David W. Plachta

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Steven G. Sutherlin

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama

Wesley L. Johnson

Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Jeffrey R. Feller

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

John M. Jurns

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control Test

NASA/TM—2012-217427

March 2012
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
David W. Plachta

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Steven G. Sutherlin

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama

Wesley L. Johnson

Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Jeffrey R. Feller

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

John M. Jurns

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control Test

NASA/TM—2012-217427

March 2012

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Acknowledgments

The authors thank Andrew Schnell and Linda Hornsby, both at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, 

for their modeling support in this effort.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 

This report contains preliminary fi ndings, 

subject to revision as analysis proceeds.
NASA/TM—2012-217427 1 

Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control Test 

David W. Plachta 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Steven G. Sutherlin 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Marshall Space Flight Center 

Huntsville, Alabama 35812 

Wesley L. Johnson 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Kennedy Space Center 

Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 

Jeffrey R. Feller 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, California 94035 

John M. Jurns 

ASRC Aerospace Corporation 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

NASA is considering propulsion system concepts for future missions including human return to the 

lunar surface. Studies have identified cryogenic methane (LCH4) and oxygen (LO2) as a desirable 

propellant combination for the lunar surface ascent propulsion system, and they point to a surface stay 

requirement of 180 days. To meet this requirement, a test article was prepared with state-of-the-art 

insulation and tested in simulated lunar mission environments at NASA GRC. The primary goals were to 

validate design and models of the key thermal control technologies to store unvented methane for long 

durations, with a low-density high-performing Multi-layer Insulation (MLI) system to protect the 

propellant tanks from the environmental heat of low Earth orbit (LEO), Earth to Moon transit, lunar 

surface, and with the LCH4 initially densified. The data and accompanying analysis shows this storage 

design would have fallen well short of the unvented 180 day storage requirement, due to the MLI density 

being much higher than intended, its substructure collapse, and blanket separation during depressurization. Despite the performance issue, insight into analytical models and MLI construction was gained. 

Such modeling is important for the effective design of flight vehicle concepts, such as in-space cryogenic 

depots or in-space cryogenic propulsion stages. 

Introduction 

For a lunar outpost exploration mission at the lunar South Pole, NASA has planned a surface stay of 

up to 180 days for the crew module and Altair ascent stage. NASA internal and contracted trade studies 

(Refs. 1 and 2) have predicted that LCH4 ascent stage propellant tank venting can be eliminated on the 

lunar surface for such a stay by using a high performance passive thermal control design including a 

Multi-layer Insulation (MLI) system consisting of at least 60 layers to protect the propellant tanks from 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 2 

the lunar surface and solar environmental heating, and tanking with densified LCH4 at 93 K to 

approximately 85 percent full at the launch pad, to allow for substantial liquid head absorption and 

thermal expansion. 

In order to verify the trade study results, a NASA inter-center team consisting of Ames Research 

Center (ARC), Glenn Research Center (GRC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and Marshall Space Flight 

Center (MSFC) conducted a series of baseline passive thermal control technology tests of a spherical 

LCH4 propellant tank in simulated lunar mission thermal environments of hard vacuum and 305, 250, 

140, and 350 K ambient temperatures at the GRC Creek Road Cryogenic Complex, SMiRF facility; 

accompanying calorimeter tests of coupons of this same MLI were performed at KSC’s Cryogenic Test 

Bed (Ref. 3). 

Objectives 

Associated with LCH4/LO2 propellants in the propulsion system for Altair Ascent Stage are the thermal 

control technology challenges to enable mass efficient, long duration cryogenic storage required on the lunar 

surface. NASA’s thermal control analysis (unpublished) predicts that thick MLI systems with the methane 

initially densified can meet the mission timeline requirement of 180 days of unvented storage. One of the 

most important details for such a long storage time is the tank applied thermal insulation system 

performance, which historically has a significant variation due to degradation caused by the penetrations 

through the MLI, gaps due to fit issues (particularly for spherical tanks or dished ends), and local 

compression of the insulation and the resultant effect on the overall heating rate. A focus of this test is to 

address both the unvented storage timeline and the MLI thermal performance. Another objective is to 

compare the industry standard equations to an updated NASA approach developed after the Multi-purpose 

Hydrogen Test Bed (Ref. 4) test, which included derivation of an empirical revision (Ref. 5) to existing 

equations used to predict MLI heating rates at low environment temperatures; this present effort sought to 

confirm this with additional data using a smaller tank. Further data was collected for MLI performance 

uncertainty with thick MLI designs, which are recommended for this application, as the tank applied MLI 

ground test database shows substantial data variation and inconsistencies for 60 or more layers. 

Accompanying the MLI investigation are tests involving liquid methane densification and tank 

pressurization. In order to meet the lunar mission requirements, our design assumes the liquid methane is 

tanked densified (at 93 K) and pressurized with helium and then undergoes a very long loiter causing the 

tank to pressurize. In this test, data was collected at environmental conditions representing each phase of 

the mission concept. The ground hold and ascent mission phases were simulated to establish the 

integrated heating timeline and to better understand the fluid conditions upon reaching orbit. These results 

are presented elsewhere (Ref. 6). Boil-off and pressurization testing was performed under vacuum and 

thermal environments of 140 and 350 K, which are representative of lunar transit and lunar surface 

equator environments respectively, and at 250 K, a representative effective temperature for lunar pole and 

low lunar and earth orbit environments. 

Hardware 

SMiRF Test Facility 

The Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control (MLSTC) experiment was conducted at the NASA 

GRC Creek Road Complex—Small Multi-Purpose Research Facility (SMiRF) (Ref. 7). SMiRF provides 

the ability to simulate launch ascent, high altitudes and space pressure environments, while simulating the 

corresponding thermal environment. The test facility contains a 7.38 m3

 cylindrical space simulation 

vacuum chamber in which the MLSTC test tank was suspended. The facility vacuum system can maintain 

a vacuum pressure of 10–6 torr in the chamber. The vacuum system also allows the chamber to be 

evacuated at a rate simulating a launch vehicle ascent pressure profile (from atmospheric pressure to 

0.01 torr in 2 min). Contained within the vacuum chamber is a programmable thermal cryo-shroud that 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 3 

provided an isothermal environment for the MLSTC test tank. The cryo-shroud provides a constant 

environment temperature with steady state temperature control of 3 K. The shroud average measured 

emissivity is 0.85. Inside the shroud is the MLSTC tank, a 1.22 m (4 ft) diameter spherical tank that has 

0.95 cm (0.375 in.) thick walls. To best encompass the proposed propulsion system engine requirements, 

a test matrix was developed which defined the initial tank fill level that the liquid methane was initially 

transferred to the test tank at normal boiling point (112 K), and could be either warmed to 150 K 

(1550 kPa saturated condition), or cooled to 93 K (21 kPa saturated condition). The liquid was warmed by 

bubbling warm gaseous methane into the test tank, or was cooled evaporatively using a vacuum system to 

reduce tank pressure and temperature. A schematic of SMiRF is shown in Figure 1. 

Measurements taken at SMiRF were vacuum and test tank pressure, temperatures, flow rate, vent 

flow gas composition, and pump power output. Research instrumentation was provided to measure the 

following parameters: 

 Bulk LCH4 and vapor ullage temperature (42 sensors) 

 Cryoshroud temperature (19 sensors) 

 MLI insulation temperature (64 sensors) 

 Test tank structural supports and piping penetration temperature (36 sensors) 

 Test tank pressure 

 MLI interstitial pressure (2 gauges) 

 SMiRF vacuum chamber pressure (4 gauges) 

 Recirculation pump power 

 Vent flow rate (4 flow meters) 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 4 

Multi-Layer Insulation 

The tank MLI system consisted of an underlying reflective Kapton substrate covered with 60 layers of 

Double Aluminized Mylar (DAM), each separated by double Dacron netting. Its pre-test measured layer 

density varied from 5 to 16 layers/cm, with an average of 7.1 layers/cm around the equator. The NASA 

calorimeter tests of the MLI blankets indicated a sub-blanket density of 15 layers/cm and an overall 

system density of 10 layers/cm. A picture of the installed MLI is shown in Figure 2. 

The larger tank fill and vent penetrations were individually wrapped with temperature matched 

insulation socks while the structural penetration insulation was isolated from the tank insulation. 

Analysis 

Thermal Desktop (C&R Technologies) was used to build a thermal model of the test configuration to 

quantify all sources of heat load into the tank, study the tank multi-layer insulation (MLI) system 

performance and ultimately evaluate the capability for long-term Methane storage for lunar surface 

operations. The tank wall was modeled as a fixed boundary temperature, and the cryoshroud surfaces 

were modeled as boundary conditions with temperatures populated by laboratory measurements. 

In the MLSTC boil-off tests, the heat load into the tank was derived by measuring the vapor vent rate 

in a steady-state condition. Conductive heat loads through the tank penetrations such as the vent line, 

fill/drain line, pressurization line, tank supports and wire bundles were calculated from penetration 

temperature measurements and the physical characteristics of the lines. The tank MLI system heat load 

was calculated from the difference between the total heat load and the sum of the conductive heat loads. 

The theoretical MLI system performance was calculated with a customized subroutine utilizing MLI 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 5 

performance Lockheed Equations (4-15) and (4-56) (Ref. 8) and the Modified Lockheed Equation (see 

Ref. 5), which are shown in Table 1. These equations are for flat plate calorimeters and represent the ideal 

heat flux through an MLI blanket. As such, they serve as a reference against which to compare our tank 

applied MLI heat, which will always be greater than that found through calorimeter testing. Our resulting 

heat loads were then correlated to these equations by using a degradation factor, a multiplier applied to 

the reference value. The primary difference between the Lockheed Equations (4-15) and (4-56) and the 

Modified Lockheed Equation is that the latter equations incorporate a conduction model for Dacron 

netting spacer material, which was used in the MLSTC MLI system in place of silk netting, used by 

Lockheed for their testing. Because at low temperature the Dacron’s conductivity is higher than that of 

silk, the Modified Lockheed Equation predicts higher heat rates at low boundary temperatures. 

TABLE 1.—EQUATION USED FOR MLI MODELING 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 6 

Pre Test Predictions 

The pre-test MLI performance prediction at an environment of 250 K (Thot) by the MLI vendor was 

0.49 W. Our corresponding NASA predictions were between 0.4 and 0.74 W, using the various models 

specified and a layer density of 7.1 layers/cm. 

Results 

Measured Heating Rates 

The measured heating rates are documented in Table 2. For the 250 K hot side, note that the heat 

through the MLI at 250 K is 1.6 W, much higher than the predicted half watt. This MLI heating rate and the 

others at their respective hot side temperatures are correlated to the equations in Table 1 by finding the 

degradation factors, which are shown in Figure 3. Here you can see they vary substantially with 

temperature, particularly for Equations (4-15) and (4-56). Note that the empirically derived Lockheed 

equations were designed to be good predictors of MLI performance for hot side temperatures between 39 

and 389 K. The heat load for the diodes at 140 K hot side T is higher than that at other hot side T’s, due to 

the temperature sensors being in liquid sensing mode, which adds more heat to the tank. Note that the 

resultant MLI heating at 140 K is small compared to Q total and, as such, it is more sensitive to the 

instrument error associated with the penetration measurements. It is less accurate than the other MLI results. 

TABLE 2.—THE MEASURED HEATING RATES AT THE SPECIFIED HOT SIDE TEMPERATURE 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 7 

MLI Disassembly 

Given the lower than expected performance, we inspected and disassembled the MLI after the test to 

investigate the possible problems. We noted that there was a 1.5 cm wide by 45 cm long opening in one 

of the outer seams, something we had noted in previous test chamber depressurizations during checkout 

and pre-test operations. While this was a concern regarding the MLI’s structural ability to handle 

depressurization cycles, we did not feel this opened area in a few mylar layers would result in a noticeable 

increase in radiation heat transfer. In addition to the opening, we noticed many irregularities in the MLI 

surface and decided map the MLI exterior using a Faro (Faro Technologies, Inc.) Arm 3-D mapping tool 

(Figs. 4 and 5). It found large inconsistencies in the MLI thickness, which varied from 200 to 54 mm. 

Note that at right equatorial side of Figure 4, the thickness of the outer 36 mylar layers is 23.8 mm (or 

2.38 cm), which is a layer density of 15.1 layers/cm, substantially higher than the as built layer density of 

7.1 layers/cm measured at the equator during installation. These variations in the outer MLI shape clearly 

caused many localized compressions. Also, after removing all of the MLI we found that the substrate, 

which was originally a cylindrical middle and semi-rigid conical shape on the tank ends, had collapsed to 

mostly take on the shape of the spherical tank; it supported the MLI only on a few ridges. This issue can 

even be seen in the outer MLI image shown in Figure 5. 

 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 8 

Resultant MLI Density 

Because of the MLI density uncertainty and the fact that the MLI heat flux test data did not correlate 

well to the Lockheed equations presented, we turned the Lockheed equation around and solved for layer 

density, inputting the test temperatures and MLI heat. We used the Modified Lockheed Equation, which 

correlated best with the test data. This curve fit is shown in Figure 6. Here the data points fall on the curve 

at the warm boundary temperatures used in our test. Using this approach, the resultant MLI density was 

14 layers/cm with a temperature independent degradation factor of 2.0. Interestingly enough, this layer 

density is consistent with the blanket layer density for the KSC calorimeter tests and the post test density 

discovered on part of the tank by the mapping tool. The degradation factor is also consistent with that of 

the MLI on the Space Shuttle PRSA Dewars and with the overall discussion presented by Lockheed 

Martin (Ref. 9). 

A further issue with the modeling of the MLI is the application of the Lockheed Equations at low 

MLI densities. These equations were empirically developed from flat plate calorimeter data with layer 

densities of between 28 and 91 layers/cm, at least double the layer density in this test. This is seen as 

affecting the thermal contact between spacers and reflectors (and the associated contact resistances), and 

the gas conduction paths. As such, it is uncertain how applicable these industry standard equations are to 

low layer density MLI systems. 

Pressurization 

Integrating the tank heating from the established simulated launch ascent heating profile, which is 

documented in a separate paper (Ref. 3), plus the measured lunar transit, orbit, and lunar surface heating 

for their respective durations of the estimated mission timeline, one can estimate the state of the liquid for 

an unvented lunar lander concept. Given our initial densified state of 93 K, we project this insulation 

applied to this lander concept to allow the cryogen last unvented for 64 days, much less than the planned 

180 days. This duration corresponds to the time it takes methane to reach 113 K, an upper bound set by 

the propulsion engineer to meet the engine start box requirement for lunar launch ascent. Our original 

model with an MLI degradation factor of 2 predicts 201 days of storage; the same MLI protected by a 

lunar and sun shade was projected for 243 days of unvented storage. 
NASA/TM—2012-217427 9 

Summary 

After 77 days of testing, which included a simulated ground hold, a simulated launch ascent 

atmospheric pressure profile, four different background temperatures at vacuum, and densified 

propellants generation, our test series generated much MLI, launch ascent heating, and tank pressurization 

data. While the data was disappointing as the MLI insulation heating rate significantly exceeded model 

predictions, several discoveries are of interest. MLI density must be maintained to ensure this important 

performance parameter is consistent and to prevent local blanket compressions. Any substrate used must 

be reinforced to handle the depressurization cycles. Also, the industry standard Lockheed equations do 

not predict MLI performance well at cold boundary temperatures for systems using Dacron netting as 

spacer material. In its place, the Modified Lockheed Equation is recommended with a degradation factor 

of at least two. 

References 

1. E. Cady, et al., Lunar Surface Thermal Control Study, NASA Contract No. NNM08AA22C, 2009. 

2. C.H. McLean, et al., Long Term Space Storage and Delivery of Cryogenic Propellants for 

Exploration, AIAA_08_4853 (2008). 

3. Johnson, W.L. and Fesmire, J.E. “Thermal Performance of Low Layer Density Multilayer Insulation 

Using Liquid Nitrogen,” to be presented at the 2011 Cryogenics Engineering Conference, Spokane, 

WA, June 13-17, 2011. 

4. J. Martin and L. Hastings, Large-Scale Liquid Hydrogen Testing of a Variable Density Multilayer 

Insulation With a Foam Substrate, NASA/TM—2001-211089 (2001). 

5. L.J. Hastings, et al., Analytical Modeling and Test Correlation of Variable Density MLI for 

Cryogenic Storage, NASA/TM—2004-213175, (2004). 

6. Johnson, W.L., Jurns, J.M., et.al. “Launch Ascent Testing of a Representative Altair Ascent Stage 

Methane Tank,” presented at the 2011 Space Cryogenics Workshop, Coeur D’Alene, ID, June 9, 

2011. 

7. J.M. Jurns, M.T. Kudlac, NASA Glenn Research Center Creek Road Complex – Cryogenic Testing 

Facilities, Cryogenics, (2005) 

8. NASA CR-134477, Keller, C.W., Cunnington, G.R., and Glassford, A.P., Thermal Performance of 

Multilayer Insulations, (1974). 

9. T. Nast, et al., Cryogenic Boil-Off Reduction Approaches, AIAA 2011-806, Presented at the 

49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (2011). 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-03-2012 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Methane Lunar Surface Thermal Control Test 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Plachta, David, W.; Sutherlin, Steven, G.; Johnson, Wesley, L.; Feller, Jeffrey, R.; Jurns, 

John, M. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 095240.04.13.01.13.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-18117 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2012-217427 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Category: 28 and 34 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

NASA is considering propulsion system concepts for future missions including human return to the lunar surface. Studies have identified 

cryogenic methane (LCH4) and oxygen (LO2) as a desirable propellant combination for the lunar surface ascent propulsion system, and they 

point to a surface stay requirement of 180 days. To meet this requirement, a test article was prepared with state-of-the-art insulation and 

tested in simulated lunar mission environments at NASA GRC. The primary goals were to validate design and models of the key thermal 

control technologies to store unvented methane for long durations, with a low-density high-performing Multi-layer Insulation (MLI) system 

to protect the propellant tanks from the environmental heat of low Earth orbit (LEO), Earth to Moon transit, lunar surface, and with the 

LCH4 initially densified. The data and accompanying analysis shows this storage design would have fallen well short of the unvented 180 

day storage requirement, due to the MLI density being much higher than intended, its substructure collapse, and blanket separation during 

depressurization. Despite the performance issue, insight into analytical models and MLI construction was gained. Such modeling is 

important for the effective design of flight vehicle concepts, such as in-space cryogenic depots or in-space cryogenic propulsion stages.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Cryogenics; Pressure control; Multi-layer insulation (MLI); Space cryogenics; Thermal control; Zero boil-off; Pressure control;

Propellant storage; Densified propellants 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

15 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18