SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “programmatic”

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.

At least 199 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2016

Toward Large-Area Sub-Arcsecond X-Ray Telescopes II

In order to advance significantly scientific objectives, future x-ray astronomy missions will likely call for x-ray telescopes with large aperture areas (approx. = 3 sq m) and fine angular resolution (approx. = 1"). Achieving such performance is programmatically and technologically challenging due to the mass and envelope constraints of space-borne telescopes and to the need for densely nested grazing-incidence optics. Such an x-ray telescope will require precision fabrication, alignment, mounting, and assembly of large areas (approx. = 600 sq m) of lightweight (approx. = 2 kg/sq m areal density) high-quality mirrors, at an acceptable cost (approx. = 1 M$/sq m of mirror surface area). This paper reviews relevant programmatic and technological issues, as well as possible approaches for addressing these issues-including direct fabrication of monocrystalline silicon mirrors, active (in-space adjustable) figure correction of replicated mirrors, static post-fabrication correction using ion implantation, differential erosion or deposition, and coating-stress manipulation of thin substrates.

Shi Ye↗

NASA NTRS2017

An Application Programming Interface for Synthetic Snowflake Particle Structure and Scattering Data

The work by Kuo and colleagues on growing synthetic snowflakes and calculating their single-scattering properties has demonstrated great potential to improve the retrievals of snowfall. To grant colleagues flexible and targeted access to their large collection of sizes and shapes at fifteen (15) microwave frequencies, we have developed a web-based Application Programming Interface (API) integrated with NASA Goddard's Precipitation Processing System (PPS) Group. It is our hope that the API will enable convenient programmatic utilization of the database. To help users better understand the API's capabilities, we have developed an interactive web interface called the OpenSSP API Query Builder, which implements an intuitive system of mechanisms for selecting shapes, sizes, and frequencies to generate queries, with which the API can then extract and return data from the database. The Query Builder also allows for the specification of normalized particle size distributions by setting pertinent parameters, with which the API can also return mean geometric and scattering properties for each size bin. Additionally, the Query Builder interface enables downloading of raw scattering and particle structure data packages. This presentation will describe some of the challenges and successes associated with developing such an API. Examples of its usage will be shown both through downloading output and pulling it into a spreadsheet, as well as querying the API programmatically and working with the output in code.

reflectivity properties of snowflakes↗

NASA NTRS2018

Breaking the Cost Curve: Applying Lessons Learned from the James Webb Space Telescope Development to Build More Cost-Effective Large Space Telescopes in the Future

This paper looks at the key programmatic and technical drivers of the James Webb Space Telescope and assesses ways to building more cost-effective telescopes in the future. The paper evaluates the top level programmatics for JWST along with the key technical drivers from design through integration and testing. Actual data and metrics from JWST are studied to identify what ultimately drove cost on JWST. Finally, the paper assesses areas where applying lessons learned can reduce costs on future observatories and will provide better insights into critical areas to optimize for cost.

ATLAST↗

NASA NTRS2018

The Evolution of Payload Data Capabilities on the Commercial Visiting Vehicles that Service the International Space Station

For over 10 years, NASA has been working with U.S.-based commercial companies to support the design, development, and operations of new commercial space vehicles. The purpose of these vehicles is to provide cargo and crew transportation services to the International Space Station (ISS) and to stimulate the commercial space transportation industry to Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). Along with the ability to provide a couple tons of cargo to the ISS each mission, the commercial visiting vehicles also provide the ability to transfer NASA payloads to and from the ISS in an active, powered state. To take advantage of this capability, NASA requirements for the data services that payloads need while they are integrated into the visiting vehicles have grown with each set of commercial contracts. Today, NASA desires for payload data services encompass a variety of capabilities including payload health and status (H&S) telemetry monitoring, visiting vehicle environment data monitoring, and payload commanding. The intent of these capabilities is to provide payload developers with situational awareness and the ability to quickly diagnose any problems with payload operations prior to vehicle docking or post-landing to support immediate troubleshooting response. As new requirements for payload data services have emerged over the years, the ISS Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has established ground segment interfaces to the visiting vehicle control centers to enable payload developers to use these services. Many technical and programmatic challenges have been faced while establishing these interfaces. The most significant challenge faced has been in finding the right balance amongst providing interfaces to payloads that are compatible with the ISS so that payload hardware or software changes are not necessary to ensure compatibility with the visiting vehicles; keeping POIC ground system development costs low by standardizing implementation approaches across commercial vehicle partners; and fostering commercialization through supporting vendor-unique implementations that are commercially economical. This paper will first detail the data services that will be available to payload users under each commercial visiting vehicle contract. Secondly, this paper will offer discussion of the most significant technical and programmatic challenges faced to-date in offering these new data services to payload developers.

Wiggins, Lindsay M.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Orion Heat Shield Manufacturing Producibility Improvements for the EM-1 Flight Test Program

This paper describes how the Orion program is incorporating improvements in the heat shield design and manufacturing processes reducing programmatic risk and ensuring crew safety in support of NASA’s Exploration Missions. The Orion program successfully completed the EFT-1 flight test in 2014 and is currently developing the EM-1 spacecraft to meet the test objectives of an orbital mission to the moon and return to earth in 2019. Lessons learned from the EFT-1 manufacturing and flight test experience are being incorporated into a wide variety of vehicle systems and manufacturing processes to reduce risk to the Orion missions and flight crew. A critical contributor to crew safety is the heat shield that protects the crew capsule during re-entry through the earth’s atmosphere for return from deep space. The first flight test vehicle, EFT-1, was manufactured and tested in the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout (O&C) facility at KSC to demonstrate early risk reduction including the functionality of the Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) for capsule safe return to earth. The approach for the EFT-1 heat shield utilized a low risk approach using Apollo heritage design and manufacturing processes using an Avcoat TPS ablator with a honeycomb substrate to provide a one piece heat shield to meet the mission re-entry heating environments. The manufacturing processes used honeycomb cell injection guns which were redeveloped from the Apollo Lunar Program processes to build the EFT-1 heat shield. The completed heat shield was transported across the country by aircraft to the O&C at KSC for installation onto the capsule. The EFT-1 heat shield successfully performed its mission and experienced ~80% of the re-entry velocity (50% heating rate) for a lunar return for an Exploration Mission. The second flight test vehicle is the EM-1 mission which will have additional flight systems installed to fly to the moon and return. Heat shield design and producibility improvements have been incorporated in the EM-1 vehicle to meet deep space mission and programmatic requirements. The design continues to use the Avcoat material, but in a “block” configuration to enable improvements in the application processes as well as additional improvements in the carrier structure design and manufacturing operations. Incorporating flight test results and producibility improvements from EFT-1 for the heat shield system design and processes have improved the thermal protection capability, improved the producibility, and cost for EM-1 flight test.

Producibility↗

NASA NTRS2019

Breaking the Cost Curve: Applying Lessons Learned from the James Webb Space Telescope Development

Feinberg, Lee↗

NASA NTRS2020

Is Structured Agile an Oxymoron? Tales from Implementing and Executing Agile in a US Government Environment

To paraphrase a famous quote, "No plan survives contact with the reality." Software (SW) development is often a classic example of this: whatever the plan was for a particular development, it often does not survive contact with technical realities, budget realities, program realities and schedule realities. Traditionally, SW development has followed a waterfall methodology with requirements being rigorously specified before the design, which was completed before the coding and unit testing started, which were in turn finished before validation and verification started. This model of SW engineering derives much from the HW engineering of large systems, and has been the standard methodology used in US government software acquisitions and systems for decades, with highly variable results. US Government SW requirements are built around Waterfall concepts, which assume that the plan will survive contact with reality, or at least that modifications to the plan are relatively small, and relatively few.Because of the inefficiencies and difficulties inherent in Waterfall, the commercial SW world started using a different SW development methodology called Agile more than 20 years ago. Agile believes that a plan should evolve and learn rapidly in response to the realities encountered. At its core, there are a few key elements of Agile:- A small team of people which is highly flexible and adaptive. The team collaborates and interoperates through sophisticated development architectures and release environments- An iterative, incremental development and release approach which is based upon the concept that knowledge comes from experience within the team, and that the team makes decisions based upon what it knows- A team culture which prizes transparency, inspection and adaptation. These values are necessary so that the team experience and decision making is transparent and responsive to the realities encountered during development and testingSo, how to use Agile in a US Government environment? GMSEC (Goddard Mission Services Evolution Center) develops satellite ground system software for NASA and other US Government agencies. The SW developed by the team contains a large code base of many applications used within satellite mission operations centers. It spans the full gamut of SW development types: from SW which is in a classic maintenance and sustainment mode, to new developments with a fairly well understood scope and approach, to new developments whose scope and approach are quite unclear and which require significant research and prototyping. Team members move between all of these different types of SW development. Waterfall was inadequate to the programmatic and technical needs of the team, as well as the various types of SW development being done. The software plan was not surviving contact with the technical and programmatic realities experienced by the team. To address this, the team started a small pilot project in 2016 to test the use of Agile within a small subset of the team for a new web services application. In early 2018, the use of Agile was expanded to the whole team and all the software, but we had to fulfill the NASA SW development requirements. And we needed to do this while still remaining true to the key Agile elements of transparency, inspection and adaption. In order to do this, the team worked very closely with the Software Process Improvement (SPI) team at NASA Goddard, as well as NASA engineering manageme

Beech, Theresa W.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Overview of the Main Propulsion System for a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Flight Demonstrator

A demonstration of a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) engine has not been conducted in over 50 years. Several tests were conducted during the NERVA program but no NTP engine was ever flown in space. In the last several years there has been a considerable amount of conceptual design work on NTP engines conducted. With the prospect of human Mars missions in the 2030’s there has been a renewed interest in NTP engines. A concept design study was conducted with the intent to design 2 flight demonstrator vehicles that would buy down programmatic and technical risks associated with launching and operating nuclear reactors in space. The intent of the first demonstrator mission would be to employ a simplified NTP engine and buy down programmatic risks whereas the second demonstrator would buy down technical risks with a NTP engine designed to be similar to an operational NTP model. The results of the study showed that a simplified NTP engine demonstrator could be feasibly built and flown in the near term with mostly high TRL, commercial off-the-shelf components.

Simpson, S. P.↗

NASA NTRS2018

An “EPIIC” Vision to Evolve Project Integration, Innovation, and Collaboration with Broad Impact for How NASA Executes Complex Projects

Evolving Project Integration, Innovation, and Collaboration (EPIIC) is a vision defined to transform the way projects manage information to support real-time decisions, capture best practices and lessons learned, perform assessments, and manage risk across a portfolio of projects. The foundational project management needs for data and information will be revolutionized through innovations on how we manage and access that data, implement configuration control, and certify compliance. The embedded intelligence of new interactive data interfaces integrate technical and programmatic data such that near real time analytics can be accomplished to more efficiently and accurately complete systems engineering and project management tasks. The system-wide data analytics that are integrated into customized data interfaces allows the growing team of engineers and managers required to develop and implement major NASA missions the ability to access authoritative source(s) of system information while greatly reducing the labor required to complete system assessments. This would allow, for example, much of what is accomplished in a scheduled design review to take place as needed, between any team members, at any time. An intelligent data interface that rigorously integrates systems engineering and project management information in near real time can provide substantially greater insight for systems engineers, project managers, and the large diverse teams required to complete a complex project. System engineers, programmatic personnel (those who focus on cost, schedule, and risk), the technical engineering disciplines, and project management can realize immediate benefit from the shared vision described herein. Implementation of the vision also enables significant improvements in the performance of the engineered system being developed.

Moreland, Robert J.↗

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 NTRS2017

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: Continuing a Record of Exploration from Mars Orbit

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) has been on station in its low altitude, sun-synchronous, primary science orbit since September 2006 performing both scientific and Mars programmatic support functions. The spacecraft is a very capable remote sensing science platform carrying six science payloads supporting seven investigations and a UHF telecommunications radio (Electra) for surface relay. Developed to support a mix of nadir mapping and targeted, highresolution surface observations, the spacecraft’s powerful telecommunications and command & data handling (C&DH) subsystems communicate an average of 16 hours a day with the Deep Space Network (DSN). To date, more than 300 TB of scientific data has been returned to Earth. All of the original science payloads are active with standard and new observing modes contributing to the advancement of Mars science through peer-reviewed paper publications and the timely dissemination of their data to the science community as a whole. Results from the science teams have revealed an amazing diversity of ancient aqueous environments and ongoing surface change is evident through gully formation, avalanches, and cratering. Extending the MRO-MGS climate record to a decade of Mars years is contributing to a better understanding of current atmospheric and polar processes. In addition to its fundamental scientific objectives, MRO is a critical element of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program (MEP) providing needed infrastructure support for landed and future missions. Using its Electra telecommunications payload, MRO provides landers and rovers critical event coverage during their entry, descent, and landing (EDL) phases and UHF relay support once they are on the Martian surface. MRO’s high-resolution imagers are used to scout potential landing sites and certify safe zones for landing. As MRO begins its Fourth Extended Mission, the spacecraft remains fully capable of carrying out an ambitious science observing plan and the programmatic tasks assigned to it. In addition to highlighting recent discoveries of the mission, this paper describes recent challenges the spacecraft engineers have faced in flight and the plans for extending spacecraft life well into the 2020’s.

Tamppari, Leslie K.↗

NASA NTRS2018

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: 2018 Status

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) continues its dual-mode mission of scientific exploration and programmatic support. Now in its 13th year of flight (and its 12th year in its low-altitude, sun-synchronous orbit around Mars), the spacecraft continues in its normal flight mode and its science instruments continue to acquire a treasure trove of data which is being used to study the Martian environment (surface, sub-surface, and atmosphere). To date (July 2018), more than 333 TB of scientific data have been returned to Earth. Building onto the 2017 IAC paper: “The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission: Continuing a Record of Exploration from Mars Orbit,” [1] this paper provides a 2018 status update on the MRO Mission. A signature event since the 2017 writing is the onset and evolution of a planet-encircling dust event (PEDE), the first such event since 2007. Additional recent science highlights for MRO include the discovery of mid-latitude ice cliffs, polar cap characterization, daily global mapping of the 2018 PEDE dust activity and the atmospheric thermal response, further characterization of the tantalizing recurring slope lineae (RSL), and continued detection of surface changes. Programmatically, UHF relay support for the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover Curiosity and the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) rover Opportunity continues at a pace that provides the engineers and scientists operating those surface vehicles timely information to support their mission planning and science analysis. Most of the landing site characterization requests for the NASA Mars 2020 rover and the ESA ExoMars Rover/Surface Platform (RSP) missions have been completed, with final acquisitions delayed due to the obscuring dust haze from the current PEDE. In parallel, the flight team has faced new engineering challenges as the spacecraft has aged. The team has developed and is implementing actions that are aimed at stretching spacecraft battery life. A new all-stellar capability using the spacecraft’s star trackers now allows for normal spacecraft operations without IMUs. In addition to its current relay duties, MRO will be synchronized to provide critical communications support for the InSight Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) event on November 26, 2018, and will be readied to support InSight’s critical commissioning phase with UHF relay support and environmental characterization. A new split-pass relay capability has been developed which will allow MRO to relay with two surface vehicles in “close proximity” on the same overflight, i.e. the InSight lander and the Curiosity rover. Extended for another year of operations by NASA, this paper will highlight recent scientific progress and describe actions that will extend MRO’s life well into the 2020’s as a key element of the Mars Exploration Program.

Zurek, Richard W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tours of High-containment and Pristine Facilities in Support of Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Definition Studies

During 2019 and 2020, the NASA Tiger Team RAMA (acronym of the authors) toured several high-containment biosafety laboratories and pristine space-mission facilities worldwide to better understand their practices, capabilities, and lessons-learned to aid in planning a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) in support of Mars Sample Return (MSR). The team also included tours of a manufacturer of mobile and modular high-containment facilities as well as manufacturers of isolators and gloveboxes. In addition, the team visited the European Space Agency (ESA)ultraclean and sterile ISO 3 / airborne molecular contamination -9 (AMC-9) isolator line to clean and assemble the most critical hardware for ESA’s ExoMars Mars Lander System, and researchers developing a novel double-walled isolator (DWI) and robotic handling techniques in support of an MSR SRF. The RAMA team visits covered several construction modalities for an MSR SRF: (1) a new traditional fixed facility; (2) use of an existing fixed Biosafety Level 4(BSL-4) facility; (3) a novel modular BSL-4 approach; and (4) a hybrid combination of fixed, modular, and existing facilities. A new fixed facility approach can be tailored to MSR’s needs and is the approach used by all U.S. BSL-4 laboratories constructed to date. However, this approach could be the most expensive modality, take the longest to implement (8-12 years), and have significant programmatic risk of delay. The utilization of an existing BSL-4 facility may be possible depending on the final contamination control and science requirements for the MSR SRF. Due to the internal dimensions of the labs visited and facility structural requirements, it is unlikely that any modification can be made to the facility to meet cleanliness requirements. Furthermore, due to possible construction delays, possible capacity issues, and potential cross contamination vectors from in-house select agents, there may also be significant programmatic risks for sharing an existing facility. Another approach is building a contemporary modular facility. This is a novel approach that has recently been used for a BSL-3/3Ag facilities. The modular elements would be installed in a traditional building or shell structure. A modular facility has many advantages over a traditional fixed facility with lower costs, shorter design/construction/ commissioning schedule, and flexibility for easier retrofits and future expansion. Lastly, a hybrid approach of combining the use of either: (1) a modular facility inside a new fixed facility or (2) a modular and/or fixed BSL-4 annex in conjunction with an existing BSL-4 space should be considered. The advantage of a hybrid approach is that the facility could leverage the strengths of other approaches. Beyond facility construction approaches, the RAMA team investigated technologies and techniques for isolating and handling Martian samples in pristine environments. For example, ESA has been studying and developing a DWI breadboard along with other sample-handling technologies. The research and development investment for clean, remote manipulation and robotics at the start of the facility design phase would be beneficial to the SRF. Additionally, under-standing the lessons learned from Thales Alenia Space during the construction and operation of the most advanced state-of-the-art precision cleaning, sterilization, and assembly glovebox isolators ever developed for spacecraft hardware are also critical for the SRF. The RAMA team lays out a summary of the 18 facilities toured, and includes 43 observations,18 findings, and 22 areas of possible follow-up that the RAMA team and others could pursue to enable further findings. The observations and findings illustrate that constructing an MSR SRF would combine the complexity of both high-containment and pristine facilities, and merging these technologies would be challenging, but achievable.

Mars Sample Return↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tailoring Early Concept Maturity Levels for Small Satellite Missions

The Concept Maturity Level (CML) framework has gained widespread acceptance as a process to assess mission concept maturity, particularly for early mission concepts in the formulation phase. Popularized by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory almost 15 years ago to evaluate large NASA science mission concepts, the CML method offers wide-ranging programmatic and technical evaluation criteria to assess and measure the progress of mission concepts at all stages of maturity. It also provides a useful tool to facilitate stakeholder relationships through effective engagement, interaction, and communication. The CML approach is modeled largely after the widespread Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale, a measure of how new technology progresses from early concept through to being operational at the mission flight system level. Tailoring the CML framework for small satellites allows for more relevant technical and programmatic evaluations for these missions. Given the diversity of small satellite mission objectives, cost constraints, complexity, and risk tolerance, this modified CML framework enables study teams and stakeholders to determine the appropriate CML fidelity to implement based upon the opportunity and strategic investment approach. A decision process flow method is proposed to guide teams through the logic of determining what CML fidelity to implement in evaluating small satellite mission concepts. The goal is to provide enhanced stakeholder engagement such that CML assessments are clearly articulated and understood early in the design study. This would allow for more appropriate application of CML methodology by study teams developing University led missions, technology demonstrations, commercial constellations, and more complex planetary science missions.

Concept Maturity Level↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flight Environment HEPA Filter Testing for Lunar Dust Removal Capability

Lunar dust is an abrasive regolith that can cause critical damage to hardware and crew. Its morphology and chemical makeup differs from typical earth dust due to space weathering effects. Current space missions require extensive air filtration of lunar dust to ensure mission success; as such filtration testing is paramount in verifying the dust-removal capabilities of the system. Previous testing at NASA GRC consisted of two stages: testing a flat high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) media sheet at various pressure ranges (Stage 1) and testing a pleated HEPA filter at different humidity and dust levels (Stage 2). This testing was done to buy-down risk when testing the flight-qualification HEPA filter for the proposed Stage 3 test. Stage 3 testing used a flight-ready HEPA filter to measure its performance characteristics to verify programmatic requirements. This included measuring lunar dust loading versus pressure drop performance and establishing a maximum capacity based on the allowable pressure drop, determining the HEPA filter efficiency utilizing two separate methodologies, and assessing if the lunar dust caused the HEPA filter to experience any damage. Additionally, dust removal from the HEPA filter was performed using a vacuum to ascertain if the filter life can be prolonged. These test results will aid the program in verifying programmatic requirements and ensuring risk buydown before this HEPA filter takes flight.

HEPA↗