Settled Cryogenic Propellant Transfer

Cryogenic propellant transfer can significantly benefit NASA s space exploration initiative. LMSSC parametric studies indicate that "Topping off" the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) in LEO with approx.20 mT of additional propellant using cryogenic propellant transfer increases the lunar delivered payload by 5 mT. Filling the EDS to capacity in LEO with 78 mT of propellants increases the delivered payload by 20 mT. Cryogenic propellant transfer is directly extensible to Mars exploration in that it provides propellant for the Mars Earth Departure stage and in-situ propellant utilization at Mars. To enable the significant performance increase provided by cryogenic propellant transfer, the reliability and robustness of the transfer process must be guaranteed. By utilizing low vehicle acceleration during the cryogenic transfer the operation is significantly simplified and enables the maximum use of existing, reliable, mature upper stage cryogenic-fluid-management (CFM) techniques. Due to settling, large-scale propellant transfer becomes an engineering effort, and not the technology development endeavor required with zero-gravity propellant transfer. The following key CFM technologies are all currently implemented by settling on both the Centaur and Delta IV upper stages: propellant acquisition, hardware chilldown, pressure control, and mass gauging. The key remaining technology, autonomous rendezvous and docking, is already in use by the Russians, and must be perfected for NASA whether the use of propellant transfer is utilized or not

D0 Silicon Upgrade: Upgrade Piping Loads on Cleanroom Roof

The proposed piping layout for the DO upgrade will run along the south wall of DAB. The cryogenic service pipe runs above the upper and lower cleanroom roofs and will need to be supported by the roofs beams. Calculations were done to determine the stresses in the I-beams created by the existing and additional loads due to the upgrade. Refer to drawing no. 3823.115-ME-317283 for drawings of the piping layout. Figure 1 shows the 'plan view' portion of this drawing. The weight of the individual lines were calculated in figure 2 assuming a pipe density of O.28 lbm/in{sup 3} for stainless steel (0.12% C) and a fluid density (assuming LN2 at 1 atm) of 0.03 lbm/in{sup 3}. The weights of the corrugated steel flooring, assembly hall feed cans, support beams, and roof hatch were also included in the analysis. These loads are calculated on pgs. 5-6. A floor load of 50 lbf/ft{sup 2} was also added in order to maintain the existing floor load limit in addition to the added piping loads. Measurements of the dimensions of the I-beams determined that the nominal sizes of the beams were W8 x 21 for the lower roof and W14 x 26 for the upper roof. Pipe lengths were determined from the drawing for each of the lines on pgs. 1-2 of the calculations (refer to all piping by line numbers according to figure 2). A total weight was calculated for lines 3-9 along the south wall and lines 1-2 running along the north wall of the lower cleanroom roof. To simplify the calculations these weights were assumed to be evenly distributed on the 5 I-beam supports of the lower cleanroom roof 2.5 feet in from the south wall. The stress analysis was done using FrameMac, a 2-D finite element program for the Macintosh. Beam 3 was not included in the analysis because it is structurally equivalent to beam 1. The program outputted maximum values for shear stress, bending stress, shear force, and moments in each of the beams analyzed. These values were then compared to the allowable stresses as per the specifications and codes stated in the AISC: Manual of Steel Construction. The stresses on the roof beams needed to be determined in a number of different places. The first was in the beam itself which included the flange and web sections. The second place was at the ends of the beams where the flanges were removed to make the perpendicular connections to the other beams on the lower roof. The final point was the framed beam connection which included the bolt analysis. FrameMac calculated stresses only for the beams which included the sections where the flanges were removed to make the end connections. To analyze the connections, the allowable bending and shear stresses were solved for allowable shear and moments. This was done because FrameMac does not have the capability to analyze the dimensions for the bolts and angles used in the connections were known and the program outputted values for reaction forces and moments at the ends of the beams. Multiplying the allowable shear stress for the bolts and angle connections by their respective areas gave the allowable shear force. The allowable moment for the angle connection was calculated by multiplying the section modulus of the angle by the allowable bending stress. These allowable loads are calculated on pgs. 7-8. The allowable and maximum calculated stresses by FrameMac are summarized in a table. In conclusion, the cleanroom roofs will be able to safely support the weight of the upgrade cryogenic piping, feed cans, corrugated flooring and a 50 lbf/ft{sup 2} floor load with the addition of diagonal braces at the ends of beams 1,2,3,4, and 8. The location and size of these diagonal braces are shown in fig. 4. Also, the piping supports and feed cans will all need to be placed directly above the I-beam supports. These supports will consist of unistrut structures that will be detailed and specified separate to this analysis. The output and input data from FrameMac and the drawings used in the analysis follow the calculation pages

D0 Silicon Upgrade: Pipe Sizing for Solenoid / VLPC Cryogenic Systems

The addition of a solenoid magnet and VLPC detectors are two of a number of upgrades which will occur at the D-Zero detector in the near future. Both of these upgrades will require cryogenic services for their operation. The purpose of this engineering note is to document the pipe/tube size choices made for these cryogenic services. This was done by calculating the required flow rates to cool down the magnet and VLPC's over a reasonable length of time and to determine the required piping sizes for a given allowable pressure drop. The pressure drops for steady state conditions also are addressed. The cool down requirements drove the pipe size decision. The raw engineering calculations that were done for this project are included as an appendix to this note. The body of this document discusses the methods and results of the calculations. As a quick summary, Figures 1 and 2 show the size selections. Tables 1 and 2 give a more detailed size and description of each section of Solenoid and VLPC transfer line