Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “partnership development”

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 379 records · Page 21

QuEST: Qualifying Environmentally Sustainable Technologies

TEERM focuses its validation efforts on technologies that have shown promise in laboratory testing, but lack testing under realistic or field environment. Mature technologies have advantages over those that are still in the developmental stage such as being more likely to be transitioned into a working environment. One way TEERM begins to evaluate the suitability of technologies is through Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). TRLs are a systematic metric/measurement system that supports assessments of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent comparison of maturity between different types of technology. TEERM generally works on demonstrating/validating alternatives that fall within TRLs 5-9. In instances where a mature technology does not exist for a particular Agency application, TEERM works with technology development groups and programs such as NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP). The IPP's purpose is to identify and document available technologies in light of NASA's needs, evaluate and prioritize those technologies, and reach out to find new partners. All TEERM projects involve multiple partners. Partnering reduces duplication of effort that otherwise might occur if individuals worked their problems alone. Partnering also helps reduce individual contributors' shares of the total cost of technology validation. Through collaboration and financial commitment from project stakeholders and third-party sources, it is possible to fully fund expensive demonstration/validation efforts.

Brown, Christina↗

NASA's Lunar Polar Ice Prospector, RESOLVE: Mission Rehearsal in Apollo Valley

After the completion of the Apollo Program, space agencies didn't visit the moon for many years. But then in the 90's, the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions returned and showed evidence of water ice at the poles. Then in 2009 the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite indisputably showed that the Cabeus crater contained water ice and other useful volatiles. Furthermore, instruments aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) show evidence that the water ice may also be present in areas that receive several days of continuous sunlight each month. However, before we can factor this resource into our mission designs, we must understand the distribution and quantity of ice or other volatiles at the poles and whether it can be reasonably harvested for use as propellant or mission consumables. NASA, in partnership with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), has been developing a payload to answer these questions. The payload is named RESOLVE. RESOLVE is on a development path that will deliver a tested flight design by the end of 2014. The team has developed a Design Reference Mission using LRO data that has RESOLVE landing near Cabeus Crater in May of2016. One of the toughest obstacles for RESOLVE's solar powered mission is its tight timeline. RESOLVE must be able to complete its objectives in the 5-7 days of available sunlight. The RESOLVE team must be able to work around obstacles to the mission timeline in real time. They can't afford to take a day off to replan as other planetary missions have done. To insure that this mission can be executed as planned, a prototype version of RESOLVE was developed this year and tested at a lunar analog site on Hawaii, known as Apollo Valley, which was once used to train the Apollo astronauts. The RESOLVE team planned the mission with the same type of orbital imagery that would be available from LRO. The simulation team prepositioned a Lander in Apollo Valley with RESOLVE on top mounted on its CSA rover. Then the mission simulation began as the operations team's consoles came alive with data and images. They executed the mission just like the real mission with lunar communications delays and limited bandwidth and a realistic remote mission control room. This paper will describe the RESOLVE payload in detail and describe the results of the mission simulation in Hawaii.

Larson, William E.↗

High-Capacity, High-Voltage Composite Oxide Cathode Materials

This SBIR project integrates theoretical and experimental work to enable a new generation of high-capacity, high-voltage cathode materials that will lead to high-performance, robust energy storage systems. At low operating temperatures, commercially available electrode materials for lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries do not meet energy and power requirements for NASA's planned exploration activities. NEI Corporation, in partnership with the University of California, San Diego, has developed layered composite cathode materials that increase power and energy densities at temperatures as low as 0 degC and considerably reduce the overall volume and weight of battery packs. In Phase I of the project, through innovations in the structure and morphology of composite electrode particles, the partners successfully demonstrated an energy density exceeding 1,000 Wh/kg at 4 V at room temperature. In Phase II, the team enhanced the kinetics of Li-ion transport and electronic conductivity at 0 degC. An important feature of the composite cathode is that it has at least two components that are structurally integrated. The layered material is electrochemically inactive; however, upon structural integration with a spinel material, the layered material can be electrochemically activated and deliver a large amount of energy with stable cycling.

Hagh, Nader M.↗

TPSAS-NF1676L-29916-DND

The CCMC is a multi-agency partnership to enable, support and perform the research and development for next-generation space science and space weather models. NASA’s CCMC resources support a variety of activities in the US and international space science and engineering communities including - Access to sophisticated space science models - Access to space weather data and models - Applied science support, engineering tools, and program support

Joseph Minow↗

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Space Policy Directive-1 has led to NASA partnerships with commercial entities on procurement which includes the development of the Human Landing System (HLS) [1]. With the goal of delivering human crew to the lunar surface by 2024, system uncertainties become an important obstacle to the maturation of multiple new, driving technologies and mission concepts of the HLS program. As unmitigated uncertainties have previously led to failed development programs, these risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success [2]. Sources of uncertainty include novel engine designs and configurations, increased reliance on cryogenic fluid management(CFM), and refueling technologies—which propagate as high-level performance metrics such as overall propellant mass and engine performance. Also, the occurrence of operational uncertainties—e.g. launch conditions or need to abort during the mission—can cause cascading effects on the rest of the mission that are difficult to definitively quantify, and are outside the scope of control. These concrete examples and other occurrences can be categorized as either epistemic or aleatory uncertainties.Epistemic uncertainty arises due to a lack of knowledge and can be alleviated with design and program maturation. Aleatory uncertainty is due to the inherent randomness of the system and cannot be directly reduced, unlike epistemic uncertainty. Robust design and probabilistic methods can compensate for aleatory effects. A taxonomy of uncertainty is referred to for this work [3]. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties has been demonstrated on a three-element HLS concept [1, 4], which allows tracking of current best estimates of the concept and assessment of concept design robustness against uncertainties. A sample case has been completed for this abstract, and an expansion on the methodology will be included in the final paper. This methodology has two key parts: first, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. This abstract will cover the basics of the approach used, and further details and justifications will be in the final paper.The mission profile associated with this three-element concept (Fig 1) was modeled as a set of mission events that facilitated mass changes, idles, or spacecraft maneuvers. The mission profile scope starts with each element’s NRHO orbit insertion and aggregation and ends at post-sortie rendezvous with Orion. More detail on the mission profile will be in the final paper. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as the physics framework to model the HLS architecture for applying the probabilistic methodology [5, 6]. Specifically, a parametric representation of the lander, ascent, and transfer elements and the mission profile of each element was established, with vehicle and mission parameters available as inputs to allow for a dynamic model. Each vehicle stage was modeled with high-level performance metrics, using Isp and propellant mass fraction (PMF) to remain parametric. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission profile events. These parameters were frozen at their nominal values for the purposes of baselining architecture performance and sizing the vehicle appropriately based on reference documentation [1]. Range estimating—a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities—is traditionally used with Mass Equipment Lists (MELs), but has been adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in theDYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty [7, 3]. This method was selected due to its application and insight on a system from a bottom-up perspective, independence from historical rules of thumb, and ability to generate sensitivities based on design decisions and uncertainties. As a sample case for the abstract, the boiloff rates of the vehicle elements and the loiter times during the mission (simulating launch time variations and changing window of opportunities) were used with range estimating to provide preliminary results. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology (depicted in Fig. 3, further details in final paper), the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to efficiently explore the architecture design space with respect to the sample set of uncertainty parameters; 5,000 cases via Latin Hypercube Sampling were computed on the DYREQT architecture model. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Range estimating was applied to the surrogates instead of the actual models, which saves computational expense due to the bulk of cases needed for the Monte Carlo simulation as part of range estimating. Uncertainty parameters were sampled independently from triangular distributions using the DoE ranges as ‘min’ and ‘max’, and the nominal value as ‘most likely’. Based engineering intuition, some uncertainty parameters are correlated—e.g. if the main propellant has a high boil-off rate, the oxidizer should follow suit as both are related to CFM technology.While a Monte Carlo simulation samples all inputs as independent, the results would show model correlations; thus, it is efficient to sample the inputs as correlated. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo. A table for the DoE ranges and probability distribution parameters is shown in Table 1, and more details on Correlated Monte Carlo Simulations will be discussed in the final paper. The model’s resulting DoE showed that multivariate polynomial equations fit via least squares method captured its behavior accurately for the sample case. For the Correlated Monte Carlo Simulation, a positive correlation between fuel and oxidizer boiloff rates was used as a demonstration. 10,000 cases were computed with the surrogates and the launched masses for each vehicle element was collated. The results can be displayed in a probability density function (PDF), showing the impact of the uncertainty parameters chosen. Integrating the PDFs will yield a cumulative distribution function (CDF) that shows the cumulative probability of a given value on the x-axis. For the sample case, the elements’ launch mass margin was calculated and represented in as CDFs, as a demonstrated representation of figures of merit for the HLS concept. For the lander and ascent elements, the NRHO mass insertion limit is 16t; the transfer element has a limit of 30t [1]. It can be seen with Figure 2 that this probabilistic methodology can provide insight into mass margin with respect to the uncertainties being modeled. Currently, the results show that the lander (descent) vehicle element has the most restrictive design space; it is the only element to show a 10% probability of negative margin. Further analysis on the Monte Carlo results will show sensitivities for driving constraints and parameters for architecture feasibility, which can lead to establishing potential mission rules.The combination of range estimating with a parametric architecture model for HLS demonstrated the capability of this probabilistic methodology in a sample case. As the HLS development progresses, this methodology has the potential for keeping current best estimates of architecture performance for awarded concepts due to the flexibility in DYREQT’s modeling framework and its parametric nature. Concept maturation and increased epistemic knowledge can be injected into the model probabilistic modeling, and thus continue to track probability of mission success.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗

Artemis: An Overview of NASA’s Activities to Return Humans to the Moon

NASA is well underway in its plans to return humans to the Moon and build long-term infrastructure both in orbit and on the surface. Following the Artemis I and Artemis II flight tests, NASA will begin crewed landings and regular missions to the Moon. Artemis will return value to the American public and the global community, enable groundbreaking scientific discovery, and prepare NASA and its partners for exploration of the solar system. Work on the initial Human Landing System (HLS), procurement activities for future HLS, and work on the initial modules of the lunar-orbiting Gateway are underway. International partnerships are playing a critical role in the planning, development, and execution of these missions. As of December 2021, three international partners have entered agreements to contribute to the Gateway and 14 nations have signed the Artemis accords. A new spacesuit acquisition strategy will stimulate economic growth and meet the growing needs of NASA and emerging customers. Requirements development is underway for an unpressurized lunar surface rover and plans for a pressurized rover, foundation surface habitat, and the Artemis Base Camp are in work. This paper will provide an update on the HLS demonstration missions and the procurement status for HLS services; a comprehensive look at the Gateway’s components and related statuses; a summary of planned surface systems; and an outline of the strategies NASA will use to successfully implement these plans, preparing for humanity's next giant leap: Mars.

Artemis↗

Development Unit for In-Space Pneumatic Helium Transfer Compressor

High-pressure gaseous helium (GHe) plays a critical role in spacecraft propulsion due to its near exclusive use for pressurization of propellant tanks. Several different designs for helium compressor technologies have been developed for use on Earth; however, significant design changes are required to meet the power, thermal/heat dissipation, vacuum, vibration/shock, size, mass, and efficiency requirements needed for space and launch environments. Currently, no capability exists for mass efficient on-orbit GHe (or xenon) transfer, nor has it ever been attempted. This effort proposed several challenging requirements for the vendor to develop a one-of-a-kind pneumatic compressor prototype. In order to develop a compressor prototype at a TRL 4, a partnership with Air Squared, Inc. was established. This CIF project concluded with the receipt of a prototype along with a proposed design for a flight unit; however, it will not be built due to funding limitations. The vendor had moderate success with initial testing of the prototype at lower pressures (with shimming configured for low pressure). There were delays with testing since the unit was built for higher pressures and the low pressure shimming was challenging to implement. It was found that operation of the compressor at lower pressures caused increased friction on the motor shaft which resulted in the unit drawing more power (current). This was initially thought to be a motor or controller defect. Subsequent high pressure testing at KSC showed that the friction was reduced for the optimal design point (with a high pressure shimming configuration) and the motor (and controller) performed nominally. Following the vendor testing, the unit was tuned/shimmed for a nominal inlet pressure and shipped to KSC for high pressure testing using the custom-designed setup in the Vehicle Assembly Building. The unit performed well, showing the capability to achieve over higher pressure of compression. The pressure differential could likely increase, however, the maximum output of the power supply used for testing was reached, limiting the compressor motor’s capability. Following the GN2 testing, the test setup was converted to GHe with at high pressure. It was shown that although the unit was unable to achieve similar high pressure differentials due to reverse leakage of the GHe through the scroll tip seals, it did achieve the desired GHe compression. This may still be useful for some applications, however, for the purpose of on-orbit GHe transfer, the single stage design would need to be changed to include multiple stages to achieve the compression goals initially proposed by the project.

Brian Nufer↗

Scaling Electric Machines to a Megawatt and Material Options

Megawatt (MW) electric aircraft propulsion (EAP) is seen as a significant contributor toward achieving the goals set forth by the Sustainable Flight National Partnership. A large part of enabling MW EAP is developing specific-power-dense electric machines. As specific-power-dense electric machines are scaled up from kW to MW power levels, the thermal stresses on the machines increase in both magnitude and performance-affecting characteristics. This is particularly true for the stators of these machines. Analysis via thermal resistance network modeling and multiscale modeling reveals that increasing amounts of heat will be trapped in the stator windings as the power levels increase. The challenges this presents can be addressed through material advancements whereby materials gain multifunctionality. Specifically, the electrical insulation and potting materials, along with the electrical conductor, that compose the stator slot must work together (gain multifunctionality) to relieve the increased thermal stress. Materials research at the NASA Glenn Research Center points to some useful solutions in this trade space.

Electric Machine↗

Scaling Electric Machines to a Megawatt and Material Options

Megawatt (MW) electric aircraft propulsion (EAP) is seen as a significant contributor toward achieving the goals set forth by the Sustainable Flight National Partnership. A large part of enabling MW EAP is developing specific-power-dense electric machines. As specific-power-dense electric machines are scaled up from kW to MW power levels, the thermal stresses on the machines increase in both magnitude and performance-affecting characteristics. This is particularly true for the stators of these machines. Analysis via thermal resistance network modeling and multiscale modeling reveals that increasing amounts of heat will be trapped in the stator windings as the power levels increase. The challenges this presents can be addressed through material advancements whereby materials gain multifunctionality. Specifically, the electrical insulation and potting materials, along with the electrical conductor, that compose the stator slot must work together (gain multifunctionality) to relieve the increased thermal stress. Materials research at the NASA Glenn Research Center points to some useful solutions in this trade space.

Electric Machine↗

Development of Augmented Spark Impinging Igniter System for Methane Engines

The Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) program is establishing multiple no-funds-exchanged Space Act Agreement (SAA) partnerships with U.S. private sector entities. The purpose of this program is to encourage the development of robotic lunar landers that can be integrated with U.S. commercial launch capabilities to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. As part of the efforts in Lander Technologies, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is developing liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid methane (LCH4) engine technology to share with the Lunar CATALYST partners. Liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellants are attractive owing to their relatively high specific impulse for chemical propulsion systems, modest storage requirements, and adaptability to NASA's Journey to Mars plans. Methane has also been viewed as a possible propellant choice for lunar missions, owing to the performance benefits and as a technology development stepping stone to Martian missions. However, in the development of methane propulsion, methane ignition has historically been viewed as a high risk area in the development of such an engine. A great deal of work has been conducted in the past decade devoted to risk reduction in LOX/CH4 ignition. This paper will review and summarize the history and results of LOX/CH4 ignition programs conducted at NASA. More recently, a NASA-developed Augmented Spark Impinging (ASI) igniter body, which utilizes a conventional spark exciter system, is being tested with LOX/CH4 to help support internal and commercial engine development programs, such as those in Lunar CATALYST. One challenge with spark exciter systems, especially at altitude conditions, is the ignition lead that transmits the high voltage pulse from the exciter to the spark igniter (spark plug). The ignition lead can be prone to corona discharge, reducing the energy delivered by the spark and potentially causing non-ignition events. For the current work, a commercial compact exciter system, which eliminates this high voltage cabling, was tested at altitude conditions. A modified, conventional exciter system with an improved ignition lead was also recently tested at altitude conditions. This test program demonstrated the capability of these exciter systems to operate at altitude. While more extensive testing may be required, these systems or similar ones may be used for future NASA and commercial engine programs.

methane↗

Development of Augmented Spark Impinging Igniter System for Methane Engines

The Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) program is establishing multiple no-funds-exchanged Space Act Agreement (SAA) partnerships with U.S. private sector entities. The purpose of this program is to encourage the development of robotic lunar landers that can be integrated with U.S. commercial launch capabilities to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. NASA can share technology and expertise under the SAA for the benefit of the CATALYST partners. MSFC seeking to vacuum test Augmented Spark Impinging (ASI) igniter with methane and new exciter units to support CATALYST partners and NASA programs. ASI has previously been used/tested successfully at sea-level, with both O2/CH4 and O2/H2 propellants. Conventional ignition exciter systems historically experienced corona discharge issues in vacuum. Often utilized purging or atmospheric sealing on high voltage lead to remedy. Compact systems developed since PCAD could eliminate the high-voltage lead and directly couple the exciter to the spark igniter. MSFC developed Augmented Spark Impinging (ASI) igniter. Successfully used in several sea-level test programs. Plasma-assisted design. Portion of ox flow is used to generate hot plasma. Impinging flows downstream of plasma. Additional fuel flow down torch tube sleeve for cooling near stoichiometric torch flame. Testing done at NASA GRC Altitude Combustion Stand (ACS) facility 2000-lbf class facility with altitude simulation up to around 100,000 ft. (0.2 psia [10 Torr]) via nitrogen driven ejectors. Propellant conditioning systems can provide temperature control of LOX/CH4 up to test article.

Chemical Propulsion↗

Development of an Inflatable Airlock for a Deep Space Gateway

Inflatable structures technology utilizes high-strength fabric materials and internal pressure to create a stiffened pressure vessel that can replace traditional metallic primary structure in a habitable spacecraft. The flexibility of fabric structures allows them to be compactly stowed for launch and expanded in space, providing significant launch volume savings. The unique construction and design flexibility of these structures can be customized for a variety of uses in space including landing bags, decelerators, long duration in-space and planetary surface habitats, and even airlocks. An airlock is often a required component of a crewed spacecraft to allow for maintenance and human exploration outside of the vehicle. Airlock designs in use today rely on complex hatches and seals connected by metallic walls. Recent developments towards the design of an inflatable airlock structure show feasibility and a significant launch volume savings over a traditional metallic design. This paper will provide a high-level summary of these projects and the current state-of-the-art in inflatable airlock development with additional references and detail about previous and on-going research, providing guidance for the design of a softgoods airlock system. The use of inflatables in space has been in development since the 1960’s for both habitats and airlocks. The first ever EVA was conducted by the USSR in 1965 using an inflatable airlock known as the Volga. This airlock was attached to the Voskhod 2 spacecraft and turned the vehicle into a dual chamber airlock. The airlock was successfully deployed, used and jettisoned after Alexey Leonov’s historic spacewalk. Additional work on human-rated inflatable structures was not continued until the late 1990’s when NASA-JSC led an effort to demonstrate these structures as feasible long-term pressurized elements with the TransHab project. The technology developed and pioneered during this project led to multiple patents and proven feasibility that inflatables could be used for large habitable structures. Following TransHab, Bigelow Aerospace continued the development of inflatable structures with technical support from NASA. This partnership eventually led to the successful flight certification, launch, attachment and deployment of the Bigelow Expandable Activities Module (BEAM) on the ISS in 2016. Inflatable and expandable airlock structures have undergone various detailed feasibility studies and testing for over 15 years, most notably with the Advanced Inflatable Airlock (AIA), Dual-Chamber Hybrid Inflatable Suitlock (DCIS), Minimalistic Advanced Soft Hatch (MASH), and Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA). During this time, full-scale articles have been built and pressure-tested, and mock-ups and demonstrators have been constructed and evaluated. During the 2001-2003 timeframe, the AIA concept was matured through requirements development, conceptual design, subscale and full-scale engineering breadboards subjecting various test articles to deployment and pressure testing up to four times operating pressure. These tests proved the feasibility of successful deployment and structural integrity of an inflatable crewlock. Additional testing was performed in the ensuing years, as funding permitted, to further refine additional structural and deployment concepts and to understand the EVA crewmember interfaces, hatches and EVA support equipment interfaces that would be required for a fully functioning airlock. This work resulted in a refinement of the structural requirements and an accounting of the systems needed in an inflatable airlock. In 2014, the MASH project developed an ultra-lightweight airlock concept with a fabric hatch that utilized a unique pressure vessel shape to minimize structural loads around a linear seal. The concept uses an automated zipper-like seal that allows for crew egress/ingress. Most of the development work on the project thus far has focused on the design, analysis and testing of the primary structure and the zipper-like seal system is in the preliminary stages of development with a successful proof-of-concept test. As part of the 2017 LEIA effort, studies were conducted on EVA crewmember interfaces on the inside of an inflatable airlock. These efforts included the design of an internal secondary structure and placement of handholds and foot restraints to enable hatch opening, closing and translation through the airlock. Structural design, analysis and testing was completed on several secondary structure candidates. Crew interface testing was also completed using an inflatable crewlock mockup and the JSC Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the movement of an EVA crewmember through an inflatable crewlock in microgravity. The results of these tests helped demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing an inflatable structure as an airlock and informed the required volume, hatch size, and configuration and location of translation aids for crewmembers in a microgravity crewlock. The ISS Quest airlock uses a dual-chamber design with isolated compartments known as the equipment-lock and the crewlock. The equipment-lock houses the Servicing, Performance and Checkout Equipment (SPCE) items (suit batteries, consumables, etc.) while the crewlock has limited internal hardware and is the nominally depressurized compartment during US EVAs. While inflatable dual chamber airlocks have been studied, the current state of the art emphasizes an inflatable crewlock-type structure attached to a rigid equipment-lock type or habitat structure. Since a large portion of the hardware in the equipment-lock are rigid components and connectors that are installed on the ground - and an inflatable structure does not achieve full structural capabilities until pressurized in space - a depressurized fabric structure cannot provide the capabilities of a full equipment-lock. The use of an inflatable as a crewlock, however, provides all the required capabilities for EVA operations in a small launch package that offers significant volume savings over a metallic crewlock. The functions of a traditional equipment lock, including the SPCE, could be provided by a spacecraft’s habitat module or node and not necessarily in a separate equipment lock. An inflatable crewlock would be attached to the vehicle and launched in a packed and compressed state, saving volume under the launch shroud and mass for the overall airlock element compared to a rigid crewlock. Work is currently underway to continue development of an inflatable airlock with a variety of focus areas including the consideration of crew-induced loads and interfaces, the design and development of an internal sub-structure to provide translation aids and restraints, the thermal considerations of a fabric shell depressurized during an EVA, the micrometeorite environment in deep space, and the packaging and deployment of an inflatable airlock.

Deep Space Exploration↗

NASA Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative: Ensuring a Cohesive, Executable Strategy for Technology Development

Establishing a sustainable human presence on the Moon allows NASA to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and systems that will enable us to function in other, more challenging environments. The Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative (LSII) was established in 2019 and has evolved into a key agency asset to spur technology development and provide risk reduction for lunar surface system development and flight demonstrations. LSII coordinates activities implemented through a combination of in-house activities, competitive programs, and public-private partnerships to create transformative technologies needed for lunar surface exploration. This paper will outline the LSII model used to develop a technology pipeline that will retire the primary technology hurdles in six capability areas. In-situ resource utilization technologies for collecting, processing, storing, and using material found or manufactured on the Moon. Surface power technologies that provide the capability for sustainable, continuous power throughout the day and night for lunar missions. Dust mitigation strategies that diminish lunar dust hazards on lunar surface systems such as cameras, solar panels, space suits, habitats, and instrumentation. Extreme environments technologies that enable systems to operate throughout the full range of lunar surface conditions, including lunar noon (up to 150 at the equator), night (down to - 180 at the equator), multiple day/night cycles, and in permanently shadowed regions (down to -250). Extreme access technologies that enable humans or robotic systems to access, navigate, and explore previously inaccessible lunar surface or subsurface areas. Excavation and construction technologies that will allow affordable, autonomous manufacturing or construction. We outline key results, including milestones and achievements related to the capability areas and outcomes from partnerships with the commercial sector. A key tenet of the LSII is the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), a collaboration across industry, academia, and government to successfully develop the transformative capabilities for lunar surface exploration. LSIC provides a forum for NASA to communicate technological requirements, needs, and opportunities and for the community to share existing capabilities and identify critical gaps with NASA. By working side by side with commercial enterprises and our international partners, NASA is able to combine the knowledge and expertise needed to explore the lunar surface and make technical advances that will feed technological and economic growth. Since its inception, LSII has engaged over 600 organizations across the United States and 46 countries to shape the technologies and systems needed to explore the lunar surface and stimulate a lunar surface economy.

lunar, lunar surface, technology development, ISRU↗

NASA Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative: Ensuring a Cohesive, Executable Strategy for Technology

Establishing a sustainable human presence on the Moon allows NASA to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and systems that will enable us to function in other, more challenging environments. The Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative (LSII) was established in 2019 and has evolved into a key agency asset to spur technology development and provide risk reduction for lunar surface system development and flight demonstrations. LSII coordinates activities implemented through a combination of in-house activities, competitive programs, and public-private partnerships to create transformative technologies needed for lunar surface exploration. This paper will outline the LSII model used to develop a technology pipeline that will retire the primary technology hurdles in six capability areas. In-situ resource utilization technologies for collecting, processing, storing, and using material found or manufactured on the Moon. Surface power technologies that provide the capability for sustainable, continuous power throughout the day and night for lunar missions. Dust mitigation strategies that diminish lunar dust hazards on lunar surface systems such as cameras, solar panels, space suits, habitats, and instrumentation. Extreme environments technologies that enable systems to operate throughout the full range of lunar surface conditions, including lunar noon (up to 150 at the equator), night (down to - 180 at the equator), multiple day/night cycles, and in permanently shadowed regions (down to -250). Extreme access technologies that enable humans or robotic systems to access, navigate, and explore previously inaccessible lunar surface or subsurface areas. Excavation and construction technologies that will allow affordable, autonomous manufacturing or construction. We outline key results, including milestones and achievements related to the capability areas and outcomes from partnerships with the commercial sector. A key tenet of the LSII is the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), a collaboration across industry, academia, and government to successfully develop the transformative capabilities for lunar surface exploration. LSIC provides a forum for NASA to communicate technological requirements, needs, and opportunities and for the community to share existing capabilities and identify critical gaps with NASA. By working side by side with commercial enterprises and our international partners, NASA is able to combine the knowledge and expertise needed to explore the lunar surface and make technical advances that will feed technological and economic growth. Since its inception, LSII has engaged over 600 organizations across the United States and 46 countries to shape the technologies and systems needed to explore the lunar surface and stimulate a lunar surface economy.

Lunar↗

Active Control of Combustor Instability Shown to Help Lower Emissions

In a quest to reduce the environmental impact of aerospace propulsion systems, extensive research is being done in the development of lean-burning (low fuel-to-air ratio) combustors that can reduce emissions throughout the mission cycle. However, these lean-burning combustors have an increased susceptibility to thermoacoustic instabilities, or high-pressure oscillations much like sound waves, that can cause severe high-frequency vibrations in the combustor. These pressure waves can fatigue the combustor components and even the downstream turbine blades. This can significantly decrease the safe operating life of the combustor and turbine. Thus, suppression of the thermoacoustic combustor instabilities is an enabling technology for lean, low-emissions combustors. Under the Aerospace Propulsion and Power Base Research and Technology Program, the NASA Glenn Research Center, in partnership with Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies Research Center, is developing technologies for the active control of combustion instabilities. With active combustion control, the fuel is pulsed to put pressure oscillations into the system. This cancels out the pressure oscillations being produced by the instabilities. Thus, the engine can have lower pollutant emissions and long life.The use of active combustion instability control to reduce thermo-acoustic-driven combustor pressure oscillations was demonstrated on a single-nozzle combustor rig at United Technologies. This rig has many of the complexities of a real engine combustor (i.e., an actual fuel nozzle and swirler, dilution cooling, etc.). Control was demonstrated through modeling, developing, and testing a fuel-delivery system able to the 280-Hz instability frequency. The preceding figure shows the capability of this system to provide high-frequency fuel modulations. Because of the high-shear contrarotating airflow in the fuel injector, there was some concern that the fuel pulses would be attenuated to the point where they would not be effective for control. Testing in the combustor rig showed that open-loop pulsing of the fuel was, in fact, able to effectively modulate the combustor pressure. To suppress the combustor pressure oscillations due to thermoacoustic instabilities, it is desirable to time the injection of the fuel so that it interferes with the instability. A closed-loop control scheme was developed that uses combustion pressure feedback and a phase-shifting controller to time the fuel-injection pulses. Some suppression of the pressure oscillations at the 280-Hz instability frequency was demonstrated (see the next figure). However, the overall peak-to- peak pressure oscillations in the combustor were only mildly reduced. Improvements to control hardware and control methods are being continued to gain improved closed-loop reduction of the pressure oscillations.pulse the fuel at

DeLaat, John C.↗

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗