Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Amanda Hernandez

Publications and source records attributed to Amanda Hernandez.

17 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Space Based Solar Power

This study evaluates the potential benefits, challenges, and options for NASA to engage with growing global interest in space based solar power (SBSP). Utilizing SBSP entails in-space collection of solar energy, transmission of that energy to one or more stations on Earth, conversion to electricity, and delivery to the grid or to batteries for storage. Experts in both the aerospace and energy sectors are debating the benefits of SBSP as more organizations globally begin SBSP technology development programs. Proponents claim SBSP could deliver large amounts of electricity at competitive prices and with fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than terrestrial renewable electricity technologies while accelerating development of the space economy. Skeptics say SBSP has no clear development path and would divert billions of dollars from known terrestrial solutions while damaging the environment. While it is generally understood that SBSP is cost prohibitive and technically infeasible today, this study assesses operating SBSP systems in 2050. Part of NASA’s mission is to innovate for the benefit of humanity – it is through this lens that the Agency weighs whether and how to support SBSP development.

Space Based Solar Power↗
NASA NTRS2023

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. In light of this transition, NASA senior leadership tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) with answering two questions: 1) what are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms, and 2) in light of these options, what modifications would be helpful to make in the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership and the NASA management processes as NASA plans for the transition of the ISS by 2030? To answer the first question, we conducted a stakeholder-driven analysis to identify a trade space of six differentiated model options. We then evaluated their performance in three potential future scenarios, according to evaluation criteria deemed important to stakeholders. The six models are illustrative and representational of a potential trade space. Additionally, each model requires change to current legislation. To further aid in leadership decision-making, we provided considerations for how to strengthen each model by mixing and matching different model aspects. To answer the second question, we looked to strengths of the top-performing models to evolve the current ISSNL-CASIS relationship and improve NASA’s posture for success post-ISS. We identified four possible modifications to the ISSNL-CASIS partnership and NASA’s management of these activities. By implementing these modifications early, NASA can increase the return from ISSNL-CASIS and help prepare for future models as one or more CLD replaces the ISS by 2030.

ISS↗
NASA NTRS2023

Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analysis

At least 22 lunar missions are planned in the next four years. Half of these missions will occur in the Moon’s south polar region. Due to this upcoming proliferation of actors and activities at or near the lunar south pole, and due to the potential close proximity of operations, NASA and other operators will face challenges never faced before. NASA’s Deputy Administrator and Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy with answering two questions related to the Artemis campaign: (1) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account in the selection of lunar landing and operations sites, and (2) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account when implementing tools such as safety zones in order to protect these operations and U.S. interests? We present policy tools (options and recommendations) to NASA leadership and program planners so that they can consider policy measures to respond to challenges inherent in landing and operating at the lunar South Pole—this answers question one. We also describe a set of options (transparency, coordination, and implementation) to increase the effectiveness of these tools—this answers question two.

Lunar policy↗
NASA NTRS2022

Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analysis

Just within the next four years, we expect to see at least 22 lunar surface missions. Half of these missions will occur in the Moon’s south polar region. Due to this upcoming proliferation of actors and activities at or near the lunar south pole, and due to the potential close proximity of operations, NASA and other operators will face challenges never faced before. NASA’s Deputy Administrator and Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) tasked the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) with answering two questions related to the Artemis campaign: (1) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account in the selection of lunar landing and operations sites, and (2) what technical and policy considerations should NASA take into account when implementing tools such as safety zones in order to protect these operations and U.S. interests? In addition to the challenges inherent in lunar operations, NASA subject-matter experts (SMEs) are concerned about certain challenges to NASA operations that may require policy solutions. The goal of this report is to provide options and recommendations to NASA leadership and program planners so that they can consider policy measures to respond to those challenges. This report also describes options for transparency, coordination, and implementation to increase the effectiveness of these measures.

lunar policy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

The International Space Station National Lab (ISSNL) was established through Congressional authority in 2005 and has been managed by a nonprofit called the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) since 2011 to support research, development, education, and commercial activities in low-Earth orbit (LEO). NASA leadership is considering next steps for microgravity and orbital activities in LEO in preparation for the retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) and transition to Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) in the 2030 timeframe. Specifically, our study team within the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy addressed the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms? To inform the trade space of potential models, we conducted over 40 discussions with stakeholders internal and external to NASA and reviewed over 35 documents related to LEO legislation, commercialization, models, and activities. Following the extensive literature review and discussions with diverse stakeholders, we defined and evaluated six models, in addition to the current ISSNL model. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios (dynamic, steady, and limited growth of the commercial LEO market and activities) and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria (ability to meet NASA’s needs, adaptability, opportunity for collaboration, market sustainability, and equity and accessibility). The six models in the future trade space were: • Government Research Broker: Customizable research efforts on transport vehicles and CLDs • Innovation Campus: Modern terrestrial campus with workforce focus • Anchor Tenant: Long-term, substantial agreement for leasing space on a single CLD • Fee for Service: Free market approach with NASA-sponsored grants and service/data buys • Matchmaker: Neutral third-party connecting users to platforms • Institute Network: Network of separate but related efforts to enable commercial scaling The Government Research Broker model performed best across the scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibited positive aspects, the two models performed most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. The six models presented in this study are representative of the potential trade space and are illustrative examples. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align to their priorities more closely by using combinations of the unique model features provided in our analysis. The optimal model is likely a combination of features from multiple models. Building upon this work to best position NASA and the diverse stakeholders of LEO activities for success post-ISS, further work will explore the near-term impact of preparing for the transition of the ISS to CLDs by identifying opportunities for modifying the current ISSNL-CASIS partnership. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the many reviewers and discussants, internal and external to NASA, that contributed to the work.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

This study helps elucidate NASA’s future options for facilitating government-funded activities in the post–International Space Station (ISS) low-Earth orbit (LEO) ecosystem. NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. As the LEO ecosystem evolves through growth of the commercial space industry and NASA’s strategic goal to support the development of a robust LEO economy in which many stakeholders on Earth can participate, so must the way NASA facilitates government activities to ensure citizens realize the highest return on their investment in LEO. Specifically, this study aims to answer the question: What are potential models for an ISS National Lab facilitating government-funded or -subsidized activities on a commercial LEO platform after the transition of the ISS to one or more private platforms?

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Based Solar Power

Space based solar power (SBSP) entails in-space collection of solar energy, transmission of that energy to one or more stations on Earth, conversion to electricity, and delivery to the grid or to batteries for storage. Experts in both the aerospace and energy sectors are debating the benefits of SBSP as more organizations globally begin SBSP technology development programs. We conducted a study to evaluate the potential benefits, challenges, and options for NASA to engage with growing global interest in SBSP. We performed a first order lifecycle study of two representative SBSP designs for 2 GW utility-scale power generation that, for the purposes of the study, are presumed to begin in 2050. We assumed baseline capabilities to develop, assemble, operate, maintain, and dispose of the SBSP systems are a mix of capabilities that are above, below, or comparable to capabilities demonstrated to date. We then compared the lifecycle cost of electricity and lifecycle GHG emission intensity of the SBSP designs to alternative terrestrial renewable electricity production technologies. Our findings indicate the SBSP designs may produce lifecycle GHG emissions per unit of electricity that are comparable to terrestrial alternatives, pending further studies of upper atmosphere responses to launch emissions. We find the SBSP designs are more expensive than terrestrial alternatives and may have lifecycle costs per unit of electricity that are 12-80 times higher. Though, we do find cost competitiveness may be achieved if a favorable combination of cost and capability improvements related to launch and manufacturing that are beyond the advancements assumed in the baseline assessment can be attained.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Models for Facilitating Government-Funded Activities in the Post-ISS LEO Ecosystem

NASA is preparing for the retirement of the ISS and transition of LEO activities to one or more Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) by 2030. This transition necessitates new models for connecting NASA and other government-funded users of the LEO environment to platforms and opportunities. This paper describes for consideration six models for facilitating government-funded activities in the post-ISS LEO ecosystem. These six models are illustrative and represent a wide trade space of potential options, each relying on unique mechanisms for facilitating activities on one or more commercial LEO platforms or vehicles. We assessed each model across three possible future scenarios varying in number and diversity of LEO activities and commercial offerings, and across five stakeholder-driven model evaluation criteria. We present the highlights of the analysis, including ways to modify and strengthen each model. The Government Research Broker model performs best across all future scenarios, followed by Innovation Campus, Anchor Tenant, and Fee for Service. While Matchmaker and Institute Network exhibit positive aspects, these models perform most favorably in future scenarios with well-established communities and markets. While each model has strengths and weaknesses, no single model in its current form performs well across all criteria in all three future scenarios. NASA leadership can adjust models as desired to align closer to their priorities using combinations of unique model mechanisms. A model that meets leadership priorities is likely a combination of features from multiple models.

Erica Rodgers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Based Solar Power Study

Space based solar power (SBSP) entails in-space collection of solar energy, transmission of that energy to one or more stations on Earth, conversion to electricity, and delivery to the grid or to batteries for storage. Experts in both the aerospace and energy sectors are debating the benefits of SBSP as more organizations globally begin SBSP technology development programs. We conducted a study to evaluate the potential benefits, challenges, and options for NASA to engage with growing global interest in SBSP. We performed a first order lifecycle study of two representative SBSP designs for 2 GW utility-scale power generation that, for the purposes of the study, are presumed to begin in 2050. We assumed baseline capabilities to develop, assemble, operate, maintain, and dispose of the SBSP systems are a mix of capabilities that are above, below, or comparable to capabilities demonstrated to date. We then compared the lifecycle cost of electricity and lifecycle GHG emission intensity of the SBSP designs to alternative terrestrial renewable electricity production technologies. Our findings indicate the SBSP designs may produce lifecycle GHG emissions per unit of electricity that are comparable to terrestrial alternatives, pending further studies of upper atmosphere responses to launch emissions. We find the SBSP designs are more expensive than terrestrial alternatives and may have lifecycle costs per unit of electricity that are 12-80 times higher. Though, we do find cost competitiveness may be achieved if a favorable combination of cost and capability improvements related to launch and manufacturing that are beyond the advancements assumed in the baseline assessment can be attained.

solar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to deconflict lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as how to identify relevant sites, the extent of protection needed, or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”. The paper proposes a framework for further deconfliction activity.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to deconflict lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as how to identify relevant sites, the extent of protection needed, or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”. The paper proposes a framework for further deconfliction activity.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, it will be critical to determine how to minimize interference in lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as standards and best practices for non-interference or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference” and “contamination”.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Benefits of a Proposed Process to Preserve Lunar Sites

Assets in lunar orbit and on the surface, whether operational or defunct, have the ability to cause inadvertent interference with proximity operations. As missions to the Moon continue to proliferate, and as more actors become involved, a mechanism is needed to bring communities together to ensure ones' actions do not inhibit the mission objectives of another. A mechanism may also be needed to determine whether any locations on the Moon or in its orbit are of high value to various users, and, pending potential decreases in this value due to interference and other concerns, warrant mitigative actions to preserve these locations. Such a mechanism could provide benefits to all those involved, including governments, industry, academia, and other interested groups. We present a notional process to aggregate community interests for lunar sites and orbits. We then consider two user needs and explore how this process could be used to identify potential alignments and misalignments across communities.

preservation↗