Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Technical Program Elements”

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 433 records · Page 24

DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP): A Metadata Framework for Advancing Interoperability and AI Readiness Across Scientific Repositories

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a diverse and distributed ecosystem of repositories that steward scientific data, publications, and software across its research programs, user facilities, and national laboratories. While significant progress has been made in standardizing dataset-level metadata, the metadata describing repositories themselves (their identity, governance, access interfaces, policies, and technical capabilities) remains inconsistent and fragmented across DOE-funded systems. This variability limits discoverability, interoperability, automated validation, and AI-driven analysis, all of which are increasingly essential for modern scientific workflows. To address this gap, the DOE Data Curation Working Group (DCWG) developed the DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP). The DRMP is a practical, community-driven framework that defines how repositories can describe themselves in a consistent, machine-actionable, and scalable manner. The DRMP is not a new metadata schema. Instead, it is a mapping profile and structured element set capturing the essential characteristics of DOE repositories. It harmonizes repository-level metadata across six widely adopted community schemas: RE3Data; DCAT-US v3; Schema.org; Dublin Core; DataCite 4.6; and PREMIS 3.0. This harmonization eliminates reinvention and enables interoperability within DOE and across the broader scientific ecosystem. A core objective of the DRMP is to reduce burden on repositories by allowing them to reuse their existing metadata through a Rosetta-style crosswalk rather than redesigning local implementations. The profile introduces a three-level conformance model that supports incremental adoption: • Level 1 – Minimum Viable Record (MVR): foundational identification elements required for workflows, project registration, and basic repository presence. • Level 2 – Interoperable: structured metadata enabling alignment with national and international discovery systems. • Level 3 – AI-Ready: enhanced provenance, policy transparency, fixity, semantic context, and capabilities that support automated reasoning, model training governance, and machine-assisted curation. To support implementation, the DRMP includes JSON Schema definitions, OpenAPI patterns, and MCP templates that allow repositories to publish machine-readable metadata directly within existing platforms. These resources are modular and lightweight, enabling adoption without major architectural change. Adopting the DRMP enables repositories to: • Enhance discoverability and interoperability by aligning identifiers, classifications, and descriptive elements across widely used schema standards. • Support federated discovery and cross-registration across DOE systems, Data.gov, and international catalogs. • Enable AI agents and workflow orchestration systems to interpret repository-level metadata within the American Science Cloud (AmSC) through Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based context publication. • Demonstrate alignment with DOE’s open science, stewardship, and FAIR data priorities. This guidance represents a community-driven step forward. Through voluntary adoption and continued feedback, the DRMP advances a cohesive, machine-actionable description of DOE repositories that supports FAIR data practices, preparing the infrastructure for AI-enabled research, and strengthening the discoverability and reuse of DOE’s scientific outputs.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

Improving and Automating Building Model Data Exchange

There are many instances throughout a project’s lifecycle where there arises a need for quick and accurate risk assessment of building designs. For example, an unexpected design change during construction may necessitate structural engineers to perform a seismic risk assessment on analytical models of the updated building design using high fidelity structural analysis software, such as ANSYS or Abaqus. However, the efficiency of such workflows often depends upon the interoperability of architectural design software and structural analysis software. When the quality of this interoperability is lacking or even non-existent, the efficiency of virtual engineering workflows is hampered, which increases project costs. A McGraw Hill industry survey of professional users of Building Information Modeling (BIM) technologies found that there is high demand for BIM interoperability for structural analysis, but that the value/difficulty ratio is currently too low for practical use. There have been efforts by the academic community to facilitate model data exchange between the architectural design and structural analysis domains, but such solutions have not been widely adopted by industry, face technical challenges, and oftentimes are limited in applicability for users of various BIM software. Therefore, INL is developing capabilities to improve, automate, and generalize model data exchange between architectural BIM software (e.g., Revit) and structural analysis software (e.g., SAP2000, ANSYS). The goal is to help expedite and automate as much of the pre-processing step for creating analytical models in finite element analysis software as reasonably as possible. Such a "BIM-to-FEA" conversion tool should provide direct benefit to end-users through accuracy, automation, quick turn-around, and wide applicability. To generalize the application of this BIM-to-FEA conversion tool and increase its useability among the many different commercial BIM software currently used by industry, the program is being developed with the concept of openBIM. OpenBIM is the application of non-proprietary, open data standards that allow for BIM model data exchange in a format that is accessible, retainable, and useable for all users. The most widely used open, non-proprietary data exchange format for BIM is the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) schema. IFC is developed by buildingSMART international and is ISO certified (ISO 16739-1:2018). The BIM-to-FEA conversion tool is being developed for compatibility with typical commercial building designs of steel framed structures. The tool is currently capable of importing architectural BIM data of framed building structures, recognizing and extracting the aspects of the model that are required for structural analysis, adjusting the connectivity of frame members, and finally exporting to an analytical model stored in the IFC format. The exported IFC analytical model can then be imported into various openBIM compliant software, such as SAP2000. Such capabilities have already been tested on commercial software, as shown above, and continue to be improved. Work is underway to test the conversion on various commercial BIM software, develop a user-friendly interface, incorporate the program into the broader DeepLynx data warehouse project being developed by INL, and to eventually open-source the tool for the benefit of the community. Future development of the tool envisions the ability for efficient iterative risk assessment of generative building designs, all within a workflow utilizing open-source tools. One such open-source tool will be MOOSE, an advanced finite element analysis tool developed at INL. The conversion tool will also branch out from typical commercial building designs and will aim to incorporate nuclear construction. The aim will be to convert both structural and non-structural components of nuclear facilities, such as curved concrete containment structures and piping systems, respectively.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Studies of Transient Meteor Activity

Meteoroids bombard Earth's atmosphere daily, but occasionally meteor rates increase to unusual high levels when Earth crosses the relatively fresh ejecta of comets. These transient events in meteor activity provide clues about the whereabouts of Earth-threatening long-period comets, the mechanisms of large-grain dust ejection from comets, and the particle composition and size distribution of the cometary ejecta. Observations of these transient events provide important insight in natural processes that determine the large grain dust environment of comets, in natural phenomena that were prevalent during the time of the origin of life, and in processes that determine the hazard of civilizations to large impacts and of man-made satellites to the periodic blizzard of small meteoroids. In this proposal, three tasks form a coherent program aimed at elucidating various aspects of meteor outbursts, with special reference to planetary astronomy and astrobiology. Task 1 was a ground-based effort to observe periods of transient meteor activity. This includes: (1) stereoscopic imaging of meteors during transient meteor events for measurements of particle size distribution, meteoroid orbital dispersions and fluxes; and (2) technical support for Global-MS-Net, a network of amateur-operated automatic counting stations for meteor reflections from commercial VHF radio and TV broadcasting stations, keeping a 24h vigil on the level of meteor activity for the detection of new meteor streams. Task 2 consisted of ground-based and satellite born spectroscopic observations of meteors and meteor trains during transient meteor events for measurements of elemental composition, the presence of organic matter in the meteoroids, and products generated by the interaction of the meteoroid with the atmosphere. Task 3 was an airborne effort to explore the 2000 Leonid meteor outbursts, which are anticipated to be the most significant of transient meteor activity events in the remainder of the agreement period. This includes technical support for a multi-instrument aircraft campaign, Leonid MAC.

Jenniskens, Peter M. M.↗

Avionics Architectures for Exploration: Ongoing Efforts in Human Spaceflight

The field of Avionics is advancing far more rapidly in terrestrial applications than in spaceflight applications. Spaceflight Avionics are not keeping pace with expectations set by terrestrial experience, nor are they keeping pace with the need for increasingly complex automation and crew interfaces as we move beyond Low Earth Orbit. NASA must take advantage of the strides being made by both space-related and terrestrial industries to drive our development and sustaining costs down. This paper describes ongoing efforts by the Avionics Architectures for Exploration (AAE) project chartered by NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program to evaluate new avionic architectures and technologies, provide objective comparisons of them, and mature selected technologies for flight and for use by other AES projects. The AAE project team includes members from most NASA centers, and from industry. It is our intent to develop a common core avionic system that has standard capabilities and interfaces, and contains the basic elements and functionality needed for any spacecraft. This common core will be scalable and tailored to specific missions. It will incorporate hardware and software from multiple vendors, and be upgradeable in order to infuse incremental capabilities and new technologies. It will maximize the use of reconfigurable open source software (e.g., Goddard Space Flight Center's (GSFC's) Core Flight Software (CFS)). Our long-term focus is on improving functionality, reliability, and autonomy, while reducing size, weight, and power. Where possible, we will leverage terrestrial commercial capabilities to drive down development and sustaining costs. We will select promising technologies for evaluation, compare them in an objective manner, and mature them to be available for future programs. The remainder of this paper describes our approach, technical areas of emphasis, integrated test experience and results as of mid-2014, and future plans. As a part of the AES Program, we are encouraged to set aggressive goals and fall short if necessary, rather than to set our sights too low. We are also asked to emphasize providing our personnel with hands-on experience in development, integration, and testing. That we have embraced both of these philosophies will be evident in the descriptions below.

Goforth, Montgomery B.↗

Progress report on the ATMOS sensor - Design description and development status

The Atmospheric Trace Molecule Spectroscopy program is a multiflight shuttle borne investigation designed to determine, on a global scale, the compositional structure and spatial variability of the upper atmosphere using the technique of high resolution infrared absorption spectroscopy. The measurement approach is based on an advanced Fourier Transform Spectrometer capable of obtaining high sensitivity spectral measurements of the atmosphere over a wide spectral region (625-5000 kaysers; 2-16 microns) at high spectral resolution (0.01 kaysers) and vertical height spatial resolution (2 km). Additional elements of the sensor system include a suntracker, a telescope, a mechanically cooled (Hg,Cd)Te detector, and a data handling subsystem with a 16 Mbit/s PCM output. A description is given of the sensor design, including performance predictions, followed by a brief summary of the current technical status of the development effort.

Morse, P. G.↗

Using the ISS as a Testbed to Prepare for the Next Generation of Space-Based Telescopes

The ISS provides a unique opportunity to develop the technologies and operational capabilities necessary to assemble future large space telescopes that may be used to investigate planetary systems around neighboring stars. Assembling telescopes in space is a paradigm-shifting approach to space astronomy. Using the ISS as a testbed will reduce the technical risks of implementing this major scientific facility, such as laser metrology and wavefront sensing and control (WFSC). The Optical Testbed and Integration on ISS eXperiment (OpTIIX) will demonstrate the robotic assembly of major components, including the primary and secondary mirrors, to mechanical tolerances using existing ISS infrastructure, and the alignment of the optical elements to a diffraction-limited optical system in space. Assembling the optical system and removing and replacing components via existing ISS capabilities, such as the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) or the ISS flight crew, allows for future experimentation and repair, if necessary. First flight on ISS for OpTIIX, a small 1.5 meter optical telescope, is planned for 2015. In addition to demonstration of key risk-retiring technologies, the OpTIIX program includes a public outreach program to show the broad value of ISS utilization.

Ess, Kim↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

Designing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle Upper Stage Element and Integrating the Stack at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Fielding an integrated launch vehicle system entails many challenges, not the least of which is the fact that it has been over 30 years since the United States has developed a human-rated vehicle - the venerable Space Shuttle. Over time, whole generations of rocket scientists have passed through the aerospace community without the opportunity to perform such exacting, demanding, and rewarding work. However, with almost 50 years of experience leading the design, development, and end-to-end systems engineering and integration of complex launch vehicles, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Marshall Space Flight Center offers the in-house talent - both junior- and senior-level personnel - to shape a new national asset to meet the requirements for safe, reliable, and affordable space exploration solutions. The technical personnel are housed primarily in Marshall's Engineering Directorate and are matrixed into the programs and projects that reside at the rocket center. Fortunately, many Apollo-era and Shuttle engineers, as well as those who gained valuable hands-on experience in the 1990s by conducting technology demonstrator projects such as the Delta-Clipper Experimental Advanced, X-33, X-34, and X-37, as well as the short-lived Orbital Space Plane, work closely with industry partners to advance the nation's strategic capability for human access to space. The Ares Projects Office, resident at Marshall, is managing the design and development of America's new space fleet, including the Ares I, which will loft the Orion crew capsule for its first test flight in the 2013 timeframe, as well as the heavy-lift Ares V, which will round out the capability to leave low-Earth orbit once again, when it delivers the Altair lunar lander to orbit late next decade. This paper provides information about the approach to integrating the Ares I stack and designing the upper stage in house, using unique facilities and an expert workforce to revitalize the nation's space exploration resources.

Otte, Neil E.↗

Laboratory for Hydrospheric Processes 1997 Publications

This document is a compilation of publications of the Goddard Space Flight Center Laboratory for Hydrospheric Processes for calendar year 1997. Each two-page entry is a cut-and-pasted extraction from a 1997 published journal article, book chapter, symposium or conference proceedings, or technical memorandum. This provides a quick, inexpensive way to communicate our research. If you wish further information, or a reprint, please contact the author of the article or the publisher. There are two sections, the first consisting of 76 journal articles and book chapters which are arranged according to the science priorities of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise: Land-Cover Change and Global Productivity Seasonal-to-Interannual Climate Prediction Natural Hazards Long-Term Climate Variability Atmospheric Ozone, and an additional category Sensor/Algorithm Development. * Each of these sections is preceded by a foreword. A second section, consisting of 52 other contributions (e.g. conference/symposium proceedings and technical memoranda), provides additional scientific information to the outside community. This document was initiated within the Earth Sciences Directorate at the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center to provide internal communication. We anticipate it will prove useful to visitors and other people interested in our research. This is our fifth annual document. The Laboratory for Hydrospheric Processes is one of the major elements of the Earth Sciences Directorate at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Scientific investigations within the Division range from theoretical to experimental research dealing with oceanic/physical oceanography, hydrologic, and cryospheric sciences. The Laboratory currently has a staff of 60 civil servants and approximately 138 visiting scientists, postdoctoral fellows, and contractors. At various times throughout the year, the Laboratory hosts additional personnel through NASA and Goddard sponsored enrichment programs for high school, undergraduate and graduate students, and high school and university faculty. For further information see our web site at http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov.

Busalacchi, Antonio J.↗

Extend an innovative HPC-Compatible Multiple Temporal-spatial Resolution Concurrent Finite Element Modeling Approach to Guide Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive

Laser power bed fusing (PBF) additive manufacturing is a key enabling technology to manufacture highly complex and integrated automotive structures. However, the geometric complexity of PBF-AM technique also leads to highly non-uniform heating and cooling rate in the manufactured part, which may cause flaw formation and produce excessive and nonuniform residual stresses, which increase quality uncertainties and manufacture issues, leading to increases in cost and energy consumption in the form of rejected parts. In this research project, we developed an innovative Multi-Spatial-Temporal-Resolution Finite Element (MUST-FE) method and completed the corresponding high performance computation (HPC) platform-based in-house code, which enables high accuracy prediction of temperature and residual stress fields for component-scale PBF-AM manufacture in efficient computation time. The MUST-FE model is calibrated and validated with a “2D pad” AlSi10Mg experiments by matching the melt pool shape and dimension, and with a “XY-cross” AlSi10Mg experiment by matching the thermal distortion and residual stress. The innovative multi-resolution and concurrent modeling approach adopted in this code ensures accuracy and computational efficiency, which will enable energy-efficient and high-yield, low-cost manufacturing of optimized, qualifiable automotive structures and contribute towards reaching technical targets outlined in AMO’s Program Plan to develop additive manufacturing systems that deliver consistently reliable parts with predictable properties.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

Visit from JAXA to NASA MSFC: The Engines Element & Ideas for Collaboration

System Design, Development, and Fabrication: Design, develop, and fabricate or procure MB-60 component hardware compliant with the imposed technical requirements and in sufficient quantities to fulfill the overall MB-60 development effort. System Development, Assembly, and Test: Manage the scope of the development, assembly, and test-related activities for MB-60 development. This scope includes engine-level development planning, engine assembly and disassembly, test planning, engine testing, inspection, anomaly resolution, and development of necessary ground support equipment and special test equipment. System Integration: Provide coordinated integration in the realms of engineering, safety, quality, and manufacturing disciplines across the scope of the MB-60 design and associated products development Safety and Mission Assurance, structural design, fracture control, materials and processes, thermal analysis. Systems Engineering and Analysis: Manage and perform Systems Engineering and Analysis to provide rigor and structure to the overall design and development effort for the MB-60. Milestone reviews, requirements management, system analysis, program management support Program Management: Manage, plan, and coordinate the activities across all portions of the MB-60 work scope by providing direction for program administration, business management, and supplier management.

Greene, William D.↗

PMDT: AI-Enabled Predictive Maintenance Digital Twins for Advanced Nuclear Reactors

Our team made substantial technical progress on various fronts during the course of the program. Multiple milestones were geared towards demonstrating the feasibility of machine learning based predictive maintenance digital twins towards reducing O&M costs, whereas some other milestones actually focused on identifying technical gaps and developing technologies such as humble AI to provide necessary robustness to the ML-based models. We were able to demonstrate in many cases that Machine learning-based methods can be successfully adapted for Nuclear plant environments especially for remote monitoring applications. Detailed analyses were carried out with plant and full scope simulation data along with capabilities of enhanced analytics to assess and set realistic expectations on cost reductions in O&M. These assessments are paving the way for investments towards reactor design improvements as well project planning for SMR projects as they develop and mature in the next few years. Technology developed under this program got direct visibility to GE Hitachi and their utility customers and resulted in positive intents to deploy some of the elements from design phase. The project additionally resulted in several reports, publications, software and data generation that will be useful in deployment and O&M services for BWRX300 fleets.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Exploring Mission Concepts with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts called the A-Team. The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods with subject matter expertise and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. Methods are grouped by Concept Maturity Level (CML), from 1 through 3, including idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for each CML are presented, and the key team roles are described from two points of view: innovative methods and technical expertise. A-Team roles for providing innovative methods include the facilitator, study lead, and assistant study lead. A-Team roles for providing technical expertise include the architect, lead systems engineer, and integration engineer. In addition to these key roles, each A-Team study is uniquely staffed to match the study topic and scope including subject matter experts, scientists, technologists, flight and instrument systems engineers, and program managers as needed. Advanced analysis and collaborative engineering tools (e.g. cost, science traceability, mission design, knowledge capture, study and analysis support infrastructure) are also under development for use in A-Team studies and will be discussed briefly. The A-Team facilities provide a constructive environment for innovative ideas from all aspects of mission formulation to eliminate isolated studies and come together early in the development cycle when they can provide the biggest impact. This paper provides an overview of the A-Team, its study processes, roles, methods, tools and facilities.

Team Eureka↗

Thermal and Mechanical Performance of a Carbon/Carbon Composite Spacecraft Radiator

Carbon-carbon composite materials offer greater thermal efficiency, stiffness to weight ratio, tailorability, and dimensional stability than aluminum. These lightweight thermal materials could significantly reduce the overall costs associated with satellite thermal control and weight. However, the high cost and long lead-time for carbon-carbon manufacture have limited their widespread usage. Consequently, an informal partnership between government and industrial personnel called the Carbon-Carbon Spacecraft Radiator Partnership (CSRP) was created to foster carbon-carbon composite use for thermally and structurally demanding space radiator applications. The first CSRP flight opportunity is on the New Millennium Program (NMP) Earth Orbiter-1 (EO-1) spacecraft, scheduled for launch in late 1999. For EO-1, the CSRP designed and fabricated a Carbon-Carbon Radiator (CCR) with carbon-carbon facesheets and aluminum honeycomb core, which will also serve as a structural shear panel. While carbon-carbon is an ideal thermal candidate for spacecraft radiators, in practice there are technical challenges that may compromise performance. In this work, the thermal and mechanical performance of the EO-1 CCR is assessed by analysis and testing. Both then-nal and mechanical analyses were conducted to predict the radiator response to anticipated launch and on-orbit loads. The thermal model developed was based on thermal balance test conditions. The thermal analysis was performed using SINDA version 4.0. Structural finite element modeling and analysis were performed using SDRC/1-DEAS and UAI/NASTRAN, respectively. In addition, the CCR was subjected to flight qualification thermal/vacuum and vibration tests. The panel meets or exceeds the requirements for space flight and demonstrates promise for future satellite missions.

Kuhn, Jonathan↗

Definition and Development of Habitation Readiness Levels (HRLs) for Planetary Surface Habitats

One could argue that NASA has never developed a true habitat for a planetary surface, with only the Lunar Module from the 1960's-era Apollo Program providing for a sparse 2 person, 3 day capability. An integral part of NASA's current National Vision for Space Exploration is missions back to the moon and eventually to Mars. One of the largest leaps i11 lunar surface exploration beyond the Apollo lunar missions will be the conduct of these extended duration human missions. These missions could range from 30 to 90 days in length initially and may eventually range up to 500 days in length. To enable these extended duration human missions, probably the single-most important lunar surface element is the Surface Habitat. The requirements that must be met by the Surface Habitat will go far beyond the safety, performance and operational requirements of the Lunar Module, and NASA needs to develop a basis for making intelligent, technically correct habitat design decisions. This paper will discuss the possibilities of the definition and development of a Habitation Readiness Level (HRL) scale that might be mapped to current Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) for technology development. HRLs could help measure how well a particular technology thrust is advanced by a proposed planetary habitat concept. The readiness level would have to be measured differently than TRLs, and may include such milestones as habitat design performance under simulated mission operations and constraints (including relevant field testing), functional allocation demonstrations, crew interface evaluation and post-occupancy evaluation. With many concepts for planetary habitats proposed over the past 20 years, there are many strategic technical challenges facing designers of planetary habitats that will support NASA's exploration of the moon and Mars. The systematic assessment of a variety of planetary habitat options will be an important approach and will influence the associated requirements for human design, volumetrics, functionality, systems hardware and operations.

Connolly, Janis H.↗

The role of scientists in developing Hubble Space Telescope

The objective of the Hubble Space Telescope Program is to build and operate a high-performance, fully-instrumented and long-lived optical observatory in earth orbit. Key Program elements are (1) a logistic strategy of Shuttle launch/maintenance and TDRSS communications, (2) overall responsibility at the MSFC Project for developing both the flight and ground systems, and (3) scientific participation in ST development and responsibility after launch for conducting the observing program. The ST Project is a management structure with a budget and schedule for delivering an ST system capable of achieving its established scientific objectives. The Project distributes through contracts the responsibility for supplying particular components, but retains the responsibility for system-level integrity. Scientists have set the performance objectives and now support the Project during the development stage by providing (1) PI management of the five Science Instruments, (2) continuing translations of scientific requirements into engineering specifications, (3) oversight of designs and performance tests, and (4) specific expertise on technical concerns.

Brown, R. A.↗

From LDEF to a national Space Environment and Effects (SEE) program: A natural progression

As the LDEF program draws to a close, it leaves in place the fundamental building blocks for a Space Environment and Effects (SEE) program. Results from LDEF data analyses and investigations now form a substantial core of knowledge on the long term effects of the space environment on materials, system and structures. In addition, these investigations form the basic structure of a critically-needed SEE archive and database system. An agency-wide effort is required to capture all elements of a SEE program to provide a more comprehensive and focused approach to understanding the space environment, determining the best techniques for both flight and ground-based experimentation, updating the models which predict both the environments and those effects on subsystems and spacecraft, and, finally, ensuring that this multitudinous information is properly maintained, and inserted into spacecraft design programs. Many parts and pieces of a SEE program already exist at various locations to fulfill specific needs. The primary purpose of this program, under the direction of the Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology (OACT) in NASA Headquarters, is to take advantage of these parts; apply synergisms where possible; identify and when possible fill-in gaps; coordinate and advocate a comprehensive SEE program. The SEE program must coordinate and support the efforts of well-established technical communities wherein the bulk of the work will continue to be done. The SEE program will consist of a NASA-led SEE Steering Committee, consisting of government and industry users, with the responsibility for coordination between technology developers and NASA customers; and Technical Working Groups with primary responsibility for program technical content in response to user needs. The Technical Working Groups are as follows: Materials and Processes; Plasma and Fields; Ionizing Radiation; Meteoroids and Orbital Debris; Neutral External Contamination; Thermosphere, Thermal, and Solar Conditions; Electromagnetic Effects; Integrated Assessments and Databases. Specific technology development tasks will be solicited through a NASA Research Announcement to be released in May of 1994. The areas in which tasks are solicited include: (1) engineering environment definitions, (2) environments and effects design guidelines, (3) environments and effects assessment models and databases, and (4) flight/ground simulation/technology assessment data.

Bowles, David E.↗

Using Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation to Develop a Launch and Recovery Flight Simulation for a UH-60A Blackhawk

Joint Shipboard Helicopter Integration Process (JSHIP) is a Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) program sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Under the JSHDP program is a simulation effort referred to as the Dynamic Interface Modeling and Simulation System (DIMSS). The purpose of DIMSS is to develop and test the processes and mechanisms that facilitate ship-helicopter interface testing via man-in-the-loop ground-based flight simulators. Specifically, the DIMSS charter is to develop an accredited process for using a flight simulator to determine the wind-over-the-deck (WOD) launch and recovery flight envelope for the UH-60A ship/helicopter combination. DIMSS is a collaborative effort between the NASA Ames Research Center and OSD. OSD determines the T&E and warfighter training requirements, provides the programmatics and dynamic interface T&E experience, and conducts ship/aircraft interface tests for validating the simulation. NASA provides the research and development element, simulation facility, and simulation technical experience. This paper will highlight the benefits of the NASA/JSHIP collaboration and detail achievements of the project in terms of modeling and simulation. The Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) at NASA Ames Research Center offers the capability to simulate a wide range of simulation cueing configurations, which include visual, aural, and body-force cueing devices. The system flexibility enables switching configurations io allow back-to-back evaluation and comparison of different levels of cueing fidelity in determining minimum training requirements. The investigation required development and integration of several major simulation system at the VMS. A new UH-60A BlackHawk interchangeable cab that provides an out-the-window (OTW) field-of-view (FOV) of 220 degrees in azimuth and 70 degrees in elevation was built. Modeling efforts involved integrating Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) generated data of an LHA ship airwake and integrating a real-time ship motion model developed based on a batch model from Naval Surface Warfare Center. Engineering development and integration of a three degrees-of-freedom (DOF) dynamic seat to simulate high frequency rotor-dynamics dependent motion cues for use in conjunction with the large motion system was accomplished. The development of an LHA visual model in several different levels of resolution and an aural cueing system in which three separate fidelity levels could be selected were developed. VMS also integrated a PC-based E&S simFUSION system to investigate cost effective IG alternatives. The DIMSS project consists of three phases that follow an approved Validation, Verification and accreditation (VV&A) process. The first phase will support the accreditation of the individual subsystems and models. The second will follow the verification and validation of the integrated subsystems and models, and will address fidelity requirements of the integrated models and subsystems. The third and final phase will allow the verification and validation of the full system integration. This VV&A process will address the utility of the simulated WOD launch and recovery envelope. Simulations supporting the first two stages have been completed and the data is currently being reviewed and analyzed.

Sweeney, Christopher↗