Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Test Plan”

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 1,027 records · Page 57
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Systems Engineering Management Plan NASA Traffic Aware Planner Integration Into P-180 Airborne Test-Bed

NASA's Traffic Aware Planner (TAP) is a cockpit decision support tool that provides aircrew with vertical and lateral flight-path optimizations with the intent of achieving significant fuel and time savings, while automatically avoiding traffic, weather, and restricted airspace conflicts. A key step towards the maturation and deployment of TAP concerned its operational evaluation in a representative flight environment. This Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) addresses the test-vehicle design, systems integration, and flight-test planning for the first TAP operational flight evaluations, which were successfully completed in November 2013. The trial outcomes are documented in the Traffic Aware Planner (TAP) flight evaluation paper presented at the 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA. (AIAA-2014-2166, Maris, J. M., Haynes, M. A., Wing, D. J., Burke, K. A., Henderson, J., & Woods, S. E., 2014).

Maris, John↗
NASA NTRS1984

V/STOL wind-tunnel testing

Factors influencing effective program planning for V/STOL wind-tunnel testing are discussed. The planning sequence itself, which includes a short checklist of considerations that could enhance the value of the tests, is also described. Each of the considerations, choice of wind tunnel, type of model installation, model development and test operations, is discussed, and examples of appropriate past and current V/STOL test programs are provided. A short survey of the moderate to large subsonic wind tunnels is followed by a review of several model installations, from two-dimensional to large-scale models of complete aircraft configurations. Model sizing, power simulation, and planning are treated, including three areas is test operations: data-acquisition systems, acoustic measurements in wind tunnels, and flow surveying.

Koenig, D. G.↗
NASA NTRS1992

The ground testing of a 2 kWe solar dynamic space power system

The solar dynamic power system chosen by NASA for Space Station Freedom SSF requires validation in the vacuum/microgravity environment. The planned ground tests of a proof-of-concept 2 kWe solar dynamic system with address subsystem integration issues involving such major system components as the behavior of thermal energy storage materials. This test scheme will be scalable to 25 kWe, and will be flight-configured to incorporate features of the SSF's power module design.

Calogeras, James E.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Experimental Results of Integrated Refrigeration and Storage System Testing

Launch operations engineers at the Kennedy Space Center have identified an Integrated Refrigeration and Storage system as a promising technology to reduce launch costs and enable advanced cryogenic operations. This system uses a close cycle Brayton refrigerator to remove energy from the stored cryogenic propellant. This allows for the potential of a zero loss storage and transfer system, as well and control of the state of the propellant through densification or re-liquefaction. However, the behavior of the fluid in this type of system is different than typical cryogenic behavior, and there will be a learning curve associated with its use. A 400 liter research cryostat has been designed, fabricated and delivered to KSC to test the thermo fluid behavior of liquid oxygen as energy is removed from the cryogen by a simulated DC cycle cryocooler. Results of the initial testing phase focusing on heat exchanger characterization and zero loss storage operations using liquid oxygen are presented in this paper. Future plans for testing of oxygen densification tests and oxygen liquefaction tests will also be discussed. KEYWORDS: Liquid Oxygen, Refrigeration, Storage

Notardonato, W. U.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Design and Implementation of Collaborative Research Approaches

This poster reviews the collarborative research approaches that NASA has been designing and implementing for the Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) Project. The inputs for the technical plan are reviewed, the Research Test and Integration Plan (RTIP) WIKI, is used to create and propose a multi-themed and multi-partner research testing opportunities. The outputs are testing opportunities.

Venti, Mike W.↗
NASA NTRS1993

NASA Long Duration Balloon capability development project

A NASA development program is described for establishing near-global long-duration balloon (LDB) capabilities for both Antarctic and midlatitude applications. The program is intended to evaluate, research, and develop the balloon structures and systems needed for scientific payloads of over 1500 lbs for periods of up to three weeks. The systems examined include: control functions, data processing, power, navigation/positioning, and telecommunications. Test flights of the LDB Development Project in Antarctica are reported in which a 28 million cu ft balloon was launched with 3611 lbs of suspended weight. The subsystems under development are reported to work effectively for the test flights. Planned flights for the LDB based on these developments include gamma-ray and X-ray campaigns, a long-duration test in Antarctica, and an experiment based on magnetic passive isotopes.

Stuchlik, D.↗
NASA NTRS2023

NASA Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment System Status 2023

This paper discusses the current focus of NASA’s Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment Technology Development team’s efforts, the status of that work, and a summary of longer term technology development priorities and activities. The Exploration Extra-vehicular Activity Mobility Unit (xEMU) has been the team’s primary effort over the past several years. ICES papers in 2022 detailed the design of the xEMU pressure garment components. This paper outlines the design updates to the xPGS since that time. More notably, this paper documents the various tests executed with the xPGS to evaluate its performance, durability, and acceptability for microgravity and Lunar missions. An overview of ongoing and planned xEMU testing and training is provided. The PGS team’s transition from xEMU development and testing, to supporting the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) vendors will also be discussed. In addition, technology development efforts in coordination with the EVA and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), the NASA Engineering Safety Council (NESC) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program will be discussed in the context of supporting sustaining EVA operations on the Lunar surface over the coming decade. Finally, a brief review of longer-term pressure garment challenges and technology gaps will be presented to provide an understanding of the advanced pressure garment team’s technology investment priorities and needs.

spacesuit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment System Status and Development Priorities 2023

This paper discusses the current focus of NASA’s Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment Technology Development team’s efforts, the status of that work, and a summary of longer term technology development priorities and activities. The Exploration Extra-vehicular Activity Mobility Unit (xEMU) has been the team’s primary effort over the past several years. ICES papers in 2022 detailed the design of the xEMU pressure garment components. This paper outlines the design updates to the xPGS since that time. More notably, this paper documents the various tests executed with the xPGS to evaluate its performance, durability, and acceptability for microgravity and Lunar missions. An overview of ongoing and planned xEMU testing and training is provided. The PGS team’s transition from xEMU development and testing, to supporting the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) vendors will also be discussed. In addition, technology development efforts in coordination with the EVA and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), the NASA Engineering Safety Council (NESC) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program will be discussed in the context of supporting sustaining EVA operations on the Lunar surface over the coming decade. Finally, a brief review of longer-term pressure garment challenges and technology gaps will be presented to provide an understanding of the advanced pressure garment team’s technology investment priorities and needs.

spacesuit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment System Status and Development Priorities 2023

This paper discusses the current focus of NASA’s Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment Technology Development team’s efforts, the status of that work, and a summary of longer term technology development priorities and activities. The Exploration Extra-vehicular Activity Mobility Unit (xEMU) has been the team’s primary effort over the past several years. ICES papers in 2022 detailed the design of the xEMU pressure garment components. This paper outlines the design updates to the xPGS since that time. More notably, this paper documents the various tests executed with the xPGS to evaluate its performance, durability, and acceptability for microgravity and Lunar missions. An overview of ongoing and planned xEMU testing and training is provided. The PGS team’s transition from xEMU development and testing, to supporting the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) vendors is discussed. In addition, technology development efforts in coordination with the EVA and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), the NASA Engineering Safety Council (NESC) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program will be discussed in the context of supporting sustaining EVA operations on the Lunar surface over the coming decade. Finally, a brief review of longer-term pressure garment challenges and technology gaps will be presented to provide an understanding of the advanced pressure garment team’s technology investment priorities and needs.

spacesuit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment System Status and Development Priorities 2024

This paper discusses the current focus of NASA’s Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment Technology Development team’s efforts, the status of that work, and a summary of longer term technology development priorities and activities. The Exploration Extra-vehicular Activity Mobility Unit (xEMU) has been the team’s primary effort over the past several years. This paper documents the various tests executed with the xPGS to evaluate its performance, durability, and acceptability for microgravity and Lunar missions. An overview of ongoing and planned xEMU testing and training is provided. The PGS team’s efforts in supporting the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) vendors is discussed. In addition, technology development efforts in coordination with the EVA and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), the NASA Engineering Safety Council (NESC) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program will be discussed in the context of supporting sustaining EVA operations on the Lunar surface over the coming decade. Finally, a brief review of longer-term pressure garment challenges and technology gaps will be presented to provide an understanding of the advanced pressure garment team’s technology investment priorities and needs.

Shane M McFarland↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment System Status and Development Priorities 2024

This paper discusses the current focus of NASA’s Advanced Space Suit Pressure Garment Technology Development team’s efforts, the status of that work, and a summary of longer term technology development priorities and activities. The Exploration Extra-vehicular Activity Mobility Unit (xEMU) has been the team’s primary effort over the past several years. This paper documents the various tests executed with the xPGS to evaluate its performance, durability, and acceptability for microgravity and Lunar missions. An overview of ongoing and planned xEMU testing and training is provided. The PGS team’s efforts in supporting the Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) vendors is discussed. In addition, technology development efforts in coordination with the EVA and Human Surface Mobility Program (EHP), the NASA Engineering Safety Council (NESC) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program will be discussed in the context of supporting sustaining EVA operations on the Lunar surface over the coming decade. Finally, a brief review of longer-term pressure garment challenges and technology gaps will be presented to provide an understanding of the advanced pressure garment team’s technology investment priorities and needs.

Shane McFarland↗
NASA NTRS2008

Integrated System Test Approaches for the NASA Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle

NASA is maturing test and evaluation plans leading to flight readiness of the Ares I crew launch vehicle. Key development, qualification, and verification tests are planned . Upper stage engine sea-level and altitude testing. First stage development and qualification motors. Upper stage structural and thermal development and qualification test articles. Main Propulsion Test Article (MPTA). Upper stage green run testing. Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Testing (IVGVT). Aerodynamic characterization testing. Test and evaluation supports initial validation flights (Ares I-Y and Orion 1) and design certification.

Cockrell, Charles↗
NASA NTRS1972

The development of an augmentor wing jet STOL research aircraft (modified C-8A). Volume 2: Analysis of contractor's flight test

The initial flight test phase of the modified C-8A airplane was conducted. The primary objective of the testing was to establish the basic airworthiness of the research vehicle. This included verification of the structural design and evaluation of the aircraft's systems. Only a minimum amount of performance testing was scheduled; this has been used to provide a preliminary indication of the airplane's performance and flight characteristics for future flight planning. The testing included flutter and loads investigations up to the maximum design speed. The operational characteristics of all systems were assessed including hydraulics, environmental control system, air ducts, the vectoring conical nozzles, and the stability augmentation system (SAS). Approaches to stall were made at three primary flap settings: up, 30 deg and 65 deg, but full stalls were not scheduled. Minimum control speeds and maneuver margins were checked. All takeoffs and landings were conventional, and STOL performance was not scheduled during this phase of the evaluation.

Skavdahl, H.↗
NASA NTRS2006

An Approach to Reliability Testing of Microcircuits at Cryogenic Conditions

This viewgraph presentation reviews an approach to testing microcircuits at cryogenic temperatures. Standard testing procedures are not adequate to test microcircuits that are to operate at cryogenic temperatures. It is therefore necessary to perform analysis of operation conditions and reliability conditions for planning qualification testing of microcircuits at cryogenic temperatures. The major degradations for microcircuits operating at low temperatures depend on the number of switching cycles rather than on the duration of part operation. Therefore instead of accelerating degradation of the parts by increasing the level of stress, the possibility of which is very limited at cryogenic temperatures, the reliability testing can be based on the number of switching cycles.

Teverovsky, Alexander↗
NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRS1989

Development of a combustor analytical design methodology for liquid rocket engines

The development of a user friendly computerized methodology for the design and analysis of liquid propellant rocket engine combustion chambers is described. An overview of the methodology, consisting of a computer program containing an appropriate modular assembly of existing industry wide performance and combustion stability models, is presented. These models are linked with an interactive front end processor enabling the user to define the performance and stability traits of an existing design (point analysis) or to create the essential design features of a combustor to meet specific performance goals and combustion stability (point design). Plans for demonstration and verification of this methodology are also presented. These plans include the creation of combustor designs using the methodology, together with predictions of the performance and combustion stability for each design. A verification test program of 26 hot fire tests with up to four designs created using this methodology is described. This testing is planned using LOX/RP-1 propellants with a thrust level of approx. 220,000 N (50,000 lbf).

Pieper, Jerry L.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Overview of the Jet/Surface Interaction Test (JSIT1)

This material was presented at the Acoustics Technical Working Group Meeting on April22, 2011. It provides an overview of an experiment called the Jet / Surface Interaction Test which was conducted to expand the database available regarding how a planar surface interacts with a jet to shield and/or enhance the jet noise. This presentation focuses on data obtained during Phase 1 of the test, JSIT1, which was conducted using the Small Hot Jet Acoustic Rig located in the Aeroacoustics Propulsion Lab at NASA GRCduring January and February, 2011. A second phase of the test, JSIT2, is planned for 2012.There were two parts of the phase 1 test. In part 1, known as the shielding surface part of the test, a planar surface was placed between the jet and the microphones. In part 2, the reflecting surface part of the test, the surface was placed on the opposite side of the jet so that the jet noise was free to reflect off the surface toward the microphones. Phased array, pressure sensitive paint, and far field acoustic data obtained during JSIT1 are presented. The phased array data illustrate how the jet noise is blocked by the shielding surface. It also shows that the low frequency scrubbing noise generated when the surface is impacted by the jet comes predominantly from the surface trailing edge. The far field data show the trailing edge noise to be a dipole source. The pressure sensitive paint data show how the pressure distribution on the surface varies as the surface is traversed toward jet.This material was presented at the Acoustics Technical Working Group Meeting on April22, 2011. It provides an overview of an experiment called the Jet/Surface Interaction Test which was conducted to expand the database available regarding how a planar surface interacts with a jet to shield and/or enhance the jet noise. This presentation focuses on data obtained during Phase 1 of the test, JSIT1, which was conducted using the Small Hot Jet Acoustic Rig located in the Aeroacoustics Propulsion Lab at NASA GRCduring January and February, 2011. A second phase of the test, JSIT2, is planned for 2012.There were two parts of the phase 1 test. In part 1, known as the shielding surface part of the test, a planar surface was placed between the jet and the microphones. In part 2, the reflecting surface part of the test, the surface was placed on the opposite side of the jet so that the jet noise was free to reflect off the surface toward the microphones. Phased array, pressure sensitive paint, and far field acoustic data obtained during JSIT1 are presented. The phased array data illustrate how the jet noise is blocked by the shielding surface. It also shows that the low frequency scrubbing noise generated when the surface is impacted by the jet comes predominantly from the surface trailing edge. The far field data show the trailing edge noise to be a dipole source. The pressure sensitive paint data show how the pressure distribution on the surface varies as the surface is traversed toward jet.

Podboy, Gary↗