Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “throttle loss reduction”

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.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

The Evolution of Utilizing Manual Throttles to Avoid Low LH2 NPSP at the SSME Inlet

Even before the first flight of the Space Shuttle, it was understood low liquid hydrogen (LH2) Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) at the inlet to the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) can have adverse effects on engine operation. A number of failures within both the External Tank (ET) and the Orbiter Main Propulsion System could result in a low LH2 NPSP condition. Operational workarounds were developed to take advantage of the onboard crew s ability to manually throttle down the SSMEs, which alleviated the low LH2 NPSP condition. A throttling down of the SSME resulted in an increase in NPSP, mainly due to the reduction in frictional flow losses while at a lower throttle setting. As engineers refined their understanding of the NPSP requirements for the SSME (through a robust testing program), the operational techniques evolved to take advantage of these additional capabilities. Currently the procedure, which for early Space Shuttle missions required a Return-to-Launch-Site abort, now would result in a nominal Main Engine Cut Off (MECO) and no loss of mission objectives.

Henfling, Rick↗
NASA NTRS2010

The Evolution of Utilizing Manual Throttling to Avoid Excessively Low LH2 NPSP at the SSME Inlet

In the late 1970s, years before the Space Shuttle flew its maiden voyage, it was understood low liquid hydrogen (LH2) Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) at the inlet to the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) could have adverse effects on engine operation. A number of failures within both the External Tank (ET) and the Orbiter Main Propulsion System (MPS) could result in a low LH2 NPSP condition, which at extremely low levels can result in cavitation of SSME turbomachinery. Operational workarounds were developed to take advantage of the onboard crew s ability to manually throttle down the SSMEs (via the Pilot s Speedbrake/Throttle Controller), which alleviated the low LH2 NPSP condition. Manually throttling the SSME to a lower power level resulted in an increase in NPSP, mainly due to the reduction in frictional flow losses while at the lower throttle setting. Early in the Space Shuttle Program s history, the relevant Flight Rule for the Booster flight controller in Mission Control did not distinguish between ET and Orbiter MPS failures and the same crew action was taken for both. However, after a review of all Booster operational techniques following the Challenger disaster in the late 1980s, it was determined manually throttling the SSME to a lower power was only effective for Orbiter MPS failures and the Flight Rule was updated to reflect this change. The Flight Rule and associated crew actions initially called for a single throttle step to minimum power level when a low threshold for NPSP was met. As engineers refined their understanding of the NPSP requirements for the SSME (through a robust testing program), the operational techniques evolved to take advantage of the additional capabilities. This paper will examine the evolution of the Flight rule and associated procedure and how increases in knowledge about the SSME and the Space Shuttle vehicle as a whole have helped shape their development. What once was a single throttle step when NPSP decreased to a certain low threshold has now become three throttle steps, each occurring at a lower NPSP threshold. Additionally the procedure, which for early Space Shuttle missions required a Return-to-Launch-Site abort, now results in a nominal Main Engine Cut Off and no loss of mission objectives.

Henfling, Rick↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Evolution of Utilizing Manual Throttles to Avoid Excessively Low LH2 NPSP at the SSME Inlet

In the late 1970s, years before the Space Shuttle flew its maiden voyage, it was understood low liquid hydrogen (LH2) Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) at the inlet to the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) could have adverse effects on engine operation. A number of failures within both the External Tank (ET) and the Orbiter Main Propulsion System (MPS) could result in a low LH2 NPSP condition, which at extremely low levels can result in cavitation of SSME turbomachinery. Operational workarounds were developed to take advantage of the onboard crew s ability to manually throttle down the SSMEs (via the Pilot s Speedbrake/Throttle Controller), which alleviated the low LH2 NPSP condition. Manually throttling the SSME to a lower power level resulted in an increase in NPSP, mainly due to the reduction in frictional flow losses while at the lower throttle setting. Early in the Space Shuttle Program s history, the relevant Flight Rule for the Booster flight controllers in Mission Control did not distinguish between ET and Orbiter MPS failures and the same crew action was taken for both. However, after a review of all Booster operational techniques following the Challenger disaster in the late 1980s, it was determined manually throttling the SSME to a lower power was only effective for Orbiter MPS failures and the Flight Rule was updated to reflect this change. The Flight Rule and associated crew actions initially called for a single throttle step to minimum power level when a low threshold for NPSP was met. As engineers refined their understanding of the NPSP requirements for the SSME (through a robust testing program), the operational techniques evolved to take advantage of the additional capabilities. This paper will examine the evolution of the Flight rule and associated procedure and how increases in knowledge about the SSME and the Space Shuttle vehicle as a whole have helped shape their development. What once was a single throttle step when NPSP decreased to a certain threshold has now become three throttle steps, each occurring at a lower NPSP threshold. Additionally the procedure, which for early Space Shuttle missions required a Return-to-Launch-Site abort, now results in a nominal Main Engine Cut Off and no loss of mission objectives.

Henfling, Rick↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Isolator Shock Train Response to Dual-Mode Scramjet Throttling-Like Forcing

Typical dual-mode scramjet designs employ an isolator component situated between the inlet and combustor. The isolator fluidically buffers the inlet from the combustor via the formation of a shock train, an interconnected series of shock-boundary layer interactions. The isolator is required during ramjet-engine operation and at the lower edges of the scramjet operational envelope. In an operational engine, transient behavior imposes fluidic dynamics due to attitude adjustments, combustor throttling, aberrant resonances within the combustor, etc. To accommodate these transients, the shock train adjusts on both temporal and spatial scales. Sufficiently large downstream pressure increases in the combustor play a critical role during unstart, whereby strong compression waves propagate upstream in the isolator to ultimately force the shock train out the inlet, if it cannot stabilize to the pressure increase. This critically reduces the engine mass flow rate, potentially causing a catastrophic reduction in thrust and loss of the vehicle. A nearly instantaneous unstart can, in principle, be predicted by a ratio of the normal shock pressure jump in an inviscid isolator. However, lower-magnitude perturbations, below this bound, also induce unstarts. Understanding the transient behavior inherent in unsteady isolator operation is critical to reducing safety margin in isolator length and refining engine control algorithms to improve engine performance. The Isolator Dynamics Research Lab (IDRL) is a cold-flow, direct-connect isolator facility ideal for assessing the fundamental fluid dynamics of shock trains. The internal flow of a scramjet isolator is modeled using a 2D, symmetric Mach 2.5 nozzle followed by a 695 mm long, 25.4x50.8 mm rectangular isolator test section. A blockage cone on a high-speed ball screw actuator downstream of the isolator is pulsed to simulate the throttling behavior in an operational combustor. Wall flush high-speed static pressure transducers detect the streamwise shock train within the isolator. Time delays between the onset of the throttling and the response motion of the shock train are analyzed to assess the controlling scales and parameters. From this analysis, the response time of the isolator shock train system is found to depend primarily on the isolator back pressure time-rate-of-change but quickly saturates to a maximum propagation speed along the isolator. These results inform dual-mode scramjet engine designers of the critical parameters and limits of an unstart resistant engine.

scramjet↗
NASA NTRS2009

NEXT Long-Duration Test Neutralizer Performance and Erosion Characteristics

The NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) program is developing the next-generation ion propulsion system with significant enhancements beyond the state-of-the-art to provide future NASA science missions with enhanced capabilities at a low total development cost. A Long-Duration Test (LDT) was initiated in June 2005, to verify the NEXT propellant throughput capability to a qualification-level of 450 kg, 1.5 times the anticipated throughput requirement of 300 kg per thruster based on mission analyses. As of September 2, 2009, the thruster has accumulated 24,400 hr of operation with extensive durations at the following input powers: 6.9, 4.7, 1.1, and 0.5 kW. The thruster has processed 434 kg of xenon, surpassing the NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) program thruster propellant throughput demonstrated during the extended life testing of the Deep Space 1 flight spare ion thruster and approaching the NEXT development qualification throughput goal of 450 kg. The NEXT LDT has demonstrated a total impulse of 16.1 10(exp 6zzz0 N s; the highest total impulse ever demonstrated by an ion thruster. A reduction in neutralizer flow margin has been the only appreciable source of thruster performance degradation. The behavior of the neutralizer is not easily predicted due to both erosion and deposition observed in previous wear tests. Spot-to-plume mode transition flow data and in-situ erosion results for the LDT neutralizer are discussed. This loss of flow margin has been addressed through a combination of a design change in the prototype-model neutralizer to increase flow margin at low emission current and to update the NEXT throttle table to ensure adequate flow margin as a function of propellant throughput processed. The new throttle table will be used for future LDT operations. The performance of the NEXT LDT neutralizer is consistent with that observed for long-life hollow cathodes. The neutralizer life-limiting failure modes are progressing as expected and the neutralizer data indicate none of the neutralizer failures are imminent.

Herman, Daniel A.↗