Thermal conductance measurements on space suit thermal insulation candidate

Fried, E.

Hieser, G.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

General Disclaimer 
One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document 
 
 This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the 
organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as 
much information as possible. 
 
 This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was 
furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy 
available. 
 
 This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, 
which have been reproduced in black and white. 
 
 This document is paginated as submitted by the original source. 
 
 Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some 
of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original 
submission. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI) 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19680027638 2020-03-12T05:46:45+00:00Z
MISSILEn,AND SPACE
DIVISION
I
I
	
rP0 PRICE	 $
CFSTI PRICE(S) $
Hard copy (HC)
	
Microf-'che (MF)
	 l
M 653 July 65
N 5 8 — 37-17 (A rs„tON NJ
aO 	 (PGES)
u (NASA	 TaA% OR AD NU BER)a
-- ---- (THR^1)
(toQU
(CATEGORY)
GENEHAL^ ELECTRIC
DOCUMENT NO, 057SD4388A
5 AUGUST 1968
SUPPLEMENT TO
FINAL REPORT
MEASUREMENT OF THERMAL CONDUCTANCE
OF MULTILAYER AND OTHER INSULATION
MATERIALS
BY
ERWIN FRIED
GERALD HIESER
PREPARED FOR
CREW SYSTEMS DIVISION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER
HOUSTON,TEXAS
CONTRACT NAS 9-368 OD. NO. 6
J
GENERAL 0 ELECTRIC
MISSILE AND SPACE DIVISION
Valley Forge Space Technology Center
P, O. Box 8555 • Philadelphia, Penna. 19101
PRECMING PAGE BLANP^ NOT FILI'v E. .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A-1
A-1
A-7
A-10
A•11
A-11
Section
A.1	 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	 . . . .
AF 2	 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. 3	 GOLD ON MYLAR TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4	 CONCLUSIONS
	
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.5	 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. 6	 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11JJr
R^
i`
tr
r
i
V
c
r$$ n
N
111
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
	 Page
A-1	 Schematic of Insulation Layups 	 .	 . .	 A-2
A-2	 Effective Thermal Conductance versus Sample Thickness . . . . 	 A-4
A-3
	 Thermal Insulation Conductivity versus Average Temperature 	 A-5
A-4	 Crinkling of Insulation by Drawing Through Teflon Die . 	 A-8
A-5
	 Gold-on-Mylar after Crinkling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 	 A-8
A-6	 Exploded View of Test Sample Layup . . . . . . . . . . .
	 A-9
A-7
	 Gold-on-Mylar after Test . . . . . . . .
	 . . . . .
	 A-10
W
4
f
iv
r
U
n
ak
^t
ADDENDUM "All
MEASUREMENT OF THERMAL CONDUCTANCE OF
MULTILAXER AND OTHER INSULATION
A. 1  INTRODUCTION
This report is provided in partial fulfillment of Contract NAS9-3685, Modification No. 6.
It is presented as an addendum to the final .report of the preceding phase of this contract,
"Measurement of Thermal Conductance of Multilayer and other Insulations, " General
Electric Company Report No. 67SD4388, dated September 1967 (Reference 1).
The work performed during the current phase of this contract, covering the period March
21, 1968,to June 21, 1968,was similar to that of Task 2 of Reference 1. The same test
apparatus and measurement techniques were used in this new Task 7A as were previously used
in Task 2 and are described in detail in Reference 1.
The objective of Task 7A was to obtain thermal conductance measurements for additional
spacesuit thermal insulation candidates under varying degrees of compression. Boundary
temperatures varied from -320 to +285 0F with the body side temperature held at about 70aF
in all cases.
The majority of test points at test conditions of interest were obtained for a laminated alu-
minized 1/2-mil Kapton - Beta - glass marquisette insulation made by Schjeldahl. * One
repeat point of a Task 2C layup and tests of a gold on mylar layup were also made for a total
of 21 valid steady state conductat ce tests. A schematic of the various layups tested is shown.
in Figure A-1.
A. 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The test results are tabulated in Table A-1 in a manner similar to that of Table 2-4 of
Reference 1 to permit comparison of data. The test run numbers and configuration desig-
nations follow sequentially from this table for ease of reference. These data are also
shown graphically in the curves of Figures A-2 and A-3.
*X-993 Aluminized Kapton Laminated with Beta Glass Marquisette.
3
A-1
-a
TASK 2C
SERIES C
BLADDER CLOTH
BLUE NYLON
2 LAYER BLADDER CLOTH
INSULATION
2 LAYER BETA GLASS CLOTH
7 LAYERS 1/2 MIL ALUMINIZED
(2 SIDES) CRINKLED KAPTON,
SEPARATED BY 6 LAYERS
BETA GLASS MARQUISETTE
	
--	 -- ---
TASK 7A	 -	 -
SERIES D
BLADDER CLOTH
BLUE NYLON CLOTH
2 LAYER BLADDER CLOTH
	 7 LAYERS OF SCHJELDAHL
INSULATION (SCHJELDAHL X-993) 1/2 MIL ALUMINIZED (2 SIDES)
KAPTON WITH 20 x 24 BETA
2 LAYER BETA GLASS CLOTH
	 GLASS MARQUISETTE BONDED
TO ONE SIDE OF EACH LAYER
BLADDER CLOTH
BLUE NYLON CLOTH
TASK 7A 
	 -	 2 LAYERS BLADDER CLOTH
INSULATION
- 2 LAYERS BETA GLASS
SERIES E
7 LAYERS 1/4 MIL GOLD
(ONE SIDE) ON MYLAR
SEPARATED BY 6 LAYERS
BETA GLASS MARQUISETTE
Figure A-1. Schematic of Insulation Layups
A-2
Jit	
,
r'^
r;
ba.
tVl4JE-fCd
ttz
V)
&
I
P
 
2
w
o
C
ID
c
l
cC#
cg
11,
PI
m
v)
Q
o
Ol l
I
CI
04
t.
N
ci
Cl
o6
(6
CI
'C*'4'
I
N
tD
N
M
01
00
C14
C11
N
iP
o
C'!
0!
L
!
4:
Z
 
U
	
P4
m
o
a
cl
w
v)
m
to
m
C'l
t.
elm
0
C-2
•Ir
0
w
co
010
t^
t.
to
to
w
to
t-
t
t-
W
t-
W
t^
t,
I
lo
10
1
'0
lo
lo
ti
c
1 0
j 0
f =
N(U
a
M
1
-4
M
R
r
00
0
N
N
N
r
4
I
M
C
l
t
o
t
o
N
c
z
a)
N
M
L*
cq
N
C
!
O
C
^
1.7
o
C
4
M
.
t-
IM21
02M
I
O^
O
M
i
M
r
M
m,1
m04
m
"
m
in
it)
1
M
00
of
00
00
m
t
.
to
ML
-
t
o
W
u
l
o
Cq0
C,
-
-
M
-
0t
o
g
mt
o
g
01*
C11t1)
Nto
t-
9
N
N
LIT
CI
C
^
C!
C
^
Ot.
Oh
0)
Cl!
1D
t:-.
^v 1
m
IrD
m
t-m
tom
mw
m0
mw
Onm
m
M
0CID
,
tom
C
O
m
mm
M
LM
C
D
try
to
I
to
0
R
to
to
to
Gsi
c
q
m
m
m
m
M
1
4
N
H
H
V;
N
N
N
0
C)
0
K
m
x
K
m
x
K
caP4
1
4
N
N
N
N
H
H
H
1
-1
H
H
H
H
H
H
1
-1
1
4
K
K
m
K
K
K
x
K
x
x
m
m
m
x
cq
0
w
N
N
1 •
0
0
1
D
O
O
0
0
0
O0
Cl!
10
O
O
D
14
1-1
N
14
0
m
w
H
N
H
N
I
in
	
V)cu
1
4
O
C
^
C
^
1
-4
C
^
O
C
^
C
^
C:
C
^
HO
04C!
M
g
C',
07
Cl)
U)
w
w
w
V)
tr)
t-
m
m
Le)
to
cq
P4
M
M
0
M
0
M
M
%I
a
r
V
-14
41
-
,V
M
W
0
M
A
-3
3/32	 4/32	 5/32	 6/32	 7/32
t, SAMPLE THICKNESS (IN.)
Figure A-2. Effective Thermal Conductance Versus Sample Thickness
A-4
5x10-1
2x10-1
x
0w
0	 1x 10-1
H
H
P4
U -Z5x10
U
A
OU
a
2x10 -2
W
H
ti
x 1x10
-2
5x10-3
2x10-3
T1	 700F
T2
0 ..	 25501,
p	 17VF
10001,,'
O -	 32001•'
SERIES
1	 C- PLAIN 0 1 d O
t	 D - FLAG Qq 
`Aq
E 1- FILLS, D
-E	 FILLED + FLAG2
1	 ^
,`	 ^.r e e
e e e
d
2x10-3
10-3
O
CH
a	
5x10-4
H
W
H
2x10"4
H
ZU 10-4
a
P4
w
xH
5x10-5
2x10-5
,.. --
Opp*	 ..-
00-0
I .000
0., s
s
100 00
9P 
s
SAMPLE THICKNESS (INCHES)
O	 3/16	 1/80	 11/64	 0 7/64
q 	 5/32	 3/32
d	 9/64
-120
	 -80	 -40
	 0	 40	 80	 120	 160	 200
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-3. Thermal Insulation Conductivity versus, Average Temperature
A-5
IBecause the test apparatus had not been used for some time, a repeatability test was per-
formed to check the apparatus and the instrumentation. The Test Series C layup material
was used and Test Point 26 conditions were repeated. The results of Bun 32 were identical
to these of Run 26.
The same laylip constituents were then used for Series D : except that the individual layers
U.
of crinkled aluminized Kapton and Beta-glass marquisette were replaced by a bonded, alu-
minized Kaptort - Beta glass marquisette lamina a,14nmde by SchjeldaW The marquisette was
a 20 x 24 mesh fabric and was bonded to the aluminized Kapton. The adhesive added approx-
imatcly 1/2 mil to the 1/2 mil thickness of the Kapton film.
A brief preliminary analysis indicated that the Series D layup (X-993) thermal conductance
should be higher than that for the Series C layup, because the bonding as well as the absence
of crinkling had removed one significant thermal resistance from this assembly. It was fur-
ther surmised that the thermal conductances should approach each other for Series C and D,
when the sample thickness decreased; i.e. , the effects of interface resistance in Series C
becomes negligible; due to compression of the sample.
As can be seen in the curves of Figure A-2, the conductance was indeed higher at low com-
pression of the sample. It was also interesting to observe that this conductance was fairly
constant for several degrees of compression from 3/16 inch to 1/8 inch. Upon further com-
pression, the conductance rose steeply, approaching that of Layup C, but still slightly higher.
4
These differences could be explained as follows:
a
At low compression the Layup D insulation remained essentially unchanged, because it was
not in a crinkled and fluffy state, which could be compressed. Thus no additional contact
heat flow points could be produced by compression, as would be the case for Layup C. As
compression was increased., the differences between Layup C and D vanished, because the
additional resistance of a separate Beta-glass marquisette interface in layup C as compared
to Layup D no longer was significant. These insulation characteristics were observed in a
reproducible pattern for the four temperature ranges of interest.
*Schjeldahl X-993
A-6
The repeatability ^)f the test data was checked for two test points (Runs 50 and 51) and was
found to be within experimental accuracy. It should be noted that the construction of Layup
D is very unlikely to exhibit "hysteresis" effects, because there are no crinkles in the
aluminized Kapton which can be flattened out. Thus, the repeatability of thermal conductance
should be good after repeated compression. This is in contrast to the crinkled insulation of
Layup C, who-4c some of this flattening of crinkles occurs before repeatability can be ensured.
No tests were performed for reproducibility, because material for only one sample pair was
available,
A. 8 GOLD ON MY'LAAR TEST
Because of the possible degradation of vapor-deposited aluminum on thin film material due
to presence of water vapor, a number of investigators have recommended vapor-deposited
gold, which has been shown riot to degrade. For this reason, two tests were performed on
goldized 1/4-mil Mylar.
The goldized Mylar was obtained from residual mato-11al of a previous insulation program
carried out at General Electric. The gold was vapor--deposited on Mylar (one side) by
National Metallizing Corporation. The crinkling of the metallized film and the perforation of
the film for venting purposes was performed at General Electric, at the time the m(Aerial
was originally obtained.
In contrast to aluminum, gold in its vapor-deposited state on Mylar is rather soft and
scratches easily. This was noted on both test samples used in this program.
The material used in these tests came from two different lots, Unfortunately, since this
was residual material, no further identification was possible. The goldized Mylar had been
perforated on 8-inch centers with 1/8-inch diameter holes for venting purposes. In order
to work with uniform materials, the samples were recrinkled using a Teflon die as shown
in Figure A-4. Figure A-5 shows the sample in its crinkled state after it had been cut to size.
The samples were then assembled into a layup (Series E) by using the test Series C layup,
but replacing the aluminized Kapton with goldized Mylar, as shown in the schematic of
A-7
7
^i
r^OW
INK
h-
Figure A-4. Crinkling of Insulation by Drawing Through Teflon Die
Figure A-5. Gold-on-Mylar after Crinkling
A-8
I• igure A-1 and the photograph of Figure A-6. l'wo such layups were made and tested and
are reported in Table A A as Runs 52 and 53 These daW also ar-I shown in Figure A-?. The
large difference in results for the two tests, for what appeared to be similar samples, re-
quired further investigation. The appearance of the goldized Mylar after test is shown in
Figure A-7. Since both samples were tested and crinkled under similar conditions and their
post-test appearance was similar. the differences were assumed to be in the vapor-deposited gold
characteristics and thickness.
Emissivity measurements were performed on the two samples and helped to explain the dif-
ferences. The goldized Mylar sample for Run 52 had an emissivity of 0.08; whereas, that
for run 53 had an emissivity of 0. 03. Since the emissivity measurement areas evaluated on
the samples were rather small in relation to the entire goldized Mylar area under test
(0. 1 percent), any conclusions made are only approximations. Time and funding limitations
prevented any detailed investigation or more tests.
Figure A-6. Exploded View of Test Sample Layup
A-9
1
Figure A-7. Gold-on-Alylar After Test
It would appear that the sample used in Run 52 came from an exploratory vapor deposition
lot of insulation; whereas, the sample used in Run 53 was from a regular sample lot.
While not as good as the double aluminized Kapton of test Series C, the single side goldized
Mylar performed about as well as the Series D insulation. All this is based on a single
sample experiment with its attendant uncertainty. Based on past experience (Reference 2),
goldized Mylar should perform very similar to aluminized Mylar, when used as multilayer
thermal insulation.
A.4 CONCLUSIONS
From this investir;?t-o n the following can be concluded:
a. The use of the Schjeldahl bonded insulation is likely to provide better repeat-
ability of thermal performance after several space suit layup compression
and release cycles. This is due to the absence of film crinkling which could
be "ironed out. "
b. Handling of the bonded Beta - glass/aluminized Kapton layup, Series D, is
simpler than that of Series C due to fewer components and less bulk.
!: i
A-10
C
ac. The thermal insulation performance of the Series D layup, although poorer
than Series C, should be more easily predictable due to the lack of crinkling.
d. The possibility of metal film abrasion should be reduced with the Series D
layup, resulting in less likely degradation after long term use, since there
should be no relative motion at the bonded surface.
e. The thermal performance of the goldized Mylar can be expected to be close
to that of the other insulations in Series C and D. However, the exploratory
tests performed are not sufficient to make a selection or recommendation.
A. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS.
From the foregoing investigations the following is concluded:
a; The Schjeldahl X-993 insulation should be considered a series contender
for space suit application, if the poorer insulation performance can be
accepted when compared to series C.
b. Additional tests should be performed to evaluate the possible improvement
in thermal performance if this material is crinkled or 1/4-mil Kapton is used.
c. If long term space suit use and the attendant moisture problem between layers
degrades the aluminum film, the use of goldized Xapton should be considered.
t
In that case, test data should be obtained for goldized Kapton layups in Series
t	 D and Series E type configurations.
d. The emissivity of the metallized film used for spacesuits should be monitored
to avoid the use of inadequate thickness of metal. An electrical resistivity
r
test could also be utilized for this purpose.
A.6 REFERENCES
r
i
1. Fried, E., Karp, G., Hobbs, R., and Hieser, G., Measurement of Thermal Conduc-
tance of Multilayer and Other Insulation Materials, Final Report on Contract NAS9-3685,
GE Document No. 67SD4388, September 1967.
2. Planetary Vehicle Thermal Insulation Study, Phase I Summary Report, JPL, Contract
4.	 951537; GE Document No. 67SD4289, April 1967.
A-11


Measurement of Thermal Conductance of Multilayer and Other Insulation Materials

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server