Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Andrew C Owens

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew C Owens.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

How Much Testing is Needed to Manage Supportability Risks for Beyond-LEO Missions?

Supportability will be a significantly greater driver of cost and risk for future deep-space crewed missions than it has been in the past. Spares requirements and maintenance risk mitigation in particular present an unprecedented challenge for missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), since, for the first time in human spaceflight history, crews will be weeks or months away from resupply or a safe return to Earth in the event of an abort. Under these conditions, failure rates are a critical parameter that must be well-understood in order to manage logistics and risk effectively. However, failure rates cannot be measured directly, and can only be estimated based on past experience and test results. Previous research has shown that International Space Station (ISS) operational experience has provided significant benefits to future missions by reducing uncertainty and improving accuracy in failure rate estimates, resulting in significant reductions in mass and risk for beyond-LEO missions. This paper updates and expands on that research and quantifies the potential value of continued testing for future mission supportability. Frequentist and Bayesian models for evaluating, validating, and updating failure rate estimates are described, and are combined with supportability models to examine potential impacts of additional operating experience for future missions in terms of logistics mass reduction. The implications of these results for technology development, system design, and program planning are discussed along with lessons learned and recommendations for future system development. In the end, there is no simple answer to the question of how much testing is required, but the models described in this paper provide a way to evaluate the potential impacts of testing in order to inform test planning.

Andrew C Owens↗
NASA NTRS2018

Mega-Drivers to Inform NASA Space Technology Strategic Planning

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) has been developing a new Strategic Framework to guide investment prioritization and communication of STMD strategic goals to stakeholders. STMD’s analysis of global trends identified four overarching drivers which are anticipated to shape the needs of civilian space research for years to come. These Mega-Drivers form the foundation of the Strategic Framework. The Increasing Access Mega-Driver reflects the increase in the availability of launch options, more capable propulsion systems, access to planetary surfaces, and the introduction of new platforms to enable exploration, science, and commercial activities. Accelerating Pace of Discovery reflects the exploration of more remote and challenging destinations, drives increased demand for improved abilities to communicate and process large datasets. The Democratization of Space reflects the broadening participation in the space industry, from governments to private investors to citizens. Growing Utilization of Space reflects space market diversification and growth. This paper will further describe the observable trends that inform each of these Mega Drivers, as well as the interrelationships between them within STMD’s new Strategic Framework.

Melanie L Grande↗
NASA NTRS2018

Strategic Framework for NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate

In October 2016, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) began adopting a new strategic framework that focuses investment prioritization and communication on impacts, outcomes, and challenges. The structure of the framework has been modeled after one successfully pioneered by NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate over the past five years, incorporating lessons learned and changes where appropriate. The Framework is driven by two major factors: (a) dialogue with the community and (b) analysis of the overarching trends shaping the course of civilian space research. These factors are captured in the Framework as Mega-Drivers, which represent major axes of change within the space industry and are characterized by a collection of industry trends and projections. In response to these Mega-Drivers, STMD has developed its understanding of the vision for the future of civilian space relative to STMD space research, captured in five Strategic Thrusts that represent the major lines of investment within STMD’s portfolio. Within each of these Strategic Thrusts, multiple measurable, community-level goals have been established that STMD chooses to pursue as part of a joint effort across the community. STMD chose these goals based upon their potential impact, refers to them as Outcomes within the Framework. These outcomes are decomposed into the products and/or capabilities that will be delivered by STMD, represented in the framework as Technical Challenges. This paper will further describe the framework structure and the progress that has been in defining each of the above elements to date.

Kevin D Earle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

More Data Needed for Failure Rate Estimation, Validation, and Uncertainty Reduction

Current Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) development and test activities are not generating data fast enough to provide statistically-supportable precise Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) failure rate estimates for future missions. Accurate and precise failure rate estimates are critical for missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) because current risk mitigation approaches – namely regular resupply and rapid abort capabilities – will not be available. Safe operations will depend on mission planners’ ability to accurately forecast spares demand and efficiently provide the necessary resources. However, even after more than a decade of operations on board the International Space Station (ISS), a significant amount of uncertainty remains in failure rate estimates. Uncertain or inaccurate failure rates result in increased risk and spares mass for future missions. A Bayesian failure rate estimation approach, such as the one currently implemented by the ISS Program, can help reduce uncertainty by incorporating engineering judgement into failure rate estimates. However, experience on the ISS and with other complex systems shows that these prior failure rate estimates are often inaccurate. In addition, prior failure rate estimates are typically point values; some level of uncertainty must be added to convert these into probability distributions for Bayesian updating, and there are several potential methods for doing so. Due to the low rate of data collection, these subjective (and often inaccurate) prior estimates currently have a strong influence on the end result. This paper examines the challenges associated with failure rate estimation, validation, and uncertainty reduction in the context of ECLSS development for beyond-LEO missions. A variety of techniques for generating and updating Bayesian priors are discussed and evaluated using both real-world and simulated data. Potential solutions for improving failure rate estimation, including testing additional units, are analyzed and discussed, and a set of recommendations are provided for next-generation system development activities.

Supportability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ECLSS Does Not Exist in a Vacuum: Integrated Analysis is Necessary to Inform System Architecture Decisions

Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) architecture selection has profound implications for mission cost and mass extending far beyond the ECLSS itself. Similarly, other mission architecture decisions – particularly involving transportation systems – can influence optimal ECLSS architectures. Loop closure influences requirements for water, oxygen, and other consumables. System maintainability and reliability influences spares mass and risk. System, consumables, and spares mass interact with transportation system architectures and propellant demands and propulsion element sizing. All these interactions with other systems must be considered when evaluating ECLSS options. Analyses that focus only on maximizing ECLSS loop closure – or minimizing ECLSS mass, or minimizing ECLSS life cycle cost – may lead to sub-optimal or even counterproductive system architecture and investment decisions at the mission level. For example, an ECLSS architecture that minimizes ECLSS lifecycle cost but results in excessively high logistics mass could lead to significantly increased transportation system costs or make interplanetary transportation infeasible. Increased loop closure could result in higher development costs and higher mass if system/spares mass increases outweigh consumables reduction. In addition, systems mass and consumables mass are not directly comparable and have different impacts on propellant requirements, as consumables mass changes over the course of the mission. This paper presents an integrated analysis examining the overall impact of different ECLSS and transportation architectures on mass for a crewed Mars mission, including the habitat and transportation systems as well as consumables, spares, and propellant. Key observations are discussed, along with opportunities for further sensitivity analysis and model development. Overall, ECLSS development activities must consider their impacts at the mission level, as part of an integrated system, rather than in isolation.

Systems Analysis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Trajectory, Habitat, and Logistics Analysis and Trade Study for Human Mars Missions

Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) architecture selection has profound implications for mission cost and mass extending far beyond the ECLSS itself. Similarly, other mission architecture decisions – particularly involving transportation systems – can influence optimal ECLSS architectures. Loop closure influences requirements for water, oxygen, and other consumables. System maintainability and reliability influences spares mass and risk. System, consumables, and spares mass interact with transportation system architectures and propellant demands and propulsion element sizing. All these interactions with other systems must be considered when evaluating ECLSS options. Analyses that focus only on maximizing ECLSS loop closure – or minimizing ECLSS mass, or minimizing ECLSS life cycle cost – may lead to sub-optimal or even counterproductive system architecture and investment decisions at the mission level. For example, an ECLSS architecture that minimizes ECLSS life cycle cost but results in excessively high logistics mass could lead to significantly increased transportation system costs or make interplanetary transportation infeasible. Increased loop closure could result in higher development costs and higher mass if system/spares mass increases outweigh consumables reduction. In addition, systems mass and consumables mass are not directly comparable and have different impacts on propellant requirements, as consumables mass changes over the course of the mission. This paper presents an integrated analysis examining the overall impact of different ECLSS and transportation architectures on mass for a crewed Mars mission, including the habitat and transportation systems as well as consumables, spares, and propellant. Key observations are discussed, along with opportunities for further sensitivity analysis and model development. Overall, ECLSS development activities must consider their impacts at the mission level, as part of an integrated system, rather than in isolation.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Trajectory, Habitat, and Logistics Analysis and Trade Study for Human Mars Missions

Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) architecture selection has profound implications for mission cost and mass extending far beyond the ECLSS itself. Similarly, other mission architecture decisions – particularly involving transportation systems – can influence optimal ECLSS architectures. Loop closure influences requirements for water, oxygen, and other consumables. System maintainability and reliability influences spares mass and risk. System, consumables, and spares mass interact with transportation system architectures, including propellant demands and propulsion element sizing. All these interactions with other systems must be considered when evaluating ECLSS options. Analyses that focus only on maximizing ECLSS loop closure – or minimizing ECLSS mass, or minimizing ECLSS life cycle cost – may lead to sub-optimal or even counterproductive system architecture and investment decisions at the mission level. For example, an ECLSS architecture that minimizes ECLSS life cycle cost but results in excessively high logistics mass could lead to significantly increased transportation system costs or make interplanetary transportation infeasible. Increased loop closure could result in higher development costs and higher mass if system/spares mass increases outweigh consumables reduction. In addition, systems mass and consumables mass are not directly comparable and have different impacts on propellant requirements, as consumables mass changes over the course of the mission. This paper presents an integrated analysis examining the overall impact of different ECLSS and transportation architectures on Earth departure mass for a crewed Mars mission, including the habitat and transportation systems as well as consumables, spares, and propellant. Key observations are discussed, along with opportunities for further sensitivity analysis and model development. Overall, ECLSS development activities must consider their impacts at the mission level, as part of an integrated system, rather than in isolation.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and how key performance parameters (KPPs) are being used to measure the degree of capability gap closure. KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the strategic approach to gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

James Lee Broyan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This PowerPoint presentation supports the following paper submission's abstract (STRIVES 20210015025). This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Crewed Mars Mission Analysis, Part II: The Trajectory Strikes Back

Crewed missions to Mars present a challenging problem involving strong interactions between a variety of spacecraft systems. Design and architecture decisions made by one system can have powerful implications for another. Siloed subsystem development and optimization efforts are unlikely to generate optimal results for the integrated system and may lead to counterproductive investments at the mission and system level. Mismatched assumptions between different subsystems can also negatively impact the final result. Integrated systems analysis, trade studies, and sensitivity analysis are a critical element of successful Mars mission design. Previous work examined the linkages between Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) loop closure, food water content, spares Probability of Sufficiency (POS), and other factors by performing an integrated mass and cost assessment of a variety of Mars habitat and transportation system designs. This paper expands upon that work by evaluating the impact of mission duration, trajectory, and propulsion technology alongside key habitat variables. Transportation system and trajectory design decisions have enormous impacts on overall system mass, and the impacts of those decisions are themselves sensitive to the mass of the habitat that is being transported. This paper examines a variety of mission cases and evaluates total departure mass for each case. An estimate of relative costs for specific cases is also provided. The results are discussed, with an emphasis on the sensitivity of mass, cost, and other figures of merit to key parameters. Interactions and dependencies between various decisions, particularly those that relate to technology investments, are also highlighted. Overall, the various elements, systems, and subsystems required to support human spaceflight should not be optimized and evaluated in isolation, but instead should be analyzed as part of an integrated system. This paper demonstrates how integrated analysis can improve system understanding and lead to more optimal and effective crewed exploration systems.

Human Spaceflight↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrated Logistics and Supportability Challenges of Sustained Human Lunar Exploration

NASA’s Artemis program plans to establish a sustained human presence on the lunar surface. The International Space Station other space station programs have demonstrated long-duration human spaceflight operations that reuse infrastructure in Low Earth Orbit, sometimes including long uncrewed “dormant” periods. In contrast, human lunar exploration to date has consisted solely of relatively short sortie missions, rather than a sustained presence. A sustained human outpost on the Moon that can support month-long crewed exploration missions and be reused by multiple crews will be more challenging than past operations, particularly from the perspective of logistics, supportability, and risk. This paper examines the integrated logistics and supportability challenges of sustained human lunar exploration and provides a review of historical spaceflight experience in terms of crewed mission endurance, uncrewed duration, transportation overhead, and access to abort. Planned Artemis Base Camp crewed mission endurance is approximately 2.5 times longer than past lunar surface crewed mission endurance, but similar to average time between resupply for the International Space Station. Sustained human spacecraft have only twice experienced uncrewed durations longer than the planned interval between Artemis Base Camp missions, and Artemis surface assets will face long uncrewed periods more regularly than any past sustained human spacecraft. Transportation of crew and cargo to and from the Moon will be more difficult and time-consuming than transportation to and from Low Earth Orbit, and crew access to abort will be more limited. The implications of Artemis lunar operations for crewed Mars mission planning are also discussed. Historical approaches to risk management—including logistics, supportability, and abort strategies—should be reexamined and re-optimized for this new mission context. Sustained lunar operations will provide a valuable proving ground for testing new approaches to crewed space exploration.

logistics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Early Assessments of Crew Timelines for the Lunar Surface Habitat

As NASA progresses towards sustained crewed space missions, crew timelines will become increasingly important to achieving mission goals. While it is desirable to spend as much time as possible during crewed space missions on science activities and experiments, there are a large number of activities that crew members must perform each day in order to maintain both crew and vehicle health and safety. The time available for science activities in space is highly dependent on mandatory tasks required for crew and vehicle health and safety. The different crewed activities need to be planned accordingly long before the start of a mission in order to optimize crew time for science. To begin assessing the potential crew time for available for science, an understanding of the requirements to maintain crew and vehicle health and safety is needed. These additional activities may include sleep, exercise, vehicle maintenance, logistics handling, crew personal time, as well as many other tasks. The remaining time outside of these required tasks, within a reasonable crew work schedule, can be dedicated to science operations. This paper will detail a collaborative effort to analyzing crew times for sustained spaceflight missions and how the results of that analysis are applied to the crew timeline for the proposed Lunar Surface Habitat (SH).To determine the crew time for all of these required activities, an analysis was conducted utilizing defined agency requirements and historical crewed mission data. Predicted crew activity times were integrated into a daily schedule in order to optimize the crew’s time during the mission. This methodology was utilized to produce expected crew timelines for NASA’s proposed Artemis Base Camp (ABC) missions. The current plans for the ABC contain two different sustained habitats, the Pressurized Rover (PR) and the Surface Habitat (SH). While the crew are separated between the two habitats, the timelines for each element are dependent on the other element’s operations, so the two element timelines are formed in conjunction with one another. The results described in this paper, however, will focus solely on the crew timeline in the SH. This paper will explain the methodology behind predicting the required crew time spent in the SH for each activity, and the process of incorporating these predicted crew times into a coherent schedule.

Crew Time↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Supportability Concepts for Crewed Deep Space Exploration

Supportability—defined as the set of system characteristics that influence the logistics and support required to enable safe and effective operations—will be a much larger driver of mass, risk, and crew time for future human space exploration due to the more challenging mission context. For Mars, systems must operate in a logistically isolated environment for much longer durations than previous missions, which results in a higher probability of system failure and therefore an increased need for maintenance or contingency options. Mars missions also lack access to quick aborts, which increases the consequences of an unrecoverable system failure. Together, this higher likelihood and consequence of failure results in an increase in supportability-related risk. Supportability analysis is an important part of systems development that helps designers better understand the impacts of system and mission decisions on risk, mass, and crew time. The real-world processes that drive maintenance requirements and other supportability-related characteristics are probabilistic, and therefore they require different conceptual approaches and models than are used for more deterministic aspects of space systems. This paper provides an overview of supportability analysis, addresses key concepts, and provides examples of how supportability analysis can be incorporated into system development. Specifically, system supportability involves stochastic processes, and therefore must be evaluated using probabilistic models. These models can be used to perform sensitivity analysis even if system characteristics are not yet fully defined. Failure rates cannot be measured directly, but tests provide valuable data that can help refine those estimates. Human spaceflight architectures are complex, and exhibit coupled behavior that should be examined with integrated systems analysis that includes an assessment of supportability.

Supportability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling Logistics and Supportability for Crewed Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

NASA’s future missions aim to establish a sustained human presence on the lunar surface and send humans to Mars. These missions will send crews farther from home than previous missions, limiting the opportunities for resupply missions. Additionally, the use of multiple launches and reusable elements will increase mission and campaign complexity. Logistics and supportability analysis evaluates the link between mission and system characteristics and key metrics such as logistics and spares mass and volume, crew time, and risk. As missions become increasingly complex and crews are logistically isolated for longer periods of time, logistics and supportability will become more powerful drivers of risk and cost and, therefore, more important considerations during system and mission development. When logistics and supportability are considered from the beginning of system and mission development, opportunities arise to create more efficient, lower-risk systems. Design choices made without detailed consideration of logistics and supportability have the potential to result in greater risks and increased costs as all options may not have been analyzed. This paper provides an overview of a methodology used for space mission logistics and supportability analysis, including key metrics, assumptions, and required inputs. Example applications of this methodology to explore the impacts of system architecture, dormancy, and synergies between lunar and Mars missions are also presented. Conducting these holistic analyses enables informed decision-making for mission planning and system design, which can help mitigate the risk of loss of mission, vehicle, or crew. Using the knowledge of historical missions, experiences gained on the lunar surface, and logistics and supportability analyses, NASA can examine and optimize supportability characteristics for safer and more effective operations for future lunar and Mars missions.

Supportability↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Historical Review of Logistics Mass and Crew Time Demands for ISS Operations

Following over 20 years of continuously crewed operations on the International Space Station (ISS), NASA is planning to return to the Moon and eventually send humans to Mars. ISS operations provide vital data to inform mission analysts as NASA prepares for longer and more complex missions with increased mission endurance. Endurance, defined as crewed operating time between cargo deliveries (or crew launch and return to Earth), is an important metric when analyzing mission needs. NASA is developing architectures to support sustained deep-space habitats in cislunar space, the lunar surface, Mars transit, and the surface of Mars. Unlike the ISS, these systems will not be continuously crewed, and unlike the Space Shuttle, these systems will not return to Earth for regular refurbishment between missions. Lunar systems will routinely go through long uncrewed periods between crewed missions. The systems on board will need to survive these dormancy periods with no crew present to provide maintenance. Mars systems will experience significantly longer endurance than past experience. Additionally, the inability to have quick aborts to return to Earth increases the need for system reliability, redundancy, and maintainability, as well as plans for contingency operations. This paper examines the historical logistics and crew time demand for ISS operations and mission objectives and provides an overview of missions to the ISS over its operating history, the mass and items delivered with the missions, and the crew time spent during missions. These parameters provide insight and valuable data to inform logistics and crew time estimates for future long-endurance crewed exploration missions.

Crew Logistics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling Logistics and Supportability for Crewed Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

NASA’s future missions aim to establish a sustained human presence on the lunar surface and send humans to Mars. These missions will send crews farther from home than previous missions, limiting the opportunities for resupply missions. Additionally, the use of multiple launches and reusable elements will increase mission and campaign complexity. Logistics and supportability analysis evaluates the link between mission and system characteristics and key metrics such as logistics and spares mass and volume, crew time, and risk. As missions become increasingly complex and crews are logistically isolated for longer periods of time, logistics and supportability will become more powerful drivers of risk and cost and, therefore, more important considerations during system and mission development. When logistics and supportability are considered from the beginning of system and mission development, opportunities arise to create more efficient, lower-risk systems. Design choices made without detailed consideration of logistics and supportability have the potential to result in greater risks and increased costs as all options may not have been analyzed. This paper provides an overview of a methodology used for space mission logistics and supportability analysis, including key metrics, assumptions, and required inputs. Example applications of this methodology to explore the impacts of system architecture, dormancy, and synergies between lunar and Mars missions are also presented. Conducting these holistic analyses enables informed decision-making for mission planning and system design, which can help mitigate the risk of loss of mission, vehicle, or crew. Using the knowledge of historical missions, experiences gained on the lunar surface, and logistics and supportability analyses, NASA can examine and optimize supportability characteristics for safer and more effective operations for future lunar and Mars missions.

Supportability↗