SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “#technology”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 577 records · Page 32

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Technology and Innovation Roadmap

This Technology and Innovation Roadmap outlines the Hanford Tank Waste Operations & Closure, LLC (H2C) strategic approach for advancing the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Mission (HTWTM) through technology development. Our focus is on addressing technology needs that address risks, enhance efficiency, ensure worker safety, and uphold environmental standards. This Roadmap identifies key technology initiatives essential for the successful completion of the Hanford Site tank waste cleanup. Updated annually, it incorporates insights from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Integrated Tank Disposition Contractor (ITDC) H2C, recognized national lab experts, and fieldwork specialists. The Roadmap includes approximately 100 technology elements, each detailed in Technology Element Description Summaries (TEDS) and summarized in catalog sheets. These elements are crucial for aligning technology development activities with mission objectives across the HTWTM. With the initiation of the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) program and the operation of the Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) system, our focus now shifts to the support of scaled up production in East Area; applying similar and exploring new treatment alternatives to West Area Tank Waste; and advancing retrieval, delivery and treatment technologies for waste managed as high-level waste (HLW) across the Hanford tank farms. This transition is reflected in the technology and maturation (TM&E) charts, which highlight the evolving technology priorities. This document serves as a guide for navigating the challenges and opportunities in technology development at the Hanford Site.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

Evaluating Tools and Technologies for Monitoring Baleen Whales During Offshore Wind Foundation Installation

Impacts to baleen whales are of particular concern in the context of offshore wind development because of their conservation status, the overlap of their habitat with current and planned offshore wind energy facilities, and their expected sensitivity to low-frequency sounds, such as those produced during pile driving. Therefore, this report focuses on monitoring technologies capable of detecting this species group. The scope of this report is to assess the current state of technologies and methods for monitoring baleen whales in low- and no-light conditions in conjunction with offshore wind foundation installation. This work considers the performance of various sensing technologies that can be used to observe the presence of baleen whales near offshore construction activities. The scope of work includes: 1. Technology Performance Metrics – Identify metrics that can be used to assess technology performance. 2. Technology Evaluation – Synthesize the past performance of technologies with respect to the performance metrics based on available literature. 3. Technology Characterization Framework – Describe a potential framework to characterize technology performance with a standardized approach. 4. Technology Research and Development Needs – Identify future needs and opportunities for research, development, and deployment to improve technologies.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS1990

A study of mass data storage technology for rocket engine data

The results of a nine month study program on mass data storage technology for rocket engine (especially the Space Shuttle Main Engine) health monitoring and control are summarized. The program had the objective of recommending a candidate mass data storage technology development for rocket engine health monitoring and control and of formulating a project plan and specification for that technology development. The work was divided into three major technical tasks: (1) development of requirements; (2) survey of mass data storage technologies; and (3) definition of a project plan and specification for technology development. The first of these tasks reviewed current data storage technology and developed a prioritized set of requirements for the health monitoring and control applications. The second task included a survey of state-of-the-art and newly developing technologies and a matrix-based ranking of the technologies. It culminated in a recommendation of optical disk technology as the best candidate for technology development. The final task defined a proof-of-concept demonstration, including tasks required to develop, test, analyze, and demonstrate the technology advancement, plus an estimate of the level of effort required. The recommended demonstration emphasizes development of an optical disk system which incorporates an order-of-magnitude increase in writing speed above the current state of the art.

Ready, John F.↗

NASA NTRS1992

User needs as a basis for advanced technology

The NASA Integrated Technology Plan (ITP) is described with treatment given to the identification of U.S. technology needs, space research and technology programs, and some ITP implementations. The ITP is based on the development and transfer of technologies relevant to the space program that also have significant implications for general technological research. Among the areas of technological research identified are: astrophysics, earth sciences, microgravity, and space physics. The Office of Space Science and Applications prioritizes the technology needs in three classes; the highest priority is given to submm and microwave technologies for earth sciences and astrophysics study. Other government and commercial needs are outlined that include cryogenic technologies, low-cost engines, advanced data/signal processing, and low-cost ELVs. It is demonstrated that by identifying and addressing these areas of user technology needs NASA's research and technology program can enhance U.S. trade and industrial competitiveness.

Mankins, John C.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Utilization of Space Station Freedom for technology research

Space Station Freedom presents a unique opportunity for technology developers to conduct research in the space environment. Research can be conducted in the pressurized volume of the Space Station's laboratories or attached to the Space Station truss in the vacuum of space. Technology developers, represented by the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST), will have 12 percent of the available Space Station resources (volume, power, data, crew, etc.) to use for their research. Most technologies can benefit from research on Space Station Freedom and all these technologies are represented in the OAST proposed traffic model. This traffic model consists of experiments that have been proposed by technology developers but not necessarily selected for flight. Experiments to be flown in space will be selected through an Announcement of Opportunity (A.O.) process. The A.O. is expected to be released in August, 1992. Experiments will generally fall into one of the 3 following categories: (1) Individual technology experiments; (2) Instrumented Space Station; and (3) Guest investigator program. The individual technology experiments are those that do not instrument the Space Station nor directly relate to the development of technologies for evolution of Space Station or development of advanced space platforms. The Instrumented Space Station category is similar to the Orbiter Experiments Program and allows the technology developer to instrument subsystems on the Station or develop instrumentation packages that measure products or processes of the Space Station for the advancement of space platform technologies. The guest investigator program allows the user to request data from Space Station or other experiments for independent research. When developing an experiment, a developer should consider all the resources and infrastructure that Space Station Freedom can provide and take advantage of these to the maximum extent possible. Things like environment, accommodations, carriers, and integration should all be taken into account. In developing experiments at Langley Research Center, an iterative approach is proving useful. This approach uses Space Station utilization and subsystem experts to advise and critique experiment designs to take advantage of everything the Space Station has to offer. Also, solid object modeling and animation computer tools are used to fully visualize the experiment and its processes. This process is very useful for attached payloads and allows problems to be detected early in the experiment design phase.

Avery, Don E.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Technology in action

In keeping with the NASA Administrator's announcement that technology transfer will become a fundamental mission of NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has initiated new programs to reach the heartland of U.S. industry. The Center has continued to expand its already well-established outreach program aimed at helping American business, industry, and academia at the grassroots level. The goal is to ensure that America regains and maintains its proper place of leadership among the world's technologically developed nations. MSFC's national goal is to enhance America's competitiveness in the world marketplace, fortify the value of the dollar, and ensure technological breakthroughs by American laboratories benefit taxpayers and industries. The Technology Utilization (TU) Office at MSFC believes a number of measures are possible to slow, then halt, and ultimately reverse the erosion of American technological leadership. MSFC's TU Office is reaching out to American industry on an increasingly broadening scope, facilitating the transfer of NASA derived technologies to American businesses, industries, educational institutions, and individuals. There are many valid approaches to achieving this goal. Some, such as the National Technology Initiative, begin at the top and work down through America's top corporate structure. Others, such as the technology transfer program that MSFC has implemented, begin at the one-on-one, grassroots level -- working with small and medium-sized firms that form the bulk of American industry. What can be done by one NASA center is, admittedly, limited. But by extrapolating this one-on-one approach to the more than 700 Federal laboratories, a great deal can be accomplished. This report contains an examination of outreach and in reach programs, problem statements programs, applications projects, new technology reporting, new technology administration, and the need for increased resources to further facilitate technology transfer.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1993

Technology as a driver for improved space products

Technology development is frequently undertaken by research groups which are independent of program organizations, and then the difficult task is faced some time during the program development of selecting the technology level which will meet the program's needs. This paper examines that process and suggests an approach which helps to establish the 'right' technology level and conditions under which the technology will actually be introduced into the program. The paper recommends that a technology insertion milestone be formally established to select the technologies or technology levels which will be incorporated during hardware development. The Technology Insertion Milestone should be a program event, and it should occur shortly before the design and development phase. Working with the program office, technology options can be presented and their payoff estimated for the program. Coupled with that appraisal should be a definition of the activity necessary to bring the technology options to the point where the program management would commit to its usage with confidence. Examples are given of two NASA programs, Pluto Fast Fly-By and TIMED, where the Technology Insertion Milestone process has been established and is underway.

Kline, Richard L.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Evaluation Criteria for Solid Waste Processing Research and Technology Development

A preliminary list of criteria is proposed for evaluation of solid waste processing technologies for research and technology development (R&TD) in the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program. Completion of the proposed list by current and prospective ALS technology developers, with regard to specific missions of interest, may enable identification of appropriate technologies (or lack thereof) and guide future development efforts for the ALS Program solid waste processing area. An attempt is made to include criteria that capture information about the technology of interest as well as its system-wide impacts. Some of the criteria in the list are mission-independent, while the majority are mission-specific. In order for technology developers to respond to mission-specific criteria, critical information must be available on the quantity, composition and state of the waste stream, the wast processing requirements, as well as top-level mission scenario information (e.g. safety, resource recovery, planetary protection issues, and ESM equivalencies). The technology readiness level (TRL) determines the degree to which a technology developer is able to accurately report on the list of criteria. Thus, a criteria-specific minimum TRL for mandatory reporting has been identified for each criterion in the list. Although this list has been developed to define criteria that are needed to direct funding of solid waste processing technologies, this list processes significant overlap in criteria required for technology selection for inclusion in specific tests or missions. Additionally, this approach to technology evaluation may be adapted to other ALS subsystems.

Levri, Julie A.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Technology Development Report: CDDF, Dual Use Partnerships, SBIR/STTR: Fiscal Year 2003 Activities

The FY2003 NASA John C. Stennis Stennis Space Center (SSC) Technology Development Report provides an integrated report of all technology development activities at SSC. This report actually combines three annual reports: the Center Director's Discretionary Fund (CDDF) Program Report, Dual Use Program Report, and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Report. These reports are integrated in one document to summarize all technology development activities underway in support of the NASA missions assigned to SSC. The Dual Use Program Report provides a summary review of the results and status of the nine (9) Dual Use technology development partnership projects funded and managed at SSC during FY2003. The objective of these partnership projects is to develop or enhance technologies that will meet the technology needs of the two NASA SSC Mission Areas: Propulsion Test and Earth Science Applications. During FY2003, the TDTO managed twenty (20) SBIR Phase II Projects and two (2) STTR Phase II Projects. The SBIR contracts support low TRL technology development that supports both the Propulsion Test and the Earth Science Application missions. These projects are shown in the SBIR/STTR Report. In addition to the Phase II contracts, the TDTO managed ten (10) SBIR Phase I contracts which are fixed price, six month feasibility study contracts. These are not listed in this report. Together, the Dual Use Projects and the SBIR/STTR Projects constitute a technology development partnership approach that has demonstrated that success can be achieved through the identification of the technical needs of the NASA mission and using various available partnership techniques to maximize resource utilization to achieve mutual technology goals. Greater use of these partnership techniques and the resource leveraging they provide, is a goal of the TDTO, providing more support to meet the technology development needs of the mission areas at SSC.

Bailey, John W.↗

NASA NTRS2006

System Architecture Modeling for Technology Portfolio Management using ATLAS

Strategic planners and technology portfolio managers have traditionally relied on consensus-based tools, such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in planning the funding of technology development. While useful to a certain extent, these tools are limited in the ability to fully quantify the impact of a technology choice on system mass, system reliability, project schedule, and lifecycle cost. The Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System (ATLAS) aims to provide strategic planners a decision support tool for analyzing technology selections within a Space Exploration Architecture (SEA). Using ATLAS, strategic planners can select physics-based system models from a library, configure the systems with technologies and performance parameters, and plan the deployment of a SEA. Key parameters for current and future technologies have been collected from subject-matter experts and other documented sources in the Technology Tool Box (TTB). ATLAS can be used to compare the technical feasibility and economic viability of a set of technology choices for one SEA, and compare it against another set of technology choices or another SEA. System architecture modeling in ATLAS is a multi-step process. First, the modeler defines the system level requirements. Second, the modeler identifies technologies of interest whose impact on an SEA. Third, the system modeling team creates models of architecture elements (e.g. launch vehicles, in-space transfer vehicles, crew vehicles) if they are not already in the model library. Finally, the architecture modeler develops a script for the ATLAS tool to run, and the results for comparison are generated.

Thompson, Robert W.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Aerocapture Technology Development for Planetary Science - Update

Within NASA's Science Mission Directorate is a technological program dedicated to improving the cost, mass, and trip time of future scientific missions throughout the Solar System. The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Program, established in 2001, is charged with advancing propulsion systems used in space from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3 to TRL6, and with planning activities leading to flight readiness. The program's content has changed considerably since inception, as the program has refocused its priorities. One of the technologies that has remained in the ISPT portfolio through these changes is Aerocapture. Aerocapture is the use of a planetary body's atmosphere to slow a vehicle from hyperbolic velocity to a low-energy orbit suitable for science. Prospective use of this technology has repeatedly shown huge mass savings for missions of interest in planetary exploration, at Titan, Neptune, Venus, and Mars. With launch vehicle costs rising, these savings could be the key to mission viability. This paper provides an update on the current state of the Aerocapture technology development effort, summarizes some recent key findings, and highlights hardware developments that are ready for application to Aerocapture vehicles and entry probes alike. Description of Investments: The Aerocapture technology area within the ISPT program has utilized the expertise around NASA to perform Phase A-level studies of future missions, to identify technology gaps that need to be filled to achieve flight readiness. A 2002 study of the Titan Explorer mission concept showed that the combination of Aerocapture and a Solar Electric Propulsion system could deliver a lander and orbiter to Titan in half the time and on a smaller, less expensive launch vehicle, compared to a mission using chemical propulsion for the interplanetary injection and orbit insertion. The study also identified no component technology breakthroughs necessary to implement Aerocapture on such a mission. Similar studies of Aerocapture applications at Neptune, Venus, and Mars were studied in 2003 through 2005. All showed significant performance improvements for the missions studied. Findings from these studies were used to guide the technology development tasks originally solicited in a 2002 NASA ROSS Research Announcement. The tasks are now in their final year and have provided numerous improvements in modeling and hardware, for use in proposals or new mission starts. Major Accomplishments: Since validation of the Aerocapture maneuver requires a space flight, ground developments have focused on modeling and environment prediction, materials, and sensors. Lockheed Martin has designed and built a 2-meter Carbon-Carbon aeroshell "hot structure." The article utilizes co-cured stiffening ribs and advanced insulation to achieve large scale, and up to a 40% reduction in areal density over the Genesis probe construction. This concept would be an efficient solution for probes that experience heat rates near 800-1000 W/cm(exp 2), such as at Venus and Earth. Applied Research Associates has extensively tested a family of efficient ablative TPS materials that provide solutions for a range of heating conditions. These materials are being applied to high-temperature structures built by ATK Space Systems, led by Langley Research Center. One-meter aeroshells will be thermally tested to validate construction and demonstrate higher bondline temperatures, which can lead to mass savings of up to 30% over traditional heatshields. Ames Research Center has developed aeroshell instrumentation that could measure environmental conditions and material performance during atmospheric entry. Instruments to measure TPS recession, heat flux, and catalycity could be combined with traditional sensors to provide a "plug-and-play" system for minimal mass and power, that would acquire flight data for model improvement and risk reduction on future missions. Improved atmospheric and aerothermodynamic models ha also been a major focus of the program. Next Steps: Aerocapture is one of five technologies in competition for a flight validation opportunity through the New Millennium Program. If selected, a fully autonomous vehicle will perform an Aerocapture at Earth in 2010, and flight data will be used to validate the guidance system and the TPS material for science mission infusion.

Munk, Michelle M.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Modular, Reconfigurable, High-Energy Technology Development

The Modular, Reconfigurable High-Energy (MRHE) Technology Demonstrator project was to have been a series of ground-based demonstrations to mature critical technologies needed for in-space assembly of a highpower high-voltage modular spacecraft in low Earth orbit, enabling the development of future modular solar-powered exploration cargo-transport vehicles and infrastructure. MRHE was a project in the High Energy Space Systems (HESS) Program, within NASA's Exploration Systems Research and Technology (ESR&T) Program. NASA participants included Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and Glenn Research Center (GRC). Contractor participants were the Boeing Phantom Works in Huntsville, AL, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center in Palo Alto, CA, ENTECH, Inc. in Keller, TX, and the University of AL Huntsville (UAH). MRHE's technical objectives were to mature: (a) lightweight, efficient, high-voltage, radiation-resistant solar power generation (SPG) technologies; (b) innovative, lightweight, efficient thermal management systems; (c) efficient, 100kW-class, high-voltage power delivery systems from an SPG to an electric thruster system; (d) autonomous rendezvous and docking technology for in-space assembly of modular, reconfigurable spacecraft; (e) robotic assembly of modular space systems; and (f) modular, reconfigurable distributed avionics technologies. Maturation of these technologies was to be implemented through a series of increasingly-inclusive laboratory demonstrations that would have integrated and demonstrated two systems-of-systems: (a) the autonomous rendezvous and docking of modular spacecraft with deployable structures, robotic assembly, reconfiguration both during assembly and (b) the development and integration of an advanced thermal heat pipe and a high-voltage power delivery system with a representative lightweight high-voltage SPG array. In addition, an integrated simulation testbed would have been developed containing software models representing the technologies being matured in the laboratory demos. The testbed would have also included models for non-MRHE developed subsystems such as electric propulsion, so that end-to-end performance could have been assessed. This paper presents an overview of the MRHE Phase I activities at MSFC and its contractor partners. One of the major Phase I accomplishments is the assembly demonstration in the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center (LMATC) Robot-Satellite facility, in which three robot-satellites successfully demonstrated rendezvous & docking, self-assembly, reconfiguration, adaptable GN&C, deployment, and interfaces between modules. Phase I technology maturation results from ENTECH include material recommendations for radiation hardened Stretched Lens Array (SLA) concentrator lenses, and a design concept and test results for a hi-voltage PV receiver. UAH's accomplishments include Supertube heatpipe test results, which support estimates of thermal conductivities at 30,000 times that of an equivalent silver rod. MSFC performed systems trades and developed a preliminary concept design for a 100kW-class modular reconfigurable solar electric propulsion transport vehicle, and Boeing Phantom Works in Huntsville performed assembly and rendezvous and docking trades. A concept animation video was produced by SAIC, wllich showed rendezvous and docking and SLA-square-rigger deployment in LEO.

Carrington, Connie↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ares Project Technology Assessment: Approach and Tools

Technology assessments provide a status of the development maturity of specific technologies. Along with benefit analysis, the risks the project assumes can be quantified. Normally due to budget constraints, the competing technologies are prioritized and decisions are made which ones to fund. A detailed technology development plan is produced for the selected technologies to provide a roadmap to reach the desired maturity by the project s critical design review. Technology assessments can be conducted for both technology only tasks or for product development programs. This paper is primarily biased toward the product development programs. The paper discusses the Ares Project s approach to technology assessment. System benefit analysis, risk assessment, technology prioritization, and technology readiness assessment are addressed. A description of the technology readiness level tool being used is provided.

Hueter, Uwe↗

NASA NTRS2010

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Technology Development Status and Forecast

Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, Extravehicular activity (EVA) technology development became a technology foundational domain under a new program Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration. The goal of the EVA technology effort is to further develop technologies that will be used to demonstrate a robust EVA system that has application for a variety of future missions including microgravity and surface EVA. Overall the objectives will be reduce system mass, reduce consumables and maintenance, increase EVA hardware robustness and life, increase crew member efficiency and autonomy, and enable rapid vehicle egress and ingress. Over the past several years, NASA realized a tremendous increase in EVA system development as part of the Exploration Technology Development Program and the Constellation Program. The evident demand for efficient and reliable EVA technologies, particularly regenerable technologies was apparent under these former programs and will continue to be needed as future mission opportunities arise. The technological need for EVA in space has been realized over the last several decades by the Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS) programs. EVAs were critical to the success of these programs. Now with the ISS extension to 2028 in conjunction with a current forecasted need of at least eight EVAs per year, the EVA technology life and limited availability of the EMUs will become a critical issue eventually. The current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) has vastly served EVA demands by performing critical operations to assemble the ISS and provide repairs of satellites such as the Hubble Space Telescope. However, as the life of ISS and the vision for future mission opportunities are realized, a new EVA systems capability could be an option for the future mission applications building off of the technology development over the last several years. Besides ISS, potential mission applications include EVAs for missions to Near Earth Objects (NEO), Phobos, or future surface missions. Surface missions could include either exploration of the Moon or Mars. Providing an EVA capability for these types of missions enables in-space construction of complex vehicles or satellites, hands on exploration of new parts of our solar system, and engages the public through the inspiration of knowing that humans are exploring places that they have never been before. This paper offers insight into what is currently being developed and what the potential opportunities are in the forecast

Chullen, Cinda↗

NASA NTRS2010

Propulsion Technology Lifecycle Operational Analysis

The paper presents the results of a focused effort performed by the members of the Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST) Functional Requirements Sub-team to develop propulsion data to support Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System (ATLAS). This is a spreadsheet application to analyze the impact of technology decisions at a system-of-systems level. Results are summarized in an Excel workbook we call the Technology Tool Box (TTB). The TTB provides data for technology performance, operations, and programmatic parameters in the form of a library of technical information to support analysis tools and/or models. The lifecycle of technologies can be analyzed from this data and particularly useful for system operations involving long running missions. The propulsion technologies in this paper are listed against Chemical Rocket Engines in a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) format. The overall effort involved establishing four elements: (1) A general purpose Functional System Breakdown Structure (FSBS). (2) Operational Requirements for Rocket Engines. (3) Technology Metric Values associated with Operating Systems (4) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) of Chemical Rocket Engines The list of Chemical Rocket Engines identified in the WBS is by no means complete. It is planned to update the TTB with a more complete list of available Chemical Rocket Engines for United States (US) engines and add the Foreign rocket engines to the WBS which are available to NASA and the Aerospace Industry. The Operational Technology Metric Values were derived by the SPST Sub-team in the form of the TTB and establishes a database for users to help evaluate and establish the technology level of each Chemical Rocket Engine in the database. The Technology Metric Values will serve as a guide to help determine which rocket engine to invest technology money in for future development.

Robinson, John W.↗

NASA NTRS2010

The NASA In-Space Propulsion Technology Project's Current Products and Future Directions

Since its inception in 2001, the objective of the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) project has been developing and delivering in-space propulsion technologies that enable or enhance NASA robotic science missions. These in-space propulsion technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling for future NASA flagship and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having broad applicability to future Discovery and New Frontiers mission solicitations. This paper provides status of the technology development, applicability, and availability of in-space propulsion technologies that recently completed, or will be completing within the next year, their technology development and are ready for infusion into missions. The paper also describes the ISPT project s future focus on propulsion for sample return missions. The ISPT technologies completing their development are: 1) the high-temperature Advanced Material Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) engine providing higher performance for lower cost; 2) NASA s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, a 0.6-7 kW throttle-able gridded ion system; and 3) aerocapture technologies which include thermal protection system (TPS) materials and structures, guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) models of blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and atmospheric and aerothermal effect models. The future technology development areas for ISPT are: 1) Planetary Ascent Vehicles (PAV); 2) multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV) needed for sample return missions from many different destinations; 3) propulsion for Earth Return Vehicles (ERV) and transfer stages, and electric propulsion for sample return and low cost missions; 4) advanced propulsion technologies for sample return; and 5) Systems/Mission Analysis focused on sample return propulsion.

Anderson, David J.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Technology Development Roadmap

The Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Technology Development Roadmap is a guide for developing the technologies needed to enable the supportable, sustainable, and affordable exploration of the Moon and other destinations beyond Earth. Supportability is defined in terms of space maintenance, repair, and related logistics. This report considers the supportability lessons learned from NASA and the Department of Defense. Lunar Outpost supportability needs are summarized, and a supportability technology strategy is established to make the transition from high logistics dependence to logistics independence. This strategy will enable flight crews to act effectively to respond to problems and exploit opportunities in an environment of extreme resource scarcity and isolation. The supportability roadmap defines the general technology selection criteria. Technologies are organized into three categories: diagnostics, test, and verification; maintenance and repair; and scavenge and recycle. Furthermore, "embedded technologies" and "process technologies" are used to designate distinct technology types with different development cycles. The roadmap examines the current technology readiness level and lays out a four-phase incremental development schedule with selection decision gates. The supportability technology roadmap is intended to develop technologies with the widest possible capability and utility while minimizing the impact on crew time and training and remaining within the time and cost constraints of the program.

Oeftering, Richard C.↗

NASA NTRS2007

QuEST: Qualifying Environmentally Sustainable Technologies

TEERM focuses its validation efforts on technologies that have shown promise in laboratory testing, but lack testing under realistic or field environment. Mature technologies have advantages over those that are still in the developmental stage such as being more likely to be transitioned into a working environment. One way TEERM begins to evaluate the suitability of technologies is through Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). TRLs are a systematic metric/measurement system that supports assessments of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent comparison of maturity between different types of technology. TEERM generally works on demonstrating/validating alternatives that fall within TRLs 5-9. In instances where a mature technology does not exist for a particular Agency application, TEERM works with technology development groups and programs such as NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP). The IPP's purpose is to identify and document available technologies in light of NASA's needs, evaluate and prioritize those technologies, and reach out to find new partners. All TEERM projects involve multiple partners. Partnering reduces duplication of effort that otherwise might occur if individuals worked their problems alone. Partnering also helps reduce individual contributors' shares of the total cost of technology validation. Through collaboration and financial commitment from project stakeholders and third-party sources, it is possible to fully fund expensive demonstration/validation efforts.

Brown, Christina↗