![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-154352-350x227.jpg\")
The Service Module STA made the same Super Guppy flight a couple of months later after the Crew Module Adapter (CMA) and European Service Module (ESM) STAs were mated at Kennedy.<\/p>\nWith all the structural test articles (STA) of the Orion spacecraft at prime contractor Lockheed Martin\u2019s Space Systems facility in the Denver area, work is underway to qualify the elements for the Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) and Exploration Mission-2 (EM-2) missions to the Moon. Testing of different combinations of spacecraft hardware in support of EM-1 and EM-2 will continue into 2019.<\/p>\n
Current status:<\/p>\n
This phase of testing will help characterize the dynamic response of the structures and verify that the design meets the required factor of safety.<\/p>\n
The Crew Module STA is currently set up in a loads testing fixture in the Structural Test Lab at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Waterton facility in Littleton, Colorado. It was shipped from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida on NASA\u2019s Super Guppy cargo aircraft in late April to Buckley Air Force Base near Denver.<\/p>\n
The Service Module STA made the same Super Guppy flight a couple of months later after the Crew Module Adapter (CMA) and European Service Module (ESM) STAs were mated at Kennedy.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve done tests on two of them so far,\u201d Dan Qvale, Orion STA Assembly Test and Launch Operations Lead with Lockheed Martin, said during an interview with NASASpaceflight.com.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe crew module is actually in its second test, the first one was what\u2019s called proof pressure \u2014 we went to 150% percent of the maximum expected internal pressure on the vehicle and validated that it structurally survived. That completed [at] Kennedy before we shipped it to Denver. Now that it\u2019s here, we\u2019re running qualification loads testing on the crew module primary and secondary structure.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe launch abort system has been assembled and we\u2019re also in qualification load testing for it now, it\u2019s having a test run. And then the service module is being set up for the next roughly one month. The spacecraft adapter cone is being installed, the outer walls on the CMA are going on, and then it will go into a modal test of just the service module. And that will begin about a month from now.\u201d<\/p>\n
The launch abort system (LAS) STA was assembled with inert motors that simulate the weight and center of gravity of the units that will fly on EM-1 and EM-2.<\/p>\n
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n
\u201cEverything is on the LAS essentially except for the fact that it\u2019s [an] inert motor. No antennas, but it has fillets, ogives, it has the MATA truss assembly (Motor Adapter Truss Assembly), [and] it has the inert motor. Structurally it has got all those components \u2014 the ogives actually provide structural load path for the launch abort system as well.\u201d<\/p>\n
Types of tests:<\/p>\n
The STAs will go through different types of tests in the facilities at Waterton, including modal, loads, shock, and acoustic testing.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe tests are broken up into different types of tests and in many cases they are in multiple configurations,\u201d Qvale explained. \u201cA modal test is a way we take measurements of the vehicle, its dynamic response, and they use those to validate the numeric models that they\u2019re using to simulate and obtain load data analytically.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-28-110146-350x229.jpg\")
\u201cThey need these modal tests in order to measure the stiffness of the combined joints that connect all of the pieces together. And so you tend to run them in configurations your vehicle is going to be in.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn our case, the first one we\u2019re going to run is the entire stacked vehicle \u2014 SM (Service Module), CM, and Launch Abort System all connected \u2014 so that\u2019s obviously a flight configuration on the launch pad and during ascent.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe run a modal test on just the CM alone, which is obviously a configuration it will be on reentry. We do a modal test on just the CM and SM, which is the flight configuration it would be in during the mission. We run one on the launch abort system connected to the crew module \u2014 the LAV (Launch Abort Vehicle) they call it \u2014 because that would be the configuration you would be in if you experienced an abort event.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-154835-350x280.jpg\")
\u201cSo those tests are for the most part being run in order to validate models for all these different configurations that the vehicle will be in or could be in during a mission.\u201d<\/p>\n
The second category of tests are loads tests.<\/p>\n
\u201cThose very much fall into the category of one-time only [tests],\u201d Qvale added. \u201cWhat we\u2019re trying to do is apply loads for the major events the vehicle experiences during the mission to simulate those.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou don\u2019t just want the vehicle to survive the maximum predicted event, you want some margin on that \u2014 some assurances that it can survive and there\u2019s margin on top of that. And so what we do there is we try to go to 140% of what the maximum expected load is going to be. For example, right now we\u2019re testing both the launch abort system and the crew module.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-153427-350x317.jpg\")
Qvale provided a breakdown of what they are trying to qualify\/validate in the loads tests for the different elements, such as the all-important \u2013 for crew safety \u2013 Launch Abort System (LAS)<\/p>\n
\u201cThe LAS is basically getting two primary things validated, one is the ascent loads so the compression that happens on the vehicle while you\u2019re in nominal ascent. The other is abort loads, so qualification of loads that would be applied in the event that an abort actually happens and now instead of compressive loads you have large tension loads.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe crew module has a whole series of nine different events that we\u2019re trying to simulate, so those include things like main parachute extraction. (Then) we\u2019re running LAS load cases that represent the landing of the vehicle or the ascent of the vehicle. We\u2019ve already run cases where we simulate the jettison of the forward bay cover.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo it\u2019s basically case-by-case cases where we take the hydraulic jacks, connect up to the vehicle, and then we\u2019ll apply a load that\u2019s intended to simulate what the flight-like the loads would be plus 40%. So as long as the design doesn\u2019t change on the vehicle, it has been qualified and there\u2019s no need to go revisit these.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Qvale noted, the initial loads test on the CM articles was done at KSC. Both pressure vessels were proof tested to verify that they would hold pressure up to 140% of the maximum pressure load expected during flight. Qvale noted that the flight article, which is still at KSC being fully outfitted for the EM-1 flight, was pressurized to 140%; however, the STA was taken up to 150%.<\/p>\n
The third type of tests are shock tests, to evaluate how well parts of the structure handle pyrotechnic events during flight.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-154622-350x245.jpg\")
\u201c[A] typical first flight vehicle would get \u201cprotoqual shock tested,\u201d Qvale explained, \u201cwhich means you can\u2019t make the shock more severe, you can\u2019t say \u2018we did it plus margin.\u2019 It\u2019s as severe as it ends up being. You can\u2019t add additional explosives to make it more severe, so instead what you do is you run it twice.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo the way that Orion is going to be \u2018protoqual-ing\u2019 the shock environment (run it twice) is by number one doing it during the EM-1 mission and number two after EM-1 is recovered, we\u2019re going in and running it a second time. All this needs to happen before we have a manned mission.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, Qvale added that the program is starting shock testing on the STAs before EM-1. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to wait until the EM-1 mission to start making sure that this will work properly,\u201d he said, \u201cso what the STA is doing is we are measuring the shock response on the vehicle from these events.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re going in and say we have an avionics box [that is] near a shock source. We\u2019re putting accelerometers on it, and then we\u2019re running the shock event and we\u2019re measuring the response at that avionics box and we\u2019re comparing that with the screening requirements that we gave the avionics box supplier to design and test the box too. And so this should validate that what we gave them to screen this hardware too is enveloped by the measurements that we just took.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-154701-350x235.jpg\")
\u201cSo it\u2019s essentially validation of the capability of the vehicle to survive shock and the combination of these measurements that we\u2019re doing on the STA that will be compared with screening requirements that our EM-1 hardware was bought to and then ultimately validation by running the event during the mission and then running it a second time on the EM-1 vehicle post-mission.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Waterton test facilities are used by Lockheed Martin on all the spacecraft they build and have been part of Orion testing since the early days of the spacecraft.<\/p>\n
\u201cBoth the test fixturing as well as the load control and data acquisition are incredibly specialized skills, and you\u2019re applying loads that basically take the vehicle to the limit of what it\u2019s capable of most likely,\u201d Qvale explained. \u201c[It] doesn\u2019t matter if it\u2019s Orion or another program, you tend to have the same objective there and it\u2019s such a specialized area that essentially the Structures Test Lab does qualification loads testing for Lockheed Martin [Space Systems], period.<\/p>\n
\u201cSpace Systems brings them their hardware to run these sorts of tests because its impractical that you\u2019d have this expertise on a program, even if that program had hundreds of people on it.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the time of the interview, Qvale noted that the Service Module was waiting for one of the next generation Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites to finish using a test facility before it could move in.<\/p>\n
Test setup\/configuration:<\/p>\n
Structural test hardware for all the spacecraft elements is there to support the test campaign, with mass simulators for some of the larger moving parts, especially on the Service Module assembly.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe got the spacecraft adapter cone at the base, we have a flight-like OMS-E nozzle, we have a structural representation of the ESM so it has mass sims (simulators) instead of avionics boxes,\u201d Qvale explained.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"2016-03-31-230912\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/2016-03-31-230912-350x272.jpg\")
\u201cOn top of the ESM we\u2019ve got the crew module adapter, so it\u2019s made up of \u2014 similar to the flight-like one \u2014 it has all the longeron trusses, they\u2019re called. The forward and the aft composite walls, the composite outer walls, mass simulators for all the avionics that goes in the avionics ring.<\/p>\n
For the four solar arrays, we don\u2019t have any flight-like solar arrays they\u2019re all mass simulators. And then for the SM fairings \u2014 the SAJs (Spacecraft Adapter Jettisoned panels), they\u2019re called \u2014 they\u2019re essentially flight like, they have the harnessing on them to run the pyro tests.\u201d<\/p>\n
In addition, an Orion stage adapter STA also recently hitched a ride on the Super Guppy from the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama to Colorado. The stage adapter connects the full spacecraft stack to the launch vehicle upper stage.<\/p>\n
Qvale explained that the tests are mostly focused on the spacecraft structure.<\/p>\n
**Click here for 100s of Orion News Articles**<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-28-105900-350x234.jpg\")
\u201cFor the most part it is just the structural elements. The only electronics that we are putting on the vehicle are harnessing that\u2019s used to get to all the pyro-mechanisms, but instead of having an avionics box that fires the pyro-mechanisms we basically take test cables, mate up to the flight-like cables, and then use test equipment to fire the pyros. The only electronics per-se, is just the harnessing on the vehicle in order to run the shock tests. Everything else is structural.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne thing that is important is we want to have similar mass in the right locations on the vehicle to run a lot of these tests and so we have mass simulators that basically have the appropriate weight and the appropriate center of gravity so that when they get bolted onto the vehicle from a structural standpoint it looks like a flight vehicle.\u201d<\/p>\n
Test campaign supports EM-1 and EM-2, runs into 2019:<\/p>\n
Development of Orion was divided into three phases, with each culminating in the scheduled test flights: EFT-1, EM-1, and EM-2.<\/p>\n
This round of testing in Colorado will support the two Exploration Mission test flights that first cover the major phases of flight to the Moon and back without a crew and then with a crew.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-155012-350x255.jpg\")
\u201cRight now the end of the campaign is [about the] middle of 2019,\u201d Qvale explained. \u201cOne distinction here is that some of these tests are needed before EM-1 launches, but other tests are not needed until EM-2 launches. So the ones that are happening out in the 2019 time-frame are more the tests like of the LAV \u2014 the crew module with the launch abort system. [Those tests are] trying to gather data in support of if we had either a pad or an ascent abort on EM-2.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re predicting that all the prerequisites we need to complete before EM-1 launches are going to be completed by the beginning of November 2018, and thus far if you were to look at the start of the campaign, which we typically measure as the day that the crew module got delivered to Kennedy from MAF at this point, halfway through 2017 we\u2019re essentially on schedule for all three vehicles.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe SM is on schedule, the launch abort system testing is on schedule and the CM is within two to three days of being on schedule.\u201d<\/p>\n
Different hardware combinations will go through different tests at the Lockheed Martin facilities and the ordering of the test schedule was built based on multiple factors. \u201cIn general the philosophy of how we ordered the tests, was number one we had to look at \u2018do any of these tests produce data that we need soon?\u2019,\u201d Qvale explained.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the first tests we\u2019ll run when we build the entire vehicle up \u2014 the full stack \u2014 is an acoustic test. And similar to what I told you about the shock test, this acoustic test is intended to be similar.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-155211-323x350.jpg\")
\u201cIt\u2019s only intended to take measurements at specific locations and validate requirements that we are having [the] flight boxes screened to, so obviously it would be a really bad day to find out very late in the flow that we never designed and screened the boxes to the values that they\u2019re going to experience. So for example [placing] a test like that early in the flow \u2014 so that we can validate [the parameters] that all this hardware for EM-1 is getting designed and built around \u2014 is a good plan.\u201d<\/p>\n
Qvale added that the other part that determined the flow was that it takes a lot of time to build the vehicle.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor example, when we put the SM fairing on, that\u2019s on the order of twenty shifts of work to get it completed. You don\u2019t want to take them back off or you\u2019re going to have to go back through another twenty shifts worth of labor to reinstall them. So we ordered the flow so that if we build the vehicle one time, like we will be doing this Fall, we will knock out all the tests that need the vehicle in that configuration.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s an acoustic test that\u2019s stacked, there\u2019s a modal test that\u2019s stacked, and then we need to disassemble the vehicle to move it from one facility that has the acoustic chamber to another facility where were going to be running the loads testing. So rather than just dismantle the vehicle, we said let\u2019s just run the shock test for the launch abort system. Just run the test, blow the pyros, and that\u2019s what will separate the launch abort system and now that\u2019s how you take it apart.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo we tried to be smart about ordering things so that we got the maximum bang for the buck every time we had to assemble the vehicle.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-155259-350x308.jpg\")
There are plans to use at least some of the structural test articles after all the testing in Littleton is complete \u2014 Qvale noted plans to use the crew module STA in a water impact test at NASA\u2019s Langley Research Center prior to the EM-2 flight. Given those future plans and the extensive testing that will be done during the test campaign, the health of the hardware will be closely monitored.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet\u2019s go back to the loads test for example. The requirement may be that the vehicle needs to survive 140 percent [of] the limit load. In the case of the crew module, maybe \u2018survive\u2019 means \u2018not rupture\u2019 but it could be bent basically when you\u2019re done.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor our purposes that doesn\u2019t work because we can\u2019t destroy the vehicle \u2014 we need to use it for the next year and a half. So during these tests, they monitor the health of the vehicle and if we believe we\u2019re bumping up on the ultimate capability and we could damage it, then we curtail things and say \u2018OK, let\u2019s put completion of this test back on the shelf.\u2019<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ll revisit it in a year and say \u2018were we close enough \u2014 did we get to 138 percent and that\u2019s good enough?\u2019 Or do we need to 140 percent and let\u2019s put the vehicle back in there and we\u2019ll bend things on it to verify that it doesn\u2019t rupture.<\/p>\n
\u201cThus far, every single test we\u2019ve run has essentially gotten to the 140 percent limit load with no adverse effects. So I think we\u2019ll get the majority of these done the first time around and hopefully we\u2019ll end the campaign and the vehicle will have seen some extreme loading, but it will still be completely viable to go use for another mission.\u201d<\/p>\n
Post EM-1 tests with returning Crew Module:<\/p>\n
As noted earlier, the crew module that flies the EM-1 mission will also take part in gathering test data.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/2017-07-27-154928-350x270.jpg\")
\u201cWhen we launch EM-1, the launch abort system isn\u2019t coming back, the service module not coming back, the fairings are not coming back \u2014 the only thing we\u2019re getting back is the crew module,\u201d Qvale said.<\/p>\n
The first environmental test data set collected with the EM-1 crew module will occur as it flies the uncrewed mission to lunar orbit and then returns to Earth for entry, descent, and landing.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reason most spacecraft go through environments testing is to verify that they work after they\u2019re exposed to the environment, so that\u2019s acoustics and thermal and shock,\u201d he added. \u201cIn the case of the EM-1 mission, there\u2019s one environment that it\u2019s not going to experience and that\u2019s abort.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd so part of what we\u2019ll be doing with this post EM-1 flight testing is not only running the second shock test but exposing the vehicle to abort-level vibration and then validating that oh, by the way, all the mechanisms you need to survive and still operate after that did in fact work.<\/p>\n
\u201cPart of our plan long term to validate the abort environment is we\u2019ll still have the STA service module and the STA launch abort system and the STA service module fairings. We\u2019re going to take all those things, assemble the vehicle with the EM-1 post-flight vehicle, and we\u2019re going to go back and run these shock events a second time.\u201d<\/p>\n
(Images: NASA, Lockheed Martin and L2 artist Nathan Koga \u2013 The full gallery of Nathan\u2019s (SpaceX Dragon to MCT, SLS, Commercial Crew and more) L2 images can be *found here*))<\/p>\n
(To Join L2, Click Here: \/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/l2\/)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
With all the structural test articles (STA) of the Orion spacecraft at prime contractor Lockheed Martin\u2019s Space Systems facility in the Denver area, work is underway to qualify the elements for the Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) and Exploration Mission-2 (EM-2) missions to the Moon. Testing of different combinations of spacecraft hardware in support of EM-1 and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3718,4011,640,9001],"class_list":["post-38755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-em-1","tag-em-2","tag-orion","tag-sta"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38755"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38755\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}