Building Thermal Models

This presentation is meant to be an overview of the model building process It is based on typical techniques (Monte Carlo Ray Tracing for radiation exchange, Lumped Parameter, Finite Difference for thermal solution) used by the aerospace industry This is not intended to be a "How to Use ThermalDesktop" course. It is intended to be a "How to Build Thermal Models" course and the techniques will be demonstrated using the capabilities of ThermalDesktop (TD). Other codes may or may not have similar capabilities. The General Model Building Process can be broken into four top level steps: 1. Build Model; 2. Check Model; 3. Execute Model; 4. Verify Results

Use of a Hybrid Edge Node-Centroid Node Approach to Thermal Modeling

A recent proposal submitted for an ESA mission required that models be delivered in ESARAD/ESAT AN formats. ThermalDesktop was the preferable analysis code to be used for model development with a conversion done as the final step before delivery. However, due to some differences between the capabilities of the two codes, a unique approach was developed to take advantage of the edge node capability of ThermalDesktop while maintaining the centroid node approach used by ESARAD. In essence, two separate meshes were used: one for conduction and one for radiation. The conduction calculations were eliminated from the radiation surfaces and the capacitance and radiative calculations were eliminated from the conduction surfaces. The resulting conduction surface nodes were coincident with all nodes of the radiation surface and were subsequently merged, while the nodes along the edges remained free. Merging of nodes on the edges of adjacent surfaces provided the conductive links between surfaces. Lastly, all nodes along edges were placed into the subnetwork and the resulting supernetwork included only the nodes associated with radiation surfaces. This approach had both benefits and disadvantages. The use of centroid, surface based radiation reduces the overall size of the radiation network, which is often the most computationally intensive part of the modeling process. Furthermore, using the conduction surfaces and allowing ThermalDesktop to calculate the conduction network can save significant time by not having to manually generate the couplings. Lastly, the resulting GMM/TMM models can be exported to formats which do not support edge nodes. One drawback, however, is the necessity to maintain two sets of surfaces. This requires additional care on the part of the analyst to ensure communication between the conductive and radiative surfaces in the resulting overall network. However, with more frequent use of this technique, the benefits of this approach can far outweigh the additional effort

Gaps in Thermal Design Guidelines in the Goddard Space Flight Center GOLD Rules

The GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) GOLD Rules (Goddard Open Learning Design; GSFC-STD-1000) provide a reasonably comprehensive list of guidelines for the design and testing of spacecraft and instruments based on the long heritage of successful GSFC missions. In general, all GSFC missions are required to comply with the GOLD Rules across a number of subsystems or to seek waivers to particular GOLD rules where compliance is not practical, either due to the risk posture of a mission or the cost and/or schedule associated with compliance. In thermal subsystems, GOLD Rules are applied to design margins throughout the project life cycle and include temperature margins, heater power margins, and two-phase transport margins. However, no explicit guidance is provided for two thermal design aspects: heater control authority (for stability requirements) and cryogenic design margins (which are often not reasonable to express in terms of temperatures). This can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency among projects when demonstrating GOLD Rules compliance. Two current GSFC projects, TIRS-2 (Thermal InfraRed Sensor 2) and WFIRST (Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope), are both missions with cryogenic aspects and active thermal control for stability. This paper seeks to outline the characterization of cryogenic margins during the design process for TIRS-2 and WFIRST as well as the project derived guidelines for heater control authority margin. This effort serves as potential first steps for updating the GOLD Rules to address these two areas in guiding thermal designs at GSFC

Partnering with Industry: Lessons Learned from the Wide Field Instrument on the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope Mission

No abstract availabl

Mission Life Thermal Analysis and Environment Correlation for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Standard thermal analysis practices include stacking worst-case conditions including environmental heat loads, thermo-optical properties and orbital beta angles. This results in the design being driven by a few bounding thermal cases, although those cases may only represent a very small portion of the actual mission life. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Thermal Branch developed a procedure to predict the flight temperatures over the entire mission life, assuming a known beta angle progression, variation in the thermal environment, and a degradation rate in the coatings. This was applied to the Global Precipitation Measurement core spacecraft. In order to assess the validity of this process, this work applies the similar process to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. A flight-correlated thermal model was exercised to give predictions of the thermal performance over the mission life. These results were then compared against flight data from the first two years of the spacecraft s use. This is used to validate the process and to suggest possible improvements for future analyses

Partnering with Industry: Lessons Learned from the Wide Field Instrument on the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope Mission

Through most of the project formulation prior to Phase A, the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope (WFIRST) project was developed as a Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in house mission with one secondary instrument developed by JPL and an existing telescope donated from elsewhere in the federal government and managed by the original industry vendor. GSFC was responsible for the spacecraft bus, the instrument supporting structure and the Wide Field Instrument (WFI), which provides the primary science for the mission. Shortly before the beginning of Phase A, NASA codified its acquisition strategy for WFIRST to explore a more substantial role for industry in the mission. The project decided to have a large portion of the WFI be co-developed by industry. This paper describes lessons learned and recommendations for bringing potential industry partners into a project at later stages of conceptual design and presents viewpoints from both the vendor and customer on the experience with WFIRST

Lessons Learned from the Wide Field Camera 3 TV1 Test Campaign and Correlation Effort

In January 2004, shortly after the Columbia accident, future servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) were cancelled. In response to this, further work on the Wide Field Camera 3 instrument was ceased. Given the maturity level of the design, a characterization thermal test (TV1) was completed in case the mission was re-instated or an alternate mission found on which to fly the instrument. This thermal test yielded some valuable lessons learned with respect to testing configurations and modeling/correlation practices, including: 1. Ensure that the thermal design can be tested 2. Ensure that the model has sufficient detail for accurate predictions 3. Ensure that the power associated with all active control devices is predicted 4. Avoid unit changes for existing models. This paper documents the difficulties presented when these recommendations were not followed

Considerations When Building Thermal Models that Require Conversion Between Formats

At times, it is inevitable to require conversion of thermal models from one software format to another. This most often occurs for missions with international partners where not all parties utilize the same software packages for thermal analysis. Mandating a single tool for all parties is one possible solution, but this approach can introduce problems if significant effort is required to overcome inexperience with the designated tool and may result in difficulty meeting analysis schedule requirements. Alternatively, allowing all parties to use their own familiar tools minimizes the impact to analysis schedules but does introduce the need to convert the models later to a common format for analysis at a higher level of assembly. External conversion tools and formats have been developed through the years to aid in this process, but have had limited success in fully converting models seamlessly. Having a basic familiarity with tool capabilities on both sides of the conversion process allows for models to be built in a manner to better facilitate conversion by avoiding features and capabilities which are unsupported by the destination tool or for which no workarounds exist. Also, the effort to convert a model is often neglected when developing the schedules for analysis at the higher assembly levels; delivery of models preconditioned for convertibility minimizes the schedule risk. This paper seeks to provide some guidance on modeling techniques to avoid when developing Geometrical Math Models (GMM) and Thermal Math Models (TMM) when conversion is required. The recommendations are based on GMM conversion experiences between TSS/ThermalDesktop/ESARAD and TMM conversions between SINDA-FLUINT/ESATAN

Resource Management and Contingencies in Aerospace Concurrent Engineering

significant concern in designing complex systems implementing new technologies is that while knowledge about the system is acquired incrementally, substantial financial commitments, even make-or-break decisions, must be made upfront, essentially in the unknown. One practice that helps in dealing with this dichotomy is the smart embedding of contingencies and margins in the design to serve as buffers against surprises. This issue presents itself in full force in the aerospace industry, where unprecedented systems are formulated and committed to as a matter of routine. As more and more aerospace mission concepts are generated by concurrent design laboratories, it is imperative that such laboratories apply well thought-out contingency and margin structures to their designs. The first part of this publication provides an overview of resource management techniques and standards used in the aerospace industry. That is followed by a thought provoking treatise on margin policies. The expose presents the actual flight telemetry data recorded by the thermal discipline during several recent NASA Goddard Space Flight Center missions. The margins actually achieved in flight are compared against pre-flight predictions, and the appropriateness and the ramifications of having designed with rigid margins to bounding stacked worst case conditions are assessed. The second half of the paper examines the particular issues associated with the application of contingencies and margins in the concurrent engineering environment. In closure, a discipline-by-discipline disclosure of the contingency and margin policies in use at the Integrated Design Center at NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center is made

Lessons Learned During Instrument Testing for the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS)

The Themal InfraRed Sensor (TIRS) instrument, set to launch on the Landsat Data Continuity Mission in 2013, features a passively cooled telescope and IR detectors which are actively cooled by a two stage cryocooler. In order to proceed to the instrument level test campaign, at least one full functional test was required, necessitating a thermal vacuum test to sufficiently cool the detectors and demonstrate performance. This was fairly unique in that this test occurred before the Pre Environmental Review, but yielded significant knowledge gains before the planned instrument level test. During the pre-PER test, numerous discrepancies were found between the model and the actual hardware, which were revealed by poor correlation between model predictions and test data. With the inclusion of pseudo-balance points, the test also provided an opportunity to perform a pre-correlation to test data prior to the instrument level test campaign. Various lessons were learned during this test related to modeling and design of both the flight hardware and the Ground Support Equipment and test setup. The lessons learned in the pre-PER test resulted in a better test setup for the nstrument level test and the completion of the final instrument model correlation in a shorter period of time. Upon completion of the correlation, the flight predictions were generated including the full suite of off-nominal cases, including some new cases defined by the spacecraft. For some of these new cases, some components now revealed limit exceedances, in particular for a portion of the hardware that could not be tested due to its size and chamber limitations.. Further lessons were learned during the completion of flight predictions. With a correlated detalled instrument model, significant efforts were made to generate a reduced model suitable for observatory level analyses. This proved a major effort both to generate an appropriate network as well as to convert to the final model to the required format and yielded additional lessons learned. In spite of all the challenges encountered by TIRS, the instrument was successfully delivered to the spacecraft and will soon be tested at observatory level in preparation for a successful mission launch