SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “open subsystem”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

192 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2017

Program Options to Explore Ocean Worlds

Including Earth, roughly a dozen water ocean worlds exist in the solar system: the relict worlds Ceres and Mars, vast oceans inside most of the large Jovian and Saturnian icy moons, and Kuiper Belt Objects like Triton, Charon, and Pluto whose geologies are dominated by water and ammonia. Key pieces of the ocean-world science puzzle – which when completed may reveal whether life is widespread in the cosmos, why it exists where it does, and how it originates – are distributed among them. The eventual exploration of all these worlds will yield humanity’s total tangible knowledge about life in the universe, essentially forever. Thus, their exploration has existential significance for humanity’s self-regard, and indeed perhaps of our place in the natural scheme. The matter of planning how to pursue such a difficult and unprecedented exploration opportunity is therefore historic. The technical challenges are formidable, far harder than at Mars: missions to the Jovian and Saturnian ocean worlds are severely power-limited; trip times can be as much as a half decade and decade, respectively. And the science targets are global-scale oceans beneath kilometers of cryogenic ice. Reaching and exploring them would be a multi-generational undertaking, so again it is essential to plan and prepare. Today, we lack the instrumentation, subsystems, and remote operational-intelligence technologies needed to build and use exploration avatars as good as what we can envision needing. Each ocean world holds a piece of the puzzle, but the three priority targets are Europa at Jupiter, and Enceladus and Titan at Saturn. As with the systematic exploration of Mars, exploring these diverse worlds poses a complex technical and programmatic challenge – a strategic challenge – that needs to be designed and managed if each generation is to see its work bear fruit, and if the space science community is to make most effective use of the public money devoted to the quest. Strategic programs benefit from coherence. In only 15 years, the Mars Exploration Program (MEP) has transformed humanity’s view of Mars as a once and future habitable place, a world quite possibly holding relict evidence of life. Finding such evidence, we would study it to know if that life shared an origin common with Earth life. However, life in the ocean worlds could not have shared our origin, so exploring them opens another level in our quest to understand life in the universe: not only to places with vast salt-water seas known to contain organics and hydrothermal seafloors active today, but to places where anything alive cannot be related to us. MEP’s success – from its presence in the public consciousness to its rewriting of planetary habitability – make it an obvious template and source of lessons learned for a viable ocean worlds exploration program (OWEP). Six attributes of the MEP are analyzed for application to a potential OWEP. From this, five hypothetical programmatic scenarios are compared to the default case, and conclusions drawn. A coherent OWEP should have several parts: first, dedicated continuous investment in enabling technologies; and second, two directed-purpose, medium-class (~$1B) missions per decade that conduct pivotal investigations on a documented roadmap. Science could start in 2035, informing development of decadal flagship missions after Europa Clipper, to the places revealed to hold the most promise. The fastest pace of scientific discoveries would require access to high-performance propulsion infrastructure, e.g., the Space Launch System, Falcon Heavy, and high-power in-space solar electric propulsion, all capable of halving trip time. Not including these boosts, such a program would cost about a half-billion dollars more per year than NASA’s existing mission portfolio; the program architecture funded today cannot deliver a strategic OWEP while also sustaining balance among other solar system exploration priorities and opportunities.

Naderi, F.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Solar Cruiser Technology Maturation Plans

The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) developed the Solar Cruiser mission concept to mature solar sail technology for use in future Heliophysics missions, as well as missions of interest across a broad user community (e.g., space weather and Earth polar observatories). Solar Cruiser will serve as a pathfinder for missions that observe the solar environment from unique vantage points such as a high inclination solar mission opening a fundamentally new range of observational capabilities for the Heliophysics Program and for space weather monitoring. Sustained observations away from the Sun-Earth line (SEL) present unique opportunities for answering the outstanding science questions of Heliophysics, improving space-weather monitoring and prediction, and revealing new information about our Sun and solar system. Propellantless solar sails can be used to create artificial equilibria and maintain indefinite station-keeping at locations sunward of L1 along the SEL, or at any desired offset from the SEL leading or trailing the Earth in its orbit. They can change the heliocentric inclination of a spacecraft from the ecliptic to as high as solar polar, stopping and remaining at any intermediate inclination orbit in between. Sails can be used to hover over the Earth’s poles, using solar photon pressure to offset the Earth’s gravitational attraction, creating functional equivalents of geostationary earth orbits. The Solar Cruiser mission would fly a small spacecraft with a large (>1,600 square meter) solar sail containing embedded reflectivity control devices (RCDs) and photovoltaic cells. The mission concept includes successful deployment of the solar sail, validation of all sail subsystems, controlled station-keeping inside of the Sun-Earth L1 point, attitude control of the sail with the RCDs (including spinning and de-spinning), demonstration of pointing performance for science imaging, and an increase in heliocentric inclination (out of the ecliptic). To demonstrate the requisite sail technology, the Solar Cruiser project will design, fabricate, deploy, and fly the Solar Sail Propulsion Element (SSPE). The SSPE incorporates the following three systems: • The Solar Sail System (SSS) provides the large propulsive surface required for acceleration and smaller reflectivity-changing surfaces for roll control. • The Active Mass Translator System (AMT) provides SSPE motion with respect to the sailcraft bus for pitch and yaw control. • The Solar Sail Attitude Determination and Control System (SSADCS) consists of embedded software to 1) provide autonomous sailcraft attitude estimation, attitude pointing control, and reaction wheel momentum management following sail deployment and 2) execute the uplinked inertial attitude pointing commands to maintain the desired sailcraft trajectory. The plans for maturing each of these technology systems to TRL 5 and beyond are described herein.

Solar Sail↗

NASA NTRS2016

The e-astrogam Gamma-Ray Space Mission

e-ASTROGAM is a gamma-ray space mission to be proposed as the M5 Medium-size mission of the European Space Agency. It is dedicated to the observation of the Universe with unprecedented sensitivity in the energy range 0.2-100 MeV, extending up to GeV energies, together with a groundbreaking polarization capability. It is designed to substantially improve the COMPTEL and Fermi sensitivities in the MeV-GeV energy range and to open new windows of opportunity for astrophysical and fundamental physics space research. e-ASTROGAM will operate as an open astronomical observatory, with a core science focused on (1) the activity from extreme particle accelerators, including gamma-ray bursts and active galactic nuclei and the link of jet astrophysics to the new astronomy of gravitational waves, neutrinos, ultra-high energy cosmic rays, (2) the high-energy mysteries of the Galactic center and inner Galaxy, including the activity of the supermassive black hole, the Fermi Bubbles, the origin of the Galactic positrons, and the search for dark matter signatures in a new energy window; (3) nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution, including the life cycle of elements produced by supernovae in the Milky Way and the Local Group of galaxies. e-ASTROGAM will be ideal for the study of high-energy sources in general, including pulsars and pulsar wind nebulae, accreting neutron stars and black holes, novae, supernova remnants, and magnetars. And it will also provide important contributions to solar and terrestrial physics. The e-ASTROGAM telescope is optimized for the simultaneous detection of Compton and pair-producing gamma-ray events over a large spectral band. It is based on a very high technology readiness level for all subsystems and includes many innovative features for the detectors and associated electronics.

Compton and pair creation telescope↗

NASA NTRS2010

The Successful Implementation of NASA Orbital Debris Requirements for the Retirement of TDRS-1

TDRS-1 was decommissioned on October 28th 2009 following more than 26 years of operation. The Grand Old Dame of the TDRSS constellation wa s launched aboard the maiden voyage of the Space Shuttle Challenger ( STS-6) in April 1983. TDRS-1 survived a malfunction of the Inertial Upper Stage eventually utilizing its own propulsion system to success fully reach its assigned station in geosynchronous orbit. The anomalo us beginning of the TDRS-1 mission was not without lasting consequenc es as the primary reaction control system (A-side) was completely di sabled with an apparent propellant leak and the secondary system (B-s ide) suffered damage to its negative roll thruster rendering the thru ster inoperable. Following decommissioning the challenge to completin g a successful TDRS-1 end-of-mission (EOM) was the implementation of the stringent orbital debris requirements of NPR 8715.6 with a parti ally functioning spacecraft not originally designed to meet those req uirements. The TDRS-1 EOM had three key goals: 1) removal of the spac ecraft from geosynchronous orbit; 2) depletion of the remaining prope llant; and 3) passivation of all other sources of energy storage or generation. The TDRS-1 EOM approach was one of minimizing risks while accomplishing the goals above. The orbit raising portion of EOM was accomplished using deltavelocity operations already proven during pre vious stationchanging maneuvers. The propellant depletion approach wa s necessarily more aggressive as over 20 hours of burn time was requ ired to deplete the remaining fuel. A novel approach utilizing a spin ning, thrusting, passively controlled spacecraft configuration was ut ilized to achieve reasonable burn durations that met schedule constra ints. This nonstandard configuration required careful analysis of ele ctrical, thermal, and communication subsystems. The configuration wa s thoroughly simulated prior to the start of operations and carefully characterized during the initial spin period and first burn. Passiva tion was by definition a unique operation not previously performed wi thin the TDRS 1-7 constellation. Use was made of a TDRS spacecraft si mulator to verify the operational procedure to mitigate risks and pro vide crew training. TDRS-1 orbit raising maneuvers commenced on June 5th 2010 and completed on June 14th with an apogee 370 km and a peri gee 352 km above geosynchronous altitude. 127 kg of propellant were e stimated to be remaining in the tanks at the completion of orbit rais ing. TDRS-1 was placed in its spinning orientation on June 16th and the first fuel depletion burn was performed the following day. A seri es of 10 depletion burns were performed ending on June 26th when both propellant tank pressures experienced dramatic drops. Final passivat ion was performed on June 27 th deactivating electronics, removing t he batteries from the bus and solar arrays, and disabling the space-t o-ground communications equipment. The Second TDRS Ground Terminal (S TGT) continued to open loop track TDRS-1 for several days attempting command reacquisition several times a day. All attempts were unsucce ssful confirming passivation was achieved. The TDRS-1 orbit at passiv ation was an orbital debris compliant 36,319 x 36,128 km in height. W hile differing spacecraft designs may preclude mimicking the exact TD RS-1 EOM approach, the TDRS-1 campaign serves to demonstrate that pr e-NPR 8715.6 designs can be made to meet the requirements resulting i n a reduced orbit debris environment for future missions

Mirczak, Walter↗

NASA NTRS2004

Hybrid Automotive Engine Using Ethanol-Burning Miller Cycle

A proposed hybrid (internal-combustion/ electric) automotive engine system would include as its internal-combustion subsystem, a modified Miller-cycle engine with regenerative air preheating and with autoignition like that of a Diesel engine. The fuel would be ethanol and would be burned lean to ensure complete combustion. Although the proposed engine would have a relatively low power-to-weight ratio compared to most present engines, this would not be the problem encountered if this engine were used in a non-hybrid system since hybrid systems require significantly lower power and thus smaller engines than purely internal-combustion-engine-driven vehicles. The disadvantage would be offset by the advantages of high fuel efficiency, low emission of nitrogen oxides and particulate pollutants, and the fact that ethanol is a renewable fuel. The original Miller-cycle engine, named after its inventor, was patented in the 1940s and is the basis of engines used in some modern automobiles, but is not widely known. In somewhat oversimplified terms, the main difference between a Miller-cycle engine and a common (Otto-cycle) automobile engine is that the Miller-cycle engine has a longer expansion stroke while retaining the shorter compression stroke. This is accomplished by leaving the intake valve open for part of the compression stroke, whereas in the Otto cycle engine, the intake valve is kept closed during the entire compression stroke. This greater expansion ratio makes it possible to extract more energy from the combustion process without expending more energy for compression. The net result is greater efficiency. In the proposed engine, the regenerative preheating would be effected by running the intake air through a heat exchanger connected to the engine block. The regenerative preheating would offer two advantages: It would ensure reliable autoignition during operation at low ambient temperature and would help to cool the engine, thereby reducing the remainder of the power needed for cooling and thereby further contributing to efficiency. An electrical resistance air preheater might be needed to ensure autoignition at startup and during a short warmup period. Because of the autoignition, the engine could operate without either spark plugs or glow plugs. Ethanol burns relatively cleanly and has been used as a motor fuel since the invention of internal-combustion engines. However, the energy content of ethanol per unit weight of ethanol is less than that of Diesel fuel or gasoline, and ethanol has a higher heat of vaporization. Because the Miller cycle offers an efficiency close to that of the Diesel cycle, burning ethanol in a Miller-cycle engine gives about as much usable output energy per unit volume of fuel as does burning gasoline in a conventional gasoline automotive engine. Because of the combination of preheating, running lean, and the use of ethyl alcohol, the proposed engine would generate less power per unit volume than does a conventional automotive gasoline engine. Consequently, for a given power level, the main body of the proposed engine would be bulkier. However, because little or no exhaust cleanup would be needed, the increase in bulk of the engine could be partially offset by the decrease in bulk of the exhaust system. The regenerative preheating also greatly reduces the external engine cooling requirement, and would translate to reduced engine bulk. It may even be possible to accomplish the remaining cooling of the engine by use of air only, eliminating the bulk and power consumption of a water cooling system. The combination of a Miller-cycle engine with regenerative air preheating, ethyl alcohol fuel, and hybrid operation could result in an automotive engine system that satisfies the need for a low pollution, high efficiency, and simple engine with a totally renewable fuel.

Weinstein, Leonard↗

NASA NTRS2023

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

NASA NTRS2019

The Kon-Tiki Mission – Demonstrating Large Solar Sails for Deep Space Missions

Two key NASA strategic documents, Our Dynamic Space Environment: Heliophysics Science and Technology Roadmap for 2014-2033 and 2013 Solar and Space Physics: Science for a Technological Society, contain over a dozen references describing the value of solar sails to enable revolutionary new observational capabilities. Based on these needs, the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) developed the Kon-Tiki mission concept to mature solar sail technology for use in future Heliophysics missions, as well as missions of interest across a broad user community (e.g., space weather and Earth polar observatories). Kon-Tiki would serve as a pathfinder for missions that observe the solar environment from unique vantage points such as the Solar Polar Imager (SPI), opening a fundamentally new range of observational capabilities for the Heliophysics Program and for space weather monitoring. Observations away from the Sun-Earth line (SEL) present unique opportunities for answering the outstanding science questions of Heliophysics, for improving space-weather monitoring and prediction, and for revealing new discoveries about our Sun and solar system. High solar inclinations are particularly compelling. Investment in, and demonstration of, the technology needed to enable polar missions is essential to making this unique vantage point a reality in the next decade. Propellantless solar sails can be used to create artificial equilibria and indefinite station-keeping at locations sunward of L1 along the SEL, or at any desired offset from the SEL leading or trailing the Earth in its orbit. They can change the heliocentric inclination of a spacecraft from the ecliptic to as high as solar polar, stopping and remaining at any intermediate inclination orbit in between. Sails can be used to hover over the Earth’s poles, using solar photon pressure to offset the Earth’s gravitational attraction, creating functional equivalents of geostationary earth orbits. The Kon-Tiki mission would fly a small spacecraft with a large (>1200 square meter) solar sail containing embedded reflectivity control devices (RCDs) and photovoltaic cells. The mission concept includes successful deployment of the solar sail, validation of all sail subsystems, controlled station-keeping inside of the Sun-Earth L1 point, attitude control of the sail with the RCDs (including spinning and despinning), demonstration of pointing performance for science imaging, and finally an increase in heliocentric inclination (out of the ecliptic).

Johnson, Les↗

NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 12 - Flight Envelope

The term "flight envelope" is used to refer to the boundaries of aircraft loading and flight conditions within which operation of the aircraft is satisfactory, and beyond which some aspect becomes unacceptable. This flight envelope represents, in fact, the limiting conditions arising from a matrix of inter-related flight envelopes covering the appropriate variables. Thus, for each loading (i.e., external stores configuration and its associated range of weight and center of gravity (c.g.) position) and aircraft configuration (i.e., position of undercarriage (u/c), flaps, slats, etc.), the envelopes of airspeed versus altitude, airspeed versus load factor, angle of attack versus angle of sideslip, etc., must be investigated to establish the limits within which all aspects such as handling qualities, engine behavior, structural loads, etc., remain acceptable. Flight testing of new or derivative aircraft models is carried out with the initial purpose of defining a flight envelope which is, first and foremost, safe and secondarily, which enables the effective use of the vehicle for its intended purpose. Flight testing occurs only after numerous reviews of the design and review of results from ground tests and predictions of flight characteristics in such areas as structures, aerodynamics, stability and control, flight controls (particularly fly-by-wire control systems, propulsion, etc.). Accordingly, opening and expanding the envelope is a task that must be approached cautiously, systematically, and with coordination and cooperation of the many disciplines involved in the design and test of an airplane. (Sections 8 and 10 cover test planning and safety of flight considerations, respectively). The fundamental tenet in establishing a flight envelope via flight test is risk reduction. This is reflected in the typical sequence of events leading to initial flight test - design reviews (both hardware and software), then ground test involving singular disciplines (windtunnel tests for aerodynamics, structurally loading the wing/fuselage/nacelle on a ground test article with loads anticipated to occur in flight, flight control system control law checkout, propulsion test cell runs and/or flying test bed tests, etc.), and then ground tests involving multi-disciplines (See Section 9). Only after these have been accomplished will an initial, limited, low-risk, flight envelope be established. The limited envelope will typically be in the middle of the projected final flight envelope. Subsequent flight tests will then be devoted to expanding the initial envelope by operating the airplane at increasing ranges - representing increasing risk - of engine operation, airspeeds both fast and slow, altitude, load factor both above and below 1g, centers of gravity (fore and aft), and with system/subsystem failures. Whether flight tests are to define a flight envelope on a new model airplane with the attendant new airframe, new engine(s), and new subsystems (hydraulics, pressurization, etc.), or on an airplane involving only a few of these areas such as new engines in an old airframe, the fundamental approach to establishing an envelope is the same.

H Walgemoed↗

NASA NTRS2012

Integrated Simulation Design Challenges to Support TPS Repair Operations

During the Orbiter Repair Maneuver (ORM) operations planned for Return to Flight (RTF), the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) must grapple the International Space Station (ISS), undock the Orbiter, maneuver it through a long duration trajectory, and orient it to an EVA crewman poised at the end of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) to facilitate the repair of the Thermal Protection System (TPS). Once repair has been completed and confirmed, then the SRMS proceeds back through the trajectory to dock the Orbiter to the Orbiter Docking System. In order to support analysis of the complex dynamic interactions of the integrated system formed by the Orbiter, ISS, SRMS, and SSMS during the ORM, simulation tools used for previous ‘nominal’ mission support required substantial enhancements. These upgrades were necessary to provide analysts with the capabilities needed to study integrated system performance. Prevalent throughout this ORM operation is a dynamically varying topology. In other words, the ORM starts with the SRMS grappled to the mated Shuttle/ISS stack (closed loop topology), moves to an open loop chain topology consisting of the Shuttle, SRMS, and ISS, and then, at the repair configuration, extends the chain topology to one consisting of the Shuttle, SMS, ISS, and SSRMS/EVA crewman. The resulting long dynamic chain of vehicles and manipulators may exhibit significant motion between the Shuttle worksite and the EVA crewman due to the system flexibility throughout the topology (particularly within the SRMS/SSRMS joints and links). Since the attachment points of both manipulators span the flexible structure of the ISS, simulation analysis may also need to take that into consideration. Moreover, due to the lengthy time duration associated with the maneuver and repair, orbital effects become a factor and require the ISS vehicle control system to maintain active attitude control. Several facets of the ORM operation make the associated analytical efforts different from previous mission support, including: (1) the magnitude of the SRMS handled payload (Le., Orbiter class), (2) the orbital effects induced on the integrated system consisting of the large Shuttle and ISS masses connected by a light flexible SRMS, (3) long duration environmental consequences due to the lengthy operational times associated with the maneuver and repair of the TPS, (4) active attitude control (as opposed to free drift) interacting with the SRMS and SSRMS manipulators (also due to the length of the maneuver and repair), (5) relative dynamics between the EVA crewman and thc worksite influenced by the extended flexible topology. In order to meet these analysis challenges, an ORM simulation architecture was developed leveraging upon numerous pre-existing simulation elements to analyze the various subsystems individually. For example, core manipulator subsystem simulations for both the SRMS and SSRMS were originally combined to provide the dual-arm dynamics topology simulation (in the absence of orbital dynamics and vehicle control). This capability was later merged with the simulation used to analyze SRMS loading with a heavy payload in the orbital environment with an active payload control system (in this case, the ISS Attitude Control System (ACS)), configured for the ORM. The resulting worksite dynamics simulation, based off of the modified ORM simulation, provided the extended topological chain of vehicles and manipulators, while taking into account the orbital effects of both the Shuttle and ISS (as well as its ACS). Verification and validation (V&V) of these integrated simulations became a challenge in itself. A systematic approach needed to be developed such that integration simulation results could be tested against previous constituent simulations upon which these simulations were built. General V&V categories included: (1) core orbital state propagation, (2), stand-alone SRMS, (3) stand-alone SSRMS, (4) stand-alone ISS ACS, (5) integrated Shuttle, SRMS, ISS (with active ACS) in the orbital environment, and (5) dual-arm SRMS/SSRMS dynamics topology. Integrated simulation V&V run suites were created and correlated to verification runs from subsystem simulations, in order to establish the validity of the results. This paper discusses the simulation design challenges encountered while developing simulation capabilities to mirror the ORM operations. The paper also describes the incremental build approach that was utilized, starting with the subsystem simulation elements and integration into increasing more complex simulations until the resulting ORM worksite dynamics simulation had been assembled. Furthermore, the paper presents an overall integrated simulation V&V methodology based upon a subsystem level testing, integrated comparisons, and phased checkout.

Thermal Protection System↗

NASA NTRS2012

Tidal Control of Jet Eruptions Observed by Cassini ISS

Observations by Cassini's Imaging Science Subsystem (ISS) of Enceladus' south polar region at high phase angles has revealed jets of material venting into space. Observations by Cassini's Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS) have also shown that the south polar region is anomalously warm with hotspots associated with geological features called the Tiger Stripes. The Tiger Stripes are large rifts near the south pole of Enceladus, which are typically about 130 km in length, 2 km wide, with a trough 500 m deep, and are l1anked on each side by 100m tall ridges. Preliminary triangulation of jets as viewed at different times and with different viewing geometries in Cassini ISS images taken between 2005 and 2007 have constrained the locations of eight major eruptions of material and found all of them associated with the south polar fractures unofficially the 'Tiger Stripes', and found four of them coincident with the hotspots reported in 2006 by CIRS. While published ISS observations of jet activity suggest that individual eruption sites stay active on the timescale of years, any shorter temporal variability (on timescales of an orbital period, or 1.3 Earth days, for example) is more difficult to establish because of the spotty temporal coverage and the difficulty of visually isolating one jet from the forest of many seen in a typical image. Consequently, it is not known whether individual jets are continuously active, randomly active, or if they erupt on a predictable, periodic schedule. One mechanism that may control the timing of eruptions is diurnal tidal stress, which oscillates between compression/tension as well as right and left lateral shear at any given location throughout Enceladus' orbit and may allow the cracks to open and close regularly. We examine the stresses on the Tiger Stripe regions to see how well diurnal tidal stress caused by Enceladus' orbital eccentricity may possibly correlate with and thus control the observed eruptions. We then identify possible mechanisms by which tidal stress can provide access to the surface for volatile material and implications for observed jet activity.

Hurford, T. A.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Annual Report for 1999

This report covers the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) for the calendar year 1999.This was a year of notable achievements and significant frustrations. Both the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs were delayed.The Space Shuttle prudently postponed launches after the occurrence of a wiring short during ascent of the STS-93 mission. The ISS construction schedule slipped as a result of the Space Shuttle delays and problems the Russians experienced in readying the Service Module and its launch vehicle. Each of these setbacks was dealt with in a constructive way. The STS-93 short circuit led to detailed wiring inspections and repairs on all four orbiters as well as analysis of other key subsystems for similar types of hidden damage. The ISS launch delays afforded time for further testing, training, development, and contingency planning. The safety consciousness of the NASA and contractor workforces, from hands-on labor to top management, continues high. Nevertheless, workforce issues remain among the most serious safety concerns of the Panel. Cutbacks and reorganizations over the past several years have resulted in problems related to workforce size, critical skills, and the extent of on-the-job experience. These problems have the potential to impact safety as the Space Shuttle launch rate increases to meet the demands of the ISS and its other customers. As with last year's report, these work- force-related issues were considered of sufficient import to place them first in the material that follows. Some of the same issues of concern for the Space Shuttle and ISS arose in a review of the launch vehicle for the Terra mission that the Panel was asked by NASA to undertake. Other areas the Panel was requested to assess included the readiness of the Inertial Upper Stage for the deployment of the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the possible safety impact of electromagnetic effects on the Space Shuttle. The findings and recommendations in this report do not highlight any major, immediate issues that might compromise the safe pursuit of the various NASA programs. They do, however, cover concerns that the Panel believes should be addressed in the interest of maintaining NASA's excellent safety record.The Panel is pleased to note that remedial efforts for some of the findings raised are underway. Given appropriate funding and cooperative efforts among the Administration, the Congress and the various contractors, the Panel is convinced that safety problems can be avoided or solved resulting in lower risk for NASA's human space and aeronautics programs. Section II of this report contains specific findings and recommendations generated by Panel activities during the calendar year 1999. Section III presents more detailed information in support of these findings and recommendations. A current roster of Panel members, consultants, and staff is included as Appendix A. Appendix B contains NASA's response to the findings and recommendations from the 1998 annual report. It has been augmented this year to include brief explanations of why the Panel classified the NASA response as " open,""continuing," or "closed." Appendix C lists the fact-finding activities of the Panel in 1999.

Blomberg, Richard D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Analyses Made to Order: Using Transformation to Rapidly Configure a Multidisciplinary Environment

Aerospace problems are highly multidisciplinary. Four or more major disciplines are involved in analyzing any particular vehicle. Moreover, the choice of implementation technology of various subsystems can lead to a change of leading domain or reformation of the driving equations. An excellent example is the change of expertise required to consider aircraft built from composite or metallic structures, or those propelled by chemical or electrical thrusters. Another example is in the major reconfiguration of handling and stability equations with different control surface configuration (e.g., canards, t-tail v four-post tail). Combinatorial problems are also commonplace anytime that a major system is to be designed. If there are only 5 attributes of a design to consider with 4 different options, this is already 1024 options. Adding just 5 more dimensions to the study explodes the space to over one million. Even generous assumptions like the idea that only 10% of the combinations are physically feasible can only contain the problem for so long. To make matters worse, the simple number of combinations is only the beginning. Combining the issue of trade space size with the need to reformulate the design problem for many of the possibilities makes life exponentially more difficult. Advances in software modeling approaches have led to the development of model-driven architecture. This approach uses the transformation of models into inferred models (e.g. inferred execution traces from state machines) or the skeletons for code generation. When the emphasis on transformation is applied to aerospace, it becomes possible to exploit redundancy in the information specified in multiple domain models into a unified system model. F1urther, it becomes possible to overcome the combinatorial nature of specifying integrated system behavior by manually combining the equations governing a given component technology. Transformations from a system specification combined with a system-analysis mapping specification enable one-click combination of domain analyses. This is a flexibility that has been missing from many engineering codes, which often entangle design specification and physical examination much more than is required to conduct the analysis. This capability has been investigated and cultivated within the DARPA F6 program by a team of JPL and Phoenix Integration engineers building the Adapatable Systems Design and Analysis (ASDA) framework. By embracing system modeling with SysML and the Query-View-Transformation (QVT) language, the ASDA team has been able to build a flexible, easily reconfigurable framework for building up and solving large tradespaces. Examples of application and lessons learned in building the framework will be described in this paper. In addition, the motivation will be laid for various tool vendors to develop open model description standards while being able to maintain competitive advantage through proprietary algorithms and approaches. These standards will also be compared to the underpinnings of model-driven architecture and the OMG standards of the Meta-Object Facility (MOF), SysML, and QVT.

Cole, Bjorn↗