NASA Improves Shock, Vibration Analysis

NASA engineers at Kennedy Space Center have used a new standardized computer-modeling workflow to assess shock and vibration while certifying a commercial provider’s rocket for a NASA mission. The Launch Services Program says the method let its engineers analyze conditions not covered by the provider’s vibration testing, offering an additional way to identify potential hardware risks before launch.

The workflow applies finite element modeling to shock and vibration analysis. The technique divides a complex structure into smaller components so a computer can simulate how the structure may respond to forces. NASA says the team built a template using commercial software, guiding engineers through vibration profiles and shock conditions rather than requiring them to reconstruct a complicated modeling process for each assessment.

For the recent certification, the commercial partner supplied vibration test results but not shock testing. NASA’s Dynamic Environments Group determined that shock testing was needed, then used its template to compare scenarios and visualize structural behavior. NASA says the team verified the provider’s test results for flight environments and gained further insight into shock during transport. The agency did not identify the provider or mission in the report.

NASA says the workflow has helped the team run analyses independently instead of requesting and waiting for outside analysis reports or data. According to the agency, that capability has saved months and helped identify risks that had not previously been considered. The report does not provide a specific breakdown of the time saved, the risks found, or any resulting hardware changes.

Earlier Checks for Launch Hardware

Launch exposes rockets and spacecraft to intense vibration, shock and other physical forces. Those stresses can cause wear or contribute to failure, while delicate scientific instruments must remain functional through ascent. Identifying problems before launch gives engineers a chance to investigate and address them while the hardware is still on the ground.

The workflow’s practical value, as described by NASA, is that it brings modeling into a part of dynamic-environment analysis where engineers have often relied on prior data, rules of thumb and engineering judgment. A repeatable template may help teams examine more scenarios without rebuilding the process each time. NASA says the approach also helps its engineers work directly with analysis rather than waiting for reports, but the agency has not published independent performance measurements or evidence of a change in mission outcomes.

The development matters for missions that depend on launch vehicles to carry satellites, spacecraft and scientific equipment. NASA’s Launch Services Program manages launches for agency missions, including Earth-observing spacecraft, planetary missions and space telescopes. Better insight into the forces hardware may encounter can inform certification decisions, although the modeling is one part of the broader verification process—not a guarantee that hardware will be free of problems.

From Rules of Thumb to Modeling

Before adopting the workflow, engineers commonly estimated shock and vibration conditions by applying rules of thumb or scaling results from earlier missions. NASA says those methods could work, but depended heavily on engineering judgment and approximations based on previous data. The agency also notes that dynamic-environment engineers may use finite element tools infrequently, making complex workflows difficult to retain and repeat.

The software itself is not new. NASA aerospace engineer Alex Hardt said the team is applying a tool that has existed for decades in a relatively new area of dynamics. The change described by NASA is the way the software is used: a standardized template gives engineers a more consistent path through modeling and supports comparisons of possible conditions.

NASA’s report says the team first applied the workflow in the certification of a commercial provider’s rocket selected for a NASA mission. The agency did not name the launch vehicle, disclose the mission, or describe the certification criteria. The report presents the work as a new application within the Launch Services Program’s analysis process, rather than as a replacement for physical testing or other certification checks.

Certification Details Not Disclosed

NASA has not named the commercial launch provider, rocket or mission involved in the first reported use. It also has not released the model inputs, predicted shock levels, test data, certification findings or details of the transport-related insight. The agency’s report does not specify which previously unconsidered risks were identified or whether the analysis led to changes in hardware or testing.

The reported time savings are described as months, but NASA gives no baseline, exact duration or accounting method. The report also does not compare the new workflow’s predictions with later flight data or provide a quantified measure of accuracy. It is therefore not possible from the published information to determine how the method performs across different rocket designs or missions.

NASA describes the method as strengthening analysis; it does not say the software replaces physical tests. How widely the template will be used, and how NASA will validate or refine it as more data become available, is not stated.

More Data to Refine the Workflow

NASA says the Dynamic Environments Group can use additional flight data to refine its assessments and build engineers’ proficiency with finite element modeling. The Launch Services Program also says it continues to adopt tools intended to support mission launch decisions. The agency has not announced a schedule for broader rollout or named another mission that will use the workflow.

Further details about the provider, mission, certification results and subsequent uses would help show how the modeling fits alongside testing and other engineering checks. For now, NASA’s account confirms a first reported application in a commercial rocket certification and describes time savings and added analysis insight, while leaving the underlying data and specific findings unpublished.

Key Questions

What did NASA change in its shock and vibration analysis?

NASA’s Launch Services Program developed a standardized finite element modeling workflow using commercial software. A template guides engineers through vibration profiles and shock conditions and helps them compare possible structural responses.

Was the workflow used to certify a rocket?

NASA says engineers used it while certifying a commercial launch provider’s rocket selected for a NASA mission. The agency has not identified the provider, rocket or mission, or published the certification results.

Why did NASA perform shock analysis?

The provider supplied vibration testing but not shock testing, according to NASA. The Dynamic Environments Group determined shock testing was needed and used the modeling workflow to examine shock conditions, including effects related to transport.

Does the modeling replace physical testing?

NASA has not said that it does. The report describes the workflow as a way to strengthen analysis and verify test results; it does not describe it as a substitute for physical testing.

How much time did the new approach save?

NASA says the capability has saved months by allowing the team to analyze independently and avoid waiting for outside reports or data. The agency did not provide an exact duration or explain the comparison baseline.

Source: primary