Engineering topics

Jones, Harry W.

Publications and source records attributed to Jones, Harry W..

At least 37 records · Page 2

NASA NTRS2017

The Impact of Lower Launch Cost on Space Life Support

The development of commercial launch systems has substantially reduced the cost of space launch. NASA's Space Shuttle had a cost of about $1.5 billion to launch 27,500 kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), $54,500/kg. SpaceX's Falcon 9 now advertises a cost of $62 million to launch 22,800 kg to LEO, $2,720/kg. Space launch costs were very high for decades, typically about $20,000/kg, and it was understood that this high launch cost made it necessary for long human missions to recycle water and oxygen to reduce logistics mass. Short missions such as Apollo or Shuttle used stored and resupplied life support materials, but for a much longer mission such as the International Space Station (ISS), recycling saves logistics mass and reduces launch cost. The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) will be computed for resupply logistics and for a recycling system similar to that on the ISS. The LCC includes the costs of development, launch, and operations. The new low launch cost makes open loop life support much cheaper than before. Direct logistics resupply would be less costly than recycling for future human missions, such as a long term moon base, a Mars mission, or a future space station in LEO.

life support↗

NASA NTRS2017

Life Support Goals Including High Closure and Low Mass Should Be Reconsidered Using Systems Analysis

Recycling space life support systems have been built and tested since the 1960s and have operated on the International Space Station (ISS) since the mid 2000s. The development of space life support has been guided by a general consensus focused on two important related goals, increasing system closure and reducing launch mass. High closure is achieved by recycling crew waste products such as carbon dioxide and condensed humidity. Recycling directly reduces the mass of oxygen and water for the crew that must be launched from Earth. The launch mass of life support can be further reduced by developing recycling systems with lower hardware mass and reduced power. The life support consensus has also favored using biological systems. The goal of increasing closure using biological systems suggests that food should be grown in space and that biological processors be used for air, water, and waste recycling. The goal of reducing launch mass led to use of Equivalent System Mass (ESM) in life support advocacy and technology selection. The recent consensus assumes that the recycling systems architecture developed in the 1960s and implemented on ISS will be used on all future long missions. NASA and other project organizations use the standard systems engineering process to guide hardware development. The systems process was used to develop ISS life support, but it has been less emphasized in planning future systems for the moon and Mars. Since such missions are far in the future, there has been less immediate need for systems engineering analysis to consider trade-offs, reliability, and Life Cycle Cost (LCC). Preliminary systems analysis suggests that the life support consensus concepts should be revised to reflect systems engineering requirements.

systems analysis↗

NASA NTRS2017

Would Current International Space Station (ISS) Recycling Life Support Systems Save Mass on a Mars Transit?

The oxygen and water are recycled on the International Space Station (ISS) to save the cost of launching their mass into orbit. Usually recycling systems are justified by showing that their launch mass would be much lower than the mass of the oxygen or water they produce. Short missions such as Apollo or space shuttle directly provide stored oxygen and water, since the needed total mass of oxygen and water is much less than that of there cycling equipment. Ten year or longer missions such as the ISS or a future moon base easily save mass by recycling while short missions of days or weeks do not. Mars transit and long Mars surface missions have an intermediate duration, typically one to one and a half years. Some of the current ISS recycling systems would save mass if used on a Mars transit but others would not.

mass↗

NASA NTRS2017

Need for Cost Optimization of Space Life Support Systems

As the nation plans manned missions that go far beyond Earth orbit to Mars, there is an urgent need for a robust, disciplined systems engineering methodology that can identify an optimized Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) architecture for long duration deep space missions. But unlike the previously used Equivalent System Mass (ESM), the method must be inclusive of all driving parameters and emphasize the economic analysis of life support system design. The key parameter for this analysis is Life Cycle Cost (LCC). LCC takes into account the cost for development and qualification of the system, launch costs, operational costs, maintenance costs and all other relevant and associated costs. Additionally, an effective methodology must consider system technical performance, safety, reliability, maintainability, crew time, and other factors that could affect the overall merit of the life support system.

Costs↗

NASA NTRS2017

Axiomatic Design of Space Life Support Systems

Systems engineering is an organized way to design and develop systems, but the initial system design concepts are usually seen as the products of unexplained but highly creative intuition. Axiomatic design is a mathematical approach to produce and compare system architectures. The two axioms are:- Maintain the independence of the functional requirements.- Minimize the information content (or complexity) of the design. The first axiom generates good system design structures and the second axiom ranks them. The closed system human life support architecture now implemented in the International Space Station has been essentially unchanged for fifty years. In contrast, brief missions such as Apollo and Shuttle have used open loop life support. As mission length increases, greater system closure and increased recycling become more cost-effective.Closure can be gradually increased, first recycling humidity condensate, then hygiene wastewater, urine, carbon dioxide, and water recovery brine. A long term space station or planetary base could implement nearly full closure, including food production. Dynamic systems theory supports the axioms by showing that fewer requirements, fewer subsystems, and fewer interconnections all increase system stability. If systems are too complex and interconnected, reliability is reduced and operations and maintenance become more difficult. Using axiomatic design shows how the mission duration and other requirements determine the best life support system design including the degree of closure.

Axiomatic design↗

NASA NTRS2017

Much Lower Launch Costs Make Resupply Cheaper than Recycling for Space Life Support

The development of commercial launch vehicles by SpaceX has greatly reduced the cost of launching mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Reusable launch vehicles may further reduce the launch cost per kilogram. The new low launch cost makes open loop life support much cheaper than before. Open loop systems resupply water and oxygen in tanks for crew use and provide disposable lithium hydroxide (LiOH) in canisters to remove carbon dioxide. Short human space missions such as Apollo and shuttle have used open loop life support, but the long duration International Space Station (ISS) recycles water and oxygen and removes carbon dioxide with a regenerative molecular sieve. These ISS regenerative and recycling life support systems have significantly reduced the total launch mass needed for life support. But, since the development cost of recycling systems is much higher than the cost of tanks and canisters, the relative cost savings have been much less than the launch mass savings. The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) includes development, launch, and operations. If another space station was built in LEO, resupply life support would be much cheaper than the current recycling systems. The mission most favorable to recycling would be a long term lunar base, since the resupply mass would be large, the proximity to Earth would reduce the need for recycling reliability and spares, and the launch cost would be much higher than for LEO due to the need for lunar transit and descent propulsion systems. For a ten-year lunar base, the new low launch costs make resupply cheaper than recycling systems similar to ISS life support.

launch costs↗

NASA NTRS2017

Developing Reliable Life Support for Mars

A human mission to Mars will require highly reliable life support systems. Mars life support systems may recycle water and oxygen using systems similar to those on the International Space Station (ISS). However, achieving sufficient reliability is less difficult for ISS than it will be for Mars. If an ISS system has a serious failure, it is possible to provide spare parts, or directly supply water or oxygen, or if necessary bring the crew back to Earth. Life support for Mars must be designed, tested, and improved as needed to achieve high demonstrated reliability. A quantitative reliability goal should be established and used to guide development t. The designers should select reliable components and minimize interface and integration problems. In theory a system can achieve the component-limited reliability, but testing often reveal unexpected failures due to design mistakes or flawed components. Testing should extend long enough to detect any unexpected failure modes and to verify the expected reliability. Iterated redesign and retest may be required to achieve the reliability goal. If the reliability is less than required, it may be improved by providing spare components or redundant systems. The number of spares required to achieve a given reliability goal depends on the component failure rate. If the failure rate is under estimated, the number of spares will be insufficient and the system may fail. If the design is likely to have undiscovered design or component problems, it is advisable to use dissimilar redundancy, even though this multiplies the design and development cost. In the ideal case, a human tended closed system operational test should be conducted to gain confidence in operations, maintenance, and repair. The difficulty in achieving high reliability in unproven complex systems may require the use of simpler, more mature, intrinsically higher reliability systems. The limitations of budget, schedule, and technology may suggest accepting lower and less certain expected reliability. A plan to develop reliable life support is needed to achieve the best possible reliability.

life support↗

NASA NTRS2017

Heroic Reliability Improvement in Manned Space Systems

System reliability can be significantly improved by a strong continued effort to identify and remove all the causes of actual failures. Newly designed systems often have unexpected high failure rates which can be reduced by successive design improvements until the final operational system has an acceptable failure rate. There are many causes of failures and many ways to remove them. New systems may have poor specifications, design errors, or mistaken operations concepts. Correcting unexpected problems as they occur can produce large early gains in reliability. Improved technology in materials, components, and design approaches can increase reliability. The reliability growth is achieved by repeatedly operating the system until it fails, identifying the failure cause, and fixing the problem. The failure rate reduction that can be obtained depends on the number and the failure rates of the correctable failures. Under the strong assumption that the failure causes can be removed, the decline in overall failure rate can be predicted. If a failure occurs at the rate of lambda per unit time, the expected time before the failure occurs and can be corrected is 1/lambda, the Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF). Finding and fixing a less frequent failure with the rate of lambda/2 per unit time requires twice as long, time of 1/(2 lambda). Cutting the failure rate in half requires doubling the test and redesign time and finding and eliminating the failure causes.Reducing the failure rate significantly requires a heroic reliability improvement effort.

life support↗

NASA NTRS2017

How Should Life Support Be Modeled and Simulated?

Why do most space life support research groups build and investigate large models for systems simulation? The need for them seems accepted, but are we asking the right questions and solving the real problems? The modeling results leave many questions unanswered. How then should space life support be modeled and simulated? Life support system research and development uses modeling and simulation to study dynamic behavior as part of systems engineering and analysis. It is used to size material flows and buffers and plan contingent operations. A DoD sponsored study used the systems engineering approach to define a set of best practices for modeling and simulation. These best practices describe a systems engineering process of developing and validating requirements, defining and analyzing the model concept, and designing and testing the model. Other general principles for modeling and simulation are presented. Some specific additional advice includes performing a static analysis before developing a dynamic simulation, applying the mass and energy conservation laws, modeling on the appropriate system level, using simplified subsystem representations, designing the model to solve a specific problem, and testing the model on several different problems. Modeling and simulation is necessary in life support design but many problems are outside its scope.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Oxygen Storage Tanks Are Feasible for Mars Transit

The Mars transit tanks will probably be titanium lined, composite over wrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) similar to those used in the space shuttle and International Space Station(ISS). Since the mass of a storage tank is proportional to the mass of the gas it contains, the required oxygen will use about the same mass of tanks regardless of the number and size ofthe tanks. Using existing relatively small COPVs is possible. Pressure vessels can fail due torupture and leakage but no failures have occurred in space and the expected failure rates are very low. Since one or two spare tanks are required for reliability, using smaller tanks can reduce the total mass. For a Mars round trip, the mass of oxygen and tanks including spares is roughly equal to the mass of the ISS Oxygen Generation Assembly (OGA) and its spares. Since the OGA must orbit Mars and be returned to Earth, while half the storage tanks are emptied on the way to Mars and can be abandoned, storage tanks have a significant launch mass advantage over the OGA. Storage tanks are simpler, more reliable,and have fewer failure modes than an OGA. They would have smaller design and development costs and need less crew time and maintenance. Oxygen storage tanks are feasible for Mars transit and are attractive compared to the ISS OGA.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Developing the Water Supply System for Travel to Mars

What water supply method should be used on a trip to Mars? Two alternate approaches are using fuel cell and stored water, as was done for short missions such as Apollo and the Space Shuttle, or recycling most of the water, as on long missions including the International Space Station (ISS). Stored water is inexpensive for brief missions but its launch mass and cost become very large for long missions. Recycling systems have much lower total mass and cost for long missions, but they have high development cost and are more expensive to operate than storage. A Mars transit mission would have an intermediate duration of about 450 days out and back. Since Mars transit is about ten times longer than a brief mission but probably less than one-tenth as long as ISS, it is not clear if stored or recycled water would be best. Recycling system design is complicated because water is used for different purposes, drinking, food preparation, washing, and flushing the urinal, and because wastewater has different forms, humidity condensate, dirty wash water, and urine and flush water. The uses have different requirements and the wastewater resources have different contaminants and processing requirements. The most cost-effective water supply system may recycle some wastewater sources and also provide safety reserve water from storage. Different water supply technologies are compared using mass, cost, reliability, and other factors.

water supply↗

NASA NTRS2016

How Do Lessons Learned on the International Space Station (ISS) Help Plan Life Support for Mars?

How can our experience in developing and operating the International Space Station (ISS) guide the design, development, and operation of life support for the journey to Mars? The Mars deep space Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) must incorporate the knowledge and experience gained in developing ECLSS for low Earth orbit, but it must also meet the challenging new requirements of operation in deep space where there is no possibility of emergency resupply or quick crew return. The understanding gained by developing ISS flight hardware and successfully supporting a crew in orbit for many years is uniquely instructive. Different requirements for Mars life support suggest that different decisions may be made in design, testing, and operations planning, but the lessons learned developing the ECLSS for ISS provide valuable guidance.

Lessons learned↗

NASA NTRS2016

Using the International Space Station (ISS) Oxygen Generation Assembly (OGA) Is Not Feasible for Mars Transit

A review of two papers on improving the International Space Station (ISS) Oxygen Generation Assembly (OGA) shows that it would not save substantial mass on a Mars transit. The ISS OGA requires redesign for satisfactory operation, even for the ISS. The planned improvements of the OGA for ISS would not be sufficient to make it suitable for Mars, because Mars transit life support has significantly different requirements than ISS. The OGA for Mars should have lower mass, better reliability and maintainability, greater safety, radiation hardening, and capability for quiescent operation. NASA's methodical, disciplined systems engineering process should be used to develop the appropriate system.

Space station↗

NASA NTRS2016

We Can't Count on Repairing All Failures Going to Mars

Reliability analysis often assumes that a complex system can be kept operating indefinitely with scheduled maintenance and emergency repair using a stock of spare parts, as long as the spare parts are not depleted. This assumption seems justified for well-tested, widely used, long operational systems with a multigenerational history of failure, redesign, and reliability growth. It seems doubtful that newer, relatively untried, high technology space systems can always be repaired. We cannot assume space systems will have a low rate of random failures that can all be repaired with a few identical spares. New untried systems usually have a high initial failure rate, called infant mortality, due to errors in requirements, design, parts, materials, and operations planning. These problems can cause groups of related failures called Common Cause Failures (CCFs). The practical definition of a CCF is any failure mode that cannot be cured using identical redundant systems or spare parts. Systems with CCFs may fail repeatedly for the same reason. Can a life support system be kept operating on the way to Mars using only redundant systems and spare parts? The failure history of International Space Station (ISS) life support systems suggests that CCFs are likely to occur and will probably require design changes rather than being reparable with spare parts.

Mars↗

NASA NTRS2016

Humans to Mars Will Cost About "Half a Trillion Dollars" and Life Support Roughly Two Billion Dollars

A recent estimate of the cost of the first human mission to Mars suggests that it could cost half a trillion dollars. This estimate is consistent with most past estimates. A similar cost number can easily be derived using mass-cost estimating factors based on the International Space Station (ISS) and other experience. Using the same cost factors and life cycle cost estimating approach, the cost of the life support for the Mars mission could be two billion dollars or more. The cost to go to Mars is expected to be two or three times that of either Apollo, space shuttle, or ISS and could be as much as all three together.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Failure in NASA Missions: Blunders, Normal Accidents, High Reliability, Bad Luck

NASA emphasizes crew safety and system reliability but several unfortunate failures have occurred. The Apollo 1 fire was mistakenly unanticipated. After that tragedy, the Apollo program gave much more attention to safety. The Challenger accident revealed that NASA had neglected safety and that management underestimated the high risk of shuttle. Probabilistic Risk Assessment was adopted to provide more accurate failure probabilities for shuttle and other missions. NASA's "faster, better, cheaper" initiative and government procurement reform led to deliberately dismantling traditional reliability engineering. The Columbia tragedy and Mars mission failures followed. Failures can be attributed to blunders, normal accidents, or bad luck. Achieving high reliability is difficult but possible.

accidents↗

NASA NTRS2015

Estimating the Life Cycle Cost of Space Systems

A space system's Life Cycle Cost (LCC) includes design and development, launch and emplacement, and operations and maintenance. Each of these cost factors is usually estimated separately. NASA uses three different parametric models for the design and development cost of crewed space systems; the commercial PRICE-H space hardware cost model, the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM), and the Advanced Missions Cost Model (AMCM). System mass is an important parameter in all three models. System mass also determines the launch and emplacement cost, which directly depends on the cost per kilogram to launch mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The launch and emplacement cost is the cost to launch to LEO the system itself and also the rockets, propellant, and lander needed to emplace it. The ratio of the total launch mass to payload mass depends on the mission scenario and destination. The operations and maintenance costs include any material and spares provided, the ground control crew, and sustaining engineering. The Mission Operations Cost Model (MOCM) estimates these costs as a percentage of the system development cost per year.

Life cycle cost↗

NASA NTRS2015

Underestimation of Project Costs

Large projects almost always exceed their budgets. Estimating cost is difficult and estimated costs are usually too low. Three different reasons are suggested: bad luck, overoptimism, and deliberate underestimation. Project management can usually point to project difficulty and complexity, technical uncertainty, stakeholder conflicts, scope changes, unforeseen events, and other not really unpredictable bad luck. Project planning is usually over-optimistic, so the likelihood and impact of bad luck is systematically underestimated. Project plans reflect optimism and hope for success in a supposedly unique new effort rather than rational expectations based on historical data. Past project problems are claimed to be irrelevant because "This time it's different." Some bad luck is inevitable and reasonable optimism is understandable, but deliberate deception must be condemned. In a competitive environment, project planners and advocates often deliberately underestimate costs to help gain project approval and funding. Project benefits, cost savings, and probability of success are exaggerated and key risks ignored. Project advocates have incentives to distort information and conceal difficulties from project approvers. One naively suggested cure is more openness, honesty, and group adherence to shared overall goals. A more realistic alternative is threatening overrun projects with cancellation. Neither approach seems to solve the problem. A better method to avoid the delusions of over-optimism and the deceptions of biased advocacy is to base the project cost estimate on the actual costs of a large group of similar projects. Over optimism and deception can continue beyond the planning phase and into project execution. Hard milestones based on verified tests and demonstrations can provide a reality check.

Cost estimation↗