SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “#technology”

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 415 records · Page 23

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Technology Infusion into Spacesuit Systems

Advancement in technology drives our future. The successful implementation of a technology drives its possibilities. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has invested in numerous technologies that have proved to be successful. The desire is to learn from those successes. For a technology to evolve, become a reality, and infuse into NASA’s missions, a compilation of success-oriented factors must exist for the technology to reach fruition. Understanding these factors could help decrease the complexity of technology infusion and bridge the gap between technology developers and system integrators. The knowledge gained could facilitate the design, development, test, and infusion of a technology to be more effective and efficient. Successful technology infusion is complex and can be even more daunting when advanced technologies are infused into complicated systems. NASA, industry, and academia desire to understand the infusion process, along with measuring the success of infusing an advanced technology into a complex system. This paper focuses on complicated systems that necessitate successful infusion of technologies. These systems include NASA’s spacesuits used for extravehicular activity, including the Apollo Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), the Shuttle/International Space Station EMU, and the Exploration EMU (xEMU) architectures. Several life support technologies will be addressed in the xEMU. Those technologies will be discussed, along with a methodology for assessing infusion pathways. The infusion pathways of these life support technologies into spacesuit architectures can form the benchmark for technology infusion into other architectures for lunar and Martian surfaces. The spacesuit system architectures as case studies can provide the foundation of technical knowledge to help NASA and industry’s project managers and system managers integrate advanced technologies more effectively and efficiently.

Cinda Chullen↗

NASA NTRS1991

Transportation technology program: Strategic plan

The purpose of this report is to define the technology program required to meet the transportation technology needs for current and future civil space missions. It is a part of an integrated plan, prepared by NASA in part in response to the Augustine Committee recommendations, to describe and advocate expanded and more aggressive efforts in the development of advanced space technologies. This expanded program will provide a technology basis for future space missions to which the U.S. aspires, and will help to regain technology leadership for the U.S. on a broader front. The six aspects of this integrated program/plan deal with focused technologies to support space sciences, exploration, transportation, platforms, and operations as well as provide a Research and Technology Base Program. This volume describes the technologies needed to support transportation systems, e.g., technologies needed for upgrades to current transportation systems and to provide reliable and efficient transportation for future space missions. The Office of Aeronautics, Exploration, and Technology (OAET) solicited technology needs from the major agency technology users and the aerospace industry community and formed a transportation technology team (appendix A) to develop a technology program to respond to those needs related to transportation technologies. This report addresses the results of that team activity. It is a strategic plan intended for use as a planning document rather than as a project management tool. It is anticipated that this document will be primarily utilized by research & technology (R&T) management at the various NASA Centers as well as by officials at NASA Headquarters and by industry in planning their corporate Independent Research and Development (IR&D) investments.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2001

An Approach to Establishing System Benefits for Technologies In NASA's Spaceliner Investment Area

NASA's has established long term goals for access-to-space. The third generation launch systems are to be fully reusable and operational around 2025. The goals for the third generation launch system are to significantly reduce cost and improve safety over current systems. The Advanced Space Transportation Program Office (ASTP) at the NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL has the agency lead to develop space transportation technologies. Within ASTP, under the Spaceliner Investment Area, third generation technologies are being pursued. The Spaceliner Investment Area's primary objective is to mature vehicle technologies to enable substantial increases in the design and operating margins of third generation RLVs (current Space Shuttle is considered the first generation RLV) by incorporating advanced propulsion systems, materials, structures, thermal protection systems, power, and avionics technologies. Advancements in design tools and better characterization of the operational environment will result in reduced design and operational variabilities leading to improvements in margins. Improvements in operational efficiencies will be obtained through the introduction of integrated vehicle health management, operations and range technologies. Investments in these technologies will enable the reduction in the high operational costs associated with today's vehicles by allowing components to operate well below their design points resulting in improved component operating life, reliability, and safety which in turn reduces both maintenance and refurbishment costs. The introduction of advanced technologies may enable horizontal takeoff by significantly reducing the takeoff weight and allowing use of existing infrastructure. This would be a major step toward the goal of airline-like operation. These factors in conjunction with increased flight rates, resulting from reductions in transportation costs, will result in significant improvements of future vehicles. The real-world problem is that resources are limited and technologies need to be prioritized to assure the resources are spent on technologies that provide the highest system level benefits. Toward that end, a systems approach is being taken to determine the benefits of technologies for the Spaceliner Investment Area. Technologies identified to be enabling will be funded. However, the other technologies will be funded based on their system's benefits. Since the final launch system concept will not be decided for many years, several vehicle concepts are being evaluated to determine technology benefits. Not only performance, but also cost and operability are being assessed. This will become an annual process to assess these technologies against their goals and the benefits to various launch systems concepts. The paper describes the system process, tools and concepts used to determine the technology benefits. Preliminary results will be presented along with the current technology investments that are being made by ASTP's Spaceliner Investment Area.

Hueter, Uwe↗

NASA NTRS2003

An On-Line Technology Information System (OTIS) for Advanced Life Support

An On-line Technology Information System (OTIS) is currently being developed for the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program. This paper describes the preliminary development of OTIS, which is a system designed to provide centralized collection and organization of technology information. The lack of thorough, reliable and easily understood technology information is a major obstacle in effective assessment of technology development progress, trade studies, metric calculations, and technology selection for integrated testing. OTIS will provide a formalized, well-organized protocol to communicate thorough, accurate, current and relevant technology information between the hands-on technology developer and the ALS Community. The need for this type of information transfer system within the Solid Waste Management (SWM) element was recently identified and addressed. A SWM Technology Information Form (TIF) was developed specifically for collecting detailed technology information in the area of SWM. In the TIF, information is requested from SWM technology developers, based upon the Technology Readiness Level (TRL). Basic information is requested for low-TRL technologies, and more detailed information is requested as the TRL of the technology increases. A comparable form is also being developed for the wastewater processing element. In the future, similar forms will also be developed for the ALS elements of air revitalization, food processing, biomass production and thermal control. These ALS element-specific forms will be implemented in OTIS via a web-accessible interface,with the data stored in an object-oriented relational database (created in MySQLTM) located on a secure server at NASA Ames Research Center. With OTIS, ALS element leads and managers will be able to carry out informed research and development investment, thereby promoting technology through the TRL scale. OTIS will also allow analysts to make accurate evaluations of technology options. Additionally, the range and specificity of information solicited will help educate technology developers of programmatic needs.

Levri, Julie A.↗

NASA NTRS2008

NASA's In Space Propulsion Technology Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

NASA's In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Program was managed for 5 years at the NASA MSFC and significant strides were made in the advancement of key transportation technologies that will enable or enhance future robotic science and deep space exploration missions. At the program's inception, a set of technology investment priorities were established using an NASA-wide, mission-driven prioritization process and, for the most part, these priorities changed little - thus allowing a consistent framework in which to fund and manage technology development. Technologies in the portfolio included aerocapture, advanced chemical propulsion, solar electric propulsion, solar sail propulsion, electrodynamic and momentum transfer tethers, and various very advanced propulsion technologies with significantly lower technology readiness. The program invested in technologies that have the potential to revolutionize the robotic exploration of deep space. For robotic exploration and science missions, increased efficiencies of future propulsion systems are critical to reduce overall life-cycle costs and, in some cases, enable missions previously considered impossible. Continued reliance on conventional chemical propulsion alone will not enable the robust exploration of deep space - the maximum theoretical efficiencies have almost been reached and they are insufficient to meet needs for many ambitious science missions currently being considered. By developing the capability to support mid-term robotic mission needs, the program was to lay the technological foundation for travel to nearby interstellar space. The ambitious goals of the program at its inception included supporting the development of technologies that could support all of NASA's missions, both human and robotic. As time went on and budgets were never as high as planned, the scope of the program was reduced almost every year, forcing the elimination of not only the broader goals of the initial program, but also of funding for over half of the technologies in the original portfolio. In addition, the frequency at which the application requirements for the program changed exceeded the development time required to mature technologies: forcing sometimes radical rescoping of research efforts already halfway (or more) to completion. At the end of its fifth year, both the scope and funding of the program were at a minimum despite the program successfully meeting all of it's initial high priority objectives. This paper will describe the program, its requirements, technology portfolio, and technology maturation processes. Also discussed will be the major technology milestones achieved and the lessons learned from managing a $100M+ technology program.

Johnson, Les C.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a NASA Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, to reduce life cycle cost and risk, and to increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product was either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗

NASA NTRS2021

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) provides the strategy and leadership that integrates NASA’s technology development and open innovation activities to advance American aeronautic, science, and space exploration objectives. OCT performs an agency-level technology coordination role, coordinating with the NASA Mission Directorates, field centers, and other government agencies to align the agency’s technology investments to meet mission requirements while filling gaps, anticipating future needs, and minimizing duplication of effort. OCT provides the strategy and coordination that guide NASA's technology and innovation activities through Strategic Technology Integration, Digital Transformation, the Science and Technology Partnership Forum, and Innovation. The Strategic Technology Integration team informs policy, requirements, and strategy for NASA’s technology development activities in support of the Chief Technologist by coordinating with NASA mission directorates, other government agencies, and external organizations. As part of these efforts, OCT develops the NASA Technology Taxonomy and the NASA Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan. Digital Transformation will increasingly change the way NASA operates and will enable the agency’s missions to be completed more efficiently and effectively. It will allow current and future employees to use their talents in more innovative ways. The Science and Technology Partnership Forum is a strategic forum, with principal partners at the United States Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office. It was established to identify synergistic efforts and technologies in order to leverage those synergies and influence portfolios across space agencies in areas deemed pervasive and ready for collaboration. NASA's Innovation efforts are designed to transform diverse ideas into value and are guided by a framework that is focused on the agency’s people, processes, partnerships and portfolio. The innovation framework is used to connect the workforce to tools, strategies and activities to increase the pace of innovation. OCT translates National space policies into NASA technology strategies and coordination across the agency and interagency communities to guide NASA's technology and innovation activities to achieve capabilities needed for future missions. This chapter provides insight into the value of analyzing future states to inform technology developments to plot the strategic direction of NASA’s space technology program.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRS2023

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), foresight is a coordinated, iterative, and continual process for making informed decisions. NASA faces diverse and relatively unique challenges and opportunities as the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration. To address these challenges and leverage opportunities, NASA uses foresight to strategically plan technology development across four mission directorates: Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Space Technology Mission Directorate, Science Mission Directorate, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (recently separated into the new Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate and Space Operations Mission Directorate). The mission directorates leverage a broad community of experts and partners to incorporate technology foresight into mission and program planning. Through this process NASA realizes tangible benefits to the agency’s science, technology, and exploration programs. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides strategic advice, supported by independent assessments and rigorous analysis, to inform NASA senior leadership on key areas to align mission and agency-level activities. OTPS serves as a trusted authority to inform technology strategy at the agency to enable future missions. Specifically, OTPS coordinates and uses inputs from a broad community of experts, both internal and external to NASA, to inform decision making for technology plans, investments, and partnerships. OTPS develops and maintains the NASA Technology Taxonomy to standardize communication across the agency’s diverse technology portfolio and the related Strategic Technology Investment Plan that integrates priorities and informs technology investment. Through these efforts, OTPS has refined elements of foresight-informed strategic planning that may be applicable to other technology-driven industries where foresight is essential for resilience. This chapter describes the processes of foresight for technology development at NASA and provides insight into the value the agency derives from these processes. The chapter further describes the role of OTPS as an independent advisory office that supports NASA’s efforts to capitalize on foresight and strategic technology planning. We present these examples with consideration for how organizations in defense, security, and other technology-driven industries can operationalize foresight in their own strategic technology development.

Erica Rodgers↗

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 NTRS2012

Innovative Technologies for Global Space Exploration

Under the direction of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), Directorate Integration Office (DIO), The Tauri Group with NASA's Technology Assessment and Integration Team (TAIT) completed several studies and white papers that identify novel technologies for human exploration. These studies provide technical inputs to space exploration roadmaps, identify potential organizations for exploration partnerships, and detail crosscutting technologies that may meet some of NASA's critical needs. These studies are supported by a relational database of more than 400 externally funded technologies relevant to current exploration challenges. The identified technologies can be integrated into existing and developing roadmaps to leverage external resources, thereby reducing the cost of space exploration. This approach to identifying potential spin-in technologies and partnerships could apply to other national space programs, as well as international and multi-government activities. This paper highlights innovative technologies and potential partnerships from economic sectors that historically are less connected to space exploration. It includes breakthrough concepts that could have a significant impact on space exploration and discusses the role of breakthrough concepts in technology planning. Technologies and partnerships are from NASA's Technology Horizons and Technology Frontiers game-changing and breakthrough technology reports as well as the External Government Technology Dataset, briefly described in the paper. The paper highlights example novel technologies that could be spun-in from government and commercial sources, including virtual worlds, synthetic biology, and human augmentation. It will consider how these technologies can impact space exploration and will discuss ongoing activities for planning and preparing them.

Hay, Jason↗

NASA NTRS2012

Decision Gate Process for Assessment of a Technology Development Portfolio

The NASA Dust Management Project (DMP) was established to provide technologies (to TRL 6 development level) required to address adverse effects of lunar dust to humans and to exploration systems and equipment, which will reduce life cycle cost and risk, and will increase the probability of sustainable and successful lunar missions. The technology portfolio of DMP consisted of different categories of technologies whose final product is either a technology solution in itself, or one that contributes toward a dust mitigation strategy for a particular application. A Decision Gate Process (DGP) was developed to assess and validate the achievement and priority of the dust mitigation technologies as the technologies progress through the development cycle. The DGP was part of continuous technology assessment and was a critical element of DMP risk management. At the core of the process were technology-specific criteria developed to measure the success of each DMP technology in attaining the technology readiness levels assigned to each decision gate. The DGP accounts for both categories of technologies and qualifies the technology progression from technology development tasks to application areas. The process provided opportunities to validate performance, as well as to identify non-performance in time to adjust resources and direction. This paper describes the overall philosophy of the DGP and the methodology for implementation for DMP, and describes the method for defining the technology evaluation criteria. The process is illustrated by example of an application to a specific DMP technology.

Kohli, Rajiv↗

NASA NTRS2015

Bridging the Technology Readiness "Valley of Death" Utilizing Nanosats

Incorporating new technology is a hallmark of space missions. Missions demand ever-improving tools and techniques to allow them to meet the mission science requirements. In Earth Science, these technologies are normally expressed in new instrument capabilities that can enable new measurement concepts, extended capabilities of existing measurement techniques, or totally new detection capabilities, and also, information systems technologies that can enhance data analysis or enable new data analyses to advance modeling and prediction capabilities. Incorporating new technologies has never been easy. There is a large development step beyond demonstration in a laboratory or on an airborne platform to the eventual space environment that is sometimes referred to as the "technology valley of death." Studies have shown that non-validated technology is a primary cause of NASA and DoD mission delays and cost overruns. With the demise of the New Millennium Program within NASA, opportunities for demonstrating technologies in space have been rare. Many technologies are suitable for a flight project after only ground testing. However, some require validation in a relevant or a space flight environment, which cannot be fully tested on the ground or in airborne systems. NASA's Earth Science Technology Program has initiated a nimble program to provide a fairly rapid turn-around of space validated technologies, and thereby reducing future mission risk in incorporating new technologies. The program, called In-Space Validation of Earth Science Technology (InVEST), now has five tasks in development. Each are 3U CubeSats and they are targeted for launch opportunities in the 2016 time period. Prior to formalizing an InVEST program, the technology program office was asked to demonstrate how the program would work and what sort of technologies could benefit from space validation. Three projects were developed and launched, and have demonstrated the technologies that they set out to validate. This paper will provide a brief status of the pre-InVEST CubeSats, and discuss the development and status of the InVEST program. Figure

Earth Science↗

NASA NTRS2021

NASA Strategy for Technology Development

At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), foresight is a coordinated, iterative, and continual process for making informed decisions. NASA faces diverse and relatively unique challenges and opportunities as the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration. To address these challenges and leverage opportunities, NASA uses foresight to strategically plan technology development across four mission directorates: Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Space Technology Mission Directorate, Science Mission Directorate, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. The mission directorates leverage a broad community of experts and partners to incorporate technology foresight into mission and program planning. Through this process NASA realizes tangible benefits to the agency’s science, technology, and exploration programs. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) serves as a trusted authority to inform technology strategy and advocacy at the agency, enabling future missions and advancing U.S. economic competitiveness. Specifically, OCT coordinates and uses inputs from abroad community of experts, both internal and external to NASA, to inform decision making for technology plans, investments, and partnerships. OCT develops the NASA Technology Taxonomy to standardize communication across the agency’s diverse technology portfolio and the related Strategic Technology Investment Plan that integrates priorities and informs technology investment. Through these efforts, OCT has refined elements of foresight-informed strategic planning that may be applicable to other technology-driven industries where foresight is essential for resilience. This chapter describes the processes of foresight for technology development at NASA and provides insight into the value the agency derives from these processes. The chapter further describes the role of OCT as an independent advisory office that supports NASA’s efforts to capitalize on foresight and strategic technology planning. We present these examples with consideration for how organizations in defense, security, and other technology-driven industries can operationalize foresight in their own strategic technology development.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

NASA’s Small Spacecraft & Distributed Systems (SSDS) within the Research and Technology Mission Directorate (RTMD) expands U.S. capability to execute unique missions through targeted investment, rapid development, and flight demonstration of small spacecraft technologies applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. SSDS strategically invests in technology development and on-orbit demonstrations executed across NASA, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The program’s University SmallSat Technology Partnerships initiative awards academic researchers with the opportunity to collaborate with NASA to mature innovative technology. Capabilities aligned with RTMD’s technology shortfalls and interests - power, processing, propulsion, sensors, communications, autonomous navigation, architectures, and advanced applications like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and edge computing - are prioritized in SSDS investments. These investments enable distributed, autonomous, and cooperative small spacecraft systems that support swarm missions extending beyond low Earth orbit into cislunar and deep space. This paper highlights representative SSDS flight demonstrations that mature these capabilities to enable a future operational infrastructure needed to support sustained exploration of the Moon and beyond. SSDS’s investment strategy emphasizes rapid development and on-orbit demonstration to validate spacecraft technologies required for swarms and distributed mission architectures. The Starling swarm technology demonstration mission exemplifies this approach by advancing distributed spacecraft autonomy, cooperative operations, and space situational awareness. Extended flight testing and ongoing studies of next generation swarm configurations and on-orbit space traffic monitoring and management continue to inform future swarm designs. DiskSat’s four-spacecraft demonstration mission represents SSDS’s strategic vision to expand the design space for future small spacecraft through its commitment to advance novel platform concepts that can impact how science is performed on orbit. Continuing to invest in future platforms, the notional PY12 concept is a 12-spacecraft swarm hosting neuromorphic processors and is envisioned as an on-orbit testbed for AI, edge computing, and positioning, navigation and timing technologies. SSDS also invests in single-spacecraft technology demonstrations that underpin the success of future swarm missions and accelerate the availability of validated technologies across the small spacecraft ecosystem. Examples of such demonstrations include Pathfinder Technology Demonstrator-3 (PTD-3), which performed high-rate optical communications; PTD-R, which demonstrated a camera capable of simultaneous ultraviolet and short-wave infrared optical sensing; and CAPSTONE, the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology and Operations Navigation Experiment, which validated autonomous navigation in cislunar space. Collectively, SSDS-funded demonstrations advance capabilities across swarms and illustrate a coordinated investment strategy to mature high-impact technologies required for autonomous, distributed, and cooperative small spacecraft systems for low Earth orbit, cislunar, and deep space applications. Technology demonstrations strengthen SSDS partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies, and promote small spacecraft community adoption of capabilities required to close technical gaps for swarm missions.

Jan Stupl↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA's Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems: Development and Demonstration of Technologies Enabling Swarms and New Spacecraft Platforms with AI and Edge Computing

Jan Stupl↗

NASA NTRS2014

NASA/Goddard Thermal Technology Overview 2014

This presentation summarizes the current plans and efforts at NASA Goddard to develop new thermal control technology for anticipated future missions. It will also address some of the programmatic developments currently underway at NASA, especially with respect to the Technology Development Program at NASA. While funding for basic technology development is still scarce, significant efforts are being made in direct support of flight programs. New technology development continues to be driven by the needs of future missions, and applications of these technologies to current Goddard programs will be addressed. Many of these technologies also have broad applicability to DOD, DOE, and commercial programs. Partnerships have been developed with the Air Force, Navy, and various universities to promote technology development. In addition, technology development activities supported by internal research and development (IRAD) program, the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, and the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), are reviewed in this presentation. Specific technologies addressed include; two-phase systems applications and issues on NASA missions, latest developments of electro-hydrodynamically pumped systems, development of high electrical conductivity coatings, and various other research activities. New Technology program underway at NASA, although funding is limited center dot NASA/GSFC's primary mission of science satellite development is healthy and vibrant, although new missions are scarce - now have people on overhead working new missions and proposals center dot Future mission applications promise to be thermally challenging center dot Direct technology funding is still very restricted - Projects are the best source for direct application of technology - SBIR thermal subtopic resurrected in FY 14 - Limited Technology development underway via IRAD, NESC, other sources - Administrator pushing to revive technology and educational programs at NASA - new HQ directorate established

Cooling↗

NASA NTRS1992

Space technology research plans

Development of new technologies is the primary purpose of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST). OAST's mission includes the following two goals: (1) to conduct research to provide fundamental understanding, develop advanced technology and promote technology transfer to assure U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and to enhance and/or enable future civil space missions: and (2) to provide unique facilities and technical expertise to support national aerospace needs. OAST includes both NASA Headquarters operations as well as programmatic and institutional management of the Ames Research Center, the Langley Research Center and the Lewis Research Center. In addition. a considerable portion of OAST's Space R&T Program is conducted through the flight and science program field centers of NASA. Within OAST, the Space Technology Directorate is responsible for the planning and implementation of the NASA Space Research and Technology Program. The Space Technology Directorate's mission is 'to assure that OAST shall provide technology for future civil space missions and provide a base of research and technology capabilities to serve all national space goals.' Accomplishing this mission entails the following objectives: y Identify, develop, validate and transfer technology to: (1) increase mission safety and reliability; (2) reduce flight program development and operations costs; (3) enhance mission performance; and (4) enable new missions. Provide the capability to: (1) advance technology in critical disciplines; and (2) respond to unanticipated mission needs. In-space experiments are an integral part of OAST's program and provides for experimental studies, development and support for in-space flight research and validation of advanced space technologies. Conducting technology experiments in space is a valuable and cost effective way to introduce advanced technologies into flight programs. These flight experiments support both the R&T base and the focussed programs within OAST.

Hook, W. Ray↗

NASA NTRS2000

Applying Technology Ranking and Systems Engineering in Advanced Life Support

According to the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program Plan, the Systems Modeling and Analysis Project (SMAP) has two important tasks: 1) prioritizing investments in ALS Research and Technology Development (R&TD), and 2) guiding the evolution of ALS systems. Investments could be prioritized simply by independently ranking different technologies, but we should also consider a technology's impact on system design. Guiding future ALS systems will require SMAP to consider many aspects of systems engineering. R&TD investments can be prioritized using familiar methods for ranking technology. The first step is gathering data on technology performance, safety, readiness level, and cost. Then the technologies are ranked using metrics or by decision analysis using net present economic value. The R&TD portfolio can be optimized to provide the maximum expected payoff in the face of uncertain future events. But more is needed. The optimum ALS system can not be designed simply by selecting the best technology for each predefined subsystem. Incorporating a new technology, such as food plants, can change the specifications of other subsystems, such as air regeneration. Systems must be designed top-down starting from system objectives, not bottom-up from selected technologies. The familiar top-down systems engineering process includes defining mission objectives, mission design, system specification, technology analysis, preliminary design, and detail design. Technology selection is only one part of systems analysis and engineering, and it is strongly related to the subsystem definitions. ALS systems should be designed using top-down systems engineering. R&TD technology selection should consider how the technology affects ALS system design. Technology ranking is useful but it is only a small part of systems engineering.

Jones, Harry↗