Results for “#technology” — Page 36

NASA NTRS2013

ExMC Technology Watch

The Technology Watch (Tech Watch) project is a NASA project that is operated under the Human Research Programs (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element, and focuses on ExMC technology gaps. The project coordinates the efforts of several NASA centers, including the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Glenn Research Center (GRC), Ames Research Center (ARC), and the Langley Research Center (LaRC). The objective of Tech Watch is to identify emerging, high-impact technologies that augment current NASA HRP technology development efforts. Identifying such technologies accelerates the development of medical care and research capabilities for the mitigation of potential health issues encountered during human space exploration missions. The aim of this process is to leverage technologies developed by academia, industry and other government agencies and to identify the effective utilization of NASA resources to maximize the HRP return on investment. The establishment of collaborations with these entities is beneficial to technology development, assessment and/or insertion and further NASAs goal to provide a safe and healthy environment for human exploration. In 2012, the Tech Watch project expanded the scope of activities to cultivate student projects targeted at specific ExMC gaps, generate gap reports for a majority of the ExMC gaps and maturate a gap report review process to optimize the technical and managerial aspects of ExMC gap status. Through numerous site visits and discussions with academia faculty, several student projects were initiated and/or completed this past year. A key element to these student projects was the ability of the project to align with a specific ExMC technology or knowledge gap. These projects were mentored and reviewed by Tech Watch leads at the various NASA centers. Another result of the past years efforts was the population of the ExMC wiki website that now contains more the three quarters of the ExMC gap reports. The remaining gap reports will be completed in FY13. Finally, the gap report review process for all ExMC gaps was initiated. This review process was instrumental in ensuring that each gap report was thoroughly reviewed for accuracy and relevant content prior to its public release. In the upcoming year, the gap report review process will be refined such that in addition to the gap report update, programmatic information related to gap closure will also be emphasized.

Krihak, M.↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Funding Opportunities for Optical Fabrication and Testing Technology Development

NASA requires technologies to fabricate and test optical components to accomplish its highest priority science missions. The NRC ASTRO2010 Decadal Survey states that an advanced large-aperture UVOIR telescope is required to enable the next generation of compelling astrophysics and exo-planet science; and, that present technology is not mature enough to affordably build and launch any potential UVOIR mission concept. The NRC 2012 NASA Space Technology Roadmaps and Priorities Report states that the highest priority technology in which NASA should invest to 'Expand our understanding of Earth and the universe' is next generation X-ray and UVOIR telescopes. Each of the Astrophysics division Program Office Annual Technology Reports (PATR) identifies specific technology needs. NASA has a variety of programs to fund enabling technology development: SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research); the ROSES APRA and SAT programs (Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science; Astrophysics Research and Analysis program; Strategic Astrophysics Technology program); and several Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) programs

Stahl, H. Philip↗

NASA NTRS2012

Optimize Use of Space Research and Technology for Medical Devices

systems, and cutting-edge component technologies to conduct a wide range of scientific observations and measurements. These technologies are also considered for practical applications that benefit society in remarkable ways. At NASA Goddard, the technology transfer initiative promotes matching technologies from Earth and space science needs to targeted industry sectors. This requires clear knowledge of industry needs and priorities and social demands. The process entails matching mature technologies where there are known innovation challenges and good opportunities for matching technology needs. This requires creative thinking and takes commitment of time and resources. Additionally, we also look at applications for known hot industry or societal needs. Doing so has given us occasion to host discussions with representatives from industry, academia, government organizations, and societal special interest groups about the application of NASA Goddard technologies for devices used in medical monitoring and detection tools. As a result, partnerships have been established. Innovation transpired when new products were enabled because of NASA Goddard research and technology programs.

Optimize↗

NASA NTRS2015

Advanced Mirror Technology Development (AMTD) Project: 3.0 Year Status

Advanced Mirror Technology Development (AMTD) is a funded NASA Strategic Astrophysics Technology project. Begun in 2011, we are in Phase 2 of a multi-year effort. Our objective is to mature towards TRL6 critical technologies needed to produce 4-m or larger flight-qualified UVOIR mirrors by 2018 so that a viable astronomy mission can be considered by the 2020 Decadal Review. The developed technology must enable missions capable of both general astrophysics and ultra-high contrast observations of exoplanets. Just as JWST's architecture was driven by launch vehicle, a future UVOIR mission's architecture (monolithic, segmented or interferometric) will depend on capacities of future launch vehicles (and budget). Since we cannot predict the future, we must prepare for all potential futures. Therefore, we are pursuing multiple technology paths. AMTD uses a science-driven systems engineering approach. We mature technologies required to enable the highest priority science AND result in a high-performance low-cost low-risk system. One of our key accomplishments is that we have derived engineering specifications for advanced normal-incidence monolithic and segmented mirror systems needed to enable both general astrophysics and ultra-high contrast observations of exoplanets missions as a function of potential launch vehicle and its inherent mass and volume constraints. Another key accomplishment is that we have matured our technology by building and testing hardware. To demonstrate stacked core technology, we built a 400 mm thick mirror. Currently, to demonstrate lateral scalability, we are manufacturing a 1.5 meter mirror. To assist in architecture trade studies, the Engineering team develops Structural, Thermal and Optical Performance (STOP) models of candidate mirror assembly systems including substrates, structures, and mechanisms. These models are validated by test of full- and subscale components in relevant thermo-vacuum environments. Specific analyses include: maximum mirror substrate size, first fundamental mode frequency (i.e., stiffness) and mass required to fabricate without quilting, survive launch, and achieve stable pointing and maximum thermal time constant.

Stahl, H. Philip↗

NASA NTRS2016

Selection of a Brine Processor Technology for NASA Manned Missions

The current ISS Water Recovery System (WRS) reclaims water from crew urine, humidity condensate, and Sabatier product water. Urine is initially processed by the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) which recovers 75% of the urine as distillate. The remainder of the water is present in the waste brine which is currently disposed of as trash on ISS. For future missions this additional water must be reclaimed due to the significant resupply penalty for missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). NASA has pursued various technology development programs for a brine processor in the past several years. This effort has culminated in a technology down-select to identify the optimum technology for future manned missions. The technology selection is based on various criteria, including mass, power, reliability, maintainability, and safety. Beginning in 2016 the selected technology will be transitioned to a flight hardware program for demonstration on ISS. This paper summarizes the technology selection process, the competing technologies, and the rationale for the technology selected for future manned missions.

Carter, Donald L.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Decision Analysis Methods Used to Make Appropriate Investments in Human Exploration Capabilities and Technologies

NASA is transforming human spaceflight. The Agency is shifting from an exploration-based program with human activities in low Earth orbit (LEO) and targeted robotic missions in deep space to a more sustainable and integrated pioneering approach. Through pioneering, NASA seeks to address national goals to develop the capacity for people to work, learn, operate, live, and thrive safely beyond Earth for extended periods of time. However, pioneering space involves daunting technical challenges of transportation, maintaining health, and enabling crew productivity for long durations in remote, hostile, and alien environments. Prudent investments in capability and technology developments, based on mission need, are critical for enabling a campaign of human exploration missions. There are a wide variety of capabilities and technologies that could enable these missions, so it is a major challenge for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) to make knowledgeable portfolio decisions. It is critical for this pioneering initiative that these investment decisions are informed with a prioritization process that is robust and defensible. It is NASA's role to invest in targeted technologies and capabilities that would enable exploration missions even though specific requirements have not been identified. To inform these investments decisions, NASA's HEOMD has supported a variety of analysis activities that prioritize capabilities and technologies. These activities are often based on input from subject matter experts within the NASA community who understand the technical challenges of enabling human exploration missions. This paper will review a variety of processes and methods that NASA has used to prioritize and rank capabilities and technologies applicable to human space exploration. The paper will show the similarities in the various processes and showcase instances were customer specified priorities force modifications to the process. Specifically, this paper will describe the processes that the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) Technology Assessment and Integration Team (TAIT) has used for several years and how those processes have been customized to meet customer needs while staying robust and defensible. This paper will show how HEOMD uses these analyses results to assist with making informed portfolio investment decisions. The paper will also highlight which human exploration capabilities and technologies typically rank high regardless of the specific design reference mission. The paper will conclude by describing future capability and technology ranking activities that will continue o leverage subject matter experts (SME) input while also incorporating more model-based analysis.

Williams-Byrd, Julie↗

NASA NTRS2018

Summary of 2017 NASA Workshop on Assessment of Advanced Battery Technologies for Aerospace Applications

A workshop on assessment of battery technologies for future aerospace applications was held in Cleveland, OH on August 16-17. The focus of the workshop, hosted by NASA GRC, was to assess (1) the battery needs for future aerospace missions, (2) the state of battery technology and projected technology advances, and (3) the need for additional investments for future aerospace missions. The workshop had 109 attendees that included internationally recognized technology leaders from academia and national laboratories, high level executives from government and industry, small businesses, and startup companies. A significant portion of the workshop was focused on batteries for electrified aircraft. The presentation will summarize the finding on the state of battery technologies for electrified aircraft and will include assessment of current state of battery technology, gaps in battery technology for application in electrified aircraft, and recommended technology development options for meeting near-term and long-term needs of electrified aircraft.

Misra, Ajay↗

NASA NTRS2016

JPL Technology Readiness Assessment Guideline

New capabilities in spaceflight missions are enabled by new technologies. Transitioning new technology to spaceflight elements is difficult and introduces risk, but finding the right balance between benefit and risk leads to scientific advancements and novel space missions. A clear understanding of the risks of new technology can create an environment where innovation is nurtured rather than avoided. The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) was developed as a metric for the maturity of new technology, but, in the past, assessing the TRL was often done informally and inconsistently. This frequently led to discrepancies between the TRL as perceived by the technologist and that perceived by a project. JPL has developed a guideline for their projects to provide a basis for a consistent Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA). Highlights of this guideline are presented here. It is anticipated that the implementation of this guideline will enable the hand-off from technologists to project engineers leading to greater acceptance of technologies by flight projects. On completion of a satisfactory TRA, an agreement can be made between the parties on the maturation plan required for successful infusion of the technology into a flight mission.

Frerking, Margaret A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

High Density Packaging Technologies for RF Electronics in Small Spacecraft

This paper will describe a few high density packaging technologies which we are currently exploring for use in current and future small spacecraft applications. The three categories of technologies include organic multichip modules (MCMs), ceramic leadless surface mount technology (SMT) and 3D printed waveguide structures. There are many other packaging technologies that currently exist but these three were selected in part due to their long heritage in various commercial, military and space applications along with each having a relatively clear path to flight. For each of these technologies, detailed examples will be included in which hardware has been fabricated and tested for use in RF electronics for spacecraft transponders. The organic MCM example will be described in most detail and it utilizes a packaging technology by the name of CoreEZ which is a trademark of i3 Electronics. This MCM has shrunk a portion of our electronics down to 1/8th of its previous area. The CoreEZ technology has been shown to be rad hard beyond a total ionizing dose (TID) of 300kRad and the MCM which was fabricated has gone through thermal cycling and shown to have no degradation in performance. The ceramic leadless package examples include packages from high reliability manufactures by the name of KCB solutions and Barry Industries. In the case of KCB solutions, we have multiple products that will be described including a hermetic ceramic carrier which houses three microwave monolithic integrated circuits (MMICs) along with small discrete components. Finally, we will discuss the results of our search for a 3D printing process that allows us to reduce the cost and volume of our waveguide filters and diplexers for low cost small satellite applications. We have fabricated a few prototypes using direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) and metal coated plastics. Each of these packaging technology discussions will have a brief overview of its current and future use.

Aquirre, Fernando↗

NASA NTRS2021

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as the foundation of Human Readiness Level (HRL)

As space programs became more complex, it became evident to NASA that a means of defining a methodological way to evaluate the maturity of technologies for spacecraft design was needed for risk assessment that could affect technical, cost and schedule. NASA first saw that infusing technology intoNASA programs required some means to assess technology maturity like flight readiness for a mission. Hence, a seven-point technology readiness level scale was developed in the mid-70s by a NASA researcher and later formally defined in 1989 (Sadin et al., 1989) that comprised of seven levels (See Table 1). These levels provided a definitive meaning of what complexity a research and technology development program should be followed. NASA recognized the approach as a useful way of an effective assessment of,and communication regarding the maturity of new technologies, using a simplistic figure of merit, the state of maturity of a technology-particularly, critical technology necessary to meet a mission/application objective

George Salazar↗

NASA NTRS2016

High Density Packaging Technologies for RF Electronics in Small Spacecraft

This paper will describe a few high density packaging technologies which we are currently exploring for use in current and future small spacecraft applications. The three categories of technologies include organic multichip modules (MCMs), ceramic leadless surface mount technology (SMT) and 3D printed waveguide structures. There are many other packaging technologies that currently exist but these three were selected in part due to their long heritage in various commercial, military and space applications along with each having a relatively clear path to flight. For each of these technologies, detailed examples will be included in which hardware has been fabricated and tested for use in RF electronics for spacecraft transponders. The organic MCM example will be described in most detail and it utilizes a packaging technology by the name of CoreEZ which is a trademark of i3 Electronics. This MCM has shrunk a portion of our electronics down to 1/8th of its previous area. The CoreEZ technology has been shown to be rad hard beyond a total ionizing dose (TID) of 300kRad and the MCM which was fabricated has gone through thermal cycling and shown to have no degradation in performance. The ceramic leadless package examples include packages from high reliability manufactures by the name of KCB solutions and Barry Industries. In the case of KCB solutions, we have multiple products that will be described including a hermetic ceramic carrier which houses three microwave monolithic integrated circuits (MMICs) along with small discrete components. Finally, we will discuss the results of our search for a 3D printing process that allows us to reduce the cost and volume of our waveguide filters and diplexers for low cost small satellite applications. We have fabricated a few prototypes using direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) and metal coated plastics. Each of these packaging technology discussions will have a brief overview of its current and future use.

Schatzel, Donald↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and how key performance parameters (KPPs) are being used to measure the degree of capability gap closure. KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the strategic approach to gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

James Lee Broyan↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This PowerPoint presentation supports the following paper submission's abstract (STRIVES 20210015025). This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hybrid NEP-Chemical Vehicle and Propulsion Technology Study for Crewed Mars Missions

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is a suite of technologies with the potential to enable crewed opposition-class missions to Mars. Each subsystem comprising an NEP system has multiple technology options that present tradeoffs in vehicle sizing and technology development risk. Multiple vehicle concepts have been studied in the past and are currently being studied at NASA. Three models have been developed to illustrate the impact of key technology parameters on overall sizing for a crewed Mars transportation vehicle. Vehicle mass required to close the mission as a function of NEP system alpha (kWe/kg) and specific impulse (Isp) is estimated with a detailed trajectory model. A power system mass model estimates alpha as a function of power and radiator mass assumption. A power conversion system thermodynamic model predicts the radiator area required to close a Brayton cycle power conversion system. Combined with the architecture mass required for mission closure, the radiator area and alpha model provide insight into how technology development may impact the mission. Our focus is on parametric sweeps of the whole design space rather than any particular point design. Results from the mission model comparing electric propulsion technology (Hall, Ion, Magnetoplasmadynamic) and both 2039 and 2042 opposition-class mission launch windows are included. The results of the study illustrate the technology parameters that can result in mission closure and illustrate where the architecture is sensitive to variations in technology performance or requirements.

Matthew Duchek↗

NASA NTRS2022

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗