REG NASA-LLIS-1036-2001 Lessons Learned Prototyping does not guarantee success during build-up of flight-configuration hardware.pdf

《REG NASA-LLIS-1036-2001 Lessons Learned Prototyping does not guarantee success during build-up of flight-configuration hardware.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《REG NASA-LLIS-1036-2001 Lessons Learned Prototyping does not guarantee success during build-up of flight-configuration hardware.pdf（4页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Lessons Learned Entry: 1036Lesson Info:a71 Lesson Number: 1036a71 Lesson Date: 2001-08-22a71 Submitting Organization: WSTFa71 Submitted by: Jess WallerSubject: Prototyping does not guarantee success during build-up of flight-configuration hardware Description of Driving Event: The Primary Reaction C

2、ontrol System (PRCS) pilot-operated valve (POV) controls the flow of hypergolic liquid propellants, nitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) and monomethylhydrazine (fuel), to the Space Shuttle Orbiter attitude control thrusters. The POV has experienced numerous in-flight and ground turnaround failures, includ

3、ing leakage and failure to open upon command. Corrosion in the oxidizer valves and seal extrusion in the fuel valves have been linked to most of these failures. The desire to mitigate corrosion and seal extrusion led to an effort to develop a redesigned POV (RPOV) pilot seat assembly.To streamline R

4、POV seat assembly fabrication, prototype seat assemblies were built using a hot-forming procedure. The hot-forming fixture is shown in Figure 1.refer to D descriptionDProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Figure 1. Prototype RPOV hot-formin

5、g fixtureThe hot-forming procedure consisted of the following main steps:a71 Fabricating a slightly oversized polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) seal preforma71 Installating a loosely assembled preform, retainer, and seat into the hot-forming fixturea71 Heating of the entire assembly to 120-150 C (250-3

6、00 F) under loada71 Removing the heated assembly from the oven, followed by interference fitting (squeezing) of the PTFE seal while cooling Prototype RPOV pilot seat assemblies were fabricated using scrapped POV metal parts and generic PTFE bar stock. Dimensional tolerances were also relaxed on the

7、seal preform. This approach was thought to minimize fabrication complexity, maximize conformance to the seal cavity shape, and maximize dimensional stability of the seal over the expected thruster operating temperature range, which was well below the seal processing temperature.Success during valve-

8、level testing of prototype RPOV seat assemblies gave early confidence in the RPOV design concept and assembly techniques. Based on this success, flight-configuration RPOV seat assemblies were then fabricated. Unfortunately, seal-related problems not revealed by prototyping hampered attempts to fabri

9、cate viable flight-configuration RPOV pilot seat assemblies.There were three instances where reduced level of design rigor during prototyping contributed to the difficulties during fabrication of flight-configuration hardware:1. It is suspected that the two-piece retainer and tiny screws used for se

10、curing the retainer to the seat inadvertently increased the mechanical compliance of the seal cavity. This minimized seal squeeze and mechanical deformation that ultimately produced micro-cracking and recession of the seal in flight-configuration hardware.2. The convenient use of uncontrolled PTFE b

11、ar stock for the prototype seals, instead of using a carefully researched PTFE grade based on consultation with materials and processing experts, delayed optimum material selection.3. A lack of precise strain rate control during prototype hot-forming trials, along with a design change to the prototy

12、pe hot-forming fixture to accommodate the planned retainer weld, contributed to a lack of process repeatability.Lesson(s) Learned: Without careful consideration, minor design changes to hardware and associated assembly/test fixtures (for example, material specifications, dimensional tolerances, surf

13、ace finishes, assembly process variables, etc.) can greatly affect conclusions drawn from the prototype test data and even invalidate the entire prototype effort. Prototype hardware was built as a proof-of-concept and therefore was not flight representative. This approach used existing parts and yie

14、lded encouraging initial results, but the reduced level of design rigor contributed to the difficulties in subsequent Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-fabrication. In this regard, prototyping failed to reveal subtleties in critical des

15、ign features and fabrication parameters that were unique to the build-up of a flight-configuration hardware.Recommendation(s): When developing complex hardware, every effort should be made to maximize the likeness of prototype and subsequent design configurations. If the final design configuration i

16、s known, prototype hardware should be built to closely approximate this configuration regardless of short-term cost or schedule implications. If the final design configuration is not known, every effort should be made to minimize changes to a well-performing prototype configuration.Evidence of Recur

17、rence Control Effectiveness: N/ADocuments Related to Lesson: N/AMission Directorate(s): a71 Exploration Systemsa71 Aeronautics ResearchAdditional Key Phrase(s): a71 Hardwarea71 Industrial Operationsa71 Parts Materials & Processesa71 Research & Developmenta71 Test & VerificationAdditional Info: Appro

18、val Info: a71 Approval Date: 2001-12-06a71 Approval Name: Jan Jungewaeltera71 Approval Organization: WSTFa71 Approval Phone Number: 505-524-5544Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-