Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “NASA centers”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Flight Test Series 3: Flight Test Report

This document is a flight test report from the Operational perspective for Flight Test Series 3, a subpart of the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) project. Flight Test Series 3 testing began on June 15, 2015, and concluded on August 12, 2015. Participants included NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA Langley Research center, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., and Honeywell. Key stakeholders analyzed their System Under Test (SUT) in two distinct configurations. Configuration 1, known as Pairwise Encounters, was subdivided into two parts: 1a, involving a low-speed UAS ownship and intruder(s), and 1b, involving a high-speed surrogate ownship and intruder. Configuration 2, known as Full Mission, involved a surrogate ownship, live intruder(s), and integrated virtual traffic. Table 1 is a summary of flights for each configuration, with data collection flights highlighted in green. Section 2 and 3 of this report give an in-depth description of the flight test period, aircraft involved, flight crew, and mission team. Overall, Flight Test 3 gathered excellent data for each SUT. We attribute this successful outcome in large part from the experience that was acquired from the ACAS Xu SS flight test flown in December 2014. Configuration 1 was a tremendous success, thanks to the training, member participation, integration/testing, and in-depth analysis of the flight points. Although Configuration 2 flights were cancelled after 3 data collection flights due to various problems, the lessons learned from this will help the UAS in the NAS project move forward successfully in future flight phases.

Unmanned↗
NASA NTRS2000

Power System Options Evaluated for the Radiation and Technology Demonstration Mission

The Radiation and Technology Demonstration (RTD) Mission is under joint study by three NASA Centers: the NASA Johnson Space Center, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and the NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field. This Earth-orbiting mission, which may launch on a space shuttle in the first half of the next decade, has the primary objective of demonstrating high-power electric thruster technologies. Secondary objectives include better characterization of Earth's Van Allen trapped-radiation belts, measurement of the effectiveness of the radiation shielding for human protection, measurement of radiation effects on advanced solar cells, and demonstration of radiation-tolerant microelectronics. During the mission, which may continue up to 1 year, the 2000-kg RTD spacecraft will first spiral outward from the shuttle-deployed, medium-inclination, low Earth orbit. By the phased operation of a 10-kW Hall thruster and a 10-kW Variable Specific Impulse Magneto-Plasma Rocket, the RTD spacecraft will reach a low-inclination Earth orbit with a radius greater than five Earth radii. This will be followed by an inward spiraling orbit phase when the spacecraft deploys 8 to 12 microsatellites to map the Van Allen belts. The mission will conclude in low Earth orbit with the possible retrieval of the spacecraft by the space shuttle. A conceptual RTD spacecraft design showing two photovoltaic (PV) array wings, the Hall thruster with propellant tanks, and stowed microsatellites is presented. Early power system studies assessed five different PV array design options coupled with a 120-Vdc power management and distribution system (PMAD) and secondary lithium battery energy storage. Array options include (1) state-of-the-art 10-percent efficient three-junction amorphous SiGe thin-film cells on thin polymer panels deployed with an inflatable (or articulated) truss, (2) SCARLET array panels, (3) commercial state-of-the-art, planar PV array rigid panels with 25-percent efficient, three-junction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells, (4) rigid panels with 25-percent efficient, three-junction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells, in a 2 -concentrator trough configuration, and (5) thin polymer panels with 25-percent efficient, three-junction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge solar cells deployed with an inflatable (or articulated) truss. To assess the relative merits of these PV array design options, the study group developed a dedicated Fortran code to predict power system performance and estimate system mass. This code also modeled Earth orbital environments important for accurately predicting PV array performance. The most important environmental effect, solar cell radiation degradation, was calculated from electron-proton fluence input from the industry standard AE8/AP8 trapped radiation models and the concept of damage equivalence. Power systems were sized to provide 10 kW of thruster power and approximately 1 kW of spacecraft power at end of life. Of the five PV array design options, the option 1 (thin-film cells) power system was the most massive 590 kg, whereas the option 4 (trough concentrator) power system was the lightest 260 kg. Arguably, the lowest cost would come from the option 3 (commercial array panels) power system with an acceptable, albeit greater, system mass of 320 kg. Predicted power system performance during the spiral-out mission phase is shown the preceding graph for the option 5 (flexible-panel) array. From the results, the radiation-induced power loss over time is evident as the spacecraft slowly spirals outward through the trapped proton belt. The importance of the spiral trip time is also evident in the two curves representing 74-day and 182-day spiral-out periods. The longer spiral time introduces a beginning-of-life power oversizing penalty greater than 1 kW. Future studies will analyze power system performance and mass with a 50-Vdc power management and distribution architecture favorable to the VASIMR thruster and longer missions.

Kerslake, Thomas W.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Safe Grid

The biggest users of GRID technologies came from the science and technology communities. These consist of government, industry and academia (national and international). The NASA GRID is moving into a higher technology readiness level (TRL) today; and as a joint effort among these leaders within government, academia, and industry, the NASA GRID plans to extend availability to enable scientists and engineers across these geographical boundaries collaborate to solve important problems facing the world in the 21 st century. In order to enable NASA programs and missions to use IPG resources for program and mission design, the IPG capabilities needs to be accessible from inside the NASA center networks. However, because different NASA centers maintain different security domains, the GRID penetration across different firewalls is a concern for center security people. This is the reason why some IPG resources are been separated from the NASA center network. Also, because of the center network security and ITAR concerns, the NASA IPG resource owner may not have full control over who can access remotely from outside the NASA center. In order to obtain organizational approval for secured remote access, the IPG infrastructure needs to be adapted to work with the NASA business process. Improvements need to be made before the IPG can be used for NASA program and mission development. The Secured Advanced Federated Environment (SAFE) technology is designed to provide federated security across NASA center and NASA partner's security domains. Instead of one giant center firewall which can be difficult to modify for different GRID applications, the SAFE "micro security domain" provide large number of professionally managed "micro firewalls" that can allow NASA centers to accept remote IPG access without the worry of damaging other center resources. The SAFE policy-driven capability-based federated security mechanism can enable joint organizational and resource owner approved remote access from outside of NASA centers. A SAFE enabled IPG can enable IPG capabilities to be available to NASA mission design teams across different NASA center and partner company firewalls. This paper will first discuss some of the potential security issues for IPG to work across NASA center firewalls. We will then present the SAFE federated security model. Finally we will present the concept of the architecture of a SAFE enabled IPG and how it can benefit NASA mission development.

Chow, Edward T.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Current Level of Mission Control Automation at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA is particularly concerned with reducing mission operations costs through increased automation. This paper examines the operations procedures within NASA Mission Control Centers in order to uncover the level of automation that currently exists within them. Based on an assessment of mission operations procedures within three representative control centers, this paper recommends specific areas where there is potential for mission cost reduction through increased automation.

Maks, Lori↗
NASA NTRS2005

High Performance Polymers and Composites (HiPPAC) Center

NASA University Research Centers funding has allowed Clark Atlanta University (CAU) to establish a High Performance Polymers and Composites (HiPPAC) Research Center. Clark Atlanta University, through the HiPPAC Center has consolidated and expanded its polymer and composite research capabilities through the development of research efforts in: (1) Synthesis and characterization of polymeric NLO, photorefractive, and piezoelectric materials; (2) Characterization and engineering applications of induced strain smart materials; (3) Processable polyimides and additives to enhance polyimide processing for composite applications; (4) Fabrication and mechanical characterization of polymer based composites.

Mintz, Eric A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

NASA's astrophysics archives at the National Space Science Data Center

NASA maintains an archive facility for Astronomical Science data collected from NASA's missions at the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at Goddard Space Flight Center. This archive was created to insure the science data collected by NASA would be preserved and useable in the future by the science community. Through 25 years of operation there are many lessons learned, from data collection procedures, archive preservation methods, and distribution to the community. This document presents some of these more important lessons, for example: KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) in system development. Also addressed are some of the myths of archiving, such as 'scientists always know everything about everything', or 'it cannot possibly be that hard, after all simple data tech's do it'. There are indeed good reasons that a proper archive capability is needed by the astronomical community, the important question is how to use the existing expertise as well as the new innovative ideas to do the best job archiving this valuable science data.

Vansteenberg, M. E.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Science at NASA field centers: Findings and recommendations on the scope, strength and interactions of science and science-related technology programs

Great achievements by NASA and other space agencies have shown us what opportunities lie in the opening of the space frontier. A broad and vigorous science program in NASA is vital to full U.S. exploitation of these new opportunities. Today, science in NASA Centers is characterized by its breadth, relevance, and excellence. The NASA in-house science program and its links to university programs constitute a vitally important national resource. Maintaining excellence as a foundation for the future is a fundamental responsibility of NASA, one that requires constant attention and effort. This report by the NASA Center Science Assessment Team documents the current state of science within NASA and recommends actions to maintain a healthy program. NASA scientists have always played key roles in planning, guiding, and conducting national programs in space science. The review of Center science programs is intended to ensure that both NASA and the nation can depend on their continuing contribution in these roles.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Center Master Plan For NASA Glenn Research Center

The Center Master Plan for NASA Glenn Research Center is a comprehensive survey of NASA Glenn's current facility assets and a vision of how we see the facilities will change over the next 20 years in order to support the changing NASA Mission. This Center Master Plan is a vital management tool used by all organizations for making near term decisions and in future planning. During the summer of 2004, I worked with Joseph Morris, the Chief Architect in the Facilities Division, on beginning this Center Master Planning Process. The previous Master Plan was completed by the Center in 1985 and contained general information on the background of the facility as well as maps detailing environmental and historic records, land use, utilities, etc. The new Master Plan is required for the Center by NASA headquarters and will include similar types of information as used in the past. The new study will provide additional features including showing how individual buildings are linked to the programs and missions that they serve. The Master Plan will show practical future options for the facility s assets with a twenty year look ahead. The Plan will be electronically retrievable so that it becomes a communications tool for Center personnel. A Center Master Plan, although required, is very beneficial to NASA Glenn Research Center in aiding management with the future direction of the campus. Keeping up-to-date information and future plans readily available to all of NASA Glenn will insure that future real property development efficiently and effectively supports the missions camed out and supported by the Center. A Center Master Plan will also facilitate coordination with Center supported programs, stakeholders, and customers. In addition, it will provide a basis for cooperative planning with local and other governmental organizations and ultimately ensure that future budgets include the Center program needs described in the plan. This will ensure that development plans are safe, practical, and cost effective. To properly formulate any future plans, background information and research are required. Before bringing in a consultant to tackle the three year process anticipated to prepare a Center Master Plan, my job was to gather information on different organizations contributions to the NASA mission, their facility needs, consistent trends they observe, etc. I conducted numerous interviews with personnel such as Directorate Representatives, Division Chiefs, Branch Chiefs, System Managers and Building Managers. I documented the information I received from them for future use. I used the information to create various color-coded maps layering the different data. This was done with the ending objective being to collect the information and place it in a database that will be linked with Aperture (a computer program that generates color-coded map layers from database information) and made electronically retrievable to the Planning Consultant, NASA personnel, program stakeholders, and other governmental agencies. My goal this summer was to gather information and ideas appropriate for use in NASA Glenn Research Center s Master Plan and organize them for future application by the Planning Consultant. By the end of the summer, after completion of my goal, I will utilize my knowledge and create an array of preliminary future plans for the facility that can be passed along as a guidance tool.

Bigach, Kristin M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

A Queue Simulation Tool for a High Performance Scientific Computing Center

The NASA Center for Computational Sciences (NCCS) at the Goddard Space Flight Center provides high performance highly parallel processors, mass storage, and supporting infrastructure to a community of computational Earth and space scientists. Long running (days) and highly parallel (hundreds of CPUs) jobs are common in the workload. NCCS management structures batch queues and allocates resources to optimize system use and prioritize workloads. NCCS technical staff use a locally developed discrete event simulation tool to model the impacts of evolving workloads, potential system upgrades, alternative queue structures and resource allocation policies.

Spear, Carrie↗
NASA NTRS2011

Orion Crew Module Aerodynamic Testing

The Apollo-derived Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), part of NASA s now-cancelled Constellation Program, has become the reference design for the new Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). The MPCV will serve as the exploration vehicle for all near-term human space missions. A strategic wind-tunnel test program has been executed at numerous facilities throughout the country to support several phases of aerodynamic database development for the Orion spacecraft. This paper presents a summary of the experimental static aerodynamic data collected to-date for the Orion Crew Module (CM) capsule. The test program described herein involved personnel and resources from NASA Langley Research Center, NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Johnson Space Flight Center, Arnold Engineering and Development Center, Lockheed Martin Space Sciences, and Orbital Sciences. Data has been compiled from eight different wind tunnel tests in the CEV Aerosciences Program. Comparisons are made as appropriate to highlight effects of angle of attack, Mach number, Reynolds number, and model support system effects.

Murphy, Kelly J.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Green Monopropellant Status at Marshall Space Flight Center

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center is continuing investigations into the use of green monopropellants as a replacement for hydrazine in spacecraft propulsion systems. Work to date has been to push technology development through multiple activities designed to understand the capabilities of these technologies. Future work will begin to transition to mission pull as these technologies are mature while still keeping a solid goal of pushing technology development as opportunities become available. The AF-M315E activities began with hot-fire demonstration testing of a 1N monopropellant thruster in FY 14 and FY15. Following successful completion of the preliminary campaign, changes to the test stand to accommodate propellant conditioning capability and better control of propellant operations was incorporated to make testing more streamlined. The goal is to conduct hot-fire testing with warm and cold propellants using the existing feed system and original thruster design. Following the 1N testing, a NASA owned 100 mN thruster will be hot-fire tested in the same facility to show feasibility of scaling to smaller thrusters for cubesat applications. The end goal is to conduct a hot-fire test of an integrated cubesat propulsion system using an SLM printed propellant tank, an MSFC designed propulsion system electronic controller and the 100 mN thruster. In addition to the AF-M315E testing, MSFC is pursuing hot-fire testing with LMP-103S. Following our successful hot-fire testing of the 22N thruster in April 2015, a test campaign was proposed for a 440N LMP-103S thruster with Orbital ATK and Plasma Processes. This activity was funded through the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) ACO funding call in the last quarter of CY15. Under the same funding source a test activity with Busek and Glenn Research Center for testing of 5N AF-M315E thrusters was proposed and awarded. Both activities are in-work with expected completion of hot-fire testing by the end of FY17. MSFC is continuing to coordinate with the AF and academia on understanding the chemical reactions that occur in AF-M315E. An on-going investigation of the catalyst bed species using Raman Spectroscopy through the NASA Technology Research Fellowship Program (NSTRF) is looking for ways to minimize the amount of computation required by understanding the intermediate species created in the catalyst bed. The MSFC team is also working with commercial partners through Cooperative Agreement Notices (CAN's). Partnerships with commercial and academia include work in non-catalytic ignition of AF-M315, spark ignition of hybrid cubesat systems, printed SLM tanks, and dual-mode (electric and chemical) propulsion systems is continuing.

Burnside, Christopher G.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Production Support Flight Control Computers: Research Capability for F/A-18 Aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) is working with the United States Navy to complete ground testing and initiate flight testing of a modified set of F/A-18 flight control computers. The Production Support Flight Control Computers (PSFCC) can give any fleet F/A-18 airplane an in-flight, pilot-selectable research control law capability. NASA DFRC can efficiently flight test the PSFCC for the following four reasons: (1) Six F/A-18 chase aircraft are available which could be used with the PSFCC; (2) An F/A-18 processor-in-the-loop simulation exists for validation testing; (3) The expertise has been developed in programming the research processor in the PSFCC; and (4) A well-defined process has been established for clearing flight control research projects for flight. This report presents a functional description of the PSFCC. Descriptions of the NASA DFRC facilities, PSFCC verification and validation process, and planned PSFCC projects are also provided.

Carter, John F.↗
NASA NTRS1990

CCSDS telemetry systems experience at the Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) designs, builds, manages, and operates science and applications spacecraft in near-earth orbit, and provides data capture, data processing, and flight control services for these spacecraft. In addition, GSFC has the responsibility of providing space-ground and ground-ground communications for near-earth orbiting spacecraft, including those of the manned spaceflight programs. The goal of reducing both the developmental and operating costs of the end-to-end information system has led the GSFC to support and participate in the standardization activities of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS), including those for packet telemetry. The environment in which such systems function is described, and the GSFC experience with CCSDS packet telemetry in the context of the Gamma-Ray Observatory project is discussed.

Carper, Richard D.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Integrating Automation into a Multi-Mission Operations Center

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Space Science Mission Operations (SSMO) Project is currently tackling the challenge of minimizing ground operations costs for multiple satellites that have surpassed their prime mission phase and are well into extended mission. These missions are being reengineered into a multi-mission operations center built around modern information technologies and a common ground system infrastructure. The effort began with the integration of four SMEX missions into a similar architecture that provides command and control capabilities and demonstrates fleet automation and control concepts as a pathfinder for additional mission integrations. The reengineered ground system, called the Multi-Mission Operations Center (MMOC), is now undergoing a transformation to support other SSMO missions, which include SOHO, Wind, and ACE. This paper presents the automation principles and lessons learned to date for integrating automation into an existing operations environment for multiple satellites.

Surka, Derek M.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Overview of Small Spacecraft Technology Activities at the NASA Glenn Research Center

The NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio designs and develops innovative technologies to advance NASA's missions in aeronautics and space exploration. The center's expertise includes that in power, energy storage, and conversion; in-space chemical and electric propulsion; communications; and instrumentation technologies. GRC is currently managing and/or developing a number of these technologies for Small Spacecraft applications. Small spacecraft propulsion efforts include efforts with Tethers Unlimited, Inc. (TUI) and Busek. Power systems technology efforts include the Advanced Electrical Bus (ALBus) CubeSat inhouse development as well as efforts with Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), the Kennedy Space Center & the University Miami. In the area of communications, NASA-GRC continues to explore the potential capabilities and advantages of using Ka-band for LEO (Low Earth Orbit) spacecraft communications with both NASA and commercially owned GEO (Geosynchrous Earth Orbit) relays and direct-to-ground terminal networks. GRC has also proposed a number of small spacecraft instrumentation technology demonstration such as SPAGHETI (Solar Proton Anisotropy and Galactic cosmic ray High Energy Transport Instrument) and CFIDS (Compact Full-Field Ion Detector System).

Space Communications↗
NASA NTRS2008

Model Attitude and Deformation Measurements at the NASA Glenn Research Center

The NASA Glenn Research Center is currently participating in an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) sponsored Model Attitude and Deformation Working Group. This working group is chartered to develop a best practices document dealing with the measurement of two primary areas of wind tunnel measurements, 1) model attitude including alpha, beta and roll angle, and 2) model deformation. Model attitude is a principle variable in making aerodynamic and force measurements in a wind tunnel. Model deformation affects measured forces, moments and other measured aerodynamic parameters. The working group comprises of membership from industry, academia, and the Department of Defense (DoD). Each member of the working group gave a presentation on the methods and techniques that they are using to make model attitude and deformation measurements. This presentation covers the NASA Glenn Research Center s approach in making model attitude and deformation measurements.

Woike, Mark R.↗