Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “space data systems standards”

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 NTRS2023

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗
NASA NTRS2020

Evaluation, Analysis and Results of the DANTi Flight Test Data, the DAIDALUS Detect and Avoid Algorithm, and the DANTi Concept for Detect and Avoid in the Cockpit

The DAIDALUS Detect and Avoid Algorithm [1] was developed to address the operational needs of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and meet the Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Detect and Avoid [2]. The DANTi (Detect and Avoid iN the cockpit) concept [3], developed at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center, leverages advancements achieved in surveillance and Detect and Avoid technologies for unmanned aircraft systems as a safety enhancing capability for pilots of manned aircraft. Pilots operating under Visual Flight Rules and not receiving Air Traffic Control radar services rely on see and avoid to remain well clear of other aircraft and avoid collisions. The DANTi concept has been conceived as a safety enhancement capability to remain well clear and avoid potential collisions. The DANTi concept uses a traffic display to provide situational awareness, conflict detection, alerting, and guidance to remain well clear.

Detect and Avoid↗
NASA NTRS1974

Systems definition summary. Earth Observatory Satellite system definition study (EOS)

A standard spacecraft bus for performing a variety of earth orbit missions in the late 1970's and 1980's is defined. Emphasis is placed on a low-cost, multimission capability, benefitting from the space shuttle system. The subjects considered are as follows: (1) performance requirements, (2) internal interfaces, (3) redundancy and reliability, (4) communications and data handling module design, (5) payload data handling, (6) application of the modular design to various missions, and (7) the verification concept.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1990

Prediction of forces and moments for flight vehicle control effectors. Part 1: Validation of methods for predicting hypersonic vehicle controls forces and moments

Many types of hypersonic aircraft configurations are currently being studied for feasibility of future development. Since the control of the hypersonic configurations throughout the speed range has a major impact on acceptable designs, it must be considered in the conceptual design stage. The ability of the aerodynamic analysis methods contained in an industry standard conceptual design system, APAS II, to estimate the forces and moments generated through control surface deflections from low subsonic to high hypersonic speeds is considered. Predicted control forces and moments generated by various control effectors are compared with previously published wind tunnel and flight test data for three configurations: the North American X-15, the Space Shuttle Orbiter, and a hypersonic research airplane concept. Qualitative summaries of the results are given for each longitudinal force and moment and each control derivative in the various speed ranges. Results show that all predictions of longitudinal stability and control derivatives are acceptable for use at the conceptual design stage. Results for most lateral/directional control derivatives are acceptable for conceptual design purposes; however, predictions at supersonic Mach numbers for the change in yawing moment due to aileron deflection and the change in rolling moment due to rudder deflection are found to be unacceptable. Including shielding effects in the analysis is shown to have little effect on lift and pitching moment predictions while improving drag predictions.

Maughmer, Mark D.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Secure Autonomous Automated Scheduling (SAAS)

This report describes network-centric operations, where a virtual mission operations center autonomously receives sensor triggers, and schedules space and ground assets using Internet-based technologies and service-oriented architectures. For proof-of-concept purposes, sensor triggers are received from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to determine targets for space-based sensors. The Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) Disaster Monitoring Constellation satellite, the UK-DMC, is used as the space-based sensor. The UK-DMC's availability is determined via machine-to-machine communications using SSTL's mission planning system. Access to/from the UK-DMC for tasking and sensor data is via SSTL's and Universal Space Network's (USN) ground assets. The availability and scheduling of USN's assets can also be performed autonomously via machine-to-machine communications. All communication, both on the ground and between ground and space, uses open Internet standards

Walke, Jon G.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Virtual Mission Operations of Remote Sensors With Rapid Access To and From Space

This paper describes network-centric operations, where a virtual mission operations center autonomously receives sensor triggers, and schedules space and ground assets using Internet-based technologies and service-oriented architectures. For proof-of-concept purposes, sensor triggers are received from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to determine targets for space-based sensors. The Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) Disaster Monitoring Constellation satellite, the United Kingdom Disaster Monitoring Constellation (UK-DMC), is used as the space-based sensor. The UK-DMC s availability is determined via machine-to-machine communications using SSTL s mission planning system. Access to/from the UK-DMC for tasking and sensor data is via SSTL s and Universal Space Network s (USN) ground assets. The availability and scheduling of USN s assets can also be performed autonomously via machine-to-machine communications. All communication, both on the ground and between ground and space, uses open Internet standards.

Ivancic, William D.↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Novel Method for Characterizing Spacesuit Mobility through Metabolic Cost

Spacesuit mobility has historically been defined and characterized by a combination of range of motion and joint torque of the individual anatomical joints when performing isolated motions meant to drive that joint only in a given orthogonal plane. While this has been the standard approach for several decades, there are numerous shortcomings that suit designers and engineers would like to see rectified. First, the lack of a standardized method for collecting both range of motion and joint torque translates to many different test setups, procedures and methods of data analysis. Second, all of these previously used methods for data collection lack some degree of repeatability, even within the same test setup and the same conductor; in addition, attempts at higher fidelity data collection techniques require high overhead and cost with minimal improvement. Lastly, isolated motions in standard anatomical planes are not representative of real‐world tasks that a crewmember would be performing during an EVA, be it microgravity or surface exploration based. To address these shortcomings, options are being explored within the Space Suit and Crew Survival Systems Branch to ascertain the feasibility of an alternative approach to defining mobility - one that is more repeatable, lower overhead, and more tied to functional EVA tasks. This paper serves to document the first attempt at such an alternative option - one that looks at the metabolic energy‐cost of a spacesuit. In other words, can we objectively compare the mobility of a spacesuit by evaluating the metabolic cost of that suit to the wearer while performing a battery of functional EVA tasks?

McFarland, Shane↗
NASA NTRS2017

Diffusivities of Redox-Sensitive Elements in Basalt vs. Oxygen Fugacity Determined by LA-ICP-MS

Several diffusion experiments were conducted in a piston cylinder device across a range of oxygen fugacities (FMQ-3 FMQ-1.2, FMQ+6) at 1 GPa and 1300 C. This was done to explore the effects of oxygen fugacity (fO2) on diffusivity of redox sensitive trace elements. This allows investigation of how these elements diffuse across the fO2 range encountered in different reservoirs on planets and moons in our solar system. The University of Rochester LA-ICP-MS system was used for analysis of samples. Analyses were conducted using an Agilent 7900 quadrupole mass spectrometer connected to a Photon Machines 193 nm G2 laser ablation (LA) system equipped with a HelEx 2-volume sample chamber. Spots used were 35 micrometers circles spaced at 65 micrometers intervals. Laser fluence was 7.81 J/cm^2 with a rep rate of 10 Hz. The iolite software package was used to reduce data collected from laser ablation analysis of experiments with Si-29 used as the internal standard isotope. Iolite's global fit module was used to simultaneously fit elements' diffusivities in each experiment while keeping the Matano interface constant. Elements analysed include V, Nb, W, Mo, La, Ce, Pr, Sm, Eu, Gd, Ta, and W. Figures

Szumila, Ian↗
NASA NTRS2018

Radio-hosted Flight / Ground Interface for Operations Standardization

The interface between a spacecraft and its ground operations segment includes the flow of commands, configuration, and sequencing elements to the spacecraft, and the flow of telemetry and data products from the spacecraft. Creating and implementing a complete definition of this interface simplifies and standardizes mission operations, allowing easy sharing of operations personnel across missions. Early spacecraft featured a simple flight / ground interface (FGI) using hardware command decoding in the radio, driven by technological limitations of the time. Modern spacecraft use command and data handling (CDH) avionics on which flight software executes, which in turn controls and configures the mission, executes subsystem and instrument instructions, and implements critical fault protection actions. Deep space missions feature advanced operations software for running sequenced activities over a period of weeks, which allows them to function with only infrequent ground contact. This approach comes at the cost of increased complexity in the FGI, requiring expensive modifications to heritage flight software and ground systems. By hosting the interface in the radio instead of the CDH avionics, modern missions can approximate the FGI design simplicity of early spacecraft, with significant advantages for vendor competition, lowered costs, standardization of operations, and reduction of implementation risk.

Lock, Patricia D.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Highly Resolved Reference Projections of Building Energy Use for the Contiguous United States: Building Sector Energy Baselines, Projection Methods, and Results

This report describes one methodology of projecting energy consumption of the US residential and commercial building sectors using NREL's ResStock™ and ComStock™ as well as growth rates derived from EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The impetus for this work is to provide an intermediate method for compiling demand-side sectoral energy projections that is suitable for grid-scale analysis, such as NREL's Standard Scenarios. ResStock and ComStock are physics-based and statistically representative building stock models of the US residential and commercial sector, respectively. Using the 2012 actual meteorological year (AMY) weather data, the sectoral energy baselines are simulated and then segmented along key dimensions (e.g., geography, dwelling/building type). The segmented results are then scaled using the corresponding annual growth rates derived from the 2021 AEO reference case to produce energy projections out to 2050. The compiled result is a demand-side grid model (dsgrid) data set suitable for use in NREL's large-scale grid models, such as the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS). This simple projection method does not endogenously represent how the building stock could evolve through time. Most notably, it does not reflect large-scale electrification, for example, the conversion of space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking from primary fossil fuels to electricity, as this is not part of AEO's reference case assumptions. Nonetheless this approach is more resolved and potentially extensible compared to the current method used by Standard Scenarios's reference case, which augments a sector's total load based on a single growth rate from AEO.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2019

Analysis of the DebriSat Fragments and Comparison to the NASA Standard Satellite Breakup Model

Existing DOD and NASA satellite breakup models are based on a key laboratory test, the 1992 Satellite Orbital debris Characterization Impact Test, which has supported many applications and matched on-orbit events involving older satellite designs reasonably well over the years. In 2014, the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, in collaboration with the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, The Aerospace Corporation, and the University of Florida, conducted a hypervelocity impact test using a high-fidelity, mock-up satellite, DebriSat, in controlled and instrumented laboratory conditions to update and improve these models. DebriSat is representative of present-day, low Earth orbit satellites, having been constructed with modern spacecraft materials and techniques. The DebriSat fragment ensemble provided a variety of shapes, bulk densities, and dimensions. Fragments down to 2 mm in size are being characterized by their physical and derived properties. The data will inform updates to the current NASA Standard Satellite Breakup Model (SSBM), which was formulated using laboratory and ground-based measurements of on-orbit fragmentation events to describe an average breakup for spacecraft and upper-stage collisions and explosions. Although individual fragment collection and characterization is still ongoing, this paper will present the status of the DebriSat fragment data analysis including cumulative characteristic length and cumulative mass distributions, area-to-mass distributions, and characteristic length versus mass distributions. Additionally, comparisons to the NASA SSBM will be presented.

Murray, James↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Depth Analysis of Subject Functional Performance and Subjective Feedback Data for Evaluating Argos Simulation Quality

Mechanical offloading systems such as the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) are used to simulate various partial gravity environments. ARGOS offloads pressurized suited subjects through a gimbaling pivot point system attached to a volumetric Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The pivot point can be configured to multiple locations with respect to the human-suit system center of gravity (CG). Previous work has tested and documented the interaction between different pivot point locations and measured CG. Observations indicated that small changes in pivot point location substantially affect the stability and functional performance (simulation quality) of a subject. This led to the development of a standardized gimbal assessment protocol to assess the functional performance of a pressurized suited subject as a function of the pivot point location, using the data obtained from a variety of planetary suit mobility tasks. As a result, an expansive repository of CG-related task metrics was generated from numerous ARGOS spacesuit test events, for different gimbal configurations and different test subjects. Based on the evaluation metrics and observed trends, several pivot point locations were iteratively identified to determine an “appropriate/optimal” configuration. This study thus describes the in-depth analysis of the CG evaluation metrics to better quantify trends and determine if specific factors are strongly associated with appropriate/optimal configurations. Quantitative and qualitative variables relating to subject task performance, subjective feedback, and anthropometry will be evaluated via probabilistic methods. The results from this study are expected to improve our understanding of optimal ARGOS gimbal settings, which will better inform the gimbal configuration identification process and improve simulation quality for extravehicular activity (EVA) training.

Joseph Yao↗
NASA NTRS1995

The CCD/Transit Instrument (CTI) data-analysis system

The automated software system for archiving, analyzing, and interrogating data from the CCD/Transit Instrument (CTI) is described. The CTI collects up to 450 Mbytes of image-data each clear night in the form of a narrow strip of sky observed in two colors. The large data-volumes and the scientific aims of the project make it imperative that the data are analyzed within the 24-hour period following the observations. To this end a fully automatic and self evaluating software system has been developed. The data are collected from the telescope in real-time and then transported to Tucson for analysis. Verification is performed by visual inspection of random subsets of the data and obvious cosmic rays are detected and removed before permanent archival is made to the optical disc. The analysis phase is performed by a pair of linked algorithms, one operating on the absolute pixel-values and the other on the spatial derivative of the data. In this way both isolated and merged images are reliably detected in a single pass. In order to isolate the latter algorithm from the effects of noise spikes a 3x3 Hanning filter is applied to the raw data before the analysis is run. The algorithms reduce the input pixel-data to a database of measured parameters for each image which has been found. A contrast filter is applied in order to assign a detection-probability to each image and then x-y calibration and intensity calibration are performed using known reference stars in the strip. These are added to as necessary by secondary standards boot-strapped from the CTI data itself. The final stages involve merging the new data into the CTI Master-list and History-list and the automatic comparison of each new detection with a set of pre-defined templates in parameter-space to find interesting objects such as supernovae, quasars and variable stars. Each stage of the processing from verification to interesting image selection is performed under a data-logging system which both controls the pipe-lining of data through the system and records key performance monitor parameters which are built into the software. Furthermore, the data from each stage are stored in databases to facilitate evaluation, and all stages offer the facility to enter keyword-indexed free-format text into the data-logging system. In this way a large measure of certification is built into the system to provide the necessary confidence in the end results.

Cawson, M. G. M.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Analysis of Advanced Modular Power Systems (AMPS) for Deep Space Exploration

The Advanced Modular Power Systems (AMPS) project is developing a modular approach to spacecraft power systems for exploration beyond Earth orbit. AMPS is intended to meet the need of reducing the cost of design development, test and integration and also reducing the operational logistics cost of supporting exploration missions. AMPS seeks to establish modular power building blocks with standardized electrical, mechanical, thermal and data interfaces that can be applied across multiple exploration vehicles. The presentation discusses the results of a cost analysis that compares the cost of the modular approach against a traditional non-modular approach.

Exploration↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Creating Benchmark Data for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Space Biology Research

To identify an appropriate AI/ML approach for a specific problem, the best practice is to measure algorithm performance through the benchmarking process. A scientific benchmark consists of an AI-ready dataset and a reference implementation on a specific scientific question. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) has started the “Benchmark Initiative for AI/ML to create scientific benchmark datasets in three applications: 1) scientific benchmarking, which finds the best algorithm for a specific problem; 2) application benchmarking, which measures algorithm performance against a set of parameters; and 3) system benchmarking, which evaluates performance of hardware and software architecture. Currently, there are no standardized datasets available to benchmark AI/ML algorithms in the domain of space biology. In this work, we constructed two AI/ML-ready biological datasets from experiments in space-flown mice: cellular imaging and RNA-seq. First, radiation-exposed immune cells harbor DNA damage foci that can be fluorescently marked to visualize the amount of damage following exposure to ionizing radiation. However, such large datasets are difficult to analyze visually, due to imaging inconsistencies and human bias, and classical image processing approaches can fail on imaging artifacts. AI/ML are therefore exciting alternative, providing the speed of machines and the accuracy of humans. We have made this dataset available at https://registry.opendata.aws/bps_microscopy/. Second, high-throughput nucleic acid sequencing (DNA-seq, RNA-seq) has become widespread in biomedical research due to the growing availability and affordability of these assays. However, most sequencing datasets suffer from high dimensionality and low sample count. In this work, we used a generative adversarial network to synthesize a standardized, AI-ready, publicly available benchmark dataset for space biology RNA-seq data with sufficient space-flown and ground control mouse liver samples from NASA GeneLab. This dataset is available at https://registry.opendata.aws/bps_rnaseq/. These datasets are now fully open the Space Biology community to test their favorite AI/ML approaches.

James Casaletto↗
NASA NTRS2009

One NASA PEM qualification standard : comparison of JPL and GSFC standards

Although use of Plastic Encapsulated Microelectronics (PEMs) in space applications is discouraged, their use is mandatory for selected applications involving the need for advanced technology and small packages. Various space systems designers and manufacturers have developed methods to qualify and screen PEMs. In general, each procedure is different. The purpose of this fiscal year’s investigation is to initiate a process to coordinate the efforts at various NASA centers to eventually develop a One NASA method. Part of this activity includes sharing of test data and PEM qualification methodologies. Various experts in the NASA community were identified and contacted to support this effort. We were successful in finding such experts at GSFC, APL and the Constellation office (Orion and Ares). All these experts provided typical qualification program plans. Since funding was severely restricted, it was decided to concentrate on coordination activity with GSFC. GSFC is planning a new version of IEEE-INST-002 section applying to PEMs. The GSFC expert (Dr. Alexander Teverovsky) provided a detailed assessment of the differences between the planned new version of IEEE-INST-002 and the JPL-D-19426 (JPL guideline) as well as a summary rationale for the decisions within the IEEE-INST-002. It should be noted that GSFC’s assessment of IEEE-INST-002 in the area of PEMs is not finalized. JPL is also considering changes in PEM qualification methodologies based on test data from recent qualification testing for their newer Projects (MSL, Grail, Juno). A spreadsheet delineating the differences between the JPL standard and the GSFC standard is presented.

Cooper, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2011

Ground Processing Affordability for Space Vehicles

Launch vehicles and most of their payloads spend the majority of their time on the ground. The cost of ground operations is very high. So, why so often is so little attention given to ground processing during development? The current global space industry and economic environment are driving more need for efficiencies to save time and money. Affordability and sustainability are more important now than ever. We can not continue to treat space vehicles as mere science projects. More RLV's (Reusable Launch Vehicles) are being developed for the gains of reusability which are not available for ELV's (Expendable Launch Vehicles). More human-rated vehicles are being developed, with the retirement of the Space Shuttles, and for a new global space race, yet these cost more than the many unmanned vehicles of today. We can learn many lessons on affordability from RLV's. DFO (Design for Operations) considers ground operations during design, development, and manufacturing-before the first flight. This is often minimized for space vehicles, but is very important. Vehicles are designed for launch and mission operations. You will not be able to do it again if it is too slow or costly to get there. Many times, technology changes faster than space products such that what is launched includes outdated features, thus reducing competitiveness. Ground operations must be considered for the full product Lifecycle, from concept to retirement. Once manufactured, launch vehicles along with their payloads and launch systems require a long path of processing before launch. Initial assembly and testing always discover problems to address. A solid integration program is essential to minimize these impacts, as was seen in the Constellation Ares I-X test rocket. For RLV's, landing/recovery and post-flight turnaround activities are performed. Multi-use vehicles require reconfiguration. MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul) must be well-planned--- even for the unplanned problems. Defect limits and standard repairs need to be in-place as well as easily added. Many routine inspections and maintenance can be like an aircraft overhaul. Modifications and technology upgrades should be expected. Another factor affecting ground operations efficiency is trending. It is essential for RLV's, and also useful for ELV's which fly the same or similar models again. Good data analysis of technical and processing performance will determine fixes and improvements needed for safety, design, and future processing. Collecting such data on new or low-frequency vehicles is a challenge. Lessons can be learned from the Space Shuttle, or even the Concorde aircraft. For all of the above topics, efficient business systems must be established for comprehensive program management and good throughput. Drawings, specifications, and manuals for an entire launch vehicle are often in different formats from multiple vendors, plus they have proprietary constraints. Nonetheless, the integration team must ensure that all data needed is compatible and visible to each appropriate team member. Ground processing systems for scheduling, tracking, problem resolution, etc. must be well laid-out. The balance between COTS (commercial off the shelf) and custom software is difficult. Multiple customers, vendors, launch sites, and landing sites add to the complexity of efficient IT (Information Technology) tools.

Ingalls, John↗
NASA NTRS2018

The Evolution of Payload Data Capabilities on the Commercial Visiting Vehicles that Service the International Space Station

For over 10 years, NASA has been working with U.S.-based commercial companies to support the design, development, and operations of new commercial space vehicles. The purpose of these vehicles is to provide cargo and crew transportation services to the International Space Station (ISS) and to stimulate the commercial space transportation industry to Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). Along with the ability to provide a couple tons of cargo to the ISS each mission, the commercial visiting vehicles also provide the ability to transfer NASA payloads to and from the ISS in an active, powered state. To take advantage of this capability, NASA requirements for the data services that payloads need while they are integrated into the visiting vehicles have grown with each set of commercial contracts. Today, NASA desires for payload data services encompass a variety of capabilities including payload health and status (H&S) telemetry monitoring, visiting vehicle environment data monitoring, and payload commanding. The intent of these capabilities is to provide payload developers with situational awareness and the ability to quickly diagnose any problems with payload operations prior to vehicle docking or post-landing to support immediate troubleshooting response. As new requirements for payload data services have emerged over the years, the ISS Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has established ground segment interfaces to the visiting vehicle control centers to enable payload developers to use these services. Many technical and programmatic challenges have been faced while establishing these interfaces. The most significant challenge faced has been in finding the right balance amongst providing interfaces to payloads that are compatible with the ISS so that payload hardware or software changes are not necessary to ensure compatibility with the visiting vehicles; keeping POIC ground system development costs low by standardizing implementation approaches across commercial vehicle partners; and fostering commercialization through supporting vendor-unique implementations that are commercially economical. This paper will first detail the data services that will be available to payload users under each commercial visiting vehicle contract. Secondly, this paper will offer discussion of the most significant technical and programmatic challenges faced to-date in offering these new data services to payload developers.

Wiggins, Lindsay M.↗