Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
-
Similar Topics
-
By NASA
4 min read
Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
NASA/Quincy Eggert NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, is preparing today for tomorrow’s mission. Supersonic flight, next generation aircraft, advanced air mobility, climate changes, human exploration of space, and the next innovation are just some of the topics our researchers, engineers, and mission support teams focused on in 2024.
NASA Armstrong began 2024 with the public debut of the X-59 quiet supersonic research aircraft. Through the unique design of the X-59, NASA aims to reduce the sonic boom to make it much quieter, potentially opening the future to commercial supersonic flight over land. Throughout the first part of the year, NASA and international researchers studied air quality across Asia as part of a global effort to better understand the air we breathe. Later in the year, for the first time, a NASA-funded researcher conducted an experiment aboard a commercial suborbital rocket, studying how changes in gravity during spaceflight affect plant biology.
Here’s a look at more NASA Armstrong accomplishments throughout 2024:
Our simulation team began work on NASA’s X-66 simulator, which will use an MD-90 cockpit and allow pilots and engineers to run real-life scenarios in a safe environment. NASA Armstrong engineers completed and tested a model of a truss-braced wing design, laying the groundwork for improved commercial aircraft aerodynamics. NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility mission and supporting projects worked with industry partners who are building innovative new aircraft like electric air taxis. We explored how these new designs may help passengers and cargo move between and inside cities efficiently. The team began testing with a custom virtual reality flight simulator to explore the air taxi ride experience. This will help designers create new aircraft with passenger comfort in mind. Researchers also tested a new technology that will help self-flying aircraft avoid hazards. A NASA-developed computer software tool called OVERFLOW helped several air taxi companies predict aircraft noise and aerodynamic performance. This tool allows manufacturers to see how new design elements would perform, saving the aerospace industry time and money. Our engineers designed a camera pod with sensors at NASA Armstrong to help advance computer vision for autonomous aviation and flew this pod at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA’s Quesst mission marked a major milestone with the start of tests on the engine that will power the quiet supersonic X-59 experimental aircraft. In February and March, NASA joined international researchers in Asia to investigate pollution sources. The now retired DC-8 and NASA Langley Gulfstream III aircraft collected air measurements over the Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and Taiwan. Combined with ground and satellite observations, these measurements continue to enrich global discussions about pollution origins and solutions. The Gulfstream IV joined NASA Armstrong’s fleet of airborne science platforms. Our teams modified the aircraft to accommodate a next-generation science instrument that will collect terrain information of the Earth in a more capable, versatile, and maintainable way. The ER-2 and the King Air supported the development of spaceborne instruments by testing them in suborbital settings. On the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem Postlaunch Airborne eXperiment mission (PACE-PAX), the ER-2 validated data collected by the PACE satellite about the ocean, atmosphere, and surfaces. Operating over several countries, researchers onboard NASA’s C-20A collected data and images of Earth’s surface to understand global ecosystems, natural hazards, and land surface changes. Following Hurricane Milton, the C-20A flew over affected areas to collect data that could help inform disaster response in the future. We also tested nighttime precision landing technologies that safely deliver spacecraft to hazardous locations with limited visibility. With the goal to improve firefighter safety, NASA, the U.S. Forest Service, and industry tested a cell tower in the sky. The system successfully provided persistent cell coverage, enabling real-time communication between firefighters and command posts. Using a 1960s concept wingless, powered aircraft design, we built and tested an atmospheric probe to better and more economically explore giant planets. NASA Armstrong hosted its first Ideas to Flight workshop, where subject matter experts shared how to accelerate research ideas and technology development through flight. These are just some of NASA Armstrong’s many innovative research efforts that support NASA’s mission to explore the secrets of the universe for the benefit of all.
Share
Details
Last Updated Dec 20, 2024 EditorDede DiniusContactSarah Mannsarah.mann@nasa.govLocationArmstrong Flight Research Center Related Terms
Armstrong Flight Research Center Advanced Air Mobility Aeronautics C-20A DC-8 Earth Science ER-2 Flight Opportunities Program Quesst (X-59) Sustainable Flight Demonstrator Explore More
2 min read NASA, Notre Dame Connect Students to Inspire STEM Careers
Article 5 hours ago 2 min read NASA Flight Rerouting Tool Curbs Delays, Emissions
Article 5 hours ago 5 min read NASA Technologies Aim to Solve Housekeeping’s Biggest Issue – Dust
During the flight test with Blue Origin, seven technologies developed by NASA’s Game Changing Development…
Article 7 days ago Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
Armstrong Flight Research Center
Armstrong Programs & Projects
Armstrong Technologies
Armstrong Capabilities & Facilities
View the full article
-
By NASA
A rendering of Firefly’s Blue Ghost lunar lander and a rover developed for the company’s third mission to the Moon as part of NASA’s CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) initiative.Credit: Firefly Aerospace NASA continues to advance its campaign to explore more of the Moon than ever before, awarding Firefly Aerospace $179 million to deliver six experiments to the lunar surface. This fourth task order for Firefly will target landing in the Gruithuisen Domes on the near side of the Moon in 2028.
As part of the agency’s broader Artemis campaign, Firefly will deliver a group of science experiments and technology demonstrations under NASA’s CLPS initiative, or Commercial Lunar Payload Services, to these lunar domes, an area of ancient lava flows, to better understand planetary processes and evolution. Through CLPS, NASA is furthering our understanding of the Moon’s environment and helping prepare for future human missions to the lunar surface, as part of the agency’s Moon to Mars exploration approach.
“The CLPS initiative carries out U.S. scientific and technical studies on the surface of the Moon by robot explorers. As NASA prepares for future human exploration of the Moon, the CLPS initiative continues to support a growing lunar economy with American companies,” said Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for exploration, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Understanding the formation of the Gruithuisen Domes, as well as the ancient lava flows surrounding the landing site, will help the U.S. answer important questions about the lunar surface.”
Firefly’s first lunar delivery is scheduled to launch no earlier than mid-January 2025 and will land near a volcanic feature called Mons Latreille within Mare Crisium, on the northeast quadrant of the Moon’s near side. Firefly’s second lunar mission includes two task orders: a lunar orbit drop-off of a satellite combined with a delivery to the lunar surface on the far side and a delivery of a lunar orbital calibration source, scheduled in 2026.
This new delivery in 2028 will send payloads to the Gruithuisen Domes and the nearby Sinus Viscositatus. The Gruithuisen Domes have long been suspected to be formed by a magma rich in silica, similar in composition to granite. Granitic rocks form easily on Earth due to plate tectonics and oceans of water. The Moon lacks these key ingredients, so lunar scientists have been left to wonder how these domes formed and evolved over time. For the first time, as part of this task order, NASA also has contracted to provide “mobility,” or roving, for some of the scientific instruments on the lunar surface after landing. This will enable new types of U.S. scientific investigations from CLPS.
“Firefly will deliver six instruments to understand the landing site and surrounding vicinity,” said Chris Culbert, manager of the CLPS initiative at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. “These instruments will study geologic processes and lunar regolith, test solar cells, and characterize the neutron radiation environment, supplying invaluable information as NASA works to establish a long-term presence on the Moon.”
The instruments, collectively expected to be about 215 pounds (97 kilograms) in mass, include:
Lunar Vulkan Imaging and Spectroscopy Explorer, which consists of two stationary and three mobile instruments, will study rocks and regoliths on the summit of one of the domes to determine their origin and better understand geologic processes of early planetary bodies. The principal investigator is Dr. Kerri Donaldson Hanna of the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Heimdall is a flexible camera system that will be used to take pictures of the landing site from above the horizon to the ground directly below the lander. The principal investigator is Dr. R. Aileen Yingst of the Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona. Sample Acquisition, Morphology Filtering, and Probing of Lunar Regolith is a robotic arm that will collect samples of lunar regolith and use a robotic scoop to filter and isolate particles of different sizes. The sampling technology will use a flight spare from the Mars Exploration Rover project. The principal investigator is Sean Dougherty of Maxar Technologies, Westminster, Colorado. Low-frequency Radio Observations from the Near Side Lunar Surface is designed to observe the Moon’s surface environment in radio frequencies, to determine whether natural and human-generated activity near the surface interferes with science. The project is headed up by Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Photovoltaic Investigation on the Lunar Surface will carry a set of the latest solar cells for a technology demonstration of light-to-electricity power conversion for future missions. The experiment will also collect data on the electrical charging environment of the lunar surface using a small array of solar cells. The principal investigator is Jeremiah McNatt from NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. Neutron Measurements at the Lunar Surface is a neutron spectrometer that will characterize the surface neutron radiation environment, monitor hydrogen, and provide constraints on elemental composition. The principal investigator is Dr. Heidi Haviland of NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Through the CLPS initiative, NASA purchases lunar landing and surface operations services from American companies. The agency uses CLPS to send scientific instruments and technology demonstrations to advance capabilities for science, exploration, or commercial development of the Moon. By supporting a robust cadence of lunar deliveries, NASA will continue to enable a growing lunar economy while leveraging the entrepreneurial innovation of the commercial space industry. Two upcoming CLPS flights scheduled to launch in early 2025 will deliver NASA payloads to the Moon’s near side and south polar region, respectively.
Learn more about CLPS and Artemis at:
https://www.nasa.gov/clps
-end-
Alise Fisher
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-2546
alise.m.fisher@nasa.gov
Natalia Riusech / Nilufar Ramji
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
natalia.s.riusech@nasa.gov / nilufar.ramji@nasa.gov
Share
Details
Last Updated Dec 18, 2024 LocationNASA Headquarters Related Terms
Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) Artemis View the full article
-
By Space Force
The mission successfully achieved a complex effort across multiple Space Force organizations to pull an existing GPS III satellite from storage, accelerate integration and launch vehicle readiness, and rapidly process for launch.
View the full article
-
By NASA
This article is from the 2024 Technical Update
Autonomous flight termination systems (AFTS) are being progressively employed onboard launch vehicles to replace ground personnel and infrastructure needed to terminate flight or destruct the vehicle should an anomaly occur. This automation uses on-board real-time data and encoded logic to determine if the flight should be self-terminated. For uncrewed launch vehicles, FTS systems are required to protect the public and governed by the United States Space Force (USSF). For crewed missions, NASA must augment range AFTS requirements for crew safety and certify each flight according to human rating standards, thus adding unique requirements for reuse of software originally intended for uncrewed missions. This bulletin summarizes new information relating to AFTS to raise awareness of key distinctions, summarize considerations and outline best practices for incorporating AFTS into human-rated systems.
Key Distinctions – Crewed v. Uncrewed
There are inherent behavioral differences between uncrewed and crewed AFTS related to design philosophy and fault tolerance. Uncrewed AFTS generally favor fault tolerance against failure-to-destruct over failing silent
in the presence of faults. This tenet permeates the design, even downto the software unit level. Uncrewed AFTS become zero-fault-to-destruct tolerant to many unrecoverable AFTS errors, whereas general single fault
tolerance against vehicle destruct is required for crewed missions. Additionally, unique needs to delay destruction for crew escape, provide abort options and special rules, and assess human-in-the-loop insight, command, and/or override throughout a launch sequence must be considered and introduces additional requirements and integration complexities.
AFTS Software Architecture Components and Best-Practice Use Guidelines
A detailed study of the sole AFTS currently approved by USSF and utilized/planned for several launch vehicles was conducted to understand its characteristics, and any unique risk and mitigation techniques for effective human-rating reuse. While alternate software systems may be designed in the future, this summary focuses on an architecture employing the Core Autonomous Safety Software (CASS). Considerations herein are intended for extrapolation to future systems. Components of the AFTS software architecture are shown, consisting of the CASS, “Wrapper”, and Mission Data Load (MDL) along with key characteristics and use guidelines. A more comprehensive description of each and recommendations for developmental use is found in Ref. 1.
Best Practices Certifying AFTS Software
Below are non-exhaustive guidelines to help achieve a human-rating
certification for an AFTS.
References
NASA/TP-20240009981: Best Practices and Considerations for Using
Autonomous Flight Termination Software In Crewed Launch Vehicles
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240009981 “Launch Safety,” 14 C.F.R., § 417 (2024). NPR 8705.2C, Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems, Jul 2017,
nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/ NASA Software Engineering Requirements, NPR 7150.2D, Mar 2022,
nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/ RCC 319-19 Flight Termination Systems Commonality Standard, White
Sands, NM, June 2019. “Considerations for Software Fault Prevention and Tolerance”, NESC
Technical Bulletin No. 23-06 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230013383 “Safety Considerations when Repurposing Commercially Available Flight
Termination Systems from Uncrewed to Crewed Launch Vehicles”, NESC
Technical Bulletin No. 23-02 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230001890 View the full article
-
By NASA
This article is from the 2024 Technical Update.
The NESC evaluated material compatibility of some common aerospace metals in monomethylhydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (MON-3). Previous work had identified a lack of quantitative compatibility data for nickel alloy 718, 300 series stainless steel, and titanium Ti-6Al-4V in MMH and MON-3 to support the use of zero-failure-tolerant, thin-walled pressure barriers in these propellants. Static (i.e., not flowing) general corrosion and electrochemistry testing was conducted, evaluating varied processing forms and heat treatment of the metals, water content of propellant, and exposure duration. Corrosion-rate data for all tested product forms, fluids, and durations were on the order of 1 x 10–6 inch per year rather than the previously documented “less than 1 x 10–3 inch per year”. The majority of the corrosion products were seen in the first 20 days of exposure, with an overall corrosion rate decreasing with time due to the increased divisor (time). It is therefore recommended that corrosion testing be performed at multiple short-term durations to inform the need for longer-duration testing.
Background
Nickel alloy 718, 300 series stainless steel, and Ti-6Al-4V are commonly used in storable propulsion systems (i.e., MMH/MON-3), but a concern was raised regarding what quantitative compatibility data were available for proposed zero-failure-tolerant, thin-walled (~0.005 to 0.010 inch thickness) pressure barrier designs. A literature search found that limited and conflicting data were available for commonly used aerospace metals in MMH and MON-3. For example, corrosion behavior was listed qualitatively (e.g., “A” rating), data on materials and fluids tested were imprecise, fluids were identified as contaminated without describing how they were contaminated, no compatibility data were found on relevant geometry specimens (i.e., very thin-walled or convoluted), and limited data were available to quantify differences between tested materials and flight components. When corrosion data were quantified, documented sensitivity was “1 x 10–3 inch per year or less”, which is insufficient for assessing long-duration, thin-walled, flight-weight applications.
Discussion
General corrosion testing was performed with a static/non-flowing configuration based on NASA-STD-6001, Test 15 [1]. Design of experiments methods were used to develop a test matrix varying material, propellant, propellant water content, and tested duration. Materials tested were nickel alloy 718 (solution annealed sheet, aged sheet, aged/welded sheet, and hydroformed bellows), 300 series stainless steel (low carbon sheet, titanium stabilized sheet, and hydroformed bellows), and Ti 6Al-4V sheet. Samples were tested in sealed test tubes in MMH and MON-3 with water content ranging from as-received (“dry”) up to specification allowable limits [2,3]. Tested durations ranged from 20 to 365 days. Measurements included inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) to identify corrosion products and their concentrations in test fluid, gravimetric (i.e., scale) measurements pre- and post-exposure, and visual inspection. Bimetallic pairs (titanium stabilized 300 series stainless steel: Ti 6Al-4V and nickel alloy 718: Ti 6Al-4V) were tested for up to 65 days in both MMH and MON-3. The test setup incorporated important features of the test standard (e.g., electrode spacing and finish) and adapted the configuration for MMH/MON-3 operation. Measurements included potential difference and current flow between samples. Figure 1 shows images of the general corrosion and bimetallic pair test setups.
Test Results
For all tested materials and product forms, corrosion rates were on the order of 1 x 10–6 inch per year in MMH or MON-3, three orders of magnitude lower than historically reported. Corrosion products were generated in the first 20 days of exposure, and corrosion rate decreased with time due to the increase in divisor (i.e., time). Corrosion products increased as the water content of the propellants increased but remained in the same order of magnitude between the as-received dry propellant and propellant containing the maximum water content allowed by specification. Figure 2 illustrates test results for corrosion rate, mass loss with duration, and mass loss with water content. It is important to note that water has been demonstrated to contribute to flow decay even when water is within the specification allowable limit, and previous NASA-STD-6001 Test 15 data have demonstrated susceptibility of some nickel alloys to crevice-type corrosion attack [4]. Therefore, these results do not reduce the importance of considering the system impact of water content and evaluating for crevice corrosion behavior. Finally, in the bimetallic pair testing, tested materials did not measurably corrode in MON-3 and MMH within specification-allowable water content, as evidenced by no visual indications of corrosion and very low electrical interaction (i.e., corrosion rates derived to be less than 1 microinch per year from electrical interaction).
Recommendations
It is recommended that corrosion testing be performed at multiple shortterm durations to inform the need for longer-duration testing.
References
NASA-STD-6001 Flammability, Odor, Offgassing, and Compatibility Requirements
and Test Procedures for Materials In Environments that Support Combustion MIL-PRF-27404 Performance Specification: Propellant, Monomethylhydrazine MIL-PRF-26539 Performance Specification: Propellants, Dinitrogen Tetroxide WSTF Test 15 Report 12-45708 and WSTF Test 15 Report 13-46207 View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.