Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “fixed point method”

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.

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

260 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2006

Dilution of Precision-Based Lunar Navigation Assessment for Dynamic Position Fixing

The NASA Vision for Space Exploration is focused on the return of astronauts to the Moon. While navigation systems have already been proven in the Apollo missions to the moon, the current exploration campaign will involve more extensive and extended missions requiring new concepts for lunar navigation. In contrast to Apollo missions, which were limited to the near-side equatorial region of the moon, missions under the Exploration Systems Initiative will require navigation on the moon's limb and far-side. As these regions have poor Earth visibility, a navigation system comprised solely of Earth-based tracking stations will not provide adequate navigation solutions in these areas. In this paper, a Dilution of Precision (DoP) based analysis of the performance of a network of Moon orbiting satellites is provided. The analysis extends previous analysis of a Lunar Network (LN) of navigation satellites by providing an assessment of the capability associated with a variety of assumptions. These assumptions are with regard to the navigation receiver and satellite visibility. The assessment is accomplished by making appropriately formed estimates of DoP. Different adaptations of DoP (i.e. GDoP, PDoP, etc.) are associated with a different set of assumptions regarding augmentations to the navigation receiver or transceiver. A significant innovation described in this paper is the "Generalized" Dilution of Precision. In the same sense that the various versions of DoP can be represented as a functional of the observability grammian, Generalized DoP is defined as a functional of the sum of observability grammians associated with a batch of radiometric measurements. Generalized DoP extends the DoP concept to cases in which radiometric range and range-rate measurements are integrated over time to develop an estimate of user position (referred to here as a 'dynamic' solution.) Generalized DoP allows for the inclusion of cases in which the receiver location is underdetermined when assessed in the usual 'kinematic' sense. The Generalized DoP concept is thereby a method to assess the navigation capability associated with constellations with sparse coverage. This alleviates the burden of performing a full "covariance analysis" for each point on the surface of the Moon.

Sands, Obed S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Updated Secondary Lunar Meteoroid Ejecta Model for Engineering Design

Introduction: The surface of the Moon is constantly being bombarded by a flux of meteoroids of various sizes. Impacts due to these meteoroids produce secondary ejecta material at much lower speeds but with a total mass larger than the original impactor. Details about the secondary ejecta are important for planning missions on the lunar surface. In this work, an updated ejecta model is presented called the Meteoroid Model of Secondary Ejecta (MeMoSeE), to re-place the Apollo-era ejecta model, NASA SP-8013 [1], in the SLS-SPEC 159 Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) [2]. The model pro-duces secondary ejecta flux environments for a user-specified location on the lunar surface, and sorts the incoming secondary flux by angular direction and speed. Methods: MeMoSeE is separated into three parts: the inputs, the conversion step, and the integration of fluxes. Inputs to the model include the primary meteoroid fluxes and the primary near-Earth object (NEO) fluxes. Meteoroid fluxes, both asteroidal and cometary, are calculated using the Meteoroid Engineering Model (MEM3) [3] for different locations on the Moon. For each surface location, an ephemeris is generated using the JPL HORIZONS System [4] that feeds into MEM3. The NEO fluxes are approximated by the high-density population of MEM3 (i.e., only the directionality), where the speed distribution of the NEO fluxes is renormalized to match observations [5]. The regolith properties are used as defined in the DSNE [2]. The conversion step utilizes scaling laws given by Housen & Holsapple 2011 [6] to convert the primary impactor flux to the total mass of secondary ejecta. The ejecta distribution, at the point-of-impact (POI), is separated into a zenith angle and azimuthal angle distribution. The zenith angle distribution follows a beta distribution where the peak depends on the impact altitude angle and the impact azimuth [7]. We employ an ejecta azimuth distribution that is based on Rival & Mandeville 1999 [8] which focuses ejecta in the downstream direction for more oblique impacts. Finally, during the integration step, we sum secondary ejecta number fluxes at a particular region-of-interest (ROI) that originated from many POI locations over the entire surface of the Moon. We keep track of both altitude and azimuth angle bins as well as a range of speed bins, following the igloo gridding as done in MEM3 [9]. The ejecta particle size distribution and density is assumed to be the same as the lunar regolith [10, 2]. Results: The primary fluxes are computed for one Metonic cycle (19 years) for various locations over the lunar surface with a fixed orientation. Both the angular and speed distributions of the primary fluxes are dependent on the latitude and longitude. The over-all primary fluxes show a roughly 13% increase from the eastern limb to the western limb. In general, the speed distribution of the secondary fluxes span from a user-defined minimum speed to the escape speed of the Moon (2.38 km/s), roughly following a power-law relation [6]. Different parts of the speed distribution come from different primary impact locations on the Moon. The secondary ejecta is dominated by the slowest speeds, where these particles originate nearby the ROI. For speeds around 71% of the escape speed, the secondary ejecta originates from locations near the antipodal point. On the other hand, for secondary ejecta speeds that exceed roughly 90% the escape speed, the ejecta particles come from all over the lunar surface to the ROI. Comparing the secondary ejecta fluxes from MeMoSeE with NASA SP-8013 [1], there is a reduction by about 2-3 orders of magnitude for secondary ejecta particles greater than 1 µg. These estimates agree with recent findings from Bjorkman & Christiansen 2019 [11]. The secondary ejecta fluxes are also compared with the primary fluxes, where the ejecta fluxes are roughly an order of magnitude greater than the primary fluxes. References: [1] Cour-Palais, B. G., (1969) NASA SP-8013. [2] NASA SLS-SPEC-159 Rev. H (2020). [3] Moorhead, A. V., et al. (2019) JS&R, 1-17. [4] Giorgini, J. D., (2015) IAUGA, 29, 2256293. [5] Moorhead, A. V., (2020) Memo OSMA/MEO/Lunar-001. [6] Housen, K. R., and Holsapple, K. A., (2011) Icarus, 211(1), 856-875. [7] Gault, D. E., and Wedekind, J. A., (1978) L&PSCP, 9, 3843-3875. [8] Rival, M., and Mandeville, J., (1999) Space Debris, 1(1), 45-57. [9] Moorhead, A. V., (2019) MEM3 User Guide. [10] Carrier, W. D., (1973) The Moon, 6(3-4), 250-263. [11] Bjorkman, M. D. & Christiansen, E. L., (2019) ODC

impacts↗
NASA NTRS1994

Special relativity effects for space-based coherent lidar experiments

There is a great need to develop a system that can measure accurately atmospheric wind profiles because an accurate data of wind profiles in the atmosphere constitutes single most input for reliable simulations of global climate numerical methods. Also such data helps us understand atmospheric circulation and climate dynamics better. Because of this need for accurate wind measurements, a space-based Laser Atmospheric Winds Sounder (LAWS) is being designed at MSFC to measure wind profiles in the lower atmosphere of the earth with an accuracy of 1 m/s at lower altitudes to 5m/s at higher altitudes. This system uses an orbiting spacecraft with a pulsed laser source and measures the Doppler shift between the transmitted and received frequencies to estimate the atmospheric wind velocities. If a significant return from the ground (sea) is possible, the spacecraft speed and height are estimated from it and these results and the Doppler shift are then used to estimate the wind velocities in the atmosphere. It is expected that at the proposed wavelengths, there will be enough backscatter from the aerosols but there may no be significant return from the ground. So a coherent (heterodyne) detection system is being proposed for signal processing because it can provide high signal to noise ratio and sensitivity and thus make the best use of low ground return. However, for a heterodyne detection scheme to provide the best results, it is important that the receiving aperture be aligned properly for the proposed wind sounder, this amounts to only a few microradians tolerance in alignment. It is suspected that the satellite motion relative to the ground may introduce errors in the order of a few microradians because of special relativity. Hence, the problem of laser scattering off a moving fixed target when the source and receiver are moving, which was not treated in the past in the literature, was analyzed in the following, using relativistic electrodynamics and applied to the case of the space-based coherent lidar, assuming flat ground. Here an interest in developing analytical expression for the location of the receiving point for the return with respect to the satellite, receiving angle and Doppler shift in frequency and amount of tip, all as measured in the satellite moving coordinate system and the diffuse scattering angle at the ground which does not require any compensation. All the three cases of retro-reflection, specular reflection and diffuse scattering by the ground should be treated though retro-reflection and diffuse scattering are more important.

Raogudimetla, V. S.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Mixed Linear/Square-Root Encoded Single-Slope Ramp Provides Low-Noise ADC with High Linearity for Focal Plane Arrays

Single-slope analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) are particularly useful for onchip digitization in focal plane arrays (FPAs) because of their inherent monotonicity, relative simplicity, and efficiency for column-parallel applications, but they are comparatively slow. Squareroot encoding can allow the number of code values to be reduced without loss of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by keeping the quantization noise just below the signal shot noise. This encoding can be implemented directly by using a quadratic ramp. The reduction in the number of code values can substantially increase the quantization speed. However, in an FPA, the fixed pattern noise (FPN) limits the use of small quantization steps at low signal levels. If the zero-point is adjusted so that the lowest column is onscale, the other columns, including those at the center of the distribution, will be pushed up the ramp where the quantization noise is higher. Additionally, the finite frequency response of the ramp buffer amplifier and the comparator distort the shape of the ramp, so that the effective ramp value at the time the comparator trips differs from the intended value, resulting in errors. Allowing increased settling time decreases the quantization speed, while increasing the bandwidth increases the noise. The FPN problem is solved by breaking the ramp into two portions, with some fraction of the available code values allocated to a linear ramp and the remainder to a quadratic ramp. To avoid large transients, both the value and the slope of the linear and quadratic portions should be equal where they join. The span of the linear portion must cover the minimum offset, but not necessarily the maximum, since the fraction of the pixels above the upper limit will still be correctly quantized, albeit with increased quantization noise. The required linear span, maximum signal and ratio of quantization noise to shot noise at high signal, along with the continuity requirement, determines the number of code values that must be allocated to each portion. The distortion problem is solved by using a lookup table to convert captured code values back to signal levels. The values in this table will be similar to the intended ramp value, but with a correction for the finite bandwidth effects. Continuous-time comparators are used, and their bandwidth is set below the step rate, which smoothes the ramp and reduces the noise. No settling time is needed, as would be the case for clocked comparators, but the low bandwidth enhances the distortion of the non-linear portion. This is corrected by use of a return lookup table, which differs from the one used to generate the ramp. The return lookup table is obtained by calibrating against a stepped precision DC reference. This results in a residual non-linearity well below the quantization noise. This method can also compensate for differential non-linearity (DNL) in the DAC used to generate the ramp. The use of a ramp with a combination of linear and quadratic portions for a single-slope ADC is novel. The number of steps is minimized by keeping the step size just below the photon shot noise. This in turn maximizes the speed of the conversion. High resolution is maintained by keeping small quantization steps at low signals, and noise is minimized by allowing the lowest analog bandwidth, all without increasing the quantization noise. A calibrated return lookup table allows the system to maintain excellent linearity.

Wrigley, Chris J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Discovery of Activities via Statistical Clustering of Fixation Patterns

Human behavior often consists of a series of distinct activities, each characterized by a unique signature of visual behavior. This is true even in a restricted domain, such as piloting an aircraft, where patterns of visual signatures might represent activities like communicating, navigating, and monitoring. We propose a novel analysis method for gaze-tracking data, to perform blind discovery of these activities based on their behavioral signatures. The method is in some respects similar to recurrence analysis, but here we compare not individual fixations, but groups of fixations aggregated over a fixed time interval. The duration of this interval is a parameter that we will refer to as τ. We assume that the environment has been divided into a set of N different areas-of-interest (AOIs). For a given interval of time of duration τ, we compute the proportion of time spent fixating each AOI, resulting in an N-dimensional vector. These proportions can be converted to counts by multiplying by τ divided by the average fixation duration (another parameter that we fix at 280 milliseconds). We compare different intervals by computing the chi-square statistic. The p-value associated with the statistic is the likelihood of observing the data under the hypothesis that the data in the two intervals were generated by a single process with a single set of probabilities governing the fixation of each AOI. We have investigated the method using a set of 10 synthetic "activities," that sample 4 AOIs. Four of these activities visit 3 of the 4 AOIs, with equal probability; as there are four different ways to leave-one- out, there are four such activities. Similarly, there are six different activities that leave-two-out. Sequences of simulated behavior were generated by running each activity for 40 seconds, in sequence, for a total of 6.7 minutes. The figure to the right shows the matrix of chi-square statistics, using a value of 2.8 seconds for τ, corresponding to 10 fixations. Low values (dark) indicate poor evidence for activity differences, while high values (bright) indicate strong evidence. The dark squares along the main diagonal each correspond to the forty second intervals in which the activity was held constant; the 4x4 block at the lower left corresponds to the four leave-one-out activities, while the 6x6 block in the upper right corresponds to the leave-two-out activities. (The anti-diagonal pattern of white squares indicates those activity pairs that share no AOIs.) The chi-square values can be binarized by choosing a particular significance level; we are interested in grouping bins that represent the same activity, effectively accepting the null hypothesis. Therefore, we may adopt a relatively lax criterion; for example, choosing a p-value of 0.2 means that two behaviors that have only a 1-in-5 chance of being produced by a single activity might nevertheless be clustered together. We have explored several methods to perform clustering on the data and solving for the activity probabilities. Greedy methods begin by selecting the time bin that is similar to the most (or least) other bins, and then forming a cluster from it and all other non-discriminable bins. These methods show mediocre performance, as they do not take into account temporal contiguity. Preliminary results indicate that methods that "grow" clusters in time from seed points perform better.

activity analysis↗
NASA NTRS2002

Analysis of Parallel Burn Without Crossfeed TSTO RLV Architectures and Comparison to Parallel Burn With Crossfeed and Series Burn Architectures

There are currently three dominant TSTO class architectures. These are Series Burn (SB), Parallel Burn with crossfeed (PBw/cf), and Parallel Burn without crossfeed (PBncf). The goal of this study was to determine what factors uniquely affect PBncf architectures, how each of these factors interact, and to determine from a performance perspective whether a PBncf vehicle could be competitive with a PBw/cf or SB vehicle using equivalent technology and assumptions. In all cases, performance was evaluated on a relative basis for a fixed payload and mission by comparing gross and dry vehicle masses of a closed vehicle. Propellant combinations studied were LOX: LH2 propelled orbiter and booster (HH) and LOX: Kerosene booster with LOX: LH2 orbiter (KH). The study conclusions were: 1) a PBncf orbiter should be throttled as deeply as possible after launch until the staging point. 2) a detailed structural model is essential to accurate architecture analysis and evaluation. 3) a PBncf TSTO architecture is feasible for systems that stage at mach 7. 3a) HH architectures can achieve a mass growth relative to PBw/cf of < 20%. 3b) KH architectures can achieve a mass growth relative to Series Burn of < 20%. 4) center of gravity (CG) control will be a major issue for a PBncf vehicle, due to the low orbiter specific thrust to weight ratio and to the position of the orbiter required to align the nozzle heights at liftoff. 5 ) thrust to weight ratios of 1.3 at liftoff and between 1.0 and 0.9 when staging at mach 7 appear to be close to ideal for PBncf vehicles. 6) performance for all vehicles studied is better when staged at mach 7 instead of mach 5. The study showed that a Series Burn architecture has the lowest gross mass for HH cases, and has the lowest dry mass for KH cases. The potential disadvantages of SB are the required use of an air-start for the orbiter engines and potential CG control issues. A Parallel Burn with crossfeed architecture solves both these problems, but the mechanics of a large bipropellant crossfeed system pose significant technical difficulties. Parallel Burn without crossfeed vehicles start both booster and orbiter engines on the ground and thus avoid both the risk of orbiter air-start and the complexity of a crossfeed system. The drawback is that the orbiter must use 20% to 35% of its propellant before reaching the staging point. This induces a weight penalty in the orbiter in order to carry additional propellant, which causes a further weight penalty in the booster to achieve the same staging point. One way to reduce the orbiter propellant consumption during the first stage is to throttle down the orbiter engines as much as possible. Another possibility is to use smaller or fewer engines. Throttling the orbiter engines soon after liftoff minimizes CG control problems due to a low orbiter liftoff thrust, but may result in an unnecessarily high orbiter thrust after staging. Reducing the number or size of engines size may cause CG control problems and drift at launch. The study suggested possible methods to maximize performance of PBncf vehicle architectures in order to meet mission design requirements.

Smith, Garrett↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Airspace Complexity and Determining Contributing Factors

The national airspace has evolved over many years to accommodate increased traffic demand [1] while simultaneously maintaining one of the safest forms of transportation [2], [3]. One of the reasons for this success is the ability of the system and the operators to adapt and accommodate to situations that routinely disrupt optimal operations. These situations may include: adverse weather, delays, early arrivals, equipment outages, and other factors that are outside the operators ability to control. These factors can lead to states where automation is unable to properly handle these issues and therefore air traffic controllers and pilots have to intervene, ultimately increasing communication between operators resulting in higher workload. As controller workload increases to handle sub-optimal operating conditions this can be viewed as an increase in complexity. The reasoning for this is because humans are now required to make tactical decisions in response to external factors, resulting in a departure from the strategic plan where operations would be more efficiently managed. Human operators control airspace complexity under rigid regulations that are constantly changing. The airspace is divided into sectors and the number of aircraft assigned to each controller is limited for safe handling. There has been past work that devised airspace complexity metrics in commercial aviation and related these metrics to controller workload (e.g., [4],[5]). The upper bounds on the system load are pre-determined. Such bounds on complexity make for a safe system, but the system cannot scale and adapt to autonomous, dense, and heterogeneous traffic, including the many types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) envisioned to be added to the operations. We hypothesize that, as traffic density and heterogeneity grow, and other key metrics change, there will be phase transitions at which the way traffic should be managed changes significantly [6]. We offer a method for in-time detection of contributing factors that lead to phase transitions, characterized by increased complexity. To the best of our knowledge, there is no tool similar to our proposed effort that identifies such contributing factors or precursor patterns. To define the scope we are proposing to measure complexity from the viewpoint of the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) controller’s perspective. In particular we are analyzing arrivals into KSFO. With safety as the top concern for airspace operators, it is important to recognize that as density and heterogeneity grow, the focus of the system will change. Times of the day when the airspace has low density and heterogeneity, the flights will follow more efficient paths where the aircraft move on established routes that are more or less directly to the destination. However, when density and heterogeneity increases, the system will begin changing focus to avoiding conflicts and collisions and route the flights in a more flexible way. Higher flexibility requires more communication and coordination between controllers and pilots which the current automation is unable to handle. This paper proposes a novel approach that monitors airspace complexity at multiple scales, uses a Machine Learning-based tool that predicts when operations will transition to a regime of greater complexity, and identifies actions that can reduce the complexity while still maintaining efficient and safe operations. We demonstrate our proposed approach using data from multiple complementary sources. This includes, but is not limited to: historical aircraft surveillance data from NASA’s Sherlock Data Warehouse [7], METAR weather data, and airport configuration data from Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM). The surveillance data flight paths are sampled at a variable sample rate — increasing as the aircraft approaches the airport. This is due to how Sherlock manages flight track stitching between different radar facilities which have different sampling rates. The weather and performance data are logged at defined intervals throughout the day at a courser refresh rate. In addition to the logged data and metrics, we leverage pre-defined Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) procedures to characterize the path of each flight. Each flight files for one of these routes in the flight plan well before entering the terminal airspace, and approximately follows the route until it leaves the STAR, typically on the final fix of a runway transition. However, most flights do not always fly the full STAR procedure to completion [8], but the majority do adhere to the fixes within the common route of the procedure. Our approach leverages fixes in the common route of each of the STARs to build a reference path to the airport. This allows us to characterize the flight paths in what we are defining as the “maneuvering area” (the airspace between the STAR and before the flight is lined up on the runway’s final approach) to determine how off nominal the flights are to calculate its complexity score. Determining airspace complexity is a concept that does not have a concrete answer. In designing this metric, we consider what increases the workload for the air traffic controllers. Consequently more specialized vectoring maneuvers results in higher workload. Accordingly, we start with a theory: each flight has a direct path it takes from the STAR’s common route to the final approach’s outer marker fix for the flight’s landing runway. It is important to note that the direct path is only used as a reference. If the majority of the flights have a large consistent offset as compared to other routes it does not necessarily mean that those flights have higher complexity. We are merely building a distribution based on this direct path for that particular STAR and runway pair to determine the normal mode of operations for that route. Flights that are in the upper tail of these distributions will result in higher complexity scores and flights that fly in the median will represent the normal mode of operations and therefore will have lower complexity scores. Since flights following each STAR route take different paths to the airport, we have a different distribution for each STAR route and therefore can model these distributions to compute a complexity score from their respective normalized distributions. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed airspace complexity metric we will compare against an established approach based on trajectory clustering [9]. This unsupervised learning technique consists of the following steps: (1) identify the general maneuvering areas (waypoints) by performing $\kappa$-means or DBSCAN clustering on locations where aircraft frequently turn based on the surveillance radar track data, (2) map flight trajectories onto sequences of waypoints, and (3) cluster the sequences based on their common subsequences. From a high-level perspective, this baseline model learns nominal operations in the airspace through the sequence of waypoints that are representative of where aircraft change direction and defines deviations from the nominal operations as “complex.” Therefore, more deviations from the nominal operations correspond to higher complexity values. For our validation, we re-implemented this technique and tune model hyper-parameters to correctly detect waypoints for the arrival traffic into the San Francisco bay area. We will compute the complexity measure over a one-year period using our proposed technique as well as the baseline. Our validation will be based on each technique’s ability to detect a set of undesirable outcomes (e.g., go-arounds, holding patterns, average time in the airspace, etc.). Since our current complexity metric is derived from the offset from the direct reference path, it’s important to understand what causes these offsets. In many of the flights with high offset distance, flights performing holding patterns and S turns can be observed. These maneuvering tactics are utilized to add distance between the aircraft and the destination runway to prevent multiple flights from having conflicting arrival times. In order to predict a rise in complexity (or the precursor to complexity), it’s necessary to be able to identify these potential conflicts (which in turn, result in higher offsets). To do this, we define a “representative flight” for each STAR route and runway pair. This flight is approximately the path the flight would take if there was a clear path with no other flights in the airspace — including the time remaining to the airport. We first identify the flights for a given STAR runway pair using the offset to the reference path distributions that fall between the 44-55 percentiles. This yields the flights that conform to the most normal mode of operation. Each of these flights is partitioned based on the percent complete from the entry point into the maneuvering areas from 0\% – 100\% complete. Then for each percent “bin”, we take the median value of the flight’s latitude/longitude coordinates, airspeed, and (non causal) time remaining to the airport to construct a lookup table for each percent complete bin on a given route. As a flight enters the maneuvering area, we can find the estimated arrival time of a flight to the airport by finding the closest point to the representative path’s percent complete bin (relative to the flight’s current position at any snapshot in the airspace) and therefore retrieve the corresponding remaining time left on the “representative path”. We assume that the flight will follow the representative path to completion when deriving these estimates. We can then compare these estimated arrival times against other flights for the same snapshot in time to identify potential conflicts. If more flights are estimated to arrive within a tolerance window than there are runways available, then we have a potential conflict. We can use this derived measure along with other factors expected to add disruption to the operation such as weather and runway configuration changes as an input to machine learning tools to detect precursors that increases in our complexity measure. This novel method will assist in uncovering insights into the contributing factors that lead to increased complexity that may allow for in-time responses to avoid reaching a high complexity state in the airspace.

complexity↗
NASA NTRS2012

Space Launch System Accelerated Booster Development Cycle

With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA is seeking to reinvigorate the national space program and recapture the public s interest in human space exploration by developing missions to the Moon, near-earth asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars, and beyond. The would-be successor to the Space Shuttle, NASA s Constellation Program, planned to take humans back to the Moon by 2020, but due to budgetary constraints was cancelled in 2010 in search of a more "affordable, sustainable, and realistic" concept2. Following a number of studies, the much anticipated Space Launch System (SLS) was unveiled in September of 2011. The SLS core architecture consists of a cryogenic first stage with five Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), and a cryogenic second stage using a new J-2X engine3. The baseline configuration employs two 5-segment solid rocket boosters to achieve a 70 metric ton payload capability, but a new, more capable booster system will be required to attain the goal of 130 metric tons to orbit. To this end, NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center recently released a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) entitled "Space Launch System (SLS) Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction." The increased emphasis on affordability is evident in the language used in the NRA, which is focused on risk reduction "leading to an affordable Advanced Booster that meets the evolved capabilities of SLS" and "enabling competition" to "enhance SLS affordability. The purpose of the work presented in this paper is to perform an independent assessment of the elements that make up an affordable and realistic path forward for the SLS booster system, utilizing advanced design methods and technology evaluation techniques. The goal is to identify elements that will enable a more sustainable development program by exploring the trade space of heavy lift booster systems and focusing on affordability, operability, and reliability at the system and subsystem levels5. For this study, affordability is defined as lifecycle cost, which includes design, development, test, and engineering (DDT&E), production and operational costs (P&O). For this study, the system objectives include reducing DDT&E schedule by a factor of three, showing 99.9% reliability, flying up to four times per year, serving both crew and cargo missions, and evolving to a lift capability of 130 metric tons.3 After identifying gaps in the current system s capabilities, this study seeks to identify non-traditional and innovative technologies and processes that may improve performance in these areas and assess their impacts on booster system development. The DDT&E phase may be improved by incorporating incremental development testing and integrated demonstrations to mitigate risk. To further reduce DDT&E, this study will also consider how aspects of the booster system may have commonality with other users, such as the Department of Defense, commercial applications, or international partners; by sharing some of the risk and investment, the overall development cost may be reduced. Consideration is not limited to solid and liquid rocket boosters. A set of functional performance characteristics, such as engine thrust, specific impulse (Isp), mixture ratio, and throttle range are identified and their impacts on the system are evaluated. This study also identifies how such characteristics affect overall life cycle cost, including DDT&E and fixed and variable P&O.

Arockiam, Nicole↗