Air force 14. 1 Small Business Innovation Research (sbir) Proposal Submission Instructions
Download 1.72 Mb.
|
| The classical optimum performance methodologies have been demonstrated in multiple past designs. However, the simpler design/lower performance strategies have not been implemented in great detail. There are two philosophies in which these design configurations can be implemented. A traditional low-cost design philosophy is to utilize a pressure-fed system to meet requirements. While simpler pressure-fed strategies have appeal, they have significant technical obstacles to overcome. Namely, the biggest technical challenge is to successfully demonstrate a high thrust, lower chamber pressure engine with manageable combustion stability margin. Additionally, large diameter, high strength to weight, cryogenic compatible pressure-fed tanks are also a key technology, allowing realistic management of the vehicles GLOW and related manufacturing costs. Finally, a compact and cost effective high performance propellant tank pressurization system is critical from a scalability and reliability standpoint. Furthermore, high performance pressurization systems that can demonstrate working fluids other than helium are of key importance because helium is a dwindling non-renewable strategic resource. Finally, the increased size of the system may result in higher costs because of the need for additional engines.
A more recent low-cost philosophy is to apply LLC principles to classical performance-optimized pump-fed liquid propulsion components. This approach recognizes that modern launch vehicle design has evolved based on solving a myriad of conflicting physical and system engineering realities. As a result, this technique decomposes traditional pump-fed propulsion systems and examines where targeted technology insertion can simplify the engines design, manufacturing and operational requirements. While both traditional and more recent strategies primarily target engine chamber pressure as a first order cost driver, the latter approach has more latitude than traditional low-cost designs in preserving higher engine operating pressure under a given development program. Therefore, this approach enjoys added design flexibility in managing the combustion stability margin of the thrust chamber and/or preburner assemblies as well as maintaining sufficient throttle in the system in order to minimize payload acceleration. Within this SBIR, it is expected that organizations will explore pressure fed and/or pump-fed low-cost propulsion technologies. It is acceptable to apply different LLC propulsion strategies to individual launch vehicle stages (e.g., mix and match pressure and pump fed stages). In order to maintain similarity in approach and to ensure that payloads meet NSS requirements, offerors are asked to utilize reference launch system to support initial payload requirements of 30,000 lbs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) with a pre-defined modular growth path of 60,000 lbs payload that avoids new engine developments. These payload requirements are only intended to demonstrate vehicle scale requirements. For the reference vehicle, a Technology Development Plan/Technical Roadmap will be developed that shows: 1) critical component traceability, 2) a prioritized risk reduction strategy, 3) test and qualification requirements and strategy, 4) estimated total cost and schedule for Phase II and Phase III risk reduction activities. Assume in the Technology Development Plan that Phase II is dedicated to high risk subscale component(s) testing and Phase III is dedicated to either subscale flight demonstration or full scale component(s) ground testing (i.e., contractor defined). Present the conceptual LLC launch vehicle and Technology Development Plan (Items 1-4 above) to the government for review. PHASE I: Propose a Technology Development Plan/Technical Roadmap for a Conceptual reference launch system which utilizes a low cost design process. Describe how this concept will generate Lowest Lifecycle Cost (LLC) design in comparison to performance optimized solutions. Identify technologies that are key cost/performance drivers and those that are highest risk. PHASE II: perform risk reduction testing as identified in the Technology Development Plan. Perform detailed design, manufacture and test of identified high payoff/high risk subscale component(s). Use test data to update the Phase I conceptual reference LLC launch vehicle to a mature conceptual design level. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Develop and demonstrate a low cost propulsion technology which will result in a LLC launch vehicle. This will include a combination of development work, component testing, and potentially system demonstrations. REFERENCES: 1. http://www.spacex.com/index.php 2. Sutton, G.P. Rocket Propulsion Elements, Wiley, Feb 2, 2010. 3. London, J.R. LEO on the Cheap Methods for Achieving Drastic Reductions in Space Launch Costs, Books for Business, March, 2002. 4. Humble, R. Space Propulsion Analysis and Design, Learning Solutions, May 25, 2007. 5. Isakowitz S. International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, AIAA, Sep 2, 2004. KEYWORDS: Lowest Lifecycle Cost Design, Liquid Rocket Propulsion, Pressure-Fed, Pump-Fed, Liquid Rocket Combustion Stability AF141-089 TITLE: Electric Propulsion for Orbit Transfer KEY TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Space Platforms The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the solicitation and within the AF Component-specific instructions. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws. Please direct questions to the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer, Ms. Kristina Croake, kristina.croake@us.af.mil. OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative high-power, long lifetime electric propulsion thrusters with wide throttle range for orbit transfer of DoD space assets. DESCRIPTION: Electric propulsion (EP) has the capability to greatly enhance the in-space maneuverability and payload capacity of spacecraft compared to liquid chemical propulsion. However, current electric propulsion devices do not provide enough thrust to perform some time critical maneuvers. For example, advanced military communications satellites such as Advanced EHF use a combination of chemical and high-power Hall thrusters for the LEO to GEO orbit transfer. A satellite utilizing all electric propulsion would provide greater fraction of delivered payload than a chemical system. However, increased duration in the belts with state-of-the-art EP will have a detrimental impact on spacecraft mission lifetime due to radiation damage to the solar arrays and payload electronics. Research on innovative high power, high thrust, and inherently long lifetime thrusters is required to realize the full advantages of electric propulsion for DoD missions.
PHASE I: Perform proof-of-concept analysis and experiments that demonstrate the feasibility of the compact low mass, high performance propulsion concept. PHASE II: Measure performance and plume characteristics of breadboard hardware to demonstrate program goals for compact low mass thruster. Breadboard hardware will be evaluated on thrust stands at AFRL, and achieve TRL 5 at the end of Phase II activities. Deliverables include breadboard hardware, preliminary cost analyses, and full performance analysis with comparison to state-of-the-art EP. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The high-power thruster will be useful for geosynchronous orbit transfers for large communications satellites and large military spacecraft that will perform a variety of critical missions. This technology enables dual launch manifest and can be used for commercial comsats and space tug. REFERENCES: 1. Brown, D. L., Beal, B E., Haas, J. M., “Air Force Research Laboratory High Power Electric Propulsion Technology Development,” IEEEAC Paper #1549, Presented at the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 3-7, 2009. 2. Frisbee, R. H., “Evaluation of High-Power Solar Electric Propulsion Using Advanced Ion, Hall, MPD, and PIT Thrusters for Lunar and Mars Cargo Missions,” AIAA-2006-4465, 42nd AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA, 9-12 July, 2006. 3. Manzella, D.H., Jankovsky R.S., Hofer, R.R, “Laboratory Model 50kW Hall Thruster”, AIAA-2002-3676, 38th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 7-10 July 2002. 4. LaPointe, M. R. and Mikellides, P. G., "High Power MPD Thruster Development at the NASA Glenn Research Center", AIAA-01-3499, presented at the AIAA 37th Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, July 8-11, 2001. 5. Slough, J., Kirtley, D. E., Weber, T., “Pulsed Plasmoid Propulsion: The ELF Thruster,” IEPC-2009-265, Presented at the International Electric Propulsion Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, 2009. KEYWORDS: Electric Propulsion, High Power, High Delta-V, Responsive, Orbit Transfer AF141-091 TITLE: Physics-based modeling of solid rocket motor propellant KEY TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the solicitation and within the AF Component-specific instructions. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws. Please direct questions to the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer, Ms. Kristina Croake, kristina.croake@us.af.mil. OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative physics-based models facilitating the accurate prediction of solid rocket propellant behavior with varying environmental boundary conditions. DESCRIPTION: With the need to sustain the existing Air Force Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) fleet for increasingly long times, accurate prediction of SRM capabilities becomes crucial. The paradigm is to predict the behavior of SRM propellant and the propellant, liner, insulation (PLI) using empirical curve-fitting expressions extrapolated out to the desired conditions. The above method leads to large potential errors (~55%) in predictions for history dependent materials such as polymers. Hiu describes how elastomeric polymers fail earlier than anticipated due to rate dependent bond rupture [1]. It would be prohibitively expensive to test enough samples with different environmental exposure histories to give adequate confidence in these empirical methods. Thus a physics-based modeling approach is desired where all of the parameters have physical meaning and may be linked to boundary conditions (typical strategic environment 60-80 degrees Fahrenheit with moderate humidity). A physics based model will improve our ability to predict if a specific motor is good or bad based on conditions it has experienced. Topics of particular interest are the connection between polymer morphology/cure with mechanical properties, and cumulative damage including the potential for self-healing, possibly by competing chemical mechanisms [2]. Models developed in this area have the potential to significantly improve our design and analysis capabilities; the PLI in particular is thought to be one of the largest sources of error in structural analyses. The models would also enable the long-desired capability to design an SRM propellant system a priori for a specific application. The proposed model should be computationally tractable on an engineering workstation or small cluster. Supercomputers are not practical, as these models are intended for frequent use in the design and structural/health analysis of SRMs. The overarching goal is to reduce uncertainties by a minimum of 10% in modeling the propellant and/or PLI leading to higher confidence in the reliability of the SRM fleet. Innovative solutions that can focus on high impact parameters to reduce uncertainty are highly sought-after. Solutions should have a strong backing in: the fundamental material physics and chemistry in addition to adherence to engineering principles; previous research and development; scientific literature; and cost-benefit analysis. The successful proposed Phase I will develop the necessary theoretical framework for a SRM propellant model illustrating that all parameters have a physical basis. Additionally the phase I should address the computer requirements for the model to be computationally tractable, and should estimate the anticipated accuracy. The proposed solution shall be affordable and usable. Usability shall take into account operability, sustainability, supportability, interoperability, modularity, and reliability. The proposed system should leverage standards-based communication and open-source software wherever possible. Partnership(s) with a current Department of Defense prime contractor(s) is highly desired, such a relationship would aid in the refinement and implementation of the proposed model into existing SRM analysis codes. The Phase II will include programming and implementation of the theoretical framework on the proposed computer system. It will also include a validation and verification effort based upon available scientific literature. Due to the ubiquitous usage of polymeric materials and the strong grounding in physics these models should lend themselves to modification for a myriad of relevant commercial usages, e.g. polymer manufacturing, fatigue of plastic structures, etc. PHASE I: Develop a theoretical framework for physics-based models for SRM propellant and/or PLI. Illustrate the potential benefits. Determine required computational resources and how the code would interface with common commercially available structural analysis software. PHASE II: Program theoretical framework on proposed computer system ensure it is able to interface with structural analysis software. Verify and validate the developed model using relevant data from scientific literature. Illustrate expected benefits and average runtime. Demonstrate computer model to customer and deliver software code along with a user's manual. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Military application: Current and future ballistic missiles and space launch applications, supporting the design and analysis of SRMs. Commercial application: Manufacturing of polymers, structural analysis of polymeric materials, potential to extend models to encompass composite systems. REFERENCES: 1. Hui, Chung-Yuen, “Failure of elastic polymers due to rate dependent bond rupture”, Langmuir, 2004, 20, 6052-64. 2. Wool, R.P, “Self-healing materials: a review”, Soft Matter, 2008, 4, 400-18. 3. Sutton, George P. and Oscar Biblarz. Rocket Propulsion Elements. Chapters 11-13, 7th ed. Wiley-Interscience, 2000. Print. KEYWORDS: solid rocket motors, physics-based models, polymers, physics, chemistry, solid propellant, degradation mechanisms, cure mechanisms, health monitoring AF141-092 TITLE: Advanced Integrity and Safety Assurance for Software KEY TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Nuclear Technology The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the solicitation and within the AF Component-specific instructions. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws. Please direct questions to the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer, Ms. Kristina Croake, kristina.croake@us.af.mil. OBJECTIVE: To develop new analysis tools and techniques for safety verification and validation of software embedded in or controlling strategic systems. DESCRIPTION: Software controlling U.S. nuclear weapons must have the highest possible assurance of safety and integrity. The essence of nuclear safety certification is an intensive review, verification, and validation of developed software, starting with requirements and ending with integration and regression testing (new software is generally integrated into an existing code base). As the nuclear community, including ICBM Minuteman III, military nuclear weapon systems, DOE, Sandia and other government/military organizations with nuclear critical software applications, continues to evolve, innovations in processes/tools used for mission safety testing are needed to prevent threats from malicious code that could cause unintended nuclear consequences. Standard processes and tools to assure the correctness, safety, and integrity of such software are needed to maintain the highest level of safety. State-of-the-Art Description - Currently, each government nuclear operational system uses separate processes/tools for certifying nuclear critical software applications before fielding. For instance, the ICBM Program Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) efforts are governed in accordance with Air Force Manuals (AFMAN) 91-119 and 91-118; however, these publications are not used by the DOE. Each government (DOE, SNL) and military (Navy) organization with nuclear safety requirements uses similar but separate IV&V processes/tools when certifying nuclear critical software applications. This SBIR proposes an innovative approach to standardize the processes/tools used to perform mission safety testing of nuclear critical software applications. The SBIR proposal goal includes collaboration between DOE/government/military organizations in order to benefit from standard V&V processes and tools. The SBIR will be used to standardize process/tools innovations that account for modern command/control/communication/computers across a network that is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack due to modern software-processing architectures. The SBIR also provides for innovative approaches to perform verification & validation of complex code development tools, such as compilers, before being used to develop operational nuclear critical software applications. SBIR processes and tools developed for software testing can also be used to standardize, improve and share testing methods among all government/military software V&V testing organizations outside of the nuclear community. Standardized tools used for nuclear weapons software surety certification testing shall consist of static and dynamic analyzers, CPU simulators, and binary file comparisons, and configuration management. Testing processes will be defined to perform both nominal and off-nominal conditions during execution of the software application. Static source code analyzers will be used to search for malicious code and logic coding errors. Runtime simulator tools will be used simulate operational environments and software application response to incorrect or malicious data inputs. The tools and techniques developed under this research should provide the following capabilities: 1. Tracing from high-level requirements statements (called “Nuclear Safety objectives”) to lower-level requirements (called “Nuclear Safety requirements”), detailed requirements, and into the implementation. Such traceability must be bidirectional and accommodate changes in a manner which enables complete control, and retrospective analyses. 2. Complete structural analysis of code including ability to identify the setting and using of all program variables, as well as persistently stored values, tracing of execution paths, and development of test cases to trigger execution of specific code paths. 3. Testing tools to achieve complete branch and condition coverage. 4. Static analysis to check for both conformance with secure coding standards and the presence of malicious code. 5. Regression testing tools. 6. Dynamic analysis tools including simulation of a VAX and a MIL STD 1750A microprocessor with the ability to set watch points and breakpoints. 7. Formal verification tools for both temporal and non-temporal analysis. This includes the ability to show the translation (even if performed manually) between natural language requirements and formally stated requirements. 8. Other analysis techniques offered by proposers for the purposes of assuring integrity and safety. 9. Verification, validation, and testing management tools to assist in automation of the Nuclear Safety Cross Check Analysis (NSCCA) process. Proposals that describe solutions utilizing existing tools, or new tools, or both, to achieve these capabilities in a single integrated framework are encouraged. Proposals that include demonstrating the tool sets using representative example systems with source code in Ada, C, or FORTRAN (5-10 KSLOC) are particularly encouraged. Items 3 through 27 in the attached reference list are examples of the state of the art of high integrity and safety critical software development in the following areas: Standards, requirements formulation (including decomposition and tracing to the design), formal methods, behavioral modeling and model checking, code generation, model checking, architectural design languages, integrated environments spanning the development process from model based design through code generation, static analyzers, software test automation (including model-based testing for automated test case generation and test drivers for regression testing). These are representative and by no means intended to limit the proposed approach. PHASE I: Demonstrate the feasibility of a methodology and associated tools to NSCCA verification. PHASE II: Full development (and testing) of the tools and demonstrate the methodology proposed on realistic representative test cases. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2016 2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program 2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings 2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13 2016 -> The united church of canada 2016 -> Idan raichel biography – May 2016 Brief Producer, keyboardist, Lyricist, composer and Performer Idan Raichel 2016 -> An introduction to centre’s interventions expanding access to justice 2016 -> Sanchar Shakti 2016 -> Unit analysis should help here. We want number of bananas 2016 -> The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates 2016 -> The Great Heat and the Rhode Island Deep Water Bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians) Fishery 1875-1905 Download 1.72 Mb. Share with your friends:
|