Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “highly deviated”

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.

1,084 records · Page 61

Flight Deck Design of a Hybrid Turbine/Electric Passenger Aircraft

NASA is exploring the development of a 180-passenger subsonic single engine aft turbine aircraft, The aft turbine provides electric power in a hybrid design to wing mounted electric engines, creating a highly efficient, high-bypass-ratio fan equivalent. The SUbsonic Single Aft eNgine (SUSAN) aircraft is being developed as a sustainable subsonic regional aircraft that seeks to reduce emission levels by 50% in the next few decades. Pilot-in-the-loop studies were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to explore the flight deck design for the hybrid electric aircraft. Following modern trends in commercial aircraft flight decks with full time augmented controls and a quiet and dark philosophy, single throttle and simplified engine displays were developed for the SUSAN aircraft. The aircraft includes a single aft mounted turbine engine and 16 wing mounted electric fans. The final design was developed from feedback received during an earlier pilot-in-the-loop study where one, two, and three throttles were tested in standard airline operations, including various failures of the turbine and electric engines. Current flight deck designs normally provide control inceptors for each propulsion engine and an engine display for all primary aircraft engine parameters. With full time augmentation expected, a single throttle control with autothrottle always engaged, even during failures, is desired. Augmentation of flight controls using distributed thrust also requires full time control of the electric engines using automation. Additionally, electric engine thrust is augmented during climb based on battery state of charge. Thrust augmentation changes faster than human reaction time and therefore requires full-time automation. A pilot-in-the-loop study was conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to test the final design of the single throttle with simplified engine displays. Fourteen airline pilots evaluated the single throttle and engine display concept. Electric engine failures included one, four symmetric, and eight non-symmetric electric engine failures. The turbine engine was evaluated for complete and partial failure during critical phases of flight to include takeoff as well as enroute. Unexpected go-arounds increase workload and require significant throttle manipulation. Go-arounds were included to ensure the single throttle was usable for all phases of flight. Failures during takeoff required a return to the departure field and failures enroute required a diversion except for one and four electric engine failures as these failures did not affect aircraft flyability or range. There are currently no Part 25 aircraft certified with hybrid systems or electric engines with batteries as emergency propulsion. For turbine engine failures in the SUSAN aircraft design, range is limited to 30 minutes at full power. Battery state of charge and battery health displays were developed and tested for usability and to determine how well they supported pilot decisions for alternate airports during emergency diversions. Novel displays using shape and color were developed to provide immediate feedback when state of charge became critical. This paper details the pilot study including pilot feedback supporting the potential for increased automation and a single throttle control. Detailed recommendations are provided for a novel single throttle control and additional pilot controls to support selection of engines during start, shutdown, and engine troubleshooting procedures. This design deviates significantly from current practice of providing throttles for each propulsion engine. Engine display recommendations are provided based on pilot feedback during a guided post-evaluation interview. Battery state of charge and battery health display recommendations were collected from all airline crews. The simplified engine displays design was rated excellent as measured with a usability scale. Quantitative metrics include airspeed tracking, time to complete checklists, time to make diversion decisions and the quality of the diversion decision. Recommendations for future studies are documented with supporting research and current observations about upcoming flight deck certifications.

autothrottle↗

Flight Deck Design of a Hybrid Turbine/Electric Passenger Aircraft

NASA is exploring the development of a 180-passenger subsonic single engine aft turbine aircraft, The aft turbine provides electric power in a hybrid design to wing mounted electric engines, creating a highly efficient, high-bypass-ratio fan equivalent. The SUbsonic Single Aft eNgine (SUSAN) aircraft is being developed as a sustainable subsonic regional aircraft that seeks to reduce emission levels by 50% in the next few decades. Pilot-in-the-loop studies were conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to explore the flight deck design for the hybrid electric aircraft. Following modern trends in commercial aircraft flight decks with full time augmented controls and a quiet and dark philosophy, single throttle and simplified engine displays were developed for the SUSAN aircraft. The aircraft includes a single aft mounted turbine engine and 16 wing mounted electric fans. The final design was developed from feedback received during an earlier pilot-in-the-loop study where one, two, and three throttles were tested in standard airline operations, including various failures of the turbine and electric engines. Current flight deck designs normally provide control inceptors for each propulsion engine and an engine display for all primary aircraft engine parameters. With full time augmentation expected, a single throttle control with autothrottle always engaged, even during failures, is desired. Augmentation of flight controls using distributed thrust also requires full time control of the electric engines using automation. Additionally, electric engine thrust is augmented during climb based on battery state of charge. Thrust augmentation changes faster than human reaction time and therefore requires full-time automation. A pilot-in-the-loop study was conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to test the final design of the single throttle with simplified engine displays. Fourteen airline pilots evaluated the single throttle and engine display concept. Electric engine failures included one, four symmetric, and eight non-symmetric electric engine failures. The turbine engine was evaluated for complete and partial failure during critical phases of flight to include takeoff as well as enroute. Unexpected go-arounds increase workload and require significant throttle manipulation. Go-arounds were included to ensure the single throttle was usable for all phases of flight. Failures during takeoff required a return to the departure field and failures enroute required a diversion except for one and four electric engine failures as these failures did not affect aircraft flyability or range. There are currently no Part 25 aircraft certified with hybrid systems or electric engines with batteries as emergency propulsion. For turbine engine failures in the SUSAN aircraft design, range is limited to 30 minutes at full power. Battery state of charge and battery health displays were developed and tested for usability and to determine how well they supported pilot decisions for alternate airports during emergency diversions. Novel displays using shape and color were developed to provide immediate feedback when state of charge became critical. This paper details the pilot study including pilot feedback supporting the potential for increased automation and a single throttle control. Detailed recommendations are provided for a novel single throttle control and additional pilot controls to support selection of engines during start, shutdown, and engine troubleshooting procedures. This design deviates significantly from current practice of providing throttles for each propulsion engine. Engine display recommendations are provided based on pilot feedback during a guided post-evaluation interview. Battery state of charge and battery health display recommendations were collected from all airline crews. The simplified engine displays design was rated excellent as measured with a usability scale. Quantitative metrics include airspeed tracking, time to complete checklists, time to make diversion decisions and the quality of the diversion decision. Recommendations for future studies are documented with supporting research and current observations about upcoming flight deck certifications.

autothrottle↗

Validation Assessment for the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) Data Product Version 5

The post-launch Cal/Val phase of the SMAP mission is guided by two primary objectives for each science product team: 1) to calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithms, and 2) validate accuracies of the science data products as specified in the SMAP Level-1 mission science requirements. Algorithm science and product maintenance activities during the SMAP extended mission phase have also involved periodic algorithm calibration and product refinements to maintain or enhance product consistency and performance as well as science utility. This report provides an assessment of the latest (Version 5) SMAP Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) product. The L4_C Version 5 (v5) global record now spans more than six years (March 2015 – present) of SMAP operations and has benefited from five major reprocessing updates to the operational product. These reprocessing events and L4_C product release updates have incorporated various algorithm refinements and calibration adjustments to account for similar refinements to the upstream GEOS land model assimilation system, SMAP brightness temperatures, and MODIS vegetation inputs used for L4_C processing. The SMAP L4_C algorithms utilize a terrestrial carbon flux model informed by daily surface and root zone soil moisture information contributed from the SMAP Level 4 Soil Moisture (L4_SM) product along with optical remote sensing-based (e.g. MODIS-based) land cover and canopy fractional photosynthetic active radiation (fPAR), and other ancillary biophysical data. The carbon flux model estimates global daily net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) and the component carbon fluxes, namely, vegetation gross primary production (GPP) and soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh). Other L4_C product elements include surface (~0-5 cm depth) soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks and associated environmental constraints to these processes, including soil moisture-related controls on GPP and ecosystem respiration (Kimball et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2017). The L4_C product addresses SMAP carbon cycle science objectives by: 1) providing a direct link between terrestrial carbon fluxes and underlying freeze/thaw and soil moisture-related constraints to these processes, 2) documenting primary connections between terrestrial water, energy and carbon cycles, and 3) improving understanding of terrestrial carbon sink activity. The SMAP L4_C algorithms and operational product are mature and at a CEOS Validation Stage 4 level (Jackson et al. 2012) based on extensive validation of the multi-year record against a diverse array of independent benchmarks, well characterized global performance, and systematic refinements gained from five major reprocessing events. There are no Level-1 mission science requirements for the L4_C product; however, self-imposed requirements have been established focusing on NEE as the primary product field for validation, and on demonstrating L4_C accuracy and success in meeting product science requirements (Jackson et al. 2012). The other L4_C product fields also have strong utility for carbon science applications (e.g., Liu et al. 2019, Endsley et al. 2020); however, analysis of these other fields is considered secondary relative to primary validation activities focusing on NEE. The L4_C targeted accuracy requirements are to meet or exceed a mean unbiased root-mean-square error (ubRMSE, or standard deviation of the error) for NEE of 1.6 g C m-2 d-1 and 30 g C m-2 yr-1, emphasizing northern (≥45°N) boreal and arctic ecosystems; this accuracy is similar to that of tower eddy covariance measurement-based observations (Baldocchi 2008). Methods used for the latest v5 L4_C product performance and validation assessment have been established from the SMAP Cal/Val plan and previous studies (Jackson et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2017) and include: 1) consistency evaluations of the product fields against earlier product releases (version 4 or earlier); 2) comparisons of daily carbon flux estimates with independent tower eddy 4covariance measurement-based daily carbon (CO2) flux observations from core tower validation sites (CVS); and 3) consistency checks against other global carbon products, including soil carbon inventory records, global GPP records derived from tower observation upscaling methods, and satellite-based observations of canopy solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) as a surrogate for GPP. Metrics used to evaluate relative agreement between L4_C product fields and observational benchmarks include correlation (r-value), RMSE differences, bias and model sensitivity diagnostics. Following these validation criteria, the present report provides a validation assessment of the latest L4_C product release (v5). Detailed descriptions of the L4_C algorithm and additional global product accuracy and performance results are given elsewhere (Jones et al. 2017, Endsley et al. 2020). The v5 L4_C product replaces earlier product versions and continues to show: (i) accuracy and performance levels meeting or exceeding SMAP L4_C science requirements; (ii) improvement over the previous product version (version 4); and (iii) suitability for a diversity of science applications. Example L4_C applications from the recent literature include clarifying environmental trends and controls on the northern terrestrial carbon sink (Liu et al. 2019), diagnosing drought-related impacts on ecosystem productivity (Li et al. 2020), and regional monitoring of cropland conditions for projecting annual yields (Wurster et al. 2020). 2EXPECTED L4_C ALGORITHM AND PRODUCTPERFORMANCE The L4_C algorithm performance, including variance and uncertainty estimates of model outputs, was determined during the mission pre-launch phase through spatially explicit model sensitivity studies using available model inputs similar to those currently being used for operational production and evaluating the resulting model simulations over the observed range of northern (≥45 °N) and global conditions (Kimball et al. 2012, Entekhabi et al. 2014). The L4_C algorithm options were also evaluated during the mission prelaunch phase, including deriving canopy fPAR from lower order NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) inputs in lieu of using MODIS (MOD15) fPAR; and including an explicit model representation of boreal fire disturbance recovery impacts. These results indicated that the L4_C accuracy requirements (i.e., NEE ubRMSE ≤ 30 g C m-2 yr-1or ≤ 1.6 g C m-2 d-1) could be met from the baseline algorithms over more than 82% and 89% of global and northern vegetated land areas, respectively (Yi et al. 2013, Kimball et al. 2014). The global L4_C algorithm error budget for NEE derived during the mission prelaunch phase indicated that the estimated NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is proportional to GPP and is therefore larger in higher biomass productivity areas, including forests and croplands (Kimball et al. 2014). Likewise, NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is expected to be lower in less-productive areas, including grasslands and shrublands. Expected model NEE ubRMSE levels were also generally within targeted accuracy levels for characteristically less-productive boreal and Arctic biomes, even though relative model error as a proportion of total productivity (NEE RMSE / GPP) may be large in these areas. The estimated NEE uncertainty was lower than expected in some warmer tropical high biomass productivity areas (e.g. Amazon rainforest) because of reduced low temperature and moisture constraints to the L4_C respiration calculations so that the bulk of model uncertainty is contributed by GPP in these areas. Model NEE uncertainty in the African Congo was estimated to

SMAP↗

Understanding the Space Weathering of Mercury Through Laboratory Experiments

Introduction: Airless surfaces across the solar system are continually modified by energetic particles from solar wind and micrometeoroid bombardment [1,2]. This process is known as space weathering, and it alters the chemical, microstructural, and optical properties of surface regoliths on airless bodies, including Mercury. On the Moon and S-type asteroids, the reflectance spectral signatures of space weathering include reddening (increasing reflectance with increasing wavelength), darkening (lowering of reflectance), and the attenuation of characteristic absorption bands [2]. Such spectral changes are driven by the production of Fe-bearing nanoparticles(npFe) through both solar wind irradiation and micrometeoroid bombardment. While our understanding of space weathering for the Moon and near-Earth S-types asteroids is advanced, insight into how these processes operate on other planetary bodies is limited. In particular, Mercury experiences a uniquely intense space weathering environment than planetary counterparts at 1 AU, including a moreintense solar wind flux and higher velocity micrometeoroid impacts [4]. Additionally, Mercury has a surface composition unique in the inner solar system, including regions of the surface with very low albedo known as the low reflectance material (LRM), which is enriched in carbon, likely graphite, up to 4wt.% [5].In addition, the concentration of Fe across Mercury’s surface islow (<2 wt.%) compared to the Moonor S-type asteroids asteroids[6]. Our understanding of the effects of space weathering on C-rich and Fe-poor phases is limited. Since Fe plays a critical role inthe development of space weathering characteristicson other airless surfaces(e.g., npFe), its limited availability may significantly affect the development of space weathering features in Mercury surface materials. We can simulate space weathering processes in the laboratory to explore their effects on the microstructural, chemical, and spectral characteristics of Mercury surface materials[7]. Here we used pulsed laser irradiation to simulate the short duration, high-temperature events associated with micrometeoroid impacts. We performed coordinated analyses including reflectance spectroscopy and electron microscopy to investigate the spectral, chemical, and microstructural changes in these mercurian analog samples. Methods: For these experiments, we usedforsteritic olivine with varying FeOcontents, a mineral phase proposed to be abundant on the surface of Mercury. We mixed each sample with graphite to simulate LRM regions of the surface. Wesynthesized the olivinesamplesat 1-bar at NASA’s Johnson Space Centerand prepared pressed powder pellets for laser irradiation [8].We prepared three samples, each with a base layer of olivineto maintain structural integrity and topped witha surface layer containing the graphite-olivine mixture: 1) Sample SC-001 San Carlos olivine(Fo90.91),2)Sample F-S-002 with0.05 wt.% FeO olivine, and 3) F-T-004 with 0.53 wt.% FeO olivine. Each sample was mixed with 5 wt.% powdered graphite and had grain sizes ranging from 45to 125μm. We irradiated each sample usinga pulsed Nd-YAG laser, (l=1064 nm, ~6 ns pulse duration, energy of 48 mJ/pulse) while undervacuumat Northern Arizona University. The laser was rastered1x and then 5x over the surfaceof each sample to simulate progressive space weathering. We collected in situreflectance spectra from the samples after each laser pulse witha Nicolet IS50 Fourier-Transform Infrared spectrometer (lfrom 0.65-2.5 μm). We used an FEI Nova NanoSEM200scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a Hitachi TM4000 Plus benchtop SEM at Purdue University to image the surface morphology and topography of the samples. We extracted thin sections for analysis in the transmission electron microscope(TEM)using the FEI Helios NanoLab 660 focused ion beam (FIB) SEM at the University of Arizona.We performed analysis of the microstructural and chemical characteristics of the samples using the 200 keV JEOL 2500 scanning TEM at Johnson Space Center. Reflectance Spectroscopy Results:Reflectance spectra for each sample are shown in Fig. 1.SC-001:The spectrum of the unirradiated sample exhibits a weak 1.0 μm absorption feature, associated with Fe2+in the olivine,and low overall reflectance (Fig. 1a). Thereflectance and the depth of the absorption band increases after 1x laser raster but are at their lowest after 5x laser rasters.F-T-004:The unirradiated sample has a blue-sloped spectrum with low reflectance without identifiable absorption features (Fig. 1b). With progressive laser irradiation, the sample reflectance increases and becomes strongly red-sloped.F-S-002:The unirradiated sample exhibits a dark, blue-slopedspectrum. The brightness of the sample increases significantly from <0.2average reflectance over >0.8 reflectance in the most irradiated sampleand thespectral slope also becomesslightly reddened (Fig. 1c). Microstructural and Chemical Analysis: Two primary alteration textures were observed in the samples exposed to simulated space weathering: 1) fluffy C-rich,and 2) vesiculated melt. The fluffy C-rich texture is composed oflow-densitydeposits distributed across the surface of the sample(Fig. 2A). Analysis of a FIB section extracted from a low-density C-rich region in sample SC-001 reveals multiple globule-type deposits, discrete from stacked graphite, likely produced via melting from the laser irradiation [9].The vesiculated melt textureis smooth and uniformly distributed across isolated regions of the sample surface. The vesicles measure up to 100s of nmin diameter. Analysis of a FIB section from this texture was extracted from sample F-T-004 reveals a layer of amorphous melt material, close to 100 nm thick and uniform across the FIB section (Fig. 2B). Isolated regions of this melt layer contain small nanoparticles, <5 nm in diameter. Chemical analysis through energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy reveals the composition of this layer is enriched in Si and depleted in Mg and O compared to the underlying sample. Implications for Space Weathering on Mercury: Previous experiments simulating space weathering of Mercury have showndarkening and reddening of spectra[7,10].However, our use of low-Fe materials and graphite to create a sample set more analogous to the mercurian surface. Our results indicate that sample composition plays a significant and important role in the space weathering of Mercury. In particular, our spectral data demonstrates a strong correlation between spectral slope, Fe content, and simulated space weathering. While the variation in FeO content between samples F-S-002 and F-T-004 is <0.6 wt.%, the spectra deviate from flat to strongly red-sloped(F-T-004). This reddeningmay be linked to the presence of very small nanoparticles observed in the melt textures extracted from sample F-T-004. For the SC-001 sample, the fluffy C-rich textures may be developed by the amalgamation of small graphite particles into these unique morphologies. Such observations indicate that space weathering on Mercury may result in both familiar and new microstructural and chemical characteristics. References: [1]Hapke B. (2001) J. Geophys. Res.-Planet.,106,10039–10073. [2]Pieters C.M. and Noble S.K. (2016) J. Geophys. Res-Planet., 121, 1865–1884. [3] Lucey P.G., and Riner, M.A. (2011) Icarus,212, 451-462.[4]CintalaM.J.(1992)J. Geophys. Res.-Planet.,97,947–973.[5]Klima R.L.et al.(2018)Geophys.Res.Letters, 45, 2945–2953. [6]Nittler L.R., et al. (2011) Science 333, 1847-1850.[7]Sasaki S. and Kurahashi E. (2004) Space weathering on Mercury, Adv.Space Res., 33, 2152-2155.[8] Vander KaadenK.E., et al. (2018) LPSCXLIX, Abstract 1230. [9] McGlaun M.L. et al. (2019) LPSCL, Abstract 2019. [10] TrangD.et al. (2018)LPSCXLIX,Abstract2083

M S Thompson↗