL-STD-46 1 D (or earlier revisions of MIL-STD-46 1). The corresponding test method guidelines for the MIL-STD-461 D tests are provided in MIL-STD-462D. These test methods are well documented with the exception of the receiver antenna port susceptibility tests (intermodulation, cross modulation, and rejection of undesired signals) which must be tailored to the specific type of receiver that is being tested. Thus, test methods addressed in this guide consist only of antenna port tests designed to evaluate receiver susceptibility characteristics. MIL-STD-462D should be referred for guidance pertaining to test methods for EMI tests other than the antenna port tests. The scope of this test guide includes: (1) a discussion of generic DS receiver performance characteristics; (2) a summary of S-band TDRSS receiver operation; (3) a discussion of DS receiver EMI susceptibility mechanisms and characteristics; (4) a summary of military standard test guidelines; (5) recommended test approach and methods; and (6) general conclusions and recommendations for future studies in the area of spread spectrum receiver testing.

Wheeler, M. L.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Test Cases for the Benchmark Active Controls: Spoiler and Control Surface Oscillations and Flutter

As a portion of the Benchmark Models Program at NASA Langley, a simple generic model was developed for active controls research and was called BACT for Benchmark Active Controls Technology model. This model was based on the previously-tested Benchmark Models rectangular wing with the NACA 0012 airfoil section that was mounted on the Pitch and Plunge Apparatus (PAPA) for flutter testing. The BACT model had an upper surface spoiler, a lower surface spoiler, and a trailing edge control surface for use in flutter suppression and dynamic response excitation. Previous experience with flutter suppression indicated a need for measured control surface aerodynamics for accurate control law design. Three different types of flutter instability boundaries had also been determined for the NACA 0012/PAPA model, a classical flutter boundary, a transonic stall flutter boundary at angle of attack, and a plunge instability near M = 0.9. Therefore an extensive set of steady and control surface oscillation data was generated spanning the range of the three types of instabilities. This information was subsequently used to design control laws to suppress each flutter instability. There have been three tests of the BACT model. The objective of the first test, TDT Test 485, was to generate a data set of steady and unsteady control surface effectiveness data, and to determine the open loop dynamic characteristics of the control systems including the actuators. Unsteady pressures, loads, and transfer functions were measured. The other two tests, TDT Test 502 and TDT Test 5 18, were primarily oriented towards active controls research, but some data supplementary to the first test were obtained. Dynamic response of the flexible system to control surface excitation and open loop flutter characteristics were determined during Test 502. Loads were not measured during the last two tests. During these tests, a database of over 3000 data sets was obtained. A reasonably extensive subset of the data sets from the first two tests have been chosen for Test Cases for computational comparisons concentrating on static conditions and cases with harmonically oscillating control surfaces. Several flutter Test Cases from both tests have also been included. Some aerodynamic comparisons with the BACT data have been made using computational fluid dynamics codes at the Navier-Stokes level (and in the accompanying chapter SC). Some mechanical and active control studies have been presented. In this report several Test Cases are selected to illustrate trends for a variety of different conditions with emphasis on transonic flow effects. Cases for static angles of attack, static trailing-edge and upper-surface spoiler deflections are included for a range of conditions near those for the oscillation cases. Cases for trailing-edge control and upper-surface spoiler oscillations for a range of Mach numbers, angle of attack, and static control deflections are included. Cases for all three types of flutter instability are selected. In addition some cases are included for dynamic response measurements during forced oscillations of the controls on the flexible mount. An overview of the model and tests is given, and the standard formulary for these data is listed. Some sample data and sample results of calculations are presented. Only the static pressures and the first harmonic real and imaginary parts of the pressures are included in the data for the Test Cases, but digitized time histories have been archived. The data for the Test Cases are also available as separate electronic files.

Bennett, Robert M.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Development and Implementation of NASA's Lead Center for Rocket Propulsion Testing

With the new millennium, NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) continues to develop and refine its role as rocket test service provider for NASA and the Nation. As Lead Center for Rocket Propulsion Testing (LCRPT), significant progress has been made under SSC's leadership to consolidate and streamline NASA's rocket test infrastructure and make this vital capability truly world class. NASA's Rocket Propulsion Test (RPT) capability consists of 32 test positions with a replacement value in excess of $2B. It is dispersed at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Johnson Space Center (JSC)-White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), Glenn Research Center (GRC)-Plum Brook (PB), and SSC and is sized appropriately to minimize duplication and infrastructure costs. The LCRPT also provides a single integrated point of entry into NASA's rocket test services. The RPT capability is managed through the Rocket Propulsion Test Management Board (RPTMB), chaired by SSC with representatives from each center identified above. The Board is highly active, meeting weekly, and is key to providing responsive test services for ongoing operational and developmental NASA and commercial programs including Shuttle, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, and 2nd and 3rd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicles. The relationship between SSC, the test provider, and the hardware developers, like MSFC, is critical to the implementation of the LCRPT. Much effort has been expended to develop and refine these relationships with SSC customers. These efforts have met with success and will continue to be a high priority to SSC for the future. To data in the exercise of its role, the LCRPT has made 22 test assignments and saved or avoided approximately $51M. The LCRPT directly manages approximately $30M annually in test infrastructure costs including facility maintenance and upgrades, direct test support, and test technology development. This annual budges supports rocket propulsion test programs which have an annual budget in excess of $150M. As the LCRPT continues to develop, customer responsiveness and lower cost test services will be major themes. In that light, SSC is embarking on major test technology development activities ensuring long range goals of safer, more responsive, and more cost effective test services are realized. The LCRPT is also focusing on the testing requirements for advanced propulsion systems. This future planning is key to defining and fielding the ability to test these new technologies in support of the hardware developers.

Dawson, Michael C.↗
NASA NTRS2005

A High-power Electric Propulsion Test Platform in Space

This paper will describe the results of the preliminary phase of a NASA design study for a facility to test high-power electric propulsion systems in space. The results of this design study are intended to provide a firm foundation for subsequent detailed design and development activities leading to the deployment of a valuable space facility. The NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is sponsoring this design project. A team from the NASA Johnson Space Center, Glenn Research Center, the Marshall Space Flight Center and the International Space Station Program Office is conducting the project. The test facility is intended for a broad range of users including government, industry and universities. International participation is encouraged. The objectives for human and robotic exploration of space can be accomplished affordably, safely and effectively with high-power electric propulsion systems. But, as thruster power levels rise to the hundreds of kilowatts and up to megawatts, their testing will pose stringent and expensive demands on existing Earth-based vacuum facilities. These considerations and the human access to near-Earth space provided by the International Space Station (ISS) have led to a renewed interest in space testing. The ISS could provide an excellent platform for a space-based test facility with the continuous vacuum conditions of the natural space environment and no chamber walls to modify the open boundary conditions of the propulsion system exhaust. The test platform could take advantage of the continuous vacuum conditions of the natural space environment. Space testing would provide open boundary conditions without walls, micro-gravity and a realistic thermal environment. Testing on the ISS would allow for direct observation of the test unit, exhaust plume and space-plasma interactions. When necessary, intervention by on-board personnel and post-test inspection would be possible. The ISS can provide electrical power, a location for diagnostic instruments, data handling and thermal control. The platform will be designed to accommodate the side-by-side testing of multiple types of electric thrusters. It is intended to be a permanent facility in which different thrusters can be tested over time. ISS crews can provide maintenance for the platform and change out thruster test units as needed. The primary objective of this platform is to provide a test facility for electric propulsion devices of interest for future exploration missions. These thrusters are expected to operate in the range of hundreds of kilowatts and above. However, a platform with this capability could also accommodate testing of thrusters that require much lower power levels. Testing at the higher power levels would be accomplished by using power fiom storage devices on the platform, which would be gradually recharged by the ISS power generation system. This paper will summarize the results of the preliminary phase of the study with an explanation of the user requirements and the initial conceptual design. The concept for test operations will also be described. The NASA project team is defining the requirements but they will also reflect the inputs of the broader electric propulsion community including those at universities, commercial enterprises and other government laboratories. As a facility on the International Space Station, the design requirements are also intended to encompass the needs of international users. Testing of electric propulsion systems on the space station will help advance the development of systems needed for exploration and could also serve the needs of other customers. Propulsion systems being developed for commercial and military applications could be tested and certification testing of mature thrusters could be accomplished in the space environment.

Petro, Andrew J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Testing to Transition the J-2X from Paper to Hardware

The J-2X Upper Stage Engine (USE) will be the first new human-rated upper stage engine since the Apollo program of the 1960s. It is designed to carry the Ares I and Ares V into orbit and send the Ares V to the Moon as part of NASA's Constellation Program. This paper will provide an overview of progress on the design, testing, and manufacturing of this new engine in 2009 and 2010. The J-2X embodies the program goals of basing the design on proven technology and experience and seeking commonality between the Ares vehicles as a way to minimize risk, shorten development times, and live within current budget constraints. It is based on the proven J-2 engine used on the Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles. The prime contractor for the J-2X is Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), which is under a design, development, test, and engineering (DDT&E) contract covering the period from June 2006 through September 2014. For Ares I, the J-2X will provide engine start at approximately 190,000 feet, operate roughly 500 seconds, and shut down. For Ares V, the J-2X will start at roughly 190,000 feet to place the Earth departure stage (EDS) in orbit, shut down and loiter for up to five days, re-start on command and operate for roughly 300 seconds at its secondary power level to perform trans lunar injection (TLI), followed by final engine shutdown. The J-2X development effort focuses on four key areas: early risk mitigation, design risk mitigation, component and subassembly testing, and engine system testing. Following that plan, the J-2X successfully completed its critical design review (CDR) in 2008, and it has made significant progress in 2009 and 2010 in moving from the drawing board to the machine shop and test stand. Post-CDR manufacturing is well under way, including PWR in-house and vendor hardware. In addition, a wide range of component and sub-component tests have been completed, and more component tests are planned. Testing includes heritage powerpack, turbopump inducer water flow, turbine air flow, turbopump seal testing, main injector and gas generator, injector testing, augmented spark igniter testing, nozzle side loads cold flow testing, nozzle extension film cooling flow testing, control system testing with hardware in the loop, and nozzle extension emissivity coating tests. In parallel with hardware manufacturing, work is progressing on the new A-3 test stand to support full duration altitude testing. The Stennis A-2 test stand is scheduled to be turned over to the Constellation Program in September 2010 to be modified for J-2X testing also. As the structural steel was rising on the A-3 stand, work was under way in the nearby E complex on the chemical steam generator and subscale diffuser concepts to be used to evacuate the A-3 test cell and simulate altitude conditions.

Byrd, Tom↗