SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Commercial Partner”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 541 records · Page 30

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancements in Lunar Dust Mitigation and Leveraging the Contamination Control Community

Lunar Dust Contamination: As we get closer to putting landers, rovers, payloads, and astronauts on the Moon, dust mitigation is becoming more critical than ever. To address the many challenges of dust mitigation on the surface, engineers and scientists are looking at various technologies that may have relevance for the contamination control community. This includes active, passive, architectural, and operational solutions. There have been advances in coatings for dust mitigation at NASA and through commercial partnerships (see Wiesner, Wohl, et al). There have been advancements to previous solutions as well as novel solutions to address dust mitigation on the surface and on-orbit. There have been several efforts to better understand the effectiveness of various terrestrial and dust mitigation solutions with much of this data published in recent years. In the area of dust mitigation, dust contamination or infiltration refers to the impingement or contact of planetary dust with items not normally dusty and whose operation may therefore be compromised. Recent Advancements in Dust Mitigation: Dust mitigation strategies are becoming more common for hardware heading to the Moon, with most major programs implementing lunar dust contamination requirements for human health and equipment. In the last couple of years, NASA has created more guidance to assist hardware developers with dust mitigation. This includes NASA-STD-1008 (Classifications and Requirements for Testing Systems and Hardware to be Exposed to Dust in Planetary) and NASA TP 20220018746 (Lunar Dust Mitigation Guide and Reference). Several projects are testing hardware in relevant dusty environments to understand their tolerance to lunar dust. There has been a significant increase in the amount of testing with lunar simulants, with the NASA Simulant Advisory Committee serving a resource for NASA and our partners. There are new solutions for detecting and monitoring the dust internally and externally. Learning from the contamination control community: In addition to sharing potentially relevant solutions at the workshop, the dust mitigation community is also interested in learning from the contamination control community on ways to address lunar dust. For instance, a major aspect of managing the dust is monitoring and detection. This is critical for understanding when maintenance is needed and to inform future missions. Another challenge of working with lunar dust is quantifying and characterizing the smallest of particles. There are also challenges in modeling lunar dust and its behavior. The dust mitigation community can also leverage lessons learned from the planetary protection community.

dust mitagation↗

NASA NTRS2012

KSC Tech Transfer News, Volume 5, No. 1

In October 2011, the White House released a presidential memorandum titled "Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses." It emphasized the importance of technology transfer as a driver of successful innovation to fuel economic growth, create jobs, and make U.S. industries more competitive in a global market. In response to this memorandum, NASA developed a 5-year plan for accelerating its own technology transfer activities. This plan outlines key objectives for enhancing NASA's ability to increase the rate, volume, and quality of technology transfers to industry, academia, and other Government agencies. By doing so, we are increasing the economic impact and public benefit of Federal technology investments. In addition, NASA established technology transfer as a key element of one of its Agency High Priority Performance Goals: "Enable bold new missions and make new technologies available to Government agencies and U.S. industry."What does this mean to you? In the broadest sense, NASA defines technology transfer as the utilization of NASA's technological assets- technologies, innovations, unique facilities and equipment, and technical expertise- by public and private sectors to benefit the Nation. So, if your job involves developing new technologies, writing new software, creating innovative ways to do business, performing research, or developing new technical capabilities, you could be contributing to Kennedy Space Center's (KSC) technology transfer activities by creating the technological assets that may one day be used by external partners. Furthermore, anytime you provide technical expertise to external partners, you're participating in technology transfer. The single most important step you can take to support the technology transfer process is to report new technologies and innovations ro the Technology Transfer Office. This is the critical first step in fueling the technology transfer pipeline. This is also a requirement for all Federal employees (see NPD 2091.1 B) and most NASA contractors. Detailed information on when, where, and how ro report new technology is provided on the following page. In addition, it's important that all detailed-oriented discussions about technology between NASA and external partners are documented or that they occur under formal agreements such as Space Act Agreements and Nondisclosure Agreements. Our office can assist you in putting these agreements into place, protecting NASA's interests, and providing the means to accurately measure the Agency's technology transfer activities. Technology transfer is everyone's responsibility. We need your help to ensure that NASA remains the leader in Federal technology transfer, and that the great work done at KSC provides the maximum economic and societal benefit to the Nation.

Buckingham, Bruce↗

NASA NTRS1999

X-33, Leading the Way to VentureStar(trademark)) in the Next Millennium

The X-33, NASA's flagship for reusable space plane technology demonstration, is on course to begin the flights of the X-33 that will permit industry and government decisions that can lead to VentureStar(trademark) by the end of 2000. Lockheed Martin, NASA's partner in this effort, took the bold step in January 1999 to announce formation of VentureStar(trademark) LLC. This move provides the focus for firm business planning needed to enable the decision by the time X-33 flies in mid 2000. The X-33 program began by accepting the mandate that included two unprecedented and highly challenging goals: 1) demonstrate single stage to orbit technologies in flight and ground by the end of 2000 and 2) demonstrate a new government and industry management relationship working together with industry in the lead. Since the IAF 49th Congress in Melbourne, the major hardware elements of X-33 have been through their assembly and test. The flight liquid oxygen tank was the first major element to complete final assembly. The liquid hydrogen tanks are currently in final assembly and testing. The first flight tank has been delivered to vehicle assembly, the second tank and the flight engines are expected this month. The aerospike engine is an engine concept that has never been flown, but has been extensively ground tested. It will be flown for the first time on the X-33. Major X-33 flight hardware has been tested, delivered, and assembly of the vehicle is nearly complete. Construction of the prototype spaceport was completed in November 1998. The flight test program commencing in the summer of 2000. The decision to proceed with a Single Stage To Orbit as a commercial venture is expected in the fall of 2000.

Austin, Robert E.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Life-Extending Control for Aircraft Engines Studied

Current aircraft engine controllers are designed and operated to provide both performance and stability margins. However, the standard method of operation results in significant wear and tear on the engine and negatively affects the on-wing life--the time between cycles when the engine must be physically removed from the aircraft for maintenance. The NASA Glenn Research Center and its industrial and academic partners have been working together toward a new control concept that will include engine life usage as part of the control function. The resulting controller will be able to significantly extend the engine's on-wing life with little or no impact on engine performance and operability. The new controller design will utilize damage models to estimate and mitigate the rate and overall accumulation of damage to critical engine parts. The control methods will also provide a means to assess tradeoffs between performance and structural durability on the basis of mission requirements and remaining engine life. Two life-extending control methodologies were studied to reduce the overall life-cycle cost of aircraft engines. The first methodology is to modify the baseline control logic to reduce the thermomechanical fatigue (TMF) damage of cooled stators during acceleration. To accomplish this, an innovative algorithm limits the low-speed rotor acceleration command when the engine has reached a threshold close to the requested thrust. This algorithm allows a significant reduction in TMF damage with only a very small increase in the rise time to reach the commanded rotor speed. The second methodology is to reduce stress rupture/creep damage to turbine blades and uncooled stators by incorporating an engine damage model into the flight mission. Overall operation cost is reduced by an optimization among the flight time, fuel consumption, and component damages. Recent efforts have focused on applying life-extending control technology to an existing commercial turbine engine, and doing so without modifying the hardware or adding sensors. This approach makes it possible to retrofit existing engines with life-extending control technology by changing only the control software in the full-authority digital engine controller (FADEC). The significant results include demonstrating a 20- to 30-percent reduction in TMF damage to the hot section by developing and implementing smart acceleration logic during takeoff. The tradeoff is an increase, from 5.0 to 5.2 sec, in the time required to reach maximum power from ground idle. On a typical flight profile of a cruise at Mach 0.8 at an altitude of 41,000 ft, and cruise time of 104 min, the optimized system showed that a reduction in cruise speed from Mach 0.8 to 0.79 can achieve an estimated 25-to 35-percent creep/rupture damage reduction in the engine's hot section and a fuel savings of 2.1 percent. The tradeoff is an increase in flight time of 1.3 percent (1.4 min).

Guo, Te-Huei↗

NASA NTRS2004

Space Exploration Technologies Developed through Existing and New Research Partnerships Initiatives

The Space Partnership Development Program of NASA has been highly successful in leveraging commercial research investments to the strategic mission and applied research goals of the Agency through industry academic partnerships. This program is currently undergoing an outward-looking transformation towards Agency wide research and discovery goals that leverage partnership contributions to the strategic research needed to demonstrate enabling space exploration technologies encompassing both robotic spacecraft missions and human space flight. New Space Partnership Initiatives with incremental goals and milestones will allow a continuing series of accomplishments to be achieved throughout the duration of each initiative, permit the "lessons learned" and capabilities acquired from previous implementation steps to be incorporated into subsequent phases of the initiatives, and allow adjustments to be made to the implementation of the initiatives as new opportunities or challenges arise. An Agency technological risk reduction roadmap for any required technologies not currently available will identify the initiative focus areas for the development, demonstration and utilization of space resources supporting the production of power, air, and water, structures and shielding materials. This paper examines the successes to date, lessons learned, and programmatic outlook of enabling sustainable exploration and discovery through governmental, industrial, academic, and international partnerships. Previous government and industry technology development programs have demonstrated that a focused research program that appropriately shares the developmental risk can rapidly mature low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) technologies to the demonstration level. This cost effective and timely, reduced time to discovery, partnership approach to the development of needed technological capabilities addresses the dual use requirements by the investing partners. In addition, these partnerships help to ensure the attainment of complimenting human and robotic exploration goals for NASA while providing additional capabilities for sustainable scientific research benefiting life and security on Earth.

Nall, Mark↗

NASA NTRS2019

A Summary of NASA Rotary Wing Research: Circa 2008–2018

The general public may not know that the first “A” in NASA stands for Aeronautics. If they do know, they will very likely be surprised that in addition to airplanes, the “A” includes research in helicopters, tiltrotors, and other vehicles adorned with rotors. There is, arguably, no subsonic air vehicle more difficult to accurately analyze than a vehicle with lift-producing rotors. No wonder that NASA has conducted rotary wing research since the days of the NACA and has partnered, since 1965, with the U.S. Army in order to overcome some of the most challenging obstacles to understanding the behavior of these vehicles. Since 2006, NASA rotary wing research has been performed under several different project names [Gorton et al., 2015]: Subsonic Rotary Wing (SRW) (2006–2012), Rotary Wing (RW) (2012–2014), and Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology (RVLT) (2014–present). In 2009, the SRW Project published a report that assessed the status of NASA rotorcraft research; in particular, the predictive capability of NASA rotorcraft tools was addressed for a number of technical disciplines. A brief history of NASA rotorcraft research through 2009 was also provided [Yamauchi and Young, 2009]. Gorton et al. [2015] describes the system studies during 2009–2011 that informed the SRW/RW/RVLT project investment prioritization and organization. The authors also provided the status of research in the RW Project in engines, drive systems, aeromechanics, and impact dynamics as related to structural dynamics of vertical lift vehicles. Since 2009, the focus of research has shifted from large civil VTOL transports, to environmentally clean aircraft, to electrified VTOL aircraft for the urban air mobility (UAM) market. The changing focus of rotorcraft research has been a reflection of the evolving strategic direction of the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). By 2014, the project had been renamed the Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology Project. In response to the 2014 NASA Strategic Plan, ARMD developed six Strategic Thrusts. Strategic Thrust 3B was defined as the “Ultra-Efficient Commercial Vehicles—Vertical Lift Aircraft.” Hochstetler et al. [2017] uses Thrust 3B as an example for developing metrics usable by ARMD to measure the effectiveness of each of the Strategic Thrusts. The authors provide near-, mid-, and long-term outcomes for Thrust 3B with corresponding benefits and capabilities. The importance of VTOL research, especially with the rapidly expanding UAM market, eventually resulted in a new Strategic Thrust (to begin in 2020): Thrust 4—Safe, Quiet, and Affordable Vertical Lift Air Vehicles. The underlying rotary wing analysis tools used by NASA are still applicable to traditional rotorcraft and have been expanded in capability to accommodate the growing number of VTOL configurations designed for UAM. The top-level goal of the RVLT Project remains unchanged since 2006: Develop and validate tools, technologies and concepts to overcome key barriers for vertical lift vehicles. In 2019, NASA rotary wing/VTOL research has never been more important for supporting new aircraft and advancements in technology. 2 A decade is a reasonable interval to pause and take stock of progress and accomplishments. In 10 years, digital technology has propelled progress in computational efficiency by orders of magnitude and expanded capabilities in measurement techniques. The purpose of this report is to provide a compilation of the NASA rotary wing research from ~2008 to ~2018. Brief summaries of publications from NASA, NASA-funded, and NASA-supported research are provided in 12 chapters: Acoustics, Aeromechanics, Computational Fluid Dynamics (External Flow), Experimental Methods, Flight Dynamics and Control, Drive Systems, Engines, Crashworthiness, Icing, Structures and Materials, Conceptual Design and System Analysis, and Mars Helicopter. We hope this report serves as a useful reference for future NASA vertical lift researchers.

Yamauchi, Gloria K.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of the occurrences of injury during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study. Injuries are classified as either contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), and Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), and then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings. The MDRI is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI also vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it will be important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles, and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning.

N Newby↗

NASA NTRS2018

NASA's In-Space Manufacturing Project: Toward a Multimaterial Fabrication Laboratory for the International Space Station

uman space exploration to date has been limited to low Earth orbit and the moon. The International Space Station (ISS) provides a unique opportunity for NASA to partner with private industry for development and demonstration of the technologies needed to support exploration initiatives. One challenge that is critical to sustainable and safer exploration is the ability to manufacture and recycle materials in space. This paper provides an overview of NASA's in-space manufacturing (ISM) project, its past and current activities, and how technologies under development will ultimately culminate in a multimaterial fabrication laboratory ("ISM FabLab") to be deployed on the International Space Station in the early 2020s. ISM is a critical capability for the long endurance missions NASA seeks to undertake in the coming decades. An unanticipated failure that can be adapted for in low earth orbit, through a resupply launch or a return to earth, may instead result in a loss of mission while in transit to Mars. To have a suite of functional ISM capabilities that are compatible with NASA's exploration timeline, ISM must be equipped with the resources necessary to develop these technologies and deploy them for testing prior to the scheduled de-orbit of ISS in 2024. The paper provides a broad overview of ISM projects activities culminating with the Fabrication Laboratory for ISS. The FabLab will move NASA and private industry significantly closer to changing historical paradigms for human spaceflight where all materials used in space are launched from earth. While the current ISM FabLab will be tested on ISS, future systems are eventually intended for use in a deep space habitat or transit vehicle. The work of commercial companies funded under NASA's Small Business Innovative Research Program (SBIR) is also discussed, as these activities, from development of recyclable packaging for ISS to additive manufacturing capabilities for metals and electronics, could also potentially be infused into FabLab exploration capabilities as well.

Prater, Tracie↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Transformation -- Localizing the Remote and Connecting the Isolated

In motivating the Space Transformation theme for this year’s 4S symposium, the organizers provided the following context, “Transformation of economies are driven by a change in values and accelerated by new technologies.” These words rang particularly true when I read them at the beginning of the holiday season. Like so many others, I was in the early phases of my Christmas shopping procrastination campaign, and I’d just been reflecting on how Amazon Prime was the transformational tool I’d been waiting for. Basic limiting principles of time and space, supply and demand, were all but erased by the Amazon Prime phenomenon. Coupled with emerging 3D printing and other adaptive manufacturing technologies, a transformation from deliberate planning to “think it … have it” had occurred, empowering me to procrastinate longer than I’d ever dreamed possible. The organizers went on to ponder, “Will space transformation also affect society?”, just as our team at the Air Force Research Lab’s (AFRL) Center for Rapid Innovation (CRI) were working alongside partners within our larger Integrated Capabilities Directorate, NASA’s Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology programs, and DARPA’s Luna-10 program to develop technologies and execute demonstration missions that leverage the space domain to genuinely connect even the most remote and austere domains on the timeline of need. Picking apart the miracle that is Amazon prime, where does the model fail, and why? More relevantly to the theme of this year’s symposium, how can the space domain be used to overcome its limitations and minimize its weaknesses? Perhaps it is best assessed in the context of Use Cases. What are the Amazon delivery cost, schedule, and cargo limiters to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Research Station, or the Lunar South Pole Research Station? This paper will explore enabling infrastructure that allows Amazon prime to thrive and assess the transformational enabling technologies that would be necessary to extend that miracle to the truly remote or the truly austere. Localizing the Remote • First, it will evaluate the ability of the on-going AFRL Rocket Cargo and Space Initiatives Ringside Seats systems, coupled with Astrobotic’s Xodiak and Xogdor capabilities, developed to support the NASA Flight Opportunities Program (FOP), to supply orbital/suborbital delivery to both improved and austere sites on the Earth and Moon. • Then, it will add the surface terminal distribution leg, with an examination of Lunar Outpost’s Mobile Autonomous Prospecting Platform (MAPP), equipped with Mobile Autonomous Robotic Swarm (MARS) software, and Intuitive Machine’s Hopper, developed with support of AFRL and NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. Connecting the Isolated From there, it will focus on the destination, asking what implied destination services are required to support highly assured autonomous delivery. • Specifically, it will highlight Astrobotic’s Skymage mesh-networked publish and subscribe communication and navigation service, as well as AFRL’s on-going developments of radioisotope and reactor nuclear-sourced thermoelectric power generation and distribution systems under development under the Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-orbit Nuclear Power (JETSON) program by Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, Intuitive Machines, and Zeno Power, to provide the power service to locations well off the grid. • Finally, the paper will connect to the “human machine”. What connects the remote or in-situ human consumer to the remote domain? What connects the diverse international government and commercial services to each other? The former will focus on AFRL’s OraCloud feeding their Space Defense Control and Characterization System (SDCCS) and Lunar Station’s MoonHacker systems, while the latter will focus on the BlueHalo/Tensor LunX Technology Platform for the Cislunar Commodity Marketplace. In 1984, Krafft Ehricke famously remarked that, “If God wanted man to become a spacefaring species, He would have given man a Moon.” This paper is not about the Moon, but is about humans as a spacefaring species, shedding the pesky land/air limitations of the Amazon Prime model … so that we can all live a procrastinator’s “think it … have it” existence.

Charles Finley↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Technical Overview of the Mission Engagement Onboarding Process Managed by the Mission Engagement Working Group (MEWG)

NASA's intricate network, encompassing the Near Space Network (NSN) and Deep Space Network (DSN), plays a pivotal role in supporting an array of space missions. These range from those in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO), to the more distant Cislunar and Deep Space endeavors. To manage the vast communications needs, we utilize multiple ground stations globally, coupled with the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). The Mission Engagement Working Group (MEWG), within the Commercialization, Innovation, and Synergies (CIS) division, stands as the primary gateway for all Space Communications and Network (SCaN) communication and navigation requests. This includes not only NASA's internal missions but also extends to other governmental agencies and commercial sector endeavors. How does the MEWG Process Work? - Initial Contact : Clients initiate their interaction with the NSN by submitting their service requirements through a dedicated online portal. - Preliminary Assessment by MEWG: Upon submission, MEWG embarks on a primary screening of the request. This involves evaluating the client's identity and the foundational concept of their mission. - Detailed Analysis by the NSN Team: Parallelly, the NSN team conducts a comprehensive review of the service request. This often necessitates additional clarification from the requester, ensuring that the final assessment is both thorough and accurate. - Coordination & Streamlining: MEWG's overarching objective is to effectively log, classify, orchestrate, and guarantee that pertinent actions are delegated based on initial client interactions. Acting as the central hub for these primary contacts, MEWG ensures that each request is sufficiently detailed for an in-depth evaluation. - Feedback & Remediation: If a request is deemed unsuitable or lacking, MEWG doesn't merely reject it. Instead, the team discerns the reasons for the inadequacy and suggests potential rectification strategies. This approach ensures that feedback delivered to clients is precise, prompt, constructive, and actionable. Conclusion: This plenary presentation will detail the efforts of the MEWG resulting in a greatly streamlined and refined onboarding process for space communication Direct-To-Earth (DTE) and Space Relay (SR) support requests. By centralizing the preliminary interactions and assessments, we've reduced the complexity for clients, ensuring they engage with a singular, efficient, and responsive point of contact. This initiative, we believe, fortifies NASA's commitment to fostering effective and synergistic collaborations with its partners.

Devin L Bitner↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Technical Overview of the Mission Engagement Onboarding Process Managed by the Mission Engagement Working Group (MEWG)

Devin Bitner↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System: Building A Capability for Science and Exploration

NASA’s Space Launch System, designed for human exploration of deep space and offering enabling benefits for a variety of science missions, is entering the final stages of preparation for its first launch, while simultaneously making progress toward future missions. SLS offers robust payload mass, volume, and characteristic energy that can be used not only for human exploration but for a variety of science missions, including probes to the outer solar system and beyond. In addition, while the vehicle is optimized to be a super-heavy lifter for lunar orbit as a staging area for the lunar surface or Mars, the addition of commercially available propulsion systems as third and/or fourth stages allows SLS to deliver unmatched performance for ultra-high C3 missions. Studies show that while the baseline SLS Block 2 vehicle can deliver about 8 t directly to the Jovian system at a C3 of 83, the addition of a Centaur upper stage would raise that mass to more than 15 t. The New Horizons spacecraft, with mass less than 0.5 t, launched toward Pluto with a record C3 of 158 km2/sec2. By comparison, an SLS Block 2 with an Orion 30B and Star 48BV payload stages could launch equivalent mass to a C3 more than double that of the New Horizons launch. (While the study has been conducted based on contemporary cryo stages and solid stages, this analysis provides real-world data for the range of performance this capability enables even as the specific stages available evolve.) Studies have shown it may be possible to reach 80-90 AU within a decade. The initial Block 1 vehicle for the first launch, Artemis I, is completely manufactured and all the elements are at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) with the exception of the core stage, and manufacturing is in progress for the next several flights. Following the completion of the Green Run test series at NASA’s Stennis Space Center, the Artemis I core stage will be refurbished and delivered to KSC for stacking for launch in the second half of 2021. With the Artemis I vehicle fully manufactured and assembly of solid rocket boosters beginning, NASA and its industry partners have made significant progress manufacturing successive vehicles. Hardware for the next two launches is currently in production. NASA is committed to SLS as a key component of its launch architecture. Agency planning manifests outline the launch vehicle’s role in human lunar exploration over the next decade as it moves from its Block1 configuration to its intermediate Block 1B configuration and its ultimate Block 2 configuration.In addition, NASA has issued contracts with prime contractors for SLS hardware for delivery well into the 2030s.

Robert W. Stough↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Forging the Forge

As part of the NASA Johnson Space Center’s (JSC) effort to revitalize and recommit to our “Dare Unite Explore” vision for the future, the Center is exploring a new strategy to spread the innovation mindset and increase collaboration across the workforce. In order to maintain JSC’s leadership in human spaceflight, there is a need for working at the speed of commercial industry, breaking down silos between organizations, improving innovation and increasing workforce flexibility. Through brainstorming concepts and benchmarking other facilities, the leadership team evaluated several ideas, assessed constraints and derived that an “Innovation Team” was relatively easy to adopt. Modeled after productive teams like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Innovation Foundry and Glenn Research Center's Compass team, JSC is laying the foundation of a new innovation team called the Forge. This team is as much about getting employees tempered in the ways of innovative thinking as it is about refining design studies and hammering out proposals. By the dictionary definition of the verb, forge can mean either to move ahead slowly and steadily or to move with a sudden increase of speed and power. Driving cultural change in a large government organization like NASA often involves slow perseverance with small injections of momentum to forge ahead. Leveraging lessons learned from the Innovation Foundry and Compass, this paper describes how the collaborative, concurrent engineering framework was tailored to JSC’s needs, as well as the aspects that were considered given JSC’s operation-focused, Program-driven landscape. Our process to drive cultural change, the steps taken, and challenges encountered are discussed. The first two pilots of the teaming framework are described with initial results presented in terms of employee engagement and fostering innovation. We also describe the planned future work and next steps to continue to push the initiative forward. Long has the Center been resting on its operations heritage, now we are forging a new path to Dare to expand frontiers, Unite with our partners and Explore space to benefit humanity.

Culture Change↗

NASA NTRS2016

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management (UTM) Safely Enabling UAS Operations in Low-Altitude Airspace

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) Enabling Civilian Low-Altitude Airspace and Unmanned Aircraft System Operations What is the problem? Many beneficial civilian applications of UAS have been proposed, from goods delivery and infrastructure surveillance, to search and rescue, and agricultural monitoring. Currently, there is no established infrastructure to enable and safely manage the widespread use of low-altitude airspace and UAS operations, regardless of the type of UAS. A UAS traffic management (UTM) system for low-altitude airspace may be needed, perhaps leveraging concepts from the system of roads, lanes, stop signs, rules and lights that govern vehicles on the ground today, whether the vehicles are driven by humans or are automated. What system technologies is NASA exploring? Building on its legacy of work in air traffic management for crewed aircraft, NASA is researching prototype technologies for a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system that could develop airspace integration requirements for enabling safe, efficient low-altitude operations. While incorporating lessons learned from the today's well-established air traffic management system, which was a response that grew out of a mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon in the early days of commercial aviation, the UTM system would enable safe and efficient low-altitude airspace operations by providing services such as airspace design, corridors, dynamic geofencing, severe weather and wind avoidance, congestion management, terrain avoidance, route planning and re-routing, separation management, sequencing and spacing, and contingency management. One of the attributes of the UTM system is that it would not require human operators to monitor every vehicle continuously. The system could provide to human managers the data to make strategic decisions related to initiation, continuation, and termination of airspace operations. This approach would ensure that only authenticated UAS could operate in the airspace. In its most mature form, the UTM system could be developed using autonomicity characteristics that include self-configuration, self-optimization and self-protection. The self-configuration aspect could determine whether the operations should continue given the current andor predicted windweather conditions. NASA envisions concepts for two types of possible UTM systems. The first type would be a Portable UTM system, which would move from between geographical areas and support operations such as precision agriculture and disaster relief. The second type of system would be a Persistent UTM system, which would support low-altitude operations and provide continuous coverage for a geographical area. Either system would require persistent communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) coverage to track, ensure, and monitor conformance. What is NASA doing to test the technologies? NASA's near-term goal is the development and demonstration of a possible future UTM system that could safely enable low-altitude airspace and UAS operations. Working alongside many committed government, industry and academic partners, NASA is leading the research, development and testing that is taking place in a series of activities called Technology Capability Levels (TCL), each increasing in complexity. UTM TCL1 concluded field testing in August 2015 and is undergoing additional testing at an FAA site.

UTM Low-altitude↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of 2021. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crew members and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3%) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

P Greenhalgh↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA's In-Space Manufacturing Project: A Roadmap for a Multimaterial Fabrication Laboratory in Space

Human space exploration to date has been limited to low Earth orbit and the moon. The International Space Station (ISS) provides a unique opportunity for NASA to partner with private industry for development and demonstration of the technologies needed to support exploration initiatives. One challenge that is critical to sustainable and safer exploration is the ability to manufacture and recycle materials in space. This paper provides an overview of NASA's in-space manufacturing (ISM) project, its past and current activities (2014-2017), and how technologies under development will ultimately culminate in a multimaterial fabrication laboratory ("ISM FabLab") to be deployed on the International Space Station in the early 2020s. ISM is a critical capability for the long endurance missions NASA seeks to undertake in the coming decades. An unanticipated failure that can be adapted for in low earth orbit, through a resupply launch or a return to earth, may instead result in a loss of mission while in transit to Mars. To have a suite of functional ISM capabilities that are compatible with NASA's exploration timeline, ISM must be equipped with the resources necessary to develop these technologies and deploy them for testing prior to the scheduled de-orbit of ISS in 2024. The presentation provides a broad overview of ISM projects activities culminating with the Fabrication Laboratory for ISS. In 2017, the in-space manufacturing project issued a broad agency announcement for this capability. Requirements of the Fabrication Laboratory as stated in the solicitation will be discussed. The FabLab will move NASA and private industry significantly closer to changing historical paradigms for human spaceflight where all materials used in space are launched from earth. While the current ISM FabLab will be tested on ISS, future systems are eventually intended for use in a deep space habitat or transit vehicle. The work of commercial companies funded under NASA's Small Business Innovative Research Program (SBIR) is also discussed, as these activities, from development of recyclable packaging for ISS to additive manufacturing capabilities for metals and electronics, could also potentially be infused into future exploration capabilities. Key data from ISM projects to date will also be summarized.

Prater, Tracie↗