Results for “difficult” — Page 35

NASA NTRS2020

An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence

We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S . This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult‐to‐quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66% range is 2.6‐3.9 K for our Baseline calculation, and remains within 2.3‐4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5‐95% ranges are 2.3‐4.7 K, bounded by 2.0‐5.7 K (although such high‐confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on S than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent, and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in S , in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing‐feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes.

Climate↗

NASA NTRS2020

Lower Level Repair Can Easily Fail Due to High Complexity

The International Space Station (ISS) uses Orbital Replacement Units (ORU’s) to repair failures on orbit. Using ORU’s reduces the crew time required to repair failures, but several copies of each ORU must be stored on ISS to ensure system availability. A typical ORU contains many components and has significant mass, but each ORU can repair only a single component failure. A full set of the ORU internal components could repair many different failures. Lower level assembly or component repair should reduce total spares mass. Successful electronics repair experiments were conducted on ISS. However, implementing component level repair would require a significant effort. The systems must be designed so they can be repaired during a mission, considering component layout and accessibility. The repair procedures must be developed and repair facilities, tools, and diagnostic and test instruments provided. Tracing a fault to a component is much more difficult than isolating it to an ORU. Replacing a component is much more difficult than replacing an ORU. Some problems with lower level repair are discussed. The mass savings of lower level repair will not save as much launch cost as before since launch cost has recently been reduced by an order of magnitude. Most system failures are not component failures that can be fixed by replacing a component but are due to system level problems. Repair and maintenance should be planned as part of an overall maintainability design. The risk that a lower level repair will fail is considerably greater than when using ORUs. With modern high reliability packaged systems, failure diagnosis and repair has become a lost art. However, diagnosis and repair data from the 1960’s show that increasing complexity often causes much longer diagnosis and repair times and may prevent successful repair. Increasing complexity by using lower level repair directly increases system cost, failure rate, crew time for repair, and the risk of an unrepairable system failure.

Harry W Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Near-term Persistent Platform Orbital Testbed: Three Candidate Architecture Options

On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (OSAM) will revolutionize the space industry by transforming the concept of operations of space systems and enabling new, radically different system implementations. These new implementations will benefit from a novel persistent asset design paradigm which focuses on evolvable designs that are tailored to the operational environment, not the launch environment. In addition, the ability to launch sub-systems independently enable future persistent assets to economically expand in capability and size, achieving cost effective and productive operations lasting for decades like terrestrial observatories. With few exceptions (International Space Station, Hubble Space Telescope, Mission Extension Vehicle customers), current space systems are not visited once they are operational. Leveraging emerging low cost commercial launch provides the ability to repeatedly and routinely revisit space systems. Thus, revolutionary new approaches for space system design are possible, creating completely new opportunities for small businesses and accelerating the growth of already established space industries. To usher in the revolutionary new operational paradigm, two things are needed. First, to build confidence in the technology and new paradigm, there must be a leading example, a bellwether persistent asset, that demonstrates the reliability and maturity of the new persistent asset paradigm (where repeated visits are common). Second, in order to rapidly advance and validate OSAM capabilities, an efficient means is required to conduct tests in the space environment. A persistent platform testbed satisfies both these needs. The space environment exhibits a plethora of characteristics that are difficult and costly to accurately simulate for a full system in a terrestrial laboratory, such as near zero gravity, a wide range of ionizing radiation types, atomic oxygen, and micro-meteoroids and space debris traveling at high velocity. In addition, since persistent assets range in mass from a few grams to several metric tons, it is difficult to accurately simulate interactions between these systems and visiting vehicles (that also exhibit a wide range of varying masses and capabilities). These interactions include the transmission of forces and/or exchanging mass (in the form of instruments, fuel, robotic assets, etc.). Thus, a rapid, versatile and cost efficient in-space testing capability that includes a persistent test platform and a surrounding in-space test zone is needed to mature technologies through experimentation. The testbed can provide common services, such as: power, thermal control, vibration isolation, data transmission between experiments and terrestrial experimenters, station-keeping, pointing, and robotic agents that can be leveraged by customer experiments. The onboard robotic agents can be used to provide payload handling services, such as: assembly, change out or upgrade, relocation, connecting/disconnecting utilities, inspection, repair or servicing, etc. Since the persistent platform cost will be amortized over many hosted payloads, its services can eventually be offered at a price much lower than if one were to design a unique and dedicated spacecraft and mission for those few experiments. The key to achieving an effective testbed is providing efficient cost effective access and infrastructure to a variety of commercial, academic and government customers coupled with extensibility, in the capability of an individual persistent platform test bed or replication of the test bed in a different operational regime. Three potential options for implementing a test bed were developed and evaluated in this study.

Persistent Platform↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Near-term Persistent Platform Orbital Testbed: Three Candidate Architecture Options

On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (OSAM) will revolutionize the space industry by transforming the concept of operations of space systems and enabling new, radically different system implementations. These new implementations will benefit from a novel persistent asset design paradigm which focuses on evolvable designs that are tailored to the operational environment, not the launch environment. In addition, the ability to launch sub-systems independently enable future persistent assets to economically expand in capability and size, achieving cost effective and productive operations lasting for decades like terrestrial observatories. With few exceptions (International Space Station, Hubble Space Telescope, Mission Extension Vehicle customers), current space systems are not visited once they are operational. Leveraging emerging low cost commercial launch provides the ability to repeatedly and routinely revisit space systems. Thus, revolutionary new approaches for space system design are possible, creating completely new opportunities for small businesses and accelerating the growth of already established space industries. To usher in the revolutionary new operational paradigm, two things are needed. First, to build confidence in the technology and new paradigm, there must be a leading example, a bellwether persistent asset, that demonstrates the reliability and maturity of the new persistent asset paradigm (where repeated visits are common). Second, in order to rapidly advance and validate OSAM capabilities, an efficient means is required to conduct tests in the space environment. A persistent platform testbed satisfies both these needs. The space environment exhibits a plethora of characteristics that are difficult and costly to accurately simulate for a full system in a terrestrial laboratory, such as near zero gravity, a wide range of ionizing radiation types, atomic oxygen, and micro-meteoroids and space debris traveling at high velocity. In addition, since persistent assets range in mass from a few grams to several metric tons, it is difficult to accurately simulate interactions between these systems and visiting vehicles (that also exhibit a wide range of varying masses and capabilities). These interactions include the transmission of forces and/or exchanging mass (in the form of instruments, fuel, robotic assets, etc.). Thus, a rapid, versatile and cost efficient in-space testing capability that includes a persistent test platform and a surrounding in-space test zone is needed to mature technologies through experimentation. The testbed can provide common services, such as: power, thermal control, vibration isolation, data transmission between experiments and terrestrial experimenters, station-keeping, pointing, and robotic agents that can be leveraged by customer experiments. The onboard robotic agents can be used to provide payload handling services, such as: assembly, change out or upgrade, relocation, connecting/disconnecting utilities, inspection, repair or servicing, etc. Since the persistent platform cost will be amortized over many hosted payloads, its services can eventually be offered at a price much lower than if one were to design a unique and dedicated spacecraft and mission for those few experiments. The key to achieving an effective testbed is providing efficient cost effective access and infrastructure to a variety of commercial, academic and government customers coupled with extensibility, in the capability of an individual persistent platform test bed or replication of the test bed in a different operational regime. Three potential options for implementing a test bed were developed and evaluated in this study.

Persistent Platform↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going beyond reliability to robustness and resilience in space systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience, are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environments is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes are usually unanticipated. They often invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging events. These three are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems, the ability to perform after unanticipated events, would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness can be done by dealing with known sources of problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. Two contrasting approaches are reducing system complexity and adding supervisory control. The need for resilience has been claimed for decades but little has been accomplished. Systems designers assume that they understand requirements, technologies, designs, architectures, integration, testing, operations, and environments. The potential problems of changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns are ignored. Systems designers are typically overconfident and ignore the need for robustness and resilience.

Harry W Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Human Performance on Future Deep Space Missions Abstract

NASA and the commercial spacecraft community are working diligently to put the first woman on the moon in the 2024 timeframe. At the same time, NASA researchers are thinking about how to solve the even larger challenges that future deep space missions will bring. Space travel itself is difficult, but astronauts on deep space missions will face obstacles and unknowns never before experienced. In addition to the altered gravity and hostile/closed environment of a spacecraft, deep space crews will face increased radiation, isolation, and distance from Earth. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA, or “spacewalk”) operations, crew will experience increased physical and cognitive workload due to extended types, frequencies and durations of tasks performed on exploration missions in partial gravity environments. All of these stressors will impact crew physical and mental health and performance in difficult-to-anticipate ways. Crew autonomy may be one of the biggest challenges faced. Communication delays and blackouts will occur, and in those situations, the crew may not have access to the Mission Control Center (MCC). They may be forced to be solely dependent on each other and the available information onboard to stay alive, healthy, and achieve the mission. The only conceivable way to meet the challenges of Earth independence is to enable the crew to monitor their own health and performance -- preferably unobtrusively as they perform their duties. Technologies and techniques must be developed to aid the crew in these assessments. A deep space mission is expected to have relatively short periods of high cognitive demand, stress, and fatigue, alongside potentially long periods of cognitive underload during the transit, where boredom, loneliness, and depression can set in. Both ends of this spectrum are dangerous. Crew must be made aware when their task performance drops significantly, when their cognitive workload is too high, when they have lost situation awareness, or when they are too stressed or too fatigued to perform well. They must be able to identify these risks, and then mitigate them with countermeasures available onboard. A number of self-monitoring technologies are presently being explored by NASA to advance crew state determination capabilities. These range from real-time, physiological workload and situation awareness assessments, to crew health measurements determining physical and mental fitness for duty, to task performance metrics such as suit resource expenditures. For EVA tasks during surface exploration missions, biomedical information such as metabolic rate may be provided to crewmembers for situational awareness related to task performance efficiency. In addition, translation distances, hydration, nutrition, inspired CO2 exposure and other consumables usage rates may be useful input metrics for modeling individualized performance during tasks to inform crew or provide estimates of work efficiency. Oculomotor metrics such as gaze dwell time, pupilometry, and eye tracking collected in advanced helmet mounted displays could potentially be used to characterize crew situation awareness. This paper highlights some of these projects, and provides broader discussion about the need for advanced monitoring and smart technologies, as NASA takes the leap into the next generation of space exploration.

Kritina Holden↗

NASA NTRS2021

A Mathematical Analysis of an Example Delay Tolerant Network using the Theory of Sheaves

NASA’s High-Data Rate Architecture (HiDRA) project is working towards a general yet practical toolkit and knowledge base to help usher in the era of new technologies for space systems communications, such as optical links. The High-Rate Delay Tolerant Networking (HDTN) implementation falls under the umbrellas of both the toolkit and the knowledge base, as its advancements illuminate more general areas of Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) that need growth. The goal of this paper is to explore the usage of particular mathematical machineries, namely temporal flow networks and sheaves, to identify fundamental, underlying structures in DTN for space systems. Satellites, space assets, ground stations, etc. give rise to a disconnected network, and it is the goal of DTN to glue disparate links together into a cohesive system, that is, a network. Depending on a given link, the latencies might be beyond that which the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) can handle, and contact times might have one-way light times in excess of minute (sometimes significantly longer). Some links might be periodic (say, due to orbital mechanics) or they might not be. This diversity has made it difficult to probe the underlying structure. An immediate consequence is that DTNs in practice today are controlled by globally distributed contact plans (schedules), which are the input to the contact graph routing (CGR) algorithm. While this is effective for smaller networks, it will be very difficult to scale for future networks. Deeper and more rigorous theory is needed to bring DTN to the next evolutionary step. To this end, this paper introduces and suggests a mathematical framework for DTN, and applies it to a space network that is simulated using an orbital analysis toolkit. The tag-line for the structure known as sheaves is that they are the mathematically precise way of gluing local data together into unique, global data. If we consider routing, we see that networking is a “sheafy” science. We then discuss a simplified sheaf model, known as the cellular sheaf. The sheaf-theoretic analysis is presented and discussed, as it is hoped that this and related papers will help form the primordial ooze of DTN theory. Finally there is a section of future work suggesting follow-on research.

Delay Tolerant Networking↗

NASA NTRS2001

Electroactive polymers as artificial muscles - reality and challenges

For many years, electroactive polymers (EAP) received reIatively little attention due to the small number of available materials and their limited actuation capability. The recent emergence of EAP materials with large displacement response changed the potential capability and paradigms of these materials. The main attractive characteristic of EAP is their operational similarity to biological muscles, particularly their resilience and ability to induce large actuation strains. Even though the actuation force of existing EAP materials and their robustness require further improvement, there has already been a series of reported successes. The successful applications that were demonstrated include catheter steering element, miniature manipulator, dust-wiper, miniature robotic arm, and grippers. Some of the currently considered applications may be difficult to accomplish and it is important to scope the requirements to the level that current materials can address. Using EAP to replace existing actuators may be a difficult challenge and therefore it is highly desirable to identify a niche application where it would not need to compete with existing capabilities. The application of these materials as actuators to drive various manipulation, mobility and robotic devices involves multidiscipline including materials, chemistry, electro-mechanics, computers, electronics, etc. This paper reviews the current efforts and the expectations for the future.

Bar-Cohen, Yoseph↗

NASA NTRS2017

Feasibility of Passive Cryogenic Cooling for Solar Powered Outer Planetary Missions

Spacescience instruments with cooled detectors require innovative thermal cooling solutions to meet science objectives. Detector sensitivity increases with decreasing temperature and low optics temperatures are often needed to reduce background photon noise. As the detector spectral range coverage increases from the visible to far infrared also requires lower detector temperatures. Increasing demands on detector performance lead to larger format detectors and higher refresh rates resulting in significant increases in power dissipation. Passive coolers rely on emissive power of radiating surfaces to reject heat to space. As the operating temperature requirements of detectors and optics decreases, the ability to reject heat to space becomes increasingly more difficult. Reducing both cooler internal parasitic and external environmental heat loads and maximizing the passive cooler field of view to space will enhance performance. While instrument heat loads and passive cooler parasitic heat loads are controlled by instrument designers, the external environmental heat loads and cooler views to space are governed by spacecraft and mission designers. Solar powered planetary missions require large arrays to generate sufficient power for spacecraft subsystems and payloads. Two or more solar array wings with cell coverage of the order of 40-80 m2 are often needed to generate sufficient power at 3-6 AU. These large arrays are typically symmetrically configured and can extend tens of meters. The arrays along with spacecraft attitude requirements near the target planetary bodies pose significant challenges for passive cooling at large AU. It is very difficult to provide a clear field of view to space for the cooler with large articulating arrays while keeping solar loads from impinging the cooler and meeting the spacecraft attitude science pointing requirements. This is counter intuitive because of the decreasing solar flux and colder planetary body temperatures at large AU. This paper presents the challenges and opportunities of passive cryogenic cooling versus active cooling for solar powered planetary missions.

Rodriguez, Jose I.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Prototyping an Onboard Scheduler for the Mars 2020 Rover

Efficiently operating a rover on the surface of Mars is challenging. Two factors combine to make this job particularly difficult: 1) communication opportunities are limited, 2) certain aspects of rover performance are difficult to predict. With limited communications, the rover must be given instructions on what to do for one or more Martian days at a time. In addition, the duration of many rover activities can be hard to predict, which leads to unpredictable energy use. Traditionally, conservatism is used to keep the rover safe and healthy. This approach, however can lead to a measurable loss in rover productivity. To regain some of this productivity, the Mars 2020 mission is prototyping the use of onboard scheduling software. The primary objective of this software is to identify and utilize opportunities that arise when actual rover performance is more efficient than the original, conservative prediction.

Benowitz, Ed↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRS2019

A ~60 day Super-orbital Period Originating from the Ultraluminous X-ray Pulsar in M82

Ultraluminous X-ray (ULX) pulsars are a new class of object powered by apparent super-critical accretion onto magnetized neutron stars. Three sources in this class have been identified so far; M82X-2, NGC 5907 ULX-1, and NGC 7793 P13 have been found to have two properties in common; ∼1 s spin periods, and for NGC 5907 ULX-1 and NGC 7793 P13 periodic X-ray flux modulations on timescales of ∼60–80 days. M82 X-2 resides in a crowded field that includes the ULX M82 X-1 separated from X-2 by 5″, as well as other bright point sources. A 60 day modulation has been observed from the region, but the origin has been difficult to identify; both M82 X-1 and X-2 have been suggested as the source. In this paper we present the analysis of a systematic monitoring campaign by Chandra, the only X-ray telescope capable of resolving the crowded field. From a simple Lomb–Scargle periodogram analysis and a more sophisticated Gaussian Process analysis we find that only X-2 exhibits a periodic signal around 60 days, supporting previous claims that it is the origin. We also construct a phase-averaged flux profile of the modulations from higher-cadence Swift/XRT data and find that the flux variations in the Chandra data are fully consistent with the flux profile. Since the orbit of the neutron star and its companion is known to be 2.5 days, the ∼60 day period must be super-orbital in origin. The flux of the modulations varies by a factor of ∼100 from the minimum to the maximum, with no evidence for spectral variations, making the origin difficult to explain.

Individual galaxies↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Situ Reaction Monitoring for Lunar Applications Utilizing a Single Quadrupole Residual Gas Analyzer

With a revived focus to create a permeant presence on the moon and in preparation for future Mars exploration, it is imperative that all re-sources are utilized to their fullest potential. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) will be critical for future mission success as it would enable independent operation of missions while minimally relying on the complex supply chain created between the Earth, moon and Mars. One of the most critical resources that have been identified for ISRU is the creation of liquid oxygen (O2) for not only breathable air, but also for rocket fuel. On the moon and potentially Mars, one of the most O2 rich resources is in the presence of regolith. Although there are numerous minerals within regolith and various processes to extract O2, this is not the scope of this paper. Since the O2 extraction method can vary, a critical standardized analytical method is needed to verify O2 (or oxygenated precursor compounds) for extraction efficiency and purity. Our group utilizes a modified consumer off-the-shelf (COTS), Residual Gas Analyzer (RGA) Single Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer (QMS). Due to the current field mission requirements, the gas analysis module will need to rely only on mass-to-charge ratios (m/z) and peak intensities to differentiate and quantitate targeted gas-phase reactants or products, i.e. carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and hydrogen (H2). However, due to solar wind implanted volatiles and various other compounds present in lunar regolith, such as nitrogen (N2), helium (He), and deuterium (D2), deconvolution and quantification of isobaric compounds becomes quite difficult. Specifically, the presence of N2 makes quantification of CO, an oxygenated precursor, difficult due to both compounds having a peak at m/z 28. Approaches to differentiate isobaric components: Initially, the solution to overcome isobaric overlap was to use isotopic ratios, particularly be-tween carbon-13 and nitrogen-15. Although limited literature discuss isotopic composition and attempt to quantify the ratios, variation is particularly high and limited to a few lunar regolith samples. The following were identified as potential approaches to quantify isobaric species, N2 and CO, using our RGA. Threshold Ionization. CO and N2 both have peaks at m/z 28, but only N2 is capable of producing a peak at m/z 7. While a N2 peak at m/z 7 is generally rare, instrument parameters can be optimized in order to maximize the peak intensity. Typically a standard ionization energy of 70 eV is used to monitor a batch process and would produce reliable results for a majority of the reactants or products that we are interested in quantifying. However, to analyze the rare molecular fragment of N2 (N2+ at m/z 7), a different ionization energy may be beneficial. Threshold Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS) will be explored to optimize the N2+ peak at m/z 7 by varying parameters such as ionization energy and pressure. Therefore, a quantitative value at m/z 7 will be used to determine the product gas concentration of N2, which will be subtracted from the total concentration determined at m/z 28 enabling us to approximate the amount of CO. Secondary Detector (infrared gas detector, IR). Another approach to quantitate and differentiate be-tween isobaric components is to leverage alternative modes of detection. Unlike mass spectrometry, which generally uses a separation step prior to analysis (i.e. gas chromatography), IR produces energy that is specifically absorbed depending on the bond and configuration of the molecule. This technique could be leveraged since it is generally only active on non-symmetric molecules, i.e. CO. Utilizing concentrations of CO determined from another detector could help correct concentrations of CO obtained from the QMS. However, the inclusion of another detector adds additional mission requirements, such as power, software changes and avionics updates that add additional cost and schedule requirements.

mass spectrometry↗

NASA NTRS2021

Scalability and Design of Six Rod Tensegrity Soft Robotic Structure

Robots based on tensegrity structures (interconnected rods and cables) offer many advantages such as low weight, small volume when packed, and have high impact resistance. Unfortunately tensegrity robots can be difficult to make and scale due a fundamental design trade-off: they need to have enough tension in the structure to maintain its integrity, while not having so much tension that it is difficult to actuate,change shape and move. This paper addresses this issue with three approaches:1) Traction based pulley actuation that is less sensitive to the tensioning of the structure, 2) A mix of elastic and inelastic cables allowing for a better balance between tensioning and actuation and 3) Using flexible rods allowing for actuation with inelastic cables. We test configurations and show that these approaches can indeed increase the scalability and usefulness of tensegrity robots.

Tensegrity↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Situ Reaction Monitoring for Lunar Applications Utilizing a Single Quadrupole Residual Gas Analyzer

With a revived focus to create a permanent presence on the moon and in preparation for future Mars exploration, it is imperative that all resources are utilized to their fullest potential.[1] In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) will be critical for future mission success as it would enable independent operation of missions while minimally relying on the complex supply chain created between the Earth, moon and Mars. One of the most critical resources that have been identified for ISRU is the creation of liquid oxygen(LO2) for not only breathable air, but also for rocket propellant. On the moon and potentially Mars, one of the most O2 rich resources is in the presence of regolith.[2],[3] Although there are numerous minerals within regolith and various processes to extract O2,this is not the scope of this paper. Since the O2 extraction method can vary, a critical standardized analytical method is needed to verify O2(or oxygenated precursor compounds) for extraction efficiency and purity. Our group utilizes a modified consumer off-the-shelf (COTS), Residual Gas Analyzer (RGA) Single Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer (QMS). Due to the current field mission requirements, the gas analysis module will need to rely only on mass-to-charge ratios (m/z) and peak intensities to differentiate and quantitate targeted gas-phase reactants or products, i.e. carbon monoxide(CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and hydrogen (H2). However, due to solar wind implanted volatiles and various other compounds present in lunar regolith, such as nitrogen (N2), helium (He), and deuterium (D2), deconvolution and quantification of isobaric compounds becomes quite difficult. Specifically, the presence of N2 makes quantification of CO, an oxygenated precursor, difficult due to both compounds having a peak at m/z 28.

Mass Spectrometry↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolving the Design of a Volcanic Monitoring UAS over Several Flight Campaigns

A multi-organization effort has been underway for several years to develop and validate the use of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for volcanic monitoring. The overall goal is to develop the aircraft, supporting systems, concept of operations, scientific payloads and regulatory framework to allow regular and reliable sampling in challenging and dynamic atmospheric conditions around volcanic summits. Central to this effort has been the development and refinement of the “S2” aircraft, which contains a tightly integrated system consisting of the airframe, avionics, and payload sensors specifically designed to measure atmospheric properties around volcanic plumes. The aircraft has a 3-meter wingspan and can carry a 2.3 kg payload for up to 100 km while operating at altitudes up to 6,000 m. To date, the system has been flown in Costa Rica to sample CO2 gases around Turrialba Volcano (Costa Rica), in Hawaii to assess the 2018 eruption of Kīlauea with several different sensors, and is currently planned for deployment in Alaska for gas sampling and photogrammetry at Makushin Volcano. Before and after each deployment, all aspects of the system and concept of operations (CONOPS) were extensively examined and modified to improve the safety and performance. This has culminated in the upcoming deployment which will fly up to 30 km - beyond visual line of sight for the first time. This expansion of the operational range through additional safety features and redundancy will pave the way for monitoring and accessing areas that were previously very difficult to reach from both a technical and regulatory perspective. These developments can be extended to a variety of missions requiring UAS for atmospheric sampling, specifically ones that would benefit from beyond visual line of sight operations or flights into harsh or difficult atmospheric environments.

UAS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards A More Realistic Representation of Nasa Ceres-Derived Surface Radiative Fluxes During Polar Night: A Comparison With the Mosaic Field Campaign

The Arctic remains one of the more difficult regions observe, and so satellite observations are a critical tool for observing the region, such as those from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). But validating the satellite surface radiative flux estimates is difficult because of the lack of in situ measurements. The extensive high-quality surface radiative flux and meteorological measurements collected from MOSAiC provide a useful check on flux retrievals from CERES instruments. We compare MOSAiC and CERES surface radiative fluxes during October through March of 2019-2020 using the large set of meteorological measurements also collected by MOSAiC, specifically cloud properties. Previous work identified a significant source of error in the CERES estimate of surface downwelling longwave flux as the estimate of low level cloud amount when compared with MOSAiC W-band radar measurements. Continuing this work, we examine the effects of errors in cloud water path on surface radiative fluxes. When using all cloud conditions, errors in cloud water are also significantly correlated with surface radiative flux errors, though the size off the effect is only about half that of cloud amount. But when considering low cloud conditions only, the effects of cloud water and cloud amount are comparable.

J. Brant Dodson↗