SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “capabilities”

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 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

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

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↗

NASA NTRS2014

NASA's Space Launch System: A Cornerstone Capability for Exploration

Under construction today, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS), managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, will provide a robust new capability for human and robotic exploration beyond Earth orbit. The vehicle's initial configuration, scheduled for first launch in 2017, will enable human missions into lunar space and beyond, as well as provide game-changing benefits for space science missions, including offering substantially reduced transit times for conventionally designed spacecraft. From there, the vehicle will undergo a series of block upgrades via an evolutionary development process designed to expedite mission capture as capability increases. The Space Launch System offers multiple benefits for a variety of utilization areas. From a mass-lift perspective, the initial configuration of the vehicle, capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to low Earth orbit (LEO), will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle. Optimized for missions beyond Earth orbit, it will also be the world's only exploration-class launch vehicle capable of delivering 25 t to lunar orbit. The evolved configuration, with a capability of 130 t to LEO, will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown. From a volume perspective, SLS will be compatible with the payload envelopes of contemporary launch vehicles, but will also offer options for larger fairings with unprecedented volume-lift capability. The vehicle's mass-lift capability also means that it offers extremely high characteristic energy for missions into deep space. This paper will discuss the impacts that these factors - mass-lift, volume, and characteristic energy - have on a variety of mission classes, particularly human exploration and space science. It will address the vehicle's capability to enable existing architectures for deep-space exploration, such as those documented in the Global Exploration Roadmap, a capabilities-driven outline for future deep-space voyages created by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, which represents 12 of the world's space agencies. In addition, this paper will detail this new rocket's capability to support missions beyond the human exploration roadmap, including robotic precursor missions to other worlds or uniquely high-mass space operation facilities in Earth orbit. As this paper will explain, the SLS Program is currently building a global infrastructure asset that will provide robust space launch capability to deliver sustainable solutions for exploration.

Creech, Stephen D.↗

NASA NTRS2014

NASA Space Launch System: A Cornerstone Capability for Exploration

Under construction today, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS), managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, will provide a robust new capability for human and robotic exploration beyond Earth orbit. The vehicle's initial configuration, sched will enable human missions into lunar space and beyond, as well as provide game-changing benefits for space science missions, including offering substantially reduced transit times for conventionally designed spacecraft. From there, the vehicle will undergo a series of block upgrades via an evolutionary development process designed to expedite mission capture as capability increases. The Space Launch System offers multiple benefits for a variety of utilization areas. From a mass-lift perspective, the initial configuration of the vehicle, capable of delivering 70 metric tons (t) to low Earth orbit (LEO), will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle. Optimized for missions beyond Earth orbit, it will also be the world's only exploration-class launch vehicle capable of delivering 25 t to lunar orbit. The evolved configuration, with a capability of 130 t to LEO, will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown. From a volume perspective, SLS will be compatible with the payload envelopes of contemporary launch vehicles, but will also offer options for larger fairings with unprecedented volume-lift capability. The vehicle's mass-lift capability also means that it offers extremely high characteristic energy for missions into deep space. This paper will discuss the impacts that these factors - mass-lift, volume, and characteristic energy - have on a variety of mission classes, particularly human exploration and space science. It will address the vehicle's capability to enable existing architectures for deep-space exploration, such as those documented in the Global Exploration Roadmap, a capabilities-driven outline for future deep-space voyages created by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, which represents 14 of the world's space agencies. In addition, this paper will detail this new rocket's capability to support missions beyond the human exploration roadmap, including robotic precursor missions to other worlds or uniquely high-mass space operation facilities in Earth orbit. As this paper will explain, the SLS Program is currently building a global infrastructure asset that will provide robust space launch capability to deliver sustainable solutions for exploration.

Creech, Stephen D.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System Payload Stage Capability for Ultra-High Characteristic Energy Missions

The Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle is NASA’s cornerstone capability for a new era of human and robotic exploration of deep space. The unrivalled performance of SLS provides the capability to launch the first woman and next man to walk on the lunar surface and to support development of a sustained human presence in cislunar space, and ultimately human missions to Mars. As an evolvable capability with unique launch performance, the opportunities enabled by SLS also include game-changing benefits for science missions, including probes to the outer solar system and beyond. For the last two years, the SLS Program has worked with the Interstellar Probe team at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory(APL) to provide data that describe how SLS could support a mission that would break through the boundary of the heliosphere and into pristine interstellar space only a decade after launch, enabling earlier science return and greatly increasing spacecraft life in the interstellar medium. In record-breaking time, the ISP as launched on SLS may answer questions raised by the extended mission of NASA’s Voyager spacecraft. While SLS and its efficient Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) offer benefits for exploration of the outer planets, adding one or more additional stages to this architecture makes it even more capable for missions beyond our solar system, offering more realistically appealing flight times that would allow the mission scientists to reap the rewards of exploration. During the time the SLS Program has been working with the Interstellar Probe team, it has identified an expedited path to the Block 2 capability planned for the Interstellar Probe mission, and further matured performance numbers for diverse multi-stage configurations using a combination of commercially available liquid hydrogen (LH2)/liquid oxygen (LOX) upper stages and solid motor kick stages. That work has demonstrated the SLS payload stage capability provides significant benefits and opens trade space for multiple missions in consideration during planning for the next Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey. This presentation details the significant benefits SLS can provides for very high characteristic (C3) energy missions by coupling the capabilities of SLS to current commercial rocket propulsion stage systems. These capabilities are explored specifically in the context of an Interstellar Probe architecture in which a small, capable science probe, coupled with carefully tailored mission design trajectories, could be used to explore the outer solar system and the interstellar medium. The presentation will also address the operational logistics of integrating such a mission, explaining the options available for “non-standard” SLS payloads, including processing those with radioisotope power generators or additional propulsion stages. An SLS system overview and capabilities will be presented, along with vehicle configuration and orbit performance capability studies, explaining how SLS is enabling for a variety of high-energy science mission profiles, including launching an exploratory probe bound for interstellar space only a decade after launch.

Rob Stough↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support 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 may be closed 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 very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology vs when a mission element is also a strong consideration in which technologies should be pursued. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) capability areas include: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. These capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of ECLSS gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving the Fidelity of Capability & Resource Weighting in A Probalistic Risk Assessment Model for Spaceflight

INTRODUCTION NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to provide an evidence-based, data-driven estimate of how medical system capabilities affect mission outcomes. IMPACT maps condition incidence to available resources thereby facilitating the calculation of outcome metrics that allow the estimation of mission medical risk. Conditions can be nominally categorized as either treated or untreated depending on the availability of necessary diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. This categorization enables IMPACT to estimate the effect of various medical system configurations on mission outcomes such as crew mortality, disability, crew member down-time, return to duty/recovery, and need for evacuation. IMPACT currently employs an equal weighting, “partial credit” approach to define treatment in which each of the capabilities associated with a given condition contributes an equal amount to management of the condition. This feature enables IMPACT to report values in between “fully untreated” and “fully treated” based on the proportion of capabilities available within the model. However, as is normal in medical/clinical practice, not all individual capabilities contribute equally to medical care. For example, the ability to provide intramuscular epinephrine during an anaphylactic episode contributes more likelihood of overall management success than does the administration of oral diphenhydramine. We hypothesize that weighting the relative contribution of each capability to each specific condition will improve outcome prediction and therefore will better provide mission planners with more nuanced and accurate options when designing space medical systems. METHODS Using a five-point Fibonacci scaling sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8) subject matter experts from NASA’s Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) element assigned relative contribution weighting values to each identified capability within IMPACT. Since the relative importance of each capability varies depending on the specific condition, the resulting “partial” weighting was completed for more than 1,600 individual weighting assignments for 666 capabilities across 121 conditions. Each assignment required three-physician concurrence based on the overall importance of the capability to the diagnosis and management of the condition being considered and the difficulty with which it could be improvised by the crew. Once complete, 100,000 IMPACT simulations were run for a 6-month Lunar mission with a 30-day surface stay to evaluate the effect of this modification of the model. RESULTS Partial weighting significantly decreased predicted task time loss (TTL), evacuation, and loss of crew life without causing significant changes to the recommended medical system design. CONCLUSIONS The paucity of real-world referent data to support long-duration space missions of this type limits the ability to judge one predictive analytics method as superior to another. However, since the proposed method significantly reduces and optimizes outcome risks—without changing the medical system design—incorporating a partial weighting methodology is likely to provide a more accurate and operationally-relevant representation of medical risk without compromising IMPACTs ability to inform overarching medical system requirements.

Steller JG↗

NASA NTRS2005

Capability 9.4 Servicing

This paper presents viewgraphs on capability structure 9.4 servicing. The topics include: 1) Servicing Description; 2) Benefits of Servicing; 3) Drivers & Assumptions for Servicing; 4) Capability Breakdown Structure 9.4 Servicing; 5) Roadmap for Servicing; 6) 9.4 Servicing Critical Gaps; 7) Capability 9.4 Servicing; 8) Capability 9.4.1 Inspection; 9) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.1 Inspection; 10) Capability 9.4.2 Diagnostics; 11) State-of-the-Art/Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.2 Diagnostics; 12) Capability 9.4.3 Perform Planned Maintenance; 13) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.3 Perform Planned Maintenance; 14) Capability 9.4.4 Perform Unplanned Repair; 15) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.4 Perform Unplanned Repair; 16) Capability 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 17) Capability 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 18) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.5 Install Upgrade; 19) Capability 9.4.6 Planning, Logistics, Training; and 20) State-of-the-Art /Maturity Level /Capabilities for 9.4.6 Planning, Logistics, & Training;

Moe, Rud↗

NASA NTRS2007

Overview of Experimental Capabilities - Supersonics

This viewgraph presentation gives an overview of experimental capabilities applicable to the area of supersonic research. The contents include: 1) EC Objectives; 2) SUP.11: Elements; 3) NRA; 4) Advanced Flight Simulator Flexible Aircraft Simulation Studies; 5) Advanced Flight Simulator Flying Qualities Guideline Development for Flexible Supersonic Transport Aircraft; 6) Advanced Flight Simulator Rigid/Flex Flight Control; 7) Advanced Flight Simulator Rapid Sim Model Exchange; 8) Flight Test Capabilities Advanced In-Flight Infrared (IR) Thermography; 9) Flight Test Capabilities In-Flight Schlieren; 10) Flight Test Capabilities CLIP Flow Calibration; 11) Flight Test Capabilities PFTF Flowfield Survey; 12) Ground Test Capabilities Laser-Induced Thermal Acoustics (LITA); 13) Ground Test Capabilities Doppler Global Velocimetry (DGV); 14) Ground Test Capabilities Doppler Global Velocimetry (DGV); and 15) Ground Test Capabilities EDL Optical Measurement Capability (PIV) for Rigid/Flexible Decelerator Models.

Banks, Daniel W.↗

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems 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 may be closed 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 very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

LANDO: Developing Autonomous Payload Offloading Capabilities for Lunar Surface Operations

Introduction: The Lightweight Surface Manipulation System (LSMS) AutoNomy capabilities Development for surface Operations and construction (LANDO) project is an Early Career Initiative selected for funding by NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate. LANDO is developing a general-purpose autonomy framework applicable to serial and tension-actuated manipulation agents, that will be validated using an existing prototype of the LSMS-L35 (35-kg wrist lift capacity on the lunar surface [Fig. 1], sized for a Commercial Lunar Pay-load Services (CLPS) mission). The autonomous LSMS-L35 will be used to demonstrate autonomous payload handling capabilities for Lunar and other planetary surfaces, directly addressing STMD capability gaps in autonomous excavation and construction operations, advanced robotics and spacecraft autonomy technologies, and technologies supporting emerging space industries including the In-Space Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing national strategy. LSMS: The LSMS is a tension actuated robotic agent that is scalable (reach and lifting capacity in different gravity environments), versatile (types of surface operations), and reusable. Compared to serial arms, the LSMS provides significantly higher structural efficiency and mechanical advantage, enabling a greater payload lift capacity at a lower system mass. The LSMS is envisioned to be a crucial part of the excavation and construction portfolio, capable of supporting a variety of activities on the lunar surface. Autonomous payload handling is one of the first activities the LSMS can support that develops capabilities that are extensible to other surface operations. Payload handling is required to: remove payloads from a lander; place payloads on mobile agents for transport from a lander to construction site/assembly point; emplace payloads in their operational configuration, and aggregate components to create an asset. As an example of this critical gap, manifested CLPS missions do not currently have a ubiquitous payload offloading capability; payloads (excluding rovers) are designed to remain on the lander. Why Autonomy? Autonomous robotic systems capable of carrying out excavation and construction operations are a fundamental and critical capability required for realizing the NASA Artemis program vision to “emplace and build the infrastructure, systems, and robotic missions that can enable a sustained lunar surface presence.” While teleoperation is still feasible for lunar surface operations, increased latency at Mars will require validated supervised autonomous technologies capable of operating with minimal human involvement (human-on-the-loop) unless an unexpected event occurs requiring human intervention. Autonomy reduces operator burden, allows operations to continue during uncrewed periods, in-creases the safety of operations by automatically detecting and handling faults, and allows operating in high latency environments. Development Activities: LANDO is extending critical autonomous operations to the manipulation domain and creating an integrated system, based on reusable software modules, that is capable of planning and executing payload handling and autonomous surface operations without requiring hu-man intervention beyond a supervisory role. The priority features under development are 1) autonomously offload payloads from a tilted lander deck without buckling the LSMS; 2) sensing whether a payload is safe to lift and handle; and 3) integrate with Astrobotic’s CLPS lander. The poster presentation will highlight current development activities over the past year on LSMS-L35 prototype hard-ware design, and autonomy software.

in-space assembly↗

NASA NTRS2023

Identifying and Closing Medical Capability Gaps for Human Spaceflight Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbit

BACKGROUND: Features of human space missions beyond low Earth orbit such as increasing distance from Earth, lack of real-time communication, and limited or no evacuation or resupply capability are expected to drive an increase in medical risk and require crews to operate in an increasingly autonomous fashion. A diverse set of stakeholders at NASA are seeking to fund the development of concepts of operations, medical requirements, and medical capabilities for such missions. However, a systematic approach to identification of current medical capability gaps and a strategic framework to gap closure is needed. OVERVIEW: The Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) has developed a list of nine high-level medical capability gaps and associated activities required for gap closure. The list was derived based on inputs from subject matter experts at NASA including flight surgeons, other clinical providers, as well as operational and research communities regarding medical capabilities required to support human missions to the Moon and the Mars surface. Responses were reviewed and distilled to identify common themes across capabilities. To ensure alignment with established human system risks, the gap list was further refined based on inputs from NASA’s Human System Risk Board. Relevant medical gap closure activities outside of those funded by the XMIPT were identified through solicitation of inputs from Elements of NASA’s Human Research Program (particularly Exploration Medical Capability), the broader medical operations community, and other stakeholders. This medical capability gap list is reviewed and updated regularly as new information becomes available or new stakeholders are identified. DISCUSSION: The medical capability gap list has matured to include a large group of NASA stakeholders and development activities. This has enabled articulation of priorities to funding entities and programmatic stakeholders, while serving as an accessible resource summarizing gap closure activities, relevant programmatic infusion points, and opportunities for collaboration between stakeholders. This presentation will provide an overview of the nine NASA medical capability gaps and their associated gap closure activities.

Moriah Thompson↗

NASA NTRS2024

Testing of Advanced Capabilities to Enable In-time Safety Management and Assurance for Future Flight Operations

In order to refine an initial Concept of Operations, explore Concepts of Use, and expose/validate requirements for future In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS), testing architectures were created, along with a set of capabilities and underlying information exchange protocols. These systems were conceived and developed based on hazards associated with two envisioned urban area flight domains: (1) highly autonomous small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) operating at low altitudes, and (2) highly autonomous air taxis. The initial scope of this development is described in [1]; this report provides an update, focusing on the subsequent developments and test activities. As stated in [1], it is important to note that there are many capabilities already in use by the industry (or soon to be in use) that will play critical roles in future IASMS designs. Those reported here were developed to address a gap in the current state-of-the-art regarding specific hazards/risks, and/or to allow for investigation of the interplay between and across hazard types — particularly regarding how overall safety risk can be reduced or managed effectively. Results of testing and development activities are organized by the operational phase wherein a particular capability would be employed (i.e., preflight, in-flight, and post-flight/off-line). Pre-flight: A set of capabilities were developed to help mitigate safety risk prior to flight (e.g., during flight and mission planning). Results of testing summarize (1) validation activities to raise the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and (2) evaluation activities where the capabilities were applied to flight/mission planning procedures and used by operators/pilots. For the latter, flight plans were automatically assessed, and operators/pilots were notified of hazardous flight segments so as to enable adjustment of the flight plan and re-evaluation, and/or to better inform go/no-go decisions. Capabilities addressed hazards associated with power consumption, third-party risk, wind, navigation system performance, radiofrequency interference, and proximity to geo-spatial threats (e.g., buildings, trees, and no-fly zones). In-flight: Flight experiments tested capabilities that detect and respond to hazards encountered during flight. In the first series, safety hazards were monitored and assessed onboard, and system-generated mitigation maneuvers were recorded (but not acted upon by the vehicle). In the second series, mitigation maneuver commands directed the aircraft in response to safety hazards (i.e., auto-mitigation). The sUAS used for testing is described in full, as is the test architecture, which included commercial avionics, research avionics, and onboard software designed to detect, assess, and respond to hazards. The onboard system was designed as a run-time assurance framework, consistent with [2] and supportive of both supervisory and automated modes. The primary functions included: real-time risk assessment (RTRA), auto-pilot monitoring, constraint monitoring, and contingency select/triggering. RTRA performs integrated risk assessment considering data from several hazard-related monitors (e.g., battery, motors, navigation, communications, population density, and loss-of-control). Post-flight/off-line: Data monitored and recorded during flights can enable IASMS capabilities that execute after flights have completed (or “off-line”). These include: (1) the ability to identify anomalies and trends that may only be observable when comparing data spanning a number of similar flights; (2) the ability to update and validate pre-flight and in-flight capabilities and any underlying models to improve their performance; (3) the ability to report anomalies/off-nominals that may indicate design changes or maintenance actions are needed; and (4) the ability for humans involved in operations to report safety-relevant observations to help in understanding the flight data and/or the operational context of a flight. Progress on three such capabilities is summarized; the first investigates anomaly detection given a limited set of flight logs and applies an approach previously used for space operations. The second explores what could be identified using a larger set of flight logs, including from web-based forums where flight logs are posted by sUAS autopilot users. The third creates a new means of collecting information on UAS incidents and accidents via the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).

sUAS↗

NASA NTRS2006

Integrated System Health Management (ISHM): Systematic Capability Implementation

This paper provides a credible approach for implementation of ISHM capability in any system. The requirements and processes to implement ISHM capability are unique in that a credible capability is initially implemented at a low level, and it evolves to achieve higher levels by incremental augmentation. In contrast, typical capabilities, such as thrust of an engine, are implemented once at full Functional Capability Level (FCL), which is not designed to change during the life of the product. The approach will describe core ingredients (e.g. technologies, architectures, etc.) and when and how ISHM capabilities may be implemented. A specific architecture/taxonomy/ontology will be described, as well as a prototype software environment that supports development of ISHM capability. This paper will address implementation of system-wide ISHM as a core capability, and ISHM for specific subsystems as expansions and evolution, but always focusing on achieving an integrated capability.

Figueroa, Fernando↗

DOE OSTI2025

New developments and verification of fusion blanket simulation capabilities in the MOOSE framework

Multiphysics modeling capabilities have a crucial role to play in the accelerated deployment of fusion energy. To that end, we developed new multiphysics fusion blanket simulation capabilities in the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE). Firstly, we expanded on the existing capabilities of the previously published work, by coupling 3D tritium transport modeling capabilities using the Tritium Migration Analysis Program, version 8 (TMAP8) to an existing tool including thermal hydraulics, fully three-dimensional (3D) heat transfer, and loosely coupled neutronics analysis. Secondly, we performed a thorough verification of the new capabilities and increased testing code coverage to meet MOOSE’s software quality standards. The MOOSE framework follows a strict software quality assurance plan to be Nuclear Quality Assurance, Level 1 compliant. The new multiphysics fusion blanket simulation capabilities are now held to the same standard. Thirdly, to demonstrate MOOSE’s new fusion blanket modeling capabilities, we performed a fully integrated, multiphysics simulation of a 3D solid ceramic breeder blanket design. This proof-of-concept simulation provides the temperature and tritium distribution across the blanket. In conclusion, the combined efforts towards software quality and the development of multiphysics coupling capabilities provide an effective and reliable framework for modeling solid ceramic fusion blankets using MOOSE.

modeling and simulation↗