Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Capability”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Validation of MPACT BWR capabilities against critical experiments

Over the years, significant validation work for the neutronics code MPACT has been performed against zero-power critical benchmarks and measured data from operating nuclear power plants. As a part of the Modeling and Analysis of Exelon BWRs for Eigenvalue and Thermal Limits Predictability project, new validation efforts relevant to boiling water reactor (BWR) core applications have been performed. This paper presents the results of the critical experiment portion of the BWR validation efforts for MPACT. The Kritz-4 experiments and IPEN/MB-01 BWR-relevant configurations are modeled with MPACT. The Kritz-4 BWR critical experiments were performed at both cold and hot conditions, which is a unique feature among other critical experiment facilities. The MPACT results with linear source (LS) Method of Characteristics (MOC) have very good agreement with the measured criticality. When using the 60-group BWR library with LS and P2 scattering, the maximum k{sub eff} error is 109 pcm, and the average cold-hot bias is only -0.11 pcm/K. The fission rate distributions of MPACT are also verified with Serpent calculations. For the IPEN facility, two configurations are considered: one with a large central void, and one with a cruciform control rod. The MPACT k{sub eff} errors are less than 50 pcm for all IPEN problems. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Towards Resilient Design of Leader-following Consensus with Attack Identification and Privacy Preservation Capabilities

This paper considers a leader-following consensus in the presence of unknown but bounded cyber-attacks. Specifically, we consider the following cyber-attack scenarios: (i) an attacker aims to destabilize the consensus dynamics by injecting exogenous signals to both the actuators of the followers and/or the communication network, (ii) an eavesdropper adversary aims to obtain information on the physical state of the agents. To this end, a novel resilient leader-following consensus algorithm based on a competitive interaction method is proposed. In addition, it is demonstrated that by appropriately choosing the information exchanged between the agents, the proposed control framework also enables the cooperative system to either distributively identify the compromised communication links in real-time or to protect the privacy of the physical state of the agents from the eavesdropper. Here, a numerical example is provided to illustrate the proposed resilient control algorithms.

Gusrialdi, Azwirman↗
NASA NTRS2008

Ares V: Progress Toward a Heavy Lift Capability for the Heavy Lift Capability for the Moon and Beyond

The NASA Ares Projects are developing the launch vehicles to move the United States and humanity beyond low earth orbit. Ares 1 is a crewed vehicle, and Ares V is a heavy-lift vehicle being designed to send crews and cargo to the Moon. The Ares V design is evolving and maturing toward an authority-to-proceed milestone in 2011. The Ares V vehicle will be considered a national asset, opening new worlds and creating unmatched opportunities for human exploration, science, national security, and space business.

Sumrall, Phil↗
NASA NTRS2015

Implementing NASA's Capability-Driven Approach: Insight into NASA's Processes for Maturing Exploration Systems

NASA is engaged in transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities focused on low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves more than the daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. This shift also requires a change in operating processes for NASA. The Agency can no longer afford to engineer systems for specific missions and destinations and instead must focus on common capabilities that enable a range of destinations and missions. NASA has codified a capability driven approach, which provides flexible guidance for the development and maturation of common capabilities necessary for human pioneers beyond LEO. This approach has been included in NASA policy and is captured in the Agency's strategic goals. It is currently being implemented across NASA's centers and programs. Throughout 2014, NASA engaged in an Agency-wide process to define and refine exploration-related capabilities and associated gaps, focusing only on those that are critical for human exploration beyond LEO. NASA identified 12 common capabilities ranging from Environmental Control and Life Support Systems to Robotics, and established Agency-wide teams or working groups comprised of subject matter experts that are responsible for the maturation of these exploration capabilities. These teams, called the System Maturation Teams (SMTs) help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the identified exploration capabilities. The SMTs are defining performance parameters and goals for each of the 12 capabilities, developing maturation plans and roadmaps for the identified performance gaps, specifying the interfaces between the various capabilities, and ensuring that the capabilities mature and integrate to enable future pioneering missions. By managing system development through the SMTs instead of traditional NASA programs and projects, the Agency is shifting from mission-driven development to a more flexible, capability-driven development. The process NASA uses to establish, integrate, prioritize, and manage the SMTs and associated capabilities is iterative. NASA relies on the Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate's SMT Integration Team within Advanced Exploration Systems to coordinate and facilitate the SMT process. The SMT Integration team conducts regular reviews and coordination meetings among the SMTs and has developed a number of tools to help the Agency implement capability driven processes. The SMT Integration team is uniquely positioned to help the Agency coordinate the SMTs and other processes that are making the capability-driven approach a reality. This paper will introduce the SMTs and the 12 key capabilities they represent. The role of the SMTs will be discussed with respect to Agency-wide processes to shift from mission-focused exploration to a capability-driven pioneering approach. Specific examples will be given to highlight systems development and testing within the SMTs. These examples will also show how NASA is using current investments in the International Space Station and future investments to develop and demonstrate capabilities. The paper will conclude by describing next steps and a process for soliciting feedback from the space exploration community to refine NASA's process for developing common exploration capabilities.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommended Crew Systems Capabilities for a 30 to 90 Day Four-Crew Lunar Surface Mission

For any given surface mission duration, there exists a set of surface capabilities necessary to sustain a four-person crew for the length of time the crew is on the surface. Identifying these capabilities is important to mission planners and spacecraft design engineers responsible for lunar surface habitation elements, who need to know which systems and capabilities must be prioritized for the vehicles they are designing. However, simply identifying the surface capabilities does not necessarily equal a viable surface configuration. These capabilities may or may not satisfy stakeholder expectations or even permit completion of mission objectives. Lunar lander cargo mass constraints are a powerful forcing function that requires significant efforts to reduce the mass of all surface elements, including those supporting crew habitation. The required capabilities do increase as a function of mission duration, but it is a nonlinear growth. There are key points in mission duration, beyond which certain additional capabilities are needed. This forms bands of capability between each point. Within a given band, the same functional capabilities are needed, and the only scaling is that associated with daily consumables. The next higher band requires additional capabilities. This paper will focus on those capabilities needed for missions of 30-90 days. It should be noted that there are some uncertainties interpreting NASA requirements that require capabilities after a certain number of days, as typically this refers to number of days in space, not number of days on the lunar surface. Depending on transportation architecture, the number of days between Earth launch and lunar surface landing may vary, therefore impacting when certain required capabilities are implemented. However, activities to prepare humans for missions to Mars and commercial interest in lunar development may drive progressive increases in surface duration. Missions up to 30 days are expected to follow the initial 6.5-day surface missions and there may be commercial interest in extending to even greater durations. This paper will examine the potential case of a 30-90-day surface mission duration with respect to the systems necessary to support crew living and working on the lunar surface.

Habitat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploration Capabilities Data Analysis: An Integrated Approach

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is necessary to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for human sustainability on the lunar surface, as well as on eventual missions to send humans to Mars. Guided by Space Policy Directive-1 and through the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Artemis program, the advancement and development of technologies on the lunar surface will be leveraged towards technologies and knowledge needed for humans to successfully and safely go to Mars and return. In order to understand the capability needs for lunar and Mars missions, the Capabilities Integration Team identifies integration approaches and overlaps between missions to develop strategies for advancing key capabilities that support those needs. Since 2013, the Capabilities Integration Team has reached out to subject matter experts, principal technologists, and system capability leadership teams throughout NASA to gather information about the critical technologies and capabilities needed in order to support the lunar and Mars exploration missions. To properly gather this data, the Capabilities Integration Team used a capability-driven approach to identify gaps between the current state of the art and the needs of proposed exploration missions, as well as activities that may close those gaps. These inputs are used to shape technology investment strategies and are incorporated in missions to the lunar and Mars surfaces. Data collected included: gap definitions and identifying information; gap closure information and metrics for success; mapping of gaps to elements of NASA's Artemis program and future exploration architecture. . The data collected, specifically from the technology gap list, has been used to support the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution processes, as well as the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate Strategic Technology Plans. This paper discusses the integration approach used by the Capabilities Integration Team to identify current capability gaps for the Moon to Mars architecture and what capabilities exist or must be developed to support those architecture needs. In addition, this paper also details the performance, gap characterization, current capability gap closure opportunities, and risk impacts towards Artemis, and the overall Moon to Mars architecture.

Gregory Benjamin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of Predictive Simulation Capability Development for Crater Evolution and Ejecta in Continuum/Rarefied Flows

As part of the Game Changing Development (GCD) Program, funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), the development of simulation capability for the prediction of extra-terrestrial Plume Surface Interaction (PSI) environments has been undertaken by the Fluid Dynamics Branch at NASA/MSFC. The Predictive Simulation Capability (PSC) Element is focused on creating simulation capability for the reliable and accurate prediction of PSI in Martian (~650 Pa) and Lunar (vacuum) ambient environments. In addition to the predictive simulation capability, the GCD Program also contains a companion Ground Testing Element for development of focused datasets for validation of predictive capability as well as a Flight-focused Instrumentation Element. The focus of this paper is to provide an overview and a brief status on one area of capability development through this GCD PSI project - capturing the effects of mixed continuum/rarefied flow on crater development and ejecta sheets. This includes both capability enhancements and maturation of the predictive tool, Loci/GGFS, into a production capable tool as well as validation of the tool against PSI data in Martian and Lunar environments. There are six newly developed capabilities that will be production ready by the end of the fiscal year. Newly developed capabilities must first be verified prior to being production ready, and this process includes capability demonstration, solution verification, and performance evaluation. An overview of the newly developed capabilities with respect to several test cases, including cratering simulations of the Apollo Lunar Module, will be presented. Several validation analyses have been performed to validate in Martian and more Lunar-like environments, including simulations of cratering from a subsonic flow test at Planetary Aeolian Lab (PAL) conducted in a Martian-like environment and pre-test cratering predictions of Physics Focused Ground Test (PFGT) tests planned to be performed in Martian-like and more Lunar-like environments. An overview of these validation analyses as it pertains to the capability development will be presented.

Andrew Weaver↗
NASA NTRS2016

Graphical Visualization of Human Exploration Capabilities

NASA's pioneering space strategy will require advanced capabilities to expand the boundaries of human exploration on the Journey to Mars (J2M). The Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) architecture serves as a framework to identify critical capabilities that need to be developed and tested in order to enable a range of human exploration destinations and missions. Agency-wide System Maturation Teams (SMT) are responsible for the maturation of these critical exploration capabilities and help formulate, guide and resolve performance gaps associated with the EMC-identified capabilities. Systems Capability Organization Reporting Engine boards (SCOREboards) were developed to integrate the SMT data sets into cohesive human exploration capability stories that can be used to promote dialog and communicate NASA's exploration investments. Each SCOREboard provides a graphical visualization of SMT capability development needs that enable exploration missions, and presents a comprehensive overview of data that outlines a roadmap of system maturation needs critical for the J2M. SCOREboards are generated by a computer program that extracts data from a main repository, sorts the data based on a tiered data reduction structure, and then plots the data according to specified user inputs. The ability to sort and plot varying data categories provides the flexibility to present specific SCOREboard capability roadmaps based on customer requests. This paper presents the development of the SCOREboard computer program and shows multiple complementary, yet different datasets through a unified format designed to facilitate comparison between datasets. Example SCOREboard capability roadmaps are presented followed by a discussion of how the roadmaps are used to: 1) communicate capability developments and readiness of systems for future missions, and 2) influence the definition of NASA's human exploration investment portfolio through capability-driven processes. The paper concludes with a description of planned future work to modify the computer program to include additional data and of alternate capability roadmap formats currently under consideration.

Rodgers, Erica M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Critical Ablative TPS Capabilities Sustainment - An Approach to Playing the Long Game

Historically, we have been pound foolish and penny wise for decades, and it is time to reverse this. We present an approach that will maintain critical NASA ablative TPS capabilities through small, sustained, smart and targeted investment. NASA’s ablative TPS history is one of developing new capabilities and letting them atrophy. When needed, there are two options: (1) revive the capability at considerable cost impact or (2) develop an alternate capability with considerable schedule impact. Either of these options have had considerable mission impact. The third alternate is to maintain proven capabilities in a cost effective manner to allow the science community to propose missions with confidence. NASA and DoD have had a working group to periodically assess and make recommendations on at-risk items. This working group typically focuses on raw materials availability. While we agree that at-risk raw materials are an important and necessary part of the overall capability, focus solely on them is not sufficient. Instead, we advocate for a broader focus on the critical “technology capability” that includes not only raw material but also industrial manufacturing and processing capabilities and in-house expertise in design, testing and flight hardware certification. In this proposed presentation, we will highlight a case study related to PICA capability. We will present the rationale for sustaining PICA and HEEET as two minimum essential ablative TPS capabilities for future NASA missions. We will present an approach for how small investment could lead to maintaining mission critical capabilities over a longer period. While HEEET and PICA are NASA unique, the raw material and some of the vendor capabilities involved also support DoD TPS. Hence a partnership between NASA and DoD is recommended for broader benefit.

Ethiraj Venkatapathy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities

Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.

technology development↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Architecture Robustness in NASA’s Moon to Mars Capability Development – FY23 Data Results

In preparation for humanity’s return to the Moon, it is important to advance technologies and capabilities that will allow for sustainability on the lunar surface and prepare for human missions to Mars. As charged in Space Policy Directive-1, NASA’s Artemis program will advance and develop technologies on the lunar surface that can be leveraged towards a safe and successful human round-trip mission to Mars. NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Capabilities Integration Team (ESDMD CIT) is advancing a continuous effort to identify and map gaps between capabilities and anticipated human spaceflight architecture elements. As upcoming exploration missions approach, the architectural design tradespace increasingly narrows. This paper provides an updated exploration of certain architectural and element design choices for upcoming missions to the Moon and Mars, comparing and contrasting capability gaps and classes of capability gaps that are architecture robust with those that are not. In doing so, we identify certain capabilities as relevant, and therefore robust, across varying architectural possibilities while identifying other capabilities as only applicable to specific architectural pathways. Capabilities that are applicable to multiple elements across the architecture have more architectural breadth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if changes are made to some elements they are mapped to. Correspondingly, capabilities that are applicable to specific elements across the architecture but are necessary under almost any eventuality have more architectural depth because of their increased likelihood of remaining relevant even if architecture changes are made. One of the key analyses in this paper is an exploration of architecture robustness as a function of capability area, as defined by the NASA Technology Taxonomy. These results are then evaluated and analyzed across human spaceflight architecture elements to gain a greater understanding of the relationships between exploration capabilities and the systems that will eventually be implemented. Additional insights regarding investment strategies are also considered. General conclusions about these relationships are drawn.

Gaps↗
NASA NTRS2005

Human Exploration Systems and Mobility Capability Roadmap Progress Review

Contents include the following: Capability Roadmap Team. Capability Description and Capability Breakdown Structure. Benefits of the Human Systems and Mobility Capability. Roadmap Process and Approach. Drivers and Assumptions for the whole team. Current State-of-the-Art, Assumptions and Requirements will be covered in the appropriate sections. Capability Presentations by Leads under Roadmap (Repeated for each capability under roadmap). Capability Description, Benefits, Current State-of-the-Art. Capability Requirements and Assumptions. Roadmap for Capability. Capability Readiness Level. Technology Readiness Level. Figures of Merit. Summary of Top Level Capability. Significant Technical Challenges. Summary and Forward Work.

Culbert, Chris↗