Results for “green loans” | Engineering Papers

NASA NTRS2003

Precise Heater Controller with rf-Biased Josephson Junctions

Paramagnetic susceptibility thermometers used in fundamental physics experiments are capable of measuring temperature changes with a precision of a part in 2 x 10(exp 10). However, heater controllers are only able to control open-loop power dissipation to about a part in 10(exp 5). We used an array of rf-biased Josephson junctions to precisely control the electrical power dissipation in a heater resistor mounted on a thermally isolated cryogenic platform. Theoretically, this method is capable of controlling the electrical power dissipation to better than a part in 10(exp 12). However, this level has not yet been demonstrated experimentally. The experiment consists of a liquid helium cell that also functions as a high-resolution PdMn thermometer, with a heater resistor mounted on it. The cell is thermally connected to a temperature-controlled cooling stage via a weak thermal link. The heater resistor is electrically connected to the array of Josephson junctions using superconducting wire. An rf-biased array of capacitively shunted Josephson junctions drives the voltage across the heater. The quantized voltage across the resistor is Vn = nf(h/2e), where h is Planck's constant, f is the array biasing frequency, e is the charge of an electron, and n is the integer quantum state of the Josephson array. This results in an electrical power dissipation on the cell of Pn = (Vn)(sup 2/R), where R is the heater resistance. The change of the quantum state of the array changes the power dissipated in the heater, which in turn, results in the change of the cell temperature. This temperature change is compared to the expected values based on the known thermal standoff resistance of the cell from the cooling stage. We will present our initial experimental results and discuss future improvements. This work has been funded by the Fundamental Physics Discipline of the Microgravity Science Office of NASA, and supported by a no-cost equipment loan from Sandia National Laboratories.

Green, Colin J.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Desert Research and Technology Study 2003 Trip Report/ICES Paper

The Advanced Extra-vehicular Activity (EVA) team of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) participated in the Desert Research and Technology Study (RATS) in September 2003, at Meteor Crater, AZ. The Desert RATS is an integrated remote field site te t with team members from several NASA centers (Johnson Space Center; Glenn and Ames Research Centers) and universities (Bowling Green State University, University of Cincinnati, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) participating. Each week of the two-week field test had a primary focus. The primary test hardware for the first week was the I-Gravity Lunar Rover Training Vehicle, or Grover, which was on loan to NASA from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Astrogeology Research Program. The 2003 Grover driving test results serve as a rover performance characterization baseline for the Science, Crew, Operation and Utility Testbed (SCOUT) project team, which will be designing and fabricating a next generation roving vehicle prototype in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004. The second week of testing focused on EVA geologic traverses that utilized a geologic sample field analysis science trailer and also focused on human-robotic interaction between the suited subjects and the EVA Robotic Assistant (ERA). This paper will review the Advanced EVA team's role in the context of the overall Desert RATS, as well as the EVA team results and lessons learned. For information regarding other test participants' results, the authors can refer interested parties to the test reports produced by those Desert RATS teams.

Ross, Amy↗

NASA NTRS2016

Green Propellant Landing Demonstration at U.S. Range

The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.

Propellant↗

NASA NTRS2016

Green Propellant Loading Demonstration at U.S. Range

The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.

Green Propellant↗