SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “design rationale”

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.

576 records · Page 32

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1990

Crew workload strategies in advanced cockpits

Many methods of measuring and predicting operator workload have been developed that provide useful information in the design, evaluation, and operation of complex systems and which aid in developing models of human attention and performance. However, the relationships between such measures, imposed task demands, and measures of performance remain complex and even contradictory. It appears that we have ignored an important factor: people do not passively translate task demands into performance. Rather, they actively manage their time, resources, and effort to achieve an acceptable level of performance while maintaining a comfortable level of workload. While such adaptive, creative, and strategic behaviors are the primary reason that human operators remain an essential component of all advanced man-machine systems, they also result in individual differences in the way people respond to the same task demands and inconsistent relationships among measures. Finally, we are able to measure workload and performance, but interpreting such measures remains difficult; it is still not clear how much workload is too much or too little nor the consequences of suboptimal workload on system performance and the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of the human operators. The rationale and philosophy of a program of research developed to address these issues will be reviewed and contrasted to traditional methods of defining, measuring, and predicting human operator workload. Viewgraphs are given.

Hart, Sandra G.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Assessment of the Orion-SLS Interface Management Process in Achieving the EIA 731.1 Systems Engineering Capability Model Generic Practices Level 3 Criteria

NASA is currently developing the next generation crewed spacecraft and launch vehicle for exploration beyond earth orbit including returning to the Moon and making the transit to Mars. Managing the design integration of major hardware elements of a space transportation system is critical for overcoming both the technical and programmatic challenges in taking a complex system from concept to space operations. An established method of accomplishing this is formal interface management. In this paper we set forth an argument that the interface management process implemented by NASA between the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and the Space Launch System (SLS) achieves the Level 3 tier of the EIA 731.1 System Engineering Capability Model (SECM) for Generic Practices. We describe the relevant NASA systems and associated organizations, and define the EIA SECM Level 3 Generic Practices. We then provide evidence for our compliance with those practices. This evidence includes discussions of: NASA Systems Engineering Interface (SE) Management standard process and best practices; the tailoring of that process for implementation on the Orion to SLS interface; changes made over time to improve the tailored process, and; the opportunities to take the resulting lessons learned and propose improvements to our institutional processes and best practices. We compare this evidence against the practices to form the rationale for the declared SECM maturity level.

Jellicorse, John J.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Flight motor set 360T004 (STS-30R). Volume 1: System overview

The fourth NASA space shuttle flight incorporating redesigned solid rocket motors began on 4 May 1989. The flight motors were designated 360Q004A (left-hand) and 360H004B (right-hand); the mission was designated STS-30R. Overall engine performance was excellent. The low sample rate data that was available showed exceptional propulsion performance. All ballistic and mass property parameters closely matched the predicted values and were well within the required contract end item specification levels that could be assessed. No strain, vibration, or aft skirt heating environments could be addressed due to developmental flight instrumentation deletion. Infrared readings from the shuttle thermal imager were considered very good when compared with ground environment instrumentation readings taken during both the aborted and the actual countdowns. However, hand-held infrared gun reading/ground environment instrumentation comparisons were considered poor during both countdowns, with the exception of the T - 3 hour timeframe during the actual launch. Postflight inspection again verified superior performance of the insulation, phenolics, metal parts, and seals. All combustion gas was contained by the insulation in the field and case-to-nozzle joints. Inadequate parachute performance on the left-hand booster caused high splashdown loads, which resulted in a displaced nozzle and factory joint weatherseal unbond anomalies. Recommendations were made concerning improved thermal modeling and instruments. The rationale for these recommendations, the dispositions of all anomalies, and complete result details are given.

Ricks, Glenn A.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Validation & Verification of Electrical Components B2 Test Facility

The research focus of this project is to assist in the closure of Measurement, Monitoring and Control System (MMCS) and other electrical requirements in support of the B2 Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage Green Run Test Project. Alongside this goal I am to understand project management tools to analyze and control activities/tasks associated with those items. The project I am working on will assist electrical engineers in developing and or identifying closure rationale for the MMCS and electrical requirements. Also as serving the role of a training project manager, I am to develop and maintain a method for tracking progress with estimate completion dates specifically identifying those items during this performance window. The methods I used in order to perform the research consisted of worddocuments, excel sheets, and pdf documents needed for review. For example, documents consisted of: a SLS Core Stage Green Run Facility Requirement Document (FRD) identifying the SSC MMCS and electrical requirements, a Stage Controller to SSC Interface Control Document (ICD) identifying the SSC requirements, and the B2 SLS Core Stage Green Run Test project System Requirements Document (SRD) which identifies the MMCS and electrical requirements. The files were sent to me by both mentors, Mr. Barry Robinson and Ms. Dawn Davis. Overall, the review process for the word documents and excel spreadsheets proved to be successful. The data for the electrical components were accurate and were consistent with the original recorded data. However, the consistency with the pdf documents did not follow up all the way. Attention to this mistake was made and further revisions were done in order for the data to agree with each other. Furthermore, an itinerary was designed using Microsoft Outlook in order to track progress with estimated completion dates. This project contributes to NASA/Center Missions and Goals through the Waterfall Model. The Waterfall Model is a linear system used for engineering design. In the Waterfall Model, the fourth step is Verification and Validation. This involves installation, testing, and debugging of the B2 SLS Core Stage electrical components. For the SLS Core Stage Green Run Test Project, each requirement contained in this approved requirements set will have at least one Verification Item (VI) assigned to it. During the design phase, VIs will mostly consist of Analysis or Inspection types. Design phase VIs and closure information will be documented in Dynamics Data Management System (DDMS) in the form of analysis reports and design documentation.

Bastian, Tyler↗

DOE OSTI2022

Commercial, industrial, and institutional discount rate estimation for efficiency standards analysis: Sector-level data 1998–2021

Underlying each of the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) federal appliance and equipment energy conservation standards are a set of complex analyses of the projected costs and benefits of regulation. Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve significant additional energy conservation, provided that it is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). DOE determines economic justification based on whether the benefits exceed the burdens, considering a variety of factors, including the economic impact of the standard on consumers of the product and the savings in lifetime operating cost compared to any increase in price or maintenance expenses (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). As part of this determination, DOE conducts a Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis, which models the combined impact of appliance first cost and operating cost changes on a representative commercial building sample in order to identify the fraction of customers achieving LCC savings or incurring net cost at the considered efficiency levels. Thus, the commercial discount rate value(s) used to calculate the present value of energy cost savings within the LCC model implicitly plays a role in estimating the economic impact of potential standard levels. This report provides an in-depth discussion of the commercial discount rate estimation process. It is an update to previous reports on estimating commercial discount rates from firm-level financial data (Fujita, 2016). Major topics covered in this report include: Discount rate estimation methods and rationale; -Data sources used and data limitations; -Discount rate distributions for use in standards analysis; -Discount rate estimation methods and distributions specific to the small business subgroup analysis. Going forward, this report will be updated as data allow and analyses necessitate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2019

Development and Operation of a High Throughput Computer Hard Disk Drive Recycling Enterprise (CRADA NFE-16-05989)

The aim of this collaborative effort is to develop, construct and operate a high throughput computer hard disc drive (HDD) recycling system. Research conducted as part of the Critical Materials Institute (CMI), a Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Innovation Hub, has revealed the economic rationale and the necessary technology for a potentially viable HDD recycling enterprise. Moreover, the very notion of CMI is the development of replacement sources of rare earth critical materials that enable the U.S. to become less dependent on single source supplies. Focused on end-of-life (EOL) consumer products containing rare earth permanent magnets, this cooperative endeavor will develop, construct and operate a highly automated recycling process. Demonstrating economically viable recycling of high value products is largely an untapped resource in the U.S. Recycling HDDs to recover rare earth magnets and other valuable materials (e.g. aluminum, steel, printed circuit boards, copper, etc.) presents a new opportunity to satisfy U.S. demand for highly desirable commodities. The goal of this cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) project is to create a commercial HDD recycling enterprise that changes the landscape of rare earth magnet material and magnet availability for U.S. manufacturers. Underpinning this primary goal is the development and demonstration of an economic HDD recycling process that provides a significant and alternative supply of rare earth magnets that is not dependent upon foreign sourcing. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has researched the technology options and down selected specific sub-process technologies based upon throughput and economic potential. The participant, however, brings significant process design, development and operational experience that may result in process improvement or optimization strategies that will be explored in collaboration with the contractor. The final outcome of this CRADA is a system/process for recycling large quantities of HDDs. The technology is available for commercial scale-up.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Commercial, industrial, and institutional discount rate estimation for efficiency standards analysis: Sector-level data 1998–2022

Underlying each of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) federal appliance and equipment energy conservation standards are a set of complex analyses of the projected costs and benefits of regulation. Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve significant additional energy conservation, provided that it is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). DOE determines economic justification based on whether the benefits exceed the burdens, considering a variety of factors, including the economic impact of the standard on consumers of the product and the savings in lifetime operating cost compared to any increase in price or maintenance expenses (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). As part of this determination, DOE conducts a life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, which models the combined impact of appliance first cost and operating cost changes on a representative commercial building sample to identify the fraction of customers achieving LCC savings or incurring net cost at the considered efficiency levels. Thus, the commercial discount rate value(s) used to calculate the present value of energy cost savings within the LCC model implicitly plays a role in estimating the economic impact of potential standard levels. This report provides an in-depth discussion of the commercial discount rate estimation process. It is an update to previous reports on estimating commercial discount rates from firm-level and sector-level financial data (e.g., Fujita, 2021, 2016). Major topics covered in this report include the following: -Discount rate estimation methods and rationale -Data sources used and data limitations -Discount rate distributions for use in standards analysis -Discount rate estimation methods and distributions specific to the small business subgroup analysis A version of this analysis was most recently released in 2022. Going forward, this report will be updated as data allow and analyses necessitate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

NASA NTRS2015

KSC 50-MHz Doppler Radar Wind Profiler (DRWP) Operational Acceptance Test (OAT) Report

This report documents analysis results of the Kennedy Space Center updated 50-MHz Doppler Radar Wind Profiler (DRWP) Operational Acceptance Test (OAT). This test was designed to demonstrate that the new DRWP operates in a similar manner to the previous DRWP for use as a situational awareness asset for mission operations at the Eastern Range to identify rapid changes in the wind environment that weather balloons cannot depict. Data examination and two analyses showed that the updated DRWP meets the specifications in the OAT test plan and performs at least as well as the previous DRWP. Data examination verified that the DRWP provides complete profiles every five minutes from 1.8-19.5 km in vertical increments of 150 m. Analysis of 5,426 wind component reports from 49 concurrent DRWP and balloon profiles presented root mean square (RMS) wind component differences around 2.0 m/s. The DRWP's effective vertical resolution (EVR) was found to be 300 m for both the westerly and southerly wind component, which the best EVR possible given the DRWP's vertical sampling interval. A third analysis quantified the sensitivity to rejecting data that do not have adequate signal by assessing the number of first-guess propagations at each altitude. This report documents the data, quality control procedures, methodology, and results of each analysis. It also shows that analysis of the updated DRWP produced results that were at least as good as the previous DRWP with proper rationale. The report recommends acceptance of the updated DRWP for situational awareness usage as per the OAT's intent.

Profiler↗

NASA NTRS2007

Reducing the Risk of Human Missions to Mars Through Testing

During the summer of 2002 the NASA Deputy Administrator charted an internal NASA planning group to develop the rationale for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. This team, termed the Exploration Blueprint, performed architecture analyses to develop roadmaps for how to accomplish the first steps beyond Low-Earth Orbit through the human exploration of Mars. The previous NASA Exploration Team (NEXT) activities laid the foundation and framework for development of NASA s Integrated Space Plan. The reference missions resulting from the analysis performed by the Exploration Blueprint team formed the basis for requirement definition, systems development, technology roadmapping, and risk assessments for future human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Emphasis was placed on developing recommendations on what could be done now to effect future exploration activities. The Exploration Blueprint team embraced the Stepping Stone approach to exploration where human and robotic activities are conducted through progressive expansion outward beyond low- Earth orbit. Results from this study produced a long-term strategy for exploration with near-term implementation plans, program recommendations, and technology investments. Specific results included the development of a common exploration crew vehicle concept, a unified space nuclear strategy, focused bioastronautics research objectives, and an integrated human and robotic exploration strategy. Recommendations from the Exploration Blueprint included the endorsement of the Nuclear Systems Initiative, augmentation of the bioastronautics research, a focused space transportation program including heavy-lift launch and a common exploration vehicle design for ISS and exploration missions, as well as an integrated human and robotic exploration strategy for Mars. Following the results of the Exploration Blueprint study, the NASA Administrator has asked for a recommendation by June, 2003 on the next steps in human and robotic exploration in order to put into context an updated Integrated Space Transportation Plan (post- Columbia) and guide Agency planning. NASA was on the verge of committing significant funding in programs that would be better served if longer term goals were better known including the Orbital Space Plane, research on the ISS, National Aerospace Initiative, Shuttle Life Extension Program, Project Prometheus, as well as a wide range of technology development throughout the Agency. Much of the focus during this period was on integrating the results from the previous studies into more concrete implementation strategies in order to understand the relationship between NASA programs, timing, and resulting budgetary implications. This resulted in an integrated approach including lunar surface operations to retire risk of human Mars missions, maximum use of common and modular systems including what was termed the exploration transfer vehicle, Earth orbit and lunar surface demonstrations of long-life systems, collaboration of human and robotic missions to vastly increase mission return, and high-efficiency transportation systems (nuclear) for deep-space transportation and power. The data provided in this summary viewgraph presentation was developed to begin to address one of the key elements of the emerging implementation strategy, namely how lunar missions help retire risk of human missions to Mars. During this process the scope of the activity broadened into the issue of how testing in general, in various venues including the Moon, can help reduce the risk for Mars missions.

Drake, Bret G.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Mars Express: The Exploration of Phobos

The origin, structure and composition of Phobos are essentially still unresolved issue, with major outcomes for understanding the origin and evolution of the Solar system, and of the Mars system. Several missions have been designed with this unique body the only target. Is Phobos a captured small body (and in this case, can we identify the degree of differentiation such a small object has undergone ?), or is there any co-generic process with Mars involved ? Are there still volatile species trapped, and if so where, and in what form ? What are the reciprocal contributions of Mars and Phobos material accreted in the other body? The number of key clues for deciphering the early solar system processes, the Mars-Phobos binary evolution, and the role Phobos could play in the future of Mars exploration (including human expeditions), are numerous, and exciting for a large community. Part of the answers are in the high resolution coverage of this object (optical and IR, for composition variation), and in its full spectral analysis, from UV to thermal IR : Mars Express is the unique mission to provide this opportunity, and orbit 756, August 22, a totally unique opportunity to approach Phobos so closely. OMEGA should provide all across Stickney, the deepest accessible material, and over more than 20 km along, a spatial resolution less than 200 m, and assess the composition (and possibly their variations) wrt silicates (mafic materials), oxides, and eventually hydrated minerals and organics. By no means we should miss this opportunity: no one would understand the rationale not to turn the instruments ON while so close, and pointing them towards the Phobos surface.

Phobos↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Structural Dynamics Observations in Space Launch System Green Run Hot Fire Testing

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of eight mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. The Green Run Hot Fire (GRHF) of the SLS Core Stage provided a flight-like ground test environment for verification of integrated vehicle TVC performance. A TVC model coupled to a vehicle structural dynamic model has been developed previously and incrementally validated in subsystem tests and simulations. Still, some aspects of TVC performance in GRHF were not anticipated. The ensuing investigation demonstrated the need for well-instrumented test environments, various levels of modeling fidelity, test-representative structural models, and caution in reuse of legacy components. This paper is the sixth installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. It introduces the salient structural dynamic phenomena uncovered in ambient and hot fire testing. During the Green Run test campaign, a comparison of ambient and hot fire step responses showed a significant change in apparent damping due to the presence of friction, challenging long standing assumptions that friction could be neglected. Additionally, the characteristic response of the engine and thrust structure during GRHF proved to be more complex than anticipated, as evidenced by the available actuator, thrust structure, and engine measurements. While the string-potentiometer based test instrumentation was intended to allow for reconstruction of the engine angles along the two control axes, the geometric placement, location uncertainty, and responses in overlapping frequency spectra revealed additional phenomena requiring further analysis and post-processing. The observations from both modal and frequency response testing during the Green Run ambient and hot fire configurations led to Engine and Core Stage FEM (finite element model) updates. When evidence of unexpected engine motion was found in engine section accelerometer data, the authors pursued additional structural analysis leading to FEM updates associated with the TVC gimbal and thrust structure. Through collaboration between structures, TVC, and flight control disciplines, the test-informed models and root-cause analysis led to confident flight rationale for the first flight of the SLS launch vehicle.

Richard K. Moore↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Structural Dynamics Observations in Space Launch System Green Run Hot Fire Testing

Richard Moore↗

DOE OSTI2024

Commercial, industrial, and institutional discount rate estimation for efficiency standards analysis: Sector-level data 1998–2023

Underlying each of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) federal appliance and equipment energy conservation standards are a set of complex analyses of the projected costs and benefits of regulation. Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve significant additional energy conservation, provided that it is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). DOE determines economic justification based on whether the benefits exceed the burdens, considering a variety of factors, including the economic impact of the standard on consumers of the product and the savings in lifetime operating cost compared to any increase in price or maintenance expenses (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). As part of this determination, DOE conducts a life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, which models the combined impact of appliance first cost and operating cost changes on a representative commercial building sample to identify the fraction of customers achieving LCC savings or incurring net cost at the considered efficiency levels. Thus, the commercial discount rate value(s) used to calculate the present value of energy cost savings within the LCC model implicitly plays a role in estimating the economic impact of potential standard levels. This report provides an in-depth discussion of the commercial discount rate estimation process relying on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to estimate a business’ cost of equity, and by adding a risk adjustment factor to the risk-free rate associated with long-term U.S. Treasury bonds to estimate their cost of debt. It is an update to previous reports on estimating commercial discount rates from firm-level and sector-level financial data (e.g., Fujita, 2021, 2016). Major topics covered in this report include the following: • Discount rate estimation methods and rationale • Data sources used and data limitations • Discount rate distributions for use in standards analysis • Discount rate estimation methods and distributions specific to the small business subgroup analysis.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

NASA NTRS1995

Recent results from Long Duration Exposure Facility materials testing

The overall goals of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) investigations, established by the Materials Special Investigation Group (MSIG) prior to LDEF retrieval, are to provide useful engineering data to people designing and building spacecraft, and secondarily, to obtain data of potential interest to materials researchers. The specific objectives are to support predictions of materials lifetimes under the various low earth orbit (LEO) environments to determine how long the material will physically survive; to estimate the engineering performance lifetimes of these same materials under specific LEO exposures; to identify materials and processes by which given materials degrade; and to provide insights into development of new, more inherently LEO environmentally resistant materials. To achieve the established objectives, two criteria were established to select which materials had the highest priorities for analyses. The first criteria was to examine materials which are still being used on new spacecraft. The second priority was to examine materials with multiple exposure locations on LDEF, because this provided the opportunity to develop predictions on how a material will behave as the exposure environment varies. The goals as defined led to the identification of silverized Teflon (Ag/FEP), chromic acid anodized aluminum, and certain thermal control paints used on LDEF as the material types of highest priority for examination. Ag/FEP was chosen because of an excellent a/e ratio (extremely low), and extensive flight history. Also influencing the decision was the fact that the Hubble Space Telescope uses Ag/FEP as its primary passive thermal control system (and was launched shortly after LDEF retrieval) and that a number of other spacecraft are using or considering this material for use. The various forms of Ag/FEP were used on virtually every side of the LDEF except the earth end. The potential uses of this material, and the location distribution and therefore, exposure conditions, have provided the rationale and opportunity for a comprehensive study of this material.

Pippin, H. Gary↗

NASA NTRS1997

An Overview of the Tropospheric Aerosol Radiative Forcing Observational Experiment

Aerosol effects on atmospheric radiation are a leading source of uncertainty in predicting future climate. As a result, the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Program has established a Focus on Atmospheric Aerosols (IGAC/FAA) and endorsed a series of aerosol field campaigns. TARFOX, the second in the IGAC/FAA series, was designed to reduce this uncertainty by measuring aerosol properties and effects in the US eastern seaboard, where one of the world's major plumes of industrial haze moves from the continent over the Atlantic Ocean. TARFOX's objectives are to: 1. Make simultaneous measurements of: (a) aerosol effects on radiation fields, and (b) the chemical, physical, and optical properties of the aerosols causing those effects. 2. Perform a variety of closure studies by using overdetermined data sets to test the mutual consistency of measurements and calculations of a wide range of aerosol properties and effects. 3. Use the results of the closure studies to assess and reduce uncertainties in estimates of aerosol radiative forcing, as well as to guide future field programs. An important subset of the closure studies is tests and improvements of algorithms used to derive aerosol properties and radiative effects from satellite measurements. The TARFOX Intensive Field Period (IFP) was conducted July 10-31, 1996. It included coordinated measurements from four satellites (GOES-8, NOAA-14, ERS-2, LANDSAT), four aircraft (ER-2, C-130, C-131, and a modified Cessna), land sites, and ships. A variety of aerosol conditions was sampled, ranging from relatively clean behind frontal passages to moderately polluted with aerosol optical depths exceeding 0.5 at mid-visible wavelengths. The latter conditions included separate incidents of enhancements caused primarily by anthropogenic sources and another incident of enhancement apparently influenced by recent fog processing. Spatial gradients of aerosol optical thickness were sampled to aid in isolating aerosol effects from other radiative effects and to more tightly constrain closure tests, including those of satellite retrievals. This talk gives an overview of TARFOX goals, rationale, methods, and initial key findings.

Russell, P. B.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Fast Track NTR Systems Assessment for NASA's First Lunar Outpost Scenario

Integrated systems and mission study results are presented which quantify the rationale and benefits for developing and using nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) technology for returning humans to the moon in the early 2000's. At present, the Exploration Program Office (ExPO) is considering chemical propulsion for its 'First Lunar Outpost' (FLO) mission, and NTR propulsion for the more demanding Mars missions to follow. The use of an NTR-based lunar transfer stage, capable of evolving to Mars mission applications, could result in an accelerated schedule, reduced cost approach to moon/Mars exploration. Lunar mission applications would also provide valuable operational experience and serve as a 'proving ground' for NTR engine and stage technologies. In terms of performance benefits, studies indicate that an expendable NTR stage powered by two 50 klbf engines can deliver approximately 96 metric tons (t) to trans-lunar injection (TLI) conditions for an initial mass in low earth orbit (IMLEO) of approximately 199 t compared to 250 t for a cryogenic chemical TLI stage. The NTR stage liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank has a 10 m diameter, 14.8 m length, and 68 t LH2 capacity. The NTR utilizes a 'graphite' fuel form consisting of coated UC2 particles in a graphite substrate, and has a specific impulse capability of approximately 870 s, and an engine thrust-to-weight ratio of approximately 4.8. The NTR stage and its piloted FLO lander has a total length of approximately 38 m and can be launched by a single Saturn V-derived heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV) in the 200 to 250 t-class range. The paper summarizes NASA's First Lunar Outpost scenario, describes characteristics for representative engine/stage configurations, and examines the impact on engine selection and vehicle design resulting from a consideration of alternative NTR fuel forms and lunar mission profiles.

Borowski, Stanley K.↗

NASA NTRS2004

Subsystem Details for the Fiscal Year 2004 Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development Metric

This document provides values at the assembly level for the subsystems described in the Fiscal Year 2004 Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development Metric (Hanford, 2004). Hanford (2004) summarizes the subordinate computational values for the Advanced Life Support Research and Technology Development (ALS R&TD) Metric at the subsystem level, while this manuscript provides a summary at the assembly level. Hanford (2004) lists mass, volume, power, cooling, and crewtime for each mission examined by the ALS R&TD Metric according to the nominal organization for the Advanced Life Support (ALS) elements. The values in the tables below, Table 2.1 through Table 2.8, list the assemblies, using the organization and names within the Advanced Life Support Sizing Analysis Tool (ALSSAT) for each ALS element. These tables specifically detail mass, volume, power, cooling, and crewtime. Additionally, mass and volume are designated in terms of values associated with initial hardware and resupplied hardware just as they are within ALSSAT. The overall subsystem values are listed on the line following each subsystem entry. These values are consistent with those reported in Hanford (2004) for each listed mission. Any deviations between these values and those in Hanford (2004) arise from differences in when individual numerical values are rounded within each report, and therefore the resulting minor differences should not concern even a careful reader. Hanford (2004) u es the uni ts kW(sub e) and kW(sub th) for power and cooling, respectively, while the nomenclature below uses W(sub e) and W(sub th), which is consistent with the native units within ALSSAT. The assemblies, as specified within ALSSAT, are listed in bold below their respective subsystems. When recognizable assembly components are not listed within ALSSAT, a summary of the assembly is provided on the same line as the entry for the assembly. Assemblies with one or more recognizable components are further described by the indented entries below them. See Yeh, et al. (2002), Yeh, et al. (2003), and Yeh, et al. (2004) for details about ALSSAT organization. Except for the dry food mass listed within the Food Processing, Packaging, and Storage within the Food Subsystem, total values for assemblies would be the sum of their components. The Dry Food Mass, however, is that portion of the food system that was neglected during the computation of the Fiscal Year 2004 ALS R&TD Metric. It is listed here to provide a reference, but it is otherwise ignored in the overall totals. See Hanford (2004) for details of this process and supporting rationale. When applicable, the technology label from ALSSAT is listed in the second column, and the associated abbreviations are listed below in Section 4. For more details of the technologies assumed for each mission, please see Hanford (2004) for descriptions of each subsystem and an overall life support system schematic.

Hanford, Anthony J.↗

NASA NTRS2022

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

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

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗