Metal honeycomb to porous wireform substrate diffusion bond evaluation

Two nondestructive techniques were used to evaluate diffusion bond quality between a metal foil honeycomb and porous wireform substrate. The two techniques, cryographics and acousto-ultrasonics, are complementary in revealing variations of bond integrity and quality in shroud segments from an experimental aircraft turbine engine

NASA Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM) Version 3

The Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM) version 3 is NASAs most current and accurate model of the meteoroid environment. MEM 3 supersedes all previous versions of MEM, including MEM Release 2.0 (MEMR2), MEM Release 1.0c (MEMR1c), and previously internally controlled and released versions of MEMCxP v2.0 and LunarMEM v2.0. Earlier versions of MEM superseded older models of the meteoroid environment such as the Grn model and its derivative, Technical Memo 4527 (hereafter abbreviated as TM 4527) [1]. Prior to the establishment of the NASA Meteoroid Environment Office (MEO), NASAs meteoroid environment models relied on a simple empirical expression derived from [2], as described in [3] and later in [1]. This expression describes the meteoroid flux incident on a flat plate near 1 au. TM 4527 assumes an isotropic environment, making the orientation of the plate irrelevant [4]. The flux was combined with scale factors to account for the reduction in flux occurring when the Earth shields the spacecraft from a portion of the meteoroid environment and the enhancement in flux due to the focusing effect of Earths gravitational field. TM 4527 also introduced a crude, piecewise meteoroid speed distribution with an average velocity of 19 km/s for an orbiting spacecraft based on [5]. Finally, TM 4527 assumed a three-step density distribution in which dust particles smaller than 106 g have a density of 2 g/cu cm, micrometeoroids between 106 g and 0.01 g have a density of 1 g/cu cm, and meteoroids larger than 0.01 g have a density of 0.5 g/cm3. Thus, the meteoroid model presented in TM 4527 was assembled from multiple independent sources. The model of TM 4527 was also used for years in Space Station risk assessments, and is described in Space Station Specification (SSP) 30425

Spacecraft Risk Posed by the 2016 Perseid Outburst

The Perseids are one of the more prolific annual showers, known for high rates and for producing bright meteors. Outbursts of this shower have been noted in the 1860s, the early 1990s, 2004, and 2009, with the 1993 outburst being especially active (peak ZHR above 300). The 1993 Perseids also affected the space-faring nations, as the launch of the STS-51 mission was delayed by NASA until after the shower maximum due to an inability to predict the shower intensity, and the ESA telecommunications satellite Olympus suffered a mission-ending anomaly attributed to a static discharge caused by a Perseid impact [1]. Rates were again high (peak ZHR around 200) in 2009, when the NASA/USGS imaging satellite Landsat-5 experienced a gyro anomaly just before the shower peak; however in this case, the satellite was recovered and normal operations resumed one week later [2]. It is interesting to note that both spacecraft anomalies were not what is typically expected from meteoroid strikes, i.e., physical damage or an attitude displacement due to transfer of momentum. It would appear that the very fast Perseids (59 km s(sup -1) have a marked ability to produce plasma upon impact, which can then serve as a conductive path for discharge currents. The shower is expected to outburst again in 2016, and we present the results from the MSFC Meteoroid Stream Model [4], which predicts enhanced activity on a level similar to that of 2009 as the Earth passes through several debris trails on the night of August 11-12 (UT). We then compare our results to those of other modelers

Meteoroid Bulk Density and Ceplecha Types

Determination of asteroid bulk density is an important aspect of NEO characterization, yet difficult to measure. As a fraction of meteoroids originate from asteroids (including some NEOs), a study of meteoroid bulk densities can potentially provide useful insights into the densities of NEOs and PHOs in lieu of mutual perturbations, satellite, or expensive spacecraft missions. NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office characterizes the meteoroid environment for the purpose of spacecraft risk and operations. To accurately determine the risk, a distribution of meteoroid bulk densities are needed. This is not trivial to determine. If the particle survives to the ground the bulk density can be directly measured, however only the most dense particles land on the Earth. The next best approach is to model the meteor's ablation, which is not straightforward. Clear deceleration is necessary to do this and there are discrepancies in results between models. One approach to a distribution of bulk density is to use a measured proxy for the densities, then calibrate the proxy with known densities from meteorite falls, ablation modelling, and other sources. An obvious proxy choice is the Ceplecha type, K(sub B), thought to indicate the strength of a meteoroid. KB is frequented cited as a good proxy for meteoroid densities, but we find it is poorly correlated with density. However, a distinct split by dynamical type was seen with Jovian Tisserand parameter, T(sub J), with meteoroids from Halley Type comets (T(sub J less than 2 ) exhibiting much lower densities than those originating from Jupiter and asteroids (T(sub J greater than 2)

Simple guide to starting a research group

Conducting cutting-edge research and scholarship becomes more complicated with each passing year; forming a collaborative research group offers a way to navigate this increasing complexity. Yet many individuals whose work might benefit from the formation of a collaborative team may feel overwhelmed by the prospect of attempting to build and maintain a research group. We propose this simple guide for starting and maintaining such an enterprise

Insights from the 2006 Disease Management Colloquium

This roundtable discussion emanates from the presentations given and issues raised at the 2006 Disease Management Colloquium, which was held May 10–12, 2006 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania