Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “battery failure”

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

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

584 records · Page 33

Cognitive Assessment During Long-Duration Space Flight

The Space Flight Cognitive Assessment Tool for Windows (WinSCAT) is a computer-based, self-administered battery of five cognitive assessment tests developed for medical operations at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. WinSCAT is a medical requirement for U.S. long-duration astronauts and has been implemented with U.S. astronauts from one NASA/Mir mission (NASA-7 mission) and all expeditions to date on the International Space Station (ISS). Its purpose is to provide ISS crew surgeons with an objective clinical tool after an unexpected traumatic event, a medical condition, or the cumulative effects of space flight that could negatively affect an astronaut's cognitive status and threaten mission success. WinSCAT was recently updated to add network capability to support a 6-person crew on the station support computers. Additionally, WinSCAT Version 2.0.28 has increased difficulty of items in Mathematics, increased number of items in Match-to-Sample, incorporates a moving rather than a fixed baseline, and implements stricter interpretation rules. ISS performance data were assessed to compare initial to modified interpretation rules for detecting potential changes in cognitive functioning during space flight. WinSCAT tests are routinely taken monthly during an ISS mission. Performance data from these ISS missions do not indicate significant cognitive decrements due to microgravity/space flight alone but have shown decrements. Applying the newly derived rules to ISS data results in a number of off-nominal performances at various times during and after flight.. Correlation to actual events is needed, but possible explanations for off-nominal performances could include actual physical factors such as toxic exposure, medication effects, or fatigue; emotional factors including stress from the mission or life events; or failure to exert adequate effort on the tests.

Seaton, Kimberly↗

X-57 Flight Systems Integration Path

The foundation for a safe and successful flight test of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) X-57 Maxwell all-electric experimental airplane, or any X-Plane, is comprehensive system testing on the ground. This test campaign includes verification and validation (V&V) that the integrated system operates as designed and expected, as well as understanding how the system reacts and responds to failures that can occur during flight by performing failure modes and effects testing (FMET). The aircraft should be in the final flight configuration for these test activities because any modifications, even those that appear insignificant, could affect test outcomes. Although the plan was to perform V&V and FMET testing once the airplane was in the flight configuration, due to multiple component redesigns, concurrent software development, and other problems with on-aircraft testing, the X-57 Maxwell never made it into a full-flight configuration. As a result, a build-up approach was followed to test software and hardware as they became ready in order to continue making progress wherever possible. Using this approach revealed problems with the hardware and software faster than waiting for a full-flight configuration, allowing solutions to be found more quickly and in parallel with other project tasks. Other than unloaded motor testing in a lab setting, the only other test setup was on the airplane itself. On-aircraft testing was preferrable in order to test things as close to a flight configuration as possible but was time consuming due to the requirements for testing on the airplane. To overcome some of the on-aircraft barriers, off-aircraft test configurations, such as the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) setups, were used, but each of these setups had limitations to be considered. As a result, solutions found in the SIL or HIL configurations did not always work as expected on the airplane, resulting in an iterative process between on- and off-aircraft testing to find the final solution. Having a dedicated test platform such as an iron bird that closely represents the aircraft - without flight hardware - would have been the most effective off-aircraft test setup, which could have allowed the project to save time and money and potentially reach flight. This paper will highlight the V&V and FMET considerations and testing prerequisites, the build-up approaches to both software and system testing, the benefits and drawbacks to different test configurations, as well as battery testing and operations.

Kassidy M. Mclaughlin↗

X-57 Flight Systems Integration Path

The foundation for a safe and successful flight test of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) X-57 Maxwell all-electric experimental airplane, or any X-Plane, is comprehensive system testing on the ground. This test campaign includes verification and validation (V&V) that the integrated system operates as designed and expected, as well as understanding how the system reacts and responds to failures that can occur during flight by performing failure modes and effects testing (FMET). The aircraft should be in the final flight configuration for these test activities because any modifications, even those that appear insignificant, could affect test outcomes. Although the plan was to perform V&V and FMET testing once the airplane was in the flight configuration, due to multiple component redesigns, concurrent software development, and other problems with on-aircraft testing, the X-57 Maxwell never made it into a full-flight configuration. As a result, a build-up approach was followed to test software and hardware as they became ready in order to continue making progress wherever possible. Using this approach revealed problems with the hardware and software faster than waiting for a full-flight configuration, allowing solutions to be found more quickly and in parallel with other project tasks. Other than unloaded motor testing in a lab setting, the only other test setup was on the airplane itself. On-aircraft testing was preferrable in order to test things as close to a flight configuration as possible but was time consuming due to the requirements for testing on the airplane. To overcome some of the on-aircraft barriers, off-aircraft test configurations, such as the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) setups, were used, but each of these setups had limitations to be considered. As a result, solutions found in the SIL or HIL configurations did not always work as expected on the airplane, resulting in an iterative process between on- and off-aircraft testing to find the final solution. Having a dedicated test platform such as an iron bird that closely represents the aircraft - without flight hardware - would have been the most effective off-aircraft test setup, which could have allowed the project to save time and money and potentially reach flight. This paper will highlight the V&V and FMET considerations and testing prerequisites, the build-up approaches to both software and system testing, the benefits and drawbacks to different test configurations, as well as battery testing and operations.

Kassidy McLaughlin↗

Electrolyte and Cutoff Potential Effects on Cycle Life of Li4Ti5O12/LiNi0.9Mn0.1O2 Batteries for Behind-the-Meter Storage Applications

Behind-the-Meter Storage (BTMS) is a stationary battery energy storage system that is connected to the electrical distribution system on the customer's side of the utility's service meter. BTMS systems are used to store electrical energy from the grid as well as inconstant, renewable energy, such as local solar and wind generation. A successful BTMS system will allow the customer to pair their energy generation and storage to optimize electrical consumption from the grid, improving reliability and minimizing cost. For BTMS applications, batteries must be designed and optimized with different set of criteria from other leading segments of the Li-ion battery market, like transportation, due the system being stationary and proximal to the residential or commercial building it's benefitting. BTMS applications prioritize safety, cost (low/no-critical materials), reliability (20-year calendar life), and durability (10,000 cycle life), while having the ability to (minimally) compromise energy density and rate capability. Lithium titanate (Li4Ti5O12-, LTO) is a promising anode candidate for BTMS applications due to its high safety and capacity retention, while maintaining a reasonable 160 mAhg-1 reversable capacity and composition of relatively abundant materials. (1) Specifically, LTO has a high working voltage which helps to prevent Li dendrite formation, improving safety. Furthermore, LTO also has negligible lithiation-based volume change, leading to less mechanical pulverization, or loss of active material, upon cycling. For the cathode, materials with little or no Co are of high interest due to the high cost and low abundance of Co. LiMn2O4 (LMO) has been paired with LTO for BTMS applications in the past due to its safety, low cost (abundancy), and reasonably high operating voltage. (2-4) However, the low capacity of LMO limits energy density and specific energy. While not the highest priority for BTMS applications, increasing energy density will enable deployment in space constrained BTMS applications and decrease total cost. LiNi0.9Mn0.1O2 (LN-MO) is a recently developed material with promise due to its high operating voltage and relatively low price. (5) However, Ni-rich layered oxides, including LNMO, tend to struggle with capacity retention during high-voltage cycling due to mechanical pulverization, irreversible phase transitions, and unstable solid-electrolyte interphase. The study presented here focuses on building an understanding of how electrolyte solvent and varied cutoff potentials will impact the cycle life of LTO/LN-MO cells. Specifically, a comparison is provided between ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), and Gen2 electrolyte solvents with 1M Lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) salt, cycling to two upper termination potentials, 2.6V and 2.7V. Electrochemical testing and diagnostics (e.g., differential capacity analysis, area specific impedance, constant voltage hold, and rate capability) and post-mortem characterization will be used to understand the aging behavior and failure mechanisms of the 8 cell combinations (four electrolytes and two voltage cutoffs). Cells with FEC electrolyte showed a lower initial capacity compared to cells with Gen2, EMC, and EC cycling at both voltages; however, the cells with FEC showed consistent trends in capacity retention with 2.6V and 2.7V termination potentials, while the cells with the other electrolytes showed much higher rates of capacity loss when cycling to the higher voltage. These results indicate that FEC may play a role in improving durability of high-voltage, Ni-rich electrode systems for use in high-cycle applications, such as BTMS.

electrolyte↗

EMSL Community Science Campaign Meeting: Critical Minerals and Materials - Rhizo Critical Campaign Breakout Session Report Summary

The “Critical Minerals Biogeochemistry in the Rhizosphere – Ultramafic Soils (Rhizo Critical)” campaign breakout (BO) session was organized to identify major knowledge gaps and fundamental research needs in rhizosphere microbiology and geochemistry that, if addressed, could transform our ability to recover critical minerals from ultramafic soil systems. We sought to identify significant challenges that must be surmounted in the pursuit of deeper science knowledge. Our ultimate goal is to understand this landscape well enough to identify and prioritize opportunities for EMSL to make the greatest impact with Environmental Transformations and Interactions (ETI) science area research campaigns focused on the biogeochemical processes controlling the behavior of critical minerals and materials in the rhizosphere. The increasing demand for critical materials and minerals (CMM) in the U.S. has heightened interest in low-grade ores with much attention on ultramafic soils, which contain valuable metals such as nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), manganese, cobalt (Co), and copper (Lee et al., 2025; DOE CMM Report, 2023) used in advanced battery, magnet, wiring and wind turbines, and stainless steel technologies. Metal hyperaccumulating plants grown in ultramafic soils can extract economically valuable concentrations of CMMs through the process of phytomining. This technology has evolved from phytoremediation, which involves using plants to cleanse contaminated environments by removing, detoxifying, or stabilizing pollutants like metals and organic compounds. Hyperaccumulator plants are capable of storing metals in their living tissues at concentrations hundreds to thousands of times higher than those found in 'normal' plants. For instance, while the average concentration of Ni in the dry matter of plants growing in typical soils is usually less than 5 µg g?¹, Ni hyperaccumulation is defined by concentrations exceeding 1,000 µg g?¹ (Corzo Remigio et al., 2020; Reeves et al., 2018). Phytomining research has primarily focused on Ni (Rylott and van der Ent, 2025), for which the U.S. has very limited conventional mines in operation. Most soils typically contain Ni concentrations ranging from 7 to 50 mg kg-1, whereas serpentine soils exhibit significantly higher levels, with Ni content often ranging between 700 and 8,000 mg kg-1 (Sobczyk et al., 2017). While more than 500 plant species in over 50 different families have been identified as Ni hyperaccumulators (Kidd et al., 2018), Ni phytomining (and phytominng in general) remains largely untested because most studies are short-term, small-scale, and conducted under simplified or artificially enriched conditions, so they fail to capture the low metal concentrations, environmental variability, and management constraints that would be needed for a field-scale demonstration. Few hyperaccumulator species have been validated as true “metal crops,” and their biomass production, stress tolerance, and rooting characteristics are usually too poor to yield economically meaningful metal outputs. Critically, the basic mechanisms of metal uptake, transport, and sequestration, especially as shaped by belowground processes such as root exudation, rhizosphere chemistry, and root–microbe interactions that control metal mobility and bioavailability (Montreemuk et al., 2023; Kidd et al., 2018; Durand et al., 2023; Alford et al., 2010), are still only partially understood, and downstream metal recovery from biomass is rarely optimized. Because these limitations stem from gaps in fundamental knowledge rather than from a failure of the concept itself (Rylott and van der Ent, 2025; van der Ent et al., 2015), there is a strong need for basic science that dissects plant metal homeostasis, rhizosphere and microbial processes, and their integration with soil chemistry and process engineering to design more robust, scalable phytomining systems.

Ahkami, Amirhossein↗

An implantable biomechanical energy harvester for animal monitoring devices

Insufficient service life and the resulting need for battery replacements have been a great challenge for implantable electronic devices. This is particularly true for animal tracking applications, because recapturing animals is often unlikely once they are released to the wild. To tackle this problem, we developed a biomechanical energy harvester that uses a Macro Fiber Composite™ (MFC) piezoelectric beam to harvest the mechanical energy from animals’ body bending movements as the power source for implantable and wearable devices. Prototypes of an underwater acoustic transmitter using this technology were subdermally implanted into juvenile white sturgeon and their energy harvesting performance was evaluated through the device’s transmissions. Additionally, the fish successfully recovered from the implantation surgery and freely swam inside a tank. The transmitter prototypes in the fish continually transmitted signals for a period up to 5 weeks. A benchtop test setup was also created to emulate the fish’s body bending, estimate the device’s energy harvesting performance in the live fish, and perform accelerated fatigue testing of the energy harvester by applying test parameters learned from a video study of the fish’s body movement and behavior characteristics. The gradual depolarization of the piezoelectric ceramic material in the MFC under cyclic mechanical loading was the main limiting factor for the life span of the energy harvester. Pathways for improvement are proposed to achieve long-term efficacy of powering implantable and wearable electronic devices.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface, is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗

NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities

Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships [1]. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach [2]. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface [3], is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration [4]. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life [5]. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface [6]. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission [5]. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. Table 1 Notional ECLSS consumables per mission use for SH and TH [5]. SH (28-day) Open Loop: Water (kg) 288 | Oxygen (kg) 30 TH (1110-day) Closed-Loop: Water (kg) 182 | Oxygen (kg) 123 In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project [7]. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.

habitation↗