Open Access

Pioneering the Approach to Understand a Trash-to-Gas Experiment in a Microgravity Environment

Anne J. Meier
Anne J. Meier
, 
David Rinderknecht
David Rinderknecht
, 
Joel Olson
Joel Olson
, 
Malay G. Shah
Malay G. Shah
, 
Jaime A. Toro Medina
Jaime A. Toro Medina
, 
Ray P. Pitts
Ray P. Pitts
, 
Rodolphe V. Carro
Rodolphe V. Carro
, 
Jonathan R. Gleeson
Jonathan R. Gleeson
, 
Jake Hochstadt
Jake Hochstadt
, 
Evan A. Bell
Evan A. Bell
, 
Emily A. Forrester
Emily A. Forrester
, 
Mirielle Kruger
Mirielle Kruger
 and 
Deborah Essumang
Deborah Essumang
   | May 24, 2021
Gravitational and Space Research's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research Note
Published Online: May 24, 2021
Page range: 68 - 85
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/gsr-2021-0006
Keywords
© 2021 Anne J. Meier et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Figure 1

OSCAR suborbital payload enclosed in the FSE. Left: Front panel removed from FSE. Right: Front shelf of FSE installed on OSCAR suborbital payload during fit check.
OSCAR suborbital payload enclosed in the FSE. Left: Front panel removed from FSE. Right: Front shelf of FSE installed on OSCAR suborbital payload during fit check.

Figure 2

(A) General block diagram of payload operations. (B) Payload layout in NS Full Stack Enclosure.
(A) General block diagram of payload operations. (B) Payload layout in NS Full Stack Enclosure.

Figure 3

(A) Simple drawing of reactor internal parameters, including thermocouple locations (TC1-4), trash injection inlet (1 and 2), O2 and steam inlet ports, and cartridge heater locations. (B) Ideal or design locations of reactor thermal zones or expected temperature profile. (C) CAD model of reactor hardware with cut-away view.
(A) Simple drawing of reactor internal parameters, including thermocouple locations (TC1-4), trash injection inlet (1 and 2), O2 and steam inlet ports, and cartridge heater locations. (B) Ideal or design locations of reactor thermal zones or expected temperature profile. (C) CAD model of reactor hardware with cut-away view.

Figure 4

The NS Flight events in comparison to the OSCAR Payload flight events.
The NS Flight events in comparison to the OSCAR Payload flight events.

Figure 5

Image stills of the suborbital flight (A), and best suited ground test comparisons (B) and (C). Links to the actual video footage can be found here: Video for (A) https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20191211-MH-OSC01_0003-OSCAR_Video_Upload_Flight_100-3266803; Video for (B): https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20200619-MH-OSC01_0001-OSCAR_Video_Upload_Lab-He_110-3266803; Video for (C): https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20200729-MH-OSC01_0002-OSCAR_Video_Upload_Lab-Air_120-3266803
Image stills of the suborbital flight (A), and best suited ground test comparisons (B) and (C). Links to the actual video footage can be found here: Video for (A) https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20191211-MH-OSC01_0003-OSCAR_Video_Upload_Flight_100-3266803; Video for (B): https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20200619-MH-OSC01_0001-OSCAR_Video_Upload_Lab-He_110-3266803; Video for (C): https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20200729-MH-OSC01_0002-OSCAR_Video_Upload_Lab-Air_120-3266803

Figure 6

Gas production summary (Volume %) of gases produced during testing prior to flight (design point O2 flow) and during suborbital fight (flight conditions).
Gas production summary (Volume %) of gases produced during testing prior to flight (design point O2 flow) and during suborbital fight (flight conditions).

Figure 7

Total Syngas Production. Results from testing flight discrepancy conditions (1) Timing Discrepancy; (2) O2 Leak simulation (1,2) Timing discrepancy + O2 leak and (1–3) Timing discrepancy, O2 leak and air loading. Gases collected in the 3 collection tanks and smoldering tank are in yellow/orange; gases quantified in the lab from the reactor at the end of the burn are in blue.
Total Syngas Production. Results from testing flight discrepancy conditions (1) Timing Discrepancy; (2) O2 Leak simulation (1,2) Timing discrepancy + O2 leak and (1–3) Timing discrepancy, O2 leak and air loading. Gases collected in the 3 collection tanks and smoldering tank are in yellow/orange; gases quantified in the lab from the reactor at the end of the burn are in blue.

Figure 8

Top: Gas Production for Flight, Lab – He (1,2), and Lab – Air (1,2) experiments. From left to right: sequential tank collection (T1–T3); Smoldering tank (S); Reactor (R, Lab only); Total (Tot, excluding reactor contents for flight comparison). Bottom: Gas Composition for Flight, Lab – He (1,2), and Lab – Air (1,2) experiments.
Top: Gas Production for Flight, Lab – He (1,2), and Lab – Air (1,2) experiments. From left to right: sequential tank collection (T1–T3); Smoldering tank (S); Reactor (R, Lab only); Total (Tot, excluding reactor contents for flight comparison). Bottom: Gas Composition for Flight, Lab – He (1,2), and Lab – Air (1,2) experiments.

Figure 9

Optical microscopy images of representative t-shirt material. (A) Pristine t-shirt material before processing. (B) T-shirt material after reaction in a lab test. (C) T-shirt material after reaction in the μg flight test. (D) A completely blackened t-shirt sample from the μg (flight) test.
Optical microscopy images of representative t-shirt material. (A) Pristine t-shirt material before processing. (B) T-shirt material after reaction in a lab test. (C) T-shirt material after reaction in the μg flight test. (D) A completely blackened t-shirt sample from the μg (flight) test.

Figure 10

Example XPS spectra of combustion remnants. Y-axis (Counts x 1000), X-axis (Binding Energy, eV); (A) A survey spectrum of the Flight (light) sample. Corresponding elements are labeled for each peak. (B) A high-resolution spectrum of the Lab (light) sample.
Example XPS spectra of combustion remnants. Y-axis (Counts x 1000), X-axis (Binding Energy, eV); (A) A survey spectrum of the Flight (light) sample. Corresponding elements are labeled for each peak. (B) A high-resolution spectrum of the Lab (light) sample.

Figure 11

Sample Compositions. Here (L) = Light, (D) = Dark, and (B) = Blackened. Note that each (L) and (D) samples were collected from the same piece of remnant. (A) The elemental composition (at%) of the four ubiquitous elements (C, O, Si, N). (B) The composition (at%) of the different chemical types of carbon. All values were determined from an average of three sampling locations per sample. Error bars show the standard deviations of each average value.
Sample Compositions. Here (L) = Light, (D) = Dark, and (B) = Blackened. Note that each (L) and (D) samples were collected from the same piece of remnant. (A) The elemental composition (at%) of the four ubiquitous elements (C, O, Si, N). (B) The composition (at%) of the different chemical types of carbon. All values were determined from an average of three sampling locations per sample. Error bars show the standard deviations of each average value.

Figure 12

Thermal reaction zones (hearth zone) for (A) μg suborbital flight and (B) Earth gravity laboratory tests: Laboratory He (1,2), and Laboratory Air (1–3). The accompanying temperature profile is listed in (C). The reaction zone is expanded in μg and the reaction temperature is higher but smaller in Earth gravity.
Thermal reaction zones (hearth zone) for (A) μg suborbital flight and (B) Earth gravity laboratory tests: Laboratory He (1,2), and Laboratory Air (1–3). The accompanying temperature profile is listed in (C). The reaction zone is expanded in μg and the reaction temperature is higher but smaller in Earth gravity.

Product analysis from ZGF, suborbital flight, and ground testing associated with the suborbital flight.

Test descriptor Carbon conversion (with reactor) Carbon conversion (no reactor) Measured mass conversion Max Temperature (°C) (TC1/TC2/TC3/TC4) Ignition time (sec) Pressure increase due to reaction (Δpsia) CO2:CO*
ZGF HFWS-μg 43.47% N/A 57.43% 242.6 2.55 0.87 5.14
Suborbital design point O2-Lab N/A N/A 85.0% 271.3/418.0/631.3/228.1 13.56 11.2 N/A
Suborbital Flight-μg N/A 13.8% 28.5% 124.8/456.0/393.6/155.2 14.87 7.22 48.44
Lab – He (1,2) 27.5% 14.9% 43.6% 154.77/279.8/561.4/203.9 14.38 9.02 11.56
Lab – Air (1–3) 30.2% 15.2% 46.3% 189.1/322.2/678.0/260.6 18.68 11.21 9.67

Solid to gas conversion reactions and generalized properties.

Conversion process Primary reaction Primary products Temperature (°C) Space application references
Combustion (O2/air in) CxHyOz + O2 → CO+ H2O+ (heat) CO+12O2→CO2+(heat) {\rm{CO}} + {1 \over 2}{{\rm{O}}_2} \to {\rm{C}}{{\rm{O}}_2} + \left( {{\rm{heat}}} \right) CO2, H2O, heat 800–1200+ Meier et al., 2020; Ruff and Urban, 2016; Sutliff et al., 2002
Steam reforming (reduction process) CxHyOz + H2O + (heat) → CO+ H2CO+ H2O → CO2 + H2 +(heat) CO2, H2O, cracked hydrocarbons, char 650–1000 Anthony and Hintze, 2014; Caraccio and Hintze, 2013; Caraccio et al., 2014
Gasification (heat input with O2 and steam) C+ H2O+ (heat) → CO + H2C+ 2H2O+ (heat) → CO2 + H2C+ CO2 + (heat) → 2COC+ 2H2→ CH2 + H2O CO, CO2, H2O, H2, CmHn, tar, char >400 Hintze et al., 2012; Meier et al., 2019
Pyrolysis (heat input/no O2) CxHyOz → CO+ H2 +(heat) CO, CO2, H2O, organic vapors, char 200–650 Ewert et al., 2017; Fisher et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2014; Wheeler et al., 2012; Serio et al., 2014a; Wetzel et al., 2018; Wheeler et al., 2018
Torrefaction (heat input/no O2) Pyrolysis with biological materials Char 200–350 Serio et al., 2014b, 2016, 2018, 2019

Gas production from tanks 1–3 and smoldering tank.

Test descriptor Syngas % of total CO2 (mmol) CO (mmol) CH4 (mmol) Syngas (mmol)
Flight (μg) 16.5 21.80 0.45 0.01 22.25
Lab – He (1,2) 25.5 21.27 1.84 0.21 23.33
Standard Dev. (Lab – He) 2.1 3.44 0.43 0.08 3.83
Difference with μg 9 0.53 1.40 0.21 1.07
Lab – Air (1,2) 25.1 18.96 1.96 0.23 21.15
Standard Dev. (Lab – Air) 4.4 6.28 0.77 0.03 7.08
Difference with μg 8.5 3.32 1.51 0.22 1.60
eISSN:
2332-7774
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
2 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Life Sciences, other, Materials Sciences, Physics
Journal RSS Feed