SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
General Background and Introduction of Capability Roadmaps Agency Objective. Strategic Planning Transformation. Advanced Planning Organizational Roles. Public Involvement in Strategic Planning. Strategic Roadmaps and Schedule. Capability Roadmaps and Schedule. Purpose of NRC Review. Capability Roadmap Development (Progress to Date)
Astronauts experience sensorimotor disturbances during the initial exposure to microgravity and during the readapation phase following a return to a gravitational environment. These alterations may lead to disruption in the ability to perform mission critical functional tasks during and after these gravitational transitions. Astronauts show significant inter-subject variation in adaptive capability following gravitational transitions. The ability to predict the manner and degree to which each individual astronaut will be affected would improve the effectiveness of a countermeasure comprised of a training program designed to enhance sensorimotor adaptability. Due to this inherent individual variability we need to develop predictive measures of sensorimotor adaptability that will allow us to predict, before actual space flight, which crewmember will experience challenges in adaptive capacity. Thus, obtaining this information will allow us to design and implement better sensorimotor adaptability training countermeasures that will be customized for each crewmember's unique adaptive capabilities. Therefore the goals of this project are to: 1) develop a set of predictive measures capable of identifying individual differences in sensorimotor adaptability, and 2) use this information to design sensorimotor adaptability training countermeasures that are customized for each crewmember's individual sensorimotor adaptive characteristics. To achieve these goals we are currently pursuing the following specific aims: Aim 1: Determine whether behavioral metrics of individual sensory bias predict sensorimotor adaptability. For this aim, subjects perform tests that delineate individual sensory biases in tests of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive function. Aim 2: Determine if individual capability for strategic and plastic-adaptive responses predicts sensorimotor adaptability. For this aim, each subject's strategic and plastic-adaptive motor learning abilities are assessed using a test of locomotor function designed specifically to delineate both mechanisms. Aim 3: Develop predictors of sensorimotor adaptability using brain structural and functional metrics. We will measure individual differences in regional brain volumes (structural MRI), white matter integrity (diffusion tensor imaging, or DTI), functional network integrity (resting state functional connectivity MRI), and sensorimotor adaptation task-related functional brain activation (functional MRI). We decided to complete the data collection for Specific Aims 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously on the same subjects to increase data capture. By having the same subjects perform all three specific aims we can enhance our ability to detect how a wider range of factors can predict adaptability in a specific individual. This provides a much richer database and potentially a better understanding of the predictive power of the selected factors. In this presentation I will discuss preliminary data obtained to date.
NASA is conducting a field test of the Airspace Technology Demonstration2 (ATD-2) to evaluate an Integrated Arrival, Departure, and Surface (IADS) traffic management system. The IADS system was deployed to Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) in 2017 for a three-year field evaluation. The Phase 1 field evaluation included tactical surface metering, which manages departure excess taxi time by tactically assigning gate holds. Phase 2 built upon the lessons learned from Phase 1 to extend surface metering into the strategic metering timeframes. In this paper, we describe the strategic metering capabilities of the ATD-2 IADS system and the operational results from CLT.
Contents include the following: General Background and Introduction of Capability Roadmaps "Title." Agency Objective. Strategic Planning Transformation. Advanced Planning Organizational Roles. Public Involvement in Strategic Planning. Strategic Roadmaps and Schedule. Capability Roadmaps and Schedule. Purpose of NRC Review. Capability Roadmap Development (Progress to Date).
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new air transportation service concept to carry passengers or cargo in metropolitan areas, leveraged by innovative aircraft and air traffic automation technologies. NASA has conducted a series of simulations, called the X-series simulation, to evaluate the UAM concept of operations and support the development of airspace procedures and services for UAM operations. The simulation called “X5” was conducted in 2023 to test a Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) prototype developed by NASA for UAM flight planning, strategic conflict management support, and data exchange between UAM operators. In this simulation, two strategic conflict management capabilities, Demand-Capacity Balancing and Sequencing and Scheduling, were further investigated. This document describes the UAM system architecture modeled, the X5 simulation environment to be executed (e.g., traffic scenario and UAM airspace construct), and the strategic conflict management processes developed and evaluated in this study. Then, the simulation results are provided using several system performance metrics, such as the number of operations planned and activated, demand-capacity imbalances detected and resolved, and pre-departure delays. Based on these metrics, the test findings and lessons learned from this simulation are discussed. NASA developed a PSU prototype as part of a reference implementation of UAM system architecture and evolved strategic conflict management capabilities for UAM operations from the previous collaborative simulations with industry partners. Below is the summary of the achievements: - Aligned NASA’s UAM reference architecture with the FAA’s UAM ConOps notional architecture - Extended UAM airspace management capabilities to include 1) Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to ensure operators coordinate planned usage of shared vertiports, and 2) Sequencing and Scheduling (S&S) at UAM corridor entry and exit points to help facilitate an orderly flow of traffic - Defined the PSU information exchange APIs and requirements towards informing industry standards - Developed and tested a NASA PSU prototype as reference implementation to validate the requirements and APIs - Developed a prototype service connecting NASA’s PSU and the FAA system for testing future PSU-ATM interface requirements - Tested NASA-developed assumptions for UAM operations such as airspace design, procedures, vehicle performance, and strategic conflict management methods to inform future Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs) development with industry - Evaluated system performance metrics such as number of simultaneous operations and ground delays that can help define system-level requirements. The simulation results showed that the UAM traffic demand could be managed to minimize the needs of tactical separation provision with ground delays assigned by DCB and S&S. These accomplishments and the lessons learned from the PSU Prototype X5 simulation activities will be valuable inputs for the Air Mobility Pathfinders (AMP) project, which is NASA’s new project to create and evaluate a reference architecture for safe, secure, and scalable UAM operations.
Agency objective are: Strategic Planning Transformation. Advanced Planning Organizational Roles. Public Involvement in Strategic Planning. Strategic Roadmaps and Schedule. Capability Roadmaps and Schedule. Purpose of NRC Review. Capability Roadmap Development (Progress to Date).
Agency objective are: Strategic Planning Transformation. Advanced Planning Organizational Roles. Public Involvement in Strategic Planning. Strategic Roadmaps and Schedule Capability Roadmaps and Schedule. Purpose of NRC Review. Capability Roadmap Development (Progress to Date).
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) refers to the service-based, cooperative approach to the management of small UAS in the National Airspace System that is safe, scalable, and fair. UTM provides the means to manage the airspace in a complementary manner that does not burden the current air traffic control workforce or infrastructure but allows the Air Navigation Service Provider to maintain its regulatory and operational authority of the airspace. A key feature of UTM is the ability to provide operators the means to strategically deconflict operations from others in the airspace through the digital exchange of information via supporting services. Through this approach, the four-dimensional operation volumes that encompass the intent of operators in a given area are discoverable and can be used for airspace awareness as well as planning conflict free operations that account for and avoid other operations. In certain cases, it is also possible to negotiate volume intersections for shared airspace use without the need to re-plan. In the NASA UTM concept, strategic deconfliction is the first layer of three in the overall conflict management model. The three layers of the conflict management model, which follow the International Civil Aviation Organization’s scheme [ICAO 2005] are: strategic conflict management, separate provision, and collision avoidance. In UTM, the strategic layer mostly occurs prior to departure, but is applicable to en route operations with sufficient planning horizon. The initial requirements for a strategic deconfliction capability within UTM are defined in a NASA publication [Rios 2018]. Within the concept and implementation of service-provided strategic deconfliction is the notion of priority. It is understood that there are instances in which an operation requires a priority designation within the UTM system and special handling accordingly to provide situation awareness and facilitate appropriate responses from other airspace users. Examples of situations requiring priority designation include: when an operator declares an emergency due to problems with the vehicle or its immediate surroundings; operations that are in support of certain organizations (e.g., public safety and first responders); or special missions that also require priority use of airspace (e.g., emergency medical deliveries). UAS Volume Reservations (UVRs) also relate to the topic of priority in the sense that the airspace that the volume encompasses has a different status or classification in which unassociated operations must vacate if inside, or avoid if outside, through strategic deconfliction with the volume. Operations that are specially permitted to access the UVR area are typically assigned priority status given the nature of their mission and their associated credentials. The ability to perform strategic deconfliction, handle certain operations with a priority distinction, and establish UVRs that are communicated throughout the UTM system, is predicated on an architecture that has been established through an evolutionary process in response to close collaboration with stakeholders from government and industry. Another important and influential aspect of these capabilities and architecture is the live, distributed flight tests that have been conducted across the Technical Capability Levels (TCLs) that culminated with a set of complex tests performed as part of TCL4 [Rios 2020]. The TCL4 flight test involved two FAA-designated UAS test sites building teams to collaborate with NASA’s UTM Project on the execution of several detailed, small UAS scenarios in urban environments.
Integrated Demand Management (IDM) is a near- to mid-term NASA concept that proposes to address mismatches in air traffic system demand and capacity by using strategic flow management capabilities to pre-condition demand into the more tactical Time-Based Flow Management System (TBFM). This paper describes an automated simulation capability to support IDM concept development. The capability closely mimics existing human-in-the-loop (HITL) capabilities, while automating both the human components and collaboration between operational systems, and speeding up the real-time aircraft simulations. Such a capability allows for parametric studies to be carried out that can inform the HITL simulations, identifying breaking points and parameter values at which significant changes in system behavior occur. The paper describes the initial validation of the automated simulation capability against results from previous IDM HITL experiments, quantifying the differences. The simulator is then used to explore the performance of the IDM concept under the simple scenario of a capacity constrained airport under a wide range of wind conditions.
Integrated Demand Management (IDM) is a near- to mid-term NASA concept that proposes to address mismatches in air traffic system demand and capacity by using strategic flow management capabilities to pre-condition demand into the more tactical Time-Based Flow Management System (TBFM). This paper describes an automated simulation capability to support IDM concept development. The capability closely mimics existing human-in-the-loop (HITL) capabilities, automating both the human components and collaboration between operational systems, and speeding up the real-time aircraft simulations. Such a capability allows for parametric studies that will inform the HITL simulations, identifying breaking points and parameter values at which significant changes in system behavior occur. This paper also describes the initial validation of individual components of the automated simulation capability, and an example application comparing the performance of the IDM concept under two TBFM scheduling paradigms. The results and conclusions from this simulation compare closely to those from previous HITL simulations using similar scenarios, providing an initial validation of the automated simulation capability.
NASA OCT strategically collaborates with other government space agencies to find enterprise synergistic technology solutions to benefit the Nation through leadership of the interagency Science and Technology Partnership Forum. Successful collaborations depend on integrating knowledge across the intersection of industry, academe, and government within pioneering technical areas such as in-space assembly. High-quality data products that are timely, accurate, and trusted are used to communicate with internal and external stakeholders to influence portfolios by focusing investments to maximize impact on NASA missions and the U.S. economy. These data products succinctly describe and convey the breadth and dependencies of multiple capabilities, while incorporating diverse technical perspectives, to articulate and inform interagency collaborative developments of autonomous on-orbit assembly technologies.
BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.
Contents include the following: General Background and Introduction of Capability. Roadmaps for Systems Engineering Cost/Risk Analysis. Agency Objectives. Strategic Planning Transformation. Review Capability Roadmaps and Schedule. Review Purpose of NRC Review. Capability Roadmap Development (Progress to Date).
Human space flight in the US and other space-faring countries is faced with a twin challenge that is likely to persist for many years: flat or declining budgets along with an expectation of continuing, significant achievements. A partial solution may involve increased participation by multiple commercial competitors with the promise - albeit yet to be fully demonstrated - of much-reduced costs. That said, most commercial goals are concentrated on low-Earth orbit (LEO) for the time being, leaving human trips beyond Earth orbit (BED) as governmental initiatives. The past decade, beginning with the 1999/2000 Decadal Planning Team (DPT)/NASA Exploration Team (NExT) human space flight studies for the White House Office of Management and Budget (http://history.nasa.gov/DPT/DPT.htm), can arguably be described as a Golden Age of engineering design, strategic planning, technology capability prioritization, and development programs on the International Space Station (ISS). However, cynics have criticized the same period as little more than PowerPoint presentations, and unfocused technology investments with only limited progress toward a goal of human space flight beyond the immediate vicinity of the Earth. We disagree with the cynics. Experience with the ISS on increasingly sophisticated capabilities have prepared international partners to deploy a major "stepping stone" for human space flight: a habitation system in free space beyond low-Earth orbit. Such an achievement would be a major milestone in human space flight and, very likely, an essential demonstration site for subsequent, very ambitious exploration missions such as to Mars. Developing critical capabilities for human voyages beyond LEO, such as Earth-Moon libration points, offers, as just one example, easy return to Earth within days (see, e.g., Farquhar 1971 (Aeronautics & Astronautics, July, p. 59ff), Thronson, Lester, and Talay 2011 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1756/1), and Lester 2012 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1650/1). Use of Earth-Moon libration points as sites for early demonstrations of capabilities necessary for human missions to Mars, for example, contrasts sharply with using missions to near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) for that purpose.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) manages a vast array of infrastructure assets across ten National Centers with a worth of at least 30 billion dollars. Eighty percent of this infrastructure is greater than 40 years old and is in degraded condition. Maintenance budgets are typically less than one percent of current replacement value (CRV), much less than the 2-4% recommended by the National Research Council. The maintenance backlog was 2.55 billion dollars in FY10 and growing. NASA s annual budgets have flattened and are at risk of being reduced, so the problem is becoming even more difficult. NASA Centers utilize various means to prioritize and accomplish maintenance within available budgets, though data is suspect and processes are variable. This paper offers a structured means to prioritize maintenance based on mission criticality and facility performance (ability of the facility to deliver on its purpose). Mission alignment is assessed using the current timeframe Mission Dependence Index and a measure of facility alignment with the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan for the long-term perspective. Facility performance is assessed by combining specific findings from a structured facility condition assessment and an assessment of actual functional output. These are then combined in a matrix to identify the facilities most critical to mission and able to deliver services. The purpose of this approach is to provide the best benefits for the available funding. Additionally, this rationale can also be applied to the prioritization of investment (recapitalization) projects so that the ultimate customers of this paper, the senior infrastructure managers at each NASA Center, are better able to strategically manage their capabilities.
Viewgraphs on the National Research Council's diaglog to assess progress on NASA's transformational spaceport and range technologies capability roadmap development is presented. The topics include: 1) Agency Goals and Objectives; 2) Strategic Planning Transformation; 3) Advanced Planning Organizational Roles; 4) Public Involvement in Strategic Planning; 5) Strategic Roadmaps; 6) Strategic Roadmaps Schedule; 7) Capability Roadmaps; 8) Capability Charter; 9) Process for Team Selection; 10) Capability Roadmap Development Schedule Overview; 11) Purpose of NRC Review; 12) Technology Readiness Levels; 13) Capability Readiness Levels; 14) Crosswalk Matrix Trans Spaceport & Range; 15) Example linkage to other roadmaps; 16) Capability Readiness Levels Defined; and 17) Crosswalk Matrix Ratings Work In-progress.
BACKGROUND: Features of human space missions beyond low Earth orbit such as increasing distance from Earth, lack of real-time communication, and limited or no evacuation or resupply capability are expected to drive an increase in medical risk and require crews to operate in an increasingly autonomous fashion. A diverse set of stakeholders at NASA are seeking to fund the development of concepts of operations, medical requirements, and medical capabilities for such missions. However, a systematic approach to identification of current medical capability gaps and a strategic framework to gap closure is needed. OVERVIEW: The Exploration Medical Integrated Product Team (XMIPT) has developed a list of nine high-level medical capability gaps and associated activities required for gap closure. The list was derived based on inputs from subject matter experts at NASA including flight surgeons, other clinical providers, as well as operational and research communities regarding medical capabilities required to support human missions to the Moon and the Mars surface. Responses were reviewed and distilled to identify common themes across capabilities. To ensure alignment with established human system risks, the gap list was further refined based on inputs from NASA’s Human System Risk Board. Relevant medical gap closure activities outside of those funded by the XMIPT were identified through solicitation of inputs from Elements of NASA’s Human Research Program (particularly Exploration Medical Capability), the broader medical operations community, and other stakeholders. This medical capability gap list is reviewed and updated regularly as new information becomes available or new stakeholders are identified. DISCUSSION: The medical capability gap list has matured to include a large group of NASA stakeholders and development activities. This has enabled articulation of priorities to funding entities and programmatic stakeholders, while serving as an accessible resource summarizing gap closure activities, relevant programmatic infusion points, and opportunities for collaboration between stakeholders. This presentation will provide an overview of the nine NASA medical capability gaps and their associated gap closure activities.
U.S. leadership in aeronautics depends on ready access to technologically advanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics test capabilities. These systems include major wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities and flight test capabilities. The federal government owns the majority of the major aeronautics test capabilities in the United States, primarily through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). However, changes in the Aerospace landscape, primarily the decrease in demand for testing over the last 20 years required an overarching strategy for management of these national assets. Therefore, NASA established the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) as a two-pronged strategic initiative to: (1) retain and invest in NASA aeronautics test capabilities considered strategically important to the agency and the nation, and (2) establish a strong, high level partnership with the DoD. Test facility utilization is a critical factor for ATP because it relies on user occupancy fees to recover a substantial part of the operations costs for its facilities. Decreasing utilization is an indicator of excess capacity and in some cases low-risk redundancy (i.e., several facilities with basically the same capability and overall low utilization). However, low utilization does not necessarily translate to lack of strategic importance. Some facilities with relatively low utilization are nonetheless vitally important because of the unique nature of the capability and the foreseeable aeronautics testing needs. Unfortunately, since its inception, the customer base for ATP has continued to shrink. Utilization of ATP wind tunnels has declined by more than 50% from the FY 2006 levels. This significant decrease in customer usage is attributable to several factors, including the overall decline in new programs and projects in the aerospace sector; the impact of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) on the design, development, and research process; and the reductions in wind tunnel testing requirements within the largest consumer of ATP wind tunnel test time, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Retirement of the Space Shuttle Program and recent perturbations of NASA's Constellation Program will exacerbate this downward trend. Therefore it is crucial that ATP periodically revisit and determine which of its test capabilities are strategically important, which qualify as low-risk redundancies that could be put in an inactive status or closed, and address the challenges associated with both sustainment and improvements to the test capabilities that must remain active. This presentation will provide an overview of the ATP vision, mission, and goals as well as the challenges and opportunities the program is facing both today and in the future. We will discuss the strategy ATP is taking over the next five years to address the National aeronautics test capability challenges and what the program will do to capitalize on its opportunities to ensure a ready, robust and relevant portfolio of National aeronautics test capabilities.