Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “consortium”

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.

At least 631 records · Page 35
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative: Ensuring a Cohesive, Executable Strategy for Technology

Establishing a sustainable human presence on the Moon allows NASA to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and systems that will enable us to function in other, more challenging environments. The Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative (LSII) was established in 2019 and has evolved into a key agency asset to spur technology development and provide risk reduction for lunar surface system development and flight demonstrations. LSII coordinates activities implemented through a combination of in-house activities, competitive programs, and public-private partnerships to create transformative technologies needed for lunar surface exploration. This paper will outline the LSII model used to develop a technology pipeline that will retire the primary technology hurdles in six capability areas. In-situ resource utilization technologies for collecting, processing, storing, and using material found or manufactured on the Moon. Surface power technologies that provide the capability for sustainable, continuous power throughout the day and night for lunar missions. Dust mitigation strategies that diminish lunar dust hazards on lunar surface systems such as cameras, solar panels, space suits, habitats, and instrumentation. Extreme environments technologies that enable systems to operate throughout the full range of lunar surface conditions, including lunar noon (up to 150 at the equator), night (down to - 180 at the equator), multiple day/night cycles, and in permanently shadowed regions (down to -250). Extreme access technologies that enable humans or robotic systems to access, navigate, and explore previously inaccessible lunar surface or subsurface areas. Excavation and construction technologies that will allow affordable, autonomous manufacturing or construction. We outline key results, including milestones and achievements related to the capability areas and outcomes from partnerships with the commercial sector. A key tenet of the LSII is the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), a collaboration across industry, academia, and government to successfully develop the transformative capabilities for lunar surface exploration. LSIC provides a forum for NASA to communicate technological requirements, needs, and opportunities and for the community to share existing capabilities and identify critical gaps with NASA. By working side by side with commercial enterprises and our international partners, NASA is able to combine the knowledge and expertise needed to explore the lunar surface and make technical advances that will feed technological and economic growth. Since its inception, LSII has engaged over 600 organizations across the United States and 46 countries to shape the technologies and systems needed to explore the lunar surface and stimulate a lunar surface economy.

Lunar↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Dust Tolerant Mechanisms for a Sustained Exploration of the Moon

Introduction: “I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can overcome other physio-logical or physical or mechanical problems except dust.”– Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Technical Debrief The Apollo missions revealed the impact of lu-nar dust on mechanisms. Lunar dust particles are jagged and electrostatically charged, giving them the ability to bind or damage mechanisms and alter thermal properties. Reports documented clogged equipment and jammed mechanisms in every mission, regardless of surface duration, as well as clogged mechanisms in the Extravehicular Mobility Suit (EMS), including zippers, wrist and hose locks, faceplates, and sunshades [1-2]. Several astronauts remarked they could not have sustained surface activity much longer because clogged joints would have frozen up completely [2]. Effective dust mitigation strategies are need-ed to support longer duration stays on the lunar surface [3-4]. State of the Art: Technology for mechanisms able to operate in dusty enviroments is advancing rapidly due to the needs of both Mars rovers and the Artemis program. Vacuum-tight connectors are essential for spacesuits and habitats, and their performance can be dependent on cleaning technologies, which have proven difficult on the lunar surface. Several TRL 3-5 technologies are undergoing tests with the expectation to reach TRL 6 within 1-2 years. Some mechanisms will be infused and tested on the VIPER (Volatiles Inves-tigating Polar Exploration Rover) mission planned for mid-2020s. NASA Funded Efforts: NASA has recognized the need for dust tolerant mechanisms, and has partnered with industry to advance the state-of-the-art. At NASA GRC, KSC, and JSC, the Dust Tolerant Mechanisms Project is working to devel-op advanced actuator seals for rotary joints and rotary bearing technologies for long-term sus-tained operation in lunar dust environments. An-other NASA project at NASA GRC, partnered with GSFC, JPL, and KSC is Motors for Dusty & Ex-treme Cold Environments (MDECE). MDECE is developing an unheated magnetically-geared mo-tor that can operate continuously for a long dura-tion at an ambient temperature of -243 ºC (33 K). NASA GRC has the capability to characterize the effects of dust on seals, mechanisms, and other mating surfaces and components under lunar conditions [5]. Through the SBIR/STTR program, NASA has funded several companies to advance dust toler-ant mechanisms via the Dust Tolerant Mecha-nisms sub-topic with applications in surface mobil-ity, spacesuits, connectors, joints, and more. LSIC and Community Efforts: The Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) Dust Miti-gation focus group has fostered collaborations across NASA, industry, and academia to develop solutions that minimizes the impact of lunar dust on robotic and human systems. Community ef-forts have included topical meetings on dust tol-erant mechanisms, featured technology presenta-tions, and feedback to NASA on potential gaps and needs. Testing: In 2021, NASA released NASA-STD-1008 [6]. This NASA Technical Standard estab-lishes minimum requirements and provides guid-ance for testing systems and hardware to be ex-posed to dust in planetary environments. The standard has specific sections dedicated to Mechanisms Testing (e.g. bearings, gears) as well as Seals and Mating Surfaces Testing (e.g. hatches, docking systems). Gaps and Needs: NASA is tracking dust tol-erant mechanisms as a gap in a cross-directorate analysis of capability areas needed to enable fu-ture human space-flight architectures. Two high-priority gap areas include additional facilities for testing mechanisms in lunar-surface conditions, and a better understanding of vulnerabilities to the smallest, nanometer-scale dust particles. Conclusion: Understanding and mitigating lu-nar dust is critical to successful, sustained opera-tions on the lunar surface – whether autonomous or otherwise. This presentation will discuss both the state-of-the-art and open needs in lunar dust tolerant mechanisms, technology impacts, mitiga-tion approaches, testing, LSIC community efforts, and more. References: [1] Gaier, J. R. (2020). The Im-pact of Dust on Lunar Surface Equipment During Apollo. Lunar Dust 2020. [2] GRC, & Gaier, J. R. (2005). The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Sys-tems During the Apollo Missions. [3] Johansen, M. R. (2020). An Update on NASA’s Lunar Dust Mitigation Strategy. Lunar Dust 2020. [4] ASI, CSA, ESA, JAXA, & NASA. (2016). Dust Mitiga-tion Gap Assessment Report. [5] Jimenez, N. et al (2022), LPSC Abstract 2572. [6] NASA-STD-1008, 2021.

J I Nunez↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dust Mitigation Technology to Enable Survive the Night Capabilities

Introduction: As we return to the Moon, the lunar regolith (i.e. lunar dust) covering the surface will be an obstacle to nominal operations. Accounts from Apollo astronauts and analysis of hardware returned from the surface illustrate just how deleterious the dust can be [1]. During Apollo missions, the lunar dust adhered to hardware mechanically and electrostatically [2]. Surviving the Night: Mitigating the lunar dust will be critical to surviving the night. Going hand-in-hand with other extreme environment considerations, dust mitigation is critical to mission success. Dust Impacts on Other Systems: The lunar dust can have negative implications for power, thermal, mechanisms, and several other systems or sub-systems. For example, Apollo encountered marked degradation of performance in heat rejection systems for the lunar roving vehicle, science packages, and other components because of the lunar dust [1]. For power alone, dust can cause internal clogging for power connectors, heat rejection issues, excessive dust on reflective surfaces, reduced power output for solar arrays, and so on. Dust Mitigation Strategy: In addition to considering technology solutions, it is important for hardware, systems, and or components to have a dust mitigation strategy. At a high level, hardware that will encounter the lunar dust should consider these things when defining a dust mitigation strategy: • Understand Natural Environment • Understand Induced Environment • Understand Tolerance to Dust • Write Dust Requirements • Select Dust Mitigation Solutions • Test Hardware in Dusty Environment More information on each of these can be provided to hardware owners. Dust Mitigation Technology Development: NASA has a series of technologies that may be available for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night. Many of these solutions are leveraging dust mitigation technology development efforts from NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), as well as efforts from ESDMD programs, industry, and academia. Through a series of STMD programs (both internal to NASA and through partnerships), there are several technologies in development as considerations as dust mitigation solutions for hardware. Within STMD, the Game Changing Development Program (GCD) has funded several internal dust mitigation projects including low to mid TRL development, demonstrations on CLPS landers of high TRL solutions, and creating standards and best practices for dust mitigation. STMD dust mitigation efforts also include a series of partnerships for developing technologies and advancing the state of dust mitigation at NASA. This includes the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), Small Business Innovation Research, Early Stage Innovations (ESI), Space Technology Research Grants (STRG), Announcement of Collaboration Opportunities (ACOs) and Tipping Points (TPs), and Challenges and Crowdsourcing, among others. There are also a series of dust mitigation solutions that have been widely used terrestrially, or during Apollo. In recent years, several studies have produced more data on the efficacy of these potential solutions in the lunar environment. Dust Mitigation Solutions: Dust mitigation solutions generally fall into four categories: • Dust Tolerant Mechanisms • Passive Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Active Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Dust Measurement Capabilities There are a series of solutions that may prove beneficial for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night, including new technology development as well as proven, terrestrial solutions. This presentation will discuss in more detail what some of these solutions are for payloads going to the surface. References: [1] J. R. Gaier, NASA/TM—2005-213610, The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [2] T. J. Stubbs, et al. Impact of Dust on Lunar Exploration, 2005

dust mitigation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Spaceflight Relevant Carbon Dioxide Levels on Pathogenesis Related Microbial Characteristics

Multiple stressors in the spaceflight environment, including microgravity and radiation, have the potential to alter microbial pathogenesis and virulence characteristics. Understanding how these and other factors may exacerbate the risk of infectious disease for astronauts is important to ensure the success of the mission. One understudied question in our assessment of infectious disease risk is the contribution carbon dioxide (CO2) at atmospheric concentrations higher than would be observed in terrestrial settings. Previous terrestrial studies have shown altered gene expression, selective bacterial inhibition, increased growth and diversity, and increased antibiotic resistance of bacterial communities individually and in biofilms when exposed to increased levels of CO2. While many of these findings are based on levels of CO2 higher than would be found during spaceflight exploration missions, the potential for subtle changes in CO2 levels to exacerbate infectious disease risks warrants an evaluation of pathogen responses to spaceflight CO2 conditions. To address this question, we are evaluating the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on microbial concentration, diversity, and pathogenesis-related characteristics using medically significant microorganisms cultured at CO2 levels representing terrestrial atmospheric concentration (≈0.04 %), ISS elevated concentration (0.4 %), and an unexpectedly elevated concentration (1 %) to represent a worst-case scenario. To determine if microbial responses to these CO2 concentrations may be exacerbated in response to the spaceflight environment, microorganisms are being cultured under static conditions and both spaceflight analogue and control conditions using the Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor (Synthecon, Houston, TX). For these studies, we will evaluate the response of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Enterobacter aerogenes, which are opportunistic bacterial pathogens that are of medical significance and have been or are likely to be found aboard human-inhabited spacecraft. Bacteria will be evaluated individually and together as a consortium. The following Specific Aims are be investigated: Aim 1. Characterize the growth, diversity, and pathogenesis-related stress responses of medically significant microorganisms grown under multiple CO2 concentrations under static growth in a liquid medium. Stress responses include acid stress, oxidative stress, and thermal stress. Aim 2. Characterize the growth, diversity, and pathogenesis-related stress responses of medically significant microorganisms grown under multiple CO2 concentrations in both spaceflight analogue and control conditions. Stress responses include acid stress, oxidative stress, and thermal stress.

S G Thornhill↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ICARTT File Format Enhancements: Supporting FAIRness of Airborne and Field Campaign Data

The ICARTT (International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation) standards were developed to fulfill data management needs for the ICARTT campaign in 2004. The ICARTT file format is text-based and composed of a header with important data description information and the data section. The ICARTT format, built on the NASA Ames and GTE data formats, was created to facilitate data exchange and promote collaborations among the science teams for achieving the ICARTT campaign goals. Due to the success of the ICARTT campaign, the ICARTT file format was exposed to a broad range of airborne researchers and was adopted for use in many other field campaigns sponsored by NASA and other partner agencies. The ICARTT format standards became a NASA standard in 2010 and was amended in January 2017 providing many enhancements, including the requirement for variable standard names. Primarily designed for airborne field studies, ICARTT has been further utilized for ground-based studies. The ICARTT format can host metadata that is critical for proper use of the data, especially for in-situ measurements. However, the information that needs to be included is often in free text, meaning the information are human readable, but not machine interpretable. Furthermore, the amount and type of information provided can vary substantially between principal investigators and campaigns. To support interoperability and FAIR principles, further enhancements to the ICARTT standards are recommended. Possible recommendations include standardizing timestamps for easier data comparisons and analysis; potential use of controlled and consistent vocabulary for variable short name and certain common metadata elements; and providing guidance on variable measurement units and how they are reported.

Megan Buzanowicz↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Survive the Dust: Dust Mitigation Technology to Enable Survive the Night Capabilities

Introduction: As we return to the Moon, the lunar regolith (i.e. lunar dust) covering the surface will be an obstacle to nominal operations. Accounts from Apollo astronauts and analysis of hardware returned from the surface illustrate just how deleterious the dust can be [1]. During Apollo missions, the lunar dust adhered to hardware mechanically and electrostatically [2]. Surviving the Night: Mitigating the lunar dust will be critical to surviving the night. Going hand-in-hand with other extreme environment considerations, dust mitigation is critical to mission success. Dust Impacts on Other Systems: The lunar dust can have negative implications for power, thermal, mechanisms, and several other systems or sub-systems. For example, Apollo encountered marked degradation of performance in heat rejection systems for the lunar roving vehicle, science packages, and other components because of the lunar dust [1]. For power alone, dust can cause internal clogging for power connectors, heat rejection issues, excessive dust on reflective surfaces, reduced power output for solar arrays, and so on. Dust Mitigation Strategy: In addition to considering technology solutions, it is important for hardware, systems, and or components to have a dust mitigation strategy. At a high level, hardware that will encounter the lunar dust should consider these things when defining a dust mitigation strategy: • Understand Natural Environment • Understand Induced Environment • Understand Tolerance to Dust • Write Dust Requirements • Select Dust Mitigation Solutions • Test Hardware in Dusty Environment More information on each of these can be provided to hardware owners. Dust Mitigation Technology Development: NASA has a series of technologies that may be available for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night. Many of these solutions are leveraging dust mitigation technology development efforts from NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), as well as efforts from ESDMD programs, industry, and academia. Through a series of STMD programs (both internal to NASA and through partnerships), there are several technologies in development as considerations as dust mitigation solutions for hardware. Within STMD, the Game Changing Development Program (GCD) has funded several internal dust mitigation projects including low to mid TRL development, demonstrations on CLPS landers of high TRL solutions, and creating standards and best practices for dust mitigation. STMD dust mitigation efforts also include a series of partnerships for developing technologies and advancing the state of dust mitigation at NASA. This includes the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), Small Business Innovation Research, Early Stage Innovations (ESI), Space Technology Research Grants (STRG), Announcement of Collaboration Opportunities (ACOs) and Tipping Points (TPs), and Challenges and Crowdsourcing, among others. There are also a series of dust mitigation solutions that have been widely used terrestrially, or during Apollo. In recent years, several studies have produced more data on the efficacy of these potential solutions in the lunar environment. Dust Mitigation Solutions: Dust mitigation solutions generally fall into four categories: • Dust Tolerant Mechanisms • Passive Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Active Dust Mitigation Capabilities • Dust Measurement Capabilities There are a series of solutions that may prove beneficial for hardware that needs to survive the lunar night, including new technology development as well as proven, terrestrial solutions. This presentation will discuss in more detail what some of these solutions are for payloads going to the surface. References: [1] J. R. Gaier, NASA/TM—2005-213610, The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [2] T. J. Stubbs, et al. Impact of Dust on Lunar Exploration, 2005

dust mitigation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ICARTT File Format Enhancements: Supporting FAIRness and Data Discovery of Suborbital Campaign Data

Suborbital campaigns aim to accomplish a wide variety of goals and can include a variety of platforms, instruments, and parameters measured. In 2004, the ICARTT (International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation) standards were developed to fulfill data management needs for the ICARTT campaign. The ICARTT file format is text-based and composed of a header with important data description information and the data section. Built on the NASA Ames and GTE data formats, the ICARTT format was created to facilitate data exchange and promote collaborations among the science teams for achieving the ICARTT campaign goals. Due to its success and adaptation for use in many other field campaigns, the ICARTT file format became a NASA standard in 2010 and was amended in January 2017. These changes provided many enhancements, including the requirement for variable standard names. Primarily designed for airborne field studies, ICARTT has been further utilized for ground-based studies. NASA has made a commitment to build an inclusive open science community over the next decade. Open-source science strives to make publicly funded scientific research transparent, inclusive, accessible, and reproducible. The ICARTT format can host metadata that is critical for proper use of the data, particularly for in-situ measurements, and can enhance data discovery and accessibility. However, the required fields are often free text, meaning that the information is human readable, but not machine interpretable. Furthermore, the amount and type of information provided can vary significantly between principal investigators and campaigns. To support FAIR principles and interoperability, enhancements to the ICARTT standards are recommended. Possible recommendations include potential use of controlled and consistent vocabulary for variable standard name and certain common metadata elements; standardizing timestamps for easier data comparisons and analysis; and providing guidance on variable measurement units and how they are reported. Enhancing ICARTT metadata can further streamline the process to make suborbital data more readily available to the data user and improve variable-level metadata. Providing more variable-level metadata can enhance data searching and discovery, supporting NASA’s Open-Source Science Initiative (OSSI).

Megan Buzanowicz↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Additional Metadata Guidelines to Improve the Structure and Usability of HDF and NetCDF Files

The Hierarchical Data Format (HDF) and Network Common Data Form (NetCDF) are data file formats created to aid users in the creation or use of scientific data. These file formats are useful for handling large data volumes and hosting extensive metadata as global attributes or variables and are popular with the modeling community. HDF and NetCDF files are largely used with remote sensing data and have been used to support measurements from numerous campaigns, from satellite to aircraft or ground and mobile based measurements. The files from airborne field studies, however, vary greatly in terms of the file structure and the amount and content of metadata. Information relevant to the file that can be useful to the user such as the data producer, location where data was taken, variable descriptions, or information about the instrument might not be included in the file. This metadata might be present in another file in the dataset containing the same data using the International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation (ICARTT) format. Recently, the Aerosols, Clouds, and their Interactions for Earth System Models (MACIE) group started a grassroots effort to develop a set of requirements for the HDF and NetCDF files for field studies, aiming to make the data products more interoperable and usable. Particularly, these requirements seek to make the files more compliant to Climate and Forecast (CF) metadata conventions and to standardize the file structure and the global and variable attributes. These requirements would help to ensure that HDF and NetCDF files contain adequate metadata to better support their use for research, e.g., the modeling community, and to enhance the usability and interoperability of data for research communities at large. To be presented are the details of the MACIE requirements as well as examples of the implementation of these requirements for merge files and lidar observation data files.

Sean Leavor↗
NASA NTRS2023

Know Before You Go: A Community-Derived Approach to Planning for and Preventing Sexual Harassment at Oceanographic Field Sites

Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem on oceanographic research vessels and while conducting fieldwork in general. A variety of factors contribute to inadequate protection against sexual harassment, such as poor training in prevention, support, and response; the remoteness of field sites; academic hierarchies that reinforce uneven power dynamics that extend to fieldwork; and multi-institutional teams with distinct policies or reporting structures that can lead to confusion in reporting and responding to incidents in the field. In compromising individuals’ physical and mental health, sexual harassment can negatively affect research expeditions. For example, harassed individuals may decide to refrain from working on complicated team-based tasks, which can be a safety issue. A broader concern is that sexual harassment deters talented people from pursing or maintaining employment in ocean science. Harassment must be treated with the same gravity as research misconduct and safety policy infringements. When planning a research expedition, science team leaders are responsible for the safety of their team and other colleagues aboard and would benefit from resources aimed at helping team leadership create a plan to ensure safety and inclusivity. To address this resource gap and support consistent safety preparedness, 18 participants in the Workshop to Promote Field Safety in Ocean Sciences, convened by the Consortium for Ocean Leadership and held May 17-18, 2022, in Washington, D.C., developed a checklist for use by scientific leaders and others to assist in planning for participant safety and to prevent harassment the field. The checklist specifies the timing of, and who is responsible for, specific actions that should be taken to improve safety while conducting fieldwork, whether on a research vessel or on land. It also provides additional resources and suggestions for leaders on how to amend the checklist to address their specific fieldwork situations.

Oceanography↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Conjunction Assessment and Deconfliction Paradigm for Co-Located Satellite Constellations With on-Spacecraft “Autonomous” Flight Dynamics Control

Satellite constellations that employ on-spacecraft flight dynamics and conjunction assessment (CA) approaches face particular challenges. First, they must arrange to obtain and upload to the constellation satellite close approach information, such as Conjunction Data Messages, so that their on-board systems will have the data they need to make informed CA decisions. Second, given current latencies in obtaining CA screening information, such systems often cannot obtain dedicated screenings of their proposed maneuvers before they are executed. Third, they usually cannot engage in real time with owner/operators (O/Os) with whom they may come into conjunction, relying instead on pre-arranged courses of action that may or may not fit a given situation well. Despite these difficulties, it is nonetheless possible, as operators such as SpaceX have demonstrated, to operate safely using on-board CA calculations, in the presence of a largely collaborative operating environment. The situation breaks down, however, when two constellations that operate with such a paradigm are placed in the same orbital region and will experience conjunctions with each other. Each may have a vague idea of where the other’s satellites are, or perhaps even a somewhat precise idea if they exchange O/O ephemerides, but neither will know the other’s more immediate maneuver intentions, especially for situations in which they are in a high-risk conjunction with each other and a mitigation maneuver is required. As there is no formalized way for these automated systems to ascertain each other’s intentions for this type of conjunction, it is quite possible that each spacecraft may choose a maneuver that results in the two objects’ colliding. An opportunity to develop a solution to this problem was presented by the NASA “Starling” project, a small experimental constellation developed to demonstrate autonomous satellite control and constellation reconfiguration and for which a launch was obtained that, serendipitously, will place this constellation close to the SpaceX Starlink constellation. Because the NASA constellation is experimental, an extended mission part of the mission has been negotiated to implement and test mechanisms for resolving the problem of co-located constellations with on-board flight dynamics control. For the last eighteen months, a consortium among NASA Ames (the Starling satellite providers), NASA CARA (the Agency organization responsible for conjunction assessment), Space X, and the Department of Commerce (in observer status) has met regularly to assemble a concept of operations for a robust solution to this problem and has developed a prototype ground node that will serve as a needed CA screening and information dispensary. The approach and methods, as well as the active employment of the developed ground node, will be tested both in simulation before actual use and then in actual spacecraft operations, which are anticipated to begin in January 2024. This paper will describe the co-located autonomously-controlled constellation problem and the developed solution in detail, outlining what ground node (i.e., government) infrastructure and features are required, what particular capabilities are needed by the constellations themselves in order to make use of this deconfliction paradigm, and the migration path forward to allow such a capability set to be incorporated by the Department of Commerce’s space traffic coordination system.

Conjunction Assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Statistical Approach on Utilizing Ground-based Experiments to Model Break-up Events

Two laboratory-based impact tests have been conducted to develop and extend the capability of NASA satellite breakup models. The first experiment, the Satellite Orbital Debris Characterization Impact Test (SOCIT), was conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA in 1992. It employed a fully functional U.S. Navy Transit spacecraft, fabricated from materials commonly used in the 1960s. SOCIT fragmentation data formed the basis of the current NASA Standard Satellite Breakup Model (SSBM). A second experiment, DebriSat, was conducted in 2014 by the DebriSat consortium: the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office; the United States Space Force Space Systems Command, formerly the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, the Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Complex, and the University of Florida. This impact test was performed on a high-fidelity mock-up satellite assembled from modern components. Data from both experiments are expected to contribute to the next-generation models for on-orbit breakup analyses, long-term environment predictions, and debris risk assessment. This paper uses the direct statistical sampling of the SOCIT and DebriSat data ensembles to model an on-orbit breakup event, rather than the analytic expressions estimated from the samples as with as with the NASA SSBM and its predecessor. This direct method involves drawing fragments (i.e., sampling with replacement) from each fragmentation data-subset containing mass, shape category, material density, characteristic length, mass, and cross-sectional area. As part of the sampling process, the properties of sampled fragment data (e.g., area-to-mass ratios) are numerically checked to ensure they do not contain unrealistic quantities. The process to simulate a breakup cloud composed of fragments from SOCIT and DebriSat datasets is discussed. The methodology for ensuring that conservation of overall mass of the sampled fragment cloud under this sampling approach is highlighted. Finally, the results are compared with simulated clouds generated from SSBM for specific historical breakup events.

Andrew Vavrin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Interim Set of TNT Curves for LOX/LNG Explosions

Space launch companies are actively developing, or in some cases have already developed, new vehicles that use large quantities of liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid natural gas (LNG) propellants. This propellant mixture currently lacks sound/verified explosive safety standards for use in explosive siting and flight safety analysis. In the U.S., multiple government and commercial organizations have conducted limited testing, or are preparing to conduct tests, intended to provide a sound technical basis for LOX/LNG explosive standards applicable to space launch vehicle ground and flight operations. The limited testing and analysis conducted so far indicates the potential to produce extremely energetic explosions due to the miscibility of LOX/LNG (methane), a unique feature relative to previously used propellant mixtures such as hydrogen/oxygen or kerosene/oxygen. MOX is a homogenous mixture of methane and oxygen that is possible because of methane’s 100% miscibility in LOX. Preliminary testing by N2L, Inc. described in this paper shows that it is possible to form MOX with a variety of mixing methods, and that MOX is a sensitive high explosive capable of producing overpressures greater than comparable masses of C-4. The limited amount and quality of large-scale LOX/LNG explosive test data, and the potential formation of high-explosive MOX, create significant unknowns in the determination of hazard areas (cleared of the public) for ground operations (such as a static fire test) and flights of launch vehicles with LOX/LNG propellant. This paper will review the methods used by NASA to develop and validate the LOX/LH2 blast model using large-scale explosive test programs such as Project PYRO, the Hydrogen-Oxygen Vertical Impact (HOVI), and the Large-Scale Hydrogen-Oxygen Explosion (LSHOE) tests. This paper will describe how the same process was used to prepare an interim LOX/LNG blast model that applies to various LV failure scenarios and conservatively accounts for potential MOX formation. This paper also summarizes past and future testing and modeling efforts funded by a consortium of NASA, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the US Space Force (USSF). These test programs should be concluded within the next 3 years and are intended to provide empirical data for model verification and validation.

Liquid Oxygen↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Interim Set of TNT Curves for LOX/LNG Explosions

Space launch companies are actively developing, or in some cases have already developed, new vehicles that use large quantities of liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid natural gas (LNG) propellants. This propellant mixture currently lacks sound/verified LOX/LNG explosive safety standards for use in explosive siting and flight safety analysis. In the U.S., multiple government and commercial organizations have conducted limited testing, or are preparing to conduct tests, intended to provide a sound technical basis for explosive standards applicable to space launch vehicle ground and flight operations. The limited testing and analysis conducted so far indicates the potential to produce extremely energetic explosions due to the miscibility of LOX/LNG (methane), a unique feature relative to previously used propellant mixtures such as hydrogen/oxygen or kerosene/oxygen. MOX is a homogenous mixture of methane and oxygen that is possible because of methane’s 100% miscibility in LOX. Preliminary testing by N2L, Inc. described in this paper shows that it is possible to form MOX with a variety of mixing methods, and that MOX is a sensitive high explosive capable of producing overpressures greater than comparable masses of C-4. The limited amount and quality of large-scale LOX/LNG explosive test data, and the potential formation of high-explosive MOX, create significant unknowns in the determination of hazard areas (cleared of the public) for ground operations (such as a static fire test) and flights of launch vehicles with LOX/LNG propellant. This paper will review the methods used by NASA to develop and validate the LOX/LH2 blast model using large-scale explosive test programs such as Project PYRO, the Hydrogen-Oxygen Vertical Impact (HOVI), and the Large-Scale Hydrogen-Oxygen Explosion (LSHOE) tests. This paper will describe how the same process was used to prepare an interim LOX/LNG blast model that applies to various LV failure scenarios and conservatively accounts for potential MOX formation. This paper also summarizes past and future testing and modeling efforts funded by a consortium of NASA, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the US Space Force (USSF). These test programs should be concluded within the next 3 years and are intended to provide empirical data for model verification and validation.

Liquid Oxygen↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Plants in Space, Veggie, and Space Crop Production

An updated outreach talk to the Connecticut Space Grant Consortium and associated classrooms. As astronauts venture farther from Earth, and for longer periods, the space food system will increase in importance, and crop production can supplement a packaged diet. Testing with the Veggie and Advanced Plant Habitat chambers on the International Space Station is allowing us to understand the impacts of gravity and spaceflight on crop growth, nutritional content, and food acceptability, and the importance of plants to astronauts living and working away from our blue home planet.

Gioia Massa↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling EUV Intensity at the Top of the Transition Region Using SPICE Data on Board Solar Orbiter

The Spectral Imaging of Coronal Environment (SPICE; SPICE Consortium et al. 2020) provides an extraordinary opportunity to study the chromosphere and transition region using EUV wavelengths, e.g., Ne VIII 770 Å, CIII 977 Å, OVI 1032 Å, and Lyman-𝛽 025 Å. We present results modeling Ne VIII 770 Å intensity using images from SPICE and the COronal DEnsity and Temperature (CODET) model. This model is based on relationships between the magnetic field, density, and temperature. It uses a flux transport model, the Potential Field Extrapolation model (PFSS), an emission model based on Chianti atomic database 10.0.2, and an optimization algorithm. In addition, we assume that the emission from the top of the transition region (Ne VIII 770 Å) can be described using the magnetic field in the coronal base at 1.014𝑅⨀ (from PFSS). We found the mean full disc electron density in the transition region obtained from the CODET model for Ne VIII 770 Å (𝑙𝑜𝑔10𝑇[𝐾] = 5.8) corresponds to ∼ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10𝑁 𝑐𝑚−3 >9, and temperature value is 𝑙𝑜𝑔10𝑇[𝐾]~6. This value agrees with the Ne VIII 770 Å temperature formation 𝑙𝑜𝑔10𝑇[𝐾]~5.8. The density above sunspots (𝐵 > 50 𝐺) corresponds to 𝑙𝑜𝑔10𝑁 𝑐𝑚−3 > 9, while in quiet Sun regions (𝐵 < 50 𝐺) the mean density is 𝑙𝑜𝑔10𝑁[𝑐𝑚−3 ] = 8 .

Jenny M Rodriguez Gomez↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Gateway Refueling Architecture and Concept of Operation

The Lunar Gateway is a deep space orbiting outpost being developed by NASA in partnership with ESA and other domestic and international partners. It is a critical component of NASA’s Artemis program supporting long-term human exploration of the moon and is designed to be refueled, requiring the on-orbit transfer of propellants. The first two modules of Gateway to be launched will be the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO). The PPE contains the bipropellant chemical and electrical propulsion systems that will provide attitude control and orbit raising capability for Gateway. The reaction control system (RCS) utilizes monomethylhydrazine (MMH) and mixed oxides of nitrogen-3 (MON-3) as the fuel and oxidizer, respectively. Helium is used as a pressurant. The Advanced Electric Propulsion Systems (AEPS) and Busek hall thrusters that comprise the solar electric propulsion (SEP) system use xenon as the propellent. The ESPRIT Refueling Module, provided by ESA, will supply the propellant refueling function to Gateway’s propulsion systems. On-orbit refueling is a complex, technically challenging operation that is key to enabling sustainable crewed Lunar and Martian exploration. Numerous systems may be involved in the refueling operation. Also numerous systems are required to enable the successful ability for Gateway to refuel such as, SEP, RCS, Structure & Mechanisms (S&M), Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC), Thermal, Software, Vehicle System Manager (VSM), Flight Ops, Extra Vehicular Robotics (EVR), Communication and Tracking (C&T), Avionics, and more. This paper will detail the design architecture, concept of operations, and challenges associated with the Gateway refueling system. The methodologies used in Gateway will be compared to those implemented in OSAM-1 and the best practices documented by AIAA and CONFERS (Consortium For Execution Of Rendezvous And Servicing Operations).

Brandie L. Rhodes↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Proving Grounds Definition

The Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) is hosting a hybrid Lunar Proving Grounds Definition Workshop, July 12-13,2023, at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, and on Zoom. The topic of facilities needed for testing hardware destined for the Moon and the need for Earth-based ‘Lunar Proving Grounds’ for testing systems has come up across all six Focus Areas of LSIC. While facilities exist for component- and instrument- level technology maturation (e.g., up to system/subsystem demo in relevant environments), and there are potential flight opportunities for component maturation to flight-qualified and even flight-proved systems, the Artemis Program vision for a sustained presence and transition to industry (e.g., the Moon to Mars Objectives and the LSIC “Path to an Enduring Lunar Presence” white paper) suggests an architecture of integrated systems and systems of systems more complex than Apollo or the International Space Station. Some questions we aim to address through this workshop include: (1) How will validation and verification of these systems and interactions, including human-robotic operations, be accomplished? (2) What metrics need to be tested, and thus what capabilities will such a facility or facilities need? (3) Which functionalities can be tested separately and which need to synergize? What can be the role of digital engineering?

Proving Grounds↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Near-Term Policy Considerations for Lunar Missions

Near-Term Policy Considerations for Lunar Missions. Therese Jones1, Gabriel Swiney,1 and Katie McBrayer,2 1NASA HQ, 300 Hidden Figures Way SW, Washington, D.C. 20546, 2NASA Langley Re-search Center, 1 NASA Drive, Hampton, VA, 23666. (Contact: therese.m.jones@nasa.gov) Introduction: More than two dozen lunar missions are planned prior to the Artemis III crewed lunar landing, from Russian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese and U.S. government orbiters and landers to Commercial Lunar Payload Ser-vices missions to commercial crewed flybys. While the Artemis Accords have established an international consortium of countries seeking to mitigate interference between operations on the Moon, a number of unaddressed policy issues remain that may be critical to lunar operations. In this lightning talk, we build upon NASA’s Of-fice of Technology, Policy, and Strategy’s Sep-tember 2022 Report “Lunar Landing and Oper-ations Policy Analysis” [1], to give an overview of policy questions that remain open, including: whether to prioritize certain landing locations or avoid certain scientifically valuable locations, design and coordination of safety zones, notifi-cation of other actors of potential dangers posed by landing, whether to avoid placing equipment in operationally valuable locations, and end-of-life disposal. We will also discuss how these policy implications could apply to planned missions.. References: [1] Swiney, G., and Hernandez, A. Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analy-sis, NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy, September 30, 2022 https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa-otps-lunar-landing-and-operations-policy-analysis-final-report_2.pdf

Therese Jones↗