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 991 records · Page 55
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

A Simple Transient Thermal Test Assembly for Insulation Materials

A simple transient thermal test was developed for evaluating the thermal performance of high-temperature flexible insulation materials in atmospheric pressure air. The test setup was inspired by the test assembly used for evaluating the performance of fire shelters and fire protective clothing. The heating source used was a burner supplied with propane gas that can generate relatively uniform heating over a wide area. The ratio of the in-plane width to thickness of the insulation test sample in the test assembly was selected to be greater than ten so that the heat transfer in the center of the test assembly was nearly one-dimensional. A rigid, thin Inconel plate was used as the septum plate directly exposed to the flame to provide a relatively uniform, known-temperature boundary condition for the test assembly, and to prevent convective heat transfer through the test insulation from the burner. The test sample, flexible alumina paper insulation, was placed between the Inconel plate and a thin titanium witness plate. The overall assembly was further insulated using a combination of rigid and flexible ceramic insulations to minimize heat losses from the periphery of the test assembly. Thermocouples installed on the septum and witness plates and inside the insulation test sample provided temperature measurements at various locations. For the evaluation tests, the Inconel septum plate reached temperatures between 780°C and 850°C for tests with flame exposure durations of 120 sec to 300 sec. The measured temperatures for various tests with similar flame exposure times were repeatable. A one-dimensional numerical heat transfer model of the test assembly was developed. The close agreement between measured and predicted temperatures on the titanium witness plate and inside the insulation test sample indicated that this test may provide a one-dimensional thermal testing capability for evaluation of thermal performance of similar insulations.

Daryabeigi, Kamran↗
NASA NTRS1991

Thermal verification testing of commercial printed-circuit boards for spaceflight

A method is discussed developed to verify commercial printed-circuit boards for a shuttle orbital flight. The Space Acceleration Measurement System Project used this method first with great success. The test sequence is based on early fault detection, desire to test the final assembly, and integration with other verification testing. A component thermal screening test is performed first to force flaws in design, workmanship, parts, processes, and materials into observable failures. Then temperature definition tests are performed that consist of infrared scanning, thermal vacuum testing, and preliminary thermal operational testing. Only the engineering unit is used for temperature definition testing, but the preliminary thermal operational testing is performed on the flight unit after the temperature range has been defined. In the sequence of testing, vibration testing is performed next, but most vibration failures cannot be detected without subsequent temperature cycling. Finally, final assembly testing is performed to simulate the shuttle flight. An abbreviated thermal screening test is performed as a check after the vibration test, and then a complete thermal operational test is performed. The final assembly test finishes up with a burn-in of 100 hours of trouble-free operation. Verification is successful when all components and final assemblies have passed each test satisfactory. This method was very successful in verifying that commercial printed-circuit boards will survive in the shuttle environment.

Foster, William M., II↗
NASA NTRS1998

EOS-AM1 Nickel Hydrogen Cell Interim Life Test Report

This paper reports the interim results Earth Observing System AM-1 project (EOS-AM-1) nickel hydrogen cell life test being conducted under contract to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) at the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (LMMS) facility in East Windsor, NJ; and at COMSAT Labs., Clarksburg, MD. The purpose of the tests is to verify that the EOS-AM-1 cell design can meet five years of real-time Low Earth Orbit (LEO) cycling. The tests include both real-time LEO and accelerated stress tests. At LMMS, the first real-time LEO simulated 99 minute orbital cycle started on February 7, 1994 and the test has been running continuously since that time, with 18202 LEO cycles completed as of September 1, 1997. Each cycle consists of a 64-minute charge (VT at 1,507 volts per cell, 1.06 C/D ratio, followed by 0.6 ampere trickle charge) and a 35 minute constant power discharge at 177 watts (22.5 percent DOD). At COMSAT, the accelerated stress test consists of 90 minute orbital cycles at 60 percent DOD with a 30 minute discharge at 60 amperes and a 60 minute charge at 40 amperes (VT at 1.54 volts per cell to 1.90 C/D ratio, followed by 0.6 ampere trickle charge). The real-time LEO life test battery consists of seven, 50AH (nameplate rating) Eagle-Picher, Inc. (EPI) Mantech cells manufactured into three, 3-cell pack assemblies (there are two place holder cells that are not part of the life test electrical circuit). The test pack is configured to simulate the conductive thermal design of the spacecraft battery, including: conductive aluminum sleeves, 3-cell pack aluminum baseplate, and honeycomb panel all mounted to a liquid (minus 5 deg) cold plate. The entire assembly is located in a thermal chamber operating at plus 3 deg. The accelerated stress test unit consists of five cells mounted in machined aluminum test sleeves and is operating at plus 10 deg. The real-time LEO life test battery has met all performance requirements through the first 18,202 cycles, including: end of charge and discharge cell voltages and voltage gradients; end of charge and discharge cells pressures; within cell and between cell temperature gradients dischare capacity; current and power levels; and all charge parameters. The accelerated stress test battery has completed 11998 cycles when the test was terminated. The stress test unit met all test parameters. This paper reports battery performances as a function of cycle life for both the real-time LEO and the accelerated life test regimes.

Bennett, Charles W.↗
NASA NTRS1999

EOS--AM1 Nickel Hydrogen Cell Interim Life Test Report

This paper reports the interim results of the Earth Observing System AM-1 project (EOS-AM-1) nickel hydrogen cell life test being conducted under contract to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) at the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (LMMS) facility in East Windsor, NJ; and at COMSAT Labs., Clarksburg, MD. The purpose of the tests is to verify that the EOS-AM-1 cell design can meet five years of real-time Low Earth Orbit (LEO) cycling. The tests include both real-time LEO and accelerated stress tests. At LMMS, the first real-time LEO simulated 99 minute orbital cycle started on February 7, 1994 and the test has been running continuously since that time, with 18202 LEO cycles completed as of September 1, 1997. Each cycle consists of a 64 minute charge (VT at 1.507 volts per cell. 1.06 C/D ratio, followed by 0.6 ampere trickle charge) and a 35 minute constant power discharge at 177 watts (22.5% DOD). At COMSAT, the accelerated stress test consists of 90 minute orbital cycles at 60% DOD with a 30 minute discharge at 60 amperes and a 60 minute charge at 40 amperes (VT at 1.54 volts per cell to 1.09 C/D ratio, followed by 0.6 ampere trickle charge). The real-time LEO life test battery consists of seven, 50AH (nameplate rating) Eagle-Picher, Inc. (EPI) Mantech cells manufactured into three. 3-cell pack assemblies (there are two place holder cells that are not part of the life test electrical circuit). The test pack is configured to simulate the conductive thermal design of the spacecraft battery, including: conductive aluminum sleeves, 3-cell pack aluminum baseplate, and honeycomb panel all mounted to a liquid (-5 C) cold plate. The entire assembly is located in a thermal chamber operatina at +30 C. The accelerated stress test unit consists of five cells mounted in machined aluminum test sleeves and is operating at +10 C. The real-time LEO life test battery has met all performance requirements throuch the first 18,202 cycles, including: end of chargee and discharge cell voltages and voltace -radients; end of charge and discharge cell pressures; within cell and between cell temperature gradients; discharge capacity; current and power levels; and all charge parameters. The accelerated stress test battery has completed 11,998 cycles when the test was terminated. The stress test unit met all test parameters. This paper reports battery performances as a function of cycle life for both the real time LEO and the accelerated life test regimes.

Bennett, C. W.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Test Cases for Flutter of the Benchmark Models Rectangular Wings on the Pitch and Plunge Apparatus

The supercritical airfoil was chosen as a relatively modem airfoil for comparison. The BOO12 model was tested first. Three different types of flutter instability boundaries were encountered, a classical flutter boundary, a transonic stall flutter boundary at angle of attack, and a plunge instability near M = 0.9 and for zero angle of attack. This test was made in air and was Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) Test 468. The BSCW model (for Benchmark SuperCritical Wing) was tested next as TDT Test 470. It was tested using both with air and a heavy gas, R-12, as a test medium. The effect of a transition strip on flutter was evaluated in air. The B64AOlO model was subsequently tested as TDT Test 493. Some further analysis of the experimental data for the BOO12 wing is presented. Transonic calculations using the parameters for the BOO12 wing in a two-dimensional typical section flutter analysis are given. These data are supplemented with data from the Benchmark Active Controls Technology model (BACT) given and in the next chapter of this document. The BACT model was of the same planform and airfoil as the BOO12 model, but with spoilers and a trailing edge control. It was tested in the heavy gas R-12, and was instrumented mostly at the 60 per cent span. The flutter data obtained on PAPA and the static aerodynamic test cases from BACT serve as additional data for the BOO12 model. All three types of flutter are included in the BACT Test Cases. In this report several test cases are selected to illustrate trends for a variety of different conditions with emphasis on transonic flutter. Cases are selected for classical and stall flutter for the BSCW model, for classical and plunge for the B64AOlO model, and for classical flutter for the BOO12 model. Test Cases are also presented for BSCW for static angles of attack. Only the mean pressures and the real and imaginary parts of the first harmonic 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 available as separate electronic files. An overview of the model and tests is given, the standard formulary for these data is listed, and some sample results are presented.

Robert M Bennett↗
NASA NTRS2001

Space Fission Propulsion Testing and Development Progress

Successful development of space fission systems will require an extensive program of affordable and realistic testing. In addition to tests related to design/development of the fission system, realistic testing of the actual flight unit must also be performed. Testing can be divided into two categories, non-nuclear tests and nuclear tests. Full power nuclear tests of space fission systems we expensive, time consuming, and of limited use, even in the best of programmatic environments. If the system is designed to operate within established radiation damage and fuel burn up limits while simultaneously being designed to allow close simulation of heat from fission using resistance heaters, high confidence in fission system performance and lifetime can be attained through a series of non-nuclear tests. Non-nuclear tests are affordable and timely, and the cause of component and system failures can be quickly and accurately identified. MSFC is leading a Safe Affordable Fission Engine (SAFE) test series whose ultimate goal is the demonstration of a 300 kW flight configuration system using non-nuclear testing. This test series is carried out in collaboration with other NASA centers, other government agencies, industry, and universities. If SAFE-related nuclear tests are desired they will have a high probability of success and can be performed at existing nuclear facilities. The paper describes the SAFE non-nuclear test series, which includes test article descriptions, test results and conclusions, and future test plans.

VanDyke, Melissa↗
NASA NTRS2005

Large Liquid Rocket Testing: Strategies and Challenges

Rocket propulsion development is enabled by rigorous ground testing in order to mitigate the propulsion systems risks that are inherent in space flight. This is true for virtually all propulsive devices of a space vehicle including liquid and solid rocket propulsion, chemical and non-chemical propulsion, boost stage and in-space propulsion and so forth. In particular, large liquid rocket propulsion development and testing over the past five decades of human and robotic space flight has involved a combination of component-level testing and engine-level testing to first demonstrate that the propulsion devices were designed to meet the specified requirements for the Earth to Orbit launchers that they powered. This was followed by a vigorous test campaign to demonstrate the designed propulsion articles over the required operational envelope, and over robust margins, such that a sufficiently reliable propulsion system is delivered prior to first flight. It is possible that hundreds of tests, and on the order of a hundred thousand test seconds, are needed to achieve a high-reliability, flight-ready, liquid rocket engine system. This paper overviews aspects of earlier and recent experience of liquid rocket propulsion testing at NASA Stennis Space Center, where full scale flight engines and flight stages, as well as a significant amount of development testing has taken place in the past decade. The liquid rocket testing experience discussed includes testing of engine components (gas generators, preburners, thrust chambers, pumps, powerheads), as well as engine systems and complete stages. The number of tests, accumulated test seconds, and years of test stand occupancy needed to meet varying test objectives, will be selectively discussed and compared for the wide variety of ground test work that has been conducted at Stennis for subscale and full scale liquid rocket devices. Since rocket propulsion is a crucial long-lead element of any space system acquisition or development, the appropriate plan and strategy must be put in place at the outset of the development effort. A deferment of this test planning, or inattention to strategy, will compromise the ability of the development program to achieve its systems reliability requirements and/or its development milestones. It is important for the government leadership and support team, as well as the vehicle and propulsion development team, to give early consideration to this aspect of space propulsion and space transportation work.

Rahman, Shamim A.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Understanding of the Dynamics of the Stirling Convertor Advanced by Structural Testing

The NASA Glenn Research Center, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Stirling Technology Company (STC) are developing a highly efficient, long-life, free-piston Stirling convertor for use as an advanced spacecraft power system for future NASA missions, including deep-space and Mars surface applications. As part of this development, four structural dynamic test programs were recently performed on Stirling Technology Demonstration Convertors (TDC's) that were designed and built by STC under contract to the Department of Energy. This testing was performed in Glenn's Structural Dynamics Laboratory and Microgravity Emissions Laboratory. The first test program, in November and December 1999, demonstrated that the Stirling TDC could withstand the harsh random vibration experienced during a typical spacecraft launch and survive with no structural damage or functional power performance degradation. This was a critical step in enabling the use of Stirling convertors for future spacecraft power systems. The most severe test was a 12.3grms random vibration test, with test durations of 3 min per axis. The random vibration test levels were chosen to simulate, with margin, the maximum anticipated launch vibration conditions. The Microgravity Emissions Laboratory is typically used to measure the dynamics produced by operating space experiments and the resulting impact to the International Space Station's microgravity environment. For the second Stirling dynamic test program, performed in January 2001, the Microgravity Emissions Laboratory was used to characterize the structure-borne disturbances produced by the normal operation of a pair of Stirling convertors. The forces and moments produced by the normal operation of a Stirling system must be recognized and controlled, if necessary, so that other nearby spacecraft components, such as cameras, are not adversely affected. The Stirling convertor pair emitted relatively benign tonal forces at its operational frequency and associated harmonics. Therefore, Stirling power systems will not disturb spacecraft science experiments if minimal appropriate mounting efforts are made. The third test program, performed in February and May 2001, resulted in a modal characterization of a Stirling convertor. Since the deflection of the TDC piston rod, under vibration excitation, was of particular interest, the outer pressure shell was removed to allow access to the rod. Through this testing, the Stirling TDC's natural frequencies and modes were identified. This knowledge advanced our understanding of the successful 1999 vibration test and may be utilized to optimize the output power of future Stirling designs. The fourth test program, in April 2001, was conducted to characterize the structural response of a pair of Stirling convertors, as a function of their mounting interface stiffness. The test results provide guidance for the Stirling power package interface design. Properly designed, the interface may lead to increased structural capability and power performance beyond what was demonstrated in the successful 1999 vibration test. Dynamic testing performed to date at Glenn has shown that the Stirling convertors can withstand liftoff random vibration environments and meet "good neighbor" vibratory emission requirements. Furthermore, the future utilization of the information obtained during the tests will allow the corporation selected to be the Stirling system integrator to optimize their convertor and system interfaces designs. Glenn's Thermo-Mechanical Systems Branch provides Stirling technology expertise under a Space Act Agreement with the Department of Energy. Additional vibration testing by Glenn's Structural Systems Dynamics Branch is planned to continue to demonstrate the Stirling power system's vibration capability as its technology and flight system designs progress.

Hughes, William O.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30, 60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Conducting Closed Habitation Experiments: Experience from the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project

The Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) was conducted from 1995 through 1997 at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) to demonstrate increasingly longer duration operation of integrated, closed-loop life support systems that employed biological and physicochemical techniques for water recycling, waste processing, air revitalization, thermal control, and food production. An analog environment for long-duration human space travel, the conditions of isolation and confinement also enabled studies of human factors, medical sciences (both physiology and psychology) and crew training. Four tests were conducted, Phases I, II, IIa and III, with durations of 15, 30,60 and 91 days, respectively. The first phase focused on biological air regeneration, using wheat to generate enough oxygen for one experimental subject. The systems demonstrated in the later phases were increasingly complex and interdependent, and provided life support for four crew members. The tests were conducted using two human-rated, atmospherically-closed test chambers, the Variable Pressure Growth Chamber (VPGC) and the Integrated Life Support Systems Test Facility (ILSSTF). Systems included test articles (the life support hardware under evaluation), human accommodations (living quarters, kitchen, exercise equipment, etc.) and facility systems (emergency matrix system, power, cooling, etc.). The test team was managed by a lead engineer and a test director, and included test article engineers responsible for specific systems, subsystems or test articles, test conductors, facility engineers, chamber operators and engineering technicians, medical and safety officers, and science experimenters. A crew selection committee, comprised of psychologists, engineers and managers involved in the test, evaluated male and female volunteers who applied to be test subjects. Selection was based on the skills mix anticipated for each particular test, and utilized information from psychological and medical testing, data on the knowledge, experience and skills of the applicants, and team building exercises. The design, development, buildup and operation of test hardware and documentation followed the established NASA processes and requirements for test buildup and operation.

Barta, Daniel J.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Electrical Arc Ignition Testing of Spacesuit Materials

A viewgraph presentation on electrical arc ignition testing of spacesuit materials is shown. The topics include: 1) Background; 2) Test Objectives; 3) Test Sample Materials; 4) Test Methods; 5) Scratch Test Objectives; 6) Cotton Scratch Test Video; 7) Scratch Test Results; 8) Entire Date Plot; 9) Closeup Data Plot; 10) Scratch Test Problems; 11) Poke Test Objectives; 12) Poke Test Results; 13) Poke Test Problems; 14) Wire-break Test Objectives; 15) Cotton Wire-Break Test Video; 16) High Speed Cotton Wire-break Test Video; 17) Typical Data Plot; 18) Closeup Data Plot; 19) Wire-break Test Results; 20) Wire-break Tests vs. Scratch Tests; 21) Urethane-coated Nylon; and 22) Moleskin.

Smith, Sarah↗
NASA NTRS2011

GOES Type III Loop Heat Pipe Life Test Results

The GOES Type III Loop Heat Pipe (LHP) was built as a life test unit for the loop heat pipes on the GOES N-Q series satellites. This propylene LHP was built by Dynatherm Corporation in 2000 and tested continuously for approximately 14 months. It was then put into storage for 3 years. Following the storage period, the LHP was tested at Swales Aerospace to verify that the loop performance hadn t changed. Most test results were consistent with earlier results. At the conclusion of testing at Swales, the LHP was transferred to NASA/GSFC for continued periodic testing. The LHP has been set up for testing in the Thermal Lab at GSFC since 2006. A group of tests consisting of start-ups, power cycles, and a heat transport limit test have been performed every six to nine months since March 2006. Tests results have shown no change in the loop performance over the five years of testing. This presentation will discuss the test hardware, test set-up, and tests performed. Test results to be presented include sample plots from individual tests, along with conductance measurements for all tests performed.

Ottenstein, Laura↗
NASA NTRS2014

Low-Cost, Class D Testing of Spacecraft Photovoltaic Systems Can Reduce Risk

The end-to-end verification of a spacecraft photovoltaic power generation system requires light! Specifically, the standard practice for doing so is the Large Area Pulsed Solar Simulation (LAPSS). A LAPSS test can characterize a photovoltaic system's efficiency via its response to rapidly applied impulses of simulated sunlight. However, a Class D program on a constrained budget and schedule may not have the resources to ship an entire satellite for a LAPSS test alone. Such was the case with the Lunar Atmospheric and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) program, which was also averse to the risk of hardware damage during shipment. When the Electrical Power System (EPS) team was denied a spacecraft-level LAPSS test, the lack of an end-to-end power generation test elevated to a project-level technical risk. The team pulled together very limited resources to not only eliminate the risk, but build a process to monitor the health of the system through mission operations. We discuss a process for performing a low-cost, end-to-end test of the LADEE photovoltaic system. The approach combines system-level functional test, panel-level performance results, and periodic inspection (and repair) up until launch. Following launch, mission operations tools are utilized to assess system performance based on a scant amount of data. The process starts in manufacturing at the subcontractor. The panel manufacturer provides functional test and LAPSS data on each individual panel. We apply an initial assumption that the per-panel performance is sufficient to meet the power generation requirements. The manufacturer's data is also carried as the performance allocation for each panel during EPS system modeling and initial mission operations. During integration and test, a high-power, professional theater lamp system provides simulated sunlight to each panel on the spacecraft, thereby permitting a true end-to-end system test. A passing test results in a step response to nearly full-rated current at the appropriate solar array switch in the power system. A metal-halide bulb, infrared imagers, and onboard spacecraft measurements are utilized to minimize risk of thermal damage during test. Data is provided to support test results for both passing and marginal panels. Prior to encapsulation in the launch vehicle, each panel is inspected for damage by the panel manufacturer. Cracked cells or other damage is amended on-site. Because the photovoltaic test system is inexpensive and portable, each repaired panel can be re-verified immediately. Post-launch, the photovoltaic system is again characterized for per-panel deviations from the manufacturer's performance test. This proved especially tricky as the LADEE spacecraft performs only one current measurement on the entire array. The algorithm for Matlab tools to assess panel performance based on spacecraft attitude is discussed. While not as precise and comprehensive as LAPSS, the LADEE approach leverages minimal resources into an ongoing assessment program that can be applied through numerous stages of the mission. The project takes a true Class D approach in assessing the technical value of a spacecraft level performance test versus the programmatic risk of shipping the spacecraft to another facility. The resources required are a fraction of that for a LAPSS test, and is easy to repeat. Further, the test equipment can be handed down to future projects without building an on-site facility.

photovoltaic↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASAs Space Launch System

The engineering development of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS) requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The nominal and off-nominal characteristics of SLS's elements and subsystems must be understood and matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex systems engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model-based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model-based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through FSW certification are an important focus of SLS's development effort to further ensure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. To test and validate these M&FM algorithms a dedicated test-bed was developed for full Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing (VMET). For addressing fault management (FM) early in the development lifecycle for the SLS program, NASA formed the M&FM team as part of the Integrated Systems Health Management and Automation Branch under the Spacecraft Vehicle Systems Department at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). To support the development of the FM algorithms, the VMET developed by the M&FM team provides the ability to integrate the algorithms, perform test cases, and integrate vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle (LV) subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating the M&FM algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction. The flexibility of the VMET capabilities enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS, GNC, and others. One of the principal functions of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software test and validation processes. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts from requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development and regression testing lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM group but in particular by the Analysis Team working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses to be tested in VMET to ensure reliable failure detection, and confirm responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - the ARINC 6535-partitioned Operating System, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by FSW. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure their effectiveness and performance in the exterior FSW development and test processes. This paper is outlined in a systematic fashion analogous to a lifecycle process flow for engineering development of algorithms into software and testing. Section I describes the NASA SLS M&FM context, presenting the current infrastructure, leading principles, methods, and participants. Section II defines the testing philosophy of the M&FM algorithms as related to VMET followed by section III, which presents the modeling methods of the algorithms to be tested and validated in VMET. Its details are then further presented in section IV followed by Section V presenting integration, test status, and state analysis. Finally, section VI addresses the summary and forward directions followed by the appendices presenting relevant information on terminology and documentation.

Trevino, Luis↗
NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

The space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 represents the second integrated prototype developed and tested to mature a design that uses advanced technologies to reduce consumables, improve robustness, and provide additional capabilities over the current state of the art. PLSS 2.0 was developed in 2012, with extensive functional evaluations and system performance testing through mid-2014. In late 2014, PLSS 2.0 was integrated with the Mark III space suit in an ambient laboratory environment to facilitate manned testing, designated PLSS 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) testing, in which the PLSS prototype performed the primary life support functions, including suit pressure regulation, ventilation, carbon dioxide control, and cooling of the test subject and PLSS avionics. The intent of this testing was to obtain subjective test subject feedback regarding qualitative aspects of PLSS 2.0 performance such as thermal comfort, sounds, smells, and suit pressure fluctuations due to the cycling carbon dioxide removal system, as well as to collect PLSS performance data over a range of human metabolic rates from 500-3000 Btu/hr. Between October 27 and December 18, 2014, nineteen two-hour simulated EVA test points were conducted in which suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to achieve a target metabolic rate. Six test subjects simulated nominal and emergency EVA conditions with varied test parameters including metabolic rate profile, carbon dioxide removal control mode, cooling water temperature, and Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment (state of the art or prototype). The nineteen test points achieved more than 60 hours of test time, with 36 hours accounting for simulated EVA time. The PLSS 2.0 test article performed nominally throughout the test series, confirming design intentions for the advanced PLSS. Test subjects' subjective feedback provided valuable insight into thermal comfort and perceptions of suit pressure fluctuations that will influence future advanced PLSS design and testing strategies.

Watts, Carly↗
NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) Testing

Following successful completion of the space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 1.0 development and testing in 2011, the second system-level prototype, PLSS 2.0, was developed in 2012 to continue the maturation of the advanced PLSS design which is intended to reduce consumables, improve reliability and robustness, and incorporate additional sensing and functional capabilities over the current Space Shuttle/International Space Station Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) PLSS. PLSS 2.0 represents the first attempt at a packaged design comprising first generation or later component prototypes and medium fidelity interfaces within a flight-like representative volume. Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) is carryover terminology from the Space Shuttle Program referring to the series of test sequences used to verify functionality of the EMU PLSS prior to installation into the Space Shuttle airlock for launch. As applied to the PLSS 2.0 development and testing effort, PIA testing designated the series of 27 independent test sequences devised to verify component and subsystem functionality, perform in situ instrument calibrations, generate mapping data to define set-points for control algorithms, evaluate hardware performance against advanced PLSS design requirements, and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback on evolving design requirements and performance specifications. PLSS 2.0 PIA testing was carried out from 3/20/13 - 3/15/14 using a variety of test configurations to perform test sequences that ranged from stand-alone component testing to system-level testing, with evaluations becoming increasingly integrated as the test series progressed. Each of the 27 test sequences was vetted independently, with verification of basic functionality required before completion. Because PLSS 2.0 design requirements were evolving concurrently with PLSS 2.0 PIA testing, the requirements were used as guidelines to assess performance during the tests; after the completion of PIA testing, test data served to improve the fidelity and maturity of design requirements as well as plans for future advanced PLSS functional testing.

Watts, Carly↗
NASA NTRS2013

Lessons Learned During Instrument Testing for the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS)

The Themal InfraRed Sensor (TIRS) instrument, set to launch on the Landsat Data Continuity Mission in 2013, features a passively cooled telescope and IR detectors which are actively cooled by a two stage cryocooler. In order to proceed to the instrument level test campaign, at least one full functional test was required, necessitating a thermal vacuum test to sufficiently cool the detectors and demonstrate performance. This was fairly unique in that this test occurred before the Pre Environmental Review, but yielded significant knowledge gains before the planned instrument level test. During the pre-PER test, numerous discrepancies were found between the model and the actual hardware, which were revealed by poor correlation between model predictions and test data. With the inclusion of pseudo-balance points, the test also provided an opportunity to perform a pre-correlation to test data prior to the instrument level test campaign. Various lessons were learned during this test related to modeling and design of both the flight hardware and the Ground Support Equipment and test setup. The lessons learned in the pre-PER test resulted in a better test setup for the nstrument level test and the completion of the final instrument model correlation in a shorter period of time. Upon completion of the correlation, the flight predictions were generated including the full suite of off-nominal cases, including some new cases defined by the spacecraft. For some of these ·new cases, some components now revealed limit exceedances, in particular for a portion of the hardware that could not be tested due to its size and chamber limitations.. Further lessons were learned during the completion of flight predictions. With a correlated detalled instrument model, significant efforts were made to generate a reduced model suitable for observatory level analyses. This proved a major effort both to generate an appropriate network as well as to convert to the final model to the required format and yielded additional lessons learned. In spite of all the challenges encountered by TIRS, the instrument was successfully delivered to the spacecraft and will soon be tested at observatory level in preparation for a successful mission launch.

Peabody, Hume L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) Testing

Following successful completion of the space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 1.0 development and testing in 2011, the second system-level prototype, PLSS 2.0, was developed in 2012 to continue the maturation of the advanced PLSS design. This advanced PLSS is intended to reduce consumables, improve reliability and robustness, and incorporate additional sensing and functional capabilities over the current Space Shuttle/International Space Station Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) PLSS. PLSS 2.0 represents the first attempt at a packaged design comprising first generation or later component prototypes and medium fidelity interfaces within a flight-like representative volume. Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) is carryover terminology from the Space Shuttle Program referring to the series of test sequences used to verify functionality of the EMU PLSS prior to installation into the Space Shuttle airlock for launch. As applied to the PLSS 2.0 development and testing effort, PIA testing designated the series of 27 independent test sequences devised to verify component and subsystem functionality, perform in situ instrument calibrations, generate mapping data, define set-points, evaluate control algorithms, evaluate hardware performance against advanced PLSS design requirements, and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback on evolving design requirements and performance specifications. PLSS 2.0 PIA testing was carried out in 2013 and 2014 using a variety of test configurations to perform test sequences that ranged from stand-alone component testing to system-level testing, with evaluations becoming increasingly integrated as the test series progressed. Each of the 27 test sequences was vetted independently, with verification of basic functionality required before completion. Because PLSS 2.0 design requirements were evolving concurrently with PLSS 2.0 PIA testing, the requirements were used as guidelines to assess performance during the tests; after the completion of PIA testing, test data served to improve the fidelity and maturity of design requirements as well as plans for future advanced PLSS functional testing.

Anchondo, Ian↗