Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “PROCUREMENT”

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 757 records · Page 42

Reconfiguring COSSIR for the Next Generation of Cloud and Precipitation Science

NASA originally developed the Compact Scanning Sub-millimeter Imaging Radiometer (CoSSIR) in the early 2000s, where it was own in the CRYSTAL-FACE and TC4 field experiments. With renewed interest in sub-millimeter remote sensing motivated by the upcoming launch of the EUMETSAT-sponsored Ice Cloud Imager (ICI), along with its potential for inclusion as part of the NASA Decadal Survey Aerosols, CLouds, Convection, and Precipitation (ACCP) observing architecture, CoSSIR is being refurbished to prepare for routine suborbital submillimeter measurements this decade. Upgrades include hardware (procurement of shared parts so that CoSMIR and CoSSIR can fly concurrently) and a change to the channels, with a focus on differential scattering and polarization at eight frequencies ranging from 170 to 640 GHz. As part of the refurbishment, the instrument name has been changed to Configurable Scanning Sub-millimeter Instrument/Radiometer, retaining the same acronym, in order to emphasize the science objectives that are enabled by CoSSIR's unique scanning geometry and channel set. These anticipated capabilities include two-dimensional pro ling of clouds and precipitation and characterization of the geometry (shape and orientation) of large cloud and precipitating ice particles.

Radiometry↗

Dust Solution Testing Initiative (DuSTI): Infusing Commercial Off the Shelf Dust Mitigation Technologies with NASA Practices

Dust is one of the most significant hazards to human lunar exploration. However, since the Apollo program concluded, limited research has been performed on lunar dust mitigation technologies. The safety of the crew members and sustainability of habitats, science, and supporting hardware depend on effective dust mitigation techniques and technologies. As NASA pursues a new generation of lunar missions with the Artemis program, the project team will pursue dust mitigation solutions with the Dust Solution Testing Initiative (DuSTI). DuSTI is a lunar dust mitigation effort that involves performing tests on commercial off the shelf (COTS) technologies over FY21. DuSTI will preform component and subsystem tests in dusty environments for up to five technologies with high potential. The specific technologies identified for study were selected based on several factors, including a market analysis of current terrestrial dust mitigation applications, availability of the technology, accessibility of various testing facilities, and cost of procurement. These technologies support the active and passive dust mitigation requirements of filtration systems, electro-mechanical systems, electro-static systems, surface coatings, textiles, and silicone polymers. Technology Readiness Level (TRL) will be increased by validating components in relevant environments. For example, if the COTS technology is at a TRL 9 for terrestrial use but at a 4-5 TRL for use in the lunar environment, we will test that technology in a lunar dust environment to increase the TRL for use on the Moon.

lunar dust↗

NASA's Human Lunar Landing Strategy

In early 2020, NASA's Human Landing System Program made awards to a set of American companies to compete for the design, delivery and demonstration of an integrated human landing system to land the next Americans near the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Awards were made utilizing the NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement procurement mechanism and kicked off a seven-month Certification Baseline Review, leading up to a Continuation Review and possible down-select by NASA at the end of 2020. This paper discusses the work that has been done thus far for the rapid development of a human landing system to safely carry the first woman and the next man to the lunar surface. It will also provide a preview of the work that remains ahead for the program. Keywords: Artemis, Human Landing System, Mars, Moon, Propulsion

Lisa Watson-Morgan↗

The Ejectable Data Recorder: A Lean, Risk-Informed Approach for Hardware Development

NASA is developing the Orion spacecraft to transport crew from the Earth to the Moon as part of the Artemis series of missions. To provide a crew escape capability from pre-launch through ascent, the Orion vehicle is equipped with a Launch Abort System (LAS), built by Lockheed Martin, which pulls the capsule away from the launch vehicle in the event of an abort scenario. The Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2) test flight occurred on July 2, 2019,and tested a production version of the LAS to ensure that it can operate as intended, and to collect a large data set from hundreds of sensors on the vehicle to support Orion flight certification. In the original AA-2 architecture, a single-string set of communications antennas on the LAS would downlink all of the in-flight test data to ground stations. However, that communications architecture was predicted to have data dropouts during abort and jettison of the LAS, and would not support data transmission at all after LAS jettison. As a result, a comprehensive trade study was completed, yielding the addition of antennas on the crew module (CM), a buffer/rebroadcast capability for key portions of the flight, and an ejectable data recorder (EDR) subsystem. This EDR subsystem would serve as a backup to the radio frequency (RF) communications system, and would be non-flight critical, providing a unique capability that enabled management to take a different approach with the hardware and software development. The Crew Module and Separation Ring were developed as “Class 1”Flight Hardware, albeit with some tailoring approaches to enable efficiencies. The Class 1 designation requires full rigor for flight hardware and software, documenting everything that happens to a piece of hardware from procurement through disposal, requiring a full spectrum of acceptance tests, and the highest rigor of quality assurance processes. At the other end of the spectrum, Class 3hardware is controlled, but not intended for flight, and leaves the level of rigor up to the project manager. This classification is often used for research and development projects. Similarly,Class-1E has been recently defined at NASA for ISS payloads and technology development projects that are not flight critical and do not need the full rigor of Class 1 to be successful. The EDR subsystem was challenged at commencement to adopt a skunkworks and agile-like approach to hardware development, allowing for a different risk posture than the rest of the AA-2 hardware. After initially pursuing Class 1 processes, the EDR subsystem design evolved to incorporating numerous commercial components, leading to re-designation as a Class-1E subsystem. The resulting EDR subsystem was fully successful in meeting all flight system requirements, and achieved 100% retrieval of flight test data. This paper will discuss the risk posture of the EDR subsystem and the subsequent tailoring that was enacted as part of its Class-1E status.

EDR↗

VESAT: The Venus Environmental Satellite Discovery Mission

The Venus Environmental Satellite (VESAT) is being developed by JPL, Ball Aerospace, the University of Wisconsin, and Oxford University as an inexpensive but effective means of assessing numerous and interrelated dynamical and chemical processes within the deep atmosphere of Venus. Utilizing a small array of remote-sensing instruments designed to take advantage of several unique characteristics of this alien environment, VESAT daily acquires quantitative three-dimensional global maps of Venus in key environmental field parameters such as windfields, atmosphere/surface temperature fields, and trace gas abundances. VESAT utilizes a 45-degree inclined, 30,000-km altitude circular orbit to achieve consistent, regular coverage of the entire globe with minimal day-to-day variations in spacecraft operations, allowing uplink/downlink operations to be conducted effectively and inexpensively in a university setting. An integrated hardware procurement approach, wherein a single contractor is responsible for the design, manufacture, and integration of the entire spacecraft, including the instrument payload, enables significant savings in spacecraft/payload cost and schedule.

VESAT↗

Two-Dimensional Position-Sensitive Silicon Detectors for the ACE Solar Isotope Spectrometer

Two-dimensional position-sensitive silicon detectors (matrix detectors) have been designed, procured, and tested as part of the development of the Solar Isotope Spectrometer (SIS) instrument for NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission. Important characteristics of these devices include: thickness approx. 50-90µm, active area 34 cm 2 , 64 strips on each surface with 1 mm strip pitch.

silicon↗

X2000 Flight Missions Utilizing Common Modular Components

A software and hardware architecture was developed for the X2000 bus that is modular, scaleable, and upgradable. It will enable the procurement of highly capable, low mass flight systems that can perform the mission set at a low recurring cost for the X2000 bus or components of the bus that are used for each mission

Flight↗

NASA Mars 2020 landed mission development

In January of 2014, NASA received fifty-eight proposals from U.S. and international teams for science and exploration technology investigations, for consideration for inclusion as part of NASA’s next mobile landed mission to Mars. The results of the competitive procurement were released in late July of 2014: Seven payloads were selected for the investigations that would contribute to meeting the overall objectives of the mission. The extraordinary scientific and technology development interest in the Mars 2020 mission is a direct result of NASA’s sustained and coordinated plan for the exploration of Mars, and ultimately, its search for life elsewhere in the universe. The Mars 2020 Mission will preserve the heritage and directly build upon NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory Mission and Curiosity Rover to implement its mission. In this paper, early development history leading to its development announcement, as well as key development status and design features for its implementation, is summarized.

Abilleira, Fernando↗

Evaluation of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electronics for Extreme Cold Environments

Deep space and Icy Moon missions (Titan, Enceladus, Ceres, Europa, & Ganymede) will need qualified extreme environment capable components for electronic systems located in extremities of their rovers and spacecraft. Commercial off the shelf (COTS) components would be advantageous to use for some aspects of such projects, given that they are easier to procure and offer a broad range of functionalities. Furthermore, theoretical and experimental data suggest that many COTS parts are capable of operation, and not just storage, at temperatures well beyond the manufacturer specified temperature limits. To help address the challenges presented at near cryogenic temperatures, a COTS selection knowledge base is being developed to estimate the performance of COTS components within cold environments. The knowledge base captures queries from a range of information sources such as cold functionality test results for part types and families, theoretical and experimental literature reviews and key findings are summarized here. In addition, a selection of components are planned to be examined for their performance to near cryogenic temperatures to generate a methodology for identification and verification of the COTS candidates. As the qualification of COTS parts for extreme environments can be very costly, this knowledge base can serve to reduce qualification time and cost by pre-selecting and limiting candidates.

Mojarradi, Mohammad↗

Development and Testing of Pulse Guns for Combustion Instability Testing

To test liquid rocket engines (LREs) for combustion instabilities, devices such as bombs are often used to create pressure wave disturbances. Bombs, while effective, are inherently dangerous, expensive, and difficult to procure. Over the years, pulse guns have been used as a safer and more cost-effective way to generate controlled pressure disturbances in engine chambers. In anticipation of the need for stability testing of prototype LREs at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), a set of pulse guns have been designed, fabricated, tested, and characterized. The pulse gun program is funded by the RS-25 Engine Program managed out of MSFC and funded by NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) through the MSFC Liquid Engines Office (LEO). A pulse gun is a simple device – like a traditional gun, it has a breech and barrel section. However, unlike a traditional gun, there is no bullet, as the purpose of the pulse gun is strictly to fire a high pressure pulse. Instead of a firing pin and primer that would normally be used in a traditional gun, an initiator is used to activate the gun powder. The initiator is a highly reliable pyrotechnic initiator. For this study, clone versions of the NASA Standard Initiator (NSI) were used. The initiator is used to ignite a pre-measured amount of gun powder loaded into the breech. When the pressure of the burnt gun powder exceeds the set point of a downstream burst disk, the disk ruptures, allowing the high pressure pulse to travel downstream through the barrel section. A ballistic pressure transducer located in the breech section is used to measure the short duration, high pressure pulse. Some configurations of the pulse gun have barrel sections that include one or more additional ballistic pressure transducers. These additional pressure measurements help track the degradation and damping of the pulse as it travels out of the barrel section. The measurements may also be used to determine the velocity of pulse. The objective of this paper is to present the different variants of this newly-developed pulse gun and characterize performance over a range of parameters. The parameters include breech diameter, barrel length, amount of gun powder used, the way the gun powder is packed, and the pressure setting of the burst disk. There are a total of six pulse guns: three with the 0.25 inch breech and three different length barrels, and three with the 0.40 inch breech and three different length barrels. For both breech sizes, the associated barrels are referred to as standard, one-port, and two-port barrels. The standard barrel has no instrumentation and is likely the barrel that will be used for engine stability testing. The one- and two-port barrels were designed specifically for pulse gun component testing to allow measurements of the magnitude and timing of the high pressure pulse as it makes its way through the pulse gun. The burst disks tested were commercially-available burst disks designed to rupture at 8,000, 16,000, and 24,000 psid. Testing was accomplished by firing the pulse gun into a test chamber pressurized with nitrogen at about 2300 psig. A total of four Model 113B23 High frequency ICP® pressure sensors (10k psi) were mounted in the test chamber, in the same plane as the pulse gun. Two of the sensors had “trimmed” adapters, and two did not. Given the symmetrical configuration of the sensors within the test chamber, different amplitudes of pressure measurements are attributed to the use of trimmed versus untrimmed adapters. The untrimmed adapters, with their narrower passages, tended to amplify the pressure amplitudes by as much as 50%. In total, 41 pulse gun tests have been conducted.Data are still being analyzed, but some trends are apparent. For example, measurements taken within the pulse gun are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for Hot-fires (HFs) # 11 and 39, respectively. Both tests were identical in that the 0.40 inch ID breech, two-port barrel, 8,000 psid burst disk, and same amount of gunpowder (6.639 grains for HF# 11, and 6.576 grains for HF# 39) were used, and the back pressure in the nitrogen test chamber was ~2300 psig. Despite keeping all these variables constant, the results from these two tests look quite different. For both tests, the first pressure peak shown in the P2111 trace within the breech is the firing of the initiator. The second peak and any subsequent peaks are from the combustion of the gunpowder. It should be noted that because the sensors are dynamic, the ~2300 psig baseline static pressure is not shown in the figures. For HF# 11, the burst disk clearly ruptured in a little over 0.1 ms from the time the initiator was fired. This is evident from the abrupt rise in pressure for P2112 followed by another abrupt rise in pressure for P2113. The sensors track the movement of the high pressure pulse through the pulse gun. For HF# 39, however, there was nearly 1 ms delay between the initiator firing and the burst disk rupturing. The only difference between these two tests was the way in which the gunpowder was packed within the breech. For HF# 11, the gunpowder was poured directly into the breech, atop the initiator, and held in place with a vegetable fiber wad appropriately sized for the barrel diameter. Once in place, the wad firmly held the gunpowder in place. For HF# 39, the gunpowder was rolled within cigarette paper with the ends of the paper twisted. The rolled gunpowder was gently pushed down into the breech, toward the initiator, and no wad was used. This method of loading the gunpowder consistently produced longer delays in the rupture of the burst disk, presumably because there was a steady, fuller burning of the gunpowder. The burst disk was rated for 8,000 psid, which means that the burst disk should not have opened until the pressure in the breech reached ~10,300 since there was ~2300 psig back pressure in the test chamber. In the case of HF# 11, the breech pressure only reached roughly 4200 psi before there was leakage either through or past the burst disk, but for HF#39, the breech pressure reached 10,600 psi prior to the burst disk opening. The temperature of the burst disk is certainly a factor in determining when the burst disk will rupture. A sharp rise in the burst disk temperature could weaken it and cause it to stray from the designed set point burst pressure. The burst disks are manufactured of Inconel to try to reduce their sensitivity to temperature, but how the burst disks perform above 900°F is not documented. All burst disks were engineered and tested by the manufacturer for ambient temperature conditions. One theory for why rolling the gunpowder in cigarette paper may produce better results is related to a more controlled temperature environment. The cigarette paper may act as a sheath that protects the burst disk from excessive temperatures during the rapid buildup of pressure in the breech. The ultimate benefit of not breeching the burst disk prematurely is shown in Figures 5 and 6, which graphs the resultant pressure pulse produced in the test chamber. For HF #11, the peak pressure on the P2123 trimmed adapter is about 270 psi, while for HF# 39 it is 343 psi, which is about 1.27 times greater in magnitude. In either case, the pressure pulse is ~20 μs in width once it reaches the test chamber. Another pressure rise about 100 μs later can be seen on the sensors located across from the pulse gun port, P2124 and P2121. These pressures are lower due to attenuation of the pressure wave as it moves across the test chamber. After the wave encounters the wall, it reflects back and forth within the chamber until it completely dissipates.

Pulse Gun↗

Probabilistic Modeling of a Three-Stage Human Landing System Architecture

Space Policy Directive-1 has led to NASA partnerships with commercial entities on procurement which includes the development of the Human Landing System (HLS) [1]. With the goal of delivering human crew to the lunar surface by 2024, system uncertainties become an important obstacle to the maturation of multiple new, driving technologies and mission concepts of the HLS program. As unmitigated uncertainties have previously led to failed development programs, these risks and their impacts must be understood and handled to ensure program success [2]. Sources of uncertainty include novel engine designs and configurations, increased reliance on cryogenic fluid management(CFM), and refueling technologies—which propagate as high-level performance metrics such as overall propellant mass and engine performance. Also, the occurrence of operational uncertainties—e.g. launch conditions or need to abort during the mission—can cause cascading effects on the rest of the mission that are difficult to definitively quantify, and are outside the scope of control. These concrete examples and other occurrences can be categorized as either epistemic or aleatory uncertainties.Epistemic uncertainty arises due to a lack of knowledge and can be alleviated with design and program maturation. Aleatory uncertainty is due to the inherent randomness of the system and cannot be directly reduced, unlike epistemic uncertainty. Robust design and probabilistic methods can compensate for aleatory effects. A taxonomy of uncertainty is referred to for this work [3]. In this paper, a probabilistic methodology to handle uncertainties has been demonstrated on a three-element HLS concept [1, 4], which allows tracking of current best estimates of the concept and assessment of concept design robustness against uncertainties. A sample case has been completed for this abstract, and an expansion on the methodology will be included in the final paper. This methodology has two key parts: first, the creation of a dynamic architecture model of a three-element HLS concept; and second, its use with surrogate modeling and range estimating techniques to capture and propagate uncertainties. This abstract will cover the basics of the approach used, and further details and justifications will be in the final paper.The mission profile associated with this three-element concept (Fig 1) was modeled as a set of mission events that facilitated mass changes, idles, or spacecraft maneuvers. The mission profile scope starts with each element’s NRHO orbit insertion and aggregation and ends at post-sortie rendezvous with Orion. More detail on the mission profile will be in the final paper. The DYnamic Rocket EQuation Tool (DYREQT), a space systems synthesis and sizing framework used by NASA, was used as the physics framework to model the HLS architecture for applying the probabilistic methodology [5, 6]. Specifically, a parametric representation of the lander, ascent, and transfer elements and the mission profile of each element was established, with vehicle and mission parameters available as inputs to allow for a dynamic model. Each vehicle stage was modeled with high-level performance metrics, using Isp and propellant mass fraction (PMF) to remain parametric. For the probabilistic analysis, uncertainties of interest within the HLS concept were enumerated and represented as parameters within the DYREQT model as inputs for vehicle stages or mission profile events. These parameters were frozen at their nominal values for the purposes of baselining architecture performance and sizing the vehicle appropriately based on reference documentation [1]. Range estimating—a probabilistic method that combines Monte Carlo sampling, focus on critical parameters, and heuristics to assess risk and opportunities—is traditionally used with Mass Equipment Lists (MELs), but has been adapted with operational parameters as well as vehicle parameters in theDYREQT model to capture mission uncertainty alongside vehicle uncertainty [7, 3]. This method was selected due to its application and insight on a system from a bottom-up perspective, independence from historical rules of thumb, and ability to generate sensitivities based on design decisions and uncertainties. As a sample case for the abstract, the boiloff rates of the vehicle elements and the loiter times during the mission (simulating launch time variations and changing window of opportunities) were used with range estimating to provide preliminary results. To perform the range estimation portion of this methodology (depicted in Fig. 3, further details in final paper), the DYREQT model was sampled using a Design of Experiments (DoE) to efficiently explore the architecture design space with respect to the sample set of uncertainty parameters; 5,000 cases via Latin Hypercube Sampling were computed on the DYREQT architecture model. Then, the results were used to create surrogate models, multivariate regressions that can visualize hypercube trends in the design space, of the architecture with respect to the uncertainty parameters. Range estimating was applied to the surrogates instead of the actual models, which saves computational expense due to the bulk of cases needed for the Monte Carlo simulation as part of range estimating. Uncertainty parameters were sampled independently from triangular distributions using the DoE ranges as ‘min’ and ‘max’, and the nominal value as ‘most likely’. Based engineering intuition, some uncertainty parameters are correlated—e.g. if the main propellant has a high boil-off rate, the oxidizer should follow suit as both are related to CFM technology.While a Monte Carlo simulation samples all inputs as independent, the results would show model correlations; thus, it is efficient to sample the inputs as correlated. Using a correlation matrix constructed for the uncertainty parameters, previously independent samples were transformed to perform a Correlated Monte Carlo. A table for the DoE ranges and probability distribution parameters is shown in Table 1, and more details on Correlated Monte Carlo Simulations will be discussed in the final paper. The model’s resulting DoE showed that multivariate polynomial equations fit via least squares method captured its behavior accurately for the sample case. For the Correlated Monte Carlo Simulation, a positive correlation between fuel and oxidizer boiloff rates was used as a demonstration. 10,000 cases were computed with the surrogates and the launched masses for each vehicle element was collated. The results can be displayed in a probability density function (PDF), showing the impact of the uncertainty parameters chosen. Integrating the PDFs will yield a cumulative distribution function (CDF) that shows the cumulative probability of a given value on the x-axis. For the sample case, the elements’ launch mass margin was calculated and represented in as CDFs, as a demonstrated representation of figures of merit for the HLS concept. For the lander and ascent elements, the NRHO mass insertion limit is 16t; the transfer element has a limit of 30t [1]. It can be seen with Figure 2 that this probabilistic methodology can provide insight into mass margin with respect to the uncertainties being modeled. Currently, the results show that the lander (descent) vehicle element has the most restrictive design space; it is the only element to show a 10% probability of negative margin. Further analysis on the Monte Carlo results will show sensitivities for driving constraints and parameters for architecture feasibility, which can lead to establishing potential mission rules.The combination of range estimating with a parametric architecture model for HLS demonstrated the capability of this probabilistic methodology in a sample case. As the HLS development progresses, this methodology has the potential for keeping current best estimates of architecture performance for awarded concepts due to the flexibility in DYREQT’s modeling framework and its parametric nature. Concept maturation and increased epistemic knowledge can be injected into the model probabilistic modeling, and thus continue to track probability of mission success.

Stephanie Y Zhu↗

Analysis of Alternative Architectures for Cargo Lunar Landers

NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program has been working with commercial partners to develop human-class lunar landers to return the first American woman and next American man to the lunar surface in the mid 2020’s. In an effort to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit, NASA’s Artemis program aims to facilitate a sustainable, long-term human presence in cis-lunar space. A component of this will require significant infrastructure to be delivered to the lunar surface. Delivering this infrastructure will require a significant lander capability that has yet to be developed. A thorough understanding of cargo lunar lander architectures is required such that select alternatives can be identified that best support the Artemis program’s objective of sustainability. The goal of this study is to aid NASA and its partners in the understanding of the cargo lunar lander trades space, as well as identify potential robust alternatives. The results will support NASA as it moves forward with key activities such as requirements formulation, agency strategic planning, and potential cargo lunar lander procurements. The study builds off of recent work performed by the Human Landing System program’s Architecture and Systems Analysis group to encompass a broad trade space of cargo lunar lander architecture alternatives. The current trade space as depicted by the morphological matrix and mission graph in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively, includes key alternative options that have become highly relevant due to current HLS activities and include on-orbit refueling, active cryogenic fluid management, Earth orbit aggregation, and global lunar access. The authors believe that there is also a statistically relevant impact of lander-payload configuration on the primary structure of the vehicle that could greatly impact alternative selection. Because of this, several conceptual lander-payload configurations will be evaluated to determine the level of impact. The current set of conceptual configurations are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. To aid the conceptual evaluation of these configurations, a catalogue of notional payloads has been developed that represent a wide range of masses and volumes that are expected to be delivered in support of a sustained human lunar presence, including pressurized and unpressurized rovers, surface habitats, power systems, and other support infrastructure. In order to execute this study in a timely fashion, a similar approach to that utilized in a similar 2019 study focused on 2024 human lunar sorties will be employed [1]. The team utilized a novel architecture synthesis framework currently being developed by NASA/MSFC to evaluate over 600,000 lunar lander architectures over a two month time frame [2]. From this large data set, varying ground rules and assumptions were applied as filters to explore the trade space to identify alternatives which exhibited robustness, as measured by launch vehicle payload margin, to absorb the natural growth that occurs during design maturation. The set of Earth-Moon system Delta-Vs assumed from the 2019 study, shown in Fig. 5, will be repurposed to accelerate model formulation for this effort. Additionally, current efforts in collaboration with the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace System Design Lab will be integrated to provide probabilistic modeling of the cargo lunar lander architectures to aid in identifying robust design alternatives [3]. The approach will help minimize potential impacts due to large levels of uncertainty inherent to pre phase-A conceptual design. By leveraging these past and present studies and partnerships, a highly detailed set of data can be generated in a short time period to aid NASA in the coming years to support the goal of a sustained human lunar presence.

Architectures↗

Propellant Delivery via VDC Driven Pump

The SMART (Scalable Mobile Autonomous Rocket engine Test) testbed system initiative at SSC was conceived to attempt to address many of the principal cost drivers in developing and maintaining a rocket engine test facility. The system (optimized to test engines and components generating up to 10K lbf nominal thrust) is serving as a testbed for innovative technologies and processes to provide lower cost test services with a rapid test cadence and expedient turnaround times. The system can also potentially be used as a testbed to test other related technologies relevant to surface situations (e.g., moon, Mars associated with crogenic fluid management, engine/component testing, autonomous operations, etc.). This FY20 CIF project, being conducted as part of the SMART testbed system, is developing and testing a propellant delivery system via electrically driven centrifugal pumps (obviating dependence upon Multi-Layer Pressure Vessels) with configuration and operation by a minimal number of personnel. During FY20 the team identified the requirements and worked with P3 and Masten Space Systems to develop the long lead (9 months after receipt of order) items, the 400 VDC pumps, for delivery in mid FY21. Since control of the 400 VDC pump motor is not well developed the team has established heuristics to control flows in LN2 at off nominal shaft speeds to allow deep throttling of the pump in flow test scenarios. Various test scenarios including nominal i.e. high flow high pressure, high flow low pressure, low flow high pressure, low flow low pressure, minimum throttle step change, and low inlet pressure cavitation testing were developed ahead of the anticipated hardware delivery and test. FY20 COVID Stage 3 conditions restricted access to the center and hindered lab work, so efforts focused on the system design and testing plans along with the project procurement paperwork for the hardware... now with its anticipated delivery in spring FY21. Some limited access to the center is expected by spring/summer FY21 for the continuing second year (FY21) CIF project effort meant to be focused upon system integration and initial testing.

Aaron Head↗

NASA LSII Lunar Simulant Project

Introduction: America has entered a new era of exploration. NASA’s Artemis program will lead humanity forward to the Moon and prepare us for the next giant leap, the exploration of Mars [1]. To champion technologies needed to live on and explore the Moon, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) established the Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative (LSII)[2].LSII's technology development portfolio includes: Utilizing the Moon’s resources; Establishing sustainable surface power; Building machinery and electronics that work in extreme environments, like super-chilly permanently shadowed craters; Mitigating lunar dust; Carrying out surface excavation, manufacturing and construction duties; and Extreme access which includes navigating and exploring the surface/subsurface. To support the development and testing of these technologies, LSII created the lunar simulant project, to create and/or acquire low-, medium-and high-fidelity lunar simulants to match the needs of STMD projects at all levels of technology readiness levels (TRL), as well as other NASA programs. There is not one bulk lunar simulant that will satisfy the needs of all projects. NASA's Approach to Simulants: Just as LSII's activities are being implemented through a combination of unique NASA work and public-private partnerships, NASA will work with commercial simulant providers to acquire simulants that meet NASA's needs. If warranted, NASA will develop simulants using government agencies, as was done with the NASA/USGS Lunar Highlands Type (NU-LHT)series of lunar simulants [3].NASA is also collaborating with the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory(JHUAPL) Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC) in the development and characterization of lunar simulants [4]. Within NASA, a small team (< 10 people) is coordinating simulant activities across the agency, with team members located at several NASA centers. The overall objective of the project is to procure lunar simulants in sufficient amounts for earth-based testing of subsystems and systems in a variety of environments (i.e., laboratory, high-bay, thermal-vacuum chambers), required for Artemis missions to the Moon, as well as other missions carrying NASA lunar payloads, such as the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS)program [5]. Lunar Highlands Simulant: NASA's Artemis Program is targeting the lunar south pole region for initial human missions and the Artemis Base Camp. Hence, the LSII lunar simulant project is currently focusing on the mineralogy and properties of lunar highlands regolith [6 and 7]. Plagioclase-rich rocks (e.g., anorthosite, norite) are the dominant constituent in highlands simulants, with Shawmere, Stillwater, and White Mountain anorthosites being used in commercially available simulants. However, because these feedstocks are terrestrial in nature, they include hydrated minerals, carbon-bearing minerals, and other chemical signatures that are not present on the Moon, and these minor mineral assemblages need to be taken into account when trying to understand test procedures and results. Glass Component: While much attention has been placed on the rock/mineral component of lunar simulants, glass is just as important when creating simulants. The glass component in lunar regoliths is often greater than 50% by volume [8]. This component includes impact melt glass, dark matrix breccias, and agglutinates. However, this component is difficult, time-consuming and expensive to make. Most lunar simulants, past and current, have relied on basaltic cinder as a feedstock for glass. Getting better glass components at a lower cost, particularly agglutinates and glass with an anorthositic composition is a near-term objective that the NASA simulant project is trying to address . Characterization: It is extremely important for lunar simulants to be characterized by several analytical methods. Gruener et al. [9] and JHUAPL LSIC [10] conducted initial assessments of some of the commercially available simulants in 2019 and early 2020, before the global pandemic. Further analyses are needed to better quantify important parameters such as, modal mineralogy and glass content, particle shape, and particle size distribution. These quantified results can then be used in determining figures of merit (FOM) that show how well simulants compare to lunar regolith [11 and 12].

J E Gruener↗

A Comparison of the Technological Maturation of SmallSat Propulsion Systems From 2018 to 2020

The maturity in small spacecraft technology is indicated by the continued growth in the number of missions, mission complexity, and the expansion of smallsat subsystem capability. Identified development paths include the consideration of systems and components with flight heritage on larger spacecraft to meet the needs of smaller platforms, the conception of novel technologies specifically designed for small spacecraft, and the incremental improvements every 1-2 years in components where the underlying technology remains unchanged. Progress of overall smallsat technology development is captured in the most recent 2020 State-of-the-Art Small SpacecraftTechnology (SoA) report, the objective of which is to assess and provide an overview on the current development status across all subsystem architectures. The SoA report contains a variety of surveys covering device performance, capabilities, and flight history, as presented in publicly available literature. The focus of these surveys is on devices or systems that can be commercially procured or appear on a path towards commercial availability. The work toward the 2020 edition of the report was managed by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI)and performed by several NASA and contractor staff. The S3VI is jointly funded by NASA’s Space TechnologyMission Directorate and Science Mission Directorate.

Bruce Yost↗

Development and Testing of Pulse Guns for Combustion Instability Testing

Combustion stability requirements of a liquid propellant rocket engine are most commonly verified by evaluating the oscillatory pressure or vibration characteristics following an artificial disturbance of the combustion in the combustion chamber. Two types of devices are most commonly used for dynamic stability rating – nondirectional bombs and pulse guns. Bombs have historically been used most often, especially for the large engines developed around the Apollo era. However, bombs in recent years have become much more expensive and difficult to procure, and their transportation and handling requirements have become more demanding. Pulse guns, with inherently less expensive materials, and far less restrictive handling and shipping requirements, have become an attractive alternative. The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center has developed a pulse gun for use during future development programs at the center, and as a design reference for interested commercial users. The objective of this paper is to present the different variants of the pulse gun and characterize performance over a range of parameters. The parameters include the breech diameter and corresponding volume, barrel length, amount of gun powder used, the method of containing the gunpowder within the breech, and the pressure rating of the burst disk. In total, 44 tests were conducted with the pulse gun firing into a test chamber pressurized to 2300 psig with gaseous nitrogen. The best experimental results – including the highest and most consistent peak pressure amplitudes recorded by dynamic pressure sensors in the test chamber – were from a configuration consisting of a 0.40” inner-diameter breech, 15-16 grains of gunpowder wrapped in cigarette paper, and a 24,000 psid burst disk. With this configuration, the zero-to-peak overpressures recorded in the test chamber ranged from about 37% to 58% of the 2300 psig mean pressure, which is adequate for typical combustion stability rating. To complement the data analysis, the acoustics of the pressure waves as they propagated through the pulse gun and into the test chamber were modeled. A more comprehensive final report of this pulse gun development program is planned to be available in the near future.

Pulse Gun↗

Small Spacecraft Technologies: The Evolution of CubeSat Spacecraft Platforms

The maturity of small spacecraft technology is indicated by the continued growth in the number of missions, mission complexity, and the expansion of smallsat subsystem capability. The inception of the CubeSat platform has incentivized the space industry to achieve a broad collection of science for less cost, and there is an evolving trend in the overall utilization of the CubeSat platform seen in the last decade. CubeSats’ initial purpose was to serve as a platform to demonstrate specific technologies while also serving as an educational platform for students and professional engineers alike. In the ten years since, CubeSats are being designed for more complex science missions around the Moon, Sun, or to deep space, and the projection for 10 years from now is that CubeSats will be performing more complex deep space missions. The progress of overall small spacecraft technology development is captured in the most recent 2020 Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-Art (SoA) report, the objective of which is to assess and provide an overview on the current development status across all subsystem architectures. The SoA report summarizes the results of a variety of surveys covering device performance, capabilities, and flight history, as presented in publicly available literature. The focus of these surveys is on devices or systems that can be commercially procured or appear on a path towards being commercial availability. The work toward the 2020 edition of the SoA report was managed by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) and performed by several contractor staff. The S3VI is jointly funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate and Science Mission Directorate.

Small Spacecraft Technologies↗