Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “PERSONNEL”

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 505 records · Page 28
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Concurrent Engineering Tool for the New Mission Design Center at NASA Ames Research Center

The NASA Ames Mission Design Center (MDC) has undergone a significant transformation process in recent years, culminating in becoming a true Concurrent Engineering Center. The underlying goal of this transformation is to better serve the Ames PI community in a cost-effective and rapidly-responsive way, providing quality products pivotal to the decision-making proposal strategy of our center. The four pillars of the change focus on four areas: personnel, physical places, tools, and training. Personnel: the MDC switched from using a dedicated pool of engineers—mostly entry-level career—for a matrixed approach with more experienced Subject Matter Experts, usually involved in spaceflight projects. These SMEs get detailed to the MDC for the duration of the study on a part-time or full-time basis. Physical places: The physical aspect pertains mostly to the layout of the new Engineering building and the dedicated concurrent engineering layout to foster collaboration. The current plan includes a dedicated space for concurrent engineering sessions as well as dedicated project rooms for concept studies. Tool: the MDC team is developing a new in-house concurrent engineering tool to facilitate concurrent engineering sessions. The team leveraged the many lessons learned and insight gained from using the current concurrent engineering tool, in use since 2007. SMEs have been involved throughout its design and development, ensuring accuracy and providing validity to the implementation approach. This new tool is database-driven and allows a team to work concurrently on the same model of a mission concept. “Workspaces” are provided for each of the traditional spacecraft mission design disciplines, including cost accounting and systems engineering. There are multiple tiers of fidelity available within each workspace, which can be completed parametrically or independently from the other disciplines as needed or synchronously with the other disciplines. A “commit” step synchronizes a workspace with the mission database and identifies any potential conflicts, along with the user who entered the conflicting data. A Mission Summary workspace enables a Study Lead to run an effective CE session, displaying key graphics, workspace status information, and technical and monetary budget information. This new CE tool will be undergoing Beta Testing with its primary user base and a limited Parts database in the summer of 2020. The team plans to release the first fully operational version in December 2020. Training: working in early concept development and maturation for a space mission requires a unique mindset and being comfortable with uncertainties in an environment where requirements are not yet fully developed, and where changes and trade-offs happen at a high tempo. The MDC started a weekly training program to ensure a common knowledge base on how do develop and mature early concept studies, as well as how to operate in a concurrent engineering environment. In conclusion, the MDC transformation will provide the overall PI community focused on cost-effective small satellite scientific missions with a powerful tool to address and mature early concepts more effectively and efficiently.

David Mauro↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Training Artemis Astronauts to Explore the Moon

To prepare for human exploration of the Moon in the mid-2020s, NASA is developing a program to provide geoscience and planetary science classroom training and geologic eld training to astronauts and other mission personnel. The Artemis geoscience training plan builds on a long legacy: NASA has trained astronauts in geology, planetary science, and geological eld work for more than 50 years. From ~1965-1972, the geology focus for astronauts included orbital Earth observations during the early NASA missions, but the endgame was preparation for the Apollo missions to the Lunar surface [see Phinney (2015), NASA-SP-2015-626; Lofgren et al.(2011);Schmitt, et al. (2011); and El Baz (2011), all from GSA SP483]. From the mid 1970s through2017, the primary purpose for geoscience training was to prepare astronauts to observe theEarth and document a wide variety of Earth processes from orbital platforms (Skylab, SpaceShuttle and International Space Station). Astronaut observations of Earth from the InternationalSpace Station remain an important activity today, but the prospect of exploration of the lunar surface through the Artemis Program lends additional purpose to the geoscience content and eld experiences that we provide the astronauts. We recently completed the geology and eld training with Astronaut Class 22 and are now planning both focused eld exercises and simulations for future Artemis crews, as well as the accompanying classroom lessons on lunar and planetary sciences. The training we offer extends beyond the astronaut office – we partner across operational and engineering organizations at NASA and provide eld work exercises and opportunities to personnel in the Flight Operations Directorate (responsible for the overall training and certification), as well as the exploration Extravehicular Activity Oce (developing spacewalk suits and tools). These partnerships contribute to building a common language and sense of purpose, and also help to ensure that NASA’s geoscience training and science operations are fully integrated with the teams and systems responsible for getting the next generation of astronauts to the surface of the Moon.

Artemis↗
NASA NTRS2020

Conducted Susceptibility Data Adaptation Tool

The purpose of this research project is to help NASA scientists increase effectivity in testing by reducing the amount of time required for data conversion from initial measurements to the analysis stage. This project resulted in a data conversion tool developed in python using the openpyxl library. When lab personnel perform the Conducted Susceptibility 101 (CS101) and Conducted Susceptibility 02 (CS02) tests in the Semi-anechoic Electromagnetic Compatibility Test Facility at NASA Langley Research Center, the driving code produces a text file under the .DAT extension.The data must be manually converted the .DAT file into an Excel file line by line for data analysis.The Conducted Susceptibility Data Adaptation Tool (CSDAT) uses python code to convert the .DAT files to spreadsheets automatically which saves lab personnel time which they could use for faster analysis as well as prevents possible human error such as leaving out a line of data in the manual conversion process.

Gabriel Johnson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Performance, Fatigue and Workload During Real-time, Reactive Telerobotic Mission Control Operations

Real-time, reactive telerobotic mission control operations require personnel to actively operate and manage remotely controlled vehicles or robots in real time. Due to the physical separation of the vehicle from the operator, such operations present many additional factors that can influence fatigue (i.e., degraded mental performance) and workload (i.e., mental and physical cost of task requirements), making it difficult to assess how long an individual can safely and accurately conduct operations. The upcoming Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission involves remotely controlling a lunar vehicle from an Earth-based mission control station. METHODS: In order to determine how long personnel could successfully maintain alertness and performance while operating a rover, we studied seven trained operators (i.e., 5 drivers, 2 real-time scientists) in a simulated mission control environment. We further assessed workload in order to determine whether perceived workload levels would change relative to time on task and by time of day. Operators completed two five-hour simulations in a randomized order, beginning at noon and at midnight. Performance was evaluated every 30 minutes using the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), and NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). RESULTS: On average, participants rated themselves as sleepier (5.06 ± 2.28) on the night drives compared to the day drives (3.12 ± 1.44; P < .0001). Workload was rated higher during the day drives (37.93 ± 20.09) compared to night (32.09 ± 21.74; P < .01). Lastly, participants had no change in average reaction time between the two drives. CONCLUSIONS: From the analysis, we observed performance began to degrade after approximately three hours of driving. Our findings suggest that rotating drivers at least every three hours would be prudent to allow for breaks, and to minimize performance degradation, particularly during night shifts.

fatigue↗
NASA NTRS2018

Preparing to Assure Mission Success

Space flight missions are inherently risky. The mission operations assurance discipline grew out of strategies to control error and evolved into what today is an independent technical authority dedicated to achieving mission success. After the Mars Climate Orbiter loss, NASA made a set of recommendations for missions. Two of those recommendations led to the creation of today’s Mission Operations Assurance Manager role: (1) require an independent Mission Assurance representative during the operational phase of every flight project, and (2) require all flight projects to report and track post-launch anomalies. Since then, the MOAM role has been continually refined by lessons learned from its practice on more than 20 concurrent missions. The MOAM role requires significant operations experience as well as an additional set of skills. In the interests of developing a cadre of potential MOAMs, the MOAM training program was developed. It is a 14-unit set of presentations/discussions covering the 11 categories of MOAM tasks. It is offered to new MOAMs and interested systems engineers with an eye to preparing both types of personnel for present and future assignments, as well as building relationships among personnel of different organizations. MOAM training sessions include presentations on the various tools and processes employed by MOAMs, interspersed with mindset lessons illustrated via “war story” discussions of previous missions.

Bryant, Larry↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards a Measure of Situation Awareness for Space Mission Schedulers

The success of space flight missions relies on support provided to astronauts through specialist knowledge of ground-based personnel. One of the many essential tasks that ground personnel provide is the scheduling of flight crew daily activities. Future long duration exploration missions will require astronauts to assume planning and scheduling responsibilities in order to facilitate increased autonomy from ground support. Although situation awareness is critical to the scheduling task, a sufficient measure for this domain has not been developed. This paper documents the approach and process by which the authors developed a framework for measuring situation awareness in space mission schedulers and presents the measure applications’ initial results.

human factors in spaceflight↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Influence of Self-Reported Distractions on the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) in Laboratory and Field Environments

Introduction: The Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) is a measure of vigilant attention that is commonly used in laboratory environments to assess the neurobehavioral impact of sleep loss and circadian misalignment. The PVT has been increasing in popularity for use in field environments; however, the potential for distraction is higher in the field compared to the lab. It is unclear how distractions experienced by individuals taking the PVT in the real world may influence reaction time metrics. We investigated the influence of self-reported distraction on PVT outcomes across laboratory and field environments. Methods: We examined PVT data from five studies including short (n=36 participants, 3799 PVTs) and long-haul (n=75 participants, 3283 PVTs) airline personnel, control center personnel (n=5 participants, 96 PVTs), and healthy individuals who participated in a study involving at-home and laboratory assessments (n=12 participants, 486 and 310 PVTs). Individuals in all of the studies were asked to complete the five-minute NASA PVT at least three times daily. Participants were asked to indicate the number of distractions they experienced immediately after each PVT. Mean PVT reaction time (RT) and number of distractions were computed for each study and overall. Results: Participants reported more distractions in field environments compared to the lab (short-haul=1.29 +/- 1.48, long-haul=0.66 +/- 1.07, control-center=1.20 +/- 1.37, at-home=0.86 +/- 1.36, laboratory=0.46 +/- 1.07) Across all studies, we found that PVT RT slowed as self-reported distractions increased (all studies combined: 0 distractions=PVT RT 274.4ms; 1=284.6ms; 2=302.9ms; 3=321.2ms; >4=409.3ms). These findings were similar for healthy participants completing PVTs at home (0 distractions=287.1ms; 1=309.9ms; 2=328.3ms; 3=369.8ms; >4=385.1ms) but were less consistent during in-lab assessments (0 distractions=278.7ms; 1=316.2ms; 2=396.2ms; 3=370.4ms; >4=354.4ms). These findings were similar for other PVT outcomes. Conclusion: Participants reported more distractions in field environments compared to the laboratory. Our findings suggest that the number of distractions that individuals report experiencing while taking a PVT increases the reaction time registered by the device. Researchers should collect information about distractions during the PVT and should be aware that distractions may influence the recorded PVT reaction time.

behavior↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rapid Assessment of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module

Johnson Space Center is piloting an innovation team known as the Forge to perform rapid turnaround, concurrent engineering studies. The Forge is intended to be able to pull together a team of strategically selected domain experts to innovatively solve a specified problem within a short period of time. The Forge’s inaugural project being the development of a Lunar Surface Laboratory Module concept. The lab module is intended as an option for the Artemis program’s Lunar Architecture Team. The lab module may allow for increased science productivity and return on investment than a surface architecture with only the habitat. This paper will discuss the configuration of the Lunar Laboratory module, including the pressure vessel, its placement relative to the Surface Habitat and Pressurized Rover, and internal architecture. In order to determine the suitability of such a design, a human factors evaluation is conducted. Historically, a human factors evaluation of a habitable volume could require a month or longer, including time needed to prepare a test plan, conduct the evaluation, compile the data, and produce a report. The entire Forge effort will only last for five weeks, forcing the creation of a rapid assessment process. This rapid assessment includes three evaluation studies, all conducted and processed in the space of a single day, to determine the acceptability of the resulting design. The first evaluation is a card sort evaluation of the laboratory instruments. A brief discussion of the card sort evaluation is provided. This card sort is focused on the relative positioning of the laboratory instruments, determining whether a given instrument should be adjacent to, or separated from, another. It will use human factors personnel and both life and physical scientists as subject matter experts. The second evaluation is a science productivity tabletop evaluation. This evaluation focuses on the selection of instruments and the number of instruments, attempting to assess the amount of work the crew will be able to use the facility to do. It uses life and physical science personnel as subject matter experts. The third evaluation is a CAD or Virtual Reality human factors walkthrough evaluation. This evaluation focuses on the layout of the lab module and its connectivity to the basecamp’s pressurized elements. If possible, astronauts will be used as subject matter experts. Each of these evaluations will focus primarily on objective data with limited subjective comments, reducing the time required for processing responses. The results of each evaluation and their implications will be discussed. Based on the evaluation data, an overall acceptability of the Lunar Surface Laboratory Module produced by the Forge study can be determined. Lessons learned and recommendations for future use of the human factors rapid assessment process in early design trades will also be provided.

Lunar Laboratory↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards a Measure of Situation Awareness for Space Mission Schedulers

The success of space flight missions relies on support provided to astronauts through specialist knowledge of ground-based personnel. One of the many essential tasks that ground personnel provide is the scheduling of flight crew daily activities. Future long duration exploration missions will require astronauts to assume planning and scheduling responsibilities in order to facilitate increased autonomy from ground support. Although situation awareness is critical to the scheduling task, a sufficient measure for this domain has not been developed. This paper documents the approach and process by which the authors developed a framework for measuring situation awareness in space mission schedulers and presents the measure applications’ initial results.

human factors in spaceflight↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

22 N HPGP Thruster Life Testing

In the ever-changing paradigm of efficient and capable spacecraft design, scientific missions continue pushing the envelope enabling spacecraft subsystems to deliver effective solutions to meet challenging new mission/spacecraft needs. From an in-space storable liquid chemical propulsion perspective, monopropellant hydrazine has been, and continues to be, a dependable propellant with considerable flight heritage, a variety of engine thrust classes available from multiple vendors, with repeatable and reliable performance. Additionally, the space propulsion industry has learned to successfully handle hydrazine, its regulations, the safety protocols, the personnel protective equipment, and the unique training standards–all requisite for loading spacecraft propulsion systems with toxic hypergolic hydrazine. The question now arises as to “what is next for in-space chemical propulsion?” Further, with the evolution and concrete advancements in innovative in-space green propellant technologies, capable of providing realizable benefits to scientific missions, concern over the reliability and availability of this higher performing and safer to handle class of propellants is waning. As science missions move forward with the potential flight in fusion of High Performance Green Propulsion (HPGP), NASA and its industry partners are working to address any gaps in system reliability, performance, or unique operational considerations. Propellant technology that offers both higher performance and significant reduction in personnel hazards compared to hydrazine presents an attractive propulsion subsystem design opportunity. Increased propulsion subsystem performance can result in lower spacecraft launch mass, larger scientific payloads, or extended on-orbit lifetimes. Mission trades using green propulsion technologies have been documented on multiple NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) mission classes, examining various parameters and requirements to support mission architectures in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), High Earth Orbit (HEO), geostationary, lunar, planetary, and Quasi-halo orbit around Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2). The results of these trade studies show promising, attainable benefits. The perceived programmatic risk of flying a newer propulsion technology has, unfortunately, not outweighed the benefits to date. To take advantage of the improved performance and mitigate programmatic risk, HPGP engines must demonstrate life testing at higher propellant throughputs than have currently been demonstrated. In an effort to proactively address the challenges with technology infusion into a risk-averse community, NASA and the Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) outlined a collaborative Implementing Arrangement (IA) for the respective agencies to pursue increased HPGP technology maturation. This initial IA effort began in 2013, fresh off the heels of the successful PRISMA HPGP technology demonstration mission. The IA targeted objective is to reduce risk to potential future HPGP missions and fully characterize the LMP-103S propellant and associated engine performance. Over the past eight years, HPGP has flown in propulsion systems on twenty-five(25) spacecraft from seven(7) different Launch Ranges around the globe and on seven (7) different Launch Vehicles. Six(6) of these launches involved multiple loading operations for multiple spacecraft. For U.S. Range operations, nine (9) HPGP systems have been processed at Vandenberg Space Force Base(VSFB):six(6) in 2017, and three (3) in 2018. Six (6) more have been processed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)in May 2020, with three (3) systems launched in June 2020 and the remaining three (3) system were left loaded and ready until their launch in August of 2020. Three (3) more systems have been processed at Wallops Flight Facility(WFF)and launched in June 2021. In addition, these propulsion subsystems employed heritage propulsion subsystem component such as valves, filters, and pressure transducers, and have further demonstrated nominal functionality in both diaphragm and Propellant Management Device (PDM) propellant tanks. Based on these successes, HPGP technology continues to be considered for NASA Science Mission Directorate missions at GSFC. The work presented herein represents many years of development and collaborative efforts to successfully align higher performance, low toxicity hydrazine alternatives into scientific missions. NASA GSFC Propulsion Engineering, in collaboration with Bradford ECAPS, has developed mission specific thruster design and testing requirements to establish GSFC’s desired test conditions and firing sequences.In2017, the first flight-like 22N HPGP thruster Engineering Qualification Model (EQM-1)was designed and built by Bradford ECAPS to prove out the thruster design, materials, build process, and test campaign with respect to NASA GSFC critical component and mission requirements. This test program was developed to comprehensively test the thruster, the technology, and ultimately increase the 22N HPGP Technology Readiness Level(TRL). EQM-1was tested to environmental qualification levels prior to hot fire performance testing to represent the relevant end-to-end environment (launch to on-orbit operation)with required margin. This thruster demonstrated steady-state and pulse mode operational capability with propellant thruster throughput up to~53kg.At this throughput level, the EQM-1 engine began to present off-nominal performance and the test campaign was halted to allow for non-destructive testing and identify the root cause for the an omalous performance. Capitalizing on the successful elements of the EQM-1 campaign, an upgraded 22N HPGP EQM-2 has been manufactured by Bradford ECAPS to meet the complete GSFC requirements. The EQM-2 thruster’s test campaign has further demonstrated the robustness of the HPGP propulsion technology and increased the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) by undergoing a full acceptance test program, then proceeding into qualification, including environmental testing (vibration and shock to qualification levels),as well as hot-fire life testing, operating at steady-state and pulse modes with increased propellant thruster throughput to~150kg. The HPGP thruster performance testing enables effective HPGP thruster readiness evaluation to meet NASA candidate mission requirements in the future.

High↗
NASA NTRS2021

Comparing Theoretically Scaled Biomechanical Models

BACKGROUND An investigation into incorporating space suit aspects required a 50th-percentile male model which was not part of the existing dataset of models. Previously, theoretical models for 5th-percentile female and 95th-percentile male were created utilizing a scaled test subject as close as possible to the target height and weight. Scaling factors were created by taking the height ratio and applying it uniformly to the model body segments, then fine tuning to ensure the theoretical model’s height is as expected. This study was initiated to examine the existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim [1,2] and to create alternative methods which do not rely on an existing subject being close in height and weight to the theoretical model of interest. Generating a theoretical biomechanical model provides additional abilities without the reliance on available OpenSim models or real subjects. Gained abilities include creating different percentile models and attaining representative anthropometry for any target height/weight, such as targeting specific crew populations or gaps within the current dataset. METHODS AND RESULTS This study includes 3 methods for generating the theoretical model; utilizing the modified unscaled OpenSim Full Body Rajagopal Model (FBRM) [3,4], a dataset of scaled OpenSim models, and existing scaling factors from Dumas et al. [5]. All methods use the Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [6] as an input of necessary anthropometric measurements. The following measurements are retrieved from the ANSUR II collection: mass, stature, cervicale height, acromial height, axilla height, waist height, trochanterion height, lateral femoral epicondyle height, lateral malleolus height, acromion-radiale length, radiale-stylion length, palm length, ball of foot length, bicristal breadth, bimalleolar breadth. Some of the measurements are direct segment lengths and others are utilized to derive segment lengths. Height, weight, and age ranges are the required inputs to parse the collection for a mean value of the measurements. A simple iterative process may be necessary for the output of mean mass and stature consistent with the theoretical model of interest. In some cases, one may specify exact values instead of a range but that is dependent upon whether those exact values pertain to a single subject from the ANSUR II collection. Equations from Dumas et al. were used to calculate scaling factors for the two methods that utilize OpenSim scaled and unscaled models. In the third method, Dumas’ scaling factors were used directly instead of generating our own. After scaling factors are achieved, they are applied along with the mass and segment lengths retrieved from ANSUR II in order to calculate the segment mass, Center of Mass (CoM), mass Moment of Inertia (MoI), and the joint location in the parent frame. The theoretical models from the different methods were compared to the previous existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim, as well as the standards found in NASA STD-3000 [7] and the NASA Human Integration Design Handbook [8]. The whole-body center of mass is the main comparison performed between the models and the standards. The body segment mass properties were also compared when possible. In some cases, the standards do not provide complete data, or the center of mass location is not provided with respect to the appropriate joint coordinate system. For a 50th-percentile male subject, results from isometric scaling in OpenSim and the method utilizing the unscaled FBRM were compared to the standards in NASA STD-3000. According to the standard, the whole-body vertical CoM location was taken from the head vertex to the CoM. The standards provide 80.2 cm for the CoM vertical component whereas isometric scaling in OpenSim and utilizing the unscaled FBRM provide 82.2 and 82.3 cm, respectively. Through definition, the whole-body CoM in the medial/lateral direction agreed across the models. Investigation is on-going to clearly identify the reference point pertaining to dorsal/ventral whole-body CoM position in standards and relate that to the theoretical models. REFERENCES [1] Delp, S.L., et al., “OpenSim: Open-source Software to Create and Analyze Dynamic Simulations of Movement”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, (2007). [2] Seth, A., Hicks J.L., Uchida, T.K., Habib, A., Dembia, C.L., Dunne, J.J., Ong, C.F., DeMers, M.S., Rajagopal, A., Millard, M., Hamner, S.R., Arnold, E.M., Yong, J.R., Lakshmikanth, S.K., Sherman,n M.A., Delp, S.L. OpenSim: Simulating musculoskeletal dynamics and neuromuscular control to study human and animal movement. Plos Computational Biology, 14(7). (2018) [3] R. K. Huffman, W. K. Thompson, C. A. Gallo, L. J. Quiocho, “Improvement of Scaling and Inverse Kinematic Results with Additional Upper Body Joints Added to Opensim Rajagopal Model”, NASA Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop, (2019). [4] Huffman R.K., Thompson W., Gallo C., “Modified OpenSim Rajagopal Full Body Model”, New Technology Report, MSC-26872-1. (August 2020). [5] Dumas R., Cheze L. and Verriest J., 2007. “Adjustments to McConville et al. and Young et al. body segment inertial parameters”. Journal of Biomechanics 40, pp. 543-553 [6] Gordon C.C., 2012 “Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics”, US Army Natick Soldier RD&E Center. [7] NASA STD-3000/REV-B, 1995. “The Man-System Integration Standards” [8] NASA/SP-2010-3407/REV-1, 2014. “The Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)”

F N Matari↗
NASA NTRS2020

Preparing for Mars 2020 and Future Space Missions: Technology Advancements Driving Contamination Control Requirements and Cleanroom Protocols

Future space exploration missions will force contamination control requirements to become more strict to support increasingly sensitive instrumentation and search for life missions. Driving issues for these extremely clean requirements include increased instrument sensitivity, return sample science, and protecting ambitious mission science objectives. Preparing to meet these requirements mandates that contamination control provide new guidelines and more involved support for the cleanrooms during flight hardware assembly, including establishing better methods for setting cleanroom personnel limits to reduce particle fall out in cleanrooms. Limited literature exists for universal methods of determining cleanroom personnel limits, and what does exist includes mostly theory and assumptions on determining the limit. In this work, published method will be assessed against particle fall out data collected from the ISO 5 cleanrooms of the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover assembly. Additional evaluations will assess contamination control required cleanroom protocols and the overall success of meeting strict cleanliness requirements of the Adaptive Caching Assembly (ACA) and sample tubes to safeguard future scientific endeavors.

Chen, Nicole↗
NASA NTRS2021

Practical Operational Readiness Gambits: Operations Training Simulations for the Curiosity Rover

The Mars Science Laboratory team had been puttingin effort to make a Training Venue to allow for parallel shadowtactical operations for trainees to actively work alongside theprime tactical operations personnel without affecting operations,since staffing constraints and shortened operations timelineswere straining the tactical process in supporting operationstrainees in the traditional way. The COVID- 19 Pandemic presentedfurther challenges in continuing on-console training forMSL operations trainees. The MSL operations team switched tofully remote operations, thus hampering the direct mentorshipa trainee would normally receive while on site at JPL. TheMars 2020 training team had developed a concept for roveroperations training simulations based on Johnson Space Center’sextensive simulations training program for astronauts andflight controllers. The MSL team borrowed this idea, and implementedthese training simulations which are called PracticalOperational Readiness Gambits (PORGs). The PORGs so farhave focused on the Science Planner and Rover Planner roles,which are two crucial roles in tactical operations that engagein key interactions throughout a shift. PORGs are based onactual sol scenarios that have occurred on Mars and follow thetactical operations process and timeline as closely as possible.However, unlike an operations shift, PORGs can slow down orpause to allow for more mentoring time. PORGs can focus onparticular skills to test the trainees on their understanding ofa concept. PORGs increase in complexity with each scenario toease the trainees into more typical tactical operations workloads.As more trainees join the MSL operations team, more roles arebeing incorporated into PORGs. There are plans to incorporatecertified operations personnel into PORGs to practice anomalyresponse situations. PORGs have become an essential part of theMSL operations training program and will continue even afterthe return to on-site operations at JPL.

Gajeway, Jocelyn↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Cleaning Methods for Cleanroom and Safety Suits at Remote Sites with Available Resources

"The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) spent considerable time in multiple clean facilities during its launch campaign at the Centre Spatial Guyanais (CSG) in French Guiana. Throughout this time, it was imperative that personnel wear approved cleanroom or safety suits when working in proximity to the JWST observatory. This proved to be challenging for two reasons: 1) A large quantity of NASA cleanroom suits needed to be shipped to CSG to account for the heavy volume of NASA and ESA personnel requiring access to the clean facilities. It became evident that shipping clean suits from the US to CSG in a timely fashion during the launch campaign would be challenging. Consequently, a backup plan needed to be established to avoid running out. 2) For safety purposes, Self-Contained Atmospheric Protection Ensemble (SCAPE) and Splash suits were required for hazardous operations. Neither type of suit was cleanroom compatible; therefore, a viable cleaning process needed to be developed to ensure both types of suits met JWST’s approved cleanliness standards. The NASA Contamination Control (CC) team partnered with CSG’s S5E cleanroom and suit processing team. The teams were able to make modifications to the S5E facility to create a NASA approved makeshift clean environment where NASA cleanroom suits and CSG Splash suits were inspected, folded, and bagged for cleanroom use once they were washed and dried. Since SCAPE suits could not be cleaned using conventional methods, a procedure was developed to clean and inspect the suits by the CC team in a temporary clean environment prior to fueling. "

James Webb Space Telescope↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Cleaning Methods For Cleanroom And Safety Suits At Remote Sites With Available Resources

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) spent considerable time in multiple clean facilities during its launch campaign at the Centre Spatial Guyanais (CSG) in French Guiana. Throughout this time, it was imperative that personnel wear approved cleanroom or safety suits when working in proximity to the JWST observatory. This proved to be challenging for two reasons: 1) A large quantity of NASA cleanroom suits needed to be shipped to CSG to account for the heavy volume of NASA and ESA personnel requiring access to the clean facilities. It became evident that shipping clean suits from the US to CSG in a timely fashion during the launch campaign would be challenging. Consequently, a backup plan needed to be established to avoid running out. 2) For safety purposes, Self-Contained Atmospheric Protection Ensemble (SCAPE) and Splash suits were required for hazardous operations. Neither type of suit was cleanroom compatible; therefore, a viable cleaning process needed to be developed to ensure both types of suits met JWST’s approved cleanliness standards. The NASA Contamination Control (CC) team partnered with CSG’s S5E cleanroom and suit processing team. The teams were able to make modifications to the S5E facility to create a NASA approved makeshift clean environment where NASA cleanroom suits and CSG Splash suits were inspected, folded, and bagged for cleanroom use once they were washed and dried. Since SCAPE suits could not be cleaned using conventional methods, a procedure was developed to clean and inspect the suits by the CC team in a temporary clean environment prior to fueling.

James Webb Space Telescope↗
NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗
NASA NTRS2022

Atmospheric Research 2020 Technical Highlights

Welcome to the 2020 Atmospheres Highlights report. Here we summarize research and scientific communication/outreach accomplishments from the portion of atmospheric science activities at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) that comprises the Earth Science Division’s Atmospheres organization. As in previous years, this report is intended for a broad audience, including colleagues within NASA, scientists outside the Agency, science graduate students, and members of the public. Organizationally, the report covers research activities under the Office of Deputy Organizationally, the report covers research activities under the Office of Deputy Director for Atmospheres (610AT), which is within Earth Sciences Division (Code Director for Atmospheres (610AT), which is within Earth Sciences Division (Code 610) in the Sciences and Exploration Directorate (600). Laboratories and office within 610) in the Sciences and Exploration Directorate (600). Laboratories and office within 610AT include: Mesoscale Atmospheric Processes Laboratory (612), Climate and 610AT include: Mesoscale Atmospheric Processes Laboratory (612), Climate and Radiation Laboratory (613), Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory (614), Radiation Laboratory (613), Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory (614), and the Wallops Field Support Office (610.W). As of this writing, the 277 personnel and the Wallops Field Support Office (610.W). As of this writing, the 277 personnel in Code 610AT consist of 53 civil servants and 224 cooperative agreement associates, in Code 610AT consist of 53 civil servants and 224 cooperative agreement associates, postdoctoral fellows and contractors, postdoctoral fellows and contractors.

Annual Report↗