- Email: [email protected]
NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Cryogenic Complex: Testing between 2005 – 2019
Journal Pre-proofs NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Cryogenic Complex: Testing between 2005 – 2019 Jason Hartwig, Wesley Johnson, Helmut Bamberger, Michael Meyer, Jason Wendell, Jim Mullins, R. Craig Robinson, Lori Arnett PII: DOI: Reference:
S0011-2275(19)30237-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2020.103038 JCRY 103038
To appear in:
Cryogenics
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
19 July 2019 17 September 2019 7 January 2020
Please cite this article as: Hartwig, J., Johnson, W., Bamberger, H., Meyer, M., Wendell, J., Mullins, J., Craig Robinson, R., Arnett, L., NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Cryogenic Complex: Testing between 2005 – 2019, Cryogenics (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2020.103038
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Cryogenic Complex: Testing between 2005 – 2019 Jason Hartwiga, Wesley Johnsona, Helmut Bambergerb, Michael Meyerc, Jason Wendella, Jim Mullinsa, R. Craig Robinsona, and Lori Arnetta aNASA
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, 44135 Engineering, Cleveland, OH, 44135 cNASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23666 bJacobs
Abstract Creek Road Cryogenic Complex (CRCC) is the principle cryogenic fluids technology test facility at the NASA Glenn Research Center. CRCC consists of the Small Multipurpose Research Facility (SMiRF), Cryogenic Component Lab-7 (CCL-7), a calorimeter, a superconducting motor testbed, and a shop area building. It is capable of simulating many extreme environments including transients during launch and ascent from Earth, Low Earth Orbit, and Lunar, Martian, and Titan atmosphere and surface conditions. The facility can handle liquid helium, liquid hydrogen, liquid nitrogen, liquid argon, liquid oxygen, liquid methane, and liquefied natural gas. It also provides gaseous nitrogen and helium. This paper presents a summary of CRCC’s test capabilities, available test tanks, as well as a brief summary and history of recent testing from 2005 – 2019. Highlights
CRCC consists of SMiRF, Cell 7, CoMPACT calorimeter, superconducting motor testbed, and shop CRCC can handle LHe, LH2, LN2, LAr, LO2, LCH4, LNG 18 test programs have been conducted at SMiRF between 2005 – 2019 An addition 17 test programs have been conducted at Cell 7 between 2005 – 2019
1.0 Keywords Space cryogenics, SMiRF, NASA Glenn, hydrogen, oxygen, liquefied natural gas 2.0 Introduction Both manned and unmanned space exploration remains at the forefront of mankind’s endeavor to search, explore, and thus understand the physical universe. According to many of NASA’s recent long term space exploration visions, the development of cryogenic fluid management systems remains at the forefront of its research and technology development program. In recent years, 1
there has been a decline in the proposed usage of the more toxic storable propellants, such as nitrous tetroxide (N2O4) and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) towards using cryogenic propellants for many reasons such as safety and environmental concerns, reusability, system performance, and compatibility with the production of propellants and fluid on extra-terrestrial surfaces, see for example [1, 2]. While there is flight heritage with short duration cryogenic propulsion systems such as liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen (LH2/LO2) fueled Saturn V, Centaur, Shuttle, etc.; new long duration storage cryogenic-based architectures will require refinement of existing cryogenic fluid management technology. Below is a consolidated list of cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technologies that enable or enhance several architectures for manned space missions, including the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) stage, lander ascent and descent stages, in-space resource utilization (ISRU) on the surface of the Moon or Mars, and cryogenic fuel depots [3]:
20K cryocoolers 90K cryocoolers Cryo-couplers Line chilldown Liquefaction Liquid acquisition devices (LADs) Low conductivity structures Mass gauging Multi-layer insulation (MLI) (high vacuum and soft vacuum) Pressurization (autogenous and non-condensible) Pumps Tank chilldown Thermal coatings Thermodynamic vent system (TVS) Tube-on-shield and tube-on-tank Valves, actuators, components
Note that many of these CFM technologies are required whether LOX/LH2 or LOX/liquid methane (LCH4) is the desired propellant combination. Cryogenic fluid management technology can also be used to enhance performance of life support systems, fuel cells, and cooling and refrigeration systems. The challenge thus arises to develop technology that is flexible, broad based, and applicable to multiple missions. Furthermore, fundamental issues associated with the storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants must first be addressed before any of these missions become fully realizable. These issues can be addressed analytically and experimentally, but flight experiments are ultimately required to mature CFM technology to develop data-anchored analytical, design, and sizing models. Since 1945, the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has been studying the storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants. Recently, NASA GRC’s cryogenic fluid technology test facilities were relocated due to expansion of neighboring Cleveland airport. Renamed the Creek Road Cryogenic Complex (CRCC) in 2003, this new state-of-the-art facility has continued NASA 2
GRC’s legacy cryogenic testing capability. After the initial move, test activities between 2003 – 2005 demonstrated the capability of the facility in [4]. This paper presents the history of NASA GRC’s workhorse cryogenic test facility between 2005 – 2019. First, a summary is given of current test capabilities. Then, a brief summary of recent test programs is discussed. Finally, planned work in the coming years is briefly outlined. Appendix A lists 3.0 Facility Test Capabilities CRCC was relocated and reconstructed in 2003 and consists of the Small Multipurpose Research Facility (SMiRF), Cryogenic Component Lab-7 (CCL-7 or Cell 7), a superconducting motor testbed, a calorimeter, and a shop area building. An overhead shot of the facilities is shown in Figure 1. CRCC is a world class cryogenic test complex that can simulate many extreme environments including ascent launching from Earth, Low Earth Orbit, and Lunar, Martian, and Titan atmosphere and surface conditions. CRCC provides a small-to-medium scale test capability to test components and subsystems, and can be used to perform transfer, gauging, and long-term cryogenic storage tests all in extreme environments. With multiple test tanks and vessels available (see Appendix A), build-up and testing of multiple experiments can occur at the same time. The two main test facilities within CRCC (CCL-7 and SMiRF) have independent data and control systems and can be operated simultaneously. CRCC uses independent systems for recording and controlling: LabVIEW data acquisition systems (DAQ) are used for data collection and storage, while programmable logic controllers (PLC) with human machine interfaces (HMI) can be used to control variables of interest such as pressure, temperature, and flow rate. Safety is handled with remote operation, roll-up doors, blast walls, explosion proof equipment, gas detection, exclusion zones based on appropriate quantity-distance calculations, and programed alarms, interlocks, and shutdowns. Both test cells have separate oxygen & flammable fluid systems. The test cells are capable of conditioning cryogens over wide ranges of temperatures and pressures, and have residual gas analyzers for measuring vacuum constituents up to a molecular weight of 100. All facilities are in compliance with National Fire Protection Association codes and other appropriate standards. Following is a list of specific test capabilities for SMiRF and Cell 7 since relocation in 2003. 3.1 SMiRF Shown in Figure 2, SMiRF specializes in small and mid-size system (~0.875 m3) and component level tests. It is a configurable test cell providing the ability to simulate space, semi-vacuum, high altitude, and launch transient environments. SMiRF can be used to investigate insulation systems (cryocooler and associated tube-on-shield and tube-on-tank systems, MLI, structures), propellant tank outflow, all aspects of larger scale cryogenic transfer (LADs, line chilldown, tank chilldown, tank fill, tank pressurization, pumps, valves, actuators), mass gauging, TVS, liquefaction, and thermal coatings. SMiRF can handle hazardous gaseous and cryogenic flammable fluids to simulate extreme environments without compromising on personal safety. 3
Figures 3a and b show the lower and upper levels of SMiRF. Shown on the lower level are the diffusion pumps and piping connections to the roughing pumps while the upper level shows four cryogenic-rated fill and vent lines that attach to the vacuum chamber lid. The heart of the SMiRF facility is a vertically oriented cylindrical thermal-vacuum chamber. SMiRF has an interconnect and electric work area adjacent to the main test facility that is maintained at positive pressure during testing to maintain an explosion proof electrical classification of adjoining areas.
Figure 1 – Creek Road Cryogenic Complex
Figure 2 – The Small Multipurpose Research Facility at NASA Glenn 4
Figure 3 – SMiRF a) Vacuum Chamber Body Lower Level on left and b) Vacuum Chamber Lid Upper Level on right To test, over-the-road tanker trucks are used to deliver cryogen with the facility. SMiRF can be operated remotely when testing flammable propellants, and either remotely or locally when testing inert fluids. Tanks or test articles are suspended from the vacuum chamber lid into the thermally-controlled chamber. All electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation lines pass through the lid to interface with the DAQ and/or PLC/HMI. While certain test tanks may be rated to pressures in excess of 3.5 MPa, SMiRF can handle pressurized vessels rated to 2 MPa. SMiRF can also accommodate sub-atmospheric conditioning of propellant. For sensitive boil-off rate testing, SMiRF uses a series system of back pressure control valves to control pressure within 69 Pa (0.01 psi) and thus prevent pressure swings associated with the local weather from affecting the fluid inside a test tank. Vapor flow rates are measured using a similar series bank of flow meters. Any cryogenic-rated instrumentation can be configured to work with the facility interfaces, such as silicion diodes, Cernox temperature sensors resistance temperature devices, and thermocouples, pressure transducers, Coriolis, turbine, thermal mass, and venturi flow meters, etc. The DAQ is configured to accept either current or voltage output from instrumentation. Following is a list of current SMiRF test capabilities in Table 1: Capability Vacuum chamber
Details - 7.4 rated atmosphere to full vacuum, - Second floor piping and vacuum chamber lid access Liquid helium (LHe), LH2, liquid nitrogen (LN2), liquid argon (LAr), LOX, LCH4, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and other liquids as required Gaseous helium (GHe), hydrogen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, and others as required Continuous – 1.33x10-3 Pa (5x10-5 torr); ascent profile 101 kPa (760 torr) to 1.33 Pa m3,
Cryogenic test liquids
Cryogenic test gases Vacuum environment 5
(1x10-2 torr) in 2 minutes shown in Figure 4 against NASA Shuttle ascent depressurization. SMiRF can simulate intermediate vacuum pressures as well; see [5] for recent example 110 – 390K programmable to simulate diurnal cycles; warming ramp rate is 1K/min, cooling ramp rate is 3 K/min Vacuum to 2 MPa +/- 170 Pa 0 – 0.11 kg/s steady state With shroud inside vacuum chamber: 44 in x 65 in (1.1 m x 1.7 m); without shroud inside vacuum chamber: 71 in x 101 in (1.8 m x 2.3 m) - 64 recordable channels at speeds up to 0.1 Hz - 424 recordable channels at speeds up to 1 Hz - 6 recordable channels at speed up to 6,250 Hz - High speed flow visualization capability up to 800 frames per second
Thermal environment shroud Pressure of fluid in test tank Back pressure control Outflow rate Test article sizes (width*height)
Data system
Table 1 – SMiRF Test Capabilities 800 SMiRF Shuttle
Vacuum Pressure [torr]
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Time [s]
Figure 4 – SMiRF Vacuum Chamber De-pressurization Profile for Simulating Ascent Launches 3.2 Cell 7
6
Shown in Figure 5, Cell 7 is a smaller version of the SMiRF test facility with similar capabilities that specializes in low cost, small scale concept and component level testing. It is also a highly configurable test cell providing the ability to simulate space, semi-vacuum, and high altitude. Cell 7 can be used to investigate some aspects of insulation systems (MLI, structures), all aspects of small scale cryogenic transfer (LADs, line chilldown, tank chilldown, tank fill, tank pressurization, pumps, valves, actuators), mass gauging, and TVS. It can handle hazardous gaseous and cryogenic flammable fluids to simulate extreme environments without compromising on personal safety. As in the case of SMiRF, portable dewars are used to provide cryogenic fluids to the facility. Cell 7 can be operated locally or remotely. Components can be mounted either in a vacuum jacketed (VJ) or standard supply or receiver tank as shown in Figure 6. Further thermodynamic conditioning of the cryogenic fluid can be provided in the supply tank using either local eductors to lower the pressure and saturation temperature of the fluid or gas supplies to densify the fluid. There are several vessels that can be used for testing, ranging from 0.006 m3 to 0.821 m3, the latter of which is shown in Figure 6. Side and top viewports provide access for visualization. All electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation lines pass through the lid to the DAQ and/or PLC/HMI interfaces. While certain test tanks as well as facility plumbing may be rated to pressures in excess of 3.5 MPa, Cell 7 is generally operated below 2 MPa. Cell 7 can also accommodate sub-atmospheric conditioning of propellant through the use of air ejectors. For sensitive calorimeter boil-off testing, Cell 7 uses similar back pressure control valves to control pressure and volumetric flow meters to measure flow. As with SMiRF, any cryogenic-rated instrumentation can be configured to work with the facility interfaces. The DAQ is also configured to accept either current or voltage output from instrumentation. Table A-1 in the Appendix section lists currently available tanks and vessels accessible for testing at SMiRF and Cell 7.
Figure 5 – Cell 7 Research Facility at NASA Glenn
7
Figure 6 – Cell 7 Test Configuration with Supply and Receiver Tanks Following is a list of current Cell 7 test capabilities in Table 2: Capability Details Cryogenic test liquids LHe, LH2, LN2, LAr, LOX, LCH4, LNG, and other liquids as required Cryogenic test gases helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, and others as required Vacuum environment Continuous – 1.33x10-4 Pa (1x10-6 torr); can simulate intermediate vacuum pressures as well Thermal environment shroud Any temperature accessible via saturation temperature of any cryogen; cryocoolers can also be used to control intermediate temperatures Pressure of fluid in test tank 17 kPa to 2 MPa Back pressure control +/- 170 Pa Outflow rate 0 – 0.11 kg/s steady state Test article sizes (width*height) 0.76 m x 1.42 m (30 in x 56 in) Data system - 320 recordable channels at speeds up to 1 Hz - 6 recordable channels at speed up to 6,250 Hz - Flow visualization capability up to 800 frames per second Table 2 – Cell 7 Test Capabilities 8
3.3 COMPACT Calorimeter With the recent development of Gifford-McMahon and Pulse Tube cryocoolers for use in various industrial applications, it became possible to forgo the use of cryogenic fluids for the purpose of measuring heat loads in a calorimetric setting. The first such calorimeter was developed by Celik and Van Sciver at Florida State University [6]. Based on the results they achieved, a similar calorimeter was developed to complement fluid-based testing at the Creek Road Cryogenic Complex. The Calorimeter for the Measurement of thermal Performance At Cryogenic Temperatures (CoMPACT) is located in a portion of the CRCC shop area (see Figure 7) and is more fully described by [7]. It uses three cryocoolers, two 20 K pulse tubes and a 90 K Gifford McMahon, to cool the test section and guard sections of the cold cylinder and the warm cylinder (see Figure 8). This allows for continuous and automated operation without requiring personnel to be present to ensure system safety. The temperature range of the cold cylinder is between 15 K and 90 K. The temperature range of the warm cylinder is between 65 K and 100 K. Additionally, the warm cylinder can be removed for operation of the system at much closer to 293 K warm boundary temperatures. The cold cylinder is approximately 1.2 meters tall (including the guard sections) and can accept test specimens up to 5 cm in thickness. During testing, the vacuum environment is maintained below 1.33x10-4 Pa (10-6 torr) and routinely achieves 1.33x10-6 (10-8 torr) during 20 K operations. Heaters within the system can be used to change the setpoint temperatures without opening the system.
9
Figure 7 – COMPACT Vacuum Chamber with Pumping Station Operationally, the system performs as shown in Figure 9. All the heat that goes through the MLI to the cold cylinder is conducted down the cylinder to a central hub, through the hub, and up a calibrated rod to the cryocooler cold head. Temperature sensors along the calibrated rod are used to calculate the heat load into the system. There are a total of 6 calibrated rods allowing heat flux measurements between 0.01 W/m2 and 2 W/m2.
Figure 8 – Top and Bottom View of Cryocoolers Installed on Vacuum Chamber Lid
Figure 9 – COMPACT Calorimeter Operational Principle 3.4 Other Test Facilities CRCC also has an array of smaller testing capabilities using various cryocoolers to simulate various environmental and fluid conditions. Cryocooler- based cooling enables cryogenic testing at temperatures previously difficult to achieve when using traditional liquid baths. CRCC also has a developing testbed available for testing partially and fully superconducting machines (motors or generators). Shown in Figure 10, the testbed contains a concrete structure 10
for mounting the motor or generator, a wall with piping to condition the liquid or gaseous propellant used to cool the machine coils, and interfaces with the SMiRF facility and roadable dewars.
Figure 10 – Cryogenic Superconducting Motor Pad 4.0 Test Programs This section outlines the major test programs utilizing CRCC facilities between 2005 – 2019, and the associated facility upgrades. Programs that were cancelled or did not result in test results are not reported. Only brief summaries are given here, for more details, the reader is referred to historical literature where available. 4.1 SMiRF Tests In 2005 and 2006, SMiRF gained the ability to test with LOX. Small-scale radio frequency mass gauging (RFMG) tests were performed using LOX using the 0.461 m3 cylindrical vessel shown in Figure 11. Successful tests were conducted at multiple fill levels and also with LN2 [8]. In 2007, SMiRF gained the ability to mass gauge using a load cell with the vacuum chamber. Follow-on LOX and LN2 mass gauging tests were performed with RFMG and the pressurevolume-temperature (PVT) method for a thick-walled 1.22 m diameter, 1.83 m tall high pressure vessel shown in Figure 12. LN2 and LOX PVT test results are reported in [9, 10] respectively, and RFMG LOX results are reported in [11]. In 2007 – 2008, SMiRF gained the ability to perform residual gas analysis. Propellant scavenging tests were performed at SMiRF using LOX to measure the amount of residual GHe in a tank after a typical engine burn in a high pressure propellant tank and to investigate methods to remove GHe using a similar high pressure tank in Figure 12 [12]. Also in 2007/2008, a test was performed in LOX to determine the feasibility of using visco-jets as Joule-Thompson (JT) 11
devices for tank pressure control in cryogenic tanks; JT devices (typically an orifice) are used in conjunction with a heat exchanger and mixer to reduce tank pressure due to parasitic heat leak into a cryogenic tank.
Figure 11 – Liquid Oxygen Mass Gauging Tests
Figure 12 –Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Nitrogen Mass Gauging Test Tank Inside SMIRF Vacuum Chamber In 2008, numerous active pressure control TVS tests were performed at SMiRF using LOX and the test tank from Figure 10 results of which are available in [13]. In 2009 and 2010, SMiRF built infrastructure for handling and conditioning large amounts (> 30 m3) of LCH4, including a new propellant subcooling system and a bubbling system [14]. The Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control (MLSTC) demonstrated performance of an MLI system for the high pressure stainless steel (SS) 1.22 m diameter storage tank shown in Figure 13 [15]. 12
Another new feature also demonstrated was the capability to match the pressure profile within a fairing during launch [16].
Figure 13 – MLSTC High Pressure Methane Test Tank with MLI In 2010, SMiRF gained the capability to handle steady state outflow up to 0.1 kg/s, transient outflow rate up to 5 kg/s over several minutes, as well as the static pressure limit to 2 MPa. High pressure screen channel LADs tests were performed in LOX at SMiRF using a similar high pressure tank as in Figure 12 [17, 18]. Later in 2010, LH2 RMFG tests were conducted on a thinwalled Aluminum (Al) test tank shown in Figure 14. In 2011, SMiRF improved the ability to control and throttle vacuum chamber pressure to simulate de-pressurization. MLI/Broad Area Cooling (BAC) tests were performed to assess the structural integrity of a thin, BAC shield. Figure 15 shows the front and backside of the test article, an MLI blanket with a 5 mil Al BAC shield mounted on a 1.37 m x 1.52 m (54 in x 60 in) flat plate structural support mounted inside SMiRF. In 2012, SMiRF gained high speed flow visualization capability, LH2 outflow capability to 0.l kg/s (0.25 lbm/s), and an updated outflow flow control manifold. Parametric LH2 LADs and transfer line chilldown tests were performed using the same tank as in [13]. Results of the LADs tests are available in [19, 20] while line chilldown test results are available in [21-23]. In 2012/2013, two test programs were performed at SMiRF to demonstrate long term LH2 storage, named Reduced Boil-Off-1 (RBO-1) and RBO-2 using a new 1.42 m3, 0.9 MPa rated SS test tank shown in Figure 16. Design details and general results of this test program are available in [24-27]. In 2013, ten tests were conducted for the Zero Boil Off (ZBO) LN2 test program to test a tube on tank distributed cooling system to achieve ZBO [28, 29]. 13
Figure 14 – LH2 RFMG Test Tank inside SMiRF Vacuum Chamber
Figure 15– MLI/BAC Ascent Venting Test Hardware
Figure 16 – Reduced Boil-Off System Test Tank with Subsystem 14
In 2015-2016, SMiRF gained the ability to handle cryogenic carbon dioxide due in part from the Martian Aqueous Habitat Reconnaissance Suite (MAHRS) test program. The sensor package is shown in Figure 17 lowering into SMiRF’s vacuum chamber.
Figure 17 – MAHRS Electronics Package Lowering into SMiRF’s Vacuum Chamber In 2016 and 2017, the Sub-scale Laboratory Investigation of Cooling Enhancements (SLICE) test program investigated vapor cooling on a section of the forward test skirt associated with the Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation, and Vibration Evaluation Rig (SHIIVER) [30]. A picture of the test article hanging from the SMiRF vacuum chamber lid is shown in Figure 18. Facility improvements during testing included the addition of several heaters to heat up the hydrogen vapor flow rate between cooling channels (two were used on the test skirt). The most recently completed test was in late 2018. In order to improve tank pressurization models, a helium gas diffuser was submerged in LH2 and tests were run to examine dynamics of the bubbles leaving the diffuser (i.e. coalescence versus breaking apart). 4.2 Cell 7 and CoMPACT Tests In 2005 and 2006, two different sets of component level LAD tests were conducted in LN2 and LOX in Cell 7 using the 0.558 m OD, 0.198 m3 Cryofab dewar. Bubble point and outflow tests were performed for a 200x1400 screen channel LAD [31].
15
In 2007, CRCC gained the ability to test with LCH4. RFMG mass gauging tests were conducted during fluid transfer between two 0.198 m3 Cryofab dewars as shown in Figure 19. Also in 2007, visco-jet tests in LCH4 were conducted in the same Cryofab dewar previously mentioned [32].
Figure 18 – SLICE Test Hardware Attached to SMiRF Vacuum Chamber Lid
Figure 19 – Tank-to-Tank LCH4 RFMG Test Configuration
16
In 2007-2008, LAD bubble point tests were conducted at Cell 7 in LCH4 using the same test article, dewar, and saturation pressures as in recent LOX bubble point tests [33, 34] In 2008, another round of bubble point tests were conducted at Cell 7 using the same test article, dewar, and saturation pressures as in the other two recent test campaigns, but for subcooled LOX [35]. In 2008-2009, JT clogging mitigation experiments in LH2 were conducted in Cell 7 using the Cryofab dewar shown in Figure 20 [36]. In 2009, LH2 RFMG tests were performed in LH2 at Cell 7 using a new 2.08 m tall Cryofab dewar [11]. In 2009/2010, LOX bubble point tests were performed at Cell 7 using a new high pressure rated optically accessible test article shown in Figure 21 [37, 38]. These tests pushed Cell 7 static pressure capability to beyond 1.73 MPa. Next in 2010, numerous porous plug-type samples were tested in Cell 7 to determine pressure drop and flow characteristics for an ISS filtration system. Later in 2010, bubble point tests were performed at Cell 7 using the same high pressure CFM test tank, but this time in LCH4 [39, 40]. Finally in 2010, room temperature bubble point tests were conducted on three fine mesh LAD screen samples in acetone, isopropyl alcohol (IPA), methanol, water, and binary mixtures of methanol and water [41, 42]. Complimentary IPA wicking rate tests were also performed in IPA [43].
Figure 20 – LH2 JT Clogging Mitigation Test Hardware and Dewar In 2011, numerous LH2 and LN2 bubble points were performed on multiple fine mesh screen channel LAD screens using the Cryofab dewar [45-47]. In 2011 and 2012, a risk mitigation line chilldown test program was conducted in Cell 7 in LN2 to reduce risk for LH2 line chilldown tests later in 2012. Also in 2011 and 2012, numerous IPA 17
bubble point tests were performed at Cell 7, also as part of a risk mitigation test program for LH2 outflow tests in [19].
Figure 21 – High Pressure CFM Test Tank used for High Pressure LOX and LCH4 Bubble Point Tests In 2013, several upgrades were made at Cell 7 including (1) three new large VJ dewars and a vacuum vessel were fabricated to increase test capacity at Cell 7, (2) new VJ LH2 transfer piping, and (3) a new high vacuum system. Also in 2013, six tests were performed in LH2 to compare the performance and response of Silicon Diode and Cernox temperature sensors using the same tall Cryofab dewar from mass gauging tests in 2009. In 2016, CRCC gained the ability to test cryogenic rotating machinery. A novel 20K-rated torque cell shown on the left hand side of Figure 22 used for measuring torque at cryogenic temperatures was tested at Cell 7 in LN2 that can be integrated into motor testing shown in the right hand side.
18
Figure 22 – Calibrated Torque Cell, Drive Motors, Support Structure The most recent test performed in Cell 7 was in 2017 where an attempt was made to calibrate heat flux sensors at cryogenic temperatures in the spirit of ASTM C-1130 [48, 49]. Throughout 2014-16, the CoMPACT calorimeter was used to test various cryogenic insulation concepts, such as repeatability testing, seams, and thermal performance between 20-90K warm boundary condition [50-53]. 5.0 Conclusions and Future Test Programs The Creek Road Cryogenic Complex at NASA Glenn Research Center is a premier cryogenic test facility in the United States. CRCC is continuing to develop its “extreme environments” capabilities to simulate Lunar, Martian, and Titan atmospheric and surface conditions. Future potential work planned includes the integration of a stand-alone refrigeration capability that can provide between 200 and 1200 W of heat removal within the vacuum chamber using a 90K cryocooler, and development and ground testing of a parabolic flight rig that will be used to investigate efficient methods for chilldown of cryogenic propellant tanks. 6.0 Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge all of the science, engineering, and technician staff who have dedicated themselves to ensuring successful test programs over the past decade and a half, including: Steve Barsi, Marivell Baez, Dave Bennett, Lester Brooks, Moses Brown, Robert Buehrle, Alex Camargo, Dave Chato, Robert Christie, Tim Czaruk, Chris DeTardo, Dustin Dombrowski, Jason Edwards, Travis Faulkner, Drew Fausnaugh, Jeff Feller, Ken Fischer, Carl Fuchs, Chris Garcia, Stan Grisnik, Monica Guzki, Hans Hansen, Dan Hauser, John Jurns, Greg Kearney, Arnie Kuchenmeister, Jack Kowaleski, Mark Kubiak, Maureen Kudlac, Diane Legallee, John 19
McQuillen, Rick Michalson, Bruce McElroy, Jeff Moder, Susan Model, Jay Owens, David Pike, Joe Puskas, Frank Quinn, Tom Ralys, Olen Reed, Anthony Roberts, Lou Salerno, John Schubert, Bob Silloway, Mark Pat Spohn, Springowski, Alex Sgondea, Tony Skaff, Brooks Smith, Pat Spohn, Bob Tomsic, Tom Tomsik, Steve Tucker, Doug Tyson, William Vaccariello, Neil Vandresar Tiffany Vanderwyst, Jerri Vokac, and Greg Zimmerli, and Todd Zwilling. We thank David Plachta for his contributions to this paper and we especially thank Michael Doherty and Joseph Gaby for their advocacy throughout the years. 7.0 References [1] Percy, T., Polsgrove, T., Alexander, L., and Turpin, J. “Design and Development of a Methane Cryogenic Propulsion Stage for Human Mars Exploration” AIAA Space Conference September, 2016. [2] Polsgrove, T., Chapman, J., Sutherlin, S., et al. “Human Mars Lander Design for NASA's Evolvable Mars Campaign”2016 IEEE Conference March, 2016. [3] Johnson, W. L. and Stephens, J. “NASA’s Cryogenic Fluid Management Technology Development Roadmaps” JANNAF In-Space Propulsion Technical Interchange Meeting, August 2018. [4] Jurns, J.M. and Kudlac, M.T. “NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Complex – Cryogenic Testing Facilities” Cryogenics 46, 98 – 104, 2006. [5] Johnson, W.L. “Recent Rapid Depressurization Testing of Multilayer Systems” AIAA-20143580, 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [6] Celik D, Hurd J, Klimas R, Van Sciver S W, A Calorimeter for Multi-layer Insulation (MLI) Performance Measurements at Variable Temperatures, Cryogenics, Volumes 55– 56, May–July 2013, Pages 73-78. [7] Chato, D.J, Johnson, W.L., and N.T. Van Dresar “Design and Operation of a Calorimeter for Advanced Multilayer Insulation Testing”, AIAA 2016-4775, 2016. [8] Zimmerli, G.A., Vaden, K.R., Herlacher, M.D., Buchanan, D.A., and Van Dresar, N.T. “Radio Frequency Mass Gauging of Propellants” NASA-TM-2007-214907, August, 2007. [9] Van Dresar, N.T. “PVT Gauging with Liquid Nitrogen” Cryogenics 46, 118 – 125. 2006. [10] Van Dresar, N.T. and Zimmerli, G. “Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) Gauging of an Isothermal Cryogenic Propellant Tank Pressurized with Gaseous Helium” NASA-TP2014-218083, February, 2014. [11] Zimmerli, G., Asipauskas, M., Wagner, J.D., and Follo, J.C. “Propellant Quantity Gauging Using the Radio Frequency Mass Gauge” AIAA-2011-1320, 49th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4 – 7, 2011. [12] Chato, D.J. “LOX Tank Helium Removal for Propellant Scavenging Test” AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 7 – 10, 2008. [13] Van Dresar, N.T. “Liquid Oxygen Thermodynamic Vent System Testing with Helium Pressurization” NASA-TP-2014-216633, April, 2014. [14] Bamberger, H.H., Robinson, C., Jurns, J.M., and Grasl, S.J. “Liquid Methane Conditioning Capabilities at the NASA Glenn Research Center’s Small Multipurpose Research Facility for Accelerated Lunar Surface Storage Thermal Testing” NASA-CR-2011-216745, September, 2011.
20
[15] Plachta, D., Sutherlin, S., Johnson, W., Feller, J., and Jurns, J. “Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control Test” NASA-TM-2012-217427, March, 2012. [16] Johnson, W.L., Jurns, J.M., Bamberger, H.H., and Plachta, D.W. “Launch Ascent Testing of a Representative Altair Ascent Stage Methane Tank” Cryogenics 52, 278 – 282. 2012. [17] Hartwig, J.W. and Darr, S.R. “Analytical Model for Steady Flow through a Finite Channel with One Porous Wall with Arbitrary Variable Suction or Injection” Physics of Fluids 26, 123603, 2014. [18] Chato, D.J., Hartwig, J.W., Rame, E., and McQuillen, J.B. “Inverted Outflow Ground Testing of Cryogenic Propellant Liquid Acquisition Devices” AIAA-2014-3993, 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [19] Hartwig, J.W., Chato, D.J., McQuillen, J.B., Vera, J., Kudlac, M.T., and Quinn, F.D. “Liquid Acquisition Device Outflow Tests in Liquid Hydrogen” Cryogenics 64, 295 – 306. 2014. [20] Hartwig, J.W. and Darr, S.R. “Analytical Model for Steady Flow through a Finite Channel with One Porous Wall with Arbitrary Variable Suction or Injection” Physics of Fluids 26, 123603, 2014. [21] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J.B., and Rame, E. “Pulse Chilldown Tests of a Pressure Fed Liquid Hydrogen Transfer Line” AIAA-2016-2186, AIAA SciTech Conference San Diego, CA, January 4 – 8, 2016. [22] Hartwig, J.W., Asensio, A., and Darr, S.R. “Assessment of Existing Two Phase Heat Transfer Coefficient and Critical Heat Flux on Cryogenic Flow Boiling Quenching Experiments” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 93, 441 – 463. 2016. [23] Hartwig, J.W., Styborski, J., McQuillen, J., Rame, E., Chung, J. “Liquid Hydrogen Line Chilldown Experiments: Optimal Chilldown Methods” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 137, 703 – 713. 2019. [24] Dye, S.A., Johnson, W.L., Plachta, D.W., Mills, G.L., Buchanan, L., and Kopelove, A. “Design, Fabrication, and Test of Load Bearing Multilayer Insulation to Support a Broad Area Cooling Shield” Cryogenics 64, 135 – 140. 2014. [25] Plachta, D.W., Christie, R.J., Carlberg, E., and Feller, J.R. “Cryogenic Propellant Boil-Off Reduction System” Advances in Cryogenic Engineering 985, 1457. 2008. [26] Plachta, D.W., Johnson, W.L., and Feller, J.R. “Cryogenic Boil-Off Reduction System Testing” AIAA-2014-3579, 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [27] Johnson, W.L., Valenzuela, J., Feller, J., and Plachta, D.W. “Tank Applied Testing of LoadBearing Multilayer Insulation” 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [28] Plachta, D.W., Johnson, W.L., and Feller, J.R. “Zero Boil-Off System Testing” Cryogenics 74, 88 – 94, 2016. [29] Plachta, D.W., Feller, J., Johnson, W.L., and Robinson, C. “Liquid Nitrogen Zero Boiloff Testing” NASA-TP-2017-219389 February, 2017 [30] Johnson, W.L., Ameen, L.M., Koci, F.D., et. al. “The Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation, and Vibration Evaluation Rig” SP2018_179, Space Propulsion Conference, Seville, Spain, May 14 – 18, 2018. [31] Kudlac, M.T. and Jurns, J.M. “Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Devices for Liquid Oxygen” AIAA-2006-5054, 42nd Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA, July 9 – 12, 2006. 21
[32] Jurns, J.M. “Visco Jet Joule-Thomson Device Characterization Tests in Liquid Methane” NASA-CR-2009-215497, March, 2009. [33] Hartwig, J.W. “Liquid Acquisition Devices for Advanced In-Space Propulsion Systems” Elsevier: Boston, MA, November, 2005. [34] Jurns, J.M., McQuillen, J.B., Gaby, J.D., and Sinacore, S.A. “Bubble Point Measurements with Liquid Methane of a Screen Channel Capillary Liquid Acquisition Device” NASATM-2009-215494, 54th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Denver, CO, May 14 – 17, 2007. [35] Jurns, J.M. and McQuillen, J.B. “Liquid Acquisition Device Testing with Sub-cooled Liquid Oxygen” AIAA-2008-4943, 44th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Hartford, CT, July 21 – 23, 2008. [36] Jurns, J.M. “Clogging of Joule-Thomson Devices in Liquid Hydrogen – Lunar Lander Descent Stage Operating Regime” American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 1218, 1385. 2010. [37] Jurns, J.M. and Hartwig, J.W. “Liquid Oxygen Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests with High Pressure LOX at Elevated Temperature” Cryogenics, Vol. 52, No. 4 – 6, 283 – 289. 2012. [38] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J., and Jurns, J.M. "Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Oxygen" Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Volume 29, Issue 2, 353 – 363. 2015. [39] Hartwig, J.W. and McQuillen, J. "Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Methane" Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Volume 29, Issue 2, 364 – 379. 2015. [40] Savas, A.J., Hartwig, J.W., and Moder, J.P. “Thermal Analysis of a Cryogenic Liquid Acquisition Device Barrier under Autogenous and Non-condensable Pressurization Schemes” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer Vol. 74, 403 – 413. 2014. [41] Hartwig, J.W. and Mann, J.A. “Liquid Transport in Microgravity I: A Predictive Bubble Point Pressure Model for Porous LAD Screens” Journal of Porous Media Vol. 17, No. 7, 587 – 600, 2014. [42] Hartwig, J.W. and Mann, J.A. “Liquid Transport in Microgravity II: Bubble Point Pressures of Binary Methanol/Water Mixtures in Fine-Mesh Screens” AIChE Journal Vol. 60, No. 2, 730 – 739. 2014. [43] Hartwig, J.W. and Darr, S.R. “Influential Factors for Liquid Acquisition Device Screen Selection for Cryogenic Propulsion Systems” Applied Thermal Engineering Vol. 66, No. 1-2, 548 – 562. 2014. [45] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J.B., and Chato, D.J. “Screen Channel LAD Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Hydrogen” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Vol. 39, No. 2, 853 – 861. 2014. [46] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J.B., and Chato, D.J. “Warm Pressurant Gas Effects on the Bubble Point for Cryogenic Liquid Acquisition Devices” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Volume 29, Issue 2, 297 – 305. 2015. [47] Hartwig, J.W. “Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Nitrogen” Cryogenics 74, 95 – 105. 2016. [48] ASTM C-1130, "Standard Practice for Calibrating Thin Heat Flux Sensors," ASTM International, 2012. [49] Johnson, W.L., Balasubramaniam, R., and Westra, K. “Testing of Heat Flux Sensors at Cryogenic Temperatures”, 2019 Cryogenic Engineering Conference. 22
[50] Johnson, W.L., Vanderlaan, M., Wood, J.J., Rhys, N.O., Van Sciver, S., and Chato, D.J. “Repeatability of Cryogenic Multilayer Insulation” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 278, 012196. 2017. [51] Chato, D.J., Johnson, W.L., and Alberts, S. “Testing Seam Concepts for Advanced Multilayer Insulation” 2017 Space Cryogenic Workshop, Oakbrook, IL, July 5 – 7, 2017. [52] Johnson, W.L., Chato, D.J., and VanDresar, N.T. “Transmissivity Testing of Multilayer Insulation at Cryogenic Temperatures” Cryogenics 86, 70 – 79, 2017. [53] Johnson, W.L. “NASA’s Cryogenic Fluid Management Needs and Low Temperature Multilayer Insulation Test Results” presentation to CERN Geneva, Switzerland, May 22, 2018.
23
Appendix A A summary of test tanks available for cryogenic testing at CRCC is listed in Table A-1. Original Usage/Year Fabricted
Outer Metal Diameter, m [ft]
Height, m [ft]
Volume, m3 [ft3]
MAWP, MPa [psig]
Manway Location/Size Inner Diameter, m [in]
ASME Stamped
Geometry
Approximate Weight, kg [lbm]
LH2 RFMG LN2 ZBO/1970
Al
1.37 [4.5]
1.37 [4.5]
1.39 [49.1]
0.345 [50]
Top/0.533 [21]
No
Spherical
40.5 [89]
PVT/2004
SS
0.482 [1.58]
1.01 [3.33]
0.185 [6.53]
2.24 [325] @ 20K
Top 0.482 [19]
Yes
Cylindrical
286 [630]
Top/ 0.488 [19.25]
No
Cylindrical
659 [1450]
Top/ 0.488 [19.25]
No
Cylindrical
659 [1450]
2 [290]@ 77K 0.758 [110] @20K 2 [290]@ 77K 0.758 [110] @20K
LO2 RF & OMG, LO2 TVS/2007
SS
1.22 [4]
1.83 [6]
1.65 [58.3]
LO2 LADs/20082010
SS
1.22 [4]
1.83 [6]
1.65 [58.3]
MLSTC/2009
SS
1.22 [4]
1.22 [4]
0.875 [30.9]
2.32 [337]
Top/Bottom 0.488/19.25
No
Spherical
591 [1300]
LH2 RBO & LN2 ZBO/2011 (2 identical)
SS
1.22 [4]
1.40 [4.6]
1.42 [50.2]
0.903 [131] @ 20K
None
Yes
Cylindrical
293 [644]
LN2 VATA I & II/2011
SS
1.22 [4]
1.40 [4.6]
1.42 [50.2]
0.903 [131] @ 20K
None
Yes
Cylindrical
293 [644]
Flat Plate Calorimeter/2013 (Inner/Outer
SS
1.07/1.22 [3.5/4.3]
0.457/0.975 [1.5/3.2]
-
0.379 [55]/ 0.379 [55] psia
None
Yes
Domed/ Flat Plate
764 [1680]
24
vessel values noted)
Cryofab-1 (quantity 2) Cryofab-2 (tall)/2008 High Pressure LO2 Bubble Point 2010 AET Vacuum Vessel/2013
SS
0.558 [1.83]
0.823 [2.7]
0.198 [7] 0.595 [21]
0.172 [25] to Full Vacuum 0.276 [40] to Full Vacuum
SS
0.610 [2]
2.08 [6.83]
SS
0.15 [0.5]
0.337 [1.1]
0.006 [0.212]
3.55 [515]
SS
0.914 [3]
1.98 [6.5]
1.27 [45]
AET Vacuum Vessel/2013
SS
0.863 [2.83]
1.84 [6.04]
1.05 [37]
AET VacuumJacketed Vessel (3 identical)/2015
SS
0.762 [2.5]
1.84 [6.04]
0.821 [29]
0.103 [15] to Full Vacuum 0.0689 [10] to Full Vacuum 0.689 [100] to Full Vacuum
?
No
Cylindrical
~45.4 [100]
0.559 [22]
No
Cylindrical
96.8 [213]
None
No
Cylindrical
~112 [246]
0.897 [35.3]
Yes
Cylindrical
695 [1530]
0.866 [34.1]
No
Cylindrical
682 [1500]
0.762 [30]
Yes
Cylindrical
898 [1975]
Table A-1 – Available Creek Road Cryogenic Complex Test Tanks
25
CRCC consists of SMiRF, Cell 7, CoMPACT calorimeter, superconducting motor testbed, and shop CRCC can handle LHe, LH2, LN2, LAr, LO2, LCH4, LNG 18 test programs have been conducted at SMiRF between 2005 – 2019 An addition 17 test programs have been conducted at Cell 7 between 2005 – 2019
26
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property. We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office). He/she is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs. We confirm that we have provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the Corresponding Author and which has been configured to accept email from [email protected] Signed by all authors as follows: Jason Hartwig 07/18/2019 Wesley Johnson 07/18/2019 Helmut Bamberger 07/18/2019 Michael Meyer 07/18/2019 Jason Wendell 07/18/2019 Jim Mullins 07/18/2019 R. Craig Robinson 07/18/2019 Lori Arnett 07/18/2019
27
S0011-2275(19)30237-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2020.103038 JCRY 103038
To appear in:
Cryogenics
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
19 July 2019 17 September 2019 7 January 2020
Please cite this article as: Hartwig, J., Johnson, W., Bamberger, H., Meyer, M., Wendell, J., Mullins, J., Craig Robinson, R., Arnett, L., NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Cryogenic Complex: Testing between 2005 – 2019, Cryogenics (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2020.103038
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Cryogenic Complex: Testing between 2005 – 2019 Jason Hartwiga, Wesley Johnsona, Helmut Bambergerb, Michael Meyerc, Jason Wendella, Jim Mullinsa, R. Craig Robinsona, and Lori Arnetta aNASA
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, 44135 Engineering, Cleveland, OH, 44135 cNASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23666 bJacobs
Abstract Creek Road Cryogenic Complex (CRCC) is the principle cryogenic fluids technology test facility at the NASA Glenn Research Center. CRCC consists of the Small Multipurpose Research Facility (SMiRF), Cryogenic Component Lab-7 (CCL-7), a calorimeter, a superconducting motor testbed, and a shop area building. It is capable of simulating many extreme environments including transients during launch and ascent from Earth, Low Earth Orbit, and Lunar, Martian, and Titan atmosphere and surface conditions. The facility can handle liquid helium, liquid hydrogen, liquid nitrogen, liquid argon, liquid oxygen, liquid methane, and liquefied natural gas. It also provides gaseous nitrogen and helium. This paper presents a summary of CRCC’s test capabilities, available test tanks, as well as a brief summary and history of recent testing from 2005 – 2019. Highlights
CRCC consists of SMiRF, Cell 7, CoMPACT calorimeter, superconducting motor testbed, and shop CRCC can handle LHe, LH2, LN2, LAr, LO2, LCH4, LNG 18 test programs have been conducted at SMiRF between 2005 – 2019 An addition 17 test programs have been conducted at Cell 7 between 2005 – 2019
1.0 Keywords Space cryogenics, SMiRF, NASA Glenn, hydrogen, oxygen, liquefied natural gas 2.0 Introduction Both manned and unmanned space exploration remains at the forefront of mankind’s endeavor to search, explore, and thus understand the physical universe. According to many of NASA’s recent long term space exploration visions, the development of cryogenic fluid management systems remains at the forefront of its research and technology development program. In recent years, 1
there has been a decline in the proposed usage of the more toxic storable propellants, such as nitrous tetroxide (N2O4) and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) towards using cryogenic propellants for many reasons such as safety and environmental concerns, reusability, system performance, and compatibility with the production of propellants and fluid on extra-terrestrial surfaces, see for example [1, 2]. While there is flight heritage with short duration cryogenic propulsion systems such as liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen (LH2/LO2) fueled Saturn V, Centaur, Shuttle, etc.; new long duration storage cryogenic-based architectures will require refinement of existing cryogenic fluid management technology. Below is a consolidated list of cryogenic fluid management (CFM) technologies that enable or enhance several architectures for manned space missions, including the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) stage, lander ascent and descent stages, in-space resource utilization (ISRU) on the surface of the Moon or Mars, and cryogenic fuel depots [3]:
20K cryocoolers 90K cryocoolers Cryo-couplers Line chilldown Liquefaction Liquid acquisition devices (LADs) Low conductivity structures Mass gauging Multi-layer insulation (MLI) (high vacuum and soft vacuum) Pressurization (autogenous and non-condensible) Pumps Tank chilldown Thermal coatings Thermodynamic vent system (TVS) Tube-on-shield and tube-on-tank Valves, actuators, components
Note that many of these CFM technologies are required whether LOX/LH2 or LOX/liquid methane (LCH4) is the desired propellant combination. Cryogenic fluid management technology can also be used to enhance performance of life support systems, fuel cells, and cooling and refrigeration systems. The challenge thus arises to develop technology that is flexible, broad based, and applicable to multiple missions. Furthermore, fundamental issues associated with the storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants must first be addressed before any of these missions become fully realizable. These issues can be addressed analytically and experimentally, but flight experiments are ultimately required to mature CFM technology to develop data-anchored analytical, design, and sizing models. Since 1945, the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has been studying the storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants. Recently, NASA GRC’s cryogenic fluid technology test facilities were relocated due to expansion of neighboring Cleveland airport. Renamed the Creek Road Cryogenic Complex (CRCC) in 2003, this new state-of-the-art facility has continued NASA 2
GRC’s legacy cryogenic testing capability. After the initial move, test activities between 2003 – 2005 demonstrated the capability of the facility in [4]. This paper presents the history of NASA GRC’s workhorse cryogenic test facility between 2005 – 2019. First, a summary is given of current test capabilities. Then, a brief summary of recent test programs is discussed. Finally, planned work in the coming years is briefly outlined. Appendix A lists 3.0 Facility Test Capabilities CRCC was relocated and reconstructed in 2003 and consists of the Small Multipurpose Research Facility (SMiRF), Cryogenic Component Lab-7 (CCL-7 or Cell 7), a superconducting motor testbed, a calorimeter, and a shop area building. An overhead shot of the facilities is shown in Figure 1. CRCC is a world class cryogenic test complex that can simulate many extreme environments including ascent launching from Earth, Low Earth Orbit, and Lunar, Martian, and Titan atmosphere and surface conditions. CRCC provides a small-to-medium scale test capability to test components and subsystems, and can be used to perform transfer, gauging, and long-term cryogenic storage tests all in extreme environments. With multiple test tanks and vessels available (see Appendix A), build-up and testing of multiple experiments can occur at the same time. The two main test facilities within CRCC (CCL-7 and SMiRF) have independent data and control systems and can be operated simultaneously. CRCC uses independent systems for recording and controlling: LabVIEW data acquisition systems (DAQ) are used for data collection and storage, while programmable logic controllers (PLC) with human machine interfaces (HMI) can be used to control variables of interest such as pressure, temperature, and flow rate. Safety is handled with remote operation, roll-up doors, blast walls, explosion proof equipment, gas detection, exclusion zones based on appropriate quantity-distance calculations, and programed alarms, interlocks, and shutdowns. Both test cells have separate oxygen & flammable fluid systems. The test cells are capable of conditioning cryogens over wide ranges of temperatures and pressures, and have residual gas analyzers for measuring vacuum constituents up to a molecular weight of 100. All facilities are in compliance with National Fire Protection Association codes and other appropriate standards. Following is a list of specific test capabilities for SMiRF and Cell 7 since relocation in 2003. 3.1 SMiRF Shown in Figure 2, SMiRF specializes in small and mid-size system (~0.875 m3) and component level tests. It is a configurable test cell providing the ability to simulate space, semi-vacuum, high altitude, and launch transient environments. SMiRF can be used to investigate insulation systems (cryocooler and associated tube-on-shield and tube-on-tank systems, MLI, structures), propellant tank outflow, all aspects of larger scale cryogenic transfer (LADs, line chilldown, tank chilldown, tank fill, tank pressurization, pumps, valves, actuators), mass gauging, TVS, liquefaction, and thermal coatings. SMiRF can handle hazardous gaseous and cryogenic flammable fluids to simulate extreme environments without compromising on personal safety. 3
Figures 3a and b show the lower and upper levels of SMiRF. Shown on the lower level are the diffusion pumps and piping connections to the roughing pumps while the upper level shows four cryogenic-rated fill and vent lines that attach to the vacuum chamber lid. The heart of the SMiRF facility is a vertically oriented cylindrical thermal-vacuum chamber. SMiRF has an interconnect and electric work area adjacent to the main test facility that is maintained at positive pressure during testing to maintain an explosion proof electrical classification of adjoining areas.
Figure 1 – Creek Road Cryogenic Complex
Figure 2 – The Small Multipurpose Research Facility at NASA Glenn 4
Figure 3 – SMiRF a) Vacuum Chamber Body Lower Level on left and b) Vacuum Chamber Lid Upper Level on right To test, over-the-road tanker trucks are used to deliver cryogen with the facility. SMiRF can be operated remotely when testing flammable propellants, and either remotely or locally when testing inert fluids. Tanks or test articles are suspended from the vacuum chamber lid into the thermally-controlled chamber. All electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation lines pass through the lid to interface with the DAQ and/or PLC/HMI. While certain test tanks may be rated to pressures in excess of 3.5 MPa, SMiRF can handle pressurized vessels rated to 2 MPa. SMiRF can also accommodate sub-atmospheric conditioning of propellant. For sensitive boil-off rate testing, SMiRF uses a series system of back pressure control valves to control pressure within 69 Pa (0.01 psi) and thus prevent pressure swings associated with the local weather from affecting the fluid inside a test tank. Vapor flow rates are measured using a similar series bank of flow meters. Any cryogenic-rated instrumentation can be configured to work with the facility interfaces, such as silicion diodes, Cernox temperature sensors resistance temperature devices, and thermocouples, pressure transducers, Coriolis, turbine, thermal mass, and venturi flow meters, etc. The DAQ is configured to accept either current or voltage output from instrumentation. Following is a list of current SMiRF test capabilities in Table 1: Capability Vacuum chamber
Details - 7.4 rated atmosphere to full vacuum, - Second floor piping and vacuum chamber lid access Liquid helium (LHe), LH2, liquid nitrogen (LN2), liquid argon (LAr), LOX, LCH4, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and other liquids as required Gaseous helium (GHe), hydrogen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, and others as required Continuous – 1.33x10-3 Pa (5x10-5 torr); ascent profile 101 kPa (760 torr) to 1.33 Pa m3,
Cryogenic test liquids
Cryogenic test gases Vacuum environment 5
(1x10-2 torr) in 2 minutes shown in Figure 4 against NASA Shuttle ascent depressurization. SMiRF can simulate intermediate vacuum pressures as well; see [5] for recent example 110 – 390K programmable to simulate diurnal cycles; warming ramp rate is 1K/min, cooling ramp rate is 3 K/min Vacuum to 2 MPa +/- 170 Pa 0 – 0.11 kg/s steady state With shroud inside vacuum chamber: 44 in x 65 in (1.1 m x 1.7 m); without shroud inside vacuum chamber: 71 in x 101 in (1.8 m x 2.3 m) - 64 recordable channels at speeds up to 0.1 Hz - 424 recordable channels at speeds up to 1 Hz - 6 recordable channels at speed up to 6,250 Hz - High speed flow visualization capability up to 800 frames per second
Thermal environment shroud Pressure of fluid in test tank Back pressure control Outflow rate Test article sizes (width*height)
Data system
Table 1 – SMiRF Test Capabilities 800 SMiRF Shuttle
Vacuum Pressure [torr]
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Time [s]
Figure 4 – SMiRF Vacuum Chamber De-pressurization Profile for Simulating Ascent Launches 3.2 Cell 7
6
Shown in Figure 5, Cell 7 is a smaller version of the SMiRF test facility with similar capabilities that specializes in low cost, small scale concept and component level testing. It is also a highly configurable test cell providing the ability to simulate space, semi-vacuum, and high altitude. Cell 7 can be used to investigate some aspects of insulation systems (MLI, structures), all aspects of small scale cryogenic transfer (LADs, line chilldown, tank chilldown, tank fill, tank pressurization, pumps, valves, actuators), mass gauging, and TVS. It can handle hazardous gaseous and cryogenic flammable fluids to simulate extreme environments without compromising on personal safety. As in the case of SMiRF, portable dewars are used to provide cryogenic fluids to the facility. Cell 7 can be operated locally or remotely. Components can be mounted either in a vacuum jacketed (VJ) or standard supply or receiver tank as shown in Figure 6. Further thermodynamic conditioning of the cryogenic fluid can be provided in the supply tank using either local eductors to lower the pressure and saturation temperature of the fluid or gas supplies to densify the fluid. There are several vessels that can be used for testing, ranging from 0.006 m3 to 0.821 m3, the latter of which is shown in Figure 6. Side and top viewports provide access for visualization. All electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation lines pass through the lid to the DAQ and/or PLC/HMI interfaces. While certain test tanks as well as facility plumbing may be rated to pressures in excess of 3.5 MPa, Cell 7 is generally operated below 2 MPa. Cell 7 can also accommodate sub-atmospheric conditioning of propellant through the use of air ejectors. For sensitive calorimeter boil-off testing, Cell 7 uses similar back pressure control valves to control pressure and volumetric flow meters to measure flow. As with SMiRF, any cryogenic-rated instrumentation can be configured to work with the facility interfaces. The DAQ is also configured to accept either current or voltage output from instrumentation. Table A-1 in the Appendix section lists currently available tanks and vessels accessible for testing at SMiRF and Cell 7.
Figure 5 – Cell 7 Research Facility at NASA Glenn
7
Figure 6 – Cell 7 Test Configuration with Supply and Receiver Tanks Following is a list of current Cell 7 test capabilities in Table 2: Capability Details Cryogenic test liquids LHe, LH2, LN2, LAr, LOX, LCH4, LNG, and other liquids as required Cryogenic test gases helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, and others as required Vacuum environment Continuous – 1.33x10-4 Pa (1x10-6 torr); can simulate intermediate vacuum pressures as well Thermal environment shroud Any temperature accessible via saturation temperature of any cryogen; cryocoolers can also be used to control intermediate temperatures Pressure of fluid in test tank 17 kPa to 2 MPa Back pressure control +/- 170 Pa Outflow rate 0 – 0.11 kg/s steady state Test article sizes (width*height) 0.76 m x 1.42 m (30 in x 56 in) Data system - 320 recordable channels at speeds up to 1 Hz - 6 recordable channels at speed up to 6,250 Hz - Flow visualization capability up to 800 frames per second Table 2 – Cell 7 Test Capabilities 8
3.3 COMPACT Calorimeter With the recent development of Gifford-McMahon and Pulse Tube cryocoolers for use in various industrial applications, it became possible to forgo the use of cryogenic fluids for the purpose of measuring heat loads in a calorimetric setting. The first such calorimeter was developed by Celik and Van Sciver at Florida State University [6]. Based on the results they achieved, a similar calorimeter was developed to complement fluid-based testing at the Creek Road Cryogenic Complex. The Calorimeter for the Measurement of thermal Performance At Cryogenic Temperatures (CoMPACT) is located in a portion of the CRCC shop area (see Figure 7) and is more fully described by [7]. It uses three cryocoolers, two 20 K pulse tubes and a 90 K Gifford McMahon, to cool the test section and guard sections of the cold cylinder and the warm cylinder (see Figure 8). This allows for continuous and automated operation without requiring personnel to be present to ensure system safety. The temperature range of the cold cylinder is between 15 K and 90 K. The temperature range of the warm cylinder is between 65 K and 100 K. Additionally, the warm cylinder can be removed for operation of the system at much closer to 293 K warm boundary temperatures. The cold cylinder is approximately 1.2 meters tall (including the guard sections) and can accept test specimens up to 5 cm in thickness. During testing, the vacuum environment is maintained below 1.33x10-4 Pa (10-6 torr) and routinely achieves 1.33x10-6 (10-8 torr) during 20 K operations. Heaters within the system can be used to change the setpoint temperatures without opening the system.
9
Figure 7 – COMPACT Vacuum Chamber with Pumping Station Operationally, the system performs as shown in Figure 9. All the heat that goes through the MLI to the cold cylinder is conducted down the cylinder to a central hub, through the hub, and up a calibrated rod to the cryocooler cold head. Temperature sensors along the calibrated rod are used to calculate the heat load into the system. There are a total of 6 calibrated rods allowing heat flux measurements between 0.01 W/m2 and 2 W/m2.
Figure 8 – Top and Bottom View of Cryocoolers Installed on Vacuum Chamber Lid
Figure 9 – COMPACT Calorimeter Operational Principle 3.4 Other Test Facilities CRCC also has an array of smaller testing capabilities using various cryocoolers to simulate various environmental and fluid conditions. Cryocooler- based cooling enables cryogenic testing at temperatures previously difficult to achieve when using traditional liquid baths. CRCC also has a developing testbed available for testing partially and fully superconducting machines (motors or generators). Shown in Figure 10, the testbed contains a concrete structure 10
for mounting the motor or generator, a wall with piping to condition the liquid or gaseous propellant used to cool the machine coils, and interfaces with the SMiRF facility and roadable dewars.
Figure 10 – Cryogenic Superconducting Motor Pad 4.0 Test Programs This section outlines the major test programs utilizing CRCC facilities between 2005 – 2019, and the associated facility upgrades. Programs that were cancelled or did not result in test results are not reported. Only brief summaries are given here, for more details, the reader is referred to historical literature where available. 4.1 SMiRF Tests In 2005 and 2006, SMiRF gained the ability to test with LOX. Small-scale radio frequency mass gauging (RFMG) tests were performed using LOX using the 0.461 m3 cylindrical vessel shown in Figure 11. Successful tests were conducted at multiple fill levels and also with LN2 [8]. In 2007, SMiRF gained the ability to mass gauge using a load cell with the vacuum chamber. Follow-on LOX and LN2 mass gauging tests were performed with RFMG and the pressurevolume-temperature (PVT) method for a thick-walled 1.22 m diameter, 1.83 m tall high pressure vessel shown in Figure 12. LN2 and LOX PVT test results are reported in [9, 10] respectively, and RFMG LOX results are reported in [11]. In 2007 – 2008, SMiRF gained the ability to perform residual gas analysis. Propellant scavenging tests were performed at SMiRF using LOX to measure the amount of residual GHe in a tank after a typical engine burn in a high pressure propellant tank and to investigate methods to remove GHe using a similar high pressure tank in Figure 12 [12]. Also in 2007/2008, a test was performed in LOX to determine the feasibility of using visco-jets as Joule-Thompson (JT) 11
devices for tank pressure control in cryogenic tanks; JT devices (typically an orifice) are used in conjunction with a heat exchanger and mixer to reduce tank pressure due to parasitic heat leak into a cryogenic tank.
Figure 11 – Liquid Oxygen Mass Gauging Tests
Figure 12 –Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Nitrogen Mass Gauging Test Tank Inside SMIRF Vacuum Chamber In 2008, numerous active pressure control TVS tests were performed at SMiRF using LOX and the test tank from Figure 10 results of which are available in [13]. In 2009 and 2010, SMiRF built infrastructure for handling and conditioning large amounts (> 30 m3) of LCH4, including a new propellant subcooling system and a bubbling system [14]. The Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control (MLSTC) demonstrated performance of an MLI system for the high pressure stainless steel (SS) 1.22 m diameter storage tank shown in Figure 13 [15]. 12
Another new feature also demonstrated was the capability to match the pressure profile within a fairing during launch [16].
Figure 13 – MLSTC High Pressure Methane Test Tank with MLI In 2010, SMiRF gained the capability to handle steady state outflow up to 0.1 kg/s, transient outflow rate up to 5 kg/s over several minutes, as well as the static pressure limit to 2 MPa. High pressure screen channel LADs tests were performed in LOX at SMiRF using a similar high pressure tank as in Figure 12 [17, 18]. Later in 2010, LH2 RMFG tests were conducted on a thinwalled Aluminum (Al) test tank shown in Figure 14. In 2011, SMiRF improved the ability to control and throttle vacuum chamber pressure to simulate de-pressurization. MLI/Broad Area Cooling (BAC) tests were performed to assess the structural integrity of a thin, BAC shield. Figure 15 shows the front and backside of the test article, an MLI blanket with a 5 mil Al BAC shield mounted on a 1.37 m x 1.52 m (54 in x 60 in) flat plate structural support mounted inside SMiRF. In 2012, SMiRF gained high speed flow visualization capability, LH2 outflow capability to 0.l kg/s (0.25 lbm/s), and an updated outflow flow control manifold. Parametric LH2 LADs and transfer line chilldown tests were performed using the same tank as in [13]. Results of the LADs tests are available in [19, 20] while line chilldown test results are available in [21-23]. In 2012/2013, two test programs were performed at SMiRF to demonstrate long term LH2 storage, named Reduced Boil-Off-1 (RBO-1) and RBO-2 using a new 1.42 m3, 0.9 MPa rated SS test tank shown in Figure 16. Design details and general results of this test program are available in [24-27]. In 2013, ten tests were conducted for the Zero Boil Off (ZBO) LN2 test program to test a tube on tank distributed cooling system to achieve ZBO [28, 29]. 13
Figure 14 – LH2 RFMG Test Tank inside SMiRF Vacuum Chamber
Figure 15– MLI/BAC Ascent Venting Test Hardware
Figure 16 – Reduced Boil-Off System Test Tank with Subsystem 14
In 2015-2016, SMiRF gained the ability to handle cryogenic carbon dioxide due in part from the Martian Aqueous Habitat Reconnaissance Suite (MAHRS) test program. The sensor package is shown in Figure 17 lowering into SMiRF’s vacuum chamber.
Figure 17 – MAHRS Electronics Package Lowering into SMiRF’s Vacuum Chamber In 2016 and 2017, the Sub-scale Laboratory Investigation of Cooling Enhancements (SLICE) test program investigated vapor cooling on a section of the forward test skirt associated with the Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation, and Vibration Evaluation Rig (SHIIVER) [30]. A picture of the test article hanging from the SMiRF vacuum chamber lid is shown in Figure 18. Facility improvements during testing included the addition of several heaters to heat up the hydrogen vapor flow rate between cooling channels (two were used on the test skirt). The most recently completed test was in late 2018. In order to improve tank pressurization models, a helium gas diffuser was submerged in LH2 and tests were run to examine dynamics of the bubbles leaving the diffuser (i.e. coalescence versus breaking apart). 4.2 Cell 7 and CoMPACT Tests In 2005 and 2006, two different sets of component level LAD tests were conducted in LN2 and LOX in Cell 7 using the 0.558 m OD, 0.198 m3 Cryofab dewar. Bubble point and outflow tests were performed for a 200x1400 screen channel LAD [31].
15
In 2007, CRCC gained the ability to test with LCH4. RFMG mass gauging tests were conducted during fluid transfer between two 0.198 m3 Cryofab dewars as shown in Figure 19. Also in 2007, visco-jet tests in LCH4 were conducted in the same Cryofab dewar previously mentioned [32].
Figure 18 – SLICE Test Hardware Attached to SMiRF Vacuum Chamber Lid
Figure 19 – Tank-to-Tank LCH4 RFMG Test Configuration
16
In 2007-2008, LAD bubble point tests were conducted at Cell 7 in LCH4 using the same test article, dewar, and saturation pressures as in recent LOX bubble point tests [33, 34] In 2008, another round of bubble point tests were conducted at Cell 7 using the same test article, dewar, and saturation pressures as in the other two recent test campaigns, but for subcooled LOX [35]. In 2008-2009, JT clogging mitigation experiments in LH2 were conducted in Cell 7 using the Cryofab dewar shown in Figure 20 [36]. In 2009, LH2 RFMG tests were performed in LH2 at Cell 7 using a new 2.08 m tall Cryofab dewar [11]. In 2009/2010, LOX bubble point tests were performed at Cell 7 using a new high pressure rated optically accessible test article shown in Figure 21 [37, 38]. These tests pushed Cell 7 static pressure capability to beyond 1.73 MPa. Next in 2010, numerous porous plug-type samples were tested in Cell 7 to determine pressure drop and flow characteristics for an ISS filtration system. Later in 2010, bubble point tests were performed at Cell 7 using the same high pressure CFM test tank, but this time in LCH4 [39, 40]. Finally in 2010, room temperature bubble point tests were conducted on three fine mesh LAD screen samples in acetone, isopropyl alcohol (IPA), methanol, water, and binary mixtures of methanol and water [41, 42]. Complimentary IPA wicking rate tests were also performed in IPA [43].
Figure 20 – LH2 JT Clogging Mitigation Test Hardware and Dewar In 2011, numerous LH2 and LN2 bubble points were performed on multiple fine mesh screen channel LAD screens using the Cryofab dewar [45-47]. In 2011 and 2012, a risk mitigation line chilldown test program was conducted in Cell 7 in LN2 to reduce risk for LH2 line chilldown tests later in 2012. Also in 2011 and 2012, numerous IPA 17
bubble point tests were performed at Cell 7, also as part of a risk mitigation test program for LH2 outflow tests in [19].
Figure 21 – High Pressure CFM Test Tank used for High Pressure LOX and LCH4 Bubble Point Tests In 2013, several upgrades were made at Cell 7 including (1) three new large VJ dewars and a vacuum vessel were fabricated to increase test capacity at Cell 7, (2) new VJ LH2 transfer piping, and (3) a new high vacuum system. Also in 2013, six tests were performed in LH2 to compare the performance and response of Silicon Diode and Cernox temperature sensors using the same tall Cryofab dewar from mass gauging tests in 2009. In 2016, CRCC gained the ability to test cryogenic rotating machinery. A novel 20K-rated torque cell shown on the left hand side of Figure 22 used for measuring torque at cryogenic temperatures was tested at Cell 7 in LN2 that can be integrated into motor testing shown in the right hand side.
18
Figure 22 – Calibrated Torque Cell, Drive Motors, Support Structure The most recent test performed in Cell 7 was in 2017 where an attempt was made to calibrate heat flux sensors at cryogenic temperatures in the spirit of ASTM C-1130 [48, 49]. Throughout 2014-16, the CoMPACT calorimeter was used to test various cryogenic insulation concepts, such as repeatability testing, seams, and thermal performance between 20-90K warm boundary condition [50-53]. 5.0 Conclusions and Future Test Programs The Creek Road Cryogenic Complex at NASA Glenn Research Center is a premier cryogenic test facility in the United States. CRCC is continuing to develop its “extreme environments” capabilities to simulate Lunar, Martian, and Titan atmospheric and surface conditions. Future potential work planned includes the integration of a stand-alone refrigeration capability that can provide between 200 and 1200 W of heat removal within the vacuum chamber using a 90K cryocooler, and development and ground testing of a parabolic flight rig that will be used to investigate efficient methods for chilldown of cryogenic propellant tanks. 6.0 Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge all of the science, engineering, and technician staff who have dedicated themselves to ensuring successful test programs over the past decade and a half, including: Steve Barsi, Marivell Baez, Dave Bennett, Lester Brooks, Moses Brown, Robert Buehrle, Alex Camargo, Dave Chato, Robert Christie, Tim Czaruk, Chris DeTardo, Dustin Dombrowski, Jason Edwards, Travis Faulkner, Drew Fausnaugh, Jeff Feller, Ken Fischer, Carl Fuchs, Chris Garcia, Stan Grisnik, Monica Guzki, Hans Hansen, Dan Hauser, John Jurns, Greg Kearney, Arnie Kuchenmeister, Jack Kowaleski, Mark Kubiak, Maureen Kudlac, Diane Legallee, John 19
McQuillen, Rick Michalson, Bruce McElroy, Jeff Moder, Susan Model, Jay Owens, David Pike, Joe Puskas, Frank Quinn, Tom Ralys, Olen Reed, Anthony Roberts, Lou Salerno, John Schubert, Bob Silloway, Mark Pat Spohn, Springowski, Alex Sgondea, Tony Skaff, Brooks Smith, Pat Spohn, Bob Tomsic, Tom Tomsik, Steve Tucker, Doug Tyson, William Vaccariello, Neil Vandresar Tiffany Vanderwyst, Jerri Vokac, and Greg Zimmerli, and Todd Zwilling. We thank David Plachta for his contributions to this paper and we especially thank Michael Doherty and Joseph Gaby for their advocacy throughout the years. 7.0 References [1] Percy, T., Polsgrove, T., Alexander, L., and Turpin, J. “Design and Development of a Methane Cryogenic Propulsion Stage for Human Mars Exploration” AIAA Space Conference September, 2016. [2] Polsgrove, T., Chapman, J., Sutherlin, S., et al. “Human Mars Lander Design for NASA's Evolvable Mars Campaign”2016 IEEE Conference March, 2016. [3] Johnson, W. L. and Stephens, J. “NASA’s Cryogenic Fluid Management Technology Development Roadmaps” JANNAF In-Space Propulsion Technical Interchange Meeting, August 2018. [4] Jurns, J.M. and Kudlac, M.T. “NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Complex – Cryogenic Testing Facilities” Cryogenics 46, 98 – 104, 2006. [5] Johnson, W.L. “Recent Rapid Depressurization Testing of Multilayer Systems” AIAA-20143580, 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [6] Celik D, Hurd J, Klimas R, Van Sciver S W, A Calorimeter for Multi-layer Insulation (MLI) Performance Measurements at Variable Temperatures, Cryogenics, Volumes 55– 56, May–July 2013, Pages 73-78. [7] Chato, D.J, Johnson, W.L., and N.T. Van Dresar “Design and Operation of a Calorimeter for Advanced Multilayer Insulation Testing”, AIAA 2016-4775, 2016. [8] Zimmerli, G.A., Vaden, K.R., Herlacher, M.D., Buchanan, D.A., and Van Dresar, N.T. “Radio Frequency Mass Gauging of Propellants” NASA-TM-2007-214907, August, 2007. [9] Van Dresar, N.T. “PVT Gauging with Liquid Nitrogen” Cryogenics 46, 118 – 125. 2006. [10] Van Dresar, N.T. and Zimmerli, G. “Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) Gauging of an Isothermal Cryogenic Propellant Tank Pressurized with Gaseous Helium” NASA-TP2014-218083, February, 2014. [11] Zimmerli, G., Asipauskas, M., Wagner, J.D., and Follo, J.C. “Propellant Quantity Gauging Using the Radio Frequency Mass Gauge” AIAA-2011-1320, 49th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4 – 7, 2011. [12] Chato, D.J. “LOX Tank Helium Removal for Propellant Scavenging Test” AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 7 – 10, 2008. [13] Van Dresar, N.T. “Liquid Oxygen Thermodynamic Vent System Testing with Helium Pressurization” NASA-TP-2014-216633, April, 2014. [14] Bamberger, H.H., Robinson, C., Jurns, J.M., and Grasl, S.J. “Liquid Methane Conditioning Capabilities at the NASA Glenn Research Center’s Small Multipurpose Research Facility for Accelerated Lunar Surface Storage Thermal Testing” NASA-CR-2011-216745, September, 2011.
20
[15] Plachta, D., Sutherlin, S., Johnson, W., Feller, J., and Jurns, J. “Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control Test” NASA-TM-2012-217427, March, 2012. [16] Johnson, W.L., Jurns, J.M., Bamberger, H.H., and Plachta, D.W. “Launch Ascent Testing of a Representative Altair Ascent Stage Methane Tank” Cryogenics 52, 278 – 282. 2012. [17] Hartwig, J.W. and Darr, S.R. “Analytical Model for Steady Flow through a Finite Channel with One Porous Wall with Arbitrary Variable Suction or Injection” Physics of Fluids 26, 123603, 2014. [18] Chato, D.J., Hartwig, J.W., Rame, E., and McQuillen, J.B. “Inverted Outflow Ground Testing of Cryogenic Propellant Liquid Acquisition Devices” AIAA-2014-3993, 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [19] Hartwig, J.W., Chato, D.J., McQuillen, J.B., Vera, J., Kudlac, M.T., and Quinn, F.D. “Liquid Acquisition Device Outflow Tests in Liquid Hydrogen” Cryogenics 64, 295 – 306. 2014. [20] Hartwig, J.W. and Darr, S.R. “Analytical Model for Steady Flow through a Finite Channel with One Porous Wall with Arbitrary Variable Suction or Injection” Physics of Fluids 26, 123603, 2014. [21] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J.B., and Rame, E. “Pulse Chilldown Tests of a Pressure Fed Liquid Hydrogen Transfer Line” AIAA-2016-2186, AIAA SciTech Conference San Diego, CA, January 4 – 8, 2016. [22] Hartwig, J.W., Asensio, A., and Darr, S.R. “Assessment of Existing Two Phase Heat Transfer Coefficient and Critical Heat Flux on Cryogenic Flow Boiling Quenching Experiments” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 93, 441 – 463. 2016. [23] Hartwig, J.W., Styborski, J., McQuillen, J., Rame, E., Chung, J. “Liquid Hydrogen Line Chilldown Experiments: Optimal Chilldown Methods” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 137, 703 – 713. 2019. [24] Dye, S.A., Johnson, W.L., Plachta, D.W., Mills, G.L., Buchanan, L., and Kopelove, A. “Design, Fabrication, and Test of Load Bearing Multilayer Insulation to Support a Broad Area Cooling Shield” Cryogenics 64, 135 – 140. 2014. [25] Plachta, D.W., Christie, R.J., Carlberg, E., and Feller, J.R. “Cryogenic Propellant Boil-Off Reduction System” Advances in Cryogenic Engineering 985, 1457. 2008. [26] Plachta, D.W., Johnson, W.L., and Feller, J.R. “Cryogenic Boil-Off Reduction System Testing” AIAA-2014-3579, 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [27] Johnson, W.L., Valenzuela, J., Feller, J., and Plachta, D.W. “Tank Applied Testing of LoadBearing Multilayer Insulation” 50th Joint Propulsion Conference Cleveland, OH, July 28 – 30, 2014. [28] Plachta, D.W., Johnson, W.L., and Feller, J.R. “Zero Boil-Off System Testing” Cryogenics 74, 88 – 94, 2016. [29] Plachta, D.W., Feller, J., Johnson, W.L., and Robinson, C. “Liquid Nitrogen Zero Boiloff Testing” NASA-TP-2017-219389 February, 2017 [30] Johnson, W.L., Ameen, L.M., Koci, F.D., et. al. “The Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation, and Vibration Evaluation Rig” SP2018_179, Space Propulsion Conference, Seville, Spain, May 14 – 18, 2018. [31] Kudlac, M.T. and Jurns, J.M. “Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Devices for Liquid Oxygen” AIAA-2006-5054, 42nd Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA, July 9 – 12, 2006. 21
[32] Jurns, J.M. “Visco Jet Joule-Thomson Device Characterization Tests in Liquid Methane” NASA-CR-2009-215497, March, 2009. [33] Hartwig, J.W. “Liquid Acquisition Devices for Advanced In-Space Propulsion Systems” Elsevier: Boston, MA, November, 2005. [34] Jurns, J.M., McQuillen, J.B., Gaby, J.D., and Sinacore, S.A. “Bubble Point Measurements with Liquid Methane of a Screen Channel Capillary Liquid Acquisition Device” NASATM-2009-215494, 54th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Denver, CO, May 14 – 17, 2007. [35] Jurns, J.M. and McQuillen, J.B. “Liquid Acquisition Device Testing with Sub-cooled Liquid Oxygen” AIAA-2008-4943, 44th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Hartford, CT, July 21 – 23, 2008. [36] Jurns, J.M. “Clogging of Joule-Thomson Devices in Liquid Hydrogen – Lunar Lander Descent Stage Operating Regime” American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 1218, 1385. 2010. [37] Jurns, J.M. and Hartwig, J.W. “Liquid Oxygen Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests with High Pressure LOX at Elevated Temperature” Cryogenics, Vol. 52, No. 4 – 6, 283 – 289. 2012. [38] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J., and Jurns, J.M. "Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Oxygen" Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Volume 29, Issue 2, 353 – 363. 2015. [39] Hartwig, J.W. and McQuillen, J. "Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Methane" Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Volume 29, Issue 2, 364 – 379. 2015. [40] Savas, A.J., Hartwig, J.W., and Moder, J.P. “Thermal Analysis of a Cryogenic Liquid Acquisition Device Barrier under Autogenous and Non-condensable Pressurization Schemes” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer Vol. 74, 403 – 413. 2014. [41] Hartwig, J.W. and Mann, J.A. “Liquid Transport in Microgravity I: A Predictive Bubble Point Pressure Model for Porous LAD Screens” Journal of Porous Media Vol. 17, No. 7, 587 – 600, 2014. [42] Hartwig, J.W. and Mann, J.A. “Liquid Transport in Microgravity II: Bubble Point Pressures of Binary Methanol/Water Mixtures in Fine-Mesh Screens” AIChE Journal Vol. 60, No. 2, 730 – 739. 2014. [43] Hartwig, J.W. and Darr, S.R. “Influential Factors for Liquid Acquisition Device Screen Selection for Cryogenic Propulsion Systems” Applied Thermal Engineering Vol. 66, No. 1-2, 548 – 562. 2014. [45] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J.B., and Chato, D.J. “Screen Channel LAD Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Hydrogen” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Vol. 39, No. 2, 853 – 861. 2014. [46] Hartwig, J.W., McQuillen, J.B., and Chato, D.J. “Warm Pressurant Gas Effects on the Bubble Point for Cryogenic Liquid Acquisition Devices” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Volume 29, Issue 2, 297 – 305. 2015. [47] Hartwig, J.W. “Screen Channel Liquid Acquisition Device Bubble Point Tests in Liquid Nitrogen” Cryogenics 74, 95 – 105. 2016. [48] ASTM C-1130, "Standard Practice for Calibrating Thin Heat Flux Sensors," ASTM International, 2012. [49] Johnson, W.L., Balasubramaniam, R., and Westra, K. “Testing of Heat Flux Sensors at Cryogenic Temperatures”, 2019 Cryogenic Engineering Conference. 22
[50] Johnson, W.L., Vanderlaan, M., Wood, J.J., Rhys, N.O., Van Sciver, S., and Chato, D.J. “Repeatability of Cryogenic Multilayer Insulation” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 278, 012196. 2017. [51] Chato, D.J., Johnson, W.L., and Alberts, S. “Testing Seam Concepts for Advanced Multilayer Insulation” 2017 Space Cryogenic Workshop, Oakbrook, IL, July 5 – 7, 2017. [52] Johnson, W.L., Chato, D.J., and VanDresar, N.T. “Transmissivity Testing of Multilayer Insulation at Cryogenic Temperatures” Cryogenics 86, 70 – 79, 2017. [53] Johnson, W.L. “NASA’s Cryogenic Fluid Management Needs and Low Temperature Multilayer Insulation Test Results” presentation to CERN Geneva, Switzerland, May 22, 2018.
23
Appendix A A summary of test tanks available for cryogenic testing at CRCC is listed in Table A-1. Original Usage/Year Fabricted
Outer Metal Diameter, m [ft]
Height, m [ft]
Volume, m3 [ft3]
MAWP, MPa [psig]
Manway Location/Size Inner Diameter, m [in]
ASME Stamped
Geometry
Approximate Weight, kg [lbm]
LH2 RFMG LN2 ZBO/1970
Al
1.37 [4.5]
1.37 [4.5]
1.39 [49.1]
0.345 [50]
Top/0.533 [21]
No
Spherical
40.5 [89]
PVT/2004
SS
0.482 [1.58]
1.01 [3.33]
0.185 [6.53]
2.24 [325] @ 20K
Top 0.482 [19]
Yes
Cylindrical
286 [630]
Top/ 0.488 [19.25]
No
Cylindrical
659 [1450]
Top/ 0.488 [19.25]
No
Cylindrical
659 [1450]
2 [290]@ 77K 0.758 [110] @20K 2 [290]@ 77K 0.758 [110] @20K
LO2 RF & OMG, LO2 TVS/2007
SS
1.22 [4]
1.83 [6]
1.65 [58.3]
LO2 LADs/20082010
SS
1.22 [4]
1.83 [6]
1.65 [58.3]
MLSTC/2009
SS
1.22 [4]
1.22 [4]
0.875 [30.9]
2.32 [337]
Top/Bottom 0.488/19.25
No
Spherical
591 [1300]
LH2 RBO & LN2 ZBO/2011 (2 identical)
SS
1.22 [4]
1.40 [4.6]
1.42 [50.2]
0.903 [131] @ 20K
None
Yes
Cylindrical
293 [644]
LN2 VATA I & II/2011
SS
1.22 [4]
1.40 [4.6]
1.42 [50.2]
0.903 [131] @ 20K
None
Yes
Cylindrical
293 [644]
Flat Plate Calorimeter/2013 (Inner/Outer
SS
1.07/1.22 [3.5/4.3]
0.457/0.975 [1.5/3.2]
-
0.379 [55]/ 0.379 [55] psia
None
Yes
Domed/ Flat Plate
764 [1680]
24
vessel values noted)
Cryofab-1 (quantity 2) Cryofab-2 (tall)/2008 High Pressure LO2 Bubble Point 2010 AET Vacuum Vessel/2013
SS
0.558 [1.83]
0.823 [2.7]
0.198 [7] 0.595 [21]
0.172 [25] to Full Vacuum 0.276 [40] to Full Vacuum
SS
0.610 [2]
2.08 [6.83]
SS
0.15 [0.5]
0.337 [1.1]
0.006 [0.212]
3.55 [515]
SS
0.914 [3]
1.98 [6.5]
1.27 [45]
AET Vacuum Vessel/2013
SS
0.863 [2.83]
1.84 [6.04]
1.05 [37]
AET VacuumJacketed Vessel (3 identical)/2015
SS
0.762 [2.5]
1.84 [6.04]
0.821 [29]
0.103 [15] to Full Vacuum 0.0689 [10] to Full Vacuum 0.689 [100] to Full Vacuum
?
No
Cylindrical
~45.4 [100]
0.559 [22]
No
Cylindrical
96.8 [213]
None
No
Cylindrical
~112 [246]
0.897 [35.3]
Yes
Cylindrical
695 [1530]
0.866 [34.1]
No
Cylindrical
682 [1500]
0.762 [30]
Yes
Cylindrical
898 [1975]
Table A-1 – Available Creek Road Cryogenic Complex Test Tanks
25
CRCC consists of SMiRF, Cell 7, CoMPACT calorimeter, superconducting motor testbed, and shop CRCC can handle LHe, LH2, LN2, LAr, LO2, LCH4, LNG 18 test programs have been conducted at SMiRF between 2005 – 2019 An addition 17 test programs have been conducted at Cell 7 between 2005 – 2019
26
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property. We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office). He/she is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs. We confirm that we have provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the Corresponding Author and which has been configured to accept email from [email protected] Signed by all authors as follows: Jason Hartwig 07/18/2019 Wesley Johnson 07/18/2019 Helmut Bamberger 07/18/2019 Michael Meyer 07/18/2019 Jason Wendell 07/18/2019 Jim Mullins 07/18/2019 R. Craig Robinson 07/18/2019 Lori Arnett 07/18/2019
27