Session
Technical Session IX: Subsystems & Components II
Abstract
Pyrotechnics accomplish many functions on today's spacecraft, possessing minimum volume/weight, providing instantaneous operation on demand, and requiring little input energy. However, functional shock, safety, and overall system cost issues, combined with emergence and availability of new technologies question their continued use on space missions. Upon request from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Program Management Council (PMC) , Langley Research Center (LaRC) conducted a survey to identify and evaluate state-of-the-art nonexplosively actuated (NEA) alternatives to pyrotechnics, identify NEA devices planned for NASA use, and investigate potential interagency cooperative efforts. In this study, over 135 organizations were contacted, including NASA field centers, Department of Defense (DOD) and other government laboratories, universities, and American and European industrial sources resulting in further detailed discussions with over half, and 18 face-to-face briefings. Unlike their single use pyrotechnic predecessors, NEA mechanisms are typically reusable or refurbishable, allowing flight of actual tested units. NEAs surveyed include spool-based devices, thermal knife, Fast Acting Shockless Separation Nut (FASSN), paraffin actuators, and shape memory alloy (SMA) devices (e.g., Frangibolt). The electro-mechanical spool, paraffin actuator and thermal knife are mature, flight proven technologies, while SMA devices have a limited flight history. There is a relationship between shock, input energy requirements, and mechanism functioning rate. Some devices (e.g., Frangibolt and spool based mechanisms) produce significant levels of functional shock. Paraffin, thermal knife, and SMA devices can provide gentle, shock-free release but cannot perform critically timed, simultaneous functions. The FASSN flywheel-nut release device possesses significant potential for reducing functional shock while activating nearly instantaneously. Specific study recommendations include: (1) development of NEA standards, specifically in areas of material characterization, functioning rates, and test methods; (2) a systems level approach to assure successful NEA technology application; and (3) further investigations into user needs, along with industry/government system-level real spacecraft cost benefit trade studies to determine NEA application foci and performance requirements. Additional survey observations reveal an industry and government desire to establish partnerships to investigate remaining unknowns and formulate NEA standards, specifically those driven by SMAs. Finally, there is increased interest and need to investigate alternative devices for such functions as stage/shroud separation and high pressure valving. This paper summarizes results of the NASA-LaRC survey of pyrotechnic alternatives. State of-the-art devices with their associated weight and cost savings are presented. Additionally, a comparison of functional shock characteristics of several devices are shown, and potentially related technology developments are highlighted.
Report on Alternative Devices to Pyrotechnics on Spacecraft
Pyrotechnics accomplish many functions on today's spacecraft, possessing minimum volume/weight, providing instantaneous operation on demand, and requiring little input energy. However, functional shock, safety, and overall system cost issues, combined with emergence and availability of new technologies question their continued use on space missions. Upon request from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Program Management Council (PMC) , Langley Research Center (LaRC) conducted a survey to identify and evaluate state-of-the-art nonexplosively actuated (NEA) alternatives to pyrotechnics, identify NEA devices planned for NASA use, and investigate potential interagency cooperative efforts. In this study, over 135 organizations were contacted, including NASA field centers, Department of Defense (DOD) and other government laboratories, universities, and American and European industrial sources resulting in further detailed discussions with over half, and 18 face-to-face briefings. Unlike their single use pyrotechnic predecessors, NEA mechanisms are typically reusable or refurbishable, allowing flight of actual tested units. NEAs surveyed include spool-based devices, thermal knife, Fast Acting Shockless Separation Nut (FASSN), paraffin actuators, and shape memory alloy (SMA) devices (e.g., Frangibolt). The electro-mechanical spool, paraffin actuator and thermal knife are mature, flight proven technologies, while SMA devices have a limited flight history. There is a relationship between shock, input energy requirements, and mechanism functioning rate. Some devices (e.g., Frangibolt and spool based mechanisms) produce significant levels of functional shock. Paraffin, thermal knife, and SMA devices can provide gentle, shock-free release but cannot perform critically timed, simultaneous functions. The FASSN flywheel-nut release device possesses significant potential for reducing functional shock while activating nearly instantaneously. Specific study recommendations include: (1) development of NEA standards, specifically in areas of material characterization, functioning rates, and test methods; (2) a systems level approach to assure successful NEA technology application; and (3) further investigations into user needs, along with industry/government system-level real spacecraft cost benefit trade studies to determine NEA application foci and performance requirements. Additional survey observations reveal an industry and government desire to establish partnerships to investigate remaining unknowns and formulate NEA standards, specifically those driven by SMAs. Finally, there is increased interest and need to investigate alternative devices for such functions as stage/shroud separation and high pressure valving. This paper summarizes results of the NASA-LaRC survey of pyrotechnic alternatives. State of-the-art devices with their associated weight and cost savings are presented. Additionally, a comparison of functional shock characteristics of several devices are shown, and potentially related technology developments are highlighted.
