SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “risk management flight projects”

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 235 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2009

Flight and Integrated Vehicle Testing: Laying the Groundwork for the Next Generation of Space Exploration Launch Vehicles

Integrated vehicle testing will be critical to ensuring proper vehicle integration of the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V cargo launch vehicle. The Ares Projects, based at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, created the Flight and Integrated Test Office (FITO) as a separate team to ensure that testing is an integral part of the vehicle development process. As its name indicates, FITO is responsible for managing flight testing for the Ares vehicles. FITO personnel are well on the way toward assembling and flying the first flight test vehicle of Ares I, th Ares I-X. This suborbital development flight will evaluate the performance of Ares I from liftoff to first stage separation, testing flight control algorithms, vehicle roll control, separation and recovery systems, and ground operations. Ares I-X is now scheduled to fly in summer 2009. The follow-on flight, Ares I-Y, will test a full five-segment first stage booster and will include cryogenic propellants in the upper stage, an upper stage engine simulator, and an active launch abort system. The following flight, Orion 1, will be the first flight of an active upper stage and upper stage engine, as well as the first uncrewed flight of an Orion spacecraft into orbit. The Ares Projects are using an incremental buildup of flight capabilities prior to the first operational crewed flight of Ares I and the Orion crew exploration vehicle in 2015. In addition to flight testing, the FITO team will be responsible for conducting hardware, software, and ground vibration tests of the integrated launch vehicle. These efforts will include verifying hardware, software, and grou handling interfaces. Through flight and integrated testing, the Ares Projects will identify and mitigate risks early the United States prepares to take its next giant leaps to the Moon and beyond.

Taylor, Jim↗

NASA NTRS2009

Flight and Integrated Vehicle Testing: Laying the Groundwork for the Next Generation of Space Exploration Launch Vehicles

Integrated vehicle testing will be critical to ensuring proper vehicle integration of the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V cargo launch vehicle. The Ares Projects, based at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, created the Flight and Integrated Test Office (FITO) as a separate team to ensure that testing is an integral part of the vehicle development process. As its name indicates, FITO is responsible for managing flight testing for the Ares vehicles. FITO personnel are well on the way toward assembling and flying the first flight test vehicle of Ares I, the Ares I-X. This suborbital development flight will evaluate the performance of Ares I from liftoff to first stage separation, testing flight control algorithms, vehicle roll control, separation and recovery systems, and ground operations. Ares I-X is now scheduled to fly in summer 2009. The follow-on flight, Ares I-Y, will test a full five-segment first stage booster and will include cryogenic propellants in the upper stage, an upper stage engine simulator, and an active launch abort system. The following flight, Orion 1, will be the first flight of an active upper stage and upper stage engine, as well as the first uncrewed flight of an Orion spacecraft into orbit. The Ares Projects are using an incremental buildup of flight capabilities prior to the first operational crewed flight of Ares I and the Orion crew exploration vehicle in 2015. In addition to flight testing, the FITO team will be responsible for conducting hardware, software, and ground vibration tests of the integrated launch vehicle. These efforts will include verifying hardware, software, and ground handling interfaces. Through flight and integrated testing, the Ares Projects will identify and mitigate risks early as the United States prepares to take its next giant leaps to the Moon and beyond.

Taylor, J. L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of Additive Manufacturing Technologies for 3D Printing of Spacecraft Heat Shields

Introduction: Ablative heat shields are an enabling technology for entry into planetary atmospheres. From the PICA heatshields used for several Mars rovers to the carbon phenolic material used for Galileo’s Jupiter entry probe, the heat shield manages the heat load transferred to the payload, protecting the sensitive scientific instruments carried on entry probes. The Additive Manufacturing of Thermal Protection Systems (AMTPS) project, an Early Career Initiative (ECI) funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate and led by NASA Johnson Space Center, seeks to develop materials and processes for 3D printing ablative heat shields for spacecraft. Current methods for producing ablative heat shields are extremely labor intensive and re-quire extensive hands-on processes and quality control characterization. Additive manufacturing (AM) offers the possibility of reduced production times, improved reliability, and enhanced performance via graded compositions. Costs will also be reduced by reducing the time and labor required for heat shield production. Direct integration of the heat shield onto the structure during processing simplifies integration and reduces risk. Material Development: A critical challenge for the project is development of a material system that can (1) be printed in a near-net shape process and (2) perform well as an ablator. Achieving printability requires the material to flow under applied pressure, but maintain its shape once extruded from the printer nozzle. Ablative performance is measured by a multitude of markers, including char yield, char strength, thermal conductivity, and recession rate. Furthermore, there are several mechanical and thermal property considerations for vehicle integration including coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and residual stress. AM technology will be leveraged to grade the material formulation and properties through the thickness of the heat shield, an architecture not possible with current manufacturing processes. To this end, “robust” material formulations have been pre-pared with higher density for use on the surface where most ablation will occur. “Insulative” material formulations, with lower density and lower thermal conductivity, are prepared for use in the depth of the heat shield. This graded architecture will re-duce the overall mass of the heat shield and reduce costs and/or increase scientific payload capacities. To achieve a material system with the required properties, multiple resins have been investigated in collaboration with NASA Ames Research Center. To tune printability and performance, resin additives were studied to improve flexibility of the cured material while maintaining acceptable ablative performance. Material coupons were printed and studied via a suite of mechanical and thermal characterization methods. Arc jet testing was conducted at NASA Ames Research Center to evaluate ablative performance and thermal protection under conditions expected in atmospheric entry. Manufacturing Scale-Up: A partnership with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) aims to enable full-scale fabrication of a 3D printed heat shield. Leveraging expertise in manufacturing and 3D printing at ORNL, a mid-scale manufacturing demonstration unit will be built and tested, using a dual-layer ablative system printed directly onto the titanium structure. Work on robotic system integration is ongoing and efforts to scale up material mixing with a material compound will ensure accurate and homogenous composition. Flight Test: A hypersonic sub-orbital flight test will provide a rigorous test of material performance ranging from ablation, thermal management, and mechanical integrity. Design of the capsule has taken place in collaboration with the University of Kentucky. Data collected from the flight will inform future design efforts in material formulation, printing methodology, and heat shield-capsule integration.

additive manufacturing↗

NASA NTRS2000

Ground Data System Risk Mitigation Techniques for Faster, Better, Cheaper Missions

With the advent of faster, cheaper, and better missions, NASA Projects acknowledged that a higher level of risk was inherent and accepted with this approach. It was incumbent however upon each component of the Project whether spacecraft, payload, launch vehicle, or ground data system to ensure that the mission would nevertheless be an unqualified success. The Small Explorer (SMEX) program's ground data system (GDS) team developed risk mitigation techniques to achieve these goals starting in 1989. These techniques have evolved through the SMEX series of missions and are practiced today under the Triana program. These techniques are: (1) Mission Team Organization--empowerment of a closeknit ground data system team comprising system engineering, software engineering, testing, and flight operations personnel; (2) Common Spacecraft Test and Operational Control System--utilization of the pre-launch spacecraft integration system as the post-launch ground data system on-orbit command and control system; (3) Utilization of operations personnel in pre-launch testing--making the flight operations team an integrated member of the spacecraft testing activities at the beginning of the spacecraft fabrication phase; (4) Consolidated Test Team--combined system, mission readiness and operations testing to optimize test opportunities with the ground system and spacecraft; and (5). Reuse of Spacecraft, Systems and People--reuse of people, software and on-orbit spacecraft throughout the SMEX mission series. The SMEX ground system development approach for faster, cheaper, better missions has been very successful. This paper will discuss these risk management techniques in the areas of ground data system design, implementation, test, and operational readiness.

Catena, John J.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Automated Target Planning for FUSE Using the SOVA Algorithm

The SOVA algorithm was originally developed under the Resilient Systems and Operations Project of the Engineering for Complex Systems Program from NASA s Aerospace Technology Enterprise as a conceptual framework to support real-time autonomous system mission and contingency management. The algorithm and its software implementation were formulated for generic application to autonomous flight vehicle systems, and its efficacy was demonstrated by simulation within the problem domain of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle autonomous flight management. The approach itself is based upon the precept that autonomous decision making for a very complex system can be made tractable by distillation of the system state to a manageable set of strategic objectives (e.g. maintain power margin, maintain mission timeline, and et cetera), which if attended to, will result in a favorable outcome. From any given starting point, the attainability of the end-states resulting from a set of candidate decisions is assessed by propagating a system model forward in time while qualitatively mapping simulated states into margins on strategic objectives using fuzzy inference systems. The expected return value of each candidate decision is evaluated as the product of the assigned value of the end-state with the assessed attainability of the end-state. The candidate decision yielding the highest expected return value is selected for implementation; thus, the approach provides a software framework for intelligent autonomous risk management. The name adopted for the technique incorporates its essential elements: Strategic Objective Valuation and Attainability (SOVA). Maximum value of the approach is realized for systems where human intervention is unavailable in the timeframe within which critical control decisions must be made. The Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) satellite, launched in 1999, has been collecting science data for eight years.[1] At its beginning of life, FUSE had six gyros in two IRUs and four reaction wheels. Over time through various failures, the satellite has been left with one reaction wheel on the vehicle skew axis and two gyros. To remain operational, a control scheme has been implemented using the magnetic torque rods and the remaining momentum wheel.[2] As a consequence, there are attitude regions where there is insufficient torque authority to overcome environmental disturbances (e.g. gravity gradient torques). The situation is further complicated by the fact that these attitude regions shift inertially with time as the spacecraft moves through earth s magnetic field during the course of its orbit. Under these conditions, the burden of planning targets and target-to-target slew maneuvers has increased significantly since the beginning of the mission.[3] Individual targets must be selected so that the magnetic field remains roughly aligned with the skew wheel axis to provide enough control authority to the other two orthogonal axes. If the field moves too far away from the skew axis, the lack of control authority allows environmental torques to pull the satellite away from the target and can potentially cause it to tumble. Slew maneuver planning must factor the stability of targets at the beginning and end, and the torque authority at all points along the slew. Due to the time varying magnetic field geometry relative to any two inertial targets, small modifications in slew maneuver timing can make large differences in the achievability of a maneuver.

Heatwole, Scott↗

NASA NTRS2014

Human Exploration Science Office (KX) Overview

The Human Exploration Science Office supports human spaceflight, conducts research, and develops technology in the areas of space orbital debris, hypervelocity impact technology, image science and analysis, remote sensing, imagery integration, and human and robotic exploration science. NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO) resides in the Human Exploration Science Office. ODPO provides leadership in orbital debris research and the development of national and international space policy on orbital debris. The office is recognized internationally for its measurement and modeling of the debris environment. It takes the lead in developing technical consensus across U.S. agencies and other space agencies on debris mitigation measures to protect users of the orbital environment. The Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) project evaluates the risks to spacecraft posed by micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD). HVIT facilities at JSC and White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) use light gas guns, diagnostic tools, and high-speed imagery to quantify the response of spacecraft materials to MMOD impacts. Impact tests, with debris environment data provided by ODPO, are used by HVIT to predict risks to NASA and commercial spacecraft. HVIT directly serves NASA crew safety with MMOD risk assessments for each crewed mission and research into advanced shielding design for future missions. The Image Science and Analysis Group (ISAG) supports the International Space Station (ISS) and commercial spaceflight through the design of imagery acquisition schemes (ground- and vehicle-based) and imagery analyses for vehicle performance assessments and mission anomaly resolution. ISAG assists the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program in the development of camera systems for the Orion spacecraft that will serve as data sources for flight test objectives that lead to crewed missions. The multi-center Imagery Integration Team is led by the Human Exploration Science Office and provides expertise in the application of engineering imagery to spaceflight. The team links NASA programs and private industry with imagery capabilities developed and honed through decades of human spaceflight, including imagery integration, imaging assets, imagery data management, and photogrammetric analysis. The team is currently supporting several NASA programs, including commercial demonstration missions. The Earth Science and Remote Sensing Team is responsible for integrating the scientific use of Earth-observation assets onboard the ISS, which consist of externally mounted sensors and crew photography capabilities. This team facilitates collaboration on remote sensing and participates in research with academic organizations and other Government agencies, not only in conjunction with ISS science, but also for planetary exploration and regional environmental/geological studies. Human exploration science focuses on science strategies for future human exploration missions to the Moon, Mars, asteroids, and beyond. This function provides communication and coordination between the science community and mission planners. ARES scientists support the operation of robotic missions (i.e., Mars Exploration Rovers and the Mars Science Laboratory), contribute to the interpretation of returned mission data, and translate robotic mission technologies and techniques to human spaceflight.

Calhoun, Tracy A.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Green Propellant Landing Demonstration at U.S. Range

The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.

Propellant↗

NASA NTRS2016

Green Propellant Loading Demonstration at U.S. Range

Green Propellant↗

NASA NTRS2007

A Process for Producing Highly Wettable Aluminum 6061 Surfaces Compatible with Hydrazine

NASA's Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission is an ongoing Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) project whose basic objective is to improve global precipitation measurements. The space-based portion of the mission architecture consists of a primary or core spacecraft and a constellation of NASA and contributed spacecrafts. The efforts described in this paper refer to the core spacecraft (hereafter referred to as simply GPM) which is to be fabricated at GSFC. It has been decided that the GPM spacecraft is to be a "design-for-demise-spacecraft." This requirement resulted in the need for a propellant tank that would also demise or ablate to an appropriate degree upon re-entry. Composite overwrapped aluminum lined propellant tanks with aluminum propellant management devices (PMD) were shown by analyses to demise and thus became the baseline configuration for GPM. As part of the GPM tank development effort, long term compatibility and wettability testing with hydrazine was performed on Al6061 and 2219 coupons fabricated and cleaned by conventional processes. Long term compatibility was confirmed. However, the wettability of the aluminum as measured by contact angle produced higher than desired angles (greater than 30 deg.) with excessive scatter. The availability of PMD materials exhibiting consistently low contact angles aids in the design of simple PMDs. Two efforts performed by Angeles Crest Engineering and funded by GSFC were undertaken to reduce the risk of using aluminum for the GPM PMD. The goal of the first effort was to develop a cleaning or treatment process to produce consistently low contact angles. The goal of the second effort was to prove via testing that the processed aluminum would retain compatibility with hydrazine and retain low contact angle after long term exposure to hydrazine. Both goals were achieved. This paper describes both efforts and the results achieved.

Moore, N. R.↗

NASA NTRS2009

An Effective Health and Medical Technical Authority

The NASA Governance model directed the formation of three Technical Authorities, Engineering; Safety and Mission Assurance; and Health and Medical, to ensure that risks are identified and adjudicated efficiently and transparently in concert with the spaceflight programs and projects. The Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) has been implemented at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and consists of the Chief Medical Office (CMO), the Deputy CMO, and HMTA Delegates. The JSC HMTA achieves the goals of risk identification and adjudication through the discharge of the appropriate technical expertise to human space flight programs and projects and the escalation of issues within program and technical authority boards. The JSC HMTA relies on subject matter experts (SMEs) in the Space Life Sciences Directorate at JSC as well as experts from other Centers to work crew health and performance issues at the technical level, develop requirements, oversee implementation and validation of requirements, and identify risks and non-compliances. Once a risk or potential noncompliance has been identified and reported to the programs or projects, the JSC HMTA begins to track it and closely monitor the program's or project's response. As a risk is developed or a non-compliance negotiated, positions from various levels of decision makers are sought at the program and project control boards. The HMTA may support a program or project position if it is satisfied with the decision making and vetting processes (ex. the subject matter expert voiced his/her concerns and all dissenting opinions were documented) and finds that the position both acknowledges the risk and cost of the mitigation and resolves the issue without changing NASA risk posture. The HMTA may disagree with a program or project position if the NASA risk posture has been elevated or obfuscated. If the HMTA does disagree with the program or project position, it will appeal to successively higher levels of authority so that risk acceptance and risk trades will be acknowledged and sanctioned at the highest appropriate level; this includes Program Managers, Mission Directorate Associate Administrators and the Agency Administrator.

Fogarty, Jennifer A.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Feasibility study of an orbiting laboratory for testing CSI technology

A concept for an orbiting laboratory for testing Controls-Structures Integration (CSI) technology is described. The CSI-Star concept reflects a lower cost, higher risk approach. The concept supports demonstration and validation testing for critical CSI technologies at a cost of $20M to $26M with a 1-year reliability of approximately 0.9. The Ball Aerospace QuickStar bus is the carrier for the CSI test article. QuickStar is launched as a secondary payload on the McDonnell Douglas Delta 2. The QuickStar/Delta 2 approach is flight proven. The CSI test article is a 20 foot, 1 Hz, truss beam which is deployed from the QuickStar bus. The test article is well instrumented for quality system identification. The laboratory provides three layers of active control consisting of global vibration suppression along the truss beam, vibration isolation between the beam and instrument platforms, and vibration compensation through the use of gimbaled platforms which point lasers relative to optical sensor targets. The configuration simulates the dynamics of multi-instrument science platforms such as those of the Earth Observation System (EOS) while maintaining strong ties to astrophysics missions such as the Optical Interferometer. Uplink/downlink services and a reprogrammable computer provide flexibility for long-term investigations by members of the CSI community (NASA, DoD, academia, and industry). CSI-Star fills the gap between short-term experiments, which have been conducted primarily on the Shuttle, and future science missions which require the technology. The on-orbit maturity of CSI technology must be established to obtain acceptance by project managers and to promote injection of the technology into future science missions.

Bicos, Andrew S.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Development and Implementation of Real-Time Information Delivery Systems for Emergency Management

The disaster management community has an on-going need for real-time data and information, especially during catastrophic events. Currently, twin engine or jet aircraft with limited altitude and duration capabilities collect much of the data. Flight safety is also an issue. Clearly, much of the needed data could be delivered via over-the-horizon transfer through a uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAV) platform to mission managers at various locations on the ground. In fact, because of the ability to stay aloft for long periods of time, and to fly above dangerous situations, UAV's are ideally suited for disaster missions. There are numerous situations that can be considered disastrous for the human population. Some, such as fire or flood, can continue over a period of days. Disaster management officials rely on data from the site to respond in an optimum way with warnings, evacuations, rescue, relief, and to the extent possible, damage control. Although different types of disasters call for different types of response, most situations can be improved by having visual images and other remotely sensed data available. "Disaster Management" is actually made up of a number of activities, including: - Disaster Prevention and Mitigation - Emergency Response Planning - Disaster Management (real-time deployment of resources, during an event) - Disaster / Risk Modeling All of these activities could benefit from real-time information, but a major focus for UAV-based technology is in real-time deployment of resources (i.e., emergency response teams), based on changing conditions at the location of the event. With all these potential benefits, it is desirable to demonstrate to user agencies the ability to perform disaster management missions as described. The following demonstration project is the first in a program designed to prove the feasibility of supporting disaster missions with UAV technology and suitable communications packages on-board. A several-year program is envisioned, in which a broad range of disaster-related activities are demonstrated to the appropriate user communities.

Wegener, Steve↗

NASA NTRS1996

Space Station Furnace Facility Management Information System (SSFF-MIS) Development

This report summarizes the chronology, results, and lessons learned from the development of the SSFF-MIS. This system has been nearly two years in development and has yielded some valuable insights into specialized MIS development. General: In December of 1994, the Camber Corporation and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) were contracted to design, develop, and implement a MIS for Marshall Space Flight Center's Space Station Furnace Facility Project. The system was to be accessible from both EBM-Compatible PC and Macintosh platforms. The system was required to contain data manually entered into the MIS as well as data imported from other MSFC sources. Electronic interfaces were established for each data source and retrieval was to be performed at prescribed time intervals. The SOW requirement that predominantly drove the development software selection was the dual-platform (IBM-PC and Macintosh) requirement. The requirement that the system would be maintained by Government personnel influenced the selection of Commercial Off-the-shelf software because of its inherent stability and readily available documentation and support. Microsoft FoxPro Professional 2.6 for Windows and Macintosh was selected as the development tool. This is a software development tool that has been in use for many years. It is stable and powerful. Microsoft has since released the replacement for this product, Microsoft Visual FoxPro, but at the time of this development, it was only available on the Windows platform. The initial contract included included the requirement for capabilities relating to the Work- and Organizational Breakdown Structures, cost (plan and actuals), workforce (plan and actuals), critical path scheduling, trend analysis, procurements and contracts, interface to manufacturing, Safety and Mission Assurance, risk analysis, and technical performance indicators. It also required full documentation of the system and training of users. During the course of the contract, the requirements for Safety and Mission Assurance interface, risk analysis, and technical performance indicators were deleted. Additional capabilities were added as reflected in the Contract Chronology below. Modification 4 added the requirement for Support Contractor manpower data, the ability to manually input data not imported from non-nal sources, a general 'health' indicator screen, and remote usage. Mod 6 included the ability to change the level of planning of Civil Service Manpower at any time and the ability to manually enter Op Codes in the manufacturing data where such codes were not provided by the EMPACS database. Modification 9 included a number of changes to report contents and formats. Modification 11 required the preparation of a detailed System Design Document.

Meade, Robert M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ensuring US National Aeronautics Test Capabilities

U.S. leadership in aeronautics depends on ready access to technologically advanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics test capabilities. These systems include major wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities and flight test capabilities. The federal government owns the majority of the major aeronautics test capabilities in the United States, primarily through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). However, changes in the Aerospace landscape, primarily the decrease in demand for testing over the last 20 years required an overarching strategy for management of these national assets. Therefore, NASA established the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) as a two-pronged strategic initiative to: (1) retain and invest in NASA aeronautics test capabilities considered strategically important to the agency and the nation, and (2) establish a strong, high level partnership with the DoD. Test facility utilization is a critical factor for ATP because it relies on user occupancy fees to recover a substantial part of the operations costs for its facilities. Decreasing utilization is an indicator of excess capacity and in some cases low-risk redundancy (i.e., several facilities with basically the same capability and overall low utilization). However, low utilization does not necessarily translate to lack of strategic importance. Some facilities with relatively low utilization are nonetheless vitally important because of the unique nature of the capability and the foreseeable aeronautics testing needs. Unfortunately, since its inception, the customer base for ATP has continued to shrink. Utilization of ATP wind tunnels has declined by more than 50% from the FY 2006 levels. This significant decrease in customer usage is attributable to several factors, including the overall decline in new programs and projects in the aerospace sector; the impact of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) on the design, development, and research process; and the reductions in wind tunnel testing requirements within the largest consumer of ATP wind tunnel test time, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Retirement of the Space Shuttle Program and recent perturbations of NASA's Constellation Program will exacerbate this downward trend. Therefore it is crucial that ATP periodically revisit and determine which of its test capabilities are strategically important, which qualify as low-risk redundancies that could be put in an inactive status or closed, and address the challenges associated with both sustainment and improvements to the test capabilities that must remain active. This presentation will provide an overview of the ATP vision, mission, and goals as well as the challenges and opportunities the program is facing both today and in the future. We will discuss the strategy ATP is taking over the next five years to address the National aeronautics test capability challenges and what the program will do to capitalize on its opportunities to ensure a ready, robust and relevant portfolio of National aeronautics test capabilities.

Marshall, Timothy J.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Follow-on studies using the Voyager spacecraft thermal model

The 42-year-old Voyager mission, now named the Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM) is operating long beyond its design life. In 2012, Voyager 1 crossed the heliopause into interstellar space and Voyager 2 made the same transit in November 2018. Due to declining power output from the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) the Science and Flight Operations teams continue to make difficult choices in terms of managing both the power and thermal margins to preserve critical science observations and maintain the health of the two spacecraft. A previous paper, “Creating a Voyager Thermal Model 39 Years Into the Flight Mission, Along With Model Correlation and Application” described how a thermal model of these 1977 spacecraft was developed and correlated without many design artifacts and with limited temperature telemetry. This paper describes how the thermal model has been used to establish an Allowable Flight Temperature (AFT) limit for hydrazine propellant in the propulsion subsystem to minimize the risk of freezing. Voyager 2 temperatures have already descended to this limit in the vicinity of the Roll thruster propellant lines. The Flight Operations team has investigated several ways of detecting propellant freezing based on analysis and trending of thruster performance telemetry. In addition, the Voyager thermal model is being used to predict the spacecraft response to possible changes in power state. These changes could involve turning off outboard science instruments and/or their heaters to increase power margin and hence power dissipation inside the spacecraft bus (i.e. in Bay 7, where the power regulation electronics are located). Changes might also be made to turn on or off other loads inside the bus to more effectively heat the coldest propellant lines. Many of these changes have been or will be tested first on Voyager 1 which has more power margin and does not have the power matrix commanding issues experienced on Voyager 2. Ultimately this assessment may assist the Voyager project in making decisions on the order in which science instruments are permanently turned off.

Medina, Enrique↗

NASA NTRS2000

Internet Technology on Spacecraft

The Operating Missions as Nodes on the Internet (OMNI) project has shown that Internet technology works in space missions through a demonstration using the UoSAT-12 spacecraft. An Internet Protocol (IP) stack was installed on the orbiting UoSAT-12 spacecraft and tests were run to demonstrate Internet connectivity and measure performance. This also forms the basis for demonstrating subsequent scenarios. This approach provides capabilities heretofore either too expensive or simply not feasible such as reconfiguration on orbit. The OMNI project recognized the need to reduce the risk perceived by mission managers and did this with a multi-phase strategy. In the initial phase, the concepts were implemented in a prototype system that includes space similar components communicating over the TDRS (space network) and the terrestrial Internet. The demonstration system includes a simulated spacecraft with sample instruments. Over 25 demonstrations have been given to mission and project managers, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Defense (DoD), contractor technologists and other decisions makers, This initial phase reached a high point with an OMNI demonstration given from a booth at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Inspection Day 99 exhibition. The proof to mission managers is provided during this second phase with year 2000 accomplishments: testing the use of Internet technologies onboard an actual spacecraft. This was done with a series of tests performed using the UoSAT-12 spacecraft. This spacecraft was reconfigured on orbit at very low cost. The total period between concept and the first tests was only 6 months! On board software was modified to add an IP stack to support basic IP communications. Also added was support for ping, traceroute and network timing protocol (NTP) tests. These tests show that basic Internet functionality can be used onboard spacecraft. The performance of data was measured to show no degradation from current approaches. The cost to implement is much less than current approaches due to the availability of highly reliable and standard Internet tools. Use of standard Internet applications onboard reduces the risk of obsolescence inherent in custom protocols due to extremely wide use across all domains. These basic building blocks provide the framework for building onboard software to support direct user communication with payloads including payload control. Other benefits are payload to payload communication from dissimilar spacecraft, constellations of spacecraft, and reconfigurability on orbit. This work is funded through contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).

Rash, James↗

NASA NTRS2011

Development of Tools and Techniques for Processing STORRM Flight Data

While at JSC for the summer of 2011, I was assigned to work on the sensor test for Orion relative-navigation risk mitigation (STORRM) development test objective (DTO). The STORRM DTO was flown on-board Endeavor during STS-134. The objective of the STORRM DTO is to test the visual navigation system (VNS), which will be used as the primary relative navigation sensor for the Orion spacecraft. The VNS is a flash lidar system intended to provide both line of sight and range information during rendezvous and proximity operations. The STORRM DTO also serves as a testbed for the high-resolution docking camera. This docking camera will be used to provide piloting cues for the crew during proximity operations. These instruments were mounted next to the trajectory control sensor (TCS) in Endeavour s payload bay. My principle objective for the summer was to generate a best estimated trajectory (BET) for Endeavor using the flight data collected by the VNS during rendezvous and the unprecedented re-rendezvous with the ISS. I processed the raw images from the VNS to produce range and bearing measurements. I then aggregated these measurements and extracted the measurements corresponding to individual reflectors. I combined the information contained in these measurements with data from the Endeavour's inertial sensors using Kalman smoothing techniques to ultimately produce a BET. This work culminated with a final presentation of the result to division management. Development of this tool required that traditional linear smoothing techniques be modified in a novel fashion to permit for the inclusion of non-linear measurements. This internship has greatly helped me further my career by providing exposure to real engineering projects. I also have benefited immensely from the mentorship of the engineers working on these projects. Many of the lessons I learned and experiences I had are of particular value because then can only be found in a place like JSC.

Robinson, Shane↗

NASA NTRS1999

Spacecraft Software Maintenance: An Effective Approach to Reducing Costs and Increasing Science Return

Flight software is a mission critical element of spacecraft functionality and performance. When ground operations personnel interface to a spacecraft, they are typically dealing almost entirely with the capabilities of onboard software. This software, even more than critical ground/flight communications systems, is expected to perform perfectly during all phases of spacecraft life. Due to the fact that it can be reprogrammed on-orbit to accommodate degradations or failures in flight hardware, new insights into spacecraft characteristics, new control options which permit enhanced science options, etc., the on- orbit flight software maintenance team is usually significantly responsible for the long term success of a science mission. Failure of flight software to perform as needed can result in very expensive operations work-around costs and lost science opportunities. There are three basic approaches to maintaining spacecraft software--namely using the original developers, using the mission operations personnel, or assembling a center of excellence for multi-spacecraft software maintenance. Not planning properly for flight software maintenance can lead to unnecessarily high on-orbit costs and/or unacceptably long delays, or errors, in patch installations. A common approach for flight software maintenance is to access the original development staff. The argument for utilizing the development staff is that the people who developed the software will be the best people to modify the software on-orbit. However, it can quickly becomes a challenge to obtain the services of these key people. They may no longer be available to the organization. They may have a more urgent job to perform, quite likely on another project under different project management. If they havn't worked on the software for a long time, they may need precious time for refamiliarization to the software, testbeds and tools. Further, a lack of insight into issues related to flight software in its on-orbit environment, may find the developer unprepared for the challenges. The second approach is to train a member of the flight operations team to maintain the spacecraft software. This can prove to be a costly and inflexible solution. The person assigned to this duty may not have enough work to do during a problem free period and may have too much to do when a problem arises. If the person is a talented software engineer, he/she may not enjoy the limited software opportunities available in this position; and may eventually leave for newer technology computer science opportunities. Training replacement flight software personnel can be a difficult and lengthy process. The third approach is to assemble a center of excellence for on-orbit spacecraft software maintenance. Personnel in this specialty center can be managed to support flight software of multiple missions at once. The variety of challenges among a set of on-orbit missions, can result in a dedicated, talented staff which is fully trained and available to support each mission's needs. Such staff are not software developers but are rather spacecraft software systems engineers. The cost to any one mission is extremely low because the software staff works and charges, minimally on missions with no current operations issues; and their professional insight into on-orbit software troubleshooting and maintenance methods ensures low risk, effective and minimal-cost solutions to on-orbit issues.

Shell, Elaine M.↗