SBIR/STTR Research Award

Continued Optimization of Low-Density Foam-Reinforced Ablatives for High-Velocity, High Heat Flux Earth Return Missions, Phase II

Award identifier 799bd51c26a8b3f1906d5612fa3c95a9d56dae9d7302ea177db4f34f45f1f964Awarding agency National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Award amount

$750,000

Program and phase

SBIR · Phase II

Award year

2014

Explore This Research Award in CaptureIQ

Research the technology, evaluate the recipient and agency, identify related opportunities, and explore potential follow-on work with CaptureIQ.

Award details

Awarding agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Branch
Not reported
Recipient company
ULTRAMET
Proposal award date
2014-09-16
Contract end date
2016-09-15
UEI
N8ZRMWX85NZ6
Solicitation number
Not reported
Topic code
H7.01

Research abstract

In previous work for NASA, Ultramet and ARA Ablatives Laboratory developed and demonstrated advanced foam-reinforced carbon/phenolic ablators that offer substantially increased performance under high heat flux conditions and reduced weight relative to conventional ablators. The two-piece structure consisted of an ablative-filled foam front surface backed by Ultramet's previously established and highly insulating aerogel-filled foam. Arcjet testing was performed at NASA Ames Research Center to heat flux levels exceeding 1000 W/cm2, with the results showing a significantly reduced ablation rate compared to conventional chopped fiber ablators, and ablation behavior comparable to FM5055 at just one-third the density. It is apparent that the foam helps retain the char layer by physical reinforcement and/or that the network of interconnected passages allows pyrolysis gases to escape with less disruption of the char layer. In Phase I, Ultramet teamed with ARA Ablatives for ablative infiltration of Ultramet foams and Materials Research and Design for ablation analysis, to continue optimization of foam-reinforced ablatives by focusing on two primary areas. The ablator formulation infiltrated into the foam was successfully modified to increase heat flux capability consistent with NASA Earth return requirements (1500-2500 W/cm2 or higher). The density can be varied as needed to meet heat flux requirements while minimizing weight. In addition, a single-piece foam structure was demonstrated, rather than separate ablative- and aerogel-filled foam sections. In Phase II, the lightweight hybrid ablator will be optimized for a specific NASA mission, material and structure requirements will be predicted through modeling, and performance will be demonstrated through high heat flux testing at NASA ARC and the Air Force LHMEL-II facility. Scaleup potential will be demonstrated through fabrication of a heat shield module suitable for construction of large modular heat shields.

Technology keywords

Not reported

Other awards by this recipient

Verified by the same UEI. These are other public SBIR/STTR award pages, not a merged company record.

Awards with the same topic code

Verified by an exact topic code match. This is not a text-similarity match.

Research funding history

380 SBIR/STTR records share this UEI (1983–2025). Reported award amounts total $105,154,309. Reported amounts are not federal obligations.

Phases: Phase I, Phase II, Phase II – Direct to Phase II

Agencies: Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human Services

Agency intelligence

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Back to SBIR/STTR Research Awards

Don't take our word for it. Ask AI about RFPCapture.

See what leading AI assistants have to say about RFPCapture and CaptureIQ.

Gemini opens without a prefilled question. The question is copied to your clipboard when the button works. You can also copy it here:

What is RFPCapture.com and its CaptureIQ platform from Smart Logic AI? How does it help federal contractors discover opportunities, evaluate bid/no-bid decisions, research government contracts, and prepare proposals? How does it compare with other federal capture platforms? Use independent sources where available.